Boeing's Unmanned Scramjet, the X-51A WaveRider, Achieves Hypersonic Speeds

[@peterwonaprize]

KZbin: The place where people with no engineering knowledge whatsoever join the comments section to bash innovative technology.

[@jacobybonqueque1217]

lmao

[@andreabioletto711]

That's great...lmao!!

[@HUBBABUBBADOOPYDOOP]

+Pete W What happens to the passengers when their vehicle is traveling at Mach 5? Are they expected to wear G-Suits? I know it won't be making sharp banks or turns like a fighter jet- but you're still accelerating a mass. The more kinetic energy that's imparted to a mass- the heavier it becomes.You can throw a 10oz. weight further than a 1oz. weight. Mass acts like a capacitor- in this aspect. No bashing- just a question. Not everyone on KZbin is a dumbass.

[@DoctorYoda2]

Hahaha

[@IAmNumber4000]

+Pete W And a bunch of moon-landing conspiracy theorist assholes creep out of the woodwork and attack scientists who've been studying the field for decades.

[@backrooms4340]

if anything is possible if you set your mind to it I challenge you to slam a revolving door

[@JacobDavidCCunningham]

He doesn't sound bored, he sounds like he's confident in what he's saying and saying it in a encouraing, interesting way to get viewers to feel excited.

[@FutureAIDev2015]

I wonder, is it practical to use solar energy to electrolyze water, then use that as fuel?

[@sonnydonwan]

As an Aerospace Engineer, the Scram Jet propulsion system has been known about for decades. It has been known as only as "theory" in which military applications have limited the access to this technology. (Aura spy plane, etc). Its quite possible that this has been a reality since the early 90's, but has not been a public possibility until recently.

[@punchy001]

Most likely because it will never work in a practical application or there is already secret technology to replace it.

[@zachpaw]

If my understanding of how the scram jet works is correct it needs an atmosphere to operate in correct? So how would it help us get to another planet or further into space if it relies on having an atmosphere

[@NarasimhaDiyasena]

and so the saying goes, "it's old news when it's new news to the public"

[@leolldankology]

I think taco bell is assisting in funding do they can harness this power for taco delivery.

[@jeradw7420]

David Phillips It has been, the problem is money. Scramjet technology is so expensive to just get it to work, that no company has been willing to put serious research dollars into it. The military won't do it either as they already have various rockets that already do the job anything a scramjet would look to replace.

[@BlazeVonWolfsburg]

i feel bad for the lucky bird that flies infront of that thing

[@josuepena3655]

0

[@imiritu]

+Blaze Von.Wolfsburg A bird that high is probably suffocating and freezing to death anyways

[@zacharylegaspi7594]

That would really hurt...

[@thomasdillon6838]

The difficult gets done every day. The impossible just takes a little longer.

[@dlovett1771]

Except that both tests didn't last long at all and were purposely crashed into the ocean. Scram jets are awesome but the friction created at mach 5 is insane.

[@wynecrawford9826]

Scram Jet technology has taken a whole new level

[@leonardocannone8349]

"It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen"

[@HerrSpuzzmacher]

Scramjet has been around a while, I'm excited that it's finally maturing to the point where non-military applications are under consideration.

[@WideWorldofTrains]

Awesome technology

[@amanshukor]

"Beam me up, Scotty"

[@fmhall2]

The V-1 used a pulse jet; the SR-71 uses a ram jet. The scram jet is new in the sense that R & D on it has been going on for several years with only a few successes with small experimental models.

[@harrisonhatton]

Good luck keeping that match lit boys

[@Alex1SUN]

Yuri Gagarin did it in 1961. He was the first man in space. At that time there were no space stations, and Yuri was not wearing a space suit, since safety regulations did not enforce it. Space suits were only introduced later.

