Launch News DARPA Mach 20 Missile Failure

[Thunder Chicken]

I'm not sure if this vehicle officially made space, but interesting:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/08/mach-20-missile-lost-again/

Apparently it accelerated to Mach 20 as planned, then contact was lost. Not sure whether "lost contact" means "lost communication" or "vehicle vaporized in spectacular fashion, wafting its hot component molecules over large parts of the Pacific". I'm wondering if they are getting ionization blackout?

It's an interesting technology from a spaceflight standpoint, but I'm not sure if I am really happy with anyone (including the U.S.) having the capability to hit a target anywhere in the world in 30 minutes or less, even with non-nuclear weapons.

War at the press of a button with little chance that the opponent can strike back will make war a very casual thing. It will probably force an arms race with Russia and China and other nations, similar to the ICBM arms race, for the same reason - other nations can't afford to leave themselves exposed to such a strike with impunity.

Can't we just play Orbiter and settle our differences with arm wrestling matches?

 

[Cras]

I hate to see this sort of technology being used for war. Much rather it be done for the common good. Cut the budget of the DoD and give it to NASA and lets get to work expanding the human horizon to the entire solar system.

 

[Izack]

Can't we just play Orbiter and settle our differences with arm wrestling matches?

That's unfair to users without force feedback (thus weaker arms.) I challenge you to a thumb war.

 

[boogabooga]

Why does DARPA have a Twitter account? They don't strike me as the PR type.

In my mind:
1)These guys could not be so stupid to actually share with the world, in real time, the results of an R&D weapons test (and a failure at that).

2) No serious potential adversary to the US is stupid enough to believe that these guys would share, in real time, the results of an R&D weapons test.

3)This is not at all new. They have been doing these kinds of hypersonic glider tests since the mid sixties. You can see them in museums:
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=563
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=564

I'm not going to speculate any further, but this thing smells funny to me.

 

[Wishbone]

It does not make sense to lie about failed tests, any state that is interested enough to monitor this knows what happens (or thinks it does).

 

[orb]

I hadn't had time to create a thread for it, so since there is this thread, I'll just post links I gathered here.


Before launch links:

• Orbiter-Forum:
  • Thread for the 1st test flight (failure as well)
  • Calendar event for this launch
  
  
• DARPA:
  • Falcon HTV-2
  • Flight Overview
  • HYPERSONIC AIRCRAFT READY FOR LAUNCH
  • Twitter updates
  
  
• USAF - VAFB:
  • Minotaur IV scheduled to launch August 10
  • Minotaur IV launch delayed
  
  
• Spaceflight Now: Weather forces delay in launch of global strike demo
  
  
• SPACE.com:
  • DARPA Readies Hypersonic Aircraft for Mach 20 Launch Test
  • Gallery: DARPA's Falcon Hypersonic Glider's Mach 20 Launch Test
  
  
• Aviation Week: HTV-2B Mission Video

Videos and pictures:

• Falcon HTV-2 complete flight overview video:
  

  Falcon HTV-2 complete flight overview

  ​
  
  
• Flight overview:
  
  
  
  
• Photos:
  
  [table="head"]{colsp=2}

  Click on images to enlarge​

  
  

  ​

  |

  ​

  
  

  ​

  |

  ​

  [/table]​

After launch links:

• USAF - VAFB: Team Vandenberg launches Minotaur IV
  
  
• DARPA: DARPA HYPERSONIC VEHICLE ADVANCES TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
  
  
• NASASpaceflight: Orbital Minotaur IV launches hypersonic vehicle HTV-2b
  
  
• Spaceflight Now:
  • Pentagon's hypersonic flight test cut short by anomaly
  • Outcome of military's hypersonic test flight unclear
  
  
• SPACE.com:
  • Superfast Military Aircraft Lost in Test Flight
  • Superfast Military Aircraft Crashed in Pacific Ocean, DARPA Says
  
  
• Parabolic Arc: DARPA Loses Telemetry From HTV-2 — Again

 

[Spacethingy]

In no way whatsoever do I condone weapons at all, but wouldn't it have been easier to convert existing ICBMs from nuclear war-heads?

 

[Sky Captain]

Problem with using ICBM's as conventional weapons is it is impossible to tell if ICBM carries nuclear or non nuclear warhed. There is big possibility of starting accidental nuclear war.

 

[Linguofreak]

Problem with using ICBM's as conventional weapons is it is impossible to tell if ICBM carries nuclear or non nuclear warhed. There is big possibility of starting accidental nuclear war.

I fail to see how this system would be any different. Sure, it's being built for the purpose of delivering conventional weapons really, really quickly, but I fail to see how replacing the conventional warhead with a nuke would be at all difficult.

 

[T.Neo]

Cut the budget of the DoD and give it to NASA and lets get to work expanding the human horizon to the entire solar system.

