Hypersonic Test Aircraft Peeled Apart After 3 Minutes of Sustained Mach 20 Speed

scientifically by nimbius · 2012-04-20 09:57 · Score: -1, Troll

its an interesting project, however if it continues to run on fossil fuels and petroleum distillates, its a relic from a long-term perspective. you cant design future transport with one foot in a well.

--
Good people go to bed earlier.

Re:scientifically by Brett+Buck · 2012-04-20 10:02 · Score: 4, Funny

Right. Glad you grasped the point of the project so well, and didn't try to wedge in some off-topic nonsense.
Re:scientifically by dispersionrelation · 2012-04-20 10:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

The technology exhibited here is completely independent of the fuel source on which it runs. Your comment misses the point.
Re:scientifically by dkf · 2012-04-20 10:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

And scientifically, it went around 750 miles in 3 minutes. In an atmosphere. That's a pretty damn awesome piece of engineering.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:scientifically by Ihmhi · 2012-04-20 10:48 · Score: 1

Scientifically that's awesome, but practically... couldn't you achieve the same kind of speed by popping into LEO?
I am wondering which would be more practical for one of the obvious end uses of this product, namely making the Concorde look more like a turtle.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:scientifically by gstrickler · 2012-04-20 10:51 · Score: 4, Funny

640mi (in 3 min) should be enough for anyone.
So just slow it to Mach 19.7.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:scientifically by Kozar_The_Malignant · 2012-04-20 11:00 · Score: 4, Funny

And scientifically, it went around 750 miles in 3 minutes. In an atmosphere. That's a pretty damn awesome piece of engineering.
Meteors do that every day. And, they have the same end result.

--
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Re:scientifically by zippthorne · 2012-04-20 11:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

If you can go that fast in an atmosphere, you can use an air-breathing engine to get you most of the way to LEO...

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:scientifically by kermidge · 2012-04-20 11:30 · Score: 1

Point taken. There are other fuels. Frozen methane, ammonia come to mind. There are rocket scientists, chemists, and propulsion engineers who make their living on this stuff.
Re:scientifically by dbIII · 2012-04-20 12:03 · Score: 1

You have to get to similar speeds just to get to a low orbit in the first place, so your suggestion is not practical.
Re:scientifically by Cyberax · 2012-04-20 12:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

What's even cooler, that speed is close to orbital speed. So with little additional thrust this plane can make it into orbit!
Re:scientifically by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 12:20 · Score: 0

We have no other viable, practical, abundant energy source. Yes, these projects are "relics" of the energy-rich Space Age, and in a hundred years will seem magical to the low-energy, animal-powered society of the future. And no, science fiction is not a valid counterpoint to the reality of our energy situation. There will not be Moon-mined He3 fusion generators or space-based solar arrays. Ever.
Re:scientifically by X0563511 · 2012-04-20 12:53 · Score: 2

Even better, the same technology that lets you fly in atmosphere at such extreme speeds would likely aid reentry, wouldn't it?

--
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...
Re:scientifically by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 13:10 · Score: -1

You call awesome, I call BULLSHIT!
Sustaining M20 (2/3 orbital velocity) for 3 minutes in any kind of atmosphere to create shock waves (which is air (mass) being forced aside by your vaporware aircraft) is going to require massive amounts of propellant.
3,500F? I think you'd reach that by M3.
Re:scientifically by WindBourne · 2012-04-20 14:04 · Score: 2

Yes, you can. But I suspect that it will be more than a 10-15 years before that tech will be allowed to do that.

You can also replace ICBMs with this for a fraction of the costs. And it can be dropped from a plane or a ship anywhere we want.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:scientifically by RobbieThe1st · 2012-04-20 15:39 · Score: 0

We can always go for hydro. May kill off a few rivers worth of fisn and destroy some ecosystems, but hey, if that what it takes for me to get cheap electricity for my job, TV and car, it'd be worth it.
Re:scientifically by MartinSchou · 2012-04-20 15:43 · Score: 1

Are you saying that meteors start at a much lower velocity, then accelerates to those speeds before falling apart? And that they're engineered?
Re:scientifically by HornWumpus · 2012-04-20 16:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

ICBM systems are sunk costs. Some possible salvage value as booster stages, but basically the money is gone. Better to keep them functioning lest someone try to collect on our debt.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:scientifically by HornWumpus · 2012-04-20 16:35 · Score: 3, Informative

You realize it was boosted to speed on a conventional rocket? Don't mistake an aerodynamic testbed for a working vehicle.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:scientifically by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 17:53 · Score: 1

You're retarded. Given enough electricity a chemist can make hydrocarbons all day long.
Re:scientifically by jd · 2012-04-20 18:23 · Score: 4, Informative

In theory, yes. The type of design (a "waverider") places the hypersonic shockwave directly beneath the vehicle. Basically, you're surfing the shockwave. This reduces the stresses involved, improves stability and should allow considerably more control than could be achieved with the space shuttle (you have sufficient lift from a waverider to glide). Waveriders do have disadvantages - most designs only work at specific speeds, the wings have a habit of frying and they rely on cooling by radiation (only effective at high altitude).
Old wisdom on waveriders:
http://research.lifeboat.com/surf.htm
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/waverider.shtml
Published theory:
http://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v79/v79-79.pdf
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason_f/ConfigAeroHypersonics.pdf
Multi-speed waveriders:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x75nh2154nuh5464/
Amateur waverider research:
http://www.gbnet.net/orgs/staar/waveriders.html
NB: The STAAR group beat NASA and the US DoD to the first working waverider airfoil, as noted on their site. Perhaps NASA's problem with their current design is that they're not threatening the engineers with bagpipe music.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:scientifically by jd · 2012-04-20 18:36 · Score: 2

Research costs are always high. However, in principle, a basic waverider with a hydrogen-powered scramjet aught to be a lot cheaper than an ICBM (hydrogen being a much cheaper fuel, and 100% of the vehicle is reusable).
Note - that's in principle. Practice rarely pays much attention to theory. A space elevator would be nice, too, as would a pony.
The biggest problem is that the hypersonic craft was NASA's last shot at this for a while. The last time the test craft was covered, it was stated that the project is terminated. Kaput. (In short, in about the same shape as NASA's blended wing body passenger aircraft, whose sheer size would have made the Airbus 400 look like a unicycle.) NASA hasn't the funds to see projects to completion any more. That wouldn't be a total loss, if the data collected was made available. But, no, this sort of stuff is kept under very heavy wraps. Nothing learned will be made available to anyone, the research will get redone by others at massive expense (and possible loss of life), and all to stop those nations who could never build such a vehicle anyway from scoring a PR coup. ie: it's politics. It's not even military, it's politics.
Ok, correction, then. The biggest problem is that we have politicians.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:scientifically by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2012-04-20 21:15 · Score: 2

That's part of the point. A working scramjet, if it can have sufficient payload, may be a much more effecient way into orbit.
Re:scientifically by M1FCJ · 2012-04-20 22:37 · Score: 1

I can't see why NASA is supposed to spend the money since they should be a research and development agency, not a design house. If it is backed by the Government, they can put a tender directly out to the producers via DoT or Army (the real big space programme of US). Similarly, if a company sees that there's a future, they can licence the tech from NASA and build their own aircrafts. I don't understand why it has to be the NASA funding and operating everything end to end.
Re:scientifically by jd · 2012-04-21 03:13 · Score: 2

As the hypersonic craft demonstrated so well, there is a vast gulf between what theory says could be done and what can actually be done in practice. The only way to know is to build.
Secondly, and more importantly for NASA, something like a BWB airliner could perform high altitude research currently impossible because no conventional aircraft has the lift capacity or the space availability. NASA use aircraft extensively in research, but are usually stuck with aircraft wholly unsuited to what they want to do.
Finally, and most importantly of all, NASA Langley IS a design house for aviation. LaRC is also where NASA began and what a key part of NASA is.

