Secrecy surrounding X-43 scramjet

I've noticed that every picture taken of the X-43 is carefully censored. You
will look in vain for a picture inside the engine itself and no picture
shows the rear nozzle or any rear partof the aircraft. My guess is that they
don't want to give any other nations any clue as how to design a scramjet.

Has anyone else noticed this?

"Ed Ruf" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 20:17:22 +0100, in sci.space.policy "Uddo Graaf"
wrote:

I've noticed that every picture taken of the X-43 is carefully censored.
You
will look in vain for a picture inside the engine itself and no picture
shows the rear nozzle or any rear partof the aircraft. My guess is that
they
don't want to give any other nations any clue as how to design a
scramjet.

The aftbody is somewhat visible in photos taken during ground tests posted
at the Dryden and various Langley sites. The internal engine geometry
itself is not available to the general public.

I've noticed that all the pictures showing the aftbody are taking from far
away. There aren't any close up photoshoots.

"Uddo Graaf" writes:

I've noticed that all the pictures showing the aftbody are taking from far
away. There aren't any close up photoshoots.

This is bleeding edge research. NASA isn't about to "give it away" by
providing close up, high resolution pictures of the vehicle.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

In article ,
jeff findley wrote:
I've noticed that all the pictures showing the aftbody are taking from far
away. There aren't any close up photoshoots.

This is bleeding edge research. NASA isn't about to "give it away" by
providing close up, high resolution pictures of the vehicle.

NASA "gives away" bleeding-edge research more often than not. That's its
job. However, especially in these days of rampant paranoia, research with
significant military applications -- and realistically, they're the main
customer for scramjets -- may not be too forthcoming about hardware details.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Henry Spencer wrote:

NASA "gives away" bleeding-edge research more often than not. That's its
job. However, especially in these days of rampant paranoia,

Rampant? NASA is no more paranoid than it has ever been. Hell, they
still have classified reports on the Nova program, and there's not too
likely to be anything worthy of secrecy in *that*.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

Uddo Graaf wrote:

I've noticed that every picture taken of the X-43 is carefully censored. You
will look in vain for a picture inside the engine itself and no picture
shows the rear nozzle or any rear partof the aircraft. My guess is that they
don't want to give any other nations any clue as how to design a scramjet.

This is not surprising. The only uses for scramjets that make any sense are
military.

Henry Spencer wrote:
NASA "gives away" bleeding-edge research more often than not. That's its
job. However, especially in these days of rampant paranoia,

Scott Lowther wrote in message ...
Rampant? NASA is no more paranoid than it has ever been. Hell, they
still have classified reports on the Nova program, and there's not too
likely to be anything worthy of secrecy in *that*.

What some people tend to forget is that NASA is a para-military
organization, don't expect the military to told you everything they
know.

It's interesting that NASA's military nature is often put aside and
even not acknowledge at all.

"We do not envision or desire to see NASA become a military or
paramilitary organization,"

http://www.space.com/news/nasa_military_010927.html

What make someone think that it doesn't already become one or already
one a long time ago?

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
jeff findley wrote:
I've noticed that all the pictures showing the aftbody are taking from far
away. There aren't any close up photoshoots.

This is bleeding edge research. NASA isn't about to "give it away" by
providing close up, high resolution pictures of the vehicle.

NASA "gives away" bleeding-edge research more often than not. That's its
job. However, especially in these days of rampant paranoia, research with
significant military applications -- and realistically, they're the main
customer for scramjets -- may not be too forthcoming about hardware details.


The secondary customer is the TPS test team ;-)

/dps

"Richard Schumacher" wrote in message
...


Uddo Graaf wrote:

I've noticed that every picture taken of the X-43 is carefully censored.
You
will look in vain for a picture inside the engine itself and no picture
shows the rear nozzle or any rear partof the aircraft. My guess is that
they
don't want to give any other nations any clue as how to design a
scramjet.

This is not surprising. The only uses for scramjets that make any sense
are
military.


Why is NASA doing this research then? The military are perfectly capable of
doing it themselves. I would hardly be surprised if the USAF tested a
hypersonic scramjet a decade ago. And there were already stories about the
USAF testing a scramjet engine in a cannon-shell.

If the scramjet isn't going to be used by NASA in any of its spacecraft, the
whole project is moot IMHO. And in light of the Shuttle failures I'm pretty
confident NASA will return to capsules.

In article ,
Uddo Graaf wrote:
This is not surprising. The only uses for scramjets that make any sense
are military.

Why is NASA doing this research then?

The first "A" in "NASA" stands for Aeronautics.

And NASA doesn't *need* a reason to do research. Research is NASA's
oldest job, dating back to the agency's predecessor, the N.A.C.A.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |