NASA's hypersonic jet test successful

[labbats]

"It was fun all the way to mach 7."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115416,00.html

 

[ScRaMJeT]

Yea I know

Thats where I got my name from.

ScramJet

 

[NJA Capt]

I'm going to take this thread another direction.

I think the X43 and the show boating by NASA are pathetic.

In a nut-shell, they took an unmanned missile put a scramjet on it, and made 7.0 Mach.

You mean it took 43 years to get another .3 Mach since the X-15???????? Which was a manned airplane. Mach 6.7 and 354,000'

NASA should be ashamed. We had the technology in the 1950s to develop the SR71 and the X15. What did we do with it? My wristwatch has more computing power than the rocket that took us to the Moon. Even the Concorde is a dinosaur now. With modern technology, computing power, and production methods, it should be common place by now to be flying at Mach 3+.

Put this in perspective. The P51 was designed on a cocktail napkin and was flying and in production in 90 days. The F22 has been in development for over 15 years. By the time it gets into a squadron it will be OLD technology.

Come on people, get with the program!

 

[EagleRJ]

NJA Capt,

Actually it is a big deal. The X43 was the first successful flight test of an air-breathing vehicle capable of reaching those kinds of speeds. It's true that the X-15 did it a long time ago, but that was rocket powered and had a heavy Inconel fuselage that was designed by guys with slide rules who had limited knowledge of hypersonic aerodynamics. It's easy to make something go that fast when you use the brute force approach (60,000 lbs thrust). The technology developed by the X43 may be the impetus for hypersonic air travel that would be efficient, and therefore profitable. Former projects along those lines, like the NASP, didn't have the technology available, so they would have been money losers even if they were deployed (like Concorde).

You're right that NASA should have been flying this a long time ago. It all boils down to funding. No Bucks- No Buck Rogers.

 

[labbats]

Let's not forget that we have come a long way from the SR-71. We just don't know it publicly due to the secrecy of Skunk and Phantom works.

 

[NJA Capt]

The X43 was the first successful flight test of an air-breathing vehicle capable of reaching those kinds of speeds.

We had ramjets (D-21s) flying from SR71s (Launched at 3.2M) and B52s in 1963-1964.

It cruised at M3.3+ at FL900. Not bad for slide rules


PS....Want to see the Buck Rogers bucks?
Do a search for NASA 's aircraft registry.

Do they really need:
30 T38s
9 F18s
2 F15s
2 SR71s
3 747s
9 Gulfstreams
Close to 100 aircraft not including the Shuttles. That's a heck of a budget.

 

[Timebuilder]

Let's not forget that we have come a long way from the SR-71. We just don't know it publicly due to the secrecy of Skunk and Phantom works.

That's a good point.

The NASA group is an entirely separate group of science heads.

The other stuff we have right now won't come to light for several years.

 

[ms6073]

Unless I misread the press release, everyone seems to be missing the major point of the hypersonic flight. After the rocket booster accelerated the aircraft to a high enough velocity for the scramjet engine to operate, the hypersonic aircraft engine operated for 11-seconds on just over 2 pounds of fuel (Hydrogen?) while continuing to accelerate! Given the relative ease of obtaining hydrogen (in comparison to petroleum based fuels), excepting for the launch process, wouldn't that make the scramjet extremely fuel efficient?


Michael

 

[Dizel8]

"Do they really need:
30 T38s
9 F18s
2 F15s
2 SR71s
3 747s
9 Gulfstreams."

Yes, they probably do, in addition, I think they have some U2's/TR1, DC8, 707's etc.

The T38's are used as chase planes and to train/currency for the astronauts. The 74's fly the shuttle around. Gulfstreams for transport and a couple of them are set up for simulating shuttle approaches. SR71 for high altitude research and earth sciences. The F-15 and 18's do research, including research on how to make the airplane more combat effective, AoA research, steering with engines.

I think you get the drift. While a bureacracy like everything else, these people are on the cutting edge of technology, developing stuff that will make our lives better or try to go beyond what we are currently capable of. They are in many cases, employing the finest research scientist, people who could make a bundle in the private sector, but chose NASA because of dreams. NASA is woefully underfunded, but politicians do not promote Hubble or the ISS when HHS and Medicare gets so many more voters to pay attention. Were it up to misguided, shortsighted people like Rev. Jackson, we would have no NASA and would never have gone to the moon.

The moon, what a romantic idiocy! Well, not really, the advances we made by going there, has paid back handsomely, provided everything from microwave ovens to computer technology, diapers to sunglasses. Perhaps more importantly, it showed, that once we put our minds to it, despite the odds, we humans can accomplish amazing things.