--
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:scientifically by ravenshrike · 2012-04-21 05:08 · Score: 1

Well, if by propellant you mean the oxygen content in the atmosphere, than sure.
Re:scientifically by Ihmhi · 2012-04-21 11:34 · Score: 1

You have to get to similar speeds just to get to a low orbit in the first place, so your suggestion is not practical.
Well yes, that's true. I read and really enjoyed the insights I got from the above responses.
I try to think of it in terms of like... I don't know, cost/benefit ratio? I know factoring in "costs" in R&D is really shitty, I do, but if I had to say whether or not NASA should develop a cleaner atmosphere-to-space propulsion or Mach 20 in-atmosphere propulsion, I'd say the former. We can already get to space - what if we could do it without rocket fuel?

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:scientifically by dbIII · 2012-04-21 16:11 · Score: 1

what if we could do it without rocket fuel
You are getting confused by thinking that they can be one or the other and not the same thing. Think of things like scramjets as an airbreathing second stage rocket that saves around half the fuel mass (more if hydrogen is the fuel instead of a hydrocarbon) and lets you use that mass for payload instead.
The costs for this research have actually been trivial and have had spinoffs of possibly even greater value (hypersonic shock tunnels etc), although I'm biased because NASA helped pay for a bit of my engineering degree in the 1980s because scramjet research was going on in the same building.
Re:scientifically by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-26 12:29 · Score: 0

Of great importance to the ICBM people is readiness. A vehicle that needs to be fueled (no cryogenic fuel can be stored in the vehicle) is unacceptable to them. That's why ICBMs like Titan II use nitric acid and aniline.

fossil fuels and petroleum distillates by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 09:59 · Score: -1, Redundant

and built by ugly bags of mostly water.

You know what they say: by Tablizer · 2012-04-20 10:00 · Score: 1

Success is only skin deep

--
Table-ized A.I.

Close to re-entry speed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:01 · Score: -1

Isn't that close to reentry speed? What did they expect? If we had a cheap, durable, stable material that could stand up to that for any length of time we would have used it on the Space Shuttles and maybe kept them flying for another 10 years.

Speeds like that are for sub-orbital hops outside the atmosphere, not atmospheric flight. If they didn't think they had the material, they shouldn't have even tried this.

Re:Close to re-entry speed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Isn't that close to reentry speed? What did they expect? If we had a cheap, durable, stable material that could stand up to that for any length of time we would have used it on the Space Shuttles and maybe kept them flying for another 10 years.
That's the point of DARPA. To figure out how to answer these sorts of questions.
Re:Close to re-entry speed by Moofie · 2012-04-20 10:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes. Science and engineering are often advanced by never doing anything you are not absolutely certain will work perfectly.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Close to re-entry speed by networkBoy · 2012-04-20 10:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

And while they're busy doing that they often manage to put on one hell of a show:
* this effort
* the autonomous vehicle DARPA Challenge
* other random bits that we read about
* certainly other random bits we have no idea about, but I bet they're cool!
-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
Re:Close to re-entry speed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:39 · Score: 0

To figure out how to question all these sorts of answers. Fixed that for you.
Re:Close to re-entry speed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:39 · Score: 0

If you tasked me with that, I would have, Oh, I dunno... heated with a torch, or in a kiln with a weight on it to see whether or not it would turn to jelly. You know. Something a bit cheaper. You're telling me that building an actual test aircraft was the only way?
Re:Close to re-entry speed by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-04-20 11:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Science and engineering are often advanced by never doing anything you are not absolutely certain will work perfectly.

Many, many /. articles should have this as the first comment.
It seems we have completely forgotten the words 'trial and error', and 'that's interesting...'
Re:Close to re-entry speed by SkyratesPlayer · 2012-04-20 11:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

This close to the bleeding edge, definitely. We have better models and more teraflops to run them than ever before, but real breakthroughs come from unexpected, unintuitive results. Remember how hard it was for most engineers to believe that mere foam could bash in a shuttle wing - until they fired an actual piece of foam at an actual leading-edge panel?

Flying real hardware is still the only way to conclusively
1. Learn Something (if it has problems) or
2. Silence the critics (if it works fine).

IMHO, while a good number of aerospace contracts can be criticized for either being pork or thinly veiled airliner-maker subsidies, that should be focused on those never producing an instrumented flight.
Re:Close to re-entry speed by arcsimm · 2012-04-20 11:46 · Score: 1

No, no, see risk-taking with no guarantee of success is all fine and well for you or I, but if it's the Ebil Big Gub'mint taking risks and doing cool stuff, it's a Waste Of Taxpayer Money, and therefore Very Bad.
Re:Close to re-entry speed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 12:41 · Score: 0

I didn't RTFA, but it sounds like the problem was not due to the material in terms of heat dissipation, but structural integrity. This doesn't sound like a materials issue.
Re:Close to re-entry speed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 13:28 · Score: 0

There is a difference between risk-taking and idiotic action paths.
Re:Close to re-entry speed by WindBourne · 2012-04-20 14:14 · Score: 1

AC, they designed it to withstand those temps and act differently to the thin atmosphere. That is why they used the wave rider tech. Obviously, it needs refinement. Still, it did survive up to mach 10 just fine. It was somewhere past that, that it starts to fall apart.

