Aus. DoD/USAF "HiFire" deal signed

[docm]

HiFIRE = Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><b>Multi-national agreement to advance high-speed flight</b><br /><br />AFRL NEWS RELEASE<br />Posted: November 14, 2006<br /><br />The U.S. Air Force and Australian Department of Defence signed a multi-national research partnership Nov. 10 in Canberra, Australia, which will explore and develop fundamental hypersonic technologies, and experimental methodologies that could enable the next generation of weapon systems.<br /><br />The $54 million agreement represents one of the largest collaborations of its kind between the two nations. The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, and the Australian Defence Science and Technology Organisation are leading the effort, including coordination of research tasks to be performed with NASA, U.S. industry, the Australian Hypersonics Consortium, and the Hypersonics Research Group at the University of Queensland.<br /><br />Air Force chief scientist Dr. Mark Lewis, and Australian chief defence scientist Dr. Roger Lough, signed the agreement Nov. 10 at a joint meeting in Canberra, which officially kicks off the project. The research effort has been established under a new bi-lateral agreement, secured under the existing Deutch-Ayers Memorandum of Understanding.<br /><br />Called HiFIRE, or Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation, the program will span six years of basic and applied research, with the goal to observe and understand hypersonic phenomena. The program also includes up to 10 flight experiments using an experimental payload, launched to realistic hypersonic flight conditions. Hypersonic speeds are reached at Mach 5, or five times the speed of sound. <br /> /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[enigma10]

All interesting except...<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> with the goal to observe and understand hypersonic phenomena. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br /> I thought we were already "studying" this with the scramjet projects.? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"observe and understand hypersonic phenomena" is, I suspect, a euphamism for scramjet research. Note UQ's involvement.<br /><br />It angers me that the Oz goverment can find money for research projects like this that are primarily intended to give US military more expensive toys but is extremely reluctant to invest in civil space science and technology.<br /><br />I could say more but I would probably get banned. The only good thing that will come out of this is at least some graduates will get some kind of a career path in the country rather than going overseas.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

I see you're Australian. I hadn't realized this until I read your last post.<br /><br />This thread is kind of a refugee from Missions & Launches or Space Business and Technology. But while we're here, I would like to ask you:<br /><br />Do you think scramjets and their associated spinoffs are primarily military systems? Is there a specific reason why?<br /><br />I see airbreathing or partially airbreathing technology as key to cheap access to space. It would take a lot of work to do that. The machinery looks simple, but the calculations needed to make it work are a bear.<br /><br />USAF means "classified", "top secret", "no we don't want to share these discoveries". If that's what you find disturbing, well, I don't blame you.<br />

 

[docm]

"Do you think scramjets and their associated spinoffs are primarily military systems? Is there a specific reason why? "<br /><br />6 words: hypersonic cruise missiles and strike aircraft <br /><br />There's a big push to be able to hit a target within 1 hour of the 'go' without using ICBM's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

Let me be honest with you, docm. If I talk about airbreathing or partially airbreathing launchers on M&L, or if other people do, there are several posters who deliberately steer the conversation into unsuitable topics. Like hydrocarbon fuels. These can work for a military surveillance system but hydrogen is the only fuel that will work for a space launch system with commercial or manned goals.<br /><br />Hypersonic cruise missiles and strike aircraft are obviously topic hijacking if you are trying to make a more effective satellite launcher or manned system. But it happens all the time.<br /><br />It's gotten to the point that when people hear about ramjets or scramjets they believe you <i>must</i> be talking about a military surveillance system. Kind of frustrating if you're not.<br /><br />Such a satellite launcher would not resemble the svelte Navy vehicle pictured above. The compressor cone would dominate a short, fat vehicle, so that it could sweep up as much air from the thin stratosphere as possible.

