Part of me feels that this Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2--which in principle can fly from London to Sydney in less than an hour--sounds like the best use of our taxpayer dollar I've ever heard of. Another part of me really wonders about the "artist's rendition."

Artists-rendition-of-the--007

Mr. Ahmadinejad, you may not be the only one with a subtle, malicious sense of humor.

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

I'm proud to say that I'm friends with the guys and gals who designed the navigation, guidance, and control system for this beast. Back in those heady days of 2005 I worked on it myself (though not the final design) for a few months before being assigned to another program.  It's pretty awesome.

As for HTV-2's apparent shape, I'd say it's more like a spear tip than a Klan hood.

We all have their fingers crossed that their years of hard work will pay off with a successful flight!

Claire Berlinski, Ed.

Wow. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would welcome a Members' Feed post explaining in detail how this thing works? 

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

 I'm amazed that anything can be designed to fly that fast and also fly slow enough to land. I'm certainly no expert, but I imagine a world of difference exists between the aerodynamics required for each.

Samwise Gamgee
Joined
Jun '10
Samwise Gamgee

Wow, they're finding increasingly cool ways to flush our money down the toilet! 

Stuart Creque
Joined
Dec '10
Stuart Creque
The King Prawn:  I'm amazed that anything can be designed to fly that fast and also fly slow enough to land. I'm certainly no expert, but I imagine a world of difference exists between the aerodynamics required for each. · Aug 10 at 11:27pm

What do you mean, "land"? If it can maintain Mach 20 all the way to the ground, it doesn't hardly need an explosive payload: sheer kinetic energy will take out almost any target it hits.

Stuart Creque
Joined
Dec '10
Stuart Creque

Don't think Klansman's hood, think bishop's miter.

The King Prawn
Joined
Dec '10
The King Prawn

Stuart Creque

 

What do you mean, "land"? If it can maintain Mach 20 all the way to the ground, it doesn't hardly need an explosive payload: sheer kinetic energy will take out almost any target it hits. · Aug 10 at 11:30pm

Funny you should mention that. There have been some ideas bandied about for using strategic missiles with inert payloads as hardend target penetrators. Tungston steel rods, depleted uranium, that sort of thing. Any pointy thing lobbed from space will work pretty well, actually.

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

Stuart Creque

The King Prawn:  I'm amazed that anything can be designed to fly that fast and also fly slow enough to land. I'm certainly no expert, but I imagine a world of difference exists between the aerodynamics required for each. · Aug 10 at 11:27pm

What do you mean, "land"? If it can maintain Mach 20 all the way to the ground, it doesn't hardly need an explosive payload: sheer kinetic energy will take out almost any target it hits. · Aug 10 at 11:30pm

You're right Stuart, as far as weapons go.  But King Prawn has a point.  One follow-on plan for this line of technology demonstrators was to work toward a vehicle that could deliver a squad of Marines.  Presumably this would involve landing in such a way that they survive.

outstripp
Joined
May '10
outstripp

The original name was the Robert Byrd hypersonic vehicle.

Percival
Joined
Mar '11
Percival

The King Prawn

Stuart Creque

 

What do you mean, "land"? If it can maintain Mach 20 all the way to the ground, it doesn't hardly need an explosive payload: sheer kinetic energy will take out almost any target it hits. · Aug 10 at 11:30pm

Funny you should mention that. There have been some ideas bandied about for using strategic missiles with inert payloads as hardend target penetrators. Tungston steel rods, depleted uranium, that sort of thing. Any pointy thing lobbed from space will work pretty well, actually. · Aug 10 at 11:35p

Ah yes -- rods from God.  I haven't heard anything about that in a while, but then I'm out of the loop nowadays.

When we were still maintaining the no-fly zones in Iraq, Saddam had the annoying habit of basing the AA units taking potshots at our planes in civilian neighborhoods.  So we engaged those targets with bombs whose warheads consisted of concrete.  You can do that when your targeting systems are as awesome as the ones the USAF has.

StickerShock
Joined
Jun '10
StickerShock
outstripp: The original name was the Robert Byrd hypersonic vehicle. · Aug 11 at 1:32am

HA HA!

Mark -- Very cool to learn you were part of this project.  I hope you post some details in the member feed. 