[@nolongerlive8351]

ok like the idea but at mach 5 how does a peson handle the presure that a couple 100 or 1000 of g force

[@Brayooyo]

That will be ok since from the video you are already on the stratosphere, gravity will offset the G forces sufficiently....It's the slowing down that will be the issue! Too fast and you can sever a spine or too slowly and you miss the target by Xmiles. I would love this challenge.

[@ThraxJay]

Gu

[@ThraxJay]

V yv tvv

[@michaelnave1660]

if u dont accelerate too hard or desealerate it should be fine right?

[@TheRoguelement]

Great wonderful..So while the 98% are NOT enjoying the pursuit of life liberty and happiness because of the 2% We struggle to pay for even the most minor luxury's of life like food, housing , heating, it's so deeply moving & reassuring to know we can all greatly rely on Boeing to get us there faster . Well done ....

[@Dadecorban]

Wow you sound like a Nichelback song. A few things wrong with this rant: 1. 98% of Americans are not without the minor luxury's that you mention 2. If your talking about a world population, there is no world constitution or founding document guaranteeing life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 3. The Declaration of Independence which that phrase (life, lib, happ, ect) comes from is not a legal document, it's a declaration of principles. The principle being declared is not guaranteeing that everyone will have life, liberty, and happiness, just that governments should not stop you from your pursuit of those things, and punish individuals that try to interfere with your pursuit. 4. Since life, liberty, and happiness are objectives that require resources in a world where resources are finite, and the resources and conditions necesary to make you happy must be unknowable to to others by virtue of their nature, and because each individual is presumably carrying out their own search, the only entity theoretically capable of distributing those resources to match that supposed guarantee (in your mind) is government, a government that can't know what makes you happy, and a government that would necessarily have to take those resources from someone else to satisfy your theoretically happiness, thus depriving others of theirs, the entire concept is on doable, poorly thought out, and never intended to mean what you wish that it would. That is not to say there are not power structures in place designed to help some individuals at the expense of others, like the Federal Reserve, lobbying interests, or severe allocations of resources at all levels of government....but the idea that companies pushing the limits of technology need to be broken to give you your happiness is ridiculous.

[@TheJjiggity]

Do you even fathom that those 2% pay approximately 60% of all tax burden in the USA? Quit complaining about those that pay for the welfare and food stamps and go make something of your life.

[@marksolarz3756]

The cutting edge!........BRAVO!

[@ThimbleStudios]

This video is named :"The Warp Speed of Today: Boeing's X-51A WaveRider" NOT "My philosophy about Boeing's challenges as they pertain to the Boeing X-51A WaveRider"

[@knoose]

Never in history have people been so pathetically non intellectual. Look at the comments. Who would possibly thumbs down this?

[@SonOfMontag]

People who know this is Gatekeeping propaganda, to make you think this is some kind of cutting-edge tech, when in fact it's years old, and "rocket-fuel"-based aeronautics is bunk.

[@josephmcasey]

Sometimes you can read comments and see why our founding fathers never sought to hear the voice of the people for the majority of the electoral process.

[@420gma]

Matthew Wetta Didn't they discover that the concord was damaging the ozone ?

[@designsovet9845]

Unfortunately, these techniques are applied against humans. Americans again kill civilians.

[@drnv150]

***** Did anyone else have an issue with your "Wikipedia" reference? Believe it or not Wikipedia does not know all things. Jane's defense does not know all things in development either, they know most things globally when it comes to hardware, but not all.

[@MentyEsquire]

I'm never the type to pour cold water on innovation but how safe does that concept scram jet passenger plane look? It's not whether we can achieve those speeds, it's whether we can do so with the safety of today's conventional jet planes.

[@MentyEsquire]

You would honestly say that the Saturn V was as safe as a normal commercial flight? REALLY? I think the guys that hitched a ride on it would disagree.

[@DarMokChannel]

I don't care if it safe, I what a go. ;-) It is a great idea, safely comes later, it is the striving for the next step that's important, don't you think.

[@Salty_trees69]

Well I don't think we'll be using today's conventional airplanes when this technology is commercially available.

