HOME  |  NEWS  |  BLOGS  |  MESSAGES  |  FEATURES  |  VIDEOS  |  WEBINARS  |  INDUSTRIES  |  FOCUS ON FUNDAMENTALS
  |  REGISTER  |  LOGIN  |  HELP
News
Materials & Assembly

Shockwaves Caused Crash of DARPA Hypersonic Aircraft

NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
View Comments: Oldest First|Newest First|Threaded View
Page 1/2  >  >>
williamlweaver
User Rank
Platinum
100x Performance Factor
williamlweaver   4/26/2012 7:41:18 AM
NO RATINGS
I recall several publications and reporters reveling in the "failure" of the HTV-2 test back in August. But the ability to withstand forces 100x greater than design specifications and still manage to deploy a controlled abort should be a success in everybody's metrics. Controlled flight at Mach 20 for 3 minutes should have provided a wealth of telemetry. And these are the unclassified tests.... exciting.

TJ McDermott
User Rank
Blogger
Re: 100x Performance Factor
TJ McDermott   4/26/2012 10:41:33 AM
One learns most from failures.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Why didn't engineers correctly predict shockwaves?
Ann R. Thryft   4/26/2012 2:21:52 PM
NO RATINGS

I guess what's not clear to me is, why was the aircraft designed to withstand shockwaves 100 times LESS strong than it actually experienced? I'm especially surprised since this was apparently the second flight, not the first. Why didn't engineers do a better job of prediction?


Charles Murray
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Why didn't engineers correctly predict shockwaves?
Charles Murray   4/26/2012 8:12:37 PM
NO RATINGS
That's a good question, Ann. The fact that it travelled successfully for three minutes might indicate that the shock wave was a sudden anomaly shortly before it failed (I can't imgine any design standing up to 100X loads for three minutes). Still, it's hard to imagine why no one foresaw a shockwave of this magnitude.

ervin0072002
User Rank
Gold
Re: Why didn't engineers correctly predict shockwaves?
ervin0072002   4/27/2012 9:15:13 AM
NO RATINGS

Hey Ann,

 

The reason is our ability to predict turbulence. Some simulation software has gotten close. But to date we can only predict tested conditions. The facts behind turbulence are still largely guessed and even after a good bit of aviation history we are still working on the kinks. I have been to several meetings with mathematicians that are leaders in this field. It's difficult for them to predict with any great accuracy. Yes 10000% error is outrageous but it's possible in a field we are infants on.

 

Droid
User Rank
Platinum
Re: 100x Performance Factor
Droid   4/27/2012 10:08:33 AM
NO RATINGS
I absolutely agree...this was a fantastic accomplishment.  After all, the whole point of testing something is to determine potential failure modes.  Simulations give us a fantastic set of tools to better predict failure, but there is really no subtitute for an actual real world test.  So often, we discover important variables or interactions that were not anticipated by simulation.

kenish
User Rank
Platinum
Re: 100x Performance Factor
kenish   4/27/2012 12:43:12 PM
NO RATINGS
In the early days of SPICE (circuit simulator), the late Bob Pease had a rant in his weekly column.  He published a circuit to simulate in SPICE and pointed out a certain resistor dissipated negative power!  He said he couldn't wait to put together the real circuit and watch it get colder by the minute.  He speculated on the breakthroughs it would bring to food and beer storage.

Then he got serious and made the point: simulations are a good tool but no substitute for hands-on prototypes.  Of course simulation software has made huge advances in all disciplines but Pease's point still rings true today.

Ann R. Thryft
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Why didn't engineers correctly predict shockwaves?
Ann R. Thryft   4/27/2012 12:43:57 PM
NO RATINGS

Chuck, I was also guessing that the 100x shockwaves might be an anomaly. I just assumed that we knew a lot more about their potential force after all this time, and could therefore compute the relevant loads.


Jerry dycus
User Rank
Gold
Re: 100x Performance Factor
Jerry dycus   4/27/2012 12:56:01 PM
NO RATINGS
 

  What I don't understand is why they want these? 

 It makes the same sense of a big planing powerboat or a cavitating submarine, a fuel hog and nothing can be done about it.

 Why not go higher and avoid the drag, go even faster?

As far as forces the heat could have weakened the sructure or even mellted it like the X-15's titainium?  tail did 60 yrs ago.

burn0050
User Rank
Silver
Re: 100x Performance Factor
burn0050   4/27/2012 1:34:55 PM
NO RATINGS
This is a DARPA project. Being able to fly that fast in the atmosphere means that it can outrun anything shot at it (SAM, bullets, etc.) - so that it could get somewhere fast and drop a payload (bombs, etc.). It could also be used to catch anything in the air (planes, missiles, etc.). It would also be extremely difficult to track or anticipate. Even a laser would have a hard time hitting it, especially if it is making random micro adjustments to its flight path. LA to NY in 12 minutes means that it could get to North Korea in under 30 minutes.

 

Page 1/2  >  >>
Partner Zone
Latest Analysis
Here's a variety of views into the complex production processes at Santa's factory. Happy Holidays!
The Beam Store from Suitable Technologies is managed by remote workers from places as diverse as New York and Sydney, Australia. Employees attend to store visitors through Beam Smart Presence Systems (SPSs) from the company. The systems combine mobility and video conferencing and allow people to communicate directly from a remote location via a screen as well as move around as if they are actually in the room.
Thanks to 3D printing, some custom-made prosthetic limbs, and a Lego set, one lucky dog and a tortoise has learned new tricks.
An MIT research team has invented what they see as a solution to the need for biodegradable 3D-printable materials made from something besides petroleum-based sources: a water-based robotic additive extrusion method that makes objects from biodegradable hydrogel composites.
With Radio Shack on the ropes, let's take a memory trip through the highlights of Radio Shack products.
More:Blogs|News
Design News Webinar Series
12/11/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
12/10/2014 8:00 a.m. California / 11:00 a.m. New York
11/19/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
11/6/2014 11:00 a.m. California / 2:00 p.m. New York
Quick Poll
The Continuing Education Center offers engineers an entirely new way to get the education they need to formulate next-generation solutions.
SEMESTERS: 1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  67


Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.
Learn More   |   Login   |   Archived Classes
Twitter Feed
Design News Twitter Feed
Like Us on Facebook

Sponsored Content

Technology Marketplace

Copyright © 2014 UBM Canon, A UBM company, All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Service