Waverider fails 16 secs , faulty fin..

[WildBillKelsoe]

http://www.timeslive.co.za/scitech/2012/08/16/hypersonic-waverider-aircraft-crashes-seconds-into-test-flight

 

And the amazing thing, the cost for project is undisclosed... Like you're full of money!!!

[marcos]

Damn even the last one made 200s.

 

Meanwhile:

 

http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=71

 

Already lab-tested at Mach 5.26:

 

http://defence-global.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/world-fatest-missile-brahmosindiarussia.html

Edited August 16, 2012 by marcos

[WildBillKelsoe]

nevermind that 'rocket'. We're talking about New York to London in 1 hour. Trans-Atlantic flight of a UAV. Imagine there was a terrorist cell in Africa, and US needs to take out some punk. That would make it clean, and most importantly, quick.. I wish they could add a refuel feature but KC-135 can't keep up probably the drag speed (stall) would be higher than stratotanker top speed.

[aaron886]

I hope they don't abandon this. I know the USAF is pretty excited about it, but sometimes it's hard to convince politicians that failures happen.

[WildBillKelsoe]

I hope they abandon it. This money can be diverted to the needy people, let alone correct the deficit, the stocks, the whole shebang.... I don't see the use of such aircraft on the long run. I mean SR-71 Blackbird was abandoned for some reason, right?

 

Instead of wasting the 'average' tax payer monies on trivial projects, which, on the long run, would prove little to existing UAV's such as MQ-9 reaper and it's success rates, and its cost of production, the government is too stupid to channel the money they have over useful projects. People are protesting around the world, in the middle east, from lack of 'average' lifestyle compared to the US/EU countries. Hell, even UK had people protesting from lack of jobs and monies to feed the ever growing family needs, let alone secure decent life to generations to come, and yet, all governments are impeccably misconcepting that the longer, the sharper the sword, the better chances for the people.

 

 

I mean gimme a break!! Stealth boat? Supersonic UAV?? What else is there to spendthrift???

 

Please don't turn this thread to politics, and maintain focus on subject. Nevermind my comments..

[marcos]

I hope they abandon it. This money can be diverted to the needy people, let alone correct the deficit, the stocks, the whole shebang.... I don't see the use of such aircraft on the long run. I mean SR-71 Blackbird was abandoned for some reason, right?

Allegedly there's still an operational one in the UK on some US base.

 

 

I laugh at the original suggestion of using it for passenger planes. Fuel costs? Ticket costs? Take-off? Landing? Accelerating up to speed?

[aaron886]

Are you kidding me? Your whole post was political even after you clearly realized it was... :lol:

 

This money can be diverted to the needy people

 

Let me just say... every time I hear this argument, my ears bleed.

[Invader ZIM]

It's a sort of blanket statement, but in reality there's a LOT of jobs created whern there is a government sponsored program to create such a plane/spacecraft/weapon. Or any military machine for that matter. So such military programs actually help a lot of people feed their families, and not just for the U.S.

 

Someone has to make submarines, missiles, planes, tanks.....

[OutOnTheOP]

Damn even the last one made 200s.

 

Meanwhile:

 

http://www.brahmos.com/newscenter.php?newsid=71

 

Already lab-tested at Mach 5.26:

 

http://defence-global.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/world-fatest-missile-brahmosindiarussia.html

 

And what do you want to bet that the X51 was NOT lab tested to mach 6? I mean, we Americans, we're just sooooo stupid, we build the full-scale test aircraft without EVER lab testing it.

 

Lab test != real world performance. :doh:

[OutOnTheOP]

I hope they abandon it. This money can be diverted to the needy people, let alone correct the deficit, the stocks, the whole shebang.... I don't see the use of such aircraft on the long run. I mean SR-71 Blackbird was abandoned for some reason, right?

 

Instead of wasting the 'average' tax payer monies on trivial projects, which, on the long run, would prove little to existing UAV's such as MQ-9 reaper and it's success rates, and its cost of production, the government is too stupid to channel the money they have over useful projects. People are protesting around the world, in the middle east, from lack of 'average' lifestyle compared to the US/EU countries. Hell, even UK had people protesting from lack of jobs and monies to feed the ever growing family needs, let alone secure decent life to generations to come, and yet, all governments are impeccably misconcepting that the longer, the sharper the sword, the better chances for the people.