[@dmangt]

Chasen Kukuda "Boeing only makes technology that kills people, it's as simple as that" You must have been hired by Airbus to say that since statistics show that Boeing airliners are very safe!

[@williamforbes6919]

The nice thing about scram jets is they theoretically can run up all the way to orbital velocity. Perfect for a Magnetohydrodynamic and Atmospheric jet hybrid space plane.

[@matthewakian2]

nice piece of machinery.

[@shawnsulliv]

The 1990s called they want their CGI back

[@allensblade]

this technology is for future flight, defense and offense purposes, much like the X-1 and X-15 was for. This is advancement of technology that will shape our future in transportation, for what ever its purpose may be - this craft much like the X-15 will develop into another form of aircraft that will blow our minds, I think its a pretty kewl concept.

[@chrisevantapman]

How high up was it? It looked like the edge of the atmosphere.

[@DOGMA1138]

+ChrisEvan Tapman Not even close, even the ISS still experiences some atmospheric drag.

[@IAmNumber4000]

+ChrisEvan Tapman It activated the scramjet at around 70,000 feet.

[@spcdegrace]

+IAN 4000 50,000 ft is "technically" space right?

[@DOGMA1138]

Adam Degrace No, Global Hawk can get to 60K, U2 can get to 70K. 70-80K is about 1/8th of the way the the lowest limit of a Low Earth Orbit.

[@djordjebogdanovic3918]

Technically, space is about 60 miles from the surface, passed the atmosphere.

[@VRtechman]

I like that question! Cause BOEING has been R/D'ing for like 25 years!

[@studley2436]

As much as I like Boeing mach 5 is a huge ask. The SR71 at mach 3 was incredibly difficult to make work and expensive to fly. Surface friction meant they were scared they were going to cook the pilot. The pilot wore a space suit like an astronaut. Making a cabin that will allow normal clothing will be very hard. If Boeing could make even mach 3 in a commercial air liner that would be a huge achievement. I'd like to hear more in depth information about Boeings progress.

[@RyanA__]

Look what happened with concord though

[@rikanlegend3926]

doint listen to those pinheads this is a revolutionary discovery

[@ema_rem]

I agree, we don't need to fund space exploration at all, our planet is more than enough to power us forever, and will always be hospitable to life! So, how are those environmental programs going?

[@Lemonzrool]

This is not true, our planet will not sustain us forever, yes it will for an extremely long time, however eventually it will cease to do so, this is when all this research into Space Exploration will count and we have an extremely long way to go before we can attempt long range space travel, so i think its essential we carry on funding space exploration and besides aren't you curious as to whats out there? its almost certain that there is other life out there we just need to find it.

[@ema_rem]

Sarcasm is a thing, mate.

[@Lemonzrool]

Lol my bad fair enough, i did wonder..

[@Mercnotforhire]

My good sir, we are not even rated at a Type 1 Civilization, we are a Type 0.7, we NEED to go other places, and to build a type of Dyson-Sphere to sustain ourselves for LONG distance travel in order to attain the lowly Type 1.

[@ema_rem]

A dyson swarm would probably be more practical. Dyson spheres would be nigh-impossible due to tidal forces.

[@joseph6270]

Just don't give out too many details, Airbus might slap their name on it and call it theirs

[@danielhollingsworth3546]

I wish I wasn`t 70. I won`t b around to see the fantastic future of aviation.

[@nicholaswaldmann4017]

It is absolutely unbelievable how we were able to go from the Wright Flyer to this stuff straight out of Star Wars in less than 100 years. Where can I get one?

[@philiproberts9330]

We call it SED-WR, single engine demonstrator. It is a proof of concept.

[@Wolfe171]

Breaking the sound barrier is easy, Concorde achieved this ages ago, and almost any modern day fighter jet can. What we're talking about is something faster than that.

