X-43 - Has anyone else done it?

Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet??? France tried
Hypersonics in the 50s and failed I believe (wasn't it called the Griffon
Aircraft). I have been following many new aerospace developments for a
number of years (namely scramjets and aerospike rocket engines).

A few things that came to mind ...

Why was the X-43 important? Firstly it is a PROOF OF CONCEPT. Hypersonic
Aircraft via Scramjet is possible. Secondly it gives the MILITARY the
ability to make advanced CRUISE missiles that can get to a target quickly.
If anyone listed to the interview with the scientist on Friday (NPR/PRI),
they said that if this test was successful, military applications would be
the FIRST application.

I think Space Shuttles and Commercial applications are still at least 20
years out. Military apps may see the light of day in about 5-10 years, if
needed they could be rushed out. The example used by the scientist was the
Bin Laden sticking his head out of a hole and todays technology only able to
hit the target in about 3-4 hours. With Hypersonic missiles, targets become
much more targetable ... hmmm

This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough this
missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
France).

It was publicly stated that NASA would NOT even try and recover the jet for
budgetary reasons and would abondon it, it would give anyone retrieving the
X-43 the following information (at the very least):
- The materials neccessary for hypersonic flight (titanium, composites, etc)
- The aerodynamic design
- The engine design
- Some of the onboard computer information if it is retrievable

Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well worth
the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea ...

The X-43 though is way cool, but I am trying to understand if using such an
engine will enable an aircraft to enter space or even reach escape velocity
.... someone help me out ...

Franz Geff wrote:
Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet???

Depends what you mean by "success"; no-one's flying them commercially
yet. However: http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/hyshot/default.htm

NoHoverStop wrote in message ...
Franz Geff wrote:
Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet???

Depends what you mean by "success"; no-one's flying them commercially
yet. However: http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/hyshot/default.htm

The story that they succesfully flight tested a scramjet seems to be
well accepted, but are the test data peer rewieved and the scientific
community in agreement with this conclusion?

I am also wondering if there exist any conseptual ideas for useful
application of such an engine . I imagine one would need considerable
boosting just to get a vehicle from 'runay mode' and into 'working
mode', and that the prices of the once so impressive Concorde flights
would be dwarfed by orders of magnitude if passenger/payload traffic
is considered.

I like it though. No moving parts :-)

..fh

(Frode Hansen) wrote in message . com...
NoHoverStop wrote in message ...
Franz Geff wrote:
Has any other country had success with a Ramjet or Scramjet???

Depends what you mean by "success"; no-one's flying them commercially
yet. However: http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/hyshot/default.htm

The story that they succesfully flight tested a scramjet seems to be
well accepted, but are the test data peer rewieved and the scientific
community in agreement with this conclusion?

I am also wondering if there exist any conseptual ideas for useful
application of such an engine . I imagine one would need considerable
boosting just to get a vehicle from 'runay mode' and into 'working
mode', and that the prices of the once so impressive Concorde flights
would be dwarfed by orders of magnitude if passenger/payload traffic
is considered.

I like it though. No moving parts :-)

.fh

Most of the schemes rely on the device opperating as a ramjet and then
changing the Geometry from ramjet to scramjet mode as speed excedes
about Mach 4.5 -Mach 5.5.

There is a type of ramjet called an inductor ramjet. This has a small
rocket motor in the central supersonic diffuser spike. Below
opperating speed the rocket fires producing a small amount of thrust
but also inducing an airflow sufficient to opperate as a ramjet at
zero speed. Specific impulse when the Germans tested it in the
1930/1940 is about 800 which is about twice that of a LOH/LOX rocket
but half that of a turbofan with reheat. (At that time they were
interested in rockets to get started and coal dust as fuel)

These tests seem to be have an redculouse aura of PR hype. Everything
from the synthetic and hysterionic whooping in the control center to
the schmaltzy hypersonic airliners cartoons. The only use for this
will be putting loads into orbit.

X43 is trying to do a few other things. It is trying to integrate the
forbody of the vehicle as part of the scramjet intake i.e
precompression and the afterbody of the vehicle as the engine nozzle
while also making the body a lifting body. It's all tall order to
integrate all three but they have to be integrated because scramjets
just don't work well enough on their own. The wedge shapped nose has
to be agressively cooled by hydrogen.

Personaly I think a two stage to orbit vehicle with a 100% reusable
flyback booster is a better direction to go.

Eunometic wrote:
X43 is trying to do a few other things. It is trying to integrate the
forbody of the vehicle as part of the scramjet intake i.e
precompression and the afterbody of the vehicle as the engine nozzle
while also making the body a lifting body. It's all tall order to
integrate all three but they have to be integrated because scramjets
just don't work well enough on their own. The wedge shapped nose has
to be agressively cooled by hydrogen.

