NASA's Scramjet hits mach 10!

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:08 pm

(CNN) -- The National Aeronautics and Space Administration conducted a third and final test flight of the unmanned X-43A aircraft, which uses an experimental scramjet engine designed to push the craft to nearly 10 times the speed of sound.

A scramjet differs from conventional jet technology by not using rotor blades to compress the air inside the engine. Instead, the scramjet, sometimes called an "air-breathing" engine, burns hydrogen fuel in a stream of fast-moving, compressed air created by the forward motion of the aircraft.

Hot exhaust shooting out of the back of the jet propels it forward at high speed.

At a post-flight news conference Tuesday, mission managers said they had only begun to look at the data, but they believed the aircraft reached a speed of about 6,600 miles (10,621 kilometers) per hour, or about Mach 10.

The flight took place over the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Southern California, in restricted U.S. Naval airspace.

The black X-43A, fastened to a larger, white booster rocket, was carried to 40,000 feet (13,157 meters) strapped to the right wing of a B-52, which took off from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center in Edwards, California.

The B-52 released the booster rocket, which dropped for several seconds with the X-43A attached to its nose, then ignited and ascended to 110,000 feet (36,184 meters). At that point, the scramjet engine fired and the booster rocket dropped away.

As planned, the test flight lasted only a couple of minutes and ended when the aircraft ran out of fuel. It eventually crashed harmlessly into the ocean.

The test flight was originally scheduled for Monday, but technical glitches forced NASA to postpone it for 24 hours.

Tuesday's flight was the last of three test flights in NASA's eight-year, $230 million Hyper-X program, designed to help develop a new generation of spacecraft that could fly into low Earth orbit at a fraction of the current cost.

Some engineers have even speculated that scramjets could one day power a fleet of hypersonic airplanes, capable of crossing a continent in less than an hour. The technology also has military applications, with the potential for new innovations in ballistic missiles.

Scramjet technology could eliminate the need to use heavy liquid oxygen to launch spacecraft and rockets into orbit. A speed of Mach 25, or 17,000 miles (27,200 kilometers) per hour, is needed to lift a craft into orbit.

In 2001, the X-43A's maiden flight ended unsuccessfully after an onboard booster rocket misfired and flight controllers had to destroy the aircraft. But last March, its second flight was successful, reaching almost Mach 7.

However, with NASA now dedicating the bulk of its resources to returning the space shuttle fleet to flight, completing construction of the international space station and developing technology for manned missions to the Moon and Mars, no additional scramjet flights are on the drawing board.

Unix · Post by **Unix** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:38 pm

Cool.

Sort of off topic but has anyone tried to figure out/guesstimate how fast a pyro would fly if it were real?

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:42 pm

Um, no, it didn't.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 2:59 pm

Topher wrote:Um, no, it didn't.

I'm sure google's calculating it at sea level, which this plane definately wasn't at.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:23 pm

I watched it live on NASA TV

Topher · Post by **Topher** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 3:31 pm

Tetrad wrote:
Topher wrote:Um, no, it didn't.
I'm sure google's calculating it at sea level, which this plane definately wasn't at.

9.8

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 4:03 pm

At a post-flight news conference Tuesday, mission managers said they had only begun to look at the data, but they believed the aircraft reached a speed of about 6,600 miles (10,621 kilometers) per hour, or about Mach 10.

After putting all my hi faluting aerospace engineering education to work, I have come to the conclusion that Mach 9.8 is about Mach 10.

Sheesh

Flatlander · Post by **Flatlander** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 6:12 pm

Go to teh source http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewsR ... 04-59.html

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/research/x43-main.html

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:08 pm

As planned, the test flight lasted only a couple of minutes and ended when the aircraft ran out of fuel. It eventually crashed harmlessly into the ocean.

According to the report on the radio the scram jet engine ran for 10 count'em 10 seconds.
Very interesting technology but still away to go before I can fly from LA to Sidney in 30 minutes.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:11 pm

Man that is so cool ... I assume it is unmanned?

