9 ms·
Superfast military plane hit Mach 20 before crash
- adrianwaj 15y agoThat plane will render anti-ballistic missiles useless and make possible long-range targeted assassinations.
- Groxx 15y agoICBMs have been going roughly this speed for a while now, so anti-ballistic missiles either have been useless for a while, or will continue to work. The shuttle goes a good deal faster (mach 25) on re-entry. And as soon as you strip away the need to land and be re-used (the hallmarks of an "airplane"), your anti-super-fast-airplane missiles become much cheaper and faster than the plane, so even a small success rate serves as an effective deterrent in many cases. This is a tech experiment. It may lead to advances in airplanes, but I highly doubt it is cost-effective compared to an equivalent missile that just slams home.
- iwwr 15y agoICBMs can go fast, but they follow a predictable ballistic trajectory. They can also be intercepted by anti-missile missiles. You will need another scramjet to catch a scramjet while in the atmosphere.
- sehugg 15y agoNot necessarily .. reentry vehicles have been able to maneuver as far back as Gemini by rotating (they have a slight amount of lift) -- this works best in the upper atmosphere where small velocity changes can make large changes to your landing zone. Both the US and Russia designed maneuverable warheads to evade each other's ABM systems.
- Sharlin 15y agoYour point stands, I'd like to clarify that the HTV-2 vehicle[1] is an unpowered glider, boosted to cruise velocity by a rocket stage, not a scramjet. Unfortunately, most of the popular news reporting has used the term "airplane" which usually refers to an aircraft capable of powered flight. Although the eventual goal of the FALCON project is to develop a scramjet-powered strike aircraft, the current record holder is still NASA's X-43[2] with a maximum attained speed of Mach 9.68. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-43A http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-43A
- cleaver 15y agoICBM's fly outside of the atmosphere and they don't turn... IE. they're ballistic. I could see that something designed to hit the predictable path of a ballistic missile at mach 20 would fail to hit an aircraft which can turn at mach 20. (How well this thing can actually turn is another question.)
- Groxx 15y agoGranted, the 'ballistic' part does decide it. But what says ICBM tech can't be adapted to simply turn slightly while re-entering? It's not like this plane will be making hair-pin turns, I find it extremely hard to believe something with no need to fly back can't match it for maneuverability.
- hugh3 15y agoBut what says ICBM tech can't be adapted to simply turn slightly while re-entering? Mostly the letter "B" for "ballistic". You can turn while flying. You can't turn while falling. You can stick out a little control vane to try to change course a little bit, but at that sort of speed, in that sort of atmospheric density, and bearing in mind that during re-entry anything that is at all pointy will get burned off, I doubt you could do much at all.
- Groxx 15y agoHence adapted, and referring to the tech, not the object. Making a ballistic missile not-ballistic makes it into something else. That this was a "plane" is inconsequential, and not even interesting, in terms of missiles - that they had at least minimal control at that speed is either a breakthrough, or duplication of existing techniques that can be applied to big-ass missiles (there, swap the B with "Big") more easily and more cheaply than to something designed to be re-used. Which, given the difficulty in adding controllable movement at such speeds to something way more complex than a one-use missile, implies to me that the techniques have existed for a while in cheaper forms, and this is just the first time they've been able to do it and (nearly) recover the device. That's significant, but it's not a game-changer for missiles or making things go boom.
- wisty 15y agoI think it's mostly there so the Air Force can pretend it will still be relevant in 20 years time. Pilots in planes will be replaced by UAV, or cruise missiles. But they want to cling to the romance of real humans in the sky.
- dantheman 15y ago1. Assassinations are against US Law. 2. The US already has long-range assassination hit squads, e.g. Osama Bin Laden's Assassination
- conover 15y agoSolely addressing number 2, I think the factor here is time. The strike window for this weapon as I understand it is 1 hour anywhere in the world. Navy SEAL operations on the order of killing Bin Laden have lead times measured in months. Even Tomahawk missiles take time to position (warships) and fire. When it absolutely, positively has to be destroyed or killed within a hour, Mach 20 is the only way to go. Plus its non-ballistic flight path and high degree of maneuverability probably allows it to evade most anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic missile defenses. Scary stuff. Edit: Grammar and spelling.
