Astronomy Picture of the Day 04-08-04

Explanation: Normally faint and elusive, the Jellyfish Nebula is caught in the net of this spectacular wide-field telescopic view. Flanked by two yellow-tinted stars at the foot of a celestial twin - Mu and Eta Geminorum - the Jellyfish Nebula is the brighter arcing ridge of emission with dangling tentacles just right of center. Here, the cosmic jellyfish is seen to be part of bubble-shaped supernova remnant IC 443, the expanding debris cloud from an exploded star some 5,000 light-years away. Also in view, emission nebula IC 444 nearly fills the field to the upper left, dotted with small blue reflection nebulae. Like its cousin in astrophysical waters, the Crab Nebula, IC 443 is known to harbor a neutron star, the collapsed core of the massive star that exploded over 30,000 years ago.

Successful X-43A mission proves scramjets work
NASA REPORT
Posted: April 7, 2004

The Pegasus booster fires into the sky with X-43A. Credit: NASA/Jim Ross

NASA's successful X-43A hypersonic research aircraft flight resulted in a treasure trove of scramjet data.

The initial data review, conducted on March 31, confirmed high-fidelity flight data was obtained throughout the vehicle's boost, stage separation and descent to splash down.

"The data clearly shows, and without question, that scramjets work," said X-43A chief engineer Griff Corpening of NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC), Edwards, Calif. "But we did see a couple of areas that differed from what was seen in the wind tunnels, thus reinforcing the need for flight testing," he said.

Some significant aviation milestones occurred during this combined effort by NASA's Langley Research Center (LaRC), Hampton, Va., DFRC, and their industry partners. The milestones included the first controlled accelerating flight at Mach 7 under scramjet power; the first air breathing scramjet-powered free flight; and the first successful stage separation at high dynamic pressure of two non-axisymmetric vehicles.

The flight also set a new aeronautical speed record. The X- 43A reached more than Mach 7, approximately 5,000 mph. That was faster than any known aircraft powered by an air- breathing engine has ever flown.

"We flew very closely to how we predicted we would fly in terms of Mach, dynamic pressure, vehicle angle of attack, vehicle yaw, and vehicle roll," Corpening said.

The March 27 flight from DFRC began with NASA's B-52B launch aircraft carrying the X-43A to the test range over the Pacific Ocean off the California coast. A modified Pegasus rocket boosted the X-43A to its test altitude of about 95,000 feet. It separated from the booster and flew freely under its own power. The vehicle landed in the Pacific Ocean at the end of the test. Planning is underway for the next flight this fall at Mach 10, approximately 7,500 mph.

LaRC and DFRC conduct the Hyper-X program. ATK GASL in Tullahoma, Tenn., built the vehicle and the engine. Boeing Phantom Works in Huntington Beach, Calif., designed the thermal protection and onboard systems. Orbital Sciences Corp. Chandler, Ariz. built the modified Pegasus rocket booster.

Note that NASA is using a B-52 as a launch platform for the scramjet. A B-52! In the Air Force I worked on B-52G models which were built 1957-1959. The first versions of these aircraft first flew over 50 years ago...boyoboy. The very last B-52H was delivered to the Air Force in October 1962.

When the last B-2 bomber is retired, the crew will fly home in a B-52!

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg	Freepers/Avg	Monthlies
40	Nevada	105.00	4	26.25	119	0.88	60.00	3

Yes the B-52 is a post-WWII design. Plans were first drafted in 1946. First test flight was in 1952.

Excellent design is one crucial element. Boeing's engineers foresaw the need for "retrofitting" before the term existed.

Another is its inherent toughness. No frills meant less to break. 8 engines means staying in the air when you lose one -- or two, or three, or four...

Yes, metal fatigue is a factor. Every so many flying hours (I forget the number) the bombers are towed into special hangars for full inspection, including careful attention to metal stringers, wing roots, and the like. Parts are often fabricated on-site (like wing sheet metal), unless they are integral or load-bearing. Such parts are often made by contractors (spendy). I don't think Boeing can make ANY parts for this aircraft anymore.

I do know that a new fiberglass nose radome cost the taxpayers in the neighborhood of $12,000 in 1987 (no, I'm not the one who broke it) and now the DoD needs a new contractor to make more radomes! See here: http://www.cbd-net.com/index.php/search/show/568439

The DoD expects to use this aircraft for another 25 years!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.