Air Force's Experimental Hypersonic Aircraft Disappears Again(http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2011/08/vanished-again.jpg)
QuoteI don't know what the hell is going on with the Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2, but the Air Force just lost it again. Last year, the first Falcon vanished over the Pacific Ocean, leaving absolutely no trace.
Now it has happened again. The Falcon HTV-2 launched today from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on top of a Minotaur IV Lite rocket.
After successfully separating from the missile, the Falcon reoriented itself for reentry using its Reaction Control System. During the reentry, it used RCS and its aero controls to fly into Earth's upper atmosphere, passing to the pull-up phase, which put it in the correct altitude for the glide phase. In theory, during this phase the Falcon was going to test its aerodynamics and integrity flying at Mach 20, experiencing temperatures of 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit—enough to melt steel.
(http://gizmodo.com/5830061/air-forces-experimental-hypersonic-aircraft-disappears-again)
QuoteDARPA controllers at Vandenberg acquired signal from reentry to some time into the glide phase. At that point, only 36 minutes after launch, they lost telemetry contact never to get it back again. According to DARPA, the Falcon has automated self-destruction controls in case something goes wrong, but they still don't know what has happened. Two hours ago at the time of this writing they haven't followed up on their last Tweet.
Air Force's Experimental Hypersonic Aircraft Disappears AgainBack in April 2010, the first Falcon flew for nine minutes before DARPA experienced loss of signal. According to the Air Force, "the vehicle's onboard system detected a flight anomaly and engaged its onboard safety system-prompting the vehicle to execute a controlled descent into the ocean."
Why did the Falcon disappear again? To me, the answer is clear. In two words:
Lex Luthor. [DARPA Twitter] (https://twitter.com/#!/DARPA_News)
http://gizmodo.com/5830061/air-forces-experimental-hypersonic-aircraft-disappears-again
i used a microwave override system like the one used to take down the drones in Iran.
free rides for any pegasus members who can pay for fuel.
really i think these are fake presents for the Chinese to waste billions on.
maybe a piece of foam broke off at launch punched a hole in the wing and then it burned up on reentry.
gotta love that one.
great story zorgon.
Yeaaahhhh, riiiigghht!
Disappeared....from the public eye maybe....
Darpa doesnt want anyone to know how successful the flight was, and if they are posting that it disappeared, that means, due to the fact everything our government says is a lie....that it is just fine sitting on a flight deck somewhere, having its computers downloaded and reprogrammed for whatever sinister mission it will be on next.
Or it crashed somewhere in the ocean..and they didnt have any f16s following its trajectory...once again...
Riiiiigghht!
Le
Quote from: Littleenki on February 19, 2013, 04:26:14 PM
its computers downloaded and reprogrammed
Electronics calibration and test are a must after a re-entry. 8)
Hmm, how about they forgot to insulate the 2 pounds of H.E. that was part of the 'auto destruct' system ::) ??? :-[ :P
DARPA: 20 grand a month & i'm yours :P
Pwm. Lmao. Your probably right.
Quote from: LSWONE on February 19, 2013, 05:20:39 PM
Electronics calibration and test are a must after a re-entry. 8)
Look we all know what REALLY happened...
That new cloaking 'coating'... they forgot to hit the off switch and now they can't find it :D
Yea. There is no comment of tracking the crash.
maybe its orbiting earth in cloak mode.
I sure hope a followup report comes out.
Quote
That new cloaking 'coating'... they forgot to hit the off switch and now they can't find it
...it will probably crash in Russia somewhere.
It's just not their year, is it?
"Dang we are so stupid, please report this to the news papers"
Me thinks not ;D
Quote from: PLAYSWITHMACHINES on February 20, 2013, 06:03:32 PM
...it will probably crash in Russia somewhere.
It's just not their year, is it?
Okay so... DARPA looses this thing, and a couple days later Russia shoots down a 'meteorite' that leaves an odd smoke trail that is persitent for several hours... Hmmm
Good thing I am not conspiracy minded :D
(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/184241_10151318111192104_440880467_n.jpg)
"...it will probably crash in Russia somewhere".
Well, or possibly in one of two other more likely places.........................either in Iran, where some of our other stuff has ended up, or..................the Baltic Sea, as that seems to be a gathering place for such as this craft!! ;) ;)
However, I do like the "cloaking" thought too - - - talk about being lost in space~~~ :))
Arriba Speedy Gonzales!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZuUUyZE0wQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVFNLdTuN-s
Kind of reminds me of ironman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Im7ZYrXCOY
But landing has got to be hairy.
from the looks of it i would say the space shuttle was easy compared to that fat dart.
Maybe it parachutes into the water nose down.
Quote from: zorgon on February 19, 2013, 02:59:25 AMIn theory, during this phase the Falcon was going to test its aerodynamics and integrity flying at Mach 20, experiencing temperatures of 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit—enough to melt steel.
Random thought: Would it be possible for this vehicle to leave the terrestrial atmosphere for the duration of the flight, (thus avoiding atmospheric friction/resistance for the duration, which is presumably the cause of the heat) and then come back down again once they had reached a point above their destination?
I know people will probably tell me that they would still be subjected to extreme temperatures from exit and re-entry anywayz; but it seems to me that the less overall time you have to spend in the fire, the less chance you have of being completely burned.
I'd also say that it makes no sense to fly within the atmosphere if you have the thrust/fuel to go spaceside.... But why do we still need to carry something that big into enemy territory?