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 9:20 pm

Considering that it took a nosedive into the ocean, one would hope so.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:12 pm

CNN wrote:Instead, the scramjet, sometimes called an "air-breathing" engine, burns hydrogen fuel...

it's 'CNN are dumbasses day' today

it's sometimes called an airbreathing engine? wtf. it's ALWAYS an airbreathing engine. that's like saying that a 4 stroke car engine is SOMETIMES called an internal combustion engine, or that i'm SOMETIMES called a human (hmm, bad example?).

what's with the wording CNN? give your science journos some coffee or something.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:21 pm

ROFL, nice catch.

roid · Post by **roid** » Wed Nov 17, 2004 11:29 pm

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/8485 ... -23_lg.jpg in that huge picture you can see (attached to the plane) the pegasus rocket with the puny little X-43A Scramjet test vehicle attached to the front of it, the X-43A is very small. it's the little black thing, the brown thing on it's bottom is part of it's huge air intake scoop.

i don't think you can actually fit a person into it.

the story is great news as always though. i wonder what the previous speed record was? (i guess it was set by the previous nasa high-mach craft)

Flatlander · Post by **Flatlander** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:19 am

SR-71 Blackbird - dunno the exact speed off the top of my head.

Instig8 · Post by **Instig8** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 7:33 am

Sorry, son. The top speed of the SR-71 is classified. But, it's been 'know' to outrun anything you can throw at it.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:37 am

[MS]Instig8 wrote:Sorry, son. The top speed of the SR-71 is classified. But, it's been 'know' to outrun anything you can throw at it.

The sled is fast sure enough, but nowhere near about Mach 10.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:26 am

I think I remember seeing one TV special about the SR-71 in which one of its designers said that no one really knew its top speed, because it had never been pushed to its limits.

Hattrick · Post by **Hattrick** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:34 am

roid wrote:
CNN wrote:Instead, the scramjet, sometimes called an "air-breathing" engine, burns hydrogen fuel...
it's 'CNN are dumbasses day' today

it's sometimes called an airbreathing engine? wtf. it's ALWAYS an airbreathing engine. that's like saying that a 4 stroke car engine is SOMETIMES called an internal combustion engine, or that i'm SOMETIMES called a human (hmm, bad example?).

what's with the wording CNN? give your science journos some coffee or something.

IIRC, scram jets are atually sometimes called "Air-Gulping engines".

You are right tho, you'd think someone at CNN woulda caught that.

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:58 am

Our wonderful news media at work again.

Anywho, the only disadvantage I can see with this whole scramjet engine thing is that you need to be going pretty darned fast in order for it to get the air compression necessary to cause the best burn possible. It's kinda like a Wankle engine; the faster it goes, the more power it puts out. At least that's the impression I'm getting. Still, think of what a few of those things could do attached to the space shuttle, with some standard boosters attached to get it up to speed... Of course, the thing wouldn't work in space. Another minor disadvantage. Come to think of it, the whole scramjet principle seems to be bound to very high speeds in a atmospheric setting (I.E. an atmosphere with oxygen).

Plebeian · Post by **Plebeian** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:03 am

What the "sometimes called" bit is referring to is that instead of people calling it a "scramjet", they'll call it an "air-breathing engine". People don't always use the same terms for things, so this would link the two terms. It's like there's quite a few terms for a "submarine" sandwich. Some use one, some use another, so it is "sometimes called" by another name. Now all terms mean the same thing, but it is not called by any one given name 100% of the time.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:15 am

but overwhelmingly MOST jet engines are airbreathing engines. it's nothing special to be an airbreathing engine.

if they said it was sometimes referred to as the "hypersonic airbreathing engine" then that would make a bucket more sense, since the scramjet is the only one of those.

calling it an "airbreathing engine" is akin to a sandwich maker calling his latest sandwich masterpiece a "bread thingy". someone working solely in sandwiches is gonna have a more descriptive title. bread is pretty common, so is air: and therefore so are airbreathing engines.

the only possible pedantic situation where anyone would refer to the scramjet as the "airbreathing engine" would be if you normally worked SOLELY* with non-airbreathing engines - engines with oxidiser carried onboard (*which nasa doesn't).
i mean, for crying out loud, it's a atmospheric flight, for it to be airbreathing would be seemingly obvious to the layman that doesn't realise the inherent problems that hypersonic flight puts into the airbreathing equation.

if it was a simple typo then "hypersonic airbreathing engine" is how it should have been written. ★■◆● you all

, you made me get all rational, you know how i hate that.

