Experimental Aircraft to Go From Zero to 13,000 in Hypersonic Test Launch

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Experimental Aircraft to Go From Zero to 13,000 in Hypersonic Test Launch (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 8/10/2011 5:02:26 AM EDT

"The goal of the project is to eventually enable the U.S. military to strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/08/09/aircraft-set-to-shatter-speed-sound/?test=latestnews

An unmanned aircraft that can travel at a breakneck pace 20 times the speed of sound will take off Wednesday from an Air Force base in California for a test flight.

The Falcon HTV-2 is an arrow-shaped aircraft that launches in a rocket, separates and then glides at hypersonic speeds of 13,000 mph through the Earth’s atmosphere.

The Falcon HTV-2 is an arrow-shaped aircraft that launches on a rocket, separates and then glides at hypersonic speeds of 13,000 mph through the Earth’s atmosphere. (To put it in perspective, it would take less than 12 minutes to fly from New York to Los Angeles.)

Posted: 8/10/2011 5:40:02 AM EDT

[#1]

What is it made of?

Posted: 8/10/2011 5:53:38 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
What is it made of?

Unobtainium.

Posted: 8/10/2011 5:58:57 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
What is it made of?

Dude, your avatar always makes me lol and think of Aimless in his saturday night atire.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:11:24 AM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What is it made of?

Unobtainium.

Oh man, if this thing works I predict a lot of pissed off blue people.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:13:09 AM EDT

[#5]

That's incredible.

Wonder if they could carry troops at some point in a similar aircraft?

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:13:26 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What is it made of?

Unobtainium.

Mmmmmmmmm. Dead blue hippies....

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:13:28 AM EDT

[#7]

Usually I can see these rockets when they launch them. Is Vandenberg broadcasting any live video of the preparations? I'd like to know when to go look for it.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:14:45 AM EDT

[#8]

If only they could put a warhead on that.......

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:15:12 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
That's incredible.

Wonder if they could carry troops at some point in a similar aircraft?

Pretty sure the troops would look like they went through a trash compactor with that kind of acceleration.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:20:03 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
That's incredible.

Wonder if they could carry troops at some point in a similar aircraft?

It's been proposed for some time: http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2006-12/semper-fly-marines-space

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:22:25 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
If only they could put a warhead on that.......

Going that fast, does it need one?

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:22:40 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

If only they could put a warhead on that.......

It's called an ICBM.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:23:01 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That's incredible.

Wonder if they could carry troops at some point in a similar aircraft?

Pretty sure the troops would look like they went through a trash compactor with that kind of acceleration.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:25:41 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
That's incredible.

Wonder if they could carry troops at some point in a similar aircraft?

The program probably would have created a space plane if it was fully funded, The Blackswift HTV-3 was supposed to be a horizontal take-off hypersonic UAV, but funding was canceled. It will be interesting to see how far project Falcon goes with this stuff.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:28:19 AM EDT

[#15]

Doesn't everything go from zero? Your title is cryptic or at least missing a key piece of information like the rate of acceleration.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:31:25 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Doesn't everything go from zero? Your title is cryptic or at least missing a key piece of information like the rate of acceleration.

No. We are all traveling at an extraordinary velocity as I type this. Nothing has impeded your velocity since you were born...

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:33:46 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That's incredible.

Wonder if they could carry troops at some point in a similar aircraft?

Pretty sure the troops would look like they went through a trash compactor with that kind of acceleration.

That's sorta what I wuz thinkin........

Well, to be honest, it was fuck that, I'll take the slow one if ya don't mind.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:40:53 AM EDT

[#18]

Is it faster than a ballistic missile? What's it's purpose?

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:41:03 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Doesn't everything go from zero? Your title is cryptic or at least missing a key piece of information like the rate of acceleration.

I am not Bill Nye the science guy.

.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:41:09 AM EDT

[#20]

Ludacris speed.... GO!

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:44:19 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Is it faster than a ballistic missile? What's it's purpose?

I think the objective here is to have a hypersonic projectile that can be flown on a non-ballistic trajectory within the upper atmosphere. Ballistic missiles are just that - ballistic. As such, the flight path of the warhead can be predicted with great accuracy, thus making the warhead a viable target for an anti-ballistic-missile missile (or other defense system). A hypersonic, steerable warhead is a much more difficult target to engage.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:45:29 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Is it faster than a ballistic missile? What's it's purpose?

Could be a satellite killer, or satellite launcher. Alternatively, throw a JDAM or two on it, and simply throw the bombs at the enemy from thousands of miles away.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:45:37 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Ludacris speed.... GO!

PLAID SPEED !!!

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:46:55 AM EDT

[#24]

The launch vehicle for this craft is nothing more than a Peacekeeper. The only new technology is the hypersonic reentry vehicle.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:47:40 AM EDT

[#25]

why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:51:24 AM EDT

[#26]

Awesome !

I wonder how long it will take before the technology is sold to the Chinese.

Posted: 8/10/2011 6:52:42 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Awesome !

I wonder how long it will take before the technology is sold to the Chinese.

Already has been...

