NASA Scores Success in Space Travel 'Holy Grail'

Reuters ^ | Mon, Mar 29, 2004

[50sDad]

"Maybe now we can get off this d@mn rock!"
      - John Bigboote

[presidio9]

[zeugma]

They didn't fully indicate if the craft was meant to splashdown in the ocean or not. One would think they'd want to analyze the the engine after use.

[mtbopfuyn]

They must be using Bubba's New American Dictionary if success means crashing into the ocean.

[keithtoo]

"We seek the grail"

[presidio9]

They didn't fully indicate if the craft was meant to splashdown in the ocean or not. One would think they'd want to analyze the the engine after use.

This plane was never intended to be recovered. This experiment was just to see if the scramjets could be made to fly the plane at Mach 7. There is still a ton of more testing to do before they can begin to think abiut practical aspects.

[ArrogantBustard]

You clearly haven't read the experiment plan. "Success" is defined as the engine operating in free flight, and producing positive acceleration. This occurred; the SCRamjet accelerated the vehicle from Mach 3(ish) to slightly over Mach 7. As the engine has no moving parts, studying it post flight would be only mildly interesting. Apparently that interest does not jutify the cost of recovery. Early experiments in rocketry were similar, even in cases with complex potentially reusable liquid fueled engines. Indeed, to this day a successful rocket launch results in the total loss of the launch vehicle.

One would be wise, before pontificating on the success of an experiment, to acquaint oneself with the actual goals of the experiment.

[Dixiekraut]

"Your overthrusters are shit Lord Whorfin!"

[blackdog]

I doubt the oscillating overthruster was used in this test. Yo-Yodine Industries would never hand it over.

Seriously though, way too much in the way of airfoil and fuselage design(specifically shape change in flight) needs to happen before any enthusiasm is expressed for this technology.

The lift ratio at sea level for a plane at 100KTS or takeoff/landing speeds would be something like several thousand times greater than travelling at hypersonic speeds. How to stay aloft and in control at both speed extremes without tearing the wings off or airfoil stalling at 500KTS is problematic.

I love the hypersonic glide highlight. Rocks, broken up space shuttles, comets, and Skylab have been there and done that.

[norton]

It was meant to go into the Pacific & I doubt there was any serious thought given to trying to catch it on the way down.

This thing is an unguided missile,
Given prior failure, there was no way to predict trajectory,
Given potential speed/distance, there was no way to predict touch down point,
I'd have to beieve they consider "the ocean" as about as concise a definition of "target" as you could devise.
I'm quite sure no one wanted it landing in Cleveland, maybe San Francisco (close enough to the Pacific) but not the heartland.

The scramjet itself is fairly simple, it might just be more cost effective to build another or fly the backup next time.

[Frank_Discussion]

Expendable test bed, by design, to prove the scramjet would work. Why waste money to recover a system that might not even work. Now that the concept is show to work, recovering will be come more important.

This was a very sucessful test. By an engineering definition.

[vannrox]

I'm happy to see that Ronald Regan's "Orient Express" has survived in one form after the Clinton Budget cuts in the 90's.

[Frank_Discussion]

"The lift ratio at sea level for a plane at 100KTS or takeoff/landing speeds would be something like several thousand times greater than traveling at hypersonic speeds."

I don't believe that scramjets have ever been intended for use at sea level. Hence the boost phase before ignition, with lift and drag pressure taking a bigger lifting/maneuvering role at hypersonic speeds. For sea-level landing, some sort of lifting/maneuvering tech will be employed that is different than the hypersonic systems.

Swing wings retracted for hypersonic flight, extended for sonic/subsonic flight. Essentially a really big F-14?

[presidio9]

I'm quite sure no one wanted it landing in Cleveland, maybe San Francisco (close enough to the Pacific)

When you have an object traveling in excess of 5000 mph, practically any spot in the US would be at risk.

[50sDad]

What's that waterrmellon doing there?

[Elsie]

HELLO!!!

It ain't SPACE travel to suck up OXYGEN from the ATMOSPHERE to run the engine!!!

[zeugma]

arrogantbustard, My post was more of a query than a statement. Thanks for your response though.

[thoughtomator]

Perhaps, but to get to space in the first place, one has to cross the atmosphere, and at our current level of technology, efficient atmospheric travel that can achieve escape velocity is our major obstacle to further space exploration.

[RightWhale]

If they use this as a stage in an orbital flight, the trajectory is going to be strange compared to ordinary rocket launches. Takeoff will be as usual with a big dumb booster, but the scramship will then have to fly horizontally at an altitude while it builds up speed. A third stage would be needed to circularize the orbit. Although the air is thin, atmospheric heating would be intense when they get to significant speed in the air, just like reentry.