Sage · Post by **Sage** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:24 pm

I think the X-15 was the fastest jet that actually had a man in it. It set the record mach 6.7 and a new altitude record of 354,200 feet. But this was before the space shuttle and stuff, and those re-enter at like mach 25 don't they? I'm not sure if I'd count that as a real airplane though.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 12:37 pm

The X-15 wasn't a jet. It was a rocket plane. The difference of course is the mode of propulsion.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 5:07 pm

I'd love to see the engineering behind that thing. As far as I know, they havn't been able to produce much more than a little positive thrust- it's a start, but they still have a long way to go.

roid · Post by **roid** » Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:10 pm

where'd you read that snoopy?

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:05 am

the pegasus rocket accelerates it upto mach 5 (or maybe 4) and then it's released.
so that means that it doubled it's air speed (assuming same height) to get to mach 10.

that's positive thrust.

it's just a question of how long is flew for, which i still havn't read about yet. all i know is that it was a "short" flight, and previous flights only went for a few seconds. perhaps this one went for 2 mins or so, but that's a complete guess.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:58 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4019663.stm

The X-43A broke its own speed record set in March of Mach 6.83.

Before this, the record for jet-powered flight was held by SR-71 "Blackbird" spy plane, flying at Mach 3.2.

Rockets and rocket-powered planes are capable of flying at greater speeds, however. The experimental X-15 rocket-engined plane flew at Mach 6.7 on October 3, 1967.

and
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/FactS ... -DFRC.html

Shortly after separation, its scramjet engine operated for about ten seconds, demonstrating forward thrust in flight and obtaining unique flight data for an airframeintegrated scramjet

The ten second run time was from the previous Mach 6.8 flight so it is possible it ran longer this time.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:10 am

oh wait, i just noticed you said this:

Ford Prefect wrote:
As planned, the test flight lasted only a couple of minutes and ended when the aircraft ran out of fuel. It eventually crashed harmlessly into the ocean.
According to the report on the radio the scram jet engine ran for 10 count'em 10 seconds.
Very interesting technology but still away to go before I can fly from LA to Sidney in 30 minutes.

so this confirms that the LATEST flight (mach10) only went for 10seconds?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:06 pm

Well the aircraft stayed airborne for almost 1000 kilometers after separation from the Pegasus but it was only self powered for a brief time. The NASA article states that the run time from the previous launch was 10 seconds and achieved Mach 6.8 so to achieve Mach 10 it probably burned longer but I wouldn't think it was much longer.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:06 pm

they arn't using the same scramjet craft for each launch. they make seperate craft for EACH test, to test various things. ie: the last craft was only DESIGNED to do mach 6 or so, the latest one was DESIGNED to go mach10.
(i think mainly it involves the amount of heat sheilding)

so perhaps the latest one would have different thrust characteristics to the previous one, this one designed for easier reaching mach10 so perhaps having better thrust characteristics, or a larger fuel tank?
i wish they'd tell us these things.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Fri Nov 19, 2004 11:48 pm

I agree that a little more information would be a good thing. Surely this thing is not a defence secret of some kind. And I don't suppose any backyard mechanics have surplus Pegasus rockets to use on their own projects.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:23 am

[MS]Instig8 wrote:Sorry, son. The top speed of the SR-71 is classified. But, it's been 'know' to outrun anything you can throw at it.

Last I heard, it tops out at just over Mach 3 above 80,000ft. (4,100mph IIRC) Its rumored to have an operational ceiling of 120,000ft. Back when the U.S.S. Pueblo got captured by the North Koreans, a blackbird was dispatched from the Kadena Air Base in Okinawa (then a US Protectorate) and reached its target in less than 25 minutes. Map of the region, for reference. Note the scale.

