Waverider Set to Surf Again:

The Air Force's second X-51A Waverider experimental hypersonic air vehicle is set to fly at the end of the month, aiming for speeds in excess of Mach 6, said Charles Brink, Air Force Research Lab’s X-51A program manager. "We plan to go fly the same profile that we tried to fly last time. . . . We met about 80 [percent] to 90 percent of our flight-test objectives and the [upcoming] flight will be to see if we can repeat the same success and move out further in the Mach regime," Brink told reporters Tuesday during a teleconference. The X-51 is dropped from a B-52. An attached rocket is designed to fire for roughly 30 seconds before jettisoning, propelling the air vehicle to a speed where its supersonic combustion ramjet can engage. During the flight of the first X-51 last May, the initial sequence was successful before an anomaly forced termination at 143 seconds. Though the first test multiplied the standing scramjet flight record 10 times over, AFRL's goal for the upcoming mission is a "nominal demonstrator flight of 240 seconds," said Brink. Boeing and Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne supply the X-51.
 
X-51 weaponization plan?

The technology being tested out in the Air Force’s X-51A Waverider hypersonic missile platform may soon shift from far-out tech to becoming an actual weapon, service officials revealed this week. “There are a number of initiatives and plans in the works,” to shift “the technologies that are in the X-51A to start transitioning those technologies to a more weapons friendly design,” said Charlie Brink, the Air Force Research Laboratory’s X-51A program manager during a March 15 call with bloggers.

While none of these plans have been fleshed out into an official program of record to weaponize the X-51A, it could mean that we see a new generation of hypersonic weapons developed using the technology proven by the Waverider. One example of this is the fact that the Air Force may look at shrinking certain parts found in the X-51A such as the engine control computer. Right now, the aircraft uses the same one found on the F-22. However, this is a bit overkill according to Brink, who described it as “bigger box and more robust computing capability” than needed to help guide a vehicle like the Waverider.

Instead, the service would like to see parts like that get smaller, freeing up more space for fuel, sensors and stuff that goes bang; like, you know, warheads. “Those are the kind of technologies that we would like to start working on and integrating into a hypersonic demonstrator down the road,” said Brink. He then confirmed that there is R&D money socked away to start working on how to do just that. Eventually, the Air Force will decide whether or not to modify the X-51A airframe or use its technology as the basis for a new vehicle, he added. The service has a road map on how to come to this decision, he said.

Many have speculated that hypersonic vehicles like the X-51A could be used as a sort of super cruise missile to fulfill the Air Force’s requirement for a conventional weapon that can strike any target on earth from the continental U.S. in a matter of minutes or hours after the target is ID’d. The Air Force is prepping for the second ever live-fire test shot of the X-51A on March 22. Last year, the X-51A took a 140 second flight at speeds up to Mach 5. That flight was terminated before the Waverider could reach its planned speed of Mach 6
 
In a quick net search, I didn't find any indication of it.

I read the DoDLive Bloggers Roundtable posted earlier, that was pretty good actually.
They explained pretty well why they're happy with the first flight. Plus explained pretty
well what he problems were.

Also mentioned that they proposed it for a Collier !

Here's what they said about the March 22nd flight date:
"So our next flight is scheduled for March 22nd of this month. However, there's a lot of things that have to come together with both the flight tests carrier aircraft, the B-52 and the Point Mugu ranges. So I would say right now that that's the date we're shooting towards, but I would not be surprised if we have to push that back for any number of issues that might pop up. And I really wouldn't want to go into all of the things that are going on with both the aircraft and the range and scheduling and things like that.
But it's safe to say that we're planning to fly fairly soon. The vehicle is at a hangar at Edwards Air Force Base and it's pretty much ready to go, and will fly whenever we're able to get up on the B-52 and get out over the range."

So we'll just have to cross our fingers and keep monitoring for info.
 
Here's a somewhat related story:

Students Work With Industry On Scramjet

Mar 25, 2011

By Graham Warwick graham_warwick@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON


Collaboration between students and industry on a project to improve the accuracy of hypersonic engine testing is moving forward with the unveiling at the University of Virginia (UVa.) of a full-scale mock-up of a scramjet experiment to be flown in 2012.

