Real Reason why DARPA lost the speed machine

The problem occurred during the critical point of transition to aerodynamic flight, DARPA said in a statement that described the mission as an attempt to fly the fastest aircraft ever built.

"More than nine minutes of data was collected before an anomaly caused loss of signal," it said. "Initial indications are that the aircraft impacted the Pacific Ocean along the planned flight path."

The 7:45 a.m. launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base, 130 miles northwest of Los Angeles, was the second of two planned flights of a Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2. Contact was also lost during the first mission. Shaped like the tip of a spear, the small craft is part of a U.S. military initiative to develop technology to respond to threats at 20 times the speed of sound or greater, reaching any part of the globe in an hour.

This quote is what caught my eye. Please let me know what you think friends at ATS. Thanks.

Source

It's after 3 a.m. here. Care to explain what you're trying to get at. I'm sleepy and whatnot but want to understand what you're showing us.

What gets me is imagine if it landed in a populated area or even on land. With or without warheads its a formidable power. Also imagine watching it crash into the ocean from a ship, incredible. Now they have the fun job of recovery.

Recession? What Recession?

I wanted to understand their term of "anomaly". So I wanted to get the opinion of the ATS users on what that phrase means. Personally I don't understand and don't want to assume. Much more posts are valid then my own, but I just wanted to get feedback.

reply to post by jdmmade


The anomaly was the aircraft hitting the water.

States it in your links.

It means that something occurred during it's flight that was not normal. It could have been a lot of things, especially for a plane that is flying at Mach 20. Perhaps the plane cannot handle the stress of such speed, there were defects in the computer controls, defects in the planes construction. In the story you linked to it is stated that things like this should happen when a new plane like this is being tested or it's not being pushed hard enough.

Apparently DARPA tested previously in 2010 and had to abort for the same reason:

The first HTV-2 was launched on April 22, 2010. It returned nine minutes of data, including 139 seconds of aerodynamic data at speeds between 17 and 22 times the speed of sound, DARPA said.

"That craft detected an anomaly, aborted its flight and plunged into the ocean, the agency said."

Ok, people don't seem to understand something here.

This is not meant as a means of transportation. This is in effect a missile. They are trying to replace ICBMs with this. You don't land it, you don't recover it. It's meant to carry a warhead and impact the target, and explode.

Why would they spend money on giving it the ability to land? It's never going to land.

That's like putting landing gear on an ICBM. They are one time use bombs, That's all this thing is, just a super vast version of it.

Some people seem to have a very hazy understanding of it's intended use.

As far as the test units, they are programmed to crash into the ocean if they fail to receive a signal.

I don't see what all the hub bub is about this.

So the real reason they lost the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 is??

I can't see from your post why.

I think they lose it everytime it reaches full speed, how can anything be contacted when flying Mach 20?
How you can even trace something flying that fast on gps or radar, is beyond my knowledge.

That said, the future is here indeed, this will have an impact on the world as we know it, I think. Good ol' USA at it again, always thinking of how to kill everyone else.

reply to post by litterbaux


Hitting the water is not an anomaly if that is what it is programmed to do. It's an unmanned aircraft designed to drop a bomb anywhere in an hour and then slam into the ocean. No anomaly in that regard. They're still studying the data to find out what exactly the anomaly was or they're just not willing to discuss it.

reply to post by PhantomLimb


That heat is so immense said to boil steel... wow!

Originally posted by PhantomLimb
reply to post by litterbaux

 

Hitting the water is not an anomaly if that is what it is programmed to do. It's an unmanned aircraft designed to drop a bomb anywhere in an hour and then slam into the ocean. No anomaly in that regard. They're still studying the data to find out what exactly the anomaly was or they're just not willing to discuss it.

I really hope that is not the case :shrugs: Designed to plop and drop.

reply to post by PhantomLimb


Haha, don't you have the ability to see it from my perspective?

If not, work on it =)

reply to post by jdmmade


A few posters are saying this was meant to crash, but acording to this site the HTV-2 is simplya stepping stone in to a fully-fledged space plane.

www.defenseindustrydaily.com... program-inches-along-0194/




Expect the HTV-3 to look a lot more aircraft like.

reply to post by Thundersmurf


Thanks for informing me.

reply to post by James1982

here here! i totally agree. its new weapon. if it was meant for commercial use,to get any place on the earth in one hour,it would have to start slowing down shortly after take off! imagine the G-sickness the passengers would have!
enjoy the flight!

As I understand it, this is supposed to become a Hypersonic bomber? Imagine the logistics to drop a bomb on a target at mach 20! but I imagine this would act like the SR-71 and slow down over its target.

Its odd that both tests ended after 9 minutes, does it take that long to get to mach 20? But this is DARPA we're talking about.. maybe this vehicle is in fact what the SR-71 was intended to be in the first place, a recon bomber. and maybe 51 minutes after the anomaly this craft was already spying on Russia, or China or Iran. makes sense to me though, a recon bomber would cut down on the ability to "move things" before an airstrike ever got there

Originally posted by jdmmade
Apparently DARPA tested previously in 2010 and had to abort for the same reason:

"That craft detected an anomaly, aborted its flight and plunged into the ocean, the agency said."

As I haven't heard of this aircraft yet I'm wondering how it is controlled. The above phrase suggest that it's fully autonomous? As the craft deceided to crash itself (at least that's how I understand this sentence) there is no human element in control?

If that's true it may be just a safety routine at work filled with allowed parameters and if one is out of limit please crash as a precaution to not hit anything on land. If this is the case the reason can be anything from a bird hitting a sensor to incorrect set limits... Maybe they just don't know what to expect at mach 20 and their simulations are wrong about it?

Originally posted by JoeSignal
... how can anything be contacted when flying Mach 20?
How you can even trace something flying that fast on gps or radar, is beyond my knowledge.

As far as I know the space shuttle re-entry speed was up to Mach 30 so they should have the technic and experience to track vehicles flying with this speed.

Originally posted by jdmmade

"More than nine minutes of data was collected before an anomaly caused loss of signal," it said. "Initial indications are that the aircraft impacted the Pacific Ocean along the planned flight path."

This quote is what caught my eye. Please let me know what you think friends at ATS. Thanks.

Source

"anomaly" sounds better to the public than "impacted precisely on target"