N.A.S.A.'s X-43 SCRAMJet platform flies Pacific @ Mach 7

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:19 pm

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

Mach 7 = ~5000 MPH = 5750 Kts

KompresZor · Post by **KompresZor** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:28 pm

one step closer to going from runway to space

I just hope I live long enough to be able to jump on a plane and go into space.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:30 pm

you old fart

ill definately see that day. im only 22

T-Bone · Post by **T-Bone** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:34 pm

I think you've got it backwards Ace.

1 MPH = .869 Kts

5000 MPH = ~4345 Kts

That's still fast though!

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:38 pm

There was an article in Popular Science several months ago about the team of engineers testing the scramjet engine. Good to see they got it to work

.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:17 pm

T-Bone wrote:I think you've got it backwards Ace.

1 MPH = .869 Kts

5000 MPH = ~4345 Kts

That's still fast though!

uuhh no.

1 Kt = 1.15 MPH ask any person in here who is a pilot or a skipper of a boat and they will give the exact same answer.

Santrix · Post by **Santrix** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:44 pm

Yeah, i'd bet my life on the fact that 1knot is atleast 1.1MPH

Iceman · Post by **Iceman** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:45 pm

AceCombat wrote:
T-Bone wrote:I think you've got it backwards Ace.

1 MPH = .869 Kts

5000 MPH = ~4345 Kts

That's still fast though!

uuhh no.

1 Kt = 1.15 MPH ask any person in here who is a pilot or a skipper of a boat and they will give the exact same answer.

1 mile/hour (mph) = 0.8689762 knot
Therefore 5000 mile/hour (mph) = 4,344.8812095 knot
http://www.onlineconversion.com/speed_common.htm

T-Bone · Post by **T-Bone** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:48 pm

Uuhh... yeah

1 MPH = .869 Kts
conversely
1 Kts = 1.15 MPH

Go back and look at your original post. You were converting from MPH to Knots so you need to multiply by .869 instead of 1.15. You had it bass ackwards.

BTW, I'm a Flight Instructor.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 6:54 pm

Of course, you could avoid all problems by simply using Kilometres per hour as a measurement for speed.

I *think* this was the whole idea behind the System Internationale.

and - um - just a point of interest - do you have a time machine? That flight isn't due until tomorrow. So "flies" is incorrect. "Hopefully *will* fly" is accurate - and I don't have much faith in them getting it right this time either.

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:04 pm

Is anyone else totally uninterested in mobius' posts anymore? Always the naysayer sh-it on america poster. Well mobi... kiss my a

ss

That's awesome by the way. I love speed. The faster we can travel the better. I won't be satisfied until we just can't physically go any faster.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:11 pm

AceCombat wrote: 1 Kt = 1.15 MPH ask any person in here who is a pilot or a skipper of a boat and they will give the exact same answer.

T-Bone wrote:BTW, I'm a Flight Instructor.

so why did you contradict yourself?!?!?!? im not a instructor but i know my conversions. and for the last ohhh 8-9 years of my life i have known that kts = MPH x 1.15 because 1 Kt is actually a Nautical Mile which are longer than Statue Miles ~ .15 longer than 1 Statue Mile

1 knot = 1.1507794 mile/hour (mph)

taken from http://www.onlineconversion.com/speed_common.htm

mobi STFU you aussie wannabie SOB

Mobius wrote: and - um - just a point of interest - do you have a time machine? That flight isn't due until tomorrow. So "flies" is incorrect.

let me ask you something......how long have you known about the X-43? cuz ive known about it for about ohhhhh........8-9 months now, all the flights with scale and full scale models have worked flawlessly with the exception of taking on a full speed - full throttle flight and try to push the Mach 7 barrier of which will be a first for any "airplane" and it is a barrier that only rockets have been able to surpass. they have been "glide" testing this thing for 3 weeks now, full scale aircraft, no fuel but weighed down to compensate for the dry tanks, it flies like any other airplane except it handles like a friggin brick similar to the space shuttle's flight performance. now concerning your question, "flies" is correct, ~ 70% of these test flights were performed over the Pacific Ocean, and one 1/2 Scale model flight achieved a rocket powered speed of ~ Mach 6.8. while you have a technicality to my title, your also wrong.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:55 pm

Stop smoking crack ace, T-B has it right.

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:59 pm

Krom wrote:Stop smoking crack ace, T-B has it right.

Yes he does.

1 knot = 1.15 miles/hour. Therefore if you have x mph and want to convert it to knots, you have to compute x mph / 1.15 miles/hour per knot. Or multiply by 1/1.15 or .87 or so.

Don't believe me? Just ask google

Edit:

Acecombat wrote:1 Kt is actually a Nautical Mile which are longer than Statue Miles ~ .15 longer than 1 Statue Mile

If a Nautical mile is a longer unit of measure, if you're going the same speed you will be able to cross fewer units of them in the same amount of time (an hour, in this case). So the measurement in knots will be less than the measurement in mph, if you still have trouble thinking about it.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:00 pm

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Ohh sorry, are you guys done yet?

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:00 pm

Ace, you were doing the wrong conversion. You were using the MPH-to-Knots conversion factor (1.15) to go from Knots to MPH.