Graduate and undergraduate students at UVa.’s School of Engineering and Applied Science are working with faculty and industry on the Hy-V program to ground- and flight-test a scramjet to develop improved methods of testing hypersonic engines.

A scramjet payload designed by UVa with Allied Techsystems’ (ATK) GASL division is planned to fly from NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia in 2012, says Chris Goyne, research assistant professor of aerospace engineering and principal investigator for the flight mission.

The payload has two hydrogen-fueled scramjet flowpaths and will be boosted to 92,000 ft. and Mach 5 by a NASA-supplied Terrier-Improved Orion two-stage sounding rocket, which will stay attached to the second stage throughout the flight, Goyne says.

Rather than testing a specific flowpath design, Hy-V is “a representation of [a] scramjet to develop methodologies and learn lessons for ground test and flight test,” Goyne says. Inlets and combustion chambers are similar to a scramjet, he says, but not the nozzles.

One of the flowpaths is based on a design UVa has tested in its direct-connect hypersonic wind tunnel. The other has changes to the combustor to make it more representative of a real scramjet, Goyne says. Both have rectangular, two-dimensional flowpaths.

Though design of the flight payload is complete, fabrication is on hold pending the completion for freejet wind-tunnel testing of both scramjet flowpaths now under way at ATK GASL, he says.

Hy-V is being funded by the Defense Department. Because the program involves graduate and undergraduate students at UVa and Virginia Tech, NASA Wallops is providing the sounding rocket and range services under its university outreach effort.

The level of student involvement is unusual for a scramjet test program, Goyne believes. Graduate students are collaborating with ATK on design and testing of the payload, while undergraduates are working with Aerojet on different aspects of the flight mission.

“They are involved in design of the payload, wind-tunnel testing and the design of subsystems. It’s a great opportunity for them to work side-by-side with faculty and industry and gives them a head start,” he says.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awx/2011/03/25/awx_03_25_2011_p0-302050.xml&headline=Students
 
DSE said:
http://defensetech.org/2011/03/25/x-51a-hypersonic-flight-cancelled-at-last-minute/

X-51A Hypersonic Flight Cancelled at Last Minute

Here’s a small break from all the Libya info we’ve been bringing you this week. Apparently, the second test flight Air Force’s X-51A Waverider hypersonic test vehicle was scrapped at the last minute yesterday.

The X-51A was strapped to a B-52 bomber from Edwards Air Force Base over the Point Mugu Sea Range off the California coast when test officials cancelled the flight, according to an Air Force announcement.

The mission was cancelled because, “all required test conditions could not be met.” Who knows what that means? An Air Force spokesman couldn’t comment to DT about what caused the delay.

The cancellation could have been due to anything from a technical glitch with the X-51A, the B-52 or even a random ship passing through the test range; an earlier test flight was delayed when a freight ship passed through Point Mugu’s test range. You’d think that military officials could temporarily restrict passage through the range when test shots are scheduled.

Here’s one possible clue; the Air Force’s statement goes on to say that another flight will be scheduled “following a check of the system and when range and test assets can again be aligned.”

This may be a standard post-flight check or it could indicate that it was a technical glitch, not bad weather or a ship passing across the Waverider’s flight path that led to the cancellation of the flight.

Service officials also can’t commit on when the next flight will be. Simple things like the availability of Point Mugu’s test range or Edwards’ B-52 mothership can delay a test flight, and that’s if there’s nothing wrong with the X-51A.

The Waverider’s first hypersonic flight last year was terminated at the halfway mark when hot engine gases seeped into the airframe cutting off communications with flight controllers. http://defensetech.org/2011/03/17/engine-gases-leaking-into-airframe-led-to-early-termination-of-x-51a-flight/

Let me just say up front that I don't know why they canceled. Before leaving AFFTC I worked this project a little and spoke with one of there test directors recently. It's helpful to mention that the BUFF is flying this profile with a very tight margin on the fuel in order to get up to 50K. On top of that there are a whole lot of other parts and pieces that all need to be in place for this thing to work. Of course it could have been as simple as a maintenance CANX. Hope they can make it work next week.

