X-43 - Has anyone else done it?

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.

Keith Willshaw wrote:

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.

A local fisherman told the USN that the bomb went down "there". The
admiral in charge of the recovery told the fisherman to bugger off,
"we'll find it". After several weeks of searching guess where the USN
found the bomb.



--
Jim

carry on




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

From: "Keith Willshaw"


"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


A fisherman had seen that bomb come down. He took noted landmarks which helped
in the search.

Bear in mind the Titanic hit the bottom miles from where it sank. The deeper
the water the bigger the search area. Currents and cross currents make
predictions difficult at best.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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

The X-43 would have hit the water at a fair clip and likely been
bent and torn apart. The shaping is all important, to pretty tight
tolerances and probably can not be determined from the remains
of the X-43. If it could be determined, it would tell them the
shape for a missile 12 foot long, scaling is not obviously linear.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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

The X-43 would have hit the water at a fair clip and likely been
bent and torn apart. The shaping is all important, to pretty tight
tolerances and probably can not be determined from the remains
of the X-43. If it could be determined, it would tell them the
shape for a missile 12 foot long, scaling is not obviously linear.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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

The X-43 would have hit the water at a fair clip and likely been
bent and torn apart. The shaping is all important, to pretty tight
tolerances and probably can not be determined from the remains
of the X-43. If it could be determined, it would tell them the
shape for a missile 12 foot long, scaling is not obviously linear.

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"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

The X-43 would have hit the water at a fair clip and likely been
bent and torn apart. The shaping is all important, to pretty tight
tolerances and probably can not be determined from the remains
of the X-43. If it could be determined, it would tell them the
shape for a missile 12 foot long, scaling is not obviously linear.

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 :-)

Scott Ferrin wrote in message . ..
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.

Not from a Topal, but from the SS-19.

Reference the Russia/France joint IGLA project:

The following papers including the project IGLA (AIAA-2003-5250), can
be found at the following website:

11th AIAA / AAAF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies

AIAA-2002-5250

http://hypersonic2002.aaaf.asso.fr/received.html

http://hypersonic2002.aaaf.asso.fr/papers/17_5250.pdf

Some very interesting papers also appear on the website on the subject
of hypersonic vehicles.

TJ

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