Launch of Hypersonic FALCON HTV-2 aircraft pushed back a day by weather...

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by tomra
 


You are right - mea culpa!




posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by tomra
 


You are right - mea culpa!


No problem, starred post because the ability to admit mistakes appears to be a rare happening in ATS land.

-----

I just discovered doing a mistake too...i mentioned the minotaur rocket beeing able to reach low earth orbit. Well, it appears that the HTV-2 is propelled by a minotaur IV - lite which only reaches sub orbit.

en.wikipedia.org...(rocket_family)#Minotaur_IV

Still curious about what it looks like tho...



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
im pretty shure the 2 thay tested crashed and thay were closeing the program from what I have read.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


If you don't understand the questions I asked then I guess I wasn't asking you, no disrespect intended. However, I was asking anyone who could actually "understand my questions, then maybe answer them".

Just like I don't understand your questions about not understanding my questions, so I won't attempt to answer your questions since I asked questions in the first place


Wiki as a reference is just not reliable. I'm not interested in using that as a source to research or learn about top secret government projects. I'm sure you know that a 2 year old could edit what's written on Wiki.

Basically, besides what is written on DARPA's site about this project there isn't any "credible and/or fact based" info anywhere (that I could find) that tells of this craft, yet CNN reports on it. That is very strange to me. Once any MSM puts this type of info out, some of us became interested and wanted to follow up right? That's my point...why report on it if they had no intention to do a follow up of any sort?


Thank you for your time
edit on 10/6/11 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1
 


What I don't understand is why you ask a question about information that is so easily available as per the links I gave.



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomra

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by tomra
 


You are right - mea culpa!


No problem, starred post because the ability to admit mistakes appears to be a rare happening in ATS land.

-----

I just discovered doing a mistake too...i mentioned the minotaur rocket beeing able to reach low earth orbit. Well, it appears that the HTV-2 is propelled by a minotaur IV - lite which only reaches sub orbit.

en.wikipedia.org...(rocket_family)#Minotaur_IV

Still curious about what it looks like tho...


I starred both of you because you both admitted you were wrong

Thanks for keeping it civil guys



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1
 


What I don't understand is why you ask a question about information that is so easily available as per the links I gave.


To be quite frank, I do read some articles/info on Wiki that I can decipher as being factual vs not so factual based on my particular knowledge of what I know in my field which is mostly biological in nature. Anything other than that, I wouldn't be able to determine as fact/fiction. How would I know that someone didn't just log into Wiki and write whatever they wanted about this project? Maybe the Wiki info is fact based, but I would have no way of knowing that. So, I was looking for more credible/verifiable info that maybe someone else had access/links to. Also, seems like DARPA only wants what's been released on their site to be it for now. So, I've come to the conclusion that I'll just have to wait for more info from DARPA to be released unless someone else comes forward with more info we can all verify first (which I highly doubt will be the case).

I personally find this whole story to be fascinating...technology and all. I even drove out to Santa Monica the day it supposedly to launch hoping to get a glimpse of it...but I saw/heard nothing. Seems like just being a few miles down the coast from Vandenberg AFB, I would have seen/heard something.

ETA
However, I will go check out your links...at least you gave me something.

Thank You
edit on 10/6/11 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by slayerfan
im pretty shure the 2 thay tested crashed and thay were closeing the program from what I have read.



Could you please give me a link to where DARPA states they plan/planned to close the program. That's interesting info. It was the test flight from August 11 that crashed prematurely I believe. This latest test run of Aug, 25th from what I understand did crash in the Pacific, but the test run itself was a success.

Thanks in advance



posted on Oct, 6 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1
 


An interesting toy.

Probably some sort of disinformation effort.

Given that the oligarchy purportedly already has craft that will go to any spot on the globe either instantaneously or virtually instantaneously . . . manned and unmanned versions . . . according to a relative's story 40 years ago . . .

toys like this seem like a huge waste of money and effort . . . except . . . for disinformation and . . . it keeps a lot of highly paid, highly educated folks off the streets.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1
 


You're original DARPA link pretty much spells out the Falcon hypersonic intentions, to collect hypersonic data in an approximately 9-minute reentry flight before plunging into the sea.


Data from the program informs policy, acquisition, and operations decisions for future Department of Defense Conventional Prompt Global Strike programs. Hypersonic data is collected through extensive modeling and simulation, wind-tunnel testing and two experimental flight tests. The ultimate goal is a capability that can reach anywhere in the world in less than an hour.


The Falcon HTV is unpowered unmanned lifting body but uses aerodynamic controls to measure lift characteristics of turbulence and stability. I'm afraid there is no black tech involved here. Previous NASA X-plane prototypes garnering the idea of hypersonic manned atmospheric reentry travel designs just failed to meet expectations, like the old X-30 that was highly touted to be the future of world accessibility in 2 hours, or the released idea of New York to Tokyo in 2 hours passenger craft. I believe the X-30 was to use rocket assist to achieve suborbital altitude for fast transit and a bank of scramjets for thin atmospheric power much like the SR-71 Blackbird ramjets, but cruise at MACH 20. It was developed around the time the Blackbird's retirement hoped to also be not only its successor, but also have LEO capabilities as NASA foresaw the ending of the Space Shuttle eventuality. Though it failed to promise the desired intentions that MACH 20 suborbital flight was achievable, you can see the X-series development specifications metamorphosing into more realistic designs, like the miniature NASA X-43, (a personal favorite design if scaled up), and possibly the X-37b, which is also a stage in development for a more economical Space Shuttle replacement as they still desire manned LEO trips after all. But I don't think they are going to scale up the X-37 series for manned flight as I see miniaturization is the trend of runway landing spacecraft, and parachute assist soft landing capsules for manned landings, again, no real sci fi tech being demonstrated other than a miniaturization initiative.

I believe it was a Space Aeronautics show around 1991 or so I was preparing display graphics featuring the X-30 as where I work is also a NASA subcontractor, but the X-30 faded in the design stage and never flew. I'm not sure if it was stability, or thrust requirements, that doomed it, or just didn't seem to promise the type of manned flight the program intended as it would have to have been scaled up, and scaling up most of the time thwarts the original designs. Ultimately it didn't demonstrate the kind of economy benefits and budget cuts is said to have killed it.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join