- niels_olson 15y ago"highly maneuverable" is an odd term here. What's the radius of an 8 g turn at mach 20? 555 km. The diameter is slightly smaller than the N-S length of California.
- demallien 15y agoSure, but by the same reasoning, you don't need to change your heading by more than a fraction of a degree before the interceptor has to massively change it's intercept trajectory. A scramjet powered missile randomly making slight adjustments around the desired trajectory would make it extremely difficult to intercept.
- true_religion 15y agoI wasn't aware that it was a law. I thought it was merely a prohibition put into place by an Executive Order signed by President Ford. In either case, it seems moot in today's day and age. What's the difference between firing a missile at enemy headquarters with the intention of killing the general and senior staff, and an assassination? It seems today that 'assassination' is simply pursuing the usual methods of war against a specific target.
- molecule 15y agoWhat ordinance and yield is it designed to deliver?
- iwwr 15y agoSurveillance camera, faster and less predictable than a satellite (and faster than the SR-71). Nothing can fly as fast inside the atmosphere, no way to lob a missile or artillery at it.
- troels 15y agoNothing can fly as fast inside the atmosphere, no way to lob a missile or artillery at it. Assuming it's going in a straight line (Which wouldn't be unreasonable at that speed), you just need to send something up to block its path.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- protomyth 15y agoThe US Air Force understands the concept of high speed spy planes with the SR-71 and knows how to deal with intercept attempts. A slight turn takes the plane well away from harm. [edit] now if the enemy builds its own with the same speed / range then all bets are off
- burgerbrain 15y agoWhen you're flying in a straight line, which at these speeds this plane, unlike the SR-71, will be doing, it is only a matter of time until another Zoltan Dani comes along and pops it out of the sky.
- protomyth 15y agoYou and all the down voters are crazy if you don't believe this thing can change directions. Looking at the whole D-21 / SR-71 program for what this do.
- stcredzero 15y agoThis is exciting, because it opens the door for space elevators that don't rendezvous with a stationary point on the ground, but with hypersonic planes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch#Hypersonic_bolus_.28HASTOL.29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch#Hyperson... http://www.enotes.com/topic/Tether_propulsion#HASTOL_.E2.80.94_Earth_launch_assist_rotovator http://www.enotes.com/topic/Tether_propulsion#HASTOL_.E2.80.... This puts the tensile strength necessary into the realm of existing high-strength polymer cables. If we could build a robust fully-reusable space plane that can go Mach 15, and we could also find a way to rendezvous it with a rotating tether, we could free ourselves from the nastiness of the rocket equation and achieve inexpensive space access.
- makmanalp 15y agoWould you care to talk about why anyone would ever want a space elevator? (as opposed to just rockets)
- eneveu 15y agoTo achieve inexpensive space access. (as per the GP) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_economics
- jfoutz 15y agoOne obvious example is manufacturing in zero g. parts can be thrown from operation to operation, rather than having to trundle along on a conveyor. launch would have to get pretty damn cheap to make assembling cars in space worthwile A better example might be fancy chemicals. Rather than purchasing a "very expensive machine" to ensure a specific environment for reaction, it might be cheaper to send the materials to zero g for processing. I'm not a chemist, but watching astronauts play with bubbles and flames in space makes me think you could get a lot of precision by modeling everything as perfect spheres. So, the reactions are simper to model, easier to get accurate and precise outcomes.
- patio11 15y agoIt's wish fulfillment for sci-fi geeks, a deus ex machine made out of unobtanium which purports to answer the question "Is there any reason to go to space other than fulfilling the fantasies of sic-fi geeks given that getting to space is so fantastically expensive as to swamp all benefit of commercial activity other than artificial communications satellites?"
- bluesmoon 15y agoWait. 3 minutes at Mach 20 will get you from SFO to PDX easily, though I suppose it will take longer than that to take off and land.
- jchrisa 15y agoIt looks like the spaceship from Flight of the Navigator.
- JoeAltmaier 15y agoSO the worlds highest-bandwidth network protocol just went from a 747 full of thumb drives, to this scramjet full of thumb drives!
- tlrobinson 15y agoLatency and reliability aren't so good though.
- sliverstorm 15y agoThis scramjet is not particularly large. A 747 on the other hand, while traveling 20-40x slower, could fit petabytes of data.