[@pullingflowers]

No Matter The risk i would want to be a test pilot

[@JWQweqOPDH]

This project is really so the military can have missiles/UAVs/planes that go extremely fast sooner rather than later. Although, this machine in particular is just a technology demonstrator and test-bed. Technically, this could have civilian uses, but how often do you see supersonic private or commercial planes? The most likely civilian use is to help launch objects into space.

[@peted8053]

Ram-jet and scram-jet technology isn't new. I worked on the NASP ram-jet program back in the late 80's. Glad to see someone working on it...

[@lieutenantdog4792]

What some people may not relize in this comment section is that Boeing is trying to make this available to the public. This could be used for more than military uses. Yes, NASA has used this technology before. Yes, they can be used as speed strike weapons. No, that is not the only things it has potential to do. Like he said in the video,"this helps promote transportation in new ways". You may not realize it, but maybe Boeing is trying to find a way to make this technology, or service, relatively inexpensive. Hold your tongues, you may make all your conspiracies, but there may be more to this...

[@drnv150]

Wait a minute, you sound way too rational, what are you doing in here....lol

[@TyXoXX]

Thank you, guys! :)

[@TerryBadger]

Awesome High-Technology

[@kattgirl1321]

Anyone else thinking star trek? No? Only me? okay fine I'm a total nerd 😂😂😂

[@valf1733]

Helm, Warp one, engage!

[@MrSupercar55]

Yeah, the way it detaches from the Boeing B-52 Bomber and fires its rocket. An actual plane that works like that does exist. It's called a Bell X-15, and it is faster than a Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird. If you are gonna fly one, I recommend you bring a clean pair of underpants.

[@Pasovineyard]

This technology is for delivering nuclear weapons. Not passenger planes.

[@Pile_of_carbon]

I was thinking the same thing. Before (if ever) this technology comes to passenger planes, it'll spend a few decades as a way of killing lots and lots of people without having to look at them. So, yea, missiles or drones.

[@jeffkrofd]

The rockets we use now to send nuclear weapons can already travel in space and are mush faster than the x51A would travel. So why put nuclear weapons on the x51a? LMFAO. You're just another conspiracy weirdo sitting there with your tin foil hat on.

[@pancakezombie13]

If this tech was for such a purpose, why in the hell would they even bother to announce it to the general public?

[@Pasovineyard]

Russia, China and the US are all working on this technology for delivery purposes. Boeing is public friendly company.

[@Pasovineyard]

I think Boeing is overall a good company. They provide thousands of good jobs for skilled workers. Their planes are of good quality. Their black programs are kind of lame. Companies are based around making money. They are not their to feed the poor. However the wealth they produce will make it possible to take care of the poor. The communist have failed at all. Well except spin. They are kings of spin.

[@JacobDavidCCunningham]

It's probably considered a lifting body. Lift is proportional to speed, among other factors so... faster = less wings

[@BobJones-ki1xe]

Short Answer: Not in our lifetimes. The problem with these is they only burn for a minute or two. The faster you go, the more air resistance (and at these speeds air compression) you face. In order to get from NY to LA in under an hour, one needs to travel at about 2100 mph, give or take a couple hundred.Changing speeds from 55 to 65 mph requires just under double the power. Imagine what's necessary to go from 500 to 2100. It's Definitely not a factor of 4. I would estimate it's a factor of 100.

[@devinm4517]

I'm very happy and proud to be an American. USA is the greatest nation in the world! There is so much opportunity for education and wealth, USA is a land where dreams come true.

[@Bcutter]

If you go to extreme altitudes the air resistance won't be as large and you could go faster, although I am not sure what the fuel cost would be to go to such heights, or what kind of planes it would require.

[@Tronter6000]

it's the future guys :)

[@Bcutter]

The human body is right now travelling at approximately 67000 miles per hour around the sun. And even faster around the center of the galaxy. Speed doesn't exist unless you relate it to some other object, and hence the human body can handle any speed.

[@fjn667]

Man, McDonnell Douglas had this going in the 1960s and where sure that they could build the single stage to orbit NASP. But it got canceled in favour of less advanced and capable technologies.

