http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/24/plane.nasa/index.html

CNN) -- Fifty-seven years after combat pilot Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier, NASA will make a second attempt Saturday at flying an aircraft at 5,000 mph -- about seven times Mach 1, the speed of sound.

The space agency's dogged pursuit of extreme speed, officials hope, will ultimately make space flight easier to accomplish.

NASA will roll out the X-43A, capable of reaching speeds more than Mach 7, in a test flight over the Pacific Ocean. The Hyper-X, as it is called, could also give rise to commercial planes that zip passengers between London and New York in less than two hours.
It just took off beneath the wing of a B-52 from Dreyden, most of the news networks are showing it live. It's pilotless and kicked up to engine ignition speed with a solid rocket booster. Pretty cool stuff.

edit: F-18 chase planes are in the air.

Sounds great, I wonder if theyll show any pics over here?
(But surely the F-18s cant keep up, and the thing can go faster than any terrorist missile anyway?)

They weren't trying to break any speed records. There was a plane that hit mach 6 or 7 in the sixties. Spacecraft also go faster.

The cool thing about this is that they don't actually carry an oxygen tank on board. The goal is to be able to reach insane speeds, basically 'feeding' off the oxygen in the atmosphere.

This thing was just said to have hit mach 7. Much more impressive than the last test (which blew up).

It worked , but for only 10 seconds. At this rate it will take another 15 years to build a commercial transport plane with this technology and my question is why? We already have planes that can get us anywhere in the world in less than 20 hours. We have planes that can make it to Europe in les than 6 hours.


We have telecommunications that we can send live TV anywhere instantly to get information to those who need it.

The cost to build a commercial fleet of these aircraft will be in the billions. To maintain them will also be rather expensive. How much do you think a seat on one of these aircraft is going to cost you?

Why hasn't any PRIVATE aircraft compant designed and built this befor now.........because it is NOT COST EFFECTIVE!

Well, no... it's because it is CURRENTLY not cost effective. Once the technology is perfected this has the ability to result in amazing cost savings in fuel, maintenance, and weight. The ramjet went through the same type of process.

Oh , here's the link about the flight......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3575561.stm

It worked , but for only 10 seconds. At this rate it will take another 15 years to build a commercial transport plane with this technology and my question is why? We already have planes that can get us anywhere in the world in less than 20 hours. We have planes that can make it to Europe in les than 6 hours.
Why do we need these fancy new aeroplanes? We've already got trains that can get across the continent in three days, and it only takes a week to cross the ocean via a modern steam liner. See, while this argument may seem compelling in the present, it simply will not hold water over time. We humans, as a species, have not been and will never be content with what we have. We are always looking for improvements to make our lives better or answer haunting questions.

It isn't cost effective yet, but nobody is claiming that it is. That's why it is an X plane. Such is status quo for the R&D process. However, think of similar technologies as the automobile right before Henry Ford came along. In other words, many of them are nearing fruition and simply waiting for the first one or two innovators to happen upon them and begin implementation on a grand scale. Your assertion that no private companies have embarked on manufacture of a commericial fleet as of yet due to it not being fiscally lucrative is correct, but only a fraction of the overall picture.

They weren't trying to break any speed records. There was a plane that hit mach 6 or 7 in the sixties. Spacecraft also go faster.
Yeah, the X-15. It still holds the atmospheric flight speed record of Mach 6.7 on October 3, 1967, soaring to a height of 354,000 feet. In my opinion, still the sexiest of all the X planes ever to take flight.

What pragmatic/pratical significance does this really hold?

It's a big step to the development of a new type of engine which uses drastically less fuel and time for to travel.

i went hiking in the santa monica mountains today and saw the B-52 and chase planes :) they were pretty far off, and i couldnt really see the planes just the contrails - one single contrail plane next to a multi-contrailed plane. Unfortunately either they fired it before i got there or they fired it further out the pacific (kinda hazy with all that smog from LA) so i couldnt see the best part, all in all, im glad it worked.

also, in the future this would help launch vehicles into space cheaper :) so they say

Yes, it would launch vehicles into space cheaper. There is some reason to believe that US may already have a secret hypersonic aircraft, called the Aurora.

ZZZOOOOOOOOM!!! (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/27/hypersonic.jet.flight.ap/index.html)

The implications of this technology are tremendous. Scramjets have been the etheral wet dreams of aerospace engineers for years, and that one has actually functioned is cause for ecstasy within the discipline. For the layman, here are a few possibilities we may see within the next 10-15 years: flights from New York to Tokyo in 40 minutes. Hypersonic cruise missiles that slam into their targets within minutes rather than hours. Same-day delivery of cargo, anywhere in the world.

just saw it on the news, bloody amazing.......