 

[docm]

First: <br /><br />"Hypersonic cruise missiles and strike aircraft are obviously topic hijacking"<br /><br />Hijacking my own thread. What a novel concept <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />Be honest now: how likely is it that two defense departments are designing a hypersonic business shuttle? Wanna buy a bridge?<br /><br />Second: <br /><br />"It's gotten to the point that when people hear about ramjets or scramjets they believe you must be talking about a military surveillance system"<br /><br />Then explain the similarities between HiFire and HyFly;<br /><br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hyfly.htm<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Demonstration of efficient supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) performance with a liquid hydrocarbon fuel is an essential step to enabling a viable hypersonic cruise missile.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IMO Oz is a good place for this to go black. You can't fly hypersonic here for any appreciable distance without every university earthquake detector tracking your sonic booms in retrospect & ticking everyone off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Mike<br /><br />I know some of the people involved. The space community here in Oz is very incestuous! I am very happy that they have got this contract. It keeps the hypersonic work in UQ and DSTO alive and in country. They have been at the forefront of the field since the 70's, despite miniscule budgets. This is good for them, but I would be much happier if this was NASA funding. Or even through DARPA.<br /><br />I am ambivalent (it case you hadn't picked that up) for several reasons. The main, immediate application for this technology I can see is, as docm says, missiles and strike aircraft. While I don't neccessarily object to military R&D, I don't see this type of R&D as really meeting the real strategic needs of the present or foreseeable situation.<br /><br />I also don't see much long term benefit for Oz out of this. Especially when we have senior public service figures saying we need not and should not spend any money on civil space research because we spend enough as a country on space through military operations, intelligence gathering, and defence R&D. <br /><br />As for low cost space access via scramjets, that would be great. But I think it has yet to be convincingly argued, given the complexity over current systems and the need for boosters to reach scramjet ignition speeds. But I hope I have an open mind here. Every little increase in knowledge helps, so long as it doesn't get locked up in very high level classified material.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<i>IMO Oz is a good place for this to go black. You can't fly hypersonic here for any appreciable distance without every university earthquake detector tracking your sonic booms in retrospect & ticking everyone off.</i><br /><br />You would be surprised!<br /><br />We actually have a good seismic network run by universities. We also have a number of government owned but civil run infrasound monitoring stations so any hypersonic tests might well be picked up. <br /><br />Plus while sparsely populated, the interior is inhabited, and any areas overflown by launches in the past, even seret ones, have always been notified. A number of pastoral stations even had bunkers built for them when the British were testing the Blue Streak ICBM. Some of these still stand, a number of localities have impressive collections of spent stages and other bits and pieces that rained down from the sky. Plus the launch sites are under native title and the owners will expect a cut as well.<br /><br />BTW, is this the best forum for this discussion? I can move it to M&L if people want. It might be more at home there.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[docm]

I acknowledge that Oz is populated with both people and seismographs, but nowhere the density of the US. To run a 2,000 mile test flight in any meaningful direction here you'd overfly 50-100 million people of our 300 million population. I think Oz has 21 million tops and sparsely distributed at that? Lots fewer potential 'witnesses'. <br /><br />I also believe that save for spaceports, military emergencies (scramble for troubled airliner intercepts etc.) and flights in military zones (Edwards, Nellis etc.) supersonic flight overland is illegal. Normally not a problem, but at MACH 6+ that's one short test flight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Certainly there is less population density (thank goodness).<br />But the sensor nets mentioned still give regional (not just continental coverage. <br /><br />But the article doesn't say what the tests are. Will they really be long range km tests flights like the X43 ? Or ballistic flights like HySHOT? Or hypersonic shock tunnel tests?<br /><br />Also remember that Woomera is no longer the hush hush facility it was 30 years ago. There are private and commerical launches and research going on there (the Japanese and Kistler, for example). If long range test flights are being gone then it would probably be best done over water from a US facility.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

