PDA

View Full Version : How We Might Have Scramjets Sooner than Expected


Ters
12-13-2007, 07:53 PM
The Hypersonic Age is Near

Michael Belfiore

Last March, engineers from Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) gathered in the control room of a high-temperature tunnel at NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia. After a countdown, a jet of blue flame fueled by methane gas roared down the 12-foot length of the tunnel. A low rumble crept into the control room. It sounded like a rocket firing, which actually wasn't far from the truth.

"Okay to inject," a test director announced when the flame had reached full force. An angular pedestal covered in bolted copper plates rose from the floor of the chamber, placing an experimental scramjet engine called the X-1 into the inferno. "AOA modulating," called the test director as the engine tilted slightly. "Model on centerline." Then, "We are in ignition." And with that, an exhaust flame even hotter than the 2,000°F-plus methane jet around it began to dance behind the activated engine, growing brighter as it ramped up to full thrust. After one minute, the engine shut down and descended through the floor.

The test was part of the X-51A Flight Test Program, a research project funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), the Pentagon's research arm. The X-51A project is, in turn, one piece of a global effort—part collaboration, part race—to build jet-powered aircraft that fly as fast as rocket ships. And the technology that will make this breakthrough possible is the scramjet, an engine that inhales air at tremendous speeds, squeezes the air until it's thousands of degrees hot, and then mixes that air with fuel to generate massive thrust at higher speeds than any other jet-engine design.

The X-1 scramjet engine, which will eventually power the X-51A aircraft, is the most advanced scramjet engine ever built. The blowtorch blasting through the chamber was meant to simulate the extreme heat generated by flying faster than Mach 6. In all, the team at Langley would repeat this test 44 times. "We tested it at Mach 4.6, 5.0 and 6.5," says Curtis Berger, the X-51A program manager at PWR. "The amount of time that this thing was actually running and creating thrust was just about 17.8 minutes." He pauses to let that sink in. "Over 17 minutes of time on this engine. That's a lot of time for a scramjet engine."

To put things in context, the world's fastest jet, the Air Force's SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, set a speed record of Mach 3.3 in 1990 when it flew from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., in just over an hour. That's about the limit for jet engines; the fastest fighter planes barely crack Mach 1.6. Scramjets, on the other hand, can theoretically fly as fast as Mach 15—nearly 10,000 mph.

This could mean two-hour flights from New York to Sydney. It could also mean missiles capable of hitting targets on another continent at a moment's notice, and when you put it that way, it's not surprising that militaries around the world—the U.S., Australia, China and perhaps others—are trying to build them. After decades on the drawing board, it seems scramjet technology is finally about to arrive.

A Match in a Hurricane
Ordinary jets have a major limitation: They can't go faster than Mach 3 without their turbine blades melting. Rocket ships can reach Mach 25, but they have to carry tremendous amounts of liquid oxygen to burn their fuel. The space shuttle, for example, weighs only 165,000 pounds empty, but it must carry 226,000 pounds of liquid hydrogen and 1.4 million pounds of liquid oxygen to reach orbit.

An air-breathing jet engine with no moving, meltable parts, such as a scramjet, can solve these problems. A scramjet is an advanced form of a "ramjet," an engine that takes the air rushing into the engine and "rams" it into the combustion chamber, creating intense pressures that can sustain combustion at the furious rate that Mach-3-plus speeds demand. But ramjets have limits too. The air entering the engine has to be slowed to subsonic speeds for it to run efficiently. And that air is so hot that no matter what measures are taken to cool it, a ramjet-powered craft must stay under Mach 5 to keep from disintegrating.

But a scramjet—a "supersonic combustion ramjet"—changes things. A scramjet does away with the diffuser that a ramjet uses to slow down incoming air, allowing the air to move through the engine at supersonic speeds so it can fly above Mach 5. The tradeoff: A scramjet engine in flight is a delicate system. Achieving balanced combustion at those speeds is an engineering challenge often compared to keeping a match lit in a hurricane.

So far, the most public scramjet project has been the National Aerospace Plane, or NASP. Unfortunately, it was a spectacular failure. Announcing the project in his 1986 State of the Union address, President Reagan called it "a new Orient Express" that would be able to reach Tokyo from Dulles Airport in two hours; the goal was to have it running by the late 1990s. NASP was meant to be all things to all customers—America's next space shuttle as well as the Air Force's next bomber and the next big thing in passenger travel. But by 1994, it appeared that research had stalled, and President Clinton canceled NASP. That might have been a good thing. "We didn't stop our research," says Charlie Brink, a scramjet program manager at the Propulsion Directorate at the Air Force Research Laboratory. "We reevaluated it and said: Now that we're not trying to make a Mach-0-to-25 vehicle take off from a runway, let's take the technical problem and break it down into more manageable chunks."

