Author Topic: The X-51a WaveRider flies... (Read 51051 times)

docmordrid · « **on:** 05/27/2010 01:25 am »

The WaveRider flies.....

LA Times.....

8900 · « **Reply #1 on:** 05/27/2010 10:03 am »

much longer duration than previous tests

isa_guy · « **Reply #2 on:** 05/27/2010 11:53 am »

Quote from: 8900 on 05/27/2010 10:03 am

much longer duration than previous tests

Previous tests ? there was no any other tests except this one ( ok thats not includes the x-43 , hyfly and the ASLAM program but those were other programs ) .

Downix · « **Reply #3 on:** 05/27/2010 11:54 am »

Quote from: isa_guy on 05/27/2010 11:53 am

Quote from: 8900 on 05/27/2010 10:03 am
much longer duration than previous tests
Previous tests ? there was no any other tests except this one ( ok thats not includes the x-43 , hyfly and the ASLAM program but those were other programs ) .

I think he ment longer duration than previous scramjets.

wini · « **Reply #4 on:** 05/27/2010 12:06 pm »

looks like video from the test

Arthur · « **Reply #5 on:** 05/27/2010 12:31 pm »

W00T, Mach 6!
Gotta love it.

kevin-rf · « **Reply #6 on:** 05/27/2010 01:32 pm »

Quote from: Arthur on 05/27/2010 12:31 pm

W00T, Mach 6!
Gotta love it.

Other than it only reached Mach 5 on this flight. Still that is hot!

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/207916.asp#extended

Arthur · « **Reply #7 on:** 05/27/2010 05:56 pm »

Quote from: kevin-rf on 05/27/2010 01:32 pm

Quote from: Arthur on 05/27/2010 12:31 pm
W00T, Mach 6!
Gotta love it.

Other than it only reached Mach 5 on this flight. Still that is hot!

http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/archives/207916.asp#extended

I read this news report:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100526/pl_afp/usmilitaryaerospace_20100526234809

kevin-rf · « **Reply #8 on:** 05/27/2010 07:46 pm »

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123206525

Quote

The more than 200 second burn by the X-51's Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne-built air breathing scramjet engine accelerated the vehicle to Mach 5. The previous longest scramjet burn in a flight test was 12 seconds in a NASA X-43.

Mach 6 was the target speed, it came in 500 mph short on speed and 100 seconds short on flight time. I suspect the "Yahoo" source just looked at the preflight press releases.

Still, excellent results for a first test flight. Three more flights to go... Saw on a less reliable news outlet that it may have been a "flame out" at mach 5.

Jim · « **Reply #9 on:** 05/27/2010 07:48 pm »

This has little to do with spaceflight. The feasibility of using scramjets for space launch is doubtful.

isa_guy · « **Reply #10 on:** 05/27/2010 08:11 pm »

Quote from: Jim on 05/27/2010 07:48 pm

This has little to do with spaceflight. The feasibility of using scramjets for space launch is doubtful.

Why doubtful ? what about TSTO with first stage powered by TBCC ( scramjet with a turbine engine like DARPA's VULCAN ) and the second stage powered by rocket engine's . And thats only one scenario there are plenty others like RBCC ( scramjet with rocket ejectors ) like the Marquardt's SERJ concept and NASA's GTX concept http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/RT2002/5000/5880trefny.html , http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2002/TM-2002-211495.pdf .

RanulfC · « **Reply #11 on:** 05/27/2010 08:53 pm »

And lets not forget the "waverider" airframe itself has some great possibilites for a reentry body, as well as "skip-glide" mission profiles.

Oh and it seems "telemetry-loss" was the culprit again... This is becoming what we in the military refered to as a "trend" I think

Randy

Robotbeat · « **Reply #12 on:** 05/27/2010 08:58 pm »

Quote from: isa_guy on 05/27/2010 08:11 pm

Quote from: Jim on 05/27/2010 07:48 pm
This has little to do with spaceflight. The feasibility of using scramjets for space launch is doubtful.
Why doubtful ? what about TSTO with first stage powered by TBCC ( scramjet with a turbine engine like DARPA's VULCAN ) and the second stage powered by rocket engine's . And thats only one scenario there are plenty others like RBCC ( scramjet with rocket ejectors ) like the Marquardt's SERJ concept and NASA's GTX concept http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/RT2002/5000/5880trefny.html , http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2002/TM-2002-211495.pdf .

