You can follow the progress of today's Hyper-X test here, starting at noon Pacific time.

[Update at 12:23 PST]

Fox News says they're going to cover it, if you want to see it on television instead of your computer.

[Update about 1 PM]

As Hefty notes in comments, the B-52 is in the air. Listening to Fox is a little irritating. First they have the PR guy from the program on, and he's talking about how this will enable a five-hour trip to Japan. That's nonsense. First of all, you don't need scramjets to do that--supersonic flight will. A scramjet flying at this speed would do the job in an hour and a half. But there's nothing about this technology that deals with the real issues of supersonic/hypersonic flight--the drag and the sonic boom. This is a military technology, first and foremost, and its first application, if there is one, will almost certainly be in hypersonic cruise missiles. It's also unlikely that it will be used in launch vehicles for a very long time, for reasons that I explained here, with responses to criticism of that article here.

I'm also irritated that they reflexively go to John Pike as their "expert."

[Update at 4:45 PM PST]

The test appears to have been successful. Leonard David has the story.

Good ole' B-52 is go for takeoff.

John recommends a 'sold' fueled upper stage if this is used as the first stage of a TSTO vehicle.

Now correct this humble environmental engineer if I am wrong but don't you want your highest impulse fuels on you upper stage?

Generally, yes. I suspect that John fantasizes that solids are cheapest, but he's no more an expert on launch technology and costing than he is on anything else.

Of course if you have satellite TV, or your cable company carries, you can watch on the NASA channel.
By far the best way.

The ground crew seems real happy. Perhaps it worked as advertised.

Very exciting to see this live. Thanks for posting Mr. Simberg!

I'm new here. What's the deal with John Pike? For that matter .. who is John Pike?

Why on Earth couldn't the Fox people (and John Pike) shut up for two damned minutes so I could hear what the controllers had to say during the flight itself? Argh! Analysis is fine, but can't we enjoy the event itself without commentary?

I recorded a few of the highlights of the launch and you can enjoy them here:

http://home.swbell.net/tau8/hyperx.avi

Although it does require that you install DIVX 5.0.5 or greater on your system first

Glad to see it worked this time. Scramjets need much more research, there's drag, heating, and a question of reliabity and reusability for a system under such stress, but it could very well make an SSTO more practical, and a RELIABLE SSTO could cut operational costs over a multi-stage system.

It will be 15-20 years before scramjets could be put to use in a reusable spacecraft, if then, but the research needs to be done so we can make better choices. It is just too bad it wasn't done 20 years ago.

These 20 year estimates, where do they come from? They seem to be just perceptions that people pluck from thin air.

Unless you're encountering new physics, as we will with the ITER fusion reactor, then there are no excuses to take more than a decade to develop anything, other than lack of funding.

And stretching the funding out thinner and longer just means that most goes into the cost of program existence, rather making progress, doesn't it? Just a thought.

Anyway, it's great to see that the hypersonics guys can now move forward with technical confidence, if not future funding. It still amazes me that people think this engine will end up in an affordable launcher, but I am looking forward to hypersonic flights to Europe, although I'd probably never be able to afford one!

[...] talking about how this will enable a five-hour trip to Japan. That's nonsense. First of all, you don't need scramjets to do that--supersonic flight will. A scramjet flying at this speed would do the job in an hour and a half. But there's nothing about this technology that deals with the real issues of supersonic/hypersonic flight--the drag and the sonic boom.

I agree with you that the main near-term application appears to be hypersonic cruise missiles rather than hypersonic passenger flight (~Mach 4-5 ramjets appear better suited for the latter).

BTW, Scott Crossfield says supersonic flight actually might have more environmental problems because the aircraft is flying closer to the ozone layer and the sonic boom is a bigger issue since the aircraft is flying lower than a Mach 5 aircraft would. Of course, the latter will require more exotic high temperature materials and it will probably have a worse fuel economy than a Mach 2 aircraft.

Rand, do you thing there is significant commonality between Mach 5 passenger travel and orbital space tourism? It seems the hottest areas on aircraft operating in the low hypersonic region would be exposed to roughly the same temperatures (=1000 degrees Kelvin or so) as the airframe of a winged orbital spaceplane -- although the heating profile is different for a vehicle reentering from space. It also appears a Mach 5 passenger aircraft would need to have fairly high fuel fraction and, like most rocket powered orbital proposals, it would probably have to utilize cryogenic fuel.

MARCU$