Cheers
 
DSE said:
Same here. Just to add it sure wasn't canceled for no good reason. All the costs for the range and the other associated resources stood up and used to make an attempt are not trivial. I wonder if there were issues with the fuel transfer system on the BUFF. There's a pretty large CG change after drop that must be accounted for. While this is a different B-52 than the venerable NASA B-52B -008 used for the Hyper-X flights, at least one Hyper-X flight dealt with something along this vein.

Balls Eight is now out at the north gate. Balls 25 which was suppose to replace it went away and is now a maintenance trainer at Sheppard. Biggest difference between X-43 and X-51 is that the former used a Pegasus while X-51 uses a modified ATACMS missile. Pegasus had a lot more umph than the other so the BUFF has to fly higher, hence the lower margins.

Cheers
 
doublefacepalm.jpg
 
Makes you wonder how the "black" world could be flying hypersonic vehicles for more than twenty years when these guys can't even let theirs take off!!!
 
Hey!

When I saw the "double facepalm" I thought we'd lost the vehicle !

But we're OK !

Sometimes things don't work in spite of the fact that they're supposed to.
Work in new tech is like that.

I'm just glad we can try again.

No big deal.

And believe me, if the black world is doing this, they have problems
like this too. Nobdy is immune from this sort of thing.
 
shockonlip said:
Hey!

When I saw the "double facepalm" I thought we'd lost the vehicle !

But we're OK !

Sometimes things don't work in spite of the fact that they're supposed to.
Work in new tech is like that.

I'm just glad we can try again.

No big deal.

And believe me, if the black world is doing this, they have problems
like this too. Nobdy is immune from this sort of thing.

High speed research (hardware, not cartoons) in the US is just depressing. 90% of the programs get cancelled before they even get off the paper and the rest get cancelled at the first sign of difficulty. I guess I should have viewed this X-51 hang up as progress. Apparently the last HyFly dropped like dead weight right into the drink. And of course THAT program is dead now.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Makes you wonder how the "black" world could be flying hypersonic vehicles for more than twenty years when these guys can't even let theirs take off!!!

The black world guys have to wait on clearance to use the ranges as well. If you went through the records of airspace closures since 1980 and correlated each to a known test event, you might be left with some unknown test events.
 
DSE said:
Don't get me wrong, it isn't good news to have issues. But given the way you phrased this who outside the US is doing anything any better? Which programs were canceled at the first sign of difficulty?

HyFly
RATTLRS (apparently)
Arc Light is dead
Fasthawk - Dead
Ramjet propulsion for HARM - dead
HyStrike
HyTech
JSSCM
SHOC
HCV
FALCON
Blackswift
RASCAL

and those are just the ones that come to mind. Would you dare put money on whether LRASM/B gets cancelled before they fly it?



DSE said:
HyFly might have reaped what it sowed and it went oh-for in all the planned tests. If it dies after that, that's not really being cancelled in light of first difficulty, imo.

Of the three (wow three?) apparent attempts how many were failures of what they were actually suppose to be testing? And how do they ever expect to succeed if they give up and quit so easily?

DSE said:
The brutal reality of flight tests is that the actual part of the flight test that is the real goal is just a small piece of the whole pie. Yet it all has to work for that overall goal to be achieved.

And all the CFD and powerpoints in the world don't mean squat if we can't make the transition from theory to practice because we've lost the ability to do so. And more of the same won't bring it back.
 
The black world has been playing sub-sonic UAV's not hyper SCRAMs for the past twenty years. X-24C is as close as we came to flying a hyper. The old guru's have been put out to pasture along with the wind tunnels that flirted with the hyper regime back in the 60's. The new gen of hypers fly in the CGI world and lack the basic "hands-on" experience that is required to make it happen. X-51 failure(s) to me sounds more like a lack of hands on flight prep experience than a failure of technology. Less CGI and more in-the-shop fabrication and hand-on-flying is what is needed.
 
airrocket said:
The black world has been playing sub-sonic UAV's not hyper SCRAMs for the past twenty years. X-24C is as close as we came to flying a hyper. The old guru's have been put out to pasture along with the wind tunnels that flirted with the hyper regime back in the 60's. The new gen of hypers fly in the CGI world and lack the basic "hands-on" experience that is required to make it happen. X-51 failure(s) to me sounds more like a lack of hands on flight prep experience than a failure of technology. Less CGI and more in-the-shop fabrication and hand-on-flying is what is needed.