As to not trying this, you have to be a fucking idiot to think that we should not try this. It is from this test ride that they figured out what issues they had.
And if you think that scientists and engineers should not test things, I believe that you are on the wrong site. Go try 'mbas_that_screw_the_world.com'.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Close to re-entry speed by Thundersnatch · 2012-04-20 14:34 · Score: 3, Informative

And while they're busy doing that they often manage to put on one hell of a show:
* this effort
* the autonomous vehicle DARPA Challenge
* other random bits that we read about
* certainly other random bits we have no idea about, but I bet they're cool!
-nB
also..
* the fucking Internet
you kids these days need to learn your history
Re:Close to re-entry speed by formfeed · 2012-04-20 15:47 · Score: 1

And while they're busy doing that they often manage to put on one hell of a show: * this effort * the autonomous vehicle DARPA Challenge * other random bits that we read about * certainly other random bits we have no idea about, but I bet they're cool! -nB
also.. * the fucking Internet
you kids these days need to learn your history
Al Gore worked for DARPA?
Re:Close to re-entry speed by MartinSchou · 2012-04-20 15:52 · Score: 2

Regina Dugan recently did a TED talk in which she says The only way to learn to fly is to fly. Great stuff.
And while it sounds stupidly reasonable, it really is true that you cannot learn how to fly without flying, just like you cannot learn how to walk without walking, swim without swimming or speak without speaking.
Yet it always amazes me just how many people fails to understand such simple premises when it comes to science. They seem to think that failures aren't science and that nothing is learned from them.
But if you then ask them about gravity, they'll almost always talk about Newton, yet if you point out that Newton got it wrong (mostly right, but still wrong), they will invariably tell you "that's different".
Re:Close to re-entry speed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 16:59 · Score: 2, Informative

The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET), was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks. ARPANET became the technical core of what would become the Internet, and a primary tool in developing the technologies used.
First ARPANET IMP log: the first message ever sent via the ARPANET, 10:30 PM, October 29, 1969
The ARPANET was decommissioned in 1990
Senator Albert Gore, Jr. began to craft the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 (commonly referred to as "The Gore Bill") after hearing the 1988 report toward a National Research Network submitted to Congress by a group chaired by Leonard Kleinrock, professor of computer science at UCLA. The bill was passed on December 9, 1991 and led to the National Information Infrastructure (NII) which Al Gore called the "information superhighway".
A potential turning point for the World Wide Web began with the introduction of the Mosaic web browser in 1993, a graphical browser developed by a team at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (NCSA-UIUC), led by Marc Andreessen. Funding for Mosaic came from the High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, a funding program initiated by the High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991 also known as the Gore Bill.
The Internet was commercialized in 1995 when the National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET) was decommissioned, removing the last restrictions on the use of the Internet to carry commercial traffic.
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0009/msg00311.html
Re:Close to re-entry speed by Tom · 2012-04-20 19:43 · Score: 2

Not only we.
The recent rise in article retractions (calling it "fraud" is too general, but that's one of the reasons) is also caused by this change in attitude.
See, we don't expect interesting stuff from science anymore. We expect marketable results. Getting something else than you set out to find means that marketing, product management and everyone else down the line has to re-tool and, more importantly, re-think and we can't have that. We already printed the packaging and filmed the TV spots!

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Close to re-entry speed by dkf · 2012-04-20 20:54 · Score: 2

Yet it always amazes me just how many people fails to understand such simple premises when it comes to science. They seem to think that failures aren't science and that nothing is learned from them.
But if you then ask them about gravity, they'll almost always talk about Newton, yet if you point out that Newton got it wrong (mostly right, but still wrong), they will invariably tell you "that's different".
That's unhelpful. Newton's work on gravitation was based on a lot of previous work by other scientists over a long time; experimental work, observational work and theoretical work. Newton was the guy who first pulled it all together into a coherent framework, but he couldn't have done it without Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, probably many others. What replaced Newtonian dynamics? Relativity (which reduces to a damn good approximation to Newtonian for most everyday activity) and that was Einstein building on a lot of work of others again (particularly Maxwell, Lorentz, Michelson, Morley, and especially Riemann, and Eddington was important in confirming GR) some of whom were definitely experimentalists.
All of that really just goes to show that science has always been about building on the work of others. There's no problem at all for some people to be theoreticians (they tend to be the ones to come up with ideas to unify areas) but you still need plenty of experimenters and observationalists too to tell the theory guys where it is worthwhile doing something and to check that the results of the theory apply to reality. Scientific theory, like computer programming (or anything else highly abstract), can easily slip into GIGO.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Close to re-entry speed by s122604 · 2012-04-21 05:15 · Score: 1

There seems to be some crabby-old-man effect that takes over on internet message boards
Doesn't matter if it's LED lightbulbs, electric cars, or stuff like this, there's never any shortage of angry cynical types ready to whine about how the technlogy isn't perfect, doesn't perform 100% how things they are used to perform, costs too much, etc..

Enough allready, we get it Mr. internet cynic, you aren't as nearly as smart or interesting or original as you imagine yourself...

It's getting hot in here... by ToiletBomber · 2012-04-20 10:01 · Score: 1

...so take off all your... skin?

Re:It's getting hot in here... by Sez+Zero · 2012-04-20 10:05 · Score: 1

...so take off all your... skin?
I think you mean "so have all your skin rubbed off".
Yowch.
Re:It's getting hot in here... by nitehawk214 · 2012-04-21 03:04 · Score: 1

...so take off all your... skin?
I think you mean "so have all your skin rubbed off".
Yowch.
Friction: the hottest way to undress.

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust

slashdot by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:05 · Score: 5, Informative

This is slashdot. The only point of comments now is off-topic nonsense, hopefully modded 'informative'

fraud anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:05 · Score: -1

fraud anyone? not a trace to be found of the craft...
this is the sort of thing North Korea does and report it as a success....

Disposable Vehicles? by bogidu · 2012-04-20 10:06 · Score: 1

650 miles in 3 minutes? I'm SO there!

Re:Disposable Vehicles? by foradoxium · 2012-04-20 10:10 · Score: 1

Can we even handle the forces needed to get to mach20, sustaining for 3 minutes, and back to 0?
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by aardvarkjoe · 2012-04-20 10:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Can we even handle the forces needed to get to mach20, sustaining for 3 minutes, and back to 0?
Fortunately, we'll have disposable people riding in it.

--

How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:20 · Score: 0

Can we even handle the forces needed to get to mach20, sustaining for 3 minutes, and back to 0?
Fortunately, we'll have disposable people riding in it.
Mod up pls...THANKS!
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by davester666 · 2012-04-20 11:18 · Score: 1

It's just a flesh wound!

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by felipekk · 2012-04-20 11:20 · Score: 1

Depends on how fast you intend to do it. For the human body it's all about acceleration, the speed doesn't really matter.
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by roc97007 · 2012-04-20 11:23 · Score: 1

There was a time when people were asking if we could handle the forces needed to go 25 mph. I suppose there must eventually be a limit, but so far the answer has always been "under the right circumstances, yes."

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by Kreigaffe · 2012-04-20 11:26 · Score: 1

Well.. yes, of course. It's all a matter of how long a period of time the acceleration takes place over, which I don't know.
Uhm, the deceleration, on the other hand.. is a fairly known value.. and in excess of what we can handle. You'd certainly get there, though! All OVER there!