- Groxx 15y agoGiven that, I'd bet a decent-sized freight train, or tanker, would be able to vastly out-do a 747. With worse ping time, but for sheer bandwidth...
- prawn 15y agoI know they're very different beasts and in completely different situations, but it's still interesting to remember that Voyager 1, using 30+ yo technology, is currently going about three times as fast as this plane.
- Anti-Ratfish 15y agoNot a lot of drag on that one though
- dredmorbius 15y ago30 year old technology... and a few gravity assists.
- prawn 15y agoEven older 'technology'...
- jasonwatkinspdx 15y agoThe most significant difference between this prototype and existing ICBM technology is that the reentry vehicle has more lift and less drag. It's counterintuitive, but re-entry vehicles are typically bluntly shaped because it reduces the heat load on the nose cone by pushing the bow shock further out in front of the craft. The downside of this is higher drag and less lift, so ICBM warheads fall more than they glide.
- blackguardx 15y agoI think this is why they are called "ballistic missiles." They fall to earth as if they were an artillery round.
- dredmorbius 15y agoThat and the fact that most of the flight is in an unpowered, "ballistic" mode, rather than powered for the full duration.
- jasonwatkinspdx 15y agoTrue, but there are things we could call ballistic that are low drag (they also are likely low lift). A typical pointy artillery shell being a great example.
- andrewcooke 15y agodoes anyone know if they had telemetry to the thing (which is difficult because of the plasma, but used to be possible at least at shuttle speeds from the tail)? or are they hoping some kind of black box survived? and if they had no telemetry is this report inferred from observations of the flight (only)? [related - does the telemetry problem mean that if something like this ever went into production, it would be largely autonomous?]
- Cushman 15y agoI'm out of my depth, but there was that idea that used the plasma itself as an antenna, right? What happened with that?
- toyg 15y agoThe reports I've seensay they had a live datalink (I guess one-way only) which lasted nine minutes. They said they're happy with the data anyway, even though they don't know where it crashed (technically they don't even know it crashed, only that it stopped sending data), so they're clearly not relying on a black-box.
- vl 15y ago>The HTV-2 is part of an advanced weapons program called Conventional Prompt Global Strike, which is working to develop systems to reach an enemy target anywhere in the world within one hour. Wait, but don't ICBMs have like 40 min strike time for any target in the world since, like, sixties? (Ok, in the sixties they couldn't aim this fast).
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- icarus_drowning 15y agoYes, but launching an ICBM has the rather unfortunately consequence of telegraphing the message that you are about to nuke someone. Hence the program is a non-ballistic one that seeks an alternative means of delivering a payload as quickly. As a bonus, I gather that the HTV program promises to be more accurate.
- burgerbrain 15y agoIt's my impression that the rocket used to launch this thing would likely still set off early warning launch detection systems.
- dkarl 15y agoIt seems like that sinks the entire idea. A weapon that is suitable for a nuclear first strike doesn't seem like a weapon that is suitable for much else, unless we're on unimaginably good terms with all the other nuclear powers. The fact that we must consider the possibility of military conflict with China makes it especially troubling to consider building a weapon like that and developing a defense strategy that depends on it. Can you imagine getting in a war with China and suddenly launching a dozen ICBMs with conventional weapons on them? Of course we would never do that. It would be insane to do anything that looked like a first strike during a conflict with China. Or Russia, for that matter. Hell, it would probably be insane to do it even if we weren't at war with Russia or China. The mere fact that this plane could deliver a nuclear weapon to Moscow or Beijing in under an hour means that it would be unwise to use it for anything else.
- edge17 15y agoI thought they couldn't find the plane after it was lost? Did they find where it came down?
- runjake 15y agoTelemetry data was logged during the flight. They don't need to recover the aircraft for telemetry.
- wbhart 15y agoSome months ago I observed an object crossing the sky at night from Coventry UK. It crossed the entire extent of the sky in about 2 seconds. It was very high up and had a red glow like that of a jet afterburner. It didn't fade out or change brightness as you might expect of a meteor and wasn't white as you'd expect of a satellite. I wondered at the time if someone was testing a very fast military vehicle. It would be interesting to know what various nations are working on.
- InclinedPlane 15y agoKeep in mind that this vehicle was just for collecting data, a conventional rocket did the work to accelerate it to mach 20. There's nothing the HTV-2 can do other than decelerate and maneuver.