Here's a snippet from John Stone's's "Blackbird Myth & Fact":

The fastest published speed of the SR is Mach 3.5. There are several factors that limit the speed of the SR, one is the shock waves generated by various parts of the plane, at around Mach 3.6-3.8 the shock wave off the nose of the aircraft narrows enough to go into the engine, while there is the inlet spike (which slows the air to subsonic before it enters the engine), the shock wave bypasses the spike and causes the engine to unstart. Second is the heat generated by the plane moving through the atmosphere, even titanium has its limits, and the heat generated by the SR brings the fuselage to the brink. Just recently I found out that during a Lockheed Skunk Works study to see how much money and development it would take to get the SR to go faster than its designed top speed 3.2-3.5, the designers discovered (among other things) that the metal divider between the windshield was heating up so much above mach 3.5 that it was affecting the integrity of the windshield, and at that point they had stretched the glass technology to the max! So Mach 3.2 to a max of 3.5.

Now according to Richard Graham: "The design Mach number of the SR-71 is 3.2 Mach. When authorized by the Commander, speeds up to Mach 3.3 may be flown if the CIT limit of 427 degrees C. is not exceeded. I have heard of crews reaching 3.5 Mach inadvertently, but that is the absolute maximum I am aware of."

How high does the SR really fly, and do the Pilot and RSO get astronaut wings after flying the SR? The SR doesn't fly quite that high, the highest altitude I've heard attributed to the SR was 100,000 ft (18.93 miles), all the Air Force and Lockheed admit to is above 80,000 ft. To get astronaut wings you have to fly at least 264,000 ft (50 miles). Which the SR (even though it's a fantastic aircraft) doesn't get close to that altitude!

Richard Graham contributes: "The SR-71s engines require a sufficient quantity of air in order to operate. The maximum altitude limit is 85,000 feet unless a higher altitude is specifically authorized. Again, I have heard of crews inadvertently reaching 87,000 feet, but no higher."

More info:
http://www.sr-71.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-71

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:36 am

Ford Prefect wrote:Surely this thing is not a defence secret of some kind.

weeeeeelll.. actually it kinda does involve defence secrets.

after the first successful scramjet "flight" i was wondering why footage of the scramjet in flight was no-where to be seen. i eventually came across the answer:
the aeroplane based technology used to film the supersonic flight is military spec. apparently they use military craft to film it, and to protect military secrets of the filming technique/technology itself they can't release the footage.

Ain't Skeird · Post by **Ain't Skeird** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:48 pm

the article states that "the exhaust shooting out of the back of the engine propels it forward".
An axial flow {jet} engine, wheather or not it has a compressor, is a series of convergent/divergent ducts. visualize a funnel. as airflow moves from the larger diameter to the smaller, {convergent} the air experiences an increase in velocity,and a decrease in pressure. the opposite occurs with a divergent duct. thrust is developed due to a pressure differential within the engine,in relation to pressure outside. There is a divergent duct imeadiately upstream of the combustion section,known as the diffuser section, which is the highest point of pressure in the engine. It is here, where high pressure pushing on the divergent wall of the diffuser that thrust is developed. An afterburner increases thrust for the same reason, due to another series of convergent/divergent ducts within the turbine section,directly downstream of the combustion section.Often the nozzle at the end of the
a/b is an adjustable convergent duct to enable control of thrust characteristics.
The writer made an understandable mistake in assuming that the high velocity exhaust gasses produce thrust, just as it seems reasonable to deduce that the air rushing out of a baloon that is blown up and released is the source of thrust. here again, same thing- pressure differential, inside and out.
An aircraft wing produces lift for the same reason, due to higher velocity air {lower pressure} on the top, because of the curve, lower velocity {higher pressure on the bottom, because it is flat...lift.

Also, the article mentioned 17,000 mph required to get into orbit. I may be mistaken, but I believe escape velocity is closer to 18,000

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:53 pm

Escape velocity is around 17,800 miles per hour IIRC.

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:23 pm

More like 25,000 MPH.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:53 pm

dude, stop using your necromancy on threads that haven't been posted in in almost a month. If you truely want to get a topic going about it again or just want to talk about it create a new thread or something.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 12:17 am

urg, there's not much chance i'll understand what you said without a diagram Ain't Skeird.

stfu and stuff tyranny, no-one cares.
your constant use of those pics is getting a little overboard.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Fri Dec 17, 2004 4:43 am

NASA's Scramjet hits mach 10!

NASA's Scramjet hits mach 10!

Re: NASA's Scramjet hits mach 10!

Re: NASA's Scramjet hits mach 10!

therodynamics scram/ramjet