--
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by cdrudge · 2012-04-20 11:38 · Score: 4, Informative

It depends on how long it takes to get to those speeds. At 9.8m/s^2, easily handled as evident from people parachuting, it would take about 11 minutes to reach mach 20. Once you reach that speed, there's no problem going that fast just because of speed...spacecraft have been doing that for some time. Apollo 10 holds the record for fastest manned vehicle at nearly 25,000MPH.
According to the g-force wiki page, early experiments showed that untrained individuals could survive 17g's accelerating and 12g's decelerating (in a facing forward orientation) which would translate to 40 and 56 seconds respectively.
The maximum recorded g's sustained by a person for more then a split second is 46.2g's and it would take 14.5 seconds of acceleration or deceleration to match that rate.
The hard part about going that speed is the friction and stresses on the aircraft flying through the atmosphere.
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by Freaky+Spook · 2012-04-20 13:09 · Score: 4, Funny

Fortunately, we'll have disposable people riding in it.
Finally, a use for Intellectual Property Lawyers!
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 13:15 · Score: 0

Of course, the real pain is handling the de-evolving afterward.
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by Foxhoundz · 2012-04-20 16:44 · Score: 1

Depends on how fast you intend to do it. For the human body it's all about acceleration, the speed doesn't really matter.
In this case, it does. If you lose control of the aircraft at Mach 20, even the lightest directional change would instantly kill any humans.
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by hairyfeet · 2012-04-20 16:49 · Score: 3, Interesting

Uhhh..we actually didn't have any way to know then because we hadn't reached 25 MPH but thanks to a guy that detached a retina for science we know pretty much EXACTLY what the human body can take and at what point you'll have serious damage. this is why we use see combat pilots in battle they flip over before diving because the human body tolerates positive Gs much better than negative.
So sure if you start out really slow and build up very gradually? Then even the fat guy in front of you in line at the Wendy's could handle a ride in the thing, its just a question of how long that build up and slow down would take and would it be worth the fuel. Considering how much gas the Concorde blew through i'm thinking probably not practical.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 23:52 · Score: 0

At 9.8m/s^2, easily handled as evident from people standing on the ground
FTFY. Parachuters in "free-fall" (let's say...) experience 0m/s^2 acceleration, because they (i.e., all their constituent parts) are accelerating uniformly; i.e., nothing is resisting their leisurely travel along the local spacetime geodesic. People on the ground experience 9.8m/s^2 worth of force through their feet, from the floor restraining their tendency to be in happy free-fall in the local gravitational field. This force is the one analogous to the hypothetical 46 g's force up your ass from the rocket booster...
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by roc97007 · 2012-04-21 02:52 · Score: 1

There's no way to tell at this point whether it's practical or not. First you have to make it possible. Practical comes later, if ever. As to fuel consumption of the Concorde, it's worth noting that the Concorde is a 1960's design.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 04:13 · Score: 0

At 9.8m/s^2, easily handled as evident from people parachuting,
Parachuters initially experience 0 m/s^2, while you sitting there experience 9.8 m/s^2.
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 06:31 · Score: 0

There was a time when people were asking if we could handle the forces needed to go 25 mph.
I call bullshit. The Kentucky Derby is a 1.25 mile race, and the record is less than 2 minutes (set by the famous Secretariat); that works out to 37.5 mph; shorter races (such as quarter horse racing) can go even faster, wikipedia says quarter horses have been clocked over 55mph.
Even without horses, humans can approach or beat 25 mph; the record for the 100m dash has been 10 seconds or less for over 50 years, which is over 22 mph. The top speed is necessarily higher, since they start from a stop; I don't have numbers off-hand, and don't feel like looking, but it seems certain the top speed must be over 25 mph.
So I question at what point anyone sane could have been asking that for 25mph. For 50, perhaps, before the breeding of horses that could sprint that fast, and definitely for higher speeds, but 25mph has never been far out of reach.
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by T-Bone-T · 2012-04-21 10:24 · Score: 1

Popular Science had an article talking about this. They calculated that accelerating/decelerating at a comfortable rate, similar to a train, will get you to Australia from the US in a fairly quick time but it still takes a while because of the slow change in speed.
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by Coren22 · 2012-04-23 05:39 · Score: 1

Um, that episode was about accelerated evolution, not reversed evolution.

The Doctor observes that what happened to Lieutenant Paris was an accelerated form of Human evolution.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Disposable Vehicles? by Coren22 · 2012-04-23 06:17 · Score: 1

Interesting read you linked. According to the article you linked however, he never detached a retina, he did however take a day or two to recover from his last run as all the blood vessels in his eye had burst.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

As a person who flies hypersonic aircraft for a living this is notable on several layers.

1. They did a test and it went far past hypersonic (M5).

2. They achieved M20, altitude adjusted

3. All that happened after 3 minutes is the materials failed

4. It lasted 3 minutes!

To me this is a stupendous success.

I am a hyper-critic of most of the hypersonic tests we all hear about.

Spend more money on this.

JJ

Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:36 · Score: 0

Yay! Hypersonic killbots world wide! Yaaaay!
Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

You fly hypersonic aircraft regularly? You either are: an space shuttle pilot, a military test pilot breaking his clearance, or making shit up. Who modded this up?
Re:Expert opinion by Hentes · 2012-04-20 10:46 · Score: 1

Spend more money on this.
Because it's good for...what exactly? I fail to see the practicality of a plane that goes so fast it burns itself to pieces.
Re:Expert opinion by Grayhand · 2012-04-20 10:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

What I found interesting is something similar happened to Chuck Yeager when he was trying to hit Mach 1. The aircraft developed a strong vibration as he approached Mach 1. At the time Mach 1 was pushing the limits of what materials and technology could handle. The forces involved at Mach 20 are insane so I would also consider it a major success and it proves the technology. Now it's a matter of refining the construction and materials to avoid the failure issue but it looks very possible. I do have to question the commercial potential though. I'm not convinced that material fatigue won't be an ongoing issue with that kind of constant stress. Even with the space shuttles which didn't face a fraction of the stresses they had two blow up. Both accidents were avoidable but what accident isn't with prior knowledge. The engines are capable but it could be a very long time until the materials are reliable enough for extended commercial use.
Re:Expert opinion by geekoid · 2012-04-20 10:48 · Score: 1

"I am a hyper-critic" all hot air, and noise?

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Expert opinion by Chris+Mattern · 2012-04-20 11:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Because it can teach you how to build a plane that goes that fast and *doesn't* burn itself to pieces. This is the closest we've ever gotten to that.
Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 11:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

You fly hypersonic (mach 5+) aircraft for a living? Really?
Re:Expert opinion by chebucto · 2012-04-20 11:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

The fact that they corrected the problems found in the first test, and have a clear idea about why the second test failed, speaks very well to this program. I look forward to reading more about it.

--
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Re:Expert opinion by chebucto · 2012-04-20 11:20 · Score: 2

As a person who flies hypersonic aircraft for a living... JJ
I don't see your name here. Who are you? What do you fly? Please tell me it's not a flightsim!

