Aurora & Beyond

This may be old news but I'm going to post anyway.Did a quick search looks like no one posted this info yet
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne Successfully Tests Dual-Mode Ramjet Engine at Mach 4 Flight Conditions

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - May 5, 2009

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne's PWR-9221FJ dual-mode ramjet engine successfully completed its first ground test at Mach 4 flight conditions at Arnold Engineering Development Center, Tullahoma, Tenn. A dual-mode ramjet engine is a key technology for developing reusable hypersonic vehicles. Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne is a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX) company.

"Successful demonstration of the dual-mode ramjet engine integrated with a variable geometry inlet and exhaust nozzle sets the stage for future turbine-based, combined-cycle propulsion and flight demonstration opportunities," said Cal DeFreese, program manager, Falcon Combined-Cycle Engine Technology (FaCET), Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. "Current testing is focused on validating the operability and robustness of the dual-mode ramjet design during simulated transitions from turbojet to ramjet propulsion modes."

A dual-mode ramjet engine is designed to operate as both a ramjet at moderate supersonic speeds (up to Mach 5) and a scramjet at hypersonic speeds (greater than Mach 5). This broad range of operational capability is required for turbine-based, combined-cycle propulsion that would enable a vehicle to take off from and land on a conventional runway, and travel at speeds up to Mach 6.

The tests are being conducted as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency's FaCET program; Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne is a principal contractor to Lockheed Martin on the program. Additional tests over the next two months are designed to check the integrated system performance from Mach 3 to Mach 6 flight conditions.
www.deagel.com...

[edit on 10-2-2010 by flyingfish]

Computer animation of Lockheed Martin Skunk Works' hypersonic cruise vehicle for DARPA Falcon program.
DARPA computer-animated video of Lockheed Martin Skunk Work's Falcon HTV-3X hypersonic test vehicle.


HTV-2 hasn't been cancelled, it's undergone some interesting changes. I may have some more information soon, but this should be of interest:
www.fbo.gov...

Nice posts regarding Blackswift but somewhat redundant, please check out the Blackswift thread;
SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift

Did anyone catch this on the last link.The purpose of this notification is to publicize the Government’s intent to award a sole source contract to Lockheed Martin, Valley Forge, PA. This sole source contract will be for modification of the current design to reflect weaponization.
Check out Lockheed Martin Falcon Hypersonic Global strike vehicle.



It is designed to loft up a 12,000lb payload and be able to strike at a 9,000 mile radius in under 2 hours, and it is to be able to be soley based on CONUS soil and like wise recover to its point of origin.

Thats no missile, its a hypersonic UCAV.
Don't look!Hey look!" it's a bird"...

reply to post by intelgurl

Nice thread thanks for the link.
If this info is posted on another thread I apologize, just did a quick search.
Looks like most of this has been discussed. There does not seem to be much interest so I will let this thread die.


[edit on 10-2-2010 by flyingfish]

Appologies... just before this thread does die, I have a question. On the 8th 'page' of the article posted Mr Czysz talks about work done at Mcdonnel Douglas......

"when we designed a mach-6 aircraft, we didn't follow NASA 's strategy of building a research and develop vechicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally as functional as much as a B-52 is.

Our resupply vechicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vechicles and 3 spares and those vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That's 1964 industrial capability - no magic at all. I don't need magic. Now compare that to the shuttle".


At the risk of embarrasing myself, I must has missed that period of aviation history?

Manned orbiting lab... what??? too early for skylab surely

resupply vehicle.... a hundred times a year??? really???

Does anyone have any thoughts?

s+f, nice article

always been facinated as to what they built after the black bird.

Originally posted by Catalytic
Appologies... just before this thread does die, I have a question. On the 8th 'page' of the article posted Mr Czysz talks about work done at Mcdonnel Douglas......

"when we designed a mach-6 aircraft, we didn't follow NASA 's strategy of building a research and develop vechicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally as functional as much as a B-52 is.