NASA, we take tomorrows dreams and make them reality!

 

[NJA Capt]

I really do believe in NASA, and believe it should be well funded.
But really, 30 T-38s? I never really got the tandem trainer vs. side by side shuttle concept. Let them fly the Jayhawk. You don't see 747 pilots do recurrent in DC-9s. The whole Astronauts arriving in FL in separate T-38s always seemed a waste. What about some nice coach tickets like the rest of us.

I would venture a guess that none of those 747s have given piggy backs twice in the same day. Much less to two different Shuttles in the same day. Is there really a need for 3 747 for Shuttle transports?

No doubt that NASA is sitting on the cutting edge of technology. The problem is they have been sitting on it for 43 years.

 

[Dizel8]

Training astronauts in the Beechcraft would not accomplish much, after all, the Beech is rather limited in perfomance and aerobatics IIRC. As far as the astronauts arriving in FL from all over the country, well, I suppose that is pretty wise, since they live all over the country and it affords them a bit more flexibility, not to mention, that they often fly around doing speeches, visiting facilities and doing training.

Before bad things happened, sadly, to the shuttle, there were four, so considering maintenance, not sure having 3 74's is overkill. No, I doubt any 74 has given two separates shuttles a ride in one day, but considering the complexity of loading/offloading, since the shuttle is rather "fragile", that is perhaps quite understandable.

If you look beyond the big stuff that makes the news, NASA invents, discovers and research amazing stuff every day. You would be quite surprised in the breadth and scope of NASA research. You may not even realize it, but things you take for granted and use every day, came to be, because of NASA.

Look beyond manned space flights and astronauts. NASA rented the russian Tu-144 to research large transport supersonic aircrafts. They are involved in fattigue research, cockpit design, structural integrity, often they assist the ATSB. They assist Boeing, Lockheed and the "new" Wright Flyer etc. with data and research. The list is endless.

So saying that NASA is "sitting on it", can hardly be considered justified.

Just for info, NASA has a budget of 16 Billion dollars, DOT is 50 B, DOD is 400 B, HHS is 540 B. With a total budget of 1.8 trillion dollars, it does becomes rather obvious, that NASA gets a "mere" pittance. Heck, truth be told, the war in Iraq, will probably cost us more.


Besides......................

 

[CrewDawg]

The fact that there is not a pilot in this aircraft just doesn't do it for me. If there were a pilot I think people would be more excited about it.

 

[countbat]

Three months ago I remember to have read in an european aviation magazine about **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** russians coming within 10 years (by the year 2013)with a 1000 (one thousand)-pax plane able to fly Moscow-New York in 25 minutes. I don't know if anyone will be willing to take the chance of being a passenger in something like that but the thought of it has impressed me.

 

[DAS at 10/250]

we would have no NASA and would never have gone to the moon.

For those of you who actually believe that we went to the Moon.

 

[NJA Capt]

I hope you know this is all in fun....

...the Beech is rather limited in perfomance and aerobatics IIRC.

Dude, The Space Shuttle is limited performance. And Aerobatic? Not! Of course an T-38 and the SS probably have the same glide ratio.
And I have no idea what IIRC is.

As far as the astronauts arriving in FL from all over the country, well, I suppose that is pretty wise, since they live all over the country and it affords them a bit more flexibility, not to mention, that they often fly around doing speeches, visiting facilities and doing training.

Seems a few of them got spanked for hotdogging around airliners a few years ago too. Commuting with a T-38? Must be nice.

...not sure having 3 74's is overkill.

3 747s to carry 1 Shuttle per year is not overkill???
That's like Deer hunting with a Bazooka.


I'm really proud of NASA for my Velcro, Tang, and the microwave, but I don't think they came from the hypersonic tests of the '60s. Did the dog eat their homework?

They assisted ...the "new" Wright Flyer etc. with data and research.

Hypersonic? No.......Dead Horse? Yes

 

[Dizel8]

IIRC= If I recall correctly.

"Commuting with a T-38? Must be nice." Sorry, but that just sounds like envy to me! We are talking about astronauts, who strap their booties to tons of TNT of a goverment salary less than 100K. The "perk" of travelling in a trainer jet sounds quite reasonable to me. Particularily, when one considers the sacrifice these people have to make, to potentially get a chance to go into space.

As far as the rest, I think NASA does amazing stuff with very little funding. Considering how much have to go exactly right, it is amazing that so relatively little go wrong.

I have always had a soft spot for NASA, perhaps it is the idealist and the adventurer in me.

Let's respectfully agree to disagree.