DARPA Set To Blast Falcon Mach 20 Test Flight

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DARPA Set To Blast Falcon Mach 20 Test Flight

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday August 9, 2011 @04:41AM from the are-we-there-yet dept.

coondoggie writes "The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is taking to the sky again, this time to run what it says will be the second and final test of its hypersonic Falcon aircraft, which is capable of hitting speeds up to Mach 20, or about 13,000MPH. The Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 is scheduled to launch Wednesday between 7:00am — 1:00 pm PDT from Vandenberg AFB, Calif., aboard an Air Force Minotaur IV rocket. The rocket delivers the Falcon to a starting point high in the atmosphere, where its engine ignite, and, if all goes well, it will blast through the air for about a half hour, DARPA says."

29 of 201 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

13,000mph? by Skarecrow77 · 2011-08-09 04:50 · Score: 2

wow. half-again and you're in orbit.
where do you need to go that fast?
"When the bomb absolutely has to be anywhere in the world in 30 minutes or less, DARPA is there!"
1. Re:13,000mph? by 2names · 2011-08-09 05:36 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Wrong, wrong, wrong. *Everyone* knows Mach 1 is the speed of sound in a vacuum. Sheesh, some people.
  
  --
  "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
2. Re:13,000mph? by elrous0 · 2011-08-09 05:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Because they want to fly low over a city, blow the hell out of everyone's eardrums and windows, and prove once-and-for-all that the Flash would make a really shitty superhero in real life.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
3. Re:13,000mph? by amorsen · 2011-08-09 06:08 · Score: 2
  
  Well, if you need to shoot down a satellite, I suppose launching a missile from something that's already going at 13000mph is easier than launching it from the ground.
  You wouldn't really need a missile, you could just pick a trajectory which would intersect the satellite, let go of something, and change trajectory. At 13000mph you can actually get quite high on a parabolic orbit.
  
  --
  Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
4. Re:13,000mph? by gstoddart · 2011-08-09 06:21 · Score: 2
  
  Wrong, wrong, wrong. *Everyone* knows Mach 1 is the speed of sound in a vacuum. Sheesh, some people.
  I assume you're joking ... because, the speed of sound in a vacuum is precisely zero.
  Mach is defined relative to the medium you're in based on the current conditions of that medium.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re:13,000mph? by tommy2tone · 2011-08-09 06:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Well, if you need to shoot down a satellite, I suppose launching a missile from something that's already going at 13000mph is easier than launching it from the ground.
  Why not just put a rocket on top of the something that's travelling 13,000 mph? Keeps the costs down.
  
  but this would be more of a concept testing for the engine, with "making it practical to use" left as work for other people.
  This is probably what it is for. Someone probably already has a practical use for it, but doesn't want to reveal what that practical use would be. They just need the engine. DARPA likes to do this, where they say, "Hey design some random crazy piece of equipment that you couldn't ever fathom using. The piece of equipment must be fully functional, and we don't plan on telling you what it is for in the end. Thanks."
6. Re:13,000mph? by mhajicek · 2011-08-09 06:55 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  A dumb kinetic projectile would have a low chance of striking the target, especially if the satellite has avoidance. A high velocity release in the right general direction would be handy, but the ordinance should be able to steer, and it would be best if it also accelerates to diminish avoidance effectiveness and detonates in front of the target to spray the target with many kinetic projectiles.
7. Re:13,000mph? by 2names · 2011-08-09 08:47 · Score: 2
  
  That "whoosh" that you just heard was *not* the Falcon.
  
  --
  "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
8. Re:13,000mph? by serviscope_minor · 2011-08-09 09:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Speed of sound generally increases with altitude.
  It generally decreases. That is why airliners fly under autopilot in what is known as the coffin corner. It's the corner of the space where they are flying only just below the speed needed to maintain lift and flying only just below the transonic regime where they become unstable.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Long walk by teaserX · 2011-08-09 04:57 · Score: 2

13,000MPH....blast through the air for about a half hour... Shagging that is gonna be a schlep.