This.
 
DSE said:
sferrin said:
Of the three (wow three?) apparent attempts how many were failures of what they were actually suppose to be testing? And how do they ever expect to succeed if they give up and quit so easily?

I don't know what circles you live/work in, but in this arena one had better get their act together quickly after a failure. No matter what the cause. HyFly was spec'd/funded for three flight tests and got that. Did you notice where the DARPA PM is now? Who at DARPA took up that bandwagon? Oh yeah, Bussing came and quickly went. It's hard enough for these DARPA PMs to sell a program such as this. Care to give it a whirl and sell it after three failures on the "trivial" stuff?

That's my point. These days those in charge are so risk-averse that failure is not tolerated. When doing cutting edge research failure IS going to happen. It should be a given to anybody with any reasonable amount of intelligence. That's why they HAVE R&D. But you learn from the mistakes and move on, not just give up. And when I say "trival" I realize it's a relative thing but missing something due to inadequate QA is in my mind "trivial". As in stupid. This is not the kind of failure that should receive a large degree of tolerance, but at the same time you don't slit your own throat by cancelling the program. Replace the people/contractor/subcontractor or give the project to a more competant team.




DSE said:
Read Peebles work on lessons learned from the Hyper-X program, it is just this "trivial" stuff that is the "hard" stuff.
Really? Which "hard" thing was it that caused one of the HyFlys to drop straight into the ocean without even firing it's booster? Which "hard" thing was it that prevented the last X-51 from initiating as planned? If the act of merely dropping a missile and having it's booster fire reliably is so hard we've got bigger problems than I ever imagined. I guess that's what happens when the time between tests is measured in years.
 
DSE said:
sferrin said:
That's my point. These days those in charge are so risk-averse that failure is not tolerated. When doing cutting edge research failure IS going to happen. It should be a given to anybody with any reasonable amount of intelligence. That's why they HAVE R&D. But you learn from the mistakes and move on, not just give up. And when I say "trival" I realize it's a relative thing but missing something due to inadequate QA is in my mind "trivial". As in stupid. This is not the kind of failure that should receive a large degree of tolerance, but at the same time you don't slit your own throat by cancelling the program. Replace the people/contractor/subcontractor or give the project to a more competant team.

Programs only have so much funding allotted to them. If you screw up it's kind of difficult to go up the chain and ask for more. Switch contractors? Now you're talking heresy. That would be like giving Boeing the F-35 to fix. Besides much of the rights of the design may belong to the original contractors.
DSE said:
sferrin said:
DSE said:
Read Peebles work on lessons learned from the Hyper-X program, it is just this "trivial" stuff that is the "hard" stuff.
Really? Which "hard" thing was it that caused one of the HyFlys to drop straight into the ocean without even firing it's booster? Which "hard" thing was it that prevented the last X-51 from initiating as planned? If the act of merely dropping a missile and having it's booster fire reliably is so hard we've got bigger problems than I ever imagined. I guess that's what happens when the time between tests is measured in years.

It's hard in the sense that the systems you're talking about go through nowhere near the type of testing that real systems do. They are also making use of systems and components in ways they were never designed nor tested for. And since as you say this is the easy stuff, a lot of $$ and time isn't allotted for their scrutiny sometimes. Unfortunately, this would appear to be a symptom of a larger problem in advanced programs in that one is never really given enough $$ and time to do it right the first time, but this causes the need for more $$ and time to try doing it over again... and again... and again... If you're frustrated think of how those working in the trenches feel.
That's why I like the concept of the Air Force Research Laboratory's Rapid Prototyping Office. They should fund programs like the X-Prize was funded. The first contractor to achieve "A" gets a billion dollars or a contract to build a billion dollars worth of "A". Now this would not work for huge mutli-billion dollar programs but let's say, build a hypersonic strike missile maybe it would.
 
