Mach 7!

[Dylan Smith]

It's good to see that despite all the naysayers, NASA still does
incredibly cool things. I watched the X-43A successfully launch on NASA
tv over the Internet, and it turns out that they got Mach 7 out of an
aircraft powered by an air-breathing engine.

Good to see new research like this into aviation. (Not to mention the
success of the Spirit and Opportunity Mars missions).

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Jay Honeck]

> Good to see new research like this into aviation. (Not to mention the
> success of the Spirit and Opportunity Mars missions).

Yeah, despite everything our electorate and politicians have tried to do to
them, NASA is still the best and the brightest -- thank goodness!

Do you have an URL for NASA tv?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:04:32 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Do you have an URL for NASA tv?

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

#m
--
A far-reaching proposal from the FBI (...) would require all broadband
Internet providers, including cable modem and DSL companies, to rewire
their networks to support easy wiretapping by police.
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-5172948.html

[Dan Luke]

"Dylan Smith" wrote:
> I watched the X-43A successfully launch on NASA
> tv over the Internet, and it turns out that they got
> Mach 7 out of an aircraft powered by an
> air-breathing engine.

Extremely cool video.

Did you notice, as the rocket exhaust trail faded, that the vehicle
appeared to follow a very slightly spiral-shaped track? Wonder what
that was about.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Mike Rapoport]

While I am a fan of the X43, it is not clear from what I have read that the
vehicle accelerated or even maintained velocity after separation from the
booster. All they are saying is that the engine "operated". If it was
going M7.0 at separation and M5.0 when the hydrogen ran out, then it is a
lot less impressive.

Mike
MU-2


"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> It's good to see that despite all the naysayers, NASA still does
> incredibly cool things. I watched the X-43A successfully launch on NASA
> tv over the Internet, and it turns out that they got Mach 7 out of an
> aircraft powered by an air-breathing engine.
>
> Good to see new research like this into aviation. (Not to mention the
> success of the Spirit and Opportunity Mars missions).
>
> --
> Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
> Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
> "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[kage]

***If it was going M7.0 at separation and M5.0 when the hydrogen ran out,
then it is a lot less impressive.****

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...


Mike, I doubt the B-52 was Mach 7 at separation! More like M0.7.

Karl

[Dennis O'Connor]

The report I read is that the X43 did accellerate after the engine fired....
The development team is walking around 6 feet off the ground right now...
That is something to have a Mach 7 wind going through the combustion chamber
and not blow the fire out... Next flight is planned for Mach 10...
denny
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> While I am a fan of the X43, it is not clear from what I have read that
the
> vehicle accelerated or even maintained velocity after separation from the
> booster. All they are saying is that the engine "operated". If it was
> going M7.0 at separation and M5.0 when the hydrogen ran out, then it is a
> lot less impressive.
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
>
> "Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > It's good to see that despite all the naysayers, NASA still does
> > incredibly cool things. I watched the X-43A successfully launch on NASA
> > tv over the Internet, and it turns out that they got Mach 7 out of an
> > aircraft powered by an air-breathing engine.
> >
> > Good to see new research like this into aviation. (Not to mention the
> > success of the Spirit and Opportunity Mars missions).
> >
> > --
> > Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
> > Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
> > Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
> > "Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"
>
>

[Mike Rapoport]

Karl, presumably when the X43 separated from the Pegasus booser at 95,000'
it was going faster than M0.7.

Mike
MU-2


"kage" > wrote in message
...
> ***If it was going M7.0 at separation and M5.0 when the hydrogen ran out,
> then it is a lot less impressive.****
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>
> Mike, I doubt the B-52 was Mach 7 at separation! More like M0.7.
>
> Karl
>
>

[Lisa]

Dylan Smith wrote:

> It's good to see that despite all the naysayers, NASA still does
> incredibly cool things. I watched the X-43A successfully launch on NASA
> tv over the Internet, and it turns out that they got Mach 7 out of an
> aircraft powered by an air-breathing engine.
>
> Good to see new research like this into aviation. (Not to mention the
> success of the Spirit and Opportunity Mars missions).

What happened to the plane after it ditched into the ocean as planned?
Did they try to recover it (successfully?) or did it sink to the bottom?