You mean expanding the horizon to those unlivable hyperdeserts? :dry:

 

[Thunder Chicken]

I do see this as potential decapitation weapon, which might have been driven by the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. If you have real time intelligence that says Target X is in building Y at GPS coordinates a,b,c - having something like this ready to punch in coordinates and launch would be much faster than a SEAL team insertion, with fewer complexities and political ramifications. If they shift while the missile is airborne, simply ditch it or re-target it. How much identifiable wreckage would be around if it hit at Mach 20?

In the air war about Kosovo the U.S. used non-explosive guided munitions against single offices in certain Serbian ministries. A concrete bomb with a seeker head flying at a few hundred km/hr would do little collateral damage but would certainly take out any unlucky ministry official who might be sitting at his desk. Something moving at Mach 20 would not need to be very large or even explosive to cause a lot of damage.

 

[MattBaker]

@Thunder Chicken: But in your Osama-case you would have the problem, that whole world wouldn't trust the US. I mean, if a "spacecraft", "rocket", "missile", whatever, strikes a building with mach 20, there is nothing more than a crater and debris. How would you "proof" the world that you have killed someone. (And a lot of people are already not believing in the SEAL story. I can't say that for the US, but here in Germany there were a lot of discussions, if the whole story was faked.)
So such a missile isn't really appropriate for targeted killing of a high antagonist.

I even would say that this missile is completely useless in the military situation the US/NATO is facing at the moment.
Do you want to use weapons like that in Afghanistan? There we have to take out the Taliban, who could be everyone, you can't say "Well, we have trouble in this city, we're always getting attacked, our soldiers get killed there, let's put a mach-20-missile in the town and hope we hit 5 Taliban."

Hope you understand, what I mean with "completely useless". You could use weapons like that in a "real war" instead of bombers.

What I'm thinking of, how "big" could you build this thing to have this high-speed-travel? Wouldn't it be possible to use this as a civilian aircraft to transport people from Florida to California in 10 minutes? (I think Virgin is planning something like that with SS3) And how expensive would that be, probably a lot, you need a new rocket every time...

 

[Thunder Chicken]

@Thunder Chicken: But in your Osama-case you would have the problem, that whole world wouldn't trust the US. I mean, if a "spacecraft", "rocket", "missile", whatever, strikes a building with mach 20, there is nothing more than a crater and debris. How would you "proof" the world that you have killed someone.

Sometimes you don't care about leaving your calling card. Sometimes the objective is to get a high-profile target killed within a very short window of availability.

I even would say that this missile is completely useless in the military situation the US/NATO is facing at the moment.
Do you want to use weapons like that in Afghanistan? There we have to take out the Taliban, who could be everyone, you can't say "Well, we have trouble in this city, we're always getting attacked, our soldiers get killed there, let's put a mach-20-missile in the town and hope we hit 5 Taliban."

Generally true, Afghanistan is not really the place for this sort of weapon. Maybe if it could be introduced on the theater level, perhaps with a Patriot system providing initial boost, it might be effective for select targets with very short window of availability somewhat inexpensively, but I don't think this is what was intended in the design.

The limitations of this weapon are 1) how close to real-time your intelligence is, and 2) how much high-tech gadgetry you want to expend to hit a target. It would be used on someone you have been seeking and watching very intently, someone for whom you wouldn't mind paying for a relatively large missile launch and a technologically sophisticated warhead. It really would be "useful" only for high-profile political leadership targets, essentially assassination attacks.

---------- Post added at 01:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------

What I'm thinking of, how "big" could you build this thing to have this high-speed-travel? Wouldn't it be possible to use this as a civilian aircraft to transport people from Florida to California in 10 minutes? (I think Virgin is planning something like that with SS3) And how expensive would that be, probably a lot, you need a new rocket every time...

I think slowing down for landing without throwing everyone and their carry-on luggage against the front windscreen of the craft would probably be one of the bigger technical challenges :lol:.

 

[orb]

SPACE.com: Superfast Military Aircraft Hit Mach 20 Before Ocean Crash, DARPA Says

 

[Star Voyager]

Does this mean the mission is an actual failure or partial success?

 

[IronRain]

I guess that depends if there is valuable data for the engineers.

 

[Urwumpe]

I guess that depends if there is valuable data for the engineers.

Most likely not, since the telemetry broke and the Mach 20 milestone was already at the initial conditions. The really important flight phases did not happen.

 

[orb]

SPACE.com: US Military Video Shows Hypersonic Aircraft Test Flight

 

[Thunder Chicken]

SPACE.com: US Military Video Shows Hypersonic Aircraft Test Flight

The plasma trail is something else. Not a particularly stealthy weapon, as most of the hemisphere's population will be looking up and going "What is THAT?" When these sightings are correlated to sudden explosive deaths in a particular nefarious organization, then it will only require a cell phone call to alert potential targets to shift position *quickly*.

That thing needs a seat for a pilot (once they get the bugs worked out, of course). I watched that video and thought what a ride that would be, Mach 20 and your hair on fire. Yeeehaaa!

 

[orb]

Here's the embedded video from YouTube:

DARPA HTV-2 flight caught on video

​