GO THE SCRAM JET!

how nice was the B52 also?

ZZZOOOOOOOOM!!! (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/27/hypersonic.jet.flight.ap/index.html)

The implications of this technology are tremendous. Scramjets have been the etheral wet dreams of aerospace engineers for years, and that one has actually functioned is cause for ecstasy within the discipline. For the layman, here are a few possibilities we may see within the next 10-15 years: flights from New York to Tokyo in 40 minutes. Hypersonic cruise missiles that slam into their targets within minutes rather than hours. Same-day delivery of cargo, anywhere in the world.

yes but they asid it will be at least 20 years before anything like that is available. that definately sux, though i won't take away from how amazing a feat it is.

20 years, before that is available?

Nebu, that is completely baseless. Hypersonic technology, currently being pursued by the following countries, US, Russia, India, China, Japan, is expected within a decade or so. India hopes to have a fully functional hypersonic craft by 2015, which only means US will get it much sooner. In fact, if reports are to be believed, US may already have a secret hypersonic craft called the Aurora.

Let me see, it needs to be "lifted" up into the atmosphere by a rocket, then it seperates itself and "flies" on its own and then lands without power because the engines it has ONLY WORK AT HIGH ALTITUDES! WOW! This sounds just like the already built and flying SPACE SHUTTLE! The space shuttle uses hydrogen to help it "fly" also, so what's the difference ?

The space shuttle also needs to carry oxygen fuel which makes it heavier. It also depends almost completely on it's boosters for speed. This only requires boosters to get up to speed and start the scramjets. Think of it like a car engine. You need to get it spinning (hence the starter) before you can actually start using it.

Scram jets cannot lift themselves off the ground either. They need assistance to get them up to operating speeds as was done during this test. The rocket that was shown lifted the scram jet device up into the atmosphere and got it going about 3000 to 4000 MPH befor the test model was released from the rocket and it went another 1000 to 2000 MPH afterwards. The X-15 already does over 5000 MPH on its own without assistance so we are going backwards with this so called "new" technology IMO.

The X-15 engine has NO chance of going long distances at a cost any of us can afford. A scramjet does. Instead of two tanks of fuel (or dry fuel), you only have one. You end up with a higher top speed, less fuel use, lower maintenance, and less chance of burn out. This is a supplement to the engines whih already exist... I don't see this a a step back.

Let me see, it needs to be "lifted" up into the atmosphere by a rocket, then it seperates itself and "flies" on its own and then lands without power because the engines it has ONLY WORK AT HIGH ALTITUDES! WOW! This sounds just like the already built and flying SPACE SHUTTLE! The space shuttle uses hydrogen to help it "fly" also, so what's the difference ?

Actually it is baseful........

I based it on what the news said, sorry.

Apparently NASA said it?

Was the news lying? wouldn't be the first time, but seems pointless in this instance.

Let me see, it needs to be "lifted" up into the atmosphere by a rocket, then it seperates itself and "flies" on its own and then lands without power because the engines it has ONLY WORK AT HIGH ALTITUDES! WOW! This sounds just like the already built and flying SPACE SHUTTLE! The space shuttle uses hydrogen to help it "fly" also, so what's the difference ?
You have got to be kidding.

As I have stated the X-15 has attained mach 5 or 5000 MPH over 15 years ago so how is this improving anything? The x-15 could take off by itself, reach altitudes comparable to that of this new x-43 and return to Earth with only the engine that it had aboard it. This x-43 needs an assited take off (rocket)to reach high enough speeds to make the scram jet actually work. It seems that this is what the space shuttle already is doing isn't it? I mean it is "lifted" into the upper atmosphere by solid rockets that are jetesoned at a high enough altitude then its own onboard engines carry it into orbit.

The X-15 was dropped by a B-52 for most of it's flights. I think it tried taking off a few times from the ground but used its fuel up too fast so any flight was extremely short. Cosmic, when the technology is refined it will be combined with conventional engines liek something similar to the SR-71's engines (which work as ramjets in a way) to get it up to speed before the hypersonic engines kick in. We can't do this now. But the technology will come around.

Only 20 months behind the Australian team :)
HyShot program secures place in flight history (http://www.uq.edu.au/news/index.phtml?article=3469)

Cosmic, the X-15 had a rocket engine which consumes huge amounts of both fuel
and oxygen both of which have to be carried onboard. The volume and weight of the
fuel requirements make it near impossible to keep the engines burning for extended
periods of time. The X-43-A weighed 2800 pounds and used TWO POUNDS of fuel
in its flight. The X-15 reached about 4700 mph, but again, this was with a ROCKET
engine, not an air breathing engine. After the scramjet engine is perfected, it could
be used in conjuction with other jet engines used to get a plane up to speed, then
the scramjets could be utilized for crusing at high speeds and fuel savings. That is
my unprofessional take on it, anyway.