[@opinionattheready3125]

Such is the story of all advanced technology, too advanced for it's time, held back by disbelief and skepticism, even when it can be demonstrated. It's like the powers that were, decided these people were into parlor tricks... Oh it's neat, now go build us something useful.

[@anarchyandempires5452]

+OpinionAt TheReady or just money, The more advanced something is the more expensive it is.

[@VRtechman]

When are we gonna see some results cause BOEING has been R/D'ing for like 25 years!

[@calthmlikiseethm704]

As with most technologies that have to do with speed, new fuels or power source at first the danger is higher but as you learn how to do implement these technologies you also learn how to make them safer.. So over time they will become safer........ simple logic.

[@MandLSwag]

3,600 miles an hour. Amazing where technology has gotten us.

[@kamandew420]

flight at mach speeds like that causes a whole other list of safety issues. The friction from the air moving across the airframe at that speed alone causes massive amounts of heat. But I would so still strap into that thing and push the little red button.

[@BillClay88]

Should be routine and affordable..cant wait!!! Heeee heeeee

[@fmhall2]

The "parts" coming off is the booster stage. A scram jet engine will not work at sub sonic speeds. You use an airplane to get it high enough that a relatively small rocket booster will accelerate it past the "sound barrier" and up to about Mach 3where the scram jet can take over.

[@nolanbeckmann371]

i like the idea of how the engine works

[@CamrinAce]

Congrats to ALL the other Winners!!

[@SlavenMansGym]

I bet these would be the safest passenger planes ever... . . . . .

[@geraldspezio1373]

Human ingenuity gone bonkers.

[@LARRYps3]

this is AWESSSSOME!!!!

[@8literbeater]

The SR-71 used a Pratt & Whitney J58 turbojet. Two of them technically. It was not even close to being a scramjet. The scramjet takes air in at freeflow speed. The SR-71 had multiple devices to slow the air going into the engines down so that it never entered the engine above mach 0.4. Not to mention the fact that the SR-71 obviously used turbine engines, and the scramjet has virtually no moving parts.

[@FedRebel]

The big problem with the Concorde is the continental speed limit, overland air traffic is prohibited from exceeding Mach 1, because of that limitation no one bought the Concorde because they couldn't use it efficiently. Subsonicly the Concorde was a gas guzzler so extended low speed flight would eat lots of fuel, British Airways and Air France only maintained their aircraft for political reasons. Few concorde's + continental speed limit = stupidly high ticket prices

[@YeshuaAgapao]

Propulsion technology ain't going much further while still operating on oil and combustion. Its almost as refined as its going to get. Need lightweight fusion power.

[@SirCutBurner]

Bravo Boeing! ....Bravo! Anyone who says flights 1-3 were failures are only partially correct. The failure data collected is invaluable, if you ask me. Without such "failures" experienced in flights 1-3, massive amounts of super value information would be missing still.

[@iridianacapiglio663]

Space Dandy!!!

[@7jsm7]

Everything that is said to be impossible is just an engineering challenge. Can you achieve it? Maybe, maybe not, but if you don't see it as a challenge then you've already given up. I'm in the mindset that it is possible to achieve efficient and economically feasible supersonic commercial flight. It has been a goal of mine to help design something that accomplishes that.

[@tronghai55]

Vogel is right. The x51 wave rider should be built in concomitance with a combustion jet output of 3.5 Mach in synergy of reliable overlap scram jet.

[@DerpySquidStudios]

the warheads will have to be either super small and compact or very light and aero dynamic

[@WICKEDEXPRESSLLC]

Our ancestors used to travel with their minds...We just forgot how!!!

[@TheOkami1113]

How convenient.

[@WICKEDEXPRESSLLC]

We are getting there little by little...

[@henrytsai2021]

How long do you think before we put warheads on these? 2 years? 3?

