Slashdot Mirror


DARPA Loses Contact With Hypersonic Glider

x_IamSpartacus_x writes "DARPA says contact with its experimental hypersonic glider was lost after launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the central California coast. The agency says in Twitter postings that its unmanned Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 was launched Thursday atop a rocket, successfully separated from the booster and entered the mission's glide phase. The agency says telemetry was subsequently lost, but released no details."

19 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Does this bother anyone else? by jbarr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That we're relying on Twitter to get the status of our defense department projects.

    --
    My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
    1. Re:Does this bother anyone else? by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 2

      Like I always say, when you want the FACTS, go to Twitter.

    2. Re:Does this bother anyone else? by geekboybt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not really. That's A) what the Twitter site/platform/application are designed to do, and it does it well, and B) Far, far cheaper than rolling their own.

    3. Re:Does this bother anyone else? by x6060 · · Score: 2

      Just for the sake of accuracy its actually closer to 20%

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

      Both (separate) Medicare/Medicad and Social security are larger than the entire department of defense budget.

    4. Re:Does this bother anyone else? by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 2

      Ready access to an audience of millions who wouldn't go out of their way to find this type of news, but could benefit from it anyway.

    5. Re:Does this bother anyone else? by Leebert · · Score: 2

      I don't understand. You have to follow a person on Twitter in order to see their twitter posts, right? So if this audience of millions isn't interested in DARPA, why would they follow DARPA on twitter?

      They're already following other people on Twitter. They aren't reading RSS feeds. Thus, seeing what DARPA is up to on Twitter fits with their existing workflow.

  2. Re:Oh no! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

    Cover story. SkyNet is now operational.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  3. Bond... James Bond by Aaron32 · · Score: 2

    In an unrelated note, British Intelligence just "acquired" a new Hypersonick Glider. No details given yet.

  4. They should've just had it check in by revjtanton · · Score: 3, Funny

    If they're updating us that they lost it with Twitter they should've just had it check in with Foursquare when it landed so they could find it. Duh!

  5. Re:Have they checked yesterday? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    They have probably forgotten about the doppler effect and are surprised it vanished from radio contact.

    Yes. A team of engineers would never think of that. That must be it.

    Also: it's going Mach 20.

    That would be a really big concern for a radio signal traveling at the speed of light. Yes, that puny Mach 20 would really put a hurtin' on that.

    We better check the spectral lines of that radio signal to make sure it wasn't redshifted. It may have fallen into a black hole. That's much more likely than something going wrong in an experimental craft produced by a government project.

    re: your sig, all civilized men should know when they have no idea what they're talking about and are only babbling, which would be cute except people even more ignorant might be misled by you.

  6. Re:Have they checked yesterday? by Baloroth · · Score: 2

    Plasma. Seriously. At that speeds (above Mach 10 I believe), a cone of plasma forms around the aircraft like it does in re-entry of spacecraft and plays major havoc with telecommunications. By which I mean it prevents it unless you design the craft very carefully. Hence, this test.

    What that has to do with the Doppler effect... I have no idea.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  7. I don't get it... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    So, apparently this hypersonic glider is part of the "Prompt Global Strike" concept, designed to deliver an explosive anywhere on earth in under an hour, for various purposes.

    Now, we already have ICBMs that can do that; but we can't use those because ICBMs are typically equipped with thermonuclear warheads, which makes the world pretty jumpy about anybody launching one.

    So, we are developing this rocket-boosted hypersonic glider thing that doesn't actually work yet to do it instead.

    Here is what I don't understand: Is there anything about this new strike vehicle that would preclude a nuclear warhead in place of the conventional one? If so, it must have pretty serious payload limitations. If not, why would we expect global opinion to be any cheerier about this new toy than about the old one? Is it simply designed to be less visible to sensors than an ICBM?

    1. Re:I don't get it... by Whorhay · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I believe the idea is that it can manuever to avoid whatever countermeasures an enemy may posses. Ballistic missles are launched on and designed to stay on a set trajectory that can not be changed in flight on a split second basis while keeping the same target.

  8. damn wormholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Poor John Crichton, lost in space now and surrounded by puppets, I mean aliens.

  9. Re:Anything can carry nuclear warheads by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2

    Your presumption is based on this being a near-final design. They're working on the physics of hypersonic craft, and once they get that worked out, they can start figuring out how to design an actual delivery system. A likely final version would be launched by a bomber, not a rocket, and look more like a large cruise missile, at least at weapon release. This keeps the bomber even further outside of enemy territory (or even the territory of friends of the enemy).

    I see some other options here, including possible inexpensive multistage orbital launch vehicles, but it depends on how hard it is to design and build something that successfully flies that fast.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  10. Re:Weapons don't have to contain explosives by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2

    when the Falcon hits the ground at Mach 20, the target will get obliterated.

    FALCON PUNCH!

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  11. Re:Anything can carry nuclear warheads by X0563511 · · Score: 2

    LGBs are ballistic as well, and yet they can guide themselves well enough...

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  12. Re:I had high hopes for this project, but... by mrbester · · Score: 2

    It's in my garage and it's staying there. I've told you kids before, if you keep throwing your toys over my fence you're not getting them back.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  13. This flight did not fail. by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 2

    The LA Times headline is, "Test of hypersonic aircraft fails." Now let's look at it from the perspective of an engineer, not a drive-by journalist. The first flight sent back nine minutes' worth of telemetry. Today's test transmitted telemetry for 20 minutes. That's a 122% improvement. Any engineer would be happy to get credit for that accomplishment!

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.