--
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Re:Expert opinion by Hentes · 2012-04-20 11:26 · Score: 0

And what's the ultimate goal? To build an aircraft that goes faster than the previous ones? With enough money you can always best the previous record, but after a while it becomes pointless, just like those record speed cars that are basically just a rocket on wheels. This is basically just a rocket on wings.
Re:Expert opinion by luis_a_espinal · 2012-04-20 11:39 · Score: 2

And what's the ultimate goal? To build an aircraft that goes faster than the previous ones? With enough money you can always best the previous record, but after a while it becomes pointless, just like those record speed cars that are basically just a rocket on wheels. This is basically just a rocket on wings.
Get to LEO with an air-breathing engine?
Re:Expert opinion by poity · 2012-04-20 11:49 · Score: 2, Funny

You run Linux regularly? You either are: a central processing unit, a graphics processing unit operating outside of its designed architecture, or making shit up. Who thinks this stuff up?

--
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 11:54 · Score: 1

I fly kites every once in awhile. Doesn't mean I'm in them manually guiding them from a cockpit. You know, like something that they did in this article.
Re:Expert opinion by El_Oscuro · 2012-04-20 12:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

Mach 20 happens to be about orbital velocity. Assuming they can improve the materials somewhat, being able to do that in a plane instead of a rocket would be pretty useful.

--
"Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
Re:Expert opinion by Above · 2012-04-20 13:31 · Score: 1

I would not be surprised to learn that there were a few hypersonic aircraft pilots flying planes we don't know about from locations we don't get to see. Aurora for instance has been around for years in semi-rumor form, for instance. That would make it entirely possible there were hypersonic pilots not not the list you reference.
Re:Expert opinion by painandgreed · 2012-04-20 15:12 · Score: 2

Shit. At those speeds I'd almost be expecting supercavitiation with all the force being on the leading edge and the rest of the vehicle being pretty much in a vacuum. That would make air intact sort of difficult I suppose. I guess I might go read TFA to see if there's a graphic of the craft.
Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 15:33 · Score: 0

As the Pope, I congratulate the Americans on a great step forward.
BS
Re:Expert opinion by ceoyoyo · 2012-04-20 15:43 · Score: 1

Sure, but entirely impossible that those pilots would post about it on Slashdot. Unless JJ wants a quick exit from the hypersonic plane flying game and a head start on the classified federal prison one.
Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 15:47 · Score: 0

I'm wondering if they could implement an air spike but I guess that would starve the engines of oxygen.
Re:Expert opinion by rtb61 · 2012-04-20 15:51 · Score: 1

The vehicle is question is a rocket powered glider, so in this case it is all about re-entry, so basically nothing but weapons technology.
Launch over your own territory, get to required altitude over international territory and then initiate attack run.
attack is done at high speed, target need not necessarily be fixed before hand, given range to target and time allowed to shift, vehicle is either the warhead or drops the warhead/s.
So US is back to weaponising space again. At these high speeds you don't even have to bother with a warhead kinetic impact will be enough, unless of course you want to go nuclear, then a blatant first strike weapon.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Expert opinion by formfeed · 2012-04-20 15:51 · Score: 2

And what's the ultimate goal? To build an aircraft that goes faster than the previous ones? With enough money you can always best the previous record, but after a while it becomes pointless, just like those record speed cars that are basically just a rocket on wheels. This is basically just a rocket on wings.
Get to LEO with an air-breathing engine?
Get Pizza delivered under half an hour? - from Italy.
Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 17:46 · Score: 0

He flies hypersonic aircraft. He does not fly IN hypersonic aircraft.
Re:Expert opinion by strack · 2012-04-20 17:47 · Score: 1

they dont even need to improve the materials. at mach 20, you could just leave the atmosphere in well under 3 minutes, and with the addition of a small rocket motor, make adjustments to achieve orbit.
Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 18:06 · Score: 0

Well I wouldn't brag about it, but my CPU and network card keep making those slashdot posts for some reason.
Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 18:17 · Score: 0

[[nothing but weapons technology]]
They appear to be researching stable atmospheric flight at speeds never before encountered. While the test bed may be a rocket powered glider, I don't think that means the research is inapplicable to things that aren't rocket powered gliders.
Re:Expert opinion by Hentes · 2012-04-20 22:19 · Score: 1

Assuming they can improve the materials somewhat, being able to do that in a plane instead of a rocket would be pretty useful.
This vehicle is basically a rocket, not a plane.
Re:Expert opinion by aurispector · 2012-04-21 00:38 · Score: 1

Exactly! The aircraft didn't fail because it couldn't fly or be controlled. It failed because the assumptions made about the stresses and temperatures on the skin were inadequate.
Adjust accordingly and try again - the end result of this sequence of trials and improvements is a usable hypersonic aircraft, far in advance of anything anyone has flown before.
Research dollars very well spent.

--
I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 01:51 · Score: 0

Space exploration with minimal travel time.
Re:Expert opinion by rocket+rancher · 2012-04-21 02:38 · Score: 1

And what's the ultimate goal? To build an aircraft that goes faster than the previous ones? With enough money you can always best the previous record, but after a while it becomes pointless, just like those record speed cars that are basically just a rocket on wheels. This is basically just a rocket on wings.
DARPA's goal is to increase the ability of the US to project national power (that's the "Defense" part of "Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, in case you were wondering.) A mach 20 airframe could deliver practically instant military power to anywhere on the planet it was needed, a truly significant military advantage. And by launching it on a polar trajectory, it would minimize the need to negotiate over-fly rights with any of the nations between the US and the conflict zone. Make no mistake, this DARPA project will significantly increase the US's ability to project national power if it is successful.
Re:Expert opinion by nitehawk214 · 2012-04-21 03:18 · Score: 1

You post to Slashdot regularly? You either are: a troll, a flamers, or someone that doesn't read the article. Posters that claim to read the article are making shit up.
Who thinks this stuff up?

--
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Re:Expert opinion by Hentes · 2012-04-21 03:40 · Score: 1

But a suborbital rocket like this is still slower than a ballistic missile.
Re:Expert opinion by sjames · 2012-04-21 09:07 · Score: 1

Our manned space program started out using missiles. I'm sure the DOD is interested in this for weapons delivery (that's their job), but that doesn't mean there aren;t other uses.
Re:Expert opinion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-22 14:40 · Score: 0

Exactly, Now we know what the problem is, The Engines can handle the situation, but the materials need changing/improvement to handle the elements at that speed. This is very good to know. Because, once we sustain a M20 speed for so long, we also improve the structural integrity. This can be applied to other aspects of flying as well. You know Space. Space has shit flying more than likely 100x faster than M20. Wanna say the results of improved hull integrity will apply to space travel.
Anywho.
First test, taught us something, second test taught us even more. Now lets improve, and rinse and repeat.

Not so bad... by demonbug · 2012-04-20 10:07 · Score: 3, Funny

They only need to achieve 39 more minutes of flight time and they'll match the range of a 787!

Re:Not so bad... by roc97007 · 2012-04-20 11:25 · Score: 1

And get there in 42 minutes!

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Not so bad... by PPH · 2012-04-20 11:36 · Score: 1

Ladies and gentlemen. This is your captain. We will be taking off shortly. We are twelfth in line for departure, just behind an L-1011.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Not so bad... by roc97007 · 2012-04-20 11:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

It already happens -- even today you sometimes spend more time in the airport at each end than you spent in the air.
I wonder if a hypersonic passenger craft would have to be cleared for landing before they even took off?