 

 

I mean gimme a break!! Stealth boat? Supersonic UAV?? What else is there to spendthrift???

 

Please don't turn this thread to politics, and maintain focus on subject. Nevermind my comments..

 

Wow. You really want to get your rant in and then try to deny anyone the right to respond because it would be too "political"? Too late, you already politicized it.

 

One, money spent on defense projects doesn't just *poof!* disappear into thin air, it is paid to companies that pay employees.

 

Second, you REALLY can't see uses for this technology? I bet you're one of those people that think that GPS, satellite communications, computers, microwave ovens, advanced metallurgy, etc, etc just develop themselves, then? Many, MANY technologies have been developed explicitly for, or as spin-off technologies from military research.

 

That aside, I have no idea where you get the notion that the only use of this technology is for MQ9-analogue UAS; it's useful as a next-generation cruise missile, transport aircraft, high-speed interceptor (both aircraft and missile), or reconnaissance aircraft in the same vein as the SR71.

 

As to the above comment, as far as I know, SR71 was discontinued because a) it's very expensive to operate, b) they were wearing out, and c) while international law allows overhead passage of satellites, it forbids military aircraft overflight without permission as an act of war, therefore there is no NEED for an SR71-type aircraft; if you're staying outside their borders, you don't need to be so fast you can outrun missiles.

[Speed]

That aside, I have no idea where you get the notion that the only use of this technology is for MQ9-analogue UAS; it's useful as a next-generation cruise missile, transport aircraft, high-speed interceptor (both aircraft and missile), or reconnaissance aircraft in the same vein as the SR71.

 

Not to mention, there's no law of physics saying that a hypersonic space plane, that takes off and lands off a conventional runway, is impossible. In fact, a lot of aeronautical engineers think it IS possible, there are many working towards the goal, and this research greatly advances this concept.

 

If such a technology is perfected, it could make access to space very cheap. The extreme cost of launching stuff into orbit is mostly what is preventing us from expanding more into space.

 

As the human population continues to grow, we'll run shorter and shorter in resources. It's inevitable. If the population keeps growing, eventually we'll have to start trucking stuff in from space. So this research could potentially help needy people a lot more than even more free handouts.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Speed

[Jona33]

The minor issue at the moment is the plan was it to fall apart after use. I think there are some passenger comfort issues here. :D

 

Seriously, could be really cool if it works. Hope they keep going with it.

[marcos]

Passengers may also be concerned with the rocket booster used to get them up to speed and the cost of a ticket and having to glide in at 400mph to land (hope they're not told to go around by the tower).

[Jona33]

Passengers may also be concerned with the rocket booster used to get them up to speed and the cost of a ticket and having to glide in at 400mph to land (hope they're not told to go around by the tower).

 

If concorde was too noisy and expensive I'm not sure this will fare much better. :D

[marcos]

If concorde was too noisy and expensive I'm not sure this will fare much better. :D

Exactly my point. It's not like a supersonic airliner hasn't already been done and the know-how to build a Mach 3+ airliner has existed since the '60s or '70s but nobody can run such aircraft as a cost-effective service.

 

Scram-jets will be used for missiles, missiles and more missiles, but nothing wrong with that.

[Speed]

The minor issue at the moment is the plan was it to fall apart after use. I think there are some passenger comfort issues here. :D

 

Seriously, could be really cool if it works. Hope they keep going with it.

The problem with hypersonic passenger transport is that current jets aren't bad at all, and are a whole lot cheaper and reliable. For cross-country flights, there's really not much need to ever get rid of the subsonic transport. And the internet further reduces the need to travel intercontinentally.

 

It's not applications in hypersonic passenger transport that are exciting, what would be exciting is if the technology could be applied to make space very cheap to access. If someone ever perfects something like this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft)

 

then there will be a massive boom in space exploration/space utilization. One of the biggest problems is just getting your hardware out of Earth's atmosphere and into orbit. Yes, we can do it reliably now, but it's extremely costly.

[WildBillKelsoe]

And the internet further reduces the need to travel intercontinentally.

 

I worry about ^. Travelling is important too. Seeing things on 21 inch screens is alot different than going there for real and interacting first-hand.

[Griffin]

Well this thing is very far away from passenger travel and there are interesting projects in that field.

