X-43A test a 'grand slam'(Interesting Details)

Valley Press ^ | March 28, 2004 | ALISON GATLIN

[BenLurkin]

It appears that the booster pushed the X-43A up to Mach 7 and then its own engine kicked in for a little while.

[DB]

All the other reports were that the booster took it up to Mach 5 and that the RV engin pushed it up to Mach 7.

[RS]

"It appears that the booster pushed the X-43A up to Mach 7 and then its own engine kicked in for a little while"

Thant's the way I read it also - I didn't think you needed to push it so hard before it would get started.

[concentric circles]

Great thread on your post of Thursday night! At the press conference after the test flight it was stated that the maximum velocity was attained just prior to the separation of the Hyper-X from the booster. It will be interesting to see how the next flight shakes out.

The hype NASA generated for this test flight was appropriate based on what was achieved but I suspect their real interest, from a public relations perspective, is to generate funding beyond the next test which will use up the last X-43A. Savvy move by NASA, I don't think they'll have too much trouble finding money for the next phase of scramjet aircraft development.

[BenLurkin]

Thanks!

[BenLurkin]

Allson Gaitlin is the Aerosspace reporter for the Valley Press and has been for a number of years. She's usually right on top of her stuff though - Lord knows - anybody can make a mistake.

[Vinnie]

Someone please explain..
The scramjet must be pushed to mach 5-7, and an altitude approaching 100,000 ft.
How much higher can it go before it runs out of enough air to keep it lit?

[jgorris]

If you're going to go from ground to space, you need a scramjet to do it efficiently."

Dumb question: orbital velocity is 17K mph and escape velocity is 25K mph. How is an air breathing engine going to be useful for anything other than sub-orbital flights (On the otherhand, I'll bet it'll help getting from home base to a target rich environment quickly) ??

Don't get me wrong, I think NASA has hit a another home run and I realize there is a lot we can do with scramjet engine technology, but how's it gonna help get into space?

[BenLurkin]

Near as I can figure it is one of two things:

1) The SCRAm is part of a multi-stage system with the final stage using its own oxidizer

or

2) The SCRAM intake are placed on the bottom of the craft and it cruises at the absolute highest altitude it can go, skimming along the top of the atmosphere. There it either delivers a payload back to earth (passengers NY to Tokyo in 90 minutes?) or it launches a space vehicle off its back and into orbit.

[TexasCajun]

I wish someone would post a picture of the test plane itself. Every thread I've seen shows the Pegasus booster rocket and not a very good picture of the test plane itself.

The NASA feed gave a good view of it under the wing of the B52.

[LS]

That's because a scramjet cannot work below Mach 5.

"The ramjet, scramjet is the Holy Grail in aeronautics," Sitz said. "If you're going to go from ground to space, you need a scramjet to do it efficiently." Absolutely. This IS the next generation of truly reliable, routine space launch.

[BenLurkin]

[LS]

Easy. To answer your question, the entire premise of scramjet-powered space flight is to boost up to 18,000 mph and pull the stick back. Once you're in space, you have a few maneuvering rockets. The beauty of the scram is that MOST of the fuel for the flight is already supplied (air).

[gitmo]

Don't get me wrong, I think NASA has hit a another home run and I realize there is a lot we can do with scramjet engine technology, but how's it gonna help get into space?

Next step is a Bussard Ramjet?

[XBob]

Now, let me see if I get this correct - to get this 'plane', (which cannot carry any passengers, by its very nature (no way the human body can withstand the accelleration), we need a B-52, to fly high, to launch a rocket, to get this 'plane' to go fast enough to get it's engine to work (But scramjets only start to work at about Mach 6, or six times the speed of sound. And this means they first have to be boosted to their operational velocity.) so it can fly in the atmosphere.

Why not just do away with the B-52 and the scram jet, and go with the rocket from start to finish?

I have no idea what end result is desired from this Rube-Goldberg waste of money.

What is the end goal?

[TexasCajun]

Boy, that was quick. -Thanks-

It sure did look small mounted on the booster rocket.

[BenLurkin]

About the size of an SUV I guess:

[SpyGuy]

Scramjets have an advantage over conventional rocket and turbojet engines in that they are more efficient. These air-breathing engines do not have to carry an oxidizer on board to mix with fuel, instead using oxygen scooped into the engine from the air.

Ms. Gaitlin is not that technically savvy if she can write a misleading paragraph like this.

[aruanan]

to get this 'plane', (which cannot carry any passengers, by its very nature (no way the human body can withstand the accelleration [sic]),

Sounds like you're confusing acceleration with velocity.

[Benrand]

I think Steve Austin should have been piloting it.