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

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 06:24:58 GMT, "Franz Geff"
wrote:

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).

Russia and France supposedly launched one on the nose of an SA-5.

Russia supposedly flew a scramjet powered RV on a Topal a month or two
ago.







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.

Hardly. The military is already going a different route with
scramjets. The X-43A uses hydrogen fuel. The stuff the military
wants to use uses hydrocarbon fuel (don't know if it's regular jet
fuel) and uses it to cool the airframe and uses the airframe heat to
breakdown the fuel molecules before feeding them into the engine.
It's already been tested albeit in a wind tunnel. Not only that the
X-43A's engine ran for a grand total of about seven seconds. That and
the need for a big ass booster to get it to speed so the scramjet
could start up makes it completely useless as a weapon.





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.

At the rate they're going I'd guess more like 30 to 40 years. Hell it
will be 20 before a Shuttle replacement is flying. And that dinky
space plane proposal they have out there is not a Shuttle replacement.



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).

I doubt they'd bother. I'd be surprised if there were anything on the
vehicle in the way of materials or geometry that isn't already well
known and publicly available.





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 ...

If you could make materials or come up with a way of cooling that
would allow you to run up to orbital or escape velocity while in the
atmosphere with enough extra for the coast out then sure. With the
X-30 they were trying a lot of active cooling with LH2 and in the end
they still figured they'd need a rocket to give it the final boost
into orbit. They never specified how they were going to get to
scramjet speeds in the first place with it. Look up "strut jet" if
you want to see something that will get you from the ground to space
with one engine. In theory anyway :-)

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.

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 06:24:58 GMT, "Franz Geff"
wrote:

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).

Interesting article...

http://www.americanscientist.org/tem...?assetid=14779

--
Kulvinder Singh Matharu
Contact details : http://www.metalvortex.com/form/form.htm
Website : http://www.metalvortex.com/

"It ain't Coca Cola, it's rice" - The Clash

"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

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"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




I also remember in the late '70s when they lost an F-14 overboard from a
carrier. They were even more worried about the Phoenix getting into
Soviet hands (they didn't yet know that it would happen a couple of
years later with the downfall of the Shah). They had to find both the
F-14 and the Phoenix, which separated from the aircraft. Both were
found, but only after a massive search that used both surface-based
sonar (sidescan?) and the NR-1 and Alvin.