DSE said:
Tense Moments In X-51A Hypersonic Test Vehicle Abort

SAN FRANCISCO - U.S. Air Force hypersonic test team members say the recent aborted attempt to launch the second X-51A WaveRider had to be scrubbed because the vehicle did not release from the B-52H mothership.

The hang-up of the 25-ft.-long stack on March 24, comprising the X-51A and its rocket booster, caused "tense moments" on the ground and in the air, according to test observers.

After the vehicle failed to release, the B-52H flight crew discussed manually ditching the 3,942-lb. load over the ocean, but were persuaded to return to Edwards AFB, Calif, with it attached to the wing when the X-51A operators confirmed the vehicle had automatically "safed" itself.

Air Force Flight Test Center technicians have been investigating why the cartridge release mechanism on the MAU-12 launch adapter did not function, while hypersonic test planners have been attempting to reschedule another attempt.

Air Force Research Laboratory chief engineer Richard Mutzman, a former X-51A chief engineer, says "the vehicle has been re-cycled and is ready, and will be available in the first week in May. The B-52 investigation continues and it will be ready in the second week of May. The long pole in the tent is the availability of the Pacific Ocean Point Mugu Naval Air Warfare Center Sea Range, where the test will be conducted."

The test range team is "working feverishly to get us in some time in May, but barring that we have a hard date to get on the range in June," Mutzman adds. However, as the range was originally reserved for the third flight test, this additional usage could cause complications with the timing and funding of the final two flights planned later this year, Mutzman warns.
Dooh! That sucks, but not like I haven’t had a JDAM SMO hang a bomb or two on the BUFF, while conducting a mission from the very same control room no less. Tense, yes, but not as overly dramatic as the writing would lead you to believe and yes this was a THA that was briefed before the flight. So, no double face palm Scott. They had the malfunction, ran their check lists and THA’s and brought the bird home to fly another day when they determined it was safe. That’s why we plan the hell out of our flight tests.

Cheers
 
sferrin said:
Bueller, Bueller. . .

http://www.edwards.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=10905#P
 
sferrin said:
Nope. No news there. (No surprise.)

No, but the number for the AFFTC public affairs office is there. If you want an update on the test schedule, call them.
 
mkellytx said:
They had the malfunction, ran their check lists and THA’s and brought the bird home to fly another day when they determined it was safe. That’s why we plan the hell out of our flight tests.

Actually, I heard a slightly different story from a pretty highly placed source a few days later. The bring back was actually due to a communications error. They were supposed to jettison it. But the error worked out for the best and they'll get to try again.
 
blackstar said:
Actually, I heard a slightly different story from a pretty highly placed source a few days later. The bring back was actually due to a communications error. They were supposed to jettison it. But the error worked out for the best and they'll get to try again.

That is what I heard as well, that the decision not to dump it was (at least partially) a misunderstanding of the test plan.

sferrin said:
You seem to want to be my secretary, you do it.

If you want an update, you can:
- Call the AFFTC PAO regularly.
- Check the FAA NOTAM site for airspace closures supporting a test.

If you don't want an update, you can:
- Complain on a forum about a lack of updates.

I am happy to give others pointers to sources where they can help themselves and satisfy their own curiosity. That is a constructive contribution to the discussion and the community. Sharing information and constructive discussion are what the forum is for.
Complaining, whining, and the attitude that others exist to serve you do not contribute anything positive to the discussion. That behavior belongs somewhere else.
 
blackstar said:
mkellytx said:
They had the malfunction, ran their check lists and THA’s and brought the bird home to fly another day when they determined it was safe. That’s why we plan the hell out of our flight tests.

Actually, I heard a slightly different story from a pretty highly placed source a few days later. The bring back was actually due to a communications error. They were supposed to jettison it. But the error worked out for the best and they'll get to try again.

