• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NASA Hypersonic Scramjet goes BOOM

This is what the fourth? project Nasa has lost? Don't get me wrong I think they are doing a good job overall, but I think we need a little more competition in the Space Race.
 
Could we PLEASE get some Russian rocket scientists over to this country to show us how to build some f$%$ing rockets??? Ours just suck so bad it's not even funny.

:|
 


<< Could we PLEASE get some Russian rocket scientists over to this country to show us how to build some f$%$ing rockets??? Ours just suck so bad it's not even funny.

:| >>



I guess you are right to some extent.
 
Major bummer. There's another couple hundred million out of the taxpayers' pockets.

*sigh*

At least this is money better spent then 10 million studying the mating rituals of the fruit fly.
 
hehe, he is sorta right. Russians can teach americans a thing or two about space.

Luckily it was the carrier, not the actual Prototype that crashed (I guess they can build one in several months)

You should change the title, it made me think that the actual X34 had failed...
 
Uhm.. that did not cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, are you smoking crack?

IT WAS A PROTOTYPE. Not the real thing. Millions at best.

IMO, **WELL** worth it, NASA needs to be funded a hell of a lot more. Take away some welfare to those on it constantly (mandate a 2 year benefit limit cap or something. people living off welfare their entire lives is just f-in insane.), and give it to science projects like this.

-Phil
 
Sigh, it's sad to see we lost something so amazing over a rocket, and not the prototye itself. The prototype blowing up is progress, the rocket blowing up was pitiful.🙁
 
lol, sure... the russians have never failed before... lol. they just keep most of their failures and human casualties under wraps.

both agencies suck, but atleast nasa doesn't hide facts... as much. 😉
 


<< lol, sure... the russians have never failed before... lol. they just keep most of their failures and human casualties under wraps.

both agencies suck, but atleast nasa doesn't hide facts... as much. 😉 >>



they've failed, but not as often as americans



I really do think that if the Russian Space Agency was given the same budget as NASA, they'd do better.
 
AndrewR and Pyro;

What, you need to have someone shake you after you're done?

The Russians have been using the same rocket(s) for 40+ years, That's why their rockets rarely fail. They don't push the envelope. They use what their fathers and grandfathers designed and built.

It's so sad to see so many American pups fail to recognize that research doesn't directly equate to instant reliability.

Las Vegas is an important and telling part of Americana. You gotta be willing to take the gamble, to risk losing as well as winning, to move beyond your comforting security blanket and teddy bear.

Grow up and take a hint.
 
Or the Chinese who invented rockets.

It's not what you've got, it's what you do with it.
 


<< The first of three planned hypersonic free flights of NASA's scramjet-propelled X-43A hypersonic experimental research aircraft is on schedule for mid-day Saturday, June 2. Weather permitting, NASA's B-52 launch aircraft, carrying the X-43A and its Pegasus booster rocket will take off from Edwards Air Force Base, CA, at about 3 p.m. EDT. Launch of the booster and X-43A stack is set for about 4:30 p.m. EDT. After separation from the booster at an altitude of 95,000 feet, the X-43A will fly briefly at speeds of about Mach 7--powered by its revolutionary supersonic-combustion ramjet engine--before descending for spashdown in the Pacific Ocean some 10 minutes later. Live launch coverage on NASA Television begins at 6:30 a.m. EDT. This flight is part of NASA's multi-year experimental hypersonic ground and flight test program, called Hyper-X, to demonstrate &quot;air-breathing&quot; engine technologies that promise to increase payload capacity--or reduce vehicle size--for future hypersonic aircraft and/or reusable space launch vehicles. >>


Pity 🙁

Here's an explantation for the mishap on NASA's site:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Projects/hyperx/developments.html
 
Certain evidence that the detracting 'local experts' in this thread suffer insufficient subject comprehension.

The failure was in a mature, tested and experienced system, not in the experimental components.

It's so good to observe people who know what they are talking about talk.

 
well, I hope That the project recovers soon. NASA really does need more funding...


I was quite mad when they shut down the X-33, you know, that next generation relaunchable vehicle.
 
NASA needs to be funded much better. $20 says that the booster rocket was bult by the lowest bidder.
 
UG you are partly correct.

The Russians have been using the same rocket(s) for 40+ years, That's why their rockets rarely fail. They don't push the envelope. They use what their fathers and grandfathers designed and built.

that's because their rockets satisfy nearly any demand they throw at them. you can't say the same about anything NASA has. Ever wonder why Russia has the most powerful rockets (or at least used to, things could have changed since I last checked)? part of the reason is that they needed more power to get to orbit then the USA did, becuase the US's launch site was closer to the equater.

Also, Russia's first Atomic bombs were much heavier then the American counterparts, so, they had to have better rockets..

Power wise, they have been the best in the world for a LOOONNNG time. they haven't NEEDED new technology.

It's so sad to see so many American pups fail to recognize that research doesn't directly equate to instant reliability.

true

HOWEVER, it wasn't even the experimental design that failed on them, but rather the booster (it was a Pegasus rocket). from NFS4's link:

malfunction occurred about five seconds after ignition of the Pegasus motor that caused the Hyper-X stack (Hyper-X vehicle and booster) to depart from controlled flight.

in other words, it was 'tried tested and true' technology that failed them. meaning either the technology was bad, or the pre-flight checkout wasn't thorough. normally if something can be spotted before pre-flight checkout, you are more likely to spot it if you had more funding (more engineers, technicians etc., going over the rocket).

that's also why I worry about the Space Shuttle's safety, becuase funding has been decreased, and the schedule hasn't slackened off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top