This will make finding out what went wrong easier.
24th August, 2011 @ 6:27 a.m. (California Time)
Controlled impact with Pacific Ocean: Controlled Crash
It failed in flight and crashed into the Pacific. Period.
24th August, 2011 @ 11:14 a.m. (California Time)
These things are two expensive for them to be freaking out over every little anomaly. My car doesn\'t go \"low pressure detected in tire... steering into a ditch!\" :-)
If it was heading towards land/populated area that\'s one thing, but if they crash it every time it doesn\'t work as expected... well, there\'s a lot of things they still don\'t understand about flight under these conditions, so that\'s going to be a lot of crashes. And then I\'m going to be tempted to don a snorkel and go diving for souvenirs. ;-)
24th August, 2011 @ 11:48 a.m. (California Time)
Am glad it hit the Pacific Ocean after the \"anomaly\"...
24th August, 2011 @ 11:57 a.m. (California Time)
The most important thing is that they can recover it and look at the flight data. If it was an uncontrolled descent, they would have lost it and the data. You have to understand that this device is traveling well outside of known conditions. The fact that is was able to maintain Mach 20 for 3 minutes is really amazing. This is what R&D is all about.
24th August, 2011 @ 1:03 p.m. (California Time)
here\'s a way to travel 5,000 miles per hour without fuel. go up into space, or build a vaccum-tube and send maglev bullet pods through it.
24th August, 2011 @ 1:43 p.m. (California Time)
Well, the article didn\'t tell us as much as they know at this point. However, they may learn more after the mishap recovery. Also, there surely is much data to analyse yet. I used to analyse 1553 flight test data, and often the original cause can be found. The emergency ditch system obviously worked well. In breaking new ground as they are here, it does seem they are making progress. It would have been nice if it has been a complete success, but I\'m sure they\'ll uncover what ever the cause was and overcome it.
24th August, 2011 @ 1:48 p.m. (California Time)
Well , it would certainly make an idea propulsion system for sending warheads to an unfortunate receiver across the world somewhere.
Just think of the \"cost savings\" of using these for armament or ordinance from anywhere in the world , being launched with the assist of a booster rocket or launched from another craft pretty much undetected.
There would be no purpose to send our military anywhere , just bomb them from an anonymous place.
It flies so high in the atmosphere where there is virtually no air , so therefore not much of a sound that would be detectable from the ground at all or no acoustic signature to detect.
About the only way it could even be detected flying up there is from the exhaust infra-red signature just like a stealth plane.
Of course if it was flying at mach 20 , there would not be much anyone could do about it anyway .
24th August, 2011 @ 5:40 p.m. (California Time)
I think the case is that what is left after the flight is an empty biscuit tin with a pointy end and a hand full of onboard instruments and sensors.
When they fly, all the relevant data is gathered and what hits the water is just scrap - not worth collecting or caring about.
This time tho - rather than have it go into a plain crash and smash into the ocean, they were able to modify the design into being a self stabilising and landable configuration - all steps in the process of designing fast and reusable air craft.
24th August, 2011 @ 9:20 p.m. (California Time)
While I think that the biggest use of scramjets will be to lower the cost of orbital insertion, if they get the thing to fly reliably it could be safer than trying to negotiate the scrapyard we call LEO.
24th August, 2011 @ 10:27 p.m. (California Time)
My,my what flowery words-
\"Crash landing\" just doesn\'t sound as nice!
Can\'t they just admit that it\'s failed rather quickly twice in a row?
How long was the full flight intended to be?
24th August, 2011 @ 11:49 p.m. (California Time)
Theres no historical perspective on the velocity achievd = MACH 20, it sounds like an elevated accomplishment, in it\'s own right !. s.
25th August, 2011 @ 9:10 a.m. (California Time)
The HTV-2 was probably intended to be landed in the ocean at the end of a fully successful flight so if it went into the water in a controlled manner it can not really be considered a crash.
25th August, 2011 @ 11:57 a.m. (California Time)
Judging by the lack of scientific knowledge, there must be a lot of teabaggers in here.
Jeddy, how do you propose to get to space without fuel, or build vacuum tubes and shoot maglev bullet pods (wtf they are)? Oh, I forgot, you jes use \'lectric, that don\'t need no fuel...
I worked on HTV-1. The object of the test is to attain hypersonic speeds with air breathing propulsion system. Landing was never in plan 1 or 2 (paragraph 3 \"controlled descent into the Pacific\"). The entire craft is less than 30 feet long, essentially a titanium tank of highly pressurized fuel. At this point, there is no room for landing gear, nor a need to develop one that won\'t melt off when you deploy it at mach 20.
25th August, 2011 @ 12:13 p.m. (California Time)
Wow Mach 20! So by the time you hear it you\'ll have been dead half an hour! Wonder who the \"enemy\" will be by the time it\'s ready?
25th August, 2011 @ 1:22 p.m. (California Time)
at mach 20 you\'d have a job getting it to go anywhere other than straight on. If you wanted to turn it or pitch it down toward a target on the earth you\'d have to slow it down quite a lot. mach 20 isn\'t much slower than orbital velocity.
it would also be pretty easy to track given that the outside skin will be glowing at 2000 degrees centigrade, so what\'s the point of the stealthy shape?
26th August, 2011 @ 5:37 a.m. (California Time)
The shape was chosen purely for aerodynamic reasons. Although at the speed it flies plasmadynamic might be a better name for it.
26th August, 2011 @ 11:16 a.m. (California Time)
If it is known why there was a failure, then it's not a failure at all. Just another step in a long proccess. If you don't think so, please learn about Thomas Edison's journey towards a sustainable lightbulb. Hundreds of "failures", albeit he refered to it something like "separating what works from what doesn't".
22nd March, 2012 @ 11:04 a.m. (California Time)