Pete - the Australian Hyshot scramjet mission was different to NASA's X-43A test. In the Hyshot mission, the scramjet engine component (only) was taken to the edge of the atmosphere by a booster rocket and then maneuvered to point downwards for re-entry. During the high speed descent, hydrogen fuel is supplied to the Hyshot scramjet to test supersonic combustion. The experiment was not designed to produce thrust or to prove scramjet-powered flight, only to test supersonic combustion. The NASA X-43A test is a scramjet engine integrated with airframe whereby the intake and nozzle systems are integrated with the airframe and rely on the airframe to function (by shock waves). The Pegasus rocket climbs to the test altitude, the scramjet is ignited and released in level flight to test supersonic combustion with the aim of producing positive thrust. Preliminary data indicates that the scramjet-powered X-43A produced a positive thrust, accelerating to Mach 7 - a speed which has never before been achieved in air-breathing flight. (well done to NASA!)

Interesting technology, but surely not much use as it stands for anything other than delivering payloads, as the massive acceleration involved would be too much for all but the fittest people.

So they need to make the hypersonic transition more slowly, maybe easy to achieve when they slap the engines on a larger airframe?

The X-15 was dropped by a B-52 for most of it's flights. I think it tried taking off a few times from the ground but used its fuel up too fast so any flight was extremely short. Cosmic, when the technology is refined it will be combined with conventional engines liek something similar to the SR-71's engines (which work as ramjets in a way) to get it up to speed before the hypersonic engines kick in. We can't do this now. But the technology will come around.

You'll have to forgive me, I ment the SR-71's not the X-15. Somehow I got them confused. My appologies to all. Just substitute SR-71's for X-15 please when you read my posts befor this. Thank you for setting me straight.

There are two basic methods for integrating a scramjet with other propulsion systems. One is the Turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) which would use a turbojet to take the ramjet-scramjet to speed and then similar to the SR-71 Blackbird aircraft transition from a turbojet-powered speed of Mach 2 to ramjet mode, upto around Mach 5 and then to scramjet mode for higher Mach numbers up to about Mach 8. Another way to integrate scramjet is to use a Rocket-based combined cycle (RBCC) which consists of a ramjet-scramjet and ducted rocket with no turbine engine in the propulsion system. The rocket would be the initial propulsion system used to get up to about Mach 2 for ramjet takeover and then at a hypersonic Mach number transition to scramjet mode. In the RBCC the rocket and scramjet can function together, producing higher acceleration and achieving higher Mach number flight than the TBCC (theoretically). This technology is still highly experimental, and it will need vast amounts of research funding and development to make scramjets available for practical use. A SSTO (single-stage to orbit) spacecraft is what i'd like to see happen in the next 15 years (?). We need to improve our access to space, as we cannot rely on the Space Shuttle technology if we want to develop further.

You'll have to forgive me, I ment the SR-71's not the X-15. Somehow I got them confused. My appologies to all. Just substitute SR-71's for X-15 please when you read my posts befor this. Thank you for setting me straight.


You're still mostly wrong. The SR-71 could only go a little over Mach 3.3 and can go nowhere near the altitudes the X-43 can supposedly achieve.

Cosmictraveler - the onboard engines on the Space Shuttle are rocket engines which carry both fuel and oxidizer to produce thrust. The scramjet engine is an air-breathing engine which uses oxygen from the atmosphere to sustain combustion of fuel. This technology dispenses with the need to carry oxidizer on board, thereby reducing overall weight, and the option to increase payload.

Nili.....But it still has to ne "lifted" into the upper atmosphere at at least 2000 MPH to get the scranjet engines to work. That means there's going to be at least 2 engines to get this craft up into the atmosphere and then back down again once it has used its scramjet engine in the upper atmosphere. That 2 engines at least so 2 types of fuel need to be onboard. It just seems a waste of time to use something as complex as this to achieve a faster plane when the SR-71 uses only one.

If they could figure out how to use one fuel that would solve the problem.

Hi cosmic,
If a particular technology had the potential to lead to aircraft that were cheaper, faster, and more economical than the SR-71, do you think it would be worth pursuing?

If funding for this stuff was ten times what it is now we would have had scramjets taking people into orbit for just dollars an lb years ago! As it is now we will be lucky if cheap commercial space travel exist in the next 50 years! But kudos for the X-43, may it be found in the ocean depths someday.

