DARPA’s Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2)

Thanks for the posting Roger. I came across the article several minutes before discovering your OP.

You didn't mention that the first flight test of the Falcon failed after 9 minutes of flight time, that it spun out of controlled and crashed. They never did find and recover it.

If this test fails, then DARPA is required to shelve the project indefinitely.....nothing like having your balls in a vise, eh? LOL

You Wrote:"You didn't mention that the first flight test of the Falcon failed after 9 minutes of flight time, that it spun out of controlled and crashed. They never did find and recover it.

If this test fails, then DARPA is required to shelve the project indefinitely...

Good point. In truth, the fact that this is even possible blows my mind. I mean, Mach 20!!!

...it spun out of controlled and crashed. They never did find and recover it.

I recall reading that its on-board computer detected a problem and it deliberately aborted its mission and sent itself to the bottom of the sea below to prevent any recovery.

Dyna-Soar lives yet! What many people don't know is that the original concept of a exo-atmospheric "skip-bomber" was a Nazi program that never got off the drawing board.

Bad News!!! This just in off the AP:

An unmanned hypersonic glider developed for U.S. defense research into super-fast global strike capability was launched atop a rocket early Thursday but contact was lost after the experimental craft began flying on its own, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency said.

There was no immediate information on how much of the mission's goals were achieved.

http://news.yahoo.com/contact-lost-hypersonic-glider-launch-163016325.html

one point I will make, this would have been it's final flight whether it worked or not for the foreseeable future due to budgetary constraints. they were able to do this because the money had already been spent.

I'll follow your style of Q&A here.

You wrote: "unmanned hypersonic aircraft capable of reaching any target "

It's not really much of an aircraft if the destination is considered a target. That sounds more like how one would describe a missile.

You Wrote:"That sounds more like how one would describe a missile."

Except I would argue that missiles don't come back and land where they took off from after delivering their payload.

The wiki article has more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Falcon_Project

Ah...got it.

Don't get me wrong, I think right now they'd be thrilled if it had the functionality of a missile. Too bad this technology isn't working and won't get funded. I flew from NYC to Tokyo last year (14 hour flight). Not a fun flight.

Also I like you're quote (please don't shoot me).

Remember that it is really intended to be a steerable and reusable "MIRV" for lack of a better term. it is a bomber with either a single or only a few small warheads it could release during it's exoatmospheric "skip" flight phase (you could not release them during re-entry without causing a burn-through).

think of it as a cross between an unmanned bomber and a missile and you won't be far wrong.

Bummer that today's test flight failed!

Yes, Mach 20 flight is indeed incredible!!!!! WOW!!!!

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I remember reading that this vehicle was to be ultimately developed as a unmanned one and never intended as a manned one.....and that it is to be an actual short-response time missile against foes (like terrorists etc etc). Also, this vehicle was to purposely designed, configured etc so that it could be distinguished by others radar systems as an actual non-ICBM threat, meaning that it is not an ICBM being launched at them which could trigger their own nuclear response with ICBMs.

Possibly in the near term future this technology could be matured into manned vehicle or a hypervelocity space plane like President Reagan once envisioned.

It could also be used as a fast response surveillance platform with an unpredictable time of flight and course and at mach 20+ nothing would be able to touch it from a SAM pov. Think of it as an SR-71 on steroids, not unlike what Aurora was to have been before it was cancelled. In fact I would not be surprised if this was the follow-on program to Aurora. Darpa has also been working on the X-37 which has similar usefulness in that regard.

The US Government has never officially or unofficially acknowledged the existence of the "Aurora" project, or a vehicle by that name or otherwise....

Yet in my mind I really do think that it existed or still exists to this day, no doubt staging out of Area 51 and Beale AFB, possibly Anderson AFB on Guam and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean......two family members, both USAF pilots & now retired (on a BG, the other a Lt. Col.), have had a "slip of the tongue" on a few occasions in the past in my presence mentioned that they firmly believe that a new USAF/CIA/NRO hypersonic (MACH 5-6) Strategic Recon aircraft, possibly using RHAR engines and MCH cryogenic fuel, does indeed exist which replaced the aging and maintenance intense SR-71 Blackbirds. I do not doubt their convictions on this subject for a number of reasons, which I will not get into here.