[@JacobDavidCCunningham]

If the acceleration isn't very high then you can go as fast as you want. Eg. 0 - 1000mph in 2 seconds vs. 120

[@dogjoe7]

The Concorde Supersonic was the first supersonic commercial jetliner was the first type of commercial jet that broke the sound barrier. Surprisingly it was banned. For having radar troubles.

[@tobyman360]

Such a simple concept, i imagine the supersonic fluid dynamics are a lot more complicated to implement however.........

[@pauljackowacko552]

Hope a lot of tests will be conducted before it flies.

[@ComputerLearning0]

+pauljackowacko552 Well of course there will be. Why wouldn't they???

[@pauljackowacko552]

Mike Hawk There are ongoing issues of military aircraft being released......So I would prefer a lot of test measures more than usual on this type of aircraft is what I am saying.

[@DanaBidlake]

That is beautiful

[@bowenault6166]

I can completely understand how this directly relates to space access because of my Kerbal Space Program experience. Something like that could easily go sub orbital or even make orbit!

[@xzabath1]

well mach 4 is a long way from orbital speeds

[@xzabath1]

and kerbal space program rocks hehe

[@bowenault6166]

It's at least enough to go sub-orbital.

[@rajwantkaur8360]

+Bowen Ault (Generalstarwars333) hbhu

[@bowenault6166]

hbhu?

[@aaflyer7876]

Awesome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@jwrappuhn71]

The scram jet is by no meens a NEW IDEA. The germans used this technology during the war in th v1, the sr71 black bird used scramjet propulsion.

[@PutYHWH1st]

We already have light year jump ships. US Navy Space command and. DARPA Project Pegasus Time Travel program

[@shawnpaulboike2926]

It was called the NASP, I still have the reports & evidence we made it from sintered & sandwiched matrix of AL-Si-Ti-Carbide Ceramics Super Plastic Formed (SPF) & Hot Isostatic Pressed (HIP) formed assembly. .

[@GAment_11]

One Mile A Second. Yes. One Mile A Second.

[@leukota]

These are the fastest aircraft *that we know of publicly,* people. Why they withhold the good shit from the public is beyond me, there is no good reason to keep fast transportation secret.

[@areepulliam5486]

I love this new technology that have come into play this is great what is the world coming to

[@anthonyc1515]

How would that feel comfortable? It sounds very uncomfortable but very cool

[@hzuiel]

Not necessarily, a scramjet may be more efficient, as far as the amount of fuel needed to create an equivalent amount of force. Really though this isn't such a big thing for jet liners, though future jet liners may make use of scramjets for boosting their range or speed. No the real thing is SPACE. They can get a shuttle into orbit for probably 1/10th the price or less. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the traditional rockets to reach space have potential energy equivalent to a nuke.

[@skaters4ever1]

i don't think this will ever become commercial though. With that amount of froce acting on our bodies, we would all need pressure suits. I think this might become ideal for military use but not for commerical use

[@deezynar]

Why is there audio only?

[@josephrappold]

If you like your scramjet...you can keep your scramjet!

[@Phonlawut]

Nice,,,, express freedom to your country.

[@PaulSpaceFDot]

On the contrary; neither the V1 nor the SR-71 were SCRAMJETs... they were conventional RAMJETS, an order of magnitude less efficient and they maxed out as substantially lower speeds than the X-51A. The "ramjet" idea isn't new, making it work at high mach numbers is.

[@adventurekid9242]

In 1958 the SR 71 First flew and through the 1960s and 1980s routinely reached mach 3.5 with slide rule technology. This while. exciting to the layman is really no great step forward.

[@richardwakula1667]

Boeing are fantastic. I prefer flying on Boeing. I feel safer.

[@alvideoguyee503]

who does the music soundtrack to this video?

[@shanetomchecksr775]

WOAH SO COOL!!!!

[@TheSateef]

this thing would be so expensive to run i doubt it will ever be used for anything but milliary aps

[@KingsCalvary]

I like to hear you can't do it. I don't believe in impossible. Hats off to that. # challenge