 

http://hypermach.com/

 

Especially read the engine technology part. Sounds like some scifi thing!

[Pyroflash]

Actually interestingly enough, because speed isn't directly related to the specific impulse of the fuel, a hypersonic transport, rather analogous to the Concorde (currently the Concorde holds the record for the most fuel efficient jet liner ever made, despite it's high speed and afterburning engines) actually has the ability to be CHEAPER to run in terms of fuel costs than other, more conventional jets.

 

One of the main reasons why Concorde flights were so expensive is their limited utility (routes), due to infrastructure and other considerations, as well as their limited production run. If they had a chance to develop as well as fly to an expanded set of fields, it may well have ended up costing less money per passenger than other more conventional jets.

 

Plus Hypersonic travel is a utility that MUST not be overlooked for extremely urgent business (i.e. medical emergencies, important government meetings, military reactions, intercontinental business emergencies, etc.)

Edited August 20, 2012 by Pyroflash

[MadMonkey]

what makes this any different from the Concorde when it was unveiled?

 

what I wonder is how they got past friction

 

<quote> from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

 

Air friction on the outer surfaces caused the cabin to heat up during flight. Every surface, such as windows and panels, was warm to the touch by end of the flight </endquote>

 

so if it goes faster then wouldn't that cause more friction = hotter?

 

as great as it is to be able to fly across the world in a few minutes

I can only imagine it may suck sitting in a stuffy hot tube waiting to get off the jet..

 

I wonder what later tests will unveil

[Pyroflash]

what makes this any different from the Concorde when it was unveiled?

 

what I wonder is how they got past friction

 

<quote> from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde

 

Air friction on the outer surfaces caused the cabin to heat up during flight. Every surface, such as windows and panels, was warm to the touch by end of the flight </endquote>

 

so if it goes faster then wouldn't that cause more friction = hotter?

 

as great as it is to be able to fly across the world in a few minutes

I can only imagine it may suck sitting in a stuffy hot tube waiting to get off the jet..

 

I wonder what later tests will unveil

 

Actually, at hypersonic speeds the boundary layer gets compressed resulting in compressional heating effects that outstrip any heating effect by friction (it is still a lot though), and it is likely (more like guaranteed) that if these jets were to become passenger jets, they would have some sort of internal insulation where the exterior effects wouldn't affect the internal environment.

[Pilotasso]

Also, its supposed to fly high enough that pressure and air density is so low it offsets some of that heat. having said this, they can just eleminate fairings and windows and close it down completely replcing them with flat screens with images taken by cameras. If you see concept art you wont see cockpits or rows of windows on most of them.

[Aries]

Imagine there was a terrorist cell in Africa, and US needs to take out some punk.

 

I'm sick of US playing world policemen...

...it all became like elementary school, where bigger and stronger bullied the others... frikkin child's games, but played with the lives of entire humanity... :cry:

[aaron886]

Actually, at hypersonic speeds the boundary layer gets compressed resulting in compressional heating effects that outstrip any heating effect by friction (it is still a lot though), and it is likely (more like guaranteed) that if these jets were to become passenger jets, they would have some sort of internal insulation where the exterior effects wouldn't affect the internal environment.

 

Not really. The boundary layer actually expands at hypersonic velocities according to a principle of aerothermodynamics called "viscous interaction." (However for subsonic velocities, you are right... the boundary layer shrinks with increasing velocity) Heating interaction at all levels of the boundary layer is unpredictable, but temperatures at the surface of a vessel like the X-51 would be in the vicinity of 3500 degrees Fahrenheit at a rough minimum. These vehicles use incredible metallurgy and machining tolerances to avoid burning up in flight. Some surfaces are even ablative... meaning they're designed to burn off in a slow (hopefully controlled) manner. Internally, cooling is done by cycling ethylene fuel around the internal compartment.

 

The chances of this being a viable manned transport are pretty low for the forseeable future, but that's the great thing about the future... it's not always forseeable.

Edited August 20, 2012 by aaron886
stupid spelling

[Pyroflash]

I was under the impression that it was atmospheric compression that did most of the heating in, say the space shuttle orbiter. Is this not right?

 

(thanks for clearing that misconception up that the boundary layer compresses with increasing velocity)

Edited August 20, 2012 by Pyroflash