--
We really need your help
http://www.gofundme.com/help-sherry
Re:Why DARPA and not NASA? by SirWhoopass · 2011-08-09 05:25 · Score: 3, Informative

Why DARPA and not NASA?
DARPA has money. NASA does not.
Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by sycodon · 2011-08-09 05:32 · Score: 2

About the time China gets her aircraft carriers built, debugged and they learn how to operate from them and what the hell to do with them, we might have drones that can deliver ordinance anywhere in the world in just a few hours.
The need for a carrier group to project power may well go by the wayside.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
1. Re:Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by GooberToo · 2011-08-09 05:45 · Score: 2
  
  Projection of power is about what can be seen - not knowing something merely exists.
  When a carrier groups parks outside your window, the thought isn't, "So that's what a carrier group looks like." Rather, the message is, "This is a nice reminder to pull your head from ass else we'll do it for you." Or perhaps, "You have our full support. We're here to help." Regardless, physical presence is almost everything in that projection of power.
2. Re:Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by Grygus · 2011-08-09 05:52 · Score: 2
  
  The nuclear arsenal would seem to belie this theory.
3. Re:Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by sycodon · 2011-08-09 06:12 · Score: 2
  
  Wait...are you talking cost effectiveness with regards to the military?
  
  --
  When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
4. Re:Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by 0123456 · 2011-08-09 06:42 · Score: 2
  
  Carriers and their aircraft can linger.
  Until it's sunk by a hypersonic missile or a submarine, anyway.
5. Re:Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by turbidostato · 2011-08-09 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  But of course yes!
  Maybe you didn't notice but cost effectiveness is the difference between winning wars and losing them.
6. Re:Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by Genda · 2011-08-09 06:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  At 13,000 mph the delivery time is about half an hour. Figure the furthest spot on the planet is 12,000 miles from launch site and that means less than an hour ro anywhere on the planet. Can you say DAMN FAST!!!
  As for delivering ordinance, you would coordinate a fast delivery vehicle with local eyes in the air and possibly eyes on the ground. Drop a couple multi-warhead smart bombs and you pretty much have obsoleted any other kind of bomber. Add fly by wire plus autonomous smart electronics, and predator drones, and you pretty much don't have to change out of your jammies to blast the snot out of somebody half a world away.
  On the more productive side, this technology would lend itself to eventually creating aircraft capable of LEO space flight, and ultra high speed global travel. The idea of getting anyplace on earth in less time than it takes to get through the security line is kind of shocking. Anyone for high tea in Johannesburg?
7. Re:Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by cavreader · 2011-08-09 07:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The major country nuclear arsenals are pretty much useless in any strategic sense because one ICBM launch will trigger thousands going in all directions leaving nothing left to argue about. The only real purpose they serve is preventing this type of total global annihilation. Orbital based kinetic weapons are the next phase of weapon development. Non-explosive projectiles targeted from orbit are capable of the same amount of destruction as a nuke without the nasty radioactive after taste. Accuracy might not be as good as modern GPS based missiles but then again it isn't necessary to hit a specific chimney or window with a weapon of this power.
8. Re:Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by rubycodez · 2011-08-09 08:06 · Score: 2
  
  the business model is to engage in prolonged wars without plan or purpose, to line defense contractor pockets and provide patriotic fodder for politicians to feed the masses.
9. Re:Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by rubycodez · 2011-08-09 08:08 · Score: 2
  
  nope, didn't notice with all these expensive unwon "authorized actions" we've been farting around with since WW II
10. Re:Aircraft Carries Obsoleted. by Martin+Blank · 2011-08-09 09:00 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It doesn't need to fly low. It can basically cross half the globe in a little over an hour. Even with a long-lead tracking system, your air defense with its range of perhaps 200km has a span of about 55 seconds in which to intercept it, which in the scheme of things makes it very difficult. It's not going to be maneuverable, but you have to have both timing to intercept and timing to explode before the inbound arrives so that you catch it in the blast. Alternately, you can try a direct intercept, but that's even more difficult.
  