Possibly this Falcon is a replacement of the Aurora (or whatever it's real nom de guerre is now), since the Aurora was most likely born during the Reagan's 2nd term in the '86 Pentagon Budget Request made in 1985 earmarking Black Budget funds for a FY 1987 project implementation......that makes it nearly 25 years old now.

Some very interesting reading, for starters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60763/pg1

Personally I'm betting on aerospike type rocket engines burning LNG/LOX (which should be hypergolic/restartable (correction, LOX is not hypergolic with LNG, my bad, but Peroxide or NOX should be. they could be used as an initializer/catalyst since LOX has the highest specific impulse of any oxidizer.)) for exo-atmospheric use and Titanium Aluminide leading edges. there was much talk of Titanium aluminide development in the materials science arena back in the late 80's/early 90's for very high temp high strength leading edges for hypersonic airfoils for the NASP. They were also planning to use aerospike engines. neither technology had ever been used before in a publicly acknowledged man-rated aircraft/spacecraft. at the time it was speculated that it HAD been proven in a black project, that being Aurora. I would not be surprised if it had a mothership to carry it to around 40Kft before being airdropped/launched not unlike the X-15 which was also Mach5+.

It would not surprise me if the "donuts on a rope" contrails that have been seen were from where the ramjets were transitioning from exoatmospheric to atmospheric flight and were going into pulse detonation due to unstable shockwaves entering the inlet. perhaps the Aurora was already doing a bit of "skipping" off the upper atmosphere to extend range.

May as well throw this in. "Significance" is interesting as is the last line of "Early speculation"

Many thanks 34point5 for that informative link.....very interesting to say the least!

Yeah, there's a great weather satellite shot over the entire USA, from a few years back, that shows those "donuts-on-a-rope" contrails starting out in Calif. (maybe Edwards AFB?) or Nevada (maybe Area 51/Groom Lake?) and ending up going out into the Atlantic Ocean off camera. Estimated airspeed was in the whelm of Mach 6 or slightly less....Another piece of the puzzle being fitted.

I think I found the link on the Coast-to-Coast website a couple of months ago. I'll try to find it again and post a link to it if possible.

It'd be interesting if you could Capt., I'll be looking for your post. DJ

I would think anything travelling at that speed would be considered a threat...easy enough to classify.

Threat? Well, good luck doing anything about it. I think ABM systems might be the only thing that might be able to come close and then only on the delivered warhead reentry vehicle. If it was used as a recon platform they'd be pretty much untouchable. given the shape, it is fairly stealthy just on general principals so it might not even show up on radar, or if it did the speed might be so high that the range gate for most ground based radar would refuse to track it unless it was designed to track ballistic missiles.

Yeah, that sounds about right. Especially since this thing is "maneuverable", although that may be why it keeps crashing. It's got to be tough to make corrections at that speed, even for an AI pilot.

"139 seconds of Mach 22 " it travelled about 900km during that phase. Not bad!

Ok, I've had a few scotches, but what is "cool" in your twisted little lizard brains about being able to reach "anywhere in the world" and blow some 'disagreeing fucqre' up?

Have you missed the reality - "Wow it did Mk 20!" and it lasted 9 seconds - but now every 'other place' knows you think you have a God given right to wipe them out anytime you feel like it.

Talk about a Doctorate of Tactically Stupid in Geo-politics

When the Concorde was removed of service (Mach 1?)...I am fully agree with you.How much must we work to feed these criminals minds?.-

34.5, that situation already exists anyway. a little thing called an ICBM pretty much settled that argument 60 years ago. And what with even nutjobs like NK, Iran and others getting in on the act, things have gotten worse, not better. While this COULD be used as a skip-bomber, it is more than likely intended as a snap-shot recon vehicle. The payload capacity for such a vehicle is by necessity small, and besides ICBM's have been able to do the same thing for years at a fraction of the cost, so it makes far more sense as a reconnaissance platform with unpredictable flight paths/times. Satellites have predictable flight paths and transit times so it is not difficult to spoof them by putting things out of sight or putting up decoys to throw them off. but when the enemy cannot predict when you will transit or where you will transit, it is much more difficult to spoof them.