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 12:51 · Score: 0

It'll be a long time before hypersonic aircraft are ferrying people on short 100mi flights.
Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 13:36 · Score: 1

Ladies and gentlemen. This is your captain. We will be taking off shortly. Just as soon as well refill our stock of lemon-soaked paper napkins for your hygiene and comfort.
FTFY.
Re:Not so bad... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 19:05 · Score: 1

Happens already nowadays to an extent.
I was on a flight that stayed grounded for 2h before departing, as the destination airport didn't give a necessarily landing clearance.
(Destination was running at reduced capacity due to adverse weather conditions. You just don't want to arrive and find out that they won't manage to get you down safely)

Great, a idea for a subplot in the next SAW movie by TWX · 2012-04-20 10:07 · Score: 1, Funny

... get one's velocity going so fast one's skin gets ripped off...

James Han and Leigh Whannell are probably working on the plot right now...

--
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.

Which "technology"? by flaming+error · 2012-04-20 10:09 · Score: 4, Funny

When you say the fuel source doesn't matter, are you referrring to sustaining speeds of Mach 20, or to the plane's Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly feature?

Re:Which "technology"? by Korin43 · 2012-04-20 10:17 · Score: 5, Funny

As far as I can tell, the "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly feature" seems to be fully wind-powered.
Re:Which "technology"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:18 · Score: 0

but now that you know that it happens at m 20, you can drop "unscheduled" from that! "Rapid Dis-assembly Feature" sounds even better!
Re:Which "technology"? by r1348 · 2012-04-20 10:40 · Score: 1

Sounds like Apple PR to me...
Re:Which "technology"? by HornWumpus · 2012-04-20 16:27 · Score: 1

Spontaneous thermal self dis-assembly has been a euphemism for blowing up your motor for decades. It predates Apple.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Which "technology"? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · 2012-04-21 07:11 · Score: 1

Google said, "Eh?"

--
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Re:Which "technology"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-22 06:59 · Score: -1

the actual term is 'loss of structural integrity'
Re:Which "technology"? by Coren22 · 2012-04-23 05:02 · Score: 1

Maybe they should redirect the warp power to the structural integrity field and see if they can get it to hold together long enough to get out of the latest crisis.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:10 · Score: 0, Insightful

So what the fuck is the alternative, then? Do you really want it to be nuclear-powered? Is that really what you want? Because I know you'd be among the first to bitch and moan when the same thing happens during the next trial, and then there's goddamn uranium or plutonium raining down all over the place.

No, solar power won't work in this case. No, wind power won't work in this case. No, hydro power won't work in this case. No, tidal power won't work in this case. No, burning hydrogen won't work in this case. No, burning coal won't work in this case. No, burning wood won't work in this case. No, you peddling your ass off on a bicycle won't work in this case. None of these other energy sources will work.

So I'll ask you again, WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE?

Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by AJWM · 2012-04-20 10:19 · Score: 1

Do you really want it to be nuclear-powered?
Fuckin' a, bubba.
But just skip the atmosphere. If you really want to go that fast, go straight to orbit (and back, if so desired).

--
-- Alastair
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by iceaxe · 2012-04-20 10:23 · Score: 3, Informative

So what the fuck is the alternative, then?
Um, it's a glider, launched from a rocket, which would probably use a hydrogen based rocket fuel or some other.. um.. why am I answering an AC?

--
WALSTIB!
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by roc97007 · 2012-04-20 11:14 · Score: 5, Funny

What I really want is a bicycle powered, mach 20 vehicle. And a unicorn. And some waffles.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 11:35 · Score: 0

Slingshot
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by Paracelcus · 2012-04-20 11:59 · Score: 1

unsymmetrical dimethyl hydrazine & aniline careful they're hypergolic!

--
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 12:08 · Score: 0

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE?
Steam.
Steampunk revolution fuck yeah!
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 12:13 · Score: -1

It's a good thing that you're using your full real name here, and not some sort of a pseudonym or alias, iceaxe. Otherwise we might have to think that you're posting anonymously, in a very cowardly fashion.
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 12:14 · Score: -1

Please demonstrate where our hydrogen mines are?
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by Mitchell314 · 2012-04-20 12:30 · Score: 1

If skyrim is any indication, giants.

--
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 14:20 · Score: 0

What I really want is a bicycle powered, mach 20 vehicle. And a unicorn. And some waffles.
Well, today is you lucky day. These waffles are so good you'll see unicorns and believe any damn thing someone tells you can be done, so long as you can get one more. Try dusting the iron with cinnamon sugar, or try topping with some Nutella. Stewed Granny Smiths on top and you won't even need the bicycle for mach 20...
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by RobbieThe1st · 2012-04-20 15:37 · Score: 1

Fortunately, hydrogen is easily producable from the most common substance on earth - water. Just add energy, which can come from any number of sources.
Sure, it may not be 100% effecient to get it that way, but it is an option. And is easier than making /most/ fuels in terms of availability.
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 17:24 · Score: 0

What I really want is a bicycle powered, mach 20 vehicle. And a unicorn. And some waffles.

Hah! Silly /. poster - everyone knows that waffles don't exist.
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by FishTankX · 2012-04-21 00:39 · Score: 1

I'm just curious, but why wouldn't cryogenic hydrogen work? It worked for the space shuttle... and it's a much lighter fuel per megajoule.
Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THE ALTERNATIVE? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 01:09 · Score: 0

Fool! You need a bicycle for the unicorn that goes mach 20. The waffles you split with the unicorn.

Time for MD-3 by AnotherBlackHat · 2012-04-20 10:12 · Score: 1

Mass driver tech can accelerate buckets at 5000m/sec^2. Buckets using this hypersonic tech, a 6 km mass driver in a very high place, say Tibet, and we could chuck stuff into orbit at 1/100th the current cost.

Am I missing something, or should we start construction?

Re:Time for MD-3 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:15 · Score: 1

It's far cheaper to get a small army of peasants to stand in a very long line and ready a free action...
Re:Time for MD-3 by Nadaka · 2012-04-20 10:18 · Score: 0

Tibet is "owned" by the PRC.
Re:Time for MD-3 by AnotherBlackHat · 2012-04-20 11:52 · Score: 1

I don't have a problem with China developing a launch capability, but if it bothers you, then pick some other location - Boliviaâ(TM)s Potosi, the Rocky Mountains, ... any place both high and not ridiculously remote.
Re:Time for MD-3 by rdebath · 2012-04-20 17:35 · Score: 2

Air drag goes up as a fourth power of the speed.
Re:Time for MD-3 by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2012-04-20 21:22 · Score: 1

Take a look at startram.com.
Re:Time for MD-3 by AnotherBlackHat · 2012-04-21 02:32 · Score: 1

Air drag goes up as a fourth power of the speed.
No it doesn't.
Air drag goes up roughly as a second power of speed.

Re:scientifically..or not by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Except for the fact it runs on hydrogen peroxide and methanol. Plus, I'm given to understand the proposed full scale version would run on hydrogen slush and LOX.... aka rocket fuel.

