Air Force’s Experimental Hypersonic Aircraft Disappears Again

[petrus4]

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.

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.

[Pimander]

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?

[petrus4]

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.

[Littleenki]

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!

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

Well, yes, but this is the American government we're talking about

Did it electrostatically turn itself into a dust cloud?

I think this guy stole them;

[Littleenki]

I think this guy stole them;

Schwing! Shagadelic baby!

[petrus4]

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

[robomont]

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

[PLAYSWITHMACHINES]

Spot on, Petrus

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

My thoughts exactly!