"What you're seeing now is a transition of the technology out of the laboratories into the flight-test domain," says David Van Wie, a scramjet research scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. Armed with a new understanding of hypersonic aerodynamics and air-breathing propulsion, Van Wie says, "it's really to the point that people who work in the field feel they're ready to take the steps into flight test, experimentation and demonstration."

Escape from the Lab
In 2002, Australian researchers with the HyShot program at the University of Queensland's Centre for Hypersonics made history by conducting the world's first scramjet "flight." They strapped a small scramjet engine into the nose cone of a solid-fuel rocket and launched it to the edge of space. Then, some 200 miles up, the rocket dropped off, the scramjet shed its protective fairing and, as planned, nosed over and plummeted back toward Earth at thousands of miles an hour. At an altitude of 20 miles, the scramjet engine kicked in, firing for five seconds and reaching Mach 7.6, or more than 5,000 mph, before slamming into the ground. It wasn't graceful, but it was a historic achievement and a scientific success—a low-cost way to gather data from a scramjet while subjecting it to brutal heat and incredible velocity outside of a wind tunnel.

Since then, a loose federation of researchers from NASA, the Air Force, the Navy, Darpa and the University of Queensland, working on a variety of projects, has conducted a number of tests outside the lab. So far, no engine has pulled off more than a few seconds of sustained flight. But there have been major breakthroughs along the way. In 2004, NASA's unmanned X-43A—a disposable, rocket-boosted craft that was launched from a moving airplane—reached Mach 9.6, setting the world speed record for a jet-powered aircraft. It took only 10 seconds of scramjet power to get it up to that speed. And HyCause, the program that succeeded HyShot, conducted tests in Australia last summer that reached Mach 10, but only for three seconds.

A scramjet that can stay lit for several minutes could power a hypersonic long-range missile. That, at least, is the idea behind a joint Darpa and Navy project called Hypersonics Flight Demonstration, or HyFly. Last fall, the program carried out the latest in a series of test flights in which a scramjet was dropped from an F-15 fighter jet off Point Mugu in California and boosted to operating speed by rocket. The goal was to reach Mach 6 and keep the scramjet going for 100 seconds or more. (It didn't make it that time, but the tests will continue, program officials say.)

A payload-carrying, piloted craft that can take off and land under its own power will need an engine that can produce power for a lot longer than 100 seconds, though. Breaking that barrier is the goal of the X-51A Flight Test Program, whose engineers spent much of last year torching its X-1 engine design in Langley's high-temperature test tunnel. So far, the X-1 has had to take more punishment than any scramjet engine ever built. It's made of a steel-nickel alloy that stays strong up to 2,100°F, and its leading edges are coated in a heat-resistant carbon mesh. Even these materials aren't enough, though, so the X-1's engineers borrowed a technique from rocket designers, who typically circulate fuel—in this case, the same petroleum-based jet fuel that powered the SR-71—along channels within the engine's walls before it enters the combustor. This both cools the 3,000°F-plus combustor and preconditions the fuel, turning it into a hot gas that packs 10 percent more energy than it does in liquid form.

The X-51A's target is five minutes of uninterrupted scramjet-powered flight. If it works, longer-burning scramjets should quickly follow."


Source: Popular Science (http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/a3bfe2e6fb5c6110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html)

Long article. Rest won't fit.

raisin-gun
12-13-2007, 09:08 PM
summarize please

That NOS Guy
12-13-2007, 09:21 PM
We wuld've had this a lot sooner had Kennedy not been elected. He appointed Satan as Secretary of Defense, and that thing cancelled the B-70 Valkyrie. If SAC just kept going higher and faster, then scramjets would've been around a lot sooner.

Sky is Over
12-13-2007, 11:05 PM
Hmmm, I'm glad to see that my branch has some inolvement in this military advancement. :amuse

Peccas
12-14-2007, 10:07 AM
thats real cool

drache
12-14-2007, 04:33 PM
We wuld've had this a lot sooner had Kennedy not been elected. He appointed Satan as Secretary of Defense, and that thing cancelled the B-70 Valkyrie. If SAC just kept going higher and faster, then scramjets would've been around a lot sooner.

That's not completely accurate and at the time scram jets were a shot in the air, it was only later that several technologies matured to the point where one could seriously consider it.

T4R0K
12-14-2007, 05:00 PM
Shit... I'm having a boner. That news is very promising !!

That NOS Guy
12-14-2007, 05:32 PM
That's not completely accurate and at the time scram jets were a shot in the air, it was only later that several technologies matured to the point where one could seriously consider it.