Glass half empty, or half full? by rts008 · 2012-04-20 10:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

IMHO, this was not a failure, just another step forward. We learned something useful, to be explored/applied next.

Good job, folks! Keep moving forward....

--
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti

So damned fast by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:22 · Score: 0

FTA

The HTV-2 could fly anywhere in the world in less than 60 minutes.

What the fucking fuck that's fast.

To compare, the space station orbits Earth about every 90 minutes.

Re:So damned fast by networkBoy · 2012-04-20 10:35 · Score: 2

But the space station is much farther out, I think the linear velocity of the space station is higher as well, however, good luck doing that in anything but the thinnest wisps of atmosphere in LEO.
-nB

--
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump

Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:26 · Score: 0

Sounds like a really tough design problem. Congrats to any engineer who comes up with a solution to this. He could become famous.

Re:Hmmm.... by Wizard+Drongo · 2012-04-20 10:50 · Score: 1

I guess dipping it in liquid plastic, or just wrapping a really big roll of clingfilm around it wouldn't really cut it?

--
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
Re:Hmmm.... by rthille · 2012-04-20 11:19 · Score: 1

Graphene clingfilm perhaps? :-)

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 11:58 · Score: 0

Carbon has a tendency to burn in an oxygen atmosphere.
Re:Hmmm.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 21:08 · Score: 0

Jesus do i have to figure out everything for people?
Duct tape.... lots and lots of Duct tape.

DARPA = Advance Research Projects by tomhath · 2012-04-20 10:34 · Score: 1

Hopefully this kind of project continues in DARPA instead of shifting their focus to non-research projects now that the ex-director has gone to Google .

the point, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 10:35 · Score: 0

I realize that any scientific endeavour has merit and I recognize that the first jet achieving super-sonic speeds was monumentous and led to a lot of break-throughs in a lot of areas.

But Mach 20? Really? Does it really serve a purpose other than finding out that we can push the limits of things?

I know I'm probably coming off as ignorant but I'm not necessarily saying this project doesn't have a noble purpose. I'm just asking what it is exactly...

Re:the point, exactly? by tomhath · 2012-04-20 11:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

But Mach 20? Really? Does it really serve a purpose other than finding out that we can push the limits of things?
Purpose? Probably to build a long-range bomber that can hit a target anywhere on Earth a few minutes after it's been identified. Or to build a vehicle that can reach low Earth orbit and return. Or maybe just to see what's humanly possible.
Re:the point, exactly? by Col.+Bloodnok · 2012-04-20 11:10 · Score: 2

I know I'm probably coming off as ignorant but I'm not necessarily saying this project doesn't have a noble purpose. I'm just asking what it is exactly...
Sub launched or fighter delivered short range nuclear weapons. First strike, or retaliatory strike, it doesn't matter.
Re:the point, exactly? by Tastecicles · 2012-04-20 11:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

several points (not all covered here, these are just a few that immediately popped into my head):
-from the telemetry they can determine how exactly the materials and structure failed. From this better material and structure design for slower aircraft making them more survivable;
-from the telemetry they can determine the high stress points on a craft travelling at such a speed (I can imagine, the leading edges of the control surfaces, the wingtips and the nose will get stupendously hot and massive vortices spilling from the trailing edges may have had something to do with the failure of the superstructure). Again, this leads to improvements in aircraft design;
-from observation and telemetry they can determine the aerodynamic stresses at the moment of failure.
As lessons previously learned: in reinforced carbon composite skinning, it is known that several thin and continuous layers are far stronger than a single thick, segmented layer. This principle is used in hulls on sporting boats, as hull integrity at speed is kinda important. When we learn how to spin alloys into a contiguous undulating skin we'll be doing well.
Consider also that without such pioneers as Chuck Yeager we would not have transsonic or supersonic airliners. We would not know how to compensate for TS turbulence, or how differently control surfaces behave across the sound barrier, or how baffles slow intake air enough so as not to shatter fan blades, or most importantly, how the human body reacts to such unnatural velocities.

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Re:the point, exactly? by adamgundy · 2012-04-20 11:29 · Score: 2

no, it's specifically aimed at conventional weapons, not nuclear. the point is NOT to send an ICBM, because doing so tends to make our Russian or Chinese friends get all retaliatory (even if it's not nuclear tipped.. how do they know?) - instead this thing would fly through the atmosphere and deliver a conventional payload.
it's intended to be a very, very fast cruise missile, with the objective of being able to hit any point on the planet in an hour or less.
Re:the point, exactly? by Thundersnatch · 2012-04-20 14:44 · Score: 1

Consider also that without such pioneers as Chuck Yeager we would not have transsonic or supersonic airliners.
Umm... we don't. That 1970s french/brit thingy crashed, and that was that. It just costs to damn much to fly an airliner past Mach-1. It's like commuting 30 miles to work every day in a Bugatti Veyron at 2 mpg.
Re:the point, exactly? by WalkingBear · 2012-04-20 16:18 · Score: 1

To advance the materials and manufacturing science needed to build a craft that can withstand those forces. Then take that knowledge and apply it to similar problems in other domains. Temperatures, vibration, torsion, flight control, sensor integration and attitude correction (catastrophic failure of a passenger plane?), computerized models of all of the above, etc.. etc.. etc..
At no time does any high tech study like this, especially at the very edge of known science ever apply to only a single problem domain.
Look at the history of transistor and how it developed. Pay especial attention to the studies that led to the processes that allowed that first transistor. Not many of them were in the computational power field.
Re:the point, exactly? by Tastecicles · 2012-04-20 18:44 · Score: 1

The point is, we did. We not only had the Anglo-French Concorde, the Russians also developed the Tupolev TU-144, AKA "Concordski". OK, Concordski only completed just over a hundred commercial flights but it was still in use by NASA (among others) as test platforms, until 1999. Boeing started (but did not complete) two prototypes for its 2707 SST project. A-F Concorde had only three times the fuel running costs per passenger than the Boeing 747-400, which isn't a big deal when you consider that there were people willing to pay for the privilege of flying very fast between London, Paris, Edinburgh and New York. It did, in fact, make an operating profit of £750million over its service life; that's after paying off the purchase subsidy to the British and French Governments for the airframes themselves.

--
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Re:the point, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 02:15 · Score: 0

The purpose is to find the materials needed to build our flying saucers.
Re:the point, exactly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 07:29 · Score: 0

One point is as a test vehicle for a space plane. Mach 20 is in the orbital velocity range so this would be the first step to a vehicle which could launch from a runway and fly to the ISS and back.
The other point would be as a replacement for the SR-71 blackbird. Launching missles or bombs from a hypersonic aircraft is still something that is still problematic so I this is something that would strictly be used for reconnaissance.

Can Someone Post a by DSS11Q13 · 2012-04-20 10:43 · Score: 1

The article doesn't give any background on ho this was achieved, what for etc. I'd like to read more about it.