The problem with hydrogen is that it isn't very dense so you can't carry
much fuel and the problem with hydrocarbons is that the air flows
through the scramjet engine too quickly for these fuels to burn.

The X-43C will use hydrocarbon fuel for cooling and the heat breaks the
fuel down so it can burn quickly enough to provide thrust in the engine.

-HJC

Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...
Eunometic wrote:
X43 is trying to do a few other things. It is trying to integrate the
forbody of the vehicle as part of the scramjet intake i.e
precompression and the afterbody of the vehicle as the engine nozzle
while also making the body a lifting body. It's all tall order to
integrate all three but they have to be integrated because scramjets
just don't work well enough on their own. The wedge shapped nose has
to be agressively cooled by hydrogen.

The problem with hydrogen is that it isn't very dense so you can't carry
much fuel and the problem with hydrocarbons is that the air flows
through the scramjet engine too quickly for these fuels to burn.

The X-43C will use hydrocarbon fuel for cooling and the heat breaks the
fuel down so it can burn quickly enough to provide thrust in the engine.

-HJC

Thanks, presumably that was the X-43A we just saw. What I don't
understand is how they will prevent coking and pyrolising of the fuel.
I can understand hydrocarbones breaking down into hydrogen but carbon
vapour?

The concept is a little reminiscent of an inductor ramjet the Germans
tested in the 1930s/40s which instead of using a central rocket engine
to induce the airflow in the main body of the ramjet used a heat
exchanger wrapped around the body of the ramjet to produce a high
pressure vapour. The high pressure vapour was injected to provide
stationary thrust and induce and airfow:- it was hot enought to self
ignite. ( a fired vaporiser was used to start the process up)

The X-43C seems similar however it recovers the heat not of combustion
but of hypersonic heating the forebody of the vehicle

In article , "Franz
Geff" wrote:




Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well
worth
the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea

Many of the details of how to repeat the experiments at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki could be gleaned from the remnants. It would be especially
difficult, however, to glean the details of how to put the mushroom
cloud back into the nice shiny metal ball.

"Franz Geff" wrote in message
. com...

This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough this
missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
France).

It was publicly stated that NASA would NOT even try and recover the jet
for
budgetary reasons and would abondon it, it would give anyone retrieving
the
X-43 the following information (at the very least):
- The materials neccessary for hypersonic flight (titanium, composites,
etc)
- The aerodynamic design
- The engine design
- Some of the onboard computer information if it is retrievable

Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well worth
the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea ...


Lets try and provide you with a a clue

1) The Pacific is BIG

2) The Pacific is DEEP

3) The missile is SMALL

Review the efforts the USA had to make when they tried
to raise a Soviet Submarine from the Pacific and then bear
in mind they knew pretty much where to look and the thing they
were looking for was MUCH bigger.

Keith

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:14:07 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


"Franz Geff" wrote in message
.com...

This missile was allowed to glide into the Pacific. Strangely enough this
missile could be retrieved by the a foreign government (Russia, China or
France).

It was publicly stated that NASA would NOT even try and recover the jet
for
budgetary reasons and would abondon it, it would give anyone retrieving
the
X-43 the following information (at the very least):
- The materials neccessary for hypersonic flight (titanium, composites,
etc)
- The aerodynamic design
- The engine design
- Some of the onboard computer information if it is retrievable

Thus MANY of the details of how to REPEAT this experiment can be GLEANED
from simply retrieve the X-43 from the Ocean bed. This would be well worth
the risk to any foreign power. So I think that was not the wisest idea ...


Lets try and provide you with a a clue

1) The Pacific is BIG

2) The Pacific is DEEP

3) The missile is SMALL

Review the efforts the USA had to make when they tried
to raise a Soviet Submarine from the Pacific and then bear
in mind they knew pretty much where to look and the thing they
were looking for was MUCH bigger.

Keith


They *did* manage to find four MK28 bombs though, though I don't
recall if it was in the Atlantic or Med.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 16:14:07 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:



They *did* manage to find four MK28 bombs though, though I don't
recall if it was in the Atlantic or Med.


It was at Palomares Spain and 3 of the weapons came down on land.

The fourth came down just offshore, the location of the accident
was well known and it was in shallow coastal waters and the
USN deployed a large recovery force.

It still took take the best part of 3 MONTHS to find that
one weapon. A number of weapons have been lost
in mid ocean incidents involving B-36 and B-47 aircraft
and none were recovered.

Keith