  --
  You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Who needs NASA? by Animats · 2011-08-09 05:33 · Score: 2

Between DARPA and Space-X, we may get space travel back.
One of the better ideas in spacecraft was the Boeing/USAF X-20 Dyna-Soar., from 1957 to 1963. This was a small aerodynamic craft to be launched atop a booster and land on a runway like an airplane. It was the next step after the successful X-15. The project was cancelled in favor of the Gemini spacecraft. This DARPA project is a lot like the old Dyna-Soar.
1. Re:Who needs NASA? by jafac · 2011-08-09 09:08 · Score: 2
  
  X-33 was the inheritor of those ideas. Canceled by congress in 1996. Yes - there were serious technical issues - but the concept, as a whole, was nowhere nearly as flawed as STS. It was quite elegant. I do not understand why there was no discussion of continuing this research when STS was canceled. Oh - yes I do: There could be no pork for a certain congressional district in Utah, if we used a sensible design.
  
  --
  
  These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Not an Aircraft - more like a MARV by wisebabo · 2011-08-09 05:43 · Score: 3, Informative

It's an unpowered lifting body, no engines, so it basically glides (at a very high speed!) and is capable of surviving re-entry.
It looks like it's a weapons delivery system capable of avoiding terminal ballistic missile defenses. A MARV (MAneuverable Reentry Vehicle).
I thought we (the U.S.) were the only ones with a (semi)-robust missile defense system (well I guess the Isrealis also). I guess DARPA's just planning ahead for the day when the Chinese decide to redress the strategic balance by spending their Trillions on a good BMD. Also I'm thinking it must be so expensive that the only kind of warhead that's worth placing on board is nuclear. But then again maybe there are VERY specific soft targets which you absolutely positively have to kill in an hour (because that's all you know they'll be in that location for). Then a "conventional" warhead could do (or at 13,000MPH just a bunch of tungsten rods "Rods from God" would do. Think of it as an intercontinental sniper rifle with bullets that can swerve around defenses. Good for "decapitating" an enemy, (I guess a lot of threats we face would go away if we could take out just the top few people/person: are you listening Kim Jong-Il? Qaddafi? S&P ratings board?).
I was kinda hoping DARPA was working on a (much) faster version of the Wave-rider hypersonic aircraft. Oh well, guess even they can't beat the laws of physics (and our lack of a good propulsion system).
Even "cooler" would be a laser that could be quickly lofted into space and would zap a target on the earth below. Unfortunately, "Real Genius" notwithstanding we don't have any lasers compact enough to be launched in anything short of a Saturn V (I don't think Dr. Teller's nuke pumped X-Ray laser was ever shown to work). That pesky outer space treaty prohibits us from placing weapons in space so we can't just have laser satellites floating around picking off people we don't like I guess.
1. Re:Not an Aircraft - more like a MARV by jittles · 2011-08-09 06:58 · Score: 2
  
  It's a test of what I assume is a fairly mature version of the scamjet...
  woah is Bernie Madoff working for DARPA now?
Re:Around the world by lgw · 2011-08-09 06:15 · Score: 2

Here are some hints:
The kilometer was originally 1/40000 of the Earth's circumference, so 40k km is always a handy estimate.
The nautical mile was originally one minute of arc at the equator (or one minute of latitude - either way), so the Earth circumference is 21600 nautical miles. This is also handy - an airplane moving 600 knots is covering 10 degrees per hour. 12000 knots is 200 degrees per hour.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Carriers vs missiles by rlglende · 2011-08-09 07:15 · Score: 2

I think missiles will win. The US, in its own self-interest, should sell its entire Navy to the Chinese, retire a few $T in national debt.
By the time they learned to use it effectively, it would be obsolete.

--
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
Flight of the Navigator? by mj1856 · 2011-08-09 08:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

Holy crap - you mean Disney got it right?
Flight of the Navigator spaceship
Darpa Falcon