Please tell, I spoke to one of the TD's in the 419th abouiit a month ago and used to once upon a time be a TC myself in the same squadron. Knowing at least a few of the people involved, and generally the circumstances involved with hung stores, while the book answer is jetison if not sure, when the payload is very expensive you explore all oportunities to bring home your very expensive expendible payload. There is a certian art to this sutff. iIf uncomfortable sharing in public please PMl

cheers
 
Dark Eagle said:
What's so special about JP-7 fuel?

Scramjets have been using hydrogen in the past because of its nice fast ignition
capability, high heat release and cooling capability which is very useful in high
speed atmospheric flight for various cooling jobs on the aircraft. Hydrogen is
however not very dense so an aircraft that uses it is larger in size and therefore
has a larger airframe and weight. Plus since hydrogen in the aircraft tankage is
probably in liquid form it is very cryogenic, which has its own requirements and
problems.

The significance of JP-7 is that it is not hydrogen, and is instead a hydrocarbon.

The need for fast ignition, high heat release, and cooling capability has not gone
away in hypersonic flight, but using hydrocarbon means you have achieved that
with a hydrocarbon, and also have an improvement in that hydrocarbon is denser
than hydrogen, and is not cryogenic.

So the aircraft is still hypersonic but smaller than a hydrogen aircraft and therefore
smaller airframe size and weight.

JP-7, you may remember, is also the fuel used in the Lockheed A-12 and SR-71
and D-21 drones. On those aircraft a chemical igniter, namely TEB, Triethylborane
(the green flash on those neat SR-71 videos when they start the J-58s) was
used.

On X-51 they use Ethylene as the chemical igniter.

The process whereby JP-7 fuel absorbs heat on a hypersonic aircraft is an endothermic
process.
 
Fuel types can disclose the primary function of a vehicle. It was interesting that the Blackbird's were mentioned. Upon the successful test launch of the X-51 in late May of 2010, the USAF boasted that it was the first aircraft to use JP-7 since the SR-71 Blackbird. Personally I think they were a bit overly proud by that fact because it disclosed the vehicles probable use which should have remained covert.

The fact that JP-7 is endothermic, has a high flash point, maintains viscosity for use as a coolant and a hydraulic fluid "fueldraulic" is pretty well known. But, one can speculate by the existence of other facts that it maintains characteristics in quality control to maintain low H2O content and absorption.

The Blackbird's mission range was dependent on one thing, is was not JP-7 but rather the capacity of nitrogen dewars use to prevent autogenous ignition. The Blackbird's had unlimited fuel capacity as a result of the KC-135Q aerial re-fueler tanker fleet.

The was "Snake" was launched with 1/2 to 3/4 fuel loads. This preserved wear and safety of the aircraft. Missions were preceded by the launch of two tankers dispatched to rendezvous coordinates.

The one thing that was not mentioned was also the reason for the existence of the Blackbird's as well as it's demise. That reason was it's JP-7 fuel, but, not so much as the fuel itself but rather it's ability to maintain a certain additive.

It also explains the reasoning by which only one, non-bid supplier was used for the X-51.

Recently declassified documents as well as biographies written by the people who built and designed the aircraft have disclosed that the sole reason for the existence of the Blackbird's were it's ability to maintain a low RCS by using a certain additive. This certain additive is highly explosive on contact with water.

Low RCS or Stealth was the primary reason for the HABU's to be built. Without it, the heat of their propulsion system would have lit up enemy heat detectors like the midday sun. With good lead time an SA-5 missile would make the Blackbird look like it was standing still.
 
Dark Eagle said:
The one thing that was not mentioned was also the reason for the existence of the Blackbird's as well as it's demise. That reason was it's JP-7 fuel, but, not so much as the fuel itself but rather it's ability to maintain a certain additive.

It also explains the reasoning by which only one, non-bid supplier was used for the X-51.

Recently declassified documents as well as biographies written by the people who built and designed the aircraft have disclosed that the sole reason for the existence of the Blackbird's were it's ability to maintain a low RCS by using a certain additive. This certain additive is highly explosive on contact with water.