Hi, Jon <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As for low cost space access via scramjets, that would be great. But I think it has yet to be convincingly argued, given the complexity over current systems and the need for boosters to reach scramjet ignition speeds. But I hope I have an open mind here. Every little increase in knowledge helps, so long as it doesn't get locked up in very high level classified material.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>That's what I'm afraid is happening. I spent the night here trying to google up MIPCC, and after the first page, most of the hits were some mlorrey post in UBBT. I reread them. I had forgotten just how argumentative the guy could get. On the other hand, his F-106 hotrod project got 19,000 hits.<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> BTW, is this the best forum for this discussion? I can move it to M&L if people want. It might be more at home there.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>That's from your reply to docm. I need to apologise to docm because this is, after all, his thread, I'm the hijacker. Sorry, guy.<br /><br />I think the Christa Dart thread, which was in Space Business and Technology (I think that's the forum title) got so many hits because a lot of people must have thought of spraying oxygen into the inlet of a ramjet. They've been dumping all kinds of oxidizers into internal combustion engines for years, nitromethane into go-kart engines, nitrous oxide into Volkswagen engines, I've never heard of LOX in a hotrod but I wouldn't be surprised.<br /><br />Surely the Air Force must have thought of this but I don't see it anywhere. MIPCC was actually tested with water! They've also shot water into car engines, the idea being to raise the compression ratio. And it worked, but fouls sparkplugs and valves with deposits.<br /><br />I don't know what to do about the forum problem. I had been looking for MIPCC information so that I could post in M&L without lookin

 

[JonClarke]

No need to apologise, at least from my perspective <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />It is all interesting stuff. I jsut home it becomes something of general use in our lifetimes, and not just new improved weapons systems for the military.<br /><br />I am not sure though if scram jets and other hypersonics are what is needed for survelliance work. I would have thought that very high endurance is what has proved more useful than high speed. Hence the SR71 being phased out but the TR1 soldiered on and is to replaced by the Global Hawk, as I undestand.<br /><br />BTW to show you how incestuous the space community is in Oz, Allen Paull, who ran the Hyshot program, has apparently left UQ and is now at DSTO, but will be involved with UQ once again through the DSTO-UQ partnership in the HiFire project.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

What's your source for these great images?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[docm]

No problem with the 'hijack', such that it is. All things hypersonic welcome, it's all super-cool stuff IMHO.<br /><br />First image:<br /><br />http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/11/australia-usa-to-collaborate-on-hypersonic-research/index.php<br /><br />Second image: same page linked to in that post;<br /><br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hyfly.htm<br /><br />Here's another hypersonic concept - the X-51A cruise missile, aka: Scramjet Engine Demonstrator - WaveRider (SED-WR). A WaveRider is an advanced wing designed for high MACH's. The only plane to use WaveRider techniques so far is the canceled XB-70 Valkyrie MACH 3 bomber, most noticeable in its drooped wing tips. <br /><br />X-51A is scheduled to fly in 2009. <br /><br />http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/x-51.html<br /><br />Air Force Research Laboratory Propulsion Directorate PDF on same;<br /><br />http://www.pr.afrl.af.mil/mar/2005/sep2005.pdf <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikeemmert]

Hi, docm <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />For making a satellite booster, I propose borrowing a little aerodynamic device from the Trident missile. Unfortunately, there is confusion in definitions here which might be a product of Air Force/Navy intraservice rivalry:<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">Both Trident versions are three-stage, solid-propellant, inertially guided missiles whose range is increased by an aerospike, a telescoping outward extension that halves aerodynamic drag<font color="white">".<br /><br />Hmm...not the same old aerospike we're used to. There's a link to this definition of aerospike in the Wikipedia article:<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">A Drag Reducing Aerospike is a device used to reduce the forebody pressure drag of blunt bodies at supersonic speeds. The aerospike creates a detached shock ahead of the body. Between the shock and the forebody a zone of recirculating flow occurs which acts like a more streamlined forebody profile, reducing the drag.<br /><br />This concept was first introduced on the Trident missile and is estimated to have increased the range by 550km<font color="white">".<br /><br />It's a pretty simple concept. Knock a hole in the air and fly the vehicle through it. Exactly how to pull this off has been subject to inventiveness:<br /><br />"<font color="yellow">Further development of this concept has resulted in the air-spike [1]. This is formed by concentrated energy, either from an electric arc torch or a pulsed laser, projected forwards from the body, which produces a region of low density hot air ahead of the body. This has the advantage over a structural aerospike that the air density is lower than that behind a shock wave providing increased drag reduction.<br /><br />In 1995 at the 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting it was reported that tests were performed at an aeros</font></font></font></font></font>

