12 ms·
Pentagon releases results of 13,000-mph test flight over Pacific
- markdrago 14y agoHere's a TED talk by Regina Dugan that discusses these flights as well: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/regina_dugan_from_mach_20_glider_to_humming_bird_drone.html http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/regina_dugan_from_mach_20_g...
- jonnycowboy 14y agoGreat talk, thanks for the link.
- 0003 14y agoThe juxtaposition of toddlers and the "DARPA" logo is not jarring, given the benefits DARPA has produced for humanity due in part to its unleashed creativity, but certainly 'weird' given the context of its mission statement.
- draggnar 14y agoIn the video it looks lik the htv is controlled by two flaps on the bottom. Even if this program is in fact finished the research will be useful at some point when rockets are cheaper. A 12 minute flight coast to coast would be nice.
- rollypolly 14y agoWhen the technology does start to work, could this have civilian applications one day?
- untog 14y agoIn theory, yes. But the fastest civilian plane, the Concorde, was shut down years ago. There's cost/benefit ratio that needs to be met.
- andymoe 14y agoLet's not forget the concord was shut down mostly because one of them ran over a 17 inch bit of titanium that sent pounds of debris flying at the plan at 500mph rupturing a fuel tank and causing it to blow up. The next year some a-holes flew into buildings in NY and the pentagon and put the airline industry and economy into a tailspin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590
- Someone 14y agoI think that crash was more the excuse they were waiting for. Economically, it was past its prime, a prime at which I do not think it ever brought in much money, if at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Operational_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Operational_history, for example, claims "By around 1981 in the UK, the future for Concorde looked bleak. The British government had lost money operating Concorde every year, and moves were afoot to cancel the service entirely". It also says "It is reported that British Airways then ran Concorde at a profit, unlike their French counterpart", so there may have been years it was making a profit, but Concorde was flying for prestige, not for the money. I also think that 500mph figure you give is incorrect. Wikipedia lists Concorde take off speed as 250mph, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590 talks of 500kph, or 310mph.
- raverbashing 14y agoOf course. Concorde was shut down for economic reasons. But it was also the first interaction of the concept, and built with very inefficient technology. The Space Shuttle flew for the first time 5 years after Concorde began commercial service. How many improvements have we seen in commercial aviation technology: better engines, better aerodynamics (and CFD), lighter materials, fly-by-wire If a new SST is ever designed it will probably sill be inefficient, but ahead of the original Concorde. You probably wouldn't need it to go Mach 2 for example, maybe Mach 1.5 saves enough time on a trip to justify it. Not to mention the issue that Concorde had Economy class seats with First class price.
- 14y ago
- bradleyland 14y agoAccelerating the human body to mach 20 has its own set of problems. Namely, the g-force involved. A mach number is dependent upon altitude, but they mention 13,000 MPH in the article. This is a little bit slower than the orbital velocity of the Space Shuttle (around 18,000 mph), but at these speeds, rocket launches are the neighborhood we're operating in. Wikipedia says Shuttle astronauts experience around 3 Gs. This isn't intolerable, but g-force tolerance is heavily related to time spent at a specific level. Astronauts are screened for tolerance to g-forces as part of their selection criteria. It is unlikely that the general public would ever ride in aircraft that subject passengers to the forces commonly felt during the launch of an orbital vehicle.
- hencq 14y agoThe stated goal is apparently to be able to strike anywhere on earth within an hour. What's the advantage of something like this above an ICBM? I can imagine one advantage would be that the target can't be easily inferred from the flight path? Also an ICBM launch is immediately associated with a nuclear attack, while this might not be? Although I could imagine an enemy detecting multiple of these hypersonic vehicles heading towards it, wouldn't want to wait to find out.
- melling 14y agoI thought the goal was to evevtually build a plane that could be anywhere in the world within an hour. There are many more uses for this, of course. Next generation SR71 Blackbird, fire missiles on enemy vehicle, sink pirate ship, etc.
- jballanc 14y agoYeah, but consider: the SR-71 was intended to replace the U-2. Which one was retired? Which one is still in active use?
- LockeWatts 14y agoThey were both made obsolete by satellites and now drones.
- bdunbar 14y agoDisagree: the reasons why the SR-71 was retired, and the U-2 is scheduled for retirement, are not technical but political and fiscal.
- watmough 14y agoI don't really believe that either. Improved missiles are now able to shoot down the U2, and maybe get close to the SR-71. That makes these planes a liability now, when over developed territories such as the former USSR. Both were formerly useful, and have been brought out of retirement, when required for tasks that a satellite could not perform, or was not in position for. I wouldn't be surprised if the x37 mini-spaceplane was primarily useful as a surveillance platform.
- darklajid 14y agoThe technological feat seems amazing! But .. my English parser crashes here: “The initial shock wave disturbances experienced during second flight, from which the vehicle was able to recover and continue controlled flight, exceeded by more than 100 times what the vehicle was designed to withstand,” DARPA Acting Director Kaigham J. Gabriel said in a statement. “That’s a major validation that we’re advancing our understanding of aerodynamic control for hypersonic flight.” Is he saying that (my understanding) the shock wave disturbances exceeded the designed/expected maximum by a factor of 100? And claims that this is supporting the idea of understanding hypersonic flight so much better? I _think_ he wants to say 'In spite of these troubles we were able to recover, due to our good understanding of the underlying principles' but I parse it as 'The outcome of the experiment showed that we greatly underestimated the forces involved and this clearly validates our understanding'. Can some native speaker point out were I stumbled?
- ryanmolden 14y agoI believe he is trying to say their ability to recover from such a large variation from their initial expectation is proof that they truly understand/are advancing in their knowledge of hypersonic flight. That said, since there is a break between the two quotes the second could have come 10 sentences later and the writer could have unknowingly dropped context/information in some omitted statements. It is a bit of a hard to parse statement, but that is what you get from people, rarely do people speak in memorable, concise sound bites 'off the cuff'.
- greeneggs 14y agoHe didn't say that it validates our understanding, he said it validates that "we're advancing our understanding." It sounds like they learned quite a lot from this experiment, including some big surprises.
- losvedir 14y agoNative speaker here. I think you're correct that it's somewhat contradictory. Gabriel says two things: 1) They were off by a factor of 100 in predicting the shock wave disturbances, and 2) The vehicle was able to recover. I think his comment about advancing understanding is more referring to (2) than (1), although now that you point it out, it's hard to say you understand something well if you're off by two orders of magnitude...
- evoxed 14y agoI still can't even fathom a 12-minute separation between Los Angeles and New York.
- rorrr 14y agoPlus two hours getting to and waiting at the airport.
- evoxed 14y agoMaybe that'll be solved by the time I can afford a hypersonic flight between NY and LA.
- melling 14y agoIt is a solved problem. At least getting to the airport. Now we just need to make it more affordable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train
- adestefan 14y agoI think the OP is instead refering to the standard disclaimer to arrive 1-2 hours before your flight to get through baggage check, security, and sitting at the gate.
- adestefan 14y agoDon't forget about the time sitting on the tarmac.
- anrope 14y agoThat would be amazing. I'd imagine it would be something like the difference between transatlantic travel by sailboat and today's jets.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- schnaars 14y agoThe technologist in me says that is pretty awesome. The cynic looks at $320M price tag and wonders why I don't have better schools for my kids and DARPA doesn't have a better video of this thing.