Unmanned USA military aircraft travels from NYC to LA in 12 minutes.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2390818,00.asp

by hhastings • 15 years ago

37 21 15 years ago

pcmag.com

hernan7• 15 years ago

Prototype was just lost during the last test flight earlier today:

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/new-york-to-la-in-l...

frossie• 15 years ago

And this loss might cost them their program:

"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...

reemrevnivek2• 15 years ago

That page concludes with:

"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.

hercynium• 15 years ago

Suggestion for more accurate headline: "Unmanned USA military aircraft could travel from NYC to LA in 12 minutes"

Normally I don't care, but I guess I'm just grumpy today.

ScottWhigham• 15 years ago

Yes, you're right - it's a total linkbait title that is also inaccurate. Flagged althought it likely won't matter.

DavidAdams• 15 years ago

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.

sliverstorm3• 15 years ago

What if we think of it as Schrodinger's Falcon? It has both completed and not completed the trip from NYC to LA!

reemrevnivek2• 15 years ago

Previous discussions this morning:

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:

    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....

sliverstorm3• 15 years ago

Mach 20!? Heavens, and I thought the NASA X-43 was fast.

CamperBob• 15 years ago

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?

jessriedel• 15 years ago

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.

VladRussian2• 15 years ago

>(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.

fleitz• 15 years ago

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.

_delirium• 15 years ago

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.

sliverstorm3• 15 years ago

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.

SkyMarshal• 15 years ago

Another possible use, besides the mentioned 'Global Strike': next-gen SR-71. The benefits:

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.

runjake• 15 years ago

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).

teyc• 15 years ago

A plane can land and take off again.

This is actually scramjet technology, which has very general applications beyond delivering a bomb.

ColinWright• 15 years ago

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:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2874651

Unmanned USA military aircraft travels from NYC to LA in 12 minutes.

Related Stories