Here:

Code: Select all

 x Kts         1 MPH
-------  X  ---------- = (x Kts)(1/1.15) = 0.89x 
   1         1.15 Kts

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:35 pm

Stop with the nerdness. God damn, it's just a math problem. No one REALLY cares the difference between a nautical mile, a standard mile, and a hole in your a

ss.

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:51 pm

Actually Sting_Ray, this is a good example of being Anal (and AceCombat being stupid).

BUBBALOU · Post by **BUBBALOU** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:55 pm

I have to say this... cause it is true

Ã¥Ã?Ã?Ã?Ã¶mÃ?Ã¥t Ã¾wÃ±Ã?Ã

Capm · Post by **Capm** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:59 pm

ROFL!

Okay Sting, lets you and I start up an arguement about what is cheesier, sliced cheese or cheese whiz, Thats about where I see this heading

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:02 pm

albe damn............................

[quote="BUBBALOU"]I have to say this... cause it is true....Ã¥Ã?Ã?Ã?Ã¶mÃ?Ã¥t Ã¾wÃ±Ã?Ã

Tetrad · Post by **Tetrad** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:04 pm

Sting_Ray wrote:God damn, it's just a math problem.

As a CS major (read: nerd) I just have to try to explain to people who don't get simple math concepts why they're stupid.

BUBBALOU · Post by **BUBBALOU** » Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:17 pm

yep even simple ones like
Mach Number (M) = TAS/CS

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:12 am

Yawn.

Scorch · Post by **Scorch** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:19 am

is this a new record? Only three friggen posts before the topic got sidetracked and the name calling started.

What was the point of the post again? Oh yeah, scramjet engine. Goes fast. Who the Fvck cares whether it's 5750 or 4880 MPH?!! It's plenty fast either way!

Now, when will Mach 10 be reached?

bash · Post by **bash** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:05 am

Mobius==Cliff Claven of the DBB

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 11:08 am

Scorch wrote:Now, when will Mach 10 be reached?

the X-43's top speed is reported to be Mach 12, but they are gradually testing it at faster speeds on each flight

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:23 pm

AceCombat wrote:
Scorch wrote:Now, when will Mach 10 be reached?
the X-43's top speed is reported to be Mach 12, but they are gradually testing it at faster speeds on each flight

I wonder if it'll beat the record for highest altitude that the X-31 (I think thats the plane that did it) set many years ago. That plane went so high that the jet engines themselves stalled and they had to rely on RCS thrusters to move around.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:41 pm

that was the X-30, it "was" the first platform destined to use SCRAMJets, but the technology was WAAAAAAY to expensive to justify any working flights, so they simply put RAMJets and thrustuers on it

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:11 pm

The SR-71 flew at Mach 7 easily. ..at altitude of course.

That was cruising speed.

Vertigo · Post by **Vertigo** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:15 pm

Uh, no... Mach 4, i think, right ?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:24 pm

Uh no, I was in the air force. I saw data that was not typically released to the general public.

The top speed of the Blackbird was disintigration.

Sting_Ray · Post by **Sting_Ray** » Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:21 pm

As a CS major (read: nerd) I just have to try to explain to people who don't get simple math concepts why they're stupid.

I will agree with that. I do SO love watching people's expression when you prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt that they are retarded. I derive few greater pleasures in life. Except poonanny... I LOOOOOVE the 'tang.

Ferno · Post by **Ferno** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:50 am

it's real fast.. how's that?

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:40 am

from the article wrote:...using a hydrogen-powered "scramjet" engine, the first such test of the technology.

WRONG CNN, the university of queensland (ie: QLD, Australia, where i live) SUCCESSFULLY tested (as in, it ran properly) a scramjet engine 1 year ago. we beat you nasa (using only a miniscule of the nasa budget too, might i add).

we didn't just test it, we SUCCEEDED in running it.
world's first, low budget too. mnar-mnar!!! (*does dance of underdog pride*)

:P:P

University of Queensland "Hyshot" program

i'm not sure why CNN would lie about that. any ideas?

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:13 am

Sting_Ray wrote:Is anyone else totally uninterested in mobius' posts anymore? Always the naysayer sh-it on america poster. Well mobi... kiss my ass

That's awesome by the way. I love speed. The faster we can travel the better. I won't be satisfied until we just can't physically go any faster.

pot
kettle
black

read through your posts in this very thread and tell me otherwise. all you do is TRY to pull ppl down.

change.

bash · Post by **bash** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 7:11 am

roid, don't you mean a downunderdog?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 9:53 am

The top speed of the Blackbird was disintigration.

Yeah I heard that somewhere, more power then they know how to contain. I think I heard a story of one of them outrunning a missile over russia once. The guy knew it was locked on so he hit the thrusters rather then let the missile catch him, said the plane just kept accelerating like there was no limit.

AceCombat · Post by **AceCombat** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:41 am

i think i heard something like that about 5 - 6 years ago.. didnt think it was true......ohwell

Beowulf · Post by **Beowulf** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:49 am

I wish people would get over themselves and stop being so anal about this sorta thing. I hope it helps you sleep better at night Tetrad, because if you enjoy flaming people over the internet then you must not derive pleasure from very much else in life.
Big deal, he made a math mistake. What difference does it make?