"Had the latest test flight gone to plan, the Falcon HTV-2 would have separated from its rocket high above the atmosphere and entered a steep dive before levelling out and performing a series of subtle manoeuvres to test its aerodynamic performance. At the end of the flight the plane would have rolled upside down and steered a graceful arc into the ocean."
The official press release at http://go.usa.gov/KLe says that they confirmed separation and that they achieved high-speed aerodynamic flight, not that they "would have separated". They lost contact 9 minutes into the aerodynamic tests, and the plane (if you can call it that, the CNN article calls it a "triangular wedge of zoom" which seems more appropriate) went down sometime after that.
Call me when I can get to the airport, park, get through security, get seated, fly to my destination, get off the plane, wait for my luggage, and be out at the curb in 12 minutes.
This pcmag article is from yesterday, the plane has already taken off. The Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/#!/DARPA_News) points to several updates after launch, and now to this news release (http://go.usa.gov/KLe) which says:
Separation of the vehicle was confirmed by rocket cam and the aircraft
transitioned to Mach 20 aerodynamic flight. This transition represents
a critical knowledge and control point in maneuvering atmospheric
hypersonic flight. More than nine minutes of data was collected before
an anomaly caused loss of signal. Initial indications are that the aircraft
impacted the Pacific Ocean along the planned flight path.
It's supposed to have automatic landing procedures (basically, to crash into the Pacific), so they may still be hoping for a recovery.
Interestingly, Flight 1, which flew in April of last year, also collected 9 minutes of data. Maybe they just have to speed it up so they get where they want to be in less than 9 minutes....
I'm a little unclear on what this project offers, vis-a-vis 1950s-era ICBMs. Is it considered OK to use in warfare because it doesn't look like a missile and doesn't carry nukes?
It's OK to use in warfare because it doesn't carry nukes. That's an enormous difference.
However, it is a good question to ask what this offers over ICBM equipped with conventional weapons. (The speed is about the same.) I'd imagine it's cost.
>(The speed is about the same.) I'd imagine it's cost.
Both system consist of booster (which need to provide 20 Mach delta-v to its payload) and payload - upper stage which is warhead carrying vehicle. ICBM is cheaper because it follows dumb ballistic trajectory which puts no specific structural requirements on the warheads and their enclosure. The warhead vehicle traveling at 20 Mach in the upper atmosphere would cost enormously more ( and possibly would be much heavier, thus requiring bigger booster). I.e. ICBM is cheaper.
The dumb ballistic trajectory was a weak spot of the ICBM system, and thus modern ICBM warheads perform evasive maneuvers during final atmosphere re-entry.
ICBMs are perfectly acceptable to use in warfare but like all warfare it comes with political ramifications. What I'm not sure of is what advantages over an ICBM this might offer.
ICBMs can carry non-nuclear warheads but it's a VERY expensive way to get a payload on target.
It's not just expense; due to nuclear early-warning systems mostly being keyed off ICBM launches, it's risky to launch one. You're gambling that other nuclear-armed powers will believe you that it's conventionally-armed and not heading at them, which is a decision they only have several minutes to make. So in practice ICBMs have usually not been considered a normal part of the conventional-force arsenal.
>You're gambling that other nuclear-armed powers will believe you that it's conventionally-armed and not heading at them
yep, and when this http://www.panoramio.com/photo/13572904 sees such a highly maneuverable vehicle flying 20 Machs over Europe you don't think it would cause questions that must be answered during next few minutes? At least in case of ICBM it is clear where it flies to once it launched.
I think it is pretty funny that our country is trillions of dollars in debt and here our military is making toy FN planes that cost 125 million dollars. What the f is wrong with this picture!
I personally see these hypersonic flight tests as being more about research into flight. They are exploring the absolute limits of aircraft (I know it's not a plane in the traditional sense) aerodynamics and maneuvering, and I like to think that's useful for something besides payload delivery.
Read the article. It's a test platform for a strike weapon capable of striking anywhere in the world in an hour. Our current capabilities, ICBMs included, aren't capable of that to my knowledge (I worked on such platform up into the 90s).
There are lots of submissions about this, some with comments, some with different aspects reported. A collection of previous submissions and links is given here:
24 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 63.2 ms ] threadhttp://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/new-york-to-la-in-l...
"This test flight was their last shot at success before the project is considered for closure."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/11/fastest-ever-pla...
"Had the latest test flight gone to plan, the Falcon HTV-2 would have separated from its rocket high above the atmosphere and entered a steep dive before levelling out and performing a series of subtle manoeuvres to test its aerodynamic performance. At the end of the flight the plane would have rolled upside down and steered a graceful arc into the ocean."
The official press release at http://go.usa.gov/KLe says that they confirmed separation and that they achieved high-speed aerodynamic flight, not that they "would have separated". They lost contact 9 minutes into the aerodynamic tests, and the plane (if you can call it that, the CNN article calls it a "triangular wedge of zoom" which seems more appropriate) went down sometime after that.
Normally I don't care, but I guess I'm just grumpy today.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873003 - 4 comments
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873313 - deleted
This pcmag article is from yesterday, the plane has already taken off. The Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/#!/DARPA_News) points to several updates after launch, and now to this news release (http://go.usa.gov/KLe) which says:
It's supposed to have automatic landing procedures (basically, to crash into the Pacific), so they may still be hoping for a recovery.Interestingly, Flight 1, which flew in April of last year, also collected 9 minutes of data. Maybe they just have to speed it up so they get where they want to be in less than 9 minutes....
However, it is a good question to ask what this offers over ICBM equipped with conventional weapons. (The speed is about the same.) I'd imagine it's cost.
Both system consist of booster (which need to provide 20 Mach delta-v to its payload) and payload - upper stage which is warhead carrying vehicle. ICBM is cheaper because it follows dumb ballistic trajectory which puts no specific structural requirements on the warheads and their enclosure. The warhead vehicle traveling at 20 Mach in the upper atmosphere would cost enormously more ( and possibly would be much heavier, thus requiring bigger booster). I.e. ICBM is cheaper.
The dumb ballistic trajectory was a weak spot of the ICBM system, and thus modern ICBM warheads perform evasive maneuvers during final atmosphere re-entry.
ICBMs can carry non-nuclear warheads but it's a VERY expensive way to get a payload on target.
yep, and when this http://www.panoramio.com/photo/13572904 sees such a highly maneuverable vehicle flying 20 Machs over Europe you don't think it would cause questions that must be answered during next few minutes? At least in case of ICBM it is clear where it flies to once it launched.
1. Can't be shot down by any known SA missile technology (which the Russians are pretty good at)
2. Isn't a sitting duck like satellites, can't be shot down with anti-satellite weapons.
3. Can go anywhere anytime, so adversaries can't time their troop movements and other clandestine activities around your spysat flyover schedule.
4. Perfect for keeping tabs on China's opaque military buildup, since the US's sats and humint isn't as effective at that as desired.
This is actually scramjet technology, which has very general applications beyond delivering a bomb.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2874651