Nasa Pilotless X-43A Scramjet Aircraft

[Neova]

WASHINGTON, Nov. 14 - NASA plans to try to set a world speed record for jets on Monday with the flight of a pilotless vehicle that culminates a decades-long research program into hypersonic flight.

The craft, the X-43A, is powered by a rocket booster dropped from a modified B-52 bomber. In a short dash above the Pacific, it is to use its experimental scramjet engine, which is expected to push the craft to almost 7,000 miles an hour, or 10 times the speed of sound.

Nasa X-43A Homepage

NY Times Linky!

USA Today Link

Edited November 15, 2004 by Neova

[David Hingtgen]

Rant warning.

I've never liked the really "limited" "one thing and one thing only" X-planes. WTF is the point of such an utterly useless plane that can do something? There really should be some sort of "usefullness" clause attached to most records. At least the X-prize etc require a certain amount of payload/passengers. The X-29 was *this* close to being an operational fighter. Heck, the X-1 was just as close.

The F-8 is a great example of setting USEFUL records---many of its records were not "absolute", but were more impressive--it was not the FASTEST plane, but it was the fastest one for a 100km trip, 1,000km, and coast-to-coast. I am not at all impressed by the recent 10-second-long Mach 6+ runs by planes that get a 50,000ft head-start from a B-52.

Let's see Mach 4, starting from the ground, for an hour. THEN I'll consider it more impressive than the SR-71.

Next thing you know, they'll be firing winged needles at the ground from orbit, and claiming "fastest plane ever" 1 sec before it smashes into the ground at Mach 30...

Edited November 15, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Lynx7725]

Because it's not the records the engineers are really after -- that's a PR stunt really -- but more of pushing the envelope on a certain technology.

Put it this way. Any system nowadays has multiple variables in it. You want to improve the system (especially if it's some new system), typically you constraint ALL but one variable, and work to improve on that variable until you are happy with it. You reduce the scope of the improvement to something manageable.

The reason is that if you start playing with too many variables, they compound the end result and you get way too broad a range of returns.. it becomes very difficult to measure the improvement gains, and you can't be sure which is the main contributing factor to the improvement.

In terms of improvement with existing systems, if the system is well know.. say, an existing airframe, I guess it is possible for an engineer to tweak multiple variables at the same time ("Hey, if we adjust the wing chord, while upping the engine output, and then we do this thingabob, we can get a 10% improvement in thismeaninglessstat!").

However, you don't really want to do that with new systems.. because it ends up very unpredictable.

These X-prizes are useless as end results.. nobody who is pragmatic would really care what is the fastest man-made object on record. It's how we got there that's important. Pushing the envelope in one area lead us to better understanding of how to consistently achieve results in that area, and that has practical applications.

In this case, if things go well, we know more about how to work scramjet more reliably. If things go boom, we know what not to do.

[VF-19]

I thought the whole purpose of the X-plane program was to prove wether or not something could work. Heck, swing wing was proven with the X-planes, and the data was later used to help construct swing wing airplanes.

[Lynx7725]

Possibly. But I think by the time the general public hear of a particular X-project, the technology would already been proven to be feasible, just not whether it's particularly effective or cost-efficient.

And your example of the swing wing is what I was trying to say -- they knew swing wing can possibly work, so they test it in an X-project. Once some of the limitations are known (via the X-project testing), it can be translated into something practical.. in this case, our beloved Tomcats.

[ewilen]

I don't think either the X-1 or the X-15 were meant to be all that useful in and of themselves. Some X-craft may look like they wouldn't need much work to be made into an operational application, but that's really the role of prototypes, if you ask me.

I'm not sure, but even though this particular craft is unlikely to have an operational application, I think one of the practical goals of the technology is a hypersonic bomber of some sort. Lets see, checking globalsecurity.org...yup, via FALCON.

[ewilen]

Flight was delayed; they're going to try again Tuesday.

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3763205

[Zentrandude]

shame its delayed till tues but Macross X-9 Ghost Predecessor? to me its far from it. An armed predator drone to me be a Macross X-9 Ghost Predecessor.

I semi-agree its useless in a way to show its performance but if I was important enough to be working in a large 5 sided building and holds the check for the soon to be ended project I would want it to lift off from the ground and to max speed unassisted, don't care for how long for max speed since like current fighters run at max speed using afterburners for not a long time, then maybe max cruising speed for a highestspeed for least fuel burn then maybe it can replace rockets that they been talking about.

Edited November 16, 2004 by Zentrandude

[buddhafabio]

as i recall this project is to see if a particular engine works. and if it does a larger one will be built

[Seven]

These UAVs look and functionally are more similar to a Ghost X-9 than your example, which is just a scramjet testbed. Although, the Predator armed UAV is the only armed UAV I know of in my limited knowledge of military hardware...

[buddhafabio]

something for people to consider, the f-117 was Operational when it was used in operation just cause. just imagine what they have that we do not know about. they just revield the bird of prey uav recently