You make a valid point, in a way. It's true that it is primarily designed to be a technology for the Military. However, such a useful technology would have plenty of non-Military applications too. Certainly this technology would offer a cheap alternative to launching payloads into space. It would reduce travel time to 2 hours no matter where you were going on the planet.

From a military point of view, it could reduce the need for bases in other countries (eventually). As a country, it's not like we're having a hard time killing people right now, I'm not sure this new technology would somehow make us more murderous than we already are. Just my opinion.

On the other hand, any technology, in my opinion, that makes the world a smaller place is a technology that helps (a little) reduce prejudice and misconceptions and makes us feel more than one race of people rather than scattered tribes of combatants.

I doubt this technology will meet the resource equation of human transport - especially the version that could support human physiology and land - rather than 'arrive'.

Besides, humans live many years on average so what's 14, or 2, air hours in the scale of things? Still have 3⁺ to get on, 2⁺ to get off, and you'd hardly get enough time to watch a movie.

However it's all good science being and adequately funded, so someone must have done a good 'pro-science' sales job.

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

34.5, sometimes, you have to be not only able, but ready and willing, to do unspeakable things to those who would do you and yours harm, in order to prevent them from doing you that harm. Fear of what you COULD do is a far more effective deterrent, than actually doing it, because the reality never lives up to the fear. When the enemy loses it's fear of you and what you can do to them, THAT is when war is unavoidable. And until that fear is reestablished, peace unattainable. Peace is not just the absence of war, peace is only possible through fear of the consequences of war. This is what makes fighting a war against those who are perfectly willing to die for their cause so difficult. There is nothing we can do to scare them enough individually to prevent them from doing us harm. The only psychological tool left to use is massive genocide, but the civilized rational mind shudders at that concept. But it is the only tool available to us and failing to use such a tool will eventually result in the enemy winning because they are counting on our civility and moral compass to keep us from doing what we know must eventually be done.

From your post I am not sure if you are for or against the idea of the aircraft itself or the idea of telling the world you have the aircraft.

Either way, it was a sneaky way to deliver the "F-Bomb" at the speed of the internet, which probably exceeds M20.

Thank you - I shouldn't post when inebriated - but at least someone decoded the comment.

But more meant as 'telegraphing your strategy/intentions BEFORE you have the means'.

Not unlike the 'race for the atomic bomb' was 'secret' even after one went bang

Or; as some President said "Speak softly and carry a big stick"

What we are not seeing here is "the exercise of intelligent forethought and of decisive action sufficiently far in advance of any likely crisis".

What we are seeing is forewarning sufficient for the development of counter measures and/or incitement to preemptive action, and/or 'to join the race'.

Ever ask yourself - what if the USSR had have been economically sound enough to create it's own SDI?

ok, I hear what you are saying, but I think there may be multiple levels of duplicity here. they could not hide the launch, anyone with a telescope (or a recon sat.) could watch. first off, it was billed as a bombing platform but I think it is clear that it is instead better suited as a recon platform. further it is bill as as being unsucessful, but was it? do you or i know what the goals of the test really were? or if any of them were actually achieved?

now if they could just correct the "crashing part" they might really have something.

MIRV's have been doing it for 30 years, it will get solved, it will just take time and money to work it out.

In thinking about this concept, a thought occurred to me. For a true exo-atmospheric vehicle, heating would only be a real issue upon reentry. and a "skipper" would have limited heating until final re-entry. I am struck by the similarities between Dick Rutan's SS1/SS2 designs and the original Dyna-Soar vehicle concepts. I have to wonder if perhaps it might be possible to modify the flight plan of SS2 or perhaps an SS3 follow-on vehicle, such that instead of simply reentering on a ballistic trajectory, it could be "skipped" in order to turn it into a true transportation system instead of just a joyride. and then use Rutan's "feathering" maneuver during final re-entry to limit heating. Maybe Branson isn't as crazy as we all thought after all....