StickerShock
Joined
Jun '10
StickerShock

"When we were still maintaining the no-fly zones in Iraq, Saddam had the annoying habit of basing the AA units taking potshots at our planes in civilian neighborhoods. So we engaged those targets with bombs whose warheads consisted of concrete. You can do that when your targeting systems are as awesome as the ones the USAF has."

So how does that translate into cost savings?  Having incredible targeting and delivery systems that can be effective with concrete warheads must save $$ in the long run.  Is it significant savings, or are the development and operating costs of the system itself so huge that the variable cost of warheads delivered is not a huge factor?

How much $ would we save by filling the warheads with bacon grease?

Roberto
Joined
Mar '11
Roberto
Samwise Gamgee: Wow, they're finding increasingly cool ways to flush our money down the toilet!  · Aug 10 at 11:29pm

Do you object to military R&D in general or is there something specific to this project which earns your disapproval?

Jim Chase
Joined
Jun '10
Jim Chase

Bummer ... according to this, DARPA lost telemetry shortly after entering glide phase. 

jetstream
Joined
Dec '10
jetstream

Percival

The King Prawn

Stuart Creque

 

What do you mean, "land"? If it can maintain Mach 20 all the way to the ground, it doesn't hardly need an explosive payload: sheer kinetic energy will take out almost any target it hits. · Aug 10 at 11:30pm

Funny you should mention that. There have been some ideas bandied about for using strategic missiles with inert payloads as hardend target penetrators. Tungston steel rods, depleted uranium, that sort of thing. Any pointy thing lobbed from space will work pretty well, actually. · Aug 10 at 11:35p

Ah yes -- rods from God.  I haven't heard anything about that in a while, but then I'm out of the loop nowadays.

When we were still maintaining the no-fly zones in Iraq, Saddam had the annoying habit of basing the AA units taking potshots at our planes in civilian neighborhoods.  So we engaged those targets with bombs whose warheads consisted of concrete.  You can do that when your targeting systems are as awesome as the ones the USAF has. · Aug 11 at 4:23am

Back to the future - a rock on the head.

Stuart Creque
Joined
Dec '10
Stuart Creque

Mark Wilson

Stuart Creque

The King Prawn:  I'm amazed that anything can be designed to fly that fast and also fly slow enough to land. I'm certainly no expert, but I imagine a world of difference exists between the aerodynamics required for each. · Aug 10 at 11:27pm

What do you mean, "land"? If it can maintain Mach 20 all the way to the ground, it doesn't hardly need an explosive payload: sheer kinetic energy will take out almost any target it hits. · Aug 10 at 11:30pm

You're right Stuart, as far as weapons go.  But King Prawn has a point.  One follow-on plan for this line of technology demonstrators was to work toward a vehicle that could deliver a squad of Marines.  Presumably this would involve landing in such a way that they survive. · Aug 10 at 11:58pm

Hypersonic at Mach 5 is probably more survivable.  How long do you have to decelerate from Mach 20 to avoid smushing the passengers? (Not to mention insulating them from 2000C heat on the skin.)

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

Stuart Creque

How long do you have to decelerate from Mach 20 to avoid smushing the passengers? (Not to mention insulating them from 2000C heat on the skin.)

The space shuttle did it.

Stuart Creque
Joined
Dec '10
Stuart Creque

Mark Wilson

Stuart Creque

How long do you have to decelerate from Mach 20 to avoid smushing the passengers? (Not to mention insulating them from 2000C heat on the skin.)

The space shuttle did it. · Aug 11 at 4:22pm

Yes, but how long in time and distance does it take?

Mark Wilson
Joined
May '10
Mark Wilson

Stuart Creque

Mark Wilson

Stuart Creque

How long do you have to decelerate from Mach 20 to avoid smushing the passengers? (Not to mention insulating them from 2000C heat on the skin.)

The space shuttle did it. · Aug 11 at 4:22pm

Yes, but how long in time and distance does it take? · Aug 11 at 7:49pm

I actually misread your original question. I read it as "How do you decelerate...", which sound like an expression of skepticism.

It's hard to pin down an exact number for how long it takes the space shuttle to deorbit from comparable conditions as the HTV-2, but based on this layman's guide under the Entry Interface section, I'd say it's around 20 minutes.


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading
Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In