[John T]

"Lisa" > wrote in message

>
> What happened to the plane after it ditched into the ocean as planned?
> Did they try to recover it (successfully?) or did it sink to the
> bottom?


Calling it a plane is a bit of a stretch. :)

There are (were?) three of these testbed aircraft to be built. The first
one was destroyed when the booster rocket veered off course. The second one
was flown successfully and "ditched" in the Pacific as planned.

None of the aircraft were expected to be recovered as I understand it. They
were designed to test the concept of the scramjet and provide engineers all
their data via telemetry only.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Dan Luke]

"John T" wrote:
> Calling it a plane is a bit of a stretch. :)

Why?

[John T]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

>
>> Calling it a plane is a bit of a stretch. :)
>
> Why?

I admit it's as much opinion as anything else, but I hesitate to call the
X-43 a plane for the same reason I rather not call the Predator or the
Global Hawk planes. "Plane" brings to mind "humans in the aircraft and at
the controls". I think "aircraft" would be more appropriate - and even NASA
refers to the X-43 as "aircraft" and not "plane".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[G.R. Patterson III]

John T wrote:
>
> I admit it's as much opinion as anything else, but I hesitate to call the
> X-43 a plane for the same reason I rather not call the Predator or the
> Global Hawk planes. "Plane" brings to mind "humans in the aircraft and at
> the controls". I think "aircraft" would be more appropriate - and even NASA
> refers to the X-43 as "aircraft" and not "plane".

Odd definition. An airplane is any aircraft that uses the planing principle to fly.
They shove air down with planing surfaces, such as wings. Doesn't matter if they're
manned or not.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

[Mike Rapoport]

Also I'm not sure of the practicality of an airplane with an engine that
won't start below 95,000' and over 3000kts!

Mike
MU-2

"John T" > wrote in message
ws.com...
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
>
> >
> >> Calling it a plane is a bit of a stretch. :)
> >
> > Why?
>
> I admit it's as much opinion as anything else, but I hesitate to call the
> X-43 a plane for the same reason I rather not call the Predator or the
> Global Hawk planes. "Plane" brings to mind "humans in the aircraft and at
> the controls". I think "aircraft" would be more appropriate - and even
NASA
> refers to the X-43 as "aircraft" and not "plane".
>
> --
> John T
> http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
> http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
> ____________________
>
>

[gerrcoin]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> Also I'm not sure of the practicality of an airplane with an engine that
> won't start below 95,000' and over 3000kts!
>
> Mike
> MU-2
>
> "John T" > wrote in message
> ws.com...
>
>>"Dan Luke" > wrote in message

>>
>>>>Calling it a plane is a bit of a stretch. :)
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>>I admit it's as much opinion as anything else, but I hesitate to call the
>>X-43 a plane for the same reason I rather not call the Predator or the
>>Global Hawk planes. "Plane" brings to mind "humans in the aircraft and at
>>the controls". I think "aircraft" would be more appropriate - and even
>
> NASA
>
>>refers to the X-43 as "aircraft" and not "plane".
>>
>>--
>>John T
>>http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
>>http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
>>____________________
>>

The technology being developed is supposed to be the replacement to
the large rocket method of delivery for low earth orbit. It's going to
be a hybrid system probably using a piggy-back launch followed by
ram-jet to get to Mach 3+ where the scramjet comes online.

The scramjet is meant for use in the upper stratosphere and works
pretty well there, not as well as rockets maybe but at least you don't
have to carry your oxygen around with you which makes it a little more
efficient.

[David CL Francis]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 at 03:47:33 in message
m>, John T
> wrote:

>I admit it's as much opinion as anything else, but I hesitate to call the
>X-43 a plane for the same reason I rather not call the Predator or the
>Global Hawk planes. "Plane" brings to mind "humans in the aircraft and at
>the controls". I think "aircraft" would be more appropriate - and even NASA
>refers to the X-43 as "aircraft" and not "plane".

To me a 'plane' means a flat surface or a tool used by carpenters. I
respond better to 'aircraft' or 'aeroplane'. ;-)
--
David CL Francis