No, not really. By the end of the 1950s, advanced supersonic ramjets were being studied and tested. Things like Project PLUTO/SLAM (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html)

The cancellation of the B-70 also meant an end to the "Higher and faster" era of SAC and shifted an emphasis to ICBMs and low level attacks. Thus, the impedius to expand on this already existing research into the area of scramjets was lost, resulting in a protacted development hell which is only recently being rectifed. It's highly likely that had the manned high speed high altitude not been abandoned this avenue of research would have recieved much more attention earlier on (early 1970s). Technologies have a habit of muturing faster when more time and money are put into reasearching them.

McNamera is the biggest cocksucker to ever take a cabinet post. Seriously, if I could remove one person from history it's him.

drache
12-14-2007, 05:49 PM
No, not really. By the end of the 1950s, advanced supersonic ramjets were being studied and tested. Things like Project PLUTO/SLAM (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html)

The cancellation of the B-70 also meant an end to the "Higher and faster" era of SAC and shifted an emphasis to ICBMs and low level attacks. Thus, the impedius to expand on this already existing research into the area of scramjets was lost, resulting in a protacted development hell which is only recently being rectifed. It's highly likely that had the manned high speed high altitude not been abandoned this avenue of research would have recieved much more attention earlier on (early 1970s). Technologies have a habit of muturing faster when more time and money are put into reasearching them.

McNamera is the biggest cocksucker to ever take a cabinet post. Seriously, if I could remove one person from history it's him.

Link doesn't work.

The higher and faster thing though was a military decesion (as I understood it) because the soviets should they could defeat 'higher and faster' thus it was a reasonable decesion.

You're right about the money thing and who knows maybe if we had poured money into scram jets we'd be colonizing the moon; but I don't deal with what ifs, there's too many possiblities and you can't cover them all.

Vom Osten
12-14-2007, 05:50 PM
No, not really. By the end of the 1950s, advanced supersonic ramjets were being studied and tested. Things like Project PLUTO/SLAM (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html)

The cancellation of the B-70 also meant an end to the "Higher and faster" era of SAC and shifted an emphasis to ICBMs and low level attacks. Thus, the impedius to expand on this already existing research into the area of scramjets was lost, resulting in a protacted development hell which is only recently being rectifed. It's highly likely that had the manned high speed high altitude not been abandoned this avenue of research would have recieved much more attention earlier on (early 1970s). Technologies have a habit of muturing faster when more time and money are put into reasearching them.

McNamera is the biggest cocksucker to ever take a cabinet post. Seriously, if I could remove one person from history it's him.

Not even Hitler?

That NOS Guy
12-14-2007, 06:47 PM
Link doesn't work.

Odd, but here you go: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/slam.html


The higher and faster thing though was a military decesion (as I understood it) because the soviets should they could defeat 'higher and faster' thus it was a reasonable decesion.

Hardly. SAMs could not catch a Mach 3 target at 70,000+ feet at the time. They had problems hitting the lower and subsonic U-2 (they wasted 19 SA-2s, hit one of their own MiGs by mistake, and barely caught Powers), much less one that's evading, has a defensive missile suite, and is pumping out ECM all the while going at that speed. Hell, they didn't hit the SR-71 and that didn't pump out ECM or use a DAMS (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/pyewacket.html).

MacNamara and his cronies killed the B-70 because they couldn't do simple math and decided that missiles were cheaper, had higher ready rates (hell no), and other insane nonsense. Among them the decesion to build up a massive conventional force that was used in Vietnam. It's his goddamn fault we got involved in that war since he pushed for the force structure that enabled it, and then didn't want to use SAC firepower to decide it until too late.


You're right about the money thing and who knows maybe if we had poured money into scram jets we'd be colonizing the moon; but I don't deal with what ifs, there's too many possiblities and you can't cover them all.

Actually, someone has already done it for me. Do yourself a favor and check out The Big One (http://www.amazon.com/Big-One-Stuart-Slade/dp/1430304952/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197672170&sr=8-3) and it's universe. It's quite literally the most well-researched and plausible what if? novel series ever written.


Not even Hitler?

Yes, as much as I want to say otherwise. Removing Hitler doesn't solve too many problems as I think that World War II is inevtiable.

Removing MacNamara from existance makes it so America stays strategic centric, doesn't sacrifice her lead to the Soviets, gets more space assets, and doesn't go about fighting wars like Vietnam and Iraq. Feel free to disagree.

meenmu
12-15-2007, 12:03 AM
I remember reading this article in the magazine, really cool ;)

drache
12-15-2007, 12:09 AM
@ the links:well you learn something new every day.

I'll have to reread what I have on the history of scram jets it seems.

maximilyan
12-15-2007, 06:46 PM
someone post a pic of this scramjet please.