Crashed X-51A Test Results Released 48
cylonlover writes "The United States Air Force (USAF) has released the results of last August's third test of the X-51a Waverider, which resulted in the crash of the unmanned scramjet demonstrator. At a press teleconference featuring the Program Manager for Air Force Research Laboratory, Charles Brink, it was confirmed that a malfunctioning fin was the cause of the crash. However, engineers are confident of correcting the fault in time for the fourth test flight scheduled for (Northern Hemisphere) late spring or early summer of next year."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
'All these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there. Use them together. Use them in peace.'
Someone will be by later to revoke your geek card :P
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Says the man who forgot that the book was an adaptation of the screenplay co-written by Clarke and Kubrick and released after the film.
Re: (Score:2)
The book was better.
Re: (Score:2)
All the planets are yours, except Europa.
But it is ok to crash on Europa?
Short Report: (Score:5, Interesting)
This should be easy, no?
1) Procure working torque wrench of sufficient size and strength.
2) *use* the damned thing next time.
I mean, really - not even one page of paper for the summary.
No (Score:5, Informative)
This is not as simple as a loose bolt.
..the upper right-hand fin unlocked and deployed while the booster was still firing...but the booster’s guidance system managed to maintain the proper angle...After the other three fins on the cruiser deployed and powered up, the booster fell away, but the cruiser’s onboard computer couldn't maintain control because the electrically-driven actuator of the fourth fin was damaged or locked in place...
So here is the proper summary:
1. fin deployed early, but that was somewhat okay
2. three more fins deployed normally
3. the last fin did not deploy at all due to an electrical/solenoid problem
So no this would not require a torque wrench, unless you tape a multimeter to it and start whacking the solenoid mid-flight for good measure.
Re: (Score:2)
> unless you tape a multimeter to it and start whacking the solenoid mid-flight for good measure.
That needs to go straight to youtube...
Re:Short Report: (Score:5, Funny)
This should be easy, no?
1) Procure working torque wrench of sufficient size and strength.
Are you kidding? With hammers costing the gov't $600 a pop, how much do you think a "working torque wrench of sufficient size and strength" goes for? It's probably cheaper to just build another X-51.
Re: (Score:1)
And then... (Score:2)
And then you'd get part way done and the government would want it an ounce lighter, 1.23 inches shorter, and .08 inches narrower.
You see, this was not COTS, but custom.
RTFA (Score:4, Interesting)
You're assertion is that the problem is the same as tightening the lug nuts on a car tire. The only lug nuts I see are the ones rattling around in your empty skull.
This aircraft needs to achieve almost Mach 5 before the engine even starts, so it requires an air drop and a rocket booster even to start working. It operates in a test domain that cannot be completely simulated or created in a ground test. This is exactly the kind of failure that can only be encountered by a live lest. You have to build it, fly it, and see if it breaks. There is no other way.
Given you complete lack of technical understanding, I would suggest that you stop wasting people's time on Slashdot and go somewhere more suited to your mental level. I hear that Disney has a lot of nice stuff for children. I think you would fit right in.
Re: (Score:2)
Given you complete lack of technical understanding, I would suggest that you stop wasting people's time on Slashdot and go somewhere more suited to your mental level.
Do you realize you just told 80% of the slashdot readership to fuck off?
It's a start. /. platinum account.
Maybe he should just spring for the
Re: (Score:2)
You're assertion is that the problem is the same as tightening the lug nuts on a car tire.
Your grammar is poor.
Re: (Score:3)
This should be easy, no?
1) Procure working torque wrench of sufficient size and strength.
2) *use* the damned thing next time.
I mean, really - not even one page of paper for the summary.
Wrong tool.
These are Engineers .
If the BFH you used didn't work, get a bigger one.
Re: (Score:3)
Code for:
"I'm sorry I don't understand!"..."Can you put it in simpler English, please?"
Write better English thus:
Learn to paragraph...
Waverider Failed... (Score:1)
X51 (Score:5, Funny)
Jeez, I know slashdot has been ragging on X11 all week... but they're already testing X51?
Re:X51 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you define the acronym if used only once because the acronym is more recognizable to the majority than the fully spelled out term. You use both the full term and the acronym to be certain that everyone can understand what you are referring to.
For example: as a military network guy I immediately recognize the term NIPRNET but you, as a civilian network guy better recognize Non-Classified Internet Protocol Network, or maybe not :-O
Long ago, a malfunction Finn caused crashes... (Score:1)
of my Linux v0.99 box.
Optomists (Score:2)
However, engineers are confident of correcting the fault in time for the fourth test flight
but then
Until the exact cause of the fault is determined it won't be possible to correct it with certainty,
Makes you wonder which statement was intended to keep funding alive and which one was aimed at securing more engineering time in the schedule.