6 ms·

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

37 points by hhastings 15y ago

hernan7 15y 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-less-than-12-minutes/?hpt=hp_c2 http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/new-york-to-la-in-l...
- frossie 15y 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-plane-lost-during-test-flight http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/11/fastest-ever-pla...
  - reemrevnivek 15y 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 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 15y 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 15y ago
  Yes, you're right - it's a total linkbait title that is also inaccurate. Flagged althought it likely won't matter.
- DavidAdams 15y 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.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  What if we think of it as Schrodinger's Falcon? It has both completed and not completed the trip from NYC to LA!
reemrevnivek 15y ago
Previous discussions this morning: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873003 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873003 - 4 comments http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873313 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 https://twitter.com/#!/DARPA_News) points to several updates after launch, and now to this news release (http://go.usa.gov/KLe 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....
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Mach 20!? Heavens, and I thought the NASA X-43 was fast.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
CamperBob 15y 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 15y 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.
  - VladRussian 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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.
ColinWright 15y 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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2874651

37 points by hhastings 15y 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-less-than-12-minutes/?hpt=hp_c2 http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/new-york-to-la-in-l...

frossie 15y 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-plane-lost-during-test-flight http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/11/fastest-ever-pla...
- reemrevnivek 15y 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 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 15y 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 15y ago
Yes, you're right - it's a total linkbait title that is also inaccurate. Flagged althought it likely won't matter.
DavidAdams 15y 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.
sliverstorm 15y ago
What if we think of it as Schrodinger's Falcon? It has both completed and not completed the trip from NYC to LA!

reemrevnivek 15y ago

Previous discussions this morning: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873003 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873003 - 4 comments http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873313 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 https://twitter.com/#!/DARPA_News) points to several updates after launch, and now to this news release (http://go.usa.gov/KLe 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....

sliverstorm 15y ago
Mach 20!? Heavens, and I thought the NASA X-43 was fast.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

CamperBob 15y 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 15y 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.
- VladRussian 15y 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 15y 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 15y 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.

ColinWright 15y 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 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2874651