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:03:50 AM EDT

[#28]

Meh. Bring back Project Pluto

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:05:35 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

That would be a logistical nightmare. You would have to either have a lot of geostationary orbit satellites with a lot of warheads on them, or a bunch of steerable satellites in low earth orbit with huge gas tanks. Or rely on large missiles with their enough fuel to reach the target on their own, but those would be pretty damn heavy to lift up there.

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:10:00 AM EDT

[#30]

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:10:06 AM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Doesn't everything go from zero? Your title is cryptic or at least missing a key piece of information like the rate of acceleration.

No. We are all traveling at an extraordinary velocity as I type this. Nothing has impeded your velocity since you were born...

I dunno.

At my age, I feel like I'm going slower that I used to. Now I'm very HDLS.

Probably only relative though.

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:13:00 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

Tom Clancy has sorta done this already, on a much lower scale...................

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:13:15 AM EDT

[#33]

This a cover project to keep the masses and our enemies off. We roll these out every now and again to keep your eyes from the real black projects. Even the people working on them believe this is real research and technology. Its likely we have hardware far more advanced than this.

In the 1960's we were flying the SR71, we rolled out the F117 in the 80's. Followed by the B2 and it appears we have a new helo that is stealth capable in the inventory too. And just now they are testing hypersonic gliders?

Dont be fooled, this is nothing more than a diversion.

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:13:19 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
That's incredible.

Wonder if they could carry troops at some point in a similar aircraft?

Pretty sure the troops would look like they went through a trash compactor with that kind of acceleration.

http://bbqbonanza.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/spies_like_us.jpg

you read my mind.

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:13:47 AM EDT

[#35]

I have never liked the idea of using an ICBM to launch conventional weapons. There is just too much risk of a misunderstanding happening. When an ICBM erupts from its silo and heads downrange, people tend to get pretty nervous, since ICBMs are associated with nuclear strikes.

I'd rather see us develop a manned supersonic, or hypersonic stealthy strategic bomber. That will allow you to accomplish rapid global strikes too, but offer considerably more flexibility.

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:18:33 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Is it faster than a ballistic missile? What's it's purpose?

Go ask DARPA. Good luck on your mission - you'll need it! Their security level makes Area 51 look like a national park open to tourists..

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:19:55 AM EDT

[#37]

I don't get the "ditch in the ocean" part. Is this think supposed to be an aircraft or a guided warhead??!?

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:20:27 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:

why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

That would be a logistical nightmare. You would have to either have a lot of geostationary orbit satellites with a lot of warheads on them, or a bunch of steerable satellites in low earth orbit with huge gas tanks. Or rely on large missiles with their enough fuel to reach the target on their own, but those would be pretty damn heavy to lift up there.

Plus, at some point, you've got to deorbit the things.

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:24:23 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
That's incredible.

Wonder if they could carry troops at some point in a similar aircraft?

G forces? Probably not...

Posted: 8/10/2011 7:36:39 AM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

Because it's against various international treaties. Also if the US parks an armed satielite over China or the Russians, you can be sure they will park one over the US.

Posted: 8/10/2011 9:31:44 AM EDT

[#41]

"The goal of the project is to eventually enable the U.S. military Air Force to strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour."

Fixed. The US already HAS the ability to strike anywhere in the world in a short time span - only it's controlled by the US Navy in the form of subs and carriers.

One hour strike? Considering the White House takes an hour to decide which hand to wipe His ass with, there's no point If a situation were to arise where we had to deliver devastating force on a location with only one hour's notice, just pack it in because our intelligence, political, and military systems have utterly failed.

This is the dead hand of Curtiss LeMay still guiding policy and procurement. How many years does that fucker need to be dead before people realize the damage he caused?

Posted: 8/10/2011 9:36:36 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

If only they could put a warhead on that.......

Nominally they were called ICBMs back in the 50's when they were first deployed.....

Posted: 8/10/2011 9:39:03 AM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
If only they could put a warhead on that.......

I am pretty sure it will not contain a love letter when delivered.

Posted: 8/10/2011 9:42:30 AM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

That's incredible.

Wonder if they could carry troops at some point in a similar aircraft?

Not at the current rate of accelleration, I believe. In 20 years, who knows.

Posted: 8/10/2011 9:45:08 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:

why not just arm space and be able to nuke it from orbit in less than a minute? it seems easier to weaponize satellites. have the satellite constantly beam info to its target. like a tv channel that all it showed is an image of its gun camera focused in on the enemy house. It would be demoralizing to say the least./

I forget the title, but there is an international treaty to keep space from being militarized. We don't want the Russians or the chinese having space weapons, anymore than they want us to have them.

Posted: 8/10/2011 9:47:17 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Meh. Bring back Project Pluto

http://www.hulu.com/watch/114692/the-lost-missile

Posted: 8/10/2011 9:47:37 AM EDT

[#47]

Google "scramjet engine" the technology to go that fast has been around for quite awhile. And the crap you'll see on google is only what's unclassified.

Posted: 8/10/2011 9:49:19 AM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Usually I can see these rockets when they launch them. Is Vandenberg broadcasting any live video of the preparations? I'd like to know when to go look for it.

Are you north or south of V-berg? I'm a ways north but I can see rockets go up.