Our resupply vechicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vechicles and 3 spares and those vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That's 1964 industrial capability - no magic at all. I don't need magic. Now compare that to the shuttle".


At the risk of embarrasing myself, I must has missed that period of aviation history?

Manned orbiting lab... what??? too early for skylab surely

resupply vehicle.... a hundred times a year??? really???

Does anyone have any thoughts?

USAF Manned Orbiting Lab would have been a manned recce orbiting station but was cancelled when newer orbiting satellites could do the job better, cheaper and without the risk.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by firepilot]

Originally posted by Catalytic


"when we designed a mach-6 aircraft, we didn't follow NASA 's strategy of building a research and develop vechicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally as functional as much as a B-52 is.

Our resupply vechicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vechicles and 3 spares and those vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That's 1964 industrial capability - no magic at all. I don't need magic. Now compare that to the shuttle".

So he saying that they had 11 vehicles that could fly mach 6 to resuply the manned orbiting laboraty before they had realised satellites could do the job better and never bothered to build the manned orbiting laboratoy .. bare with me im a bit simple to the facts and history

Originally posted by Catalytic
Appologies... just before this thread does die, I have a question. On the 8th 'page' of the article posted Mr Czysz talks about work done at Mcdonnel Douglas......

"when we designed a mach-6 aircraft, we didn't follow NASA 's strategy of building a research and develop vechicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally as functional as much as a B-52 is.

Our resupply vechicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vechicles and 3 spares and those vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That's 1964 industrial capability - no magic at all. I don't need magic. Now compare that to the shuttle".


At the risk of embarrasing myself, I must has missed that period of aviation history?

Manned orbiting lab... what??? too early for skylab surely

resupply vehicle.... a hundred times a year??? really???

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Its a fantasy, another reason to take the whole article with a huge pinch of salt.

Mr Cszyz crendentials appear to check out..... American anti gravity's?

gleefully It's all very interesting (meant in the british sense of using that word)

I'd love there to be more to this than just concepts..... but i dont think so


[edit on 12-2-2010 by Catalytic]

Originally posted by ThePeaceMaker

Originally posted by Catalytic


"when we designed a mach-6 aircraft, we didn't follow NASA 's strategy of building a research and develop vechicle that could only be flown 3 times a year. What we developed were vehicles that were operationally as functional as much as a B-52 is.

Our resupply vechicle in 1964 for the manned orbiting laboratory had 11 operational vechicles and 3 spares and those vehicles flew 100 times a year for 15 years. That's 1964 industrial capability - no magic at all. I don't need magic. Now compare that to the shuttle".

So he saying that they had 11 vehicles that could fly mach 6 to resuply the manned orbiting laboraty before they had realised satellites could do the job better and never bothered to build the manned orbiting laboratoy .. bare with me im a bit simple to the facts and history

I think the Mach 6 aircraft, and then the resupply vehicles for the MOL, are two different things

Has anyone actually been through Paul Czyzs' credentials? Because in the interview from the OP, he makes some pretty obvious mistakes. The kind of mistakes you wouldn't expect from a pro. For example:

"So if you have a scramjet vehicle, and you want to increase the thrust of it, you have to increase it’s angle of attack – not by much, only by about 2 or 3 degrees. Nevertheless, as you advance the throttle, the nose comes up, and that’s very counterintuitive to a pilot, who will think that the nose coming up when you advance the throttle means that there’s something wrong"

Nonsense. It is in fact completely natural for an aircraft to behave this way, and everyone knows it. Maybe with the exception of certain aerospace engineers.

Edit: I have now finished reading the interview, and not only is he bogus, he's laughably useless bogus. I love the part where he says:

"From the beginning, NASA had their own ideas about bluntness and all sorts of crazy design ideas that ended up in the Shuttle."

Does anyone take this man seriously?



[edit on 1/3/2010 by Voiceoftreason]