Quote from: Pimander on March 12, 2013, 02:27:28 PM
I'd also say that it makes no sense to fly within the atmosphere if you have the thrust/fuel to go spaceside....
Well, yes, but this is the
American government we're talking about, Pimander. ;)
Methinks the craft would require some sort of training wheels to allow it to grow into it's capabilities..of course or warheads are always pushing too hard on the throttle and looking for too much on the first attempt.
Does one build an RC plane and then set it at full throttle and launch it before even testing all the control channels?....only if they wear an Air Force uniform, then it's "floor it Willy!" "Oops, where did it go?"
If the plane keeps disappearing too, Im surprised we havent heard from anyone suggesting it was lost due to time dilation or some sort of dimensional occurence as a result of not it's actual velocity, but the heat level and the possible electrical effects that may occur during such a flight.
Did it electrostatically turn itself into a dust cloud?
Perhaps the Government should "disassociate" itself with such endeavours and leave these types of experiments to the private sector..oh wait..the private sector knows that its ludicrous to try to design a conventional aircraft to fly at such a velocity, but for the government, it sure doesnt hurt to use the idea to grap a few more trillion dollars in funding for their black ops, does it?
Hopefully both craft are sitting on a deck in an alien cargo ship somewhere up there, to keep us safe from ourselves...and from our mad non-scientist military industrial complex!
QuoteWell, yes, but this is the American government we're talking about
:) :) :)
QuoteDid it electrostatically turn itself into a dust cloud?
:D :D :D
I think this guy stole them;
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/inventors_group/images/ODD/DREVILEU.jpg)
Quote from: PLAYSWITHMACHINES on March 12, 2013, 03:57:42 PM
:) :) :) :D :D :D
I think this guy stole them;
(http://www.thelivingmoon.com/inventors_group/images/ODD/DREVILEU.jpg)
Schwing! Shagadelic baby!
Quote from: Littleenki on March 12, 2013, 03:24:10 PM
Methinks the craft would require some sort of training wheels to allow it to grow into it's capabilities..of course or warheads are always pushing too hard on the throttle and looking for too much on the first attempt.
Does one build an RC plane and then set it at full throttle and launch it before even testing all the control channels?....only if they wear an Air Force uniform, then it's "floor it Willy!" "Oops, where did it go?"
"Thou shalt not prototype under load."This is a cardinal rule for me, and I'm sure PWM would agree. What it means, is that you do not use an unproven or experimental system, in a situation during which the failure of said system would be catastrophic. Ergo, if you build an aircraft which required great expense and labour to produce, a wise engineer would not then tax the engines of such a craft, when the capability of said engines, or the effect of the velocity they can reach, will have on the craft itself, is fully known.
You have to go very slowly; it is an incremental, and in a way, an intuitive and tactile process. You add very small increments of load to the system; 5-10% per iteration at the most, and operating conditions are continually monitored. Whatever you believe your absolute safe maximum is, remain 10-20% below that until you are certain. Conservatism during that process is a virtue.
Another thing which I do not consider at all intelligent, is the construction of an early generation prototype out of more expensive materials than are necessary, or that is carrying excessively expensive/irreplaceable equipment. When you are prototyping, the main thing you want is to keep your cost of iterative failure low, so that you can have as many iterations as you need, until you get the system to work. That means that systems which are only designed for demonstrating or learning a particular concept, are made out of cheap and easily salvageable materials which you do not mind losing; you only use your higher quality materials to implement a concept that you solidly understand, so that you have some assurance that said implementation will be reliable, and will not fail.
QuoteIf the plane keeps disappearing too, Im surprised we havent heard from anyone suggesting it was lost due to time dilation or some sort of dimensional occurence as a result of not it's actual velocity, but the heat level and the possible electrical effects that may occur during such a flight.
If I had a craft completely disappear, then probably the first thing I would do, would be to halve my existing assumptions about its' capabilities, until I knew that there wasn't some sort of threshold event associated with a particular speed or temperature. The problem with something simply disappearing, is that you get no real feedback from that, and so you have no clue what might cause another disappearance when you re-run the experiment. You can make guesses, of course; but again, if guesses are all you have to go on, then that is why I said what I did, about using relatively disposable materials to make something that you're reasonably sure you're not going to get back.
QuoteHopefully both craft are sitting on a deck in an alien cargo ship somewhere up there, to keep us safe from ourselves...and from our mad non-scientist military industrial complex!
I suspect we probably induce two different types of reactions in any extraterrestrials who might be observing our behaviour. The Greys, Reptilians, and other more devious or negatively oriented ETs probably consider us hilarious, and laugh at us on a regular basis; whereas the more positively oriented ETs probably weep for us, quite seriously.
Is there a max speed where radar would not work due to atmospheric conditions.
From what that zorgon video shows.i wonder if its more than mach 20.
Then there is the problem of arching it thru the atmosphere.
The gs to keep it from going into space are horrendous at that speed.
my guess is its floating out in space.hurtling on an unknown tragectory
Spot on, Petrus :)
QuoteAnother thing which I do not consider at all intelligent, is the construction of an early generation prototype out of more expensive materials than are necessary, or that is carrying excessively expensive/irreplaceable equipment. When you are prototyping, the main thing you want is to keep your cost of iterative failure low, so that you can have as many iterations as you need, until you get the system to work. That means that systems which are only designed for demonstrating or learning a particular concept, are made out of cheap and easily salvageable materials which you do not mind losing
My thoughts exactly!