

Unmanned USA military aircraft travels from NYC to LA in 12 minutes. - hhastings
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2390818,00.asp

======
hernan7
Prototype was just lost during the last test flight earlier today:

[http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/new-york-to-la-
in-l...](http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/11/new-york-to-la-in-less-
than-12-minutes/?hpt=hp_c2)

~~~
frossie
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-
pla...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/11/fastest-ever-plane-lost-
during-test-flight)

~~~
reemrevnivek
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> 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
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.

~~~
DavidAdams
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.

------
reemrevnivek
Previous discussions this morning:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2873003> \- 4 comments

<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>) points to several updates
after launch, and now to this news release (<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
Mach 20!? Heavens, and I thought the NASA X-43 was fast.

------
ColinWright
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>

------
CamperBob
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
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
>(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.