Of course it fell aprt by geekoid · 2012-04-20 10:46 · Score: 4, Funny

If advanced planes work perfectly, we will never get a Bionic Man.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:Of course it fell aprt by painandgreed · 2012-04-20 15:14 · Score: 1

If advanced planes work perfectly, we will never get a Bionic Man.
Don't worry, I'm old enough to find that funny.
Re:Of course it fell aprt by Bacon+Bits · 2012-04-20 16:44 · Score: 1

Yes, and soon enough six million dollars will be mere pocket change! Our cybernetic programs are getting cheaper by the decade!

--
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
Re:Of course it fell aprt by dkf · 2012-04-20 21:00 · Score: 1

Yes, and soon enough six million dollars will be mere pocket change!
Either your name is Mitt Romney or you're talking about "Quantitative Easing".

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"

Localized Electromagnetic Field Research by tyrione · 2012-04-20 10:54 · Score: 1

Unless they are able to sustain an localized electromagnetic field to dampen and thus disperse such large force vectors on the surface of the object traveling and such high rates of speed what's the point?

Re:Localized Electromagnetic Field Research by glitch0 · 2012-04-20 13:54 · Score: 1

The point is to make an object strong enough such that it doesn't need an electromagnetic field in order to travel at such high rates of speed.

--
-Glitch "We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds." - Linus Torvalds
Re:Localized Electromagnetic Field Research by ceoyoyo · 2012-04-20 15:51 · Score: 1

Maybe if they put LEDs on it....

One word by abarrow · 2012-04-20 11:01 · Score: 1

Unobtainium

Link to the actual press release by DerekLyons · 2012-04-20 11:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Here's the actual press release (which Network World just cut-and-pasted): http://www.darpa.mil/NewsEvents/Releases/2012/04/20.aspx

Re:Expert opinion predictable whining by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 11:47 · Score: 3, Informative

I fly unmanned hypersonic aircraft. I would call these rockets spacecraft except they don't go to space.

I and nobody else flies "in" them. The temperatures are too high.

Even SS1 had a peak velocity of altitude adjusted 240 knots at sea level.

The goal here is a 1 hour to target RPV. Not a passenger aircraft and not Fedex to China. This is a military thing. Rediculous cost.

BTW you can see my M5 "aircraft" on the web anytime you want. Search for 152mm rocket in the USA. The 229mm one goes faster and the 457mm "can be manned", albiet not hypersonic. Just well above supersonic.

JJ

Oh no by Apothem · 2012-04-20 12:05 · Score: 1

There goes another monkey in the name of science! I hope the pilot managed to stay in one piece......

MOD PARENT UP!! by ThatsMyNick · 2012-04-20 13:05 · Score: -1

MOD PARENT UP!!

Aviation Week by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-20 13:24 · Score: 0

Why is this story breaking on Nerdwork, sorry I mean Network world?
It seems like the legitimate channels can't get far enough away from being associated with this "breakthrough" development.

The point is: attack and destroy by tp1024 · 2012-04-20 14:12 · Score: 1

Any target, anywhere on earth, within less than an hour, without condemning the attack missle to a predictable and easily observable flight path in orbit. (Compare that to the pathetic "threat" of a North Korean satellite launch.)

Science it ain't.

Atmospheric hypersonic flight waste of money by caseih · 2012-04-20 15:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

The only practical way to obtain hypersonic speeds is to go suborbital, and that really enters the realm of rockets as heat shields are very heavy.

I think the developers of the SR-71 could have predicted these failures. The SR-71 _only_ went Mach 4 or so, at altitudes of greater than 60,000 feet or so. And at full speed the plane was so hot that pilots couldn't touch the canopy of the cockpit (I think the skin temps were at least a 1000 degrees pick your unit) and the plane lengthened by some considerable amount. To handle those speeds special materials were developed and required, which we haven't really exceeded to this day. Given the temperatures produced at Mach 20 in an atmosphere, even thin (think rocket reentry), building control surfaces and heat shields light enough to actually fly is very very difficult, if not impossible. The shuttle had heat tiles to withstand the atmospheric heating but hey were somewhat heavy and the shuttle didn't really fly during reentry so much as plow through the air belly down until the shuttle slowed down to lower mach numbers and in thicker air. And the failure of any heat shield at these Mach numbers will always lead to total destruction of the vehicle as this test and the Columbia tragedy proved.

All this said, having materials that could allow a craft to actually fly under under such conditions as reentry poses would actually be a real boon to space flight I think, but I doubt we will ever find materials that can provide this.

Re:Great, a idea for a subplot in the next SAW mov by MartinSchou · 2012-04-20 15:41 · Score: 1

Why do that when you can just sandblast them?

maybe they could load it with fruit by steve.cri · 2012-04-20 17:22 · Score: 1

to be peeled would that make sense economicalistically? durrr....

Wondering about the digital windtunnel simulations by Gimbal · 2012-04-20 18:21 · Score: 1

I recall having heard that a majority of flight testing for vehicles such as the B-2 and F-117 was conducted in digital windtunnels, before any physical vehicles were constructed for actual flight tests. Considering that, I wonder if the HTV project is not using similar testing? or if the existing areodynamic modeling techniques might not apply, at hypersonic speeds? (Or maybe it's something completely different...)

Nuclear isn't necessarily bad by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2012-04-20 21:19 · Score: 1

If you intend for something to leave earth orbit in the outbound direction, that's pretty much your only option. Both voyager missions and most other planet flybys are nuclear powered.

That's a bad case of road-rash there... by bwcbwc · 2012-04-21 01:38 · Score: 1

"...lost significant portions of its outer skin..."
So were the forces involved higher than expected in the design, or was this a manufacturing defect? Seems like the key question is "why did the skin peel off", not "why did it lose stability".

--
We are the 198 proof..

Re:Expert opinion predictable whining by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 01:39 · Score: 0

Like http://www.v-serv.com/usr/motors/images.rr152-40960.htm ?

So.. you launch model rockets. One could even say you fly model rockets. Or even, you launch rockets. You don't fly hypersonic aircraft. Way to be misleading there, buddy. Completely unnecessarily, too; being involved in rocketry, at an amateur or professional level, is laudable enough as it is.

Re:Expert opinion predictable whining by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 07:24 · Score: 0

It is a craft that flies through a medium that we all call air on a regular basis, I don't see the problem here. I assumed he meant high-powered rockets in the first place.

Re:Expert opinion predictable whining by Anonymous Coward · 2012-04-21 09:05 · Score: 0

The hive mind disagrees:

"An aircraft is a vehicle that is able to fly by gaining support from the air, or, in general, the atmosphere of a planet. It counters the force of gravity by using either static lift or by using the dynamic lift of an airfoil, or in a few cases the downward thrust from jet engines.[1]

Although rockets and missiles also travel through the atmosphere, most are not considered aircraft because they do not have wings and rely on rocket thrust as the primary means of lift."

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

Slashdot Mirror

Hypersonic Test Aircraft Peeled Apart After 3 Minutes of Sustained Mach 20 Speed

191 comments