 

[mikeemmert]

This thread first appeared in Space Science & Astronomy but somehow the topic didn't seem to fit so well. It got moved here and in the process got bumped way out of sight.<br /><br />It fits here in M&L better.<br /><br />There doesn't seem to be much information about airbreathing boosters on the 'net. I did quite a bit of searching; I got the same old news stories about the X-43 published by different newspapers.<br /><br />Well, they did everything to try to get airbreathing boosters to work, so I have borrowed the technique (last post) used by hotrodders for decades; spray a little oxidizer in the intake. That's usually nitromethane or nitrous oxide.<br /><br />When this topic came up in Space Business & Technology several months ago, it got 19,000 hits. People are interested in new types of boosters, not just another rocket with a 0.003% performance increase over last year's model, but something <i>new</i> that <i>actually will</i> provide cheap and convenient access to space.

 

[SpaceTas]

Re: Aus. DoD/USAF

HIFire tests have started

The first of the HiFire tests have just been completed at Woomera.
Here's a local (Cooper Pedynewspaper link (its the the same as the Daily Telegraph):
http://cooberpedyregionaltimes.word...c-scramjet-tests-for-outback-south-australia/

And an old link from Aviation and Space:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gene... Integrate Aeronautics and Space Technologies



I thought to start a new thread, but found this old one. I assume by adding a post it will move up list.

 

[jgrtmp]

Re: Aus. DoD/USAF

The scram requires the atmosphere to perform. Thus, if the military funds it, is looking for a flight platform delivery system & not just a fast missile. The age is coming when high energy laser ABM platforms will exist in space. conventional delivery is apogee based. Most today are MIRV tech. Thus the prime objective would be to hit the delivery prior to apogee & hope the explosion throws the MIRVs way off target. Since they arm after escaping national boundaries they still will go off. If scramed it becomes a programable flight pattern to target that never goes above Earth's atmosphere. The lower it flies the more atmosphere a Laser based ABM system would have to penetrate to make the kill. Furthermore the projectile isn't slowing down as in an apogee based ballistic system, it in fact goes faster. For the military this is counter stike perhaps before the protagonist gets all birds away.
Under NASA funding the program would be space based with added oxygen nodules for the burns to achieve the mission in space(non atmospheric). The scrams are to minimize weight & provide atmospheric propulsion.
I agree with the previous post in that this should be a DARPA program. It probably has other aspects no one has hit on yet. For one it could be incorporated in to a shuttle platform to extend landing options after the dipsy doodles. Just in case there are problems. Not as a main engine, but more like a Jato bottle...

 

[Valcan]

Re: Aus. DoD/USAF

No offense but why wouldyou be angry its getting funned from our military? Why would you be ok with that but not solid rocket boosters which come from our military for yrs now. Pretty much the vast magority of US military missile systems are Solid rocket motors.

A huge amount of the technology we take for granted now which is peacful has been developed with military purposes in mind.

 

[JonClarke]

Re: Aus. DoD/USAF

No offense but why wouldyou be angry its getting funned from our military? Why would you be ok with that but not solid rocket boosters which come from our military for yrs now. Pretty much the vast magority of US military missile systems are Solid rocket motors.

A huge amount of the technology we take for granted now which is peacful has been developed with military purposes in mind.

Are you talking to me?

Nearly four years ago what I wrote was: It angers me that the Oz goverment can find money for research projects like this that are primarily intended to give US military more expensive toys but is extremely reluctant to invest in civil space science and technology.

At that time the Oz government was not investing any meaningful money in civil space but was prepared to spend 100s of millions in military space programs including this project which benefited the US more than Oz (we need hypersonic weapons systems about as much as we need super carriers).

Since then we have had a change of government and a small amount of money has been freed up for civil space including hypersonics. This is a step in the right direction. The same group has received the lion's share of the most recent ASRP funding. This is good, but only a drop in the budget.

But would would prefer money to go to better ways of getting to space than simply developing more complex ways of killing people.

Jon