Low RCS or Stealth was the primary reason for the HABU's to be built. Without it, the heat of their propulsion system would have lit up enemy heat detectors like the midday sun. With good lead time an SA-5 missile would make the Blackbird look like it was standing still.

There are a couple of threads on the forum about this, including some by the author of one of those books.
The fuel additive was used to *increase* the radar reflectivity of the exhaust plume. Doing so hid the even more reflective parts inside the engine from view.
The Blackbird family were all designed to be difficult to intercept, not difficult to detect. It was known from the start that they would be detectable. The blackbirds were designed to use the combination of speed, altitude, and reduced RCS to increase survivability. Reduced RCS was only effective because the blackbird was flying high and fast.

"From RAINBOW to GUSTO" covers these topics extensively.
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=360&id=1789

Dark Eagle said:
disclosed that the sole reason for the existence of the Blackbird's were it's ability to maintain a low RCS by using a certain additive. This certain additive is highly explosive on contact with water.

I think you are confusing triethylborane, which ignites when exposed to air, with the cesium based additives used in the fuel. Triethylborane was used for starting the engines, the cesium additives were used to ionize the exhaust plume and increase the radar reflection of the plume. The cesium additive did not lower the temperature of the exhaust plume.
 
There are a couple of threads on the forum about this, including some by the author of one of those books.
The fuel additive was used to *increase* the radar reflectivity of the exhaust plume. Doing so hid the even more reflective parts inside the engine from view.
The Blackbird family were all designed to be difficult to intercept, not difficult to detect. It was known from the start that they would be detectable. The blackbirds were designed to use the combination of speed, altitude, and reduced RCS to increase survivability. Reduced RCS was only effective because the blackbird was flying high and fast.

"From RAINBOW to GUSTO" covers these topics extensively.
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=360&id=1789

I think you are confusing triethylborane, which ignites when exposed to air, with the cesium based additives used in the fuel. Triethylborane was used for starting the engines, the cesium additives were used to ionize the exhaust plume and increase the radar reflection of the plume. The cesium additive did not lower the temperature of the exhaust plume.
[/quote]

Thanks for the link and the feedback. I have been researching this for some time and I am interested in other perspectives.

It seems there are many myths concerning the JP-7 / cesium issue. Yes, I am quite familiar with TEB and it use.

I have never seen any references to more than one type of cesium additive. And yes, cesium is explosive on contact with water.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Aircrafts co-designer describes it as follows-
After they retired the Blackbirds, Ben Rich, the SR-71's co-designer and also the Director of Lockheed Skunk Works boasted in his book (memoir) titled "Skunk Works" on page 240.

"We at the Skunk Works believed that the airplane's height and speed, as well as its pioneering stealthy composite materials applied to key areas of its wings and tail, would keep it and its crew safe, but we fortified that belief by adding a special additive, which we nicknamed "panther piss", that ionized the furnace-like gas plumes streaming from the engine exhaust. The additive caused enemy infrared detectors to break up incoherently."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Physicist responsible for the idea, Ed Lovick, describes it so.

"A critical problem arose when the question of preventing echoes from the engine exhaust outlets was addressed. We knew that the only way to prevent such echoes was, in effect, to close the apertures. It was impractical to incorporate absorbing structures within the tail pipes."
"We had done some scaled model tests using metallic screens of several different shapes that showed promise, but we were not enthusiastic about using screens of any shape or material.
After reviewing our scaled model backscatter reduction data during the meeting, there was a discussion about how to reduce the radar echo from the huge exhaust outlets.
Dr. Bissell seemed discouraged about the chances for success. He was so concerned about the problem that he considered abandoning the project."
"Suddenly I thought of a solution. I suggested that we could put something in the fuel that would be ionized by the high exhaust gas temperatures and thereby absorb or scatter the radar energy.
My first proposal was to use cesium because, in vapor form, it has the lowest first ionization potential of all the chemical elements and therefore, would be the best source of free electrons that would do the absorption and scattering required."
Lovick goes on to say that he was told by Melvin George.
"Mel told me later that Kelly Johnson exclaimed that my suggestion may have saved the program.
Within about a week, in August of 1959, the CIA awarded a contract to design the A-12. Production of real prototype aircraft was contingent upon demonstrating a sufficiently low RCS signature by January 1960."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Aircraft's designer Kelly Johnson made two relevant statements in his report, History of the OXCRAT Program.
In that document around 1959, Johnson states-