If we want to develop our access to space and to improve aircraft performance, it is worth the research effort to explore hypersonic technology. But yes there are many complications with the technology that need to be overcome before it can ever be used on space launch systems or aircraft.

Props to NASA,

I think scramjet is here to stay, however the millitary with their large budgets and extraordinary demands will get it first and we civillians have to wait another 15 years before it's coseffective for commercial airliners, that's the annoying part.

15 years or more to wait and billions of dollars that will be spent on something that may end up in the trash heap....IMO. I just don't think they shoud persue such a complex plane because I like to use simpler technology for commercial use. If they do build these aircraft they will cost a fortune to buy and another fortune to maintain. Think of what it will cost the average citizen to fly on this plane, allot more than the concord! That was $10,000.00 US and the concord only had 100 seats. Not a very practicle aircraft from a commercial standpoint was it? It was also very expensive to maintain and the noise was overwhelming when it took off.

We need large,safe, and economical aircraft to haul the public around in so that the aircraft companies can be cost effective not just fast. Let's try to use the jets that the military use that can reach the SR-71's speed record of over 3000 MPH first. These engines really eat fuel to attain those speeds. Do we really need to go somewhere here on Earth in a matter of a few hours rather than a few more hours? 20 hours will get you anywhere on Earth today, 6 hours and you can get to Europe from America. We have telecommunications that we can talk with others instanly anytime, anywhere so why not use that to get things done rather than wasting the resources on a plane that will go faster?

isnt it more about cheap space flight? as i see it, faster travel on earth is just a benefit.

a single state to orbit scramjet space plane could in theory reduce the price of space travel to about $100 per lb or lower!!!

That’s not that great if you consider a two stage space shuttle with both stages having glider return ability can do $300 a lb:
http://www.friends-partners.ru/partners/mwade/graphics/r/roc71iso.gif
but they did not want to do the research and development for that back in the 70’s because of the price so we ended up today with this piece of crap space shuttle which has killed 2 crews and cost 10,000 a lb! It’s all about money: if we spent enough time and research on something we can get it done very well and quickly.

I completely agree with Cosmictraveller. The failure of Concorde shows that the current market for travel is not centred on speed, but rather on affordable mass transit.

In nearly 30 years of commercial service, supersonic flight did not become more popular, or cheaper than subsonic flight. 30 years to widen it's market share, invest in new aircraft, develop new aircraft to maintain market leadership, and offer improvements to the speed of the service. None of which happened.

They couldn't even make a service operate viably on aircraft they were sold for £1 each! If they'd had to pay for R&D, and the true market value of each aircraft, the demise would have been much more swift.

So, what does this tell us about hypersonic travel? That even if you develop the technology, you still have a huge job to do marketing the service. That you must give the market what it wants, not what you want to sell it.

I can't see an aircraft the relies on a rocket to ignite a scramjet ever being simpler safer, of cheaper than a conventional jet. Not when all true costs are taken into account.

As a military vehicle, or space launch vehicle, yes, it has it's worth, but those are applications where money isn't much of an object, and realistically, we don't need cheaper space launch vehicles. We've managed to cram so much stuff in geostationary orbit now it's getting crowded up there, and the market has borne that cost quite well.

So do we need 'cheaper' (not that this has been established as being a realistic view of hypersonic travel, it certainly failed for the Space Shuttle.) launches? What for? To man space stations the current governments don't seem that comitted to? To settle the Moon and Mars, for spurious reasons?

I don't see it happening that easily. Faster weapons I can see, but then, would weapons technology ever be released to private companies for commerical use? Of course not, the original designs of the HOTOL air breating rocket engines were patented by Alan Bond, but the British Govt declared the top secret, and he was shafted.

So I have doubts I'll ever be able to afford to ride one, looking at the history of similar developments.

The space shuttle never achieved its goal because its expensive to maintain and assemble. It takes the space shuttle months to fly a scramjet space plane could launch and land and launch again in 1 day! The faster it can do launches the less it costs.

a scramjet space plane could launch and land and launch again in 1 day! The faster it can do launches the less it costs.

It still uses a rocket at present to achieve the speeds needed before the scramjet can take over, so the first hurdle is to develop a truly reusable, reliable, low maintenance rocket engine that can be re-fuelled quickly. (hold on, wasn't that the Space Shuttle again?)

Of course, rockets aren't that efficient, (considering they carry oxidiser which is readily available in the atmosphere.) compared to a conventional engine.

So will it be launched from a piggy back to save fuel cost?

Or is this system going to collapse to one engine design? An engine which can manage the transition from subsonic, to hypersonic? Because if it doesn't do this, each leg is carrying the dead weight of the other stages propulsion, instead of paying passengers.

Either way, the fast re-use argument fails, as Concorde could have made two trips to most other planes one, but that didn't give it a business advantage, and it did't make extra cash.

It's technology _and_ market forces that need to be captured. I think conquering technology is far easier. Scramjets will be made, and get used for various applications. I can't see them becoming commercially viable.

truly reusable, reliable, low maintenance rocket engine that can be re-fuelled quickly

Oh we have those already, the problem is getting them back quick and easy.

A scramjet space plane can take off on conventional turbine engines by the way, gain speed and then go into ramjet mode, then scramjet as it gets faster, the only time it needs LOX is during orbital insertion were there is not enough air to feed the jets. The turbines for the jets engines can be reused to pump fuel for the ram/scramjet modes. Also by closing off the intakes and pumping in lox the scramjet can become a rocket engine as well. So only two engines are needed, turbines and ram/scramjet. It depends on what you call commerically vaible at $100 a lb thats $20,000 per person, for a flight into space I think alot of people would be willing to pay that.

It depends on what you call commerically vaible at $100 a lb thats $20,000 per person, for a flight into space I think alot of people would be willing to pay that.

If they could reach that price point, I'd be impressed. Currently, a trip to the the edge of space in a Mig-25, costs $18,995 per person, for a half hour flight (although this does include five days in Mosow, a trip to Zvezdograd to look at Soviet Space vehicles etc). This price for a Mig flight is using old surplus technology. Factor in recouping the R&D costs for a new vehicle, and I think it will be hard to match.

oh it could be done, take for example these fully reasuable space shuttle designs tht were never developed due toe budget restrants... would have saved us alot more over the long run if we developed it that way. note the prices of some of these designs if they were made.
http://www.friends-partners.ru/partners/mwade/lvfam/shuosals.htm

To much money to be viable for commercial use plus extraordinary costs for routine maintainance. We already have the space shuttle so fix it and upgrade it then make a newly designed system that IMPROVES UPON the already existing design. A scram jet does not improve upon the existing design for the space shuttle can be ready to take off after only about a week if it had to now. That is of course if it landed at the Kennedy Space Center not Edwards. As yet I have not seen any designs that really improve upon what we have now that much. To develop another technology would be useless if it didn't advance our projects and make things better, faster and easier to do.

explain why its cost of maintainance would be so high?

NASA can't get a space shuttle up in over a year now.

We have to bear in mind that this so called supposedly "cheaper space access or New-York - Tokia in 40 minutes, for all" is perhaps secondary to the primary concern of developing scramjet technology for millitary applications, like this baby?
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?Id=1170

There are even considerations to make really huge scramjet rounds for naval battleship artillery, those would pierce virtually anything in the air, sea or land based in a very very wide area around that battleship.

So, scramjets do not really need to be costeffective to exist as long as the millitary with their deep pockets want them. Ultimately, massproduction and improvements in technology will make it costeffective for civilian use, but that may not be next year.

question remains, will the taxpayer allow further overload of the national debt for the millitary to get their precious toys ?

So, scramjets do not really need to be costeffective to exist as long as the millitary with their deep pockets want them. Ultimately, massproduction and improvements in technology will make it costeffective for civilian use, but that may not be next year.
One thing to remember is that a wide majority of military advances eventually manage to manifest themselves in industry and commerce on the civilian side of things. While we may only see a large expenditure within the DoD for several years, the same technologies will eventually precipitate downward into areas where society as a whole can benefit from them.

A technology like this has such extensive implications as to virtually guarantee its multitude of spinoffs affect our lives post-haste. If we could shake hands I would make you a bet on that. ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/03/28/hypersonic.jet.flight/index.html

One thing to remember is that a wide majority of military advances eventually manage to manifest themselves in industry and commerce on the civilian side of things.

You know, I'd love to believe that, but having met Alan Bond, who designed the hybrid engines for HOTOL, I'm not convinced things developed in conjunction with the military applications will see commercial use. The MoD slapped a 'Top Secret' on his patent, and that was the end of that. Bond et al had to re-design the engine significantly and re-patent.

He was quite bitter about the whole experience.

Technology developed for and by NASA trickles down, granted, but lots of stuff doesn't. For instance, GPS is of massive benefit to many citizens, but remains militarized. Hence the USA getting annoyed with Europe over the development of it's own Galileo system. Loss of US military control over a technology is a big issue, especially in space, where there have been clear directives, and some rather worrying statements, using words such as 'dominate' and 'deny'.

So I feel quite the opposite. That technology with a clear military benefit, developed with military budgets, just won't trickle down.