Because we can already do TSTO much simpler with regular rocket engines. Perhaps even reusably.

cheesybagel · « **Reply #13 on:** 05/27/2010 09:26 pm »

These engines usually have really poor thrust-to-weight ratios. This makes them miserable for space launch. Not to mention that they cannot work outside the atmosphere. Nor can they start from zero velocity.

This technology has its uses. Hypercruising missiles, bombers, or reconnaissance platforms. Not space launch.

sanman · « **Reply #14 on:** 05/27/2010 10:45 pm »

What about intercontinental transport? I think that could be a real hit.

People mocked the early PCs and said their processing power was worthless compared to existing mainframes and minicomputers. But look where it led - look at how rapidly the platform evolved under mass market interaction.

Not everybody needs to go into space - but a whole lot of people could benefit from being able to fly to the other side of the world really fast. New York to Beijing, London to Tokyo, Los Angeles to Sydney, etc, etc.

Globalization is a big driving economic trend nowadays, and the scramjet could surf that wave to success. Let the scramjet make its way into the intercontinental travel marketplace, and watch it take flight.

mlorrey · « **Reply #15 on:** 05/28/2010 07:50 am »

Quote from: Jim on 05/27/2010 07:48 pm

This has little to do with spaceflight. The feasibility of using scramjets for space launch is doubtful.

Rage, rage, rage...

On searching this forum for the term "scramjet" one gets back three pages of results.... Evidently the forum community disagrees with you, Jim.

So does the Air Force, which says that this test vehicle is a tech developer for an eventual TSTO launcher...

First stage will be a TBCC burning kerosene reaching mach 6, second stage will be a rocket powered upper stage follow on to the X-37.

They'll likely develop the two programs separately, with the first stage being billed as a Global Strike vehicle, and the second stage being treated in the black much like X-37, when suddenly, they get the brilliant idea to launch the second off the first and nobody in congress or NASA will be able to do squat about it.

isa_guy · « **Reply #16 on:** 05/28/2010 09:14 am »

Quote from: mlorrey on 05/28/2010 07:50 am

Quote from: Jim on 05/27/2010 07:48 pm
This has little to do with spaceflight. The feasibility of using scramjets for space launch is doubtful.

Rage, rage, rage...

On searching this forum for the term "scramjet" one gets back three pages of results.... Evidently the forum community disagrees with you, Jim.

So does the Air Force, which says that this test vehicle is a tech developer for an eventual TSTO launcher...

First stage will be a TBCC burning kerosene reaching mach 6, second stage will be a rocket powered upper stage follow on to the X-37.

They'll likely develop the two programs separately, with the first stage being billed as a Global Strike vehicle, and the second stage being treated in the black much like X-37, when suddenly, they get the brilliant idea to launch the second off the first and nobody in congress or NASA will be able to do squat about it.

I have find an AFRL study that may refer to your words http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007disrupt/Borger.pdf .

mlorrey · « **Reply #17 on:** 05/28/2010 09:31 am »

Quote from: isa_guy on 05/28/2010 09:14 am

Quote from: mlorrey on 05/28/2010 07:50 am

They'll likely develop the two programs separately, with the first stage being billed as a Global Strike vehicle, and the second stage being treated in the black much like X-37, when suddenly, they get the brilliant idea to launch the second off the first and nobody in congress or NASA will be able to do squat about it.
I have find an AFRL study that may refer to your words http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007disrupt/Borger.pdf .

yup. The main problems USAF is gonna have will actually be Navy opposition to the global strike capability, as that horns in on the Navy's force projection remit. Since the Air Force already has prepositioned assets in Diego Garcia, Guam, and in the 'stans, they need to argue that the global strike capability is more responsive than preexisting tactical aircraft and armed UAV in the region, faster to strike limited window targets, and not feasible to build it to be carrier based.

Eerie · « **Reply #18 on:** 05/28/2010 09:52 am »

Quote from: sanman on 05/27/2010 10:45 pm

What about intercontinental transport? I think that could be a real hit.

Oh, really? Intercontinental transport that needs a rocket booster will be a real hit?

Arthur · « **Reply #19 on:** 05/28/2010 12:35 pm »

Quote from: Eerie on 05/28/2010 09:52 am

Quote from: sanman on 05/27/2010 10:45 pm
What about intercontinental transport? I think that could be a real hit.

Oh, really? Intercontinental transport that needs a rocket booster will be a real hit?

Commercial could use another jet engine for the initial acceleration to scramjet speed.

The deal killer for SSTs in the US was the damage from sonic booms (environmental impacts to livestock and public nuisance). Would a commercial scramjet HST have the same 'deal killer' issues?