Page 4.
" By this time we were working with P&W on a J58 engine. To overcome the afterburner problem of a large radar cross section return from the aft quadrant, we proposed the use of cesium additive to the fuel. This was first brought up by Mr. Ed Lovick of ADP, and its final development was passed over to P&W. It was eventually a basic part of our cross section reduction methods."

Page 9.
"We were able to prove by 1 January 1960 that our concept of shape, additive, and loaded plastic parts had enough promise to warrant going forward with the project."

http://www.foia.cia.gov/browse_docs.asp?doc_no=0001458639&no_pages=0025&showPage=0001

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My interest is to deduce the myths about this subject to a more pure perspective of history.

What does this information tell me?

Cesium was responsible for the existence of the Blackbirds.

The SR-71 Engine designer, Pratt & Whitney worked on test designs for the J-58 engine to run on poison fuel for the Navy less than two years before Oxcart statement. ????

The cesium did not ionize the exhaust plume, the high exhaust gas temperatures ionized the cesium. Cesium is the best source of free electrons, released at high temperatures which would then absorb or scatter the radar energy. The heat would break free the electrons from the cesium molecule.

Lovick suggested the use of a vaporized form of cesium. That would require storage tanks, an injection system, maintenance, servicing, etc. But, of course Kelly Johnson in no way would add the weight of such a system to his aircraft.

The other problem would that of security. A brand new top secret method of cloaking an aircraft was top secret, there was no way anyone could know about it. So that meant another reason an injection system was out of the question. The only choice left would be to have it put directly in the fuel stock.

Security levels were (SAR) Special Access Required on a "Need-to-know basis only". It is quite possible that no person in operations, even at the command level, had to know about it.

I think Mr. Lovick by suggesting it used in vapor form would also limit exposures to personnel as well as the amount of cesium required. At $35 per gram it demonstrates the extreme high cost of JP-7 which was basically kerosene.

It can also be deducted that the risk of personnel exposure was not a factor in the decision to use it. The cost savings in not paying hazardous duty pay to personnel as required by Executive Order 11157 was also not a factor in it's use.

Other notes:
As of 1985, the law creating the Right-to-Know Act made it illegal not to inform, train, and provide protective equipment to workers or personnel working around hazardous materials.

Other laws required end users of hazardous materials to provide information about the use of such materials to the CDC so as to maintain proper classifications of hazardous materials. The CDC in no way knows that cesium is a component of jet fuel.

During their lifespan the Blackbirds used in excess of 20 billion pounds of JP-7. The Major Command Levels of USAF, the CDC, the EPA, have no record of it's use in JP-7.
In 1986, Field studies at the Bikini Atoll determine that cesium becomes part of the food chain in that plants and animals absorb it in place of potassium. On that small island It cost more than 60 million dollars to reduce the absorption rate near to the same levels as potassium. At which it was determined that the cesium plume will continue to spread as long as life exist.

Less than 18 months later the SR-71 program was shut down. Most likely caused by the new regulations and the new knowledge of the materials toxicity.

The conundrum~ Thousand of contractors and defense workers were exposed to the fuel as the aircraft leaked profusely, they were experienced substantial dermal exposure, inhalation of vapors, and the burning constituents of the fuel. The aircraft operated for nearly 25 years at three or more locations. Ground and surface water was affected by the fuel and subsequently cleaned up, but no test were made to determine the extent of cesium exposure to the environment. The CDC states that more studies are needed but no ongoing studies have been located.

Since cesium becomes part of the food chain, it migrates throughout the environment resulting in false indicators in studies. Children are more susceptible to the hazardous effects of cesium. Property disclosure laws vary from state to state.

The X-51 uses JP-7, not in the amounts the SR-71 used. Could the knowledge of cesium in JP-7 affect the program?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom