Video: HTV-2 in Mach-20 Flight, Just Minutes Before Autonomously Aborting its Mission

A giant rocket propelled bullet

oh darpa

Congratulations DARPA! The other hypersonic plane/missile programs proved the scramejet air-breathing engine concept, but speeds were "only" around Mach 5 to Mach 10. DARPA is pushing the envelope at Mach 20, testing aerodynamics. Very exciting.

This is the type of research that we should be doing, pushing the edge of technology which the US has been getting away from. A better video would be showing how long it would take an 747, an SR71 and then the HTV-2 to reach Hawaii from California.

yep. imagine having one of those in place of your standard 747. At those speeds it would make the concord look like a slug.

Seriously? You think this abomination will carry passengers? From zero to 13,000 miles per hour within a few minutes--how many civilians could survive the acceleration? Did you seen any mention of landing gear, or how this projectile would slow down and navigate to land? No? My friends, this is a weapon, pure and simple. DARPA wants to be able to kill people on the other side of the world in minutes. Push a button and people die in Afganistan or Pakistan as you drink your latte, easier than flushing a toilet. Think about the kinetic energy this vehicle will carry; do you think that will be any collateral damage when it hits, even without carrying an explosive warhead? At 13,000 miles per hour what happens if the navigation is a tenth of a degree off, or the vehicle is hit by wind shear in the last few seconds of flight? How many innocents die in the name of Amerikan freeedom?

DARPA has lost two of these crafts for a total of at least $320 million. Seriously? We can't afford to provide medical care for the elderly or poor but we can afford to waste billions on new weapons systems to kill furiners even faster than we already can. DARPA will waste several times this trying to make this What has happened to our once great country?

Hey, I have an idea. Why don't we spend this money on trying to make the world a better place, and then people in other countries won't hate us. Why don't we give away $320 million in tractors and plows and wells and schools, and then we won't need to build hypersonic warheads. Just a thought.

@loveistheanswer

The USA gives billions in aid every year... you know, somewhere around 20 BILLION. Are you ignoring this just to make a point? or what?

And do you honestly think that if the US were to stop making weapons, other countries would follow suit? (really?) In societies there will always be those who want to dominate over others and you can't change that. Shouting "love is the answer" does nothing to change human nature. I would rather be the one with the bigger stick if something happens to go down.

@loveistheanswer

Seriously? While DARPA's primary goals are to produce military weapons, this kind of technology would revolutionize the entire way we think about transportation. Just because the HTV-2 has no landing gear or possibilty to land safely doesn't mean it couldn't provide research data for future craft. Your comment is akin to looking at the Wright Flyer and saying that it could never be the basis of a passenger aircraft simply because the Wright Flyer has no seats. You obviously have no grasp of how technology is developed.

Also, your ignorance astounds me. The U.S. has developed many things that have changed the entire face of human society. And many of those technologies started off as MILITARY projects, such as this wonderful series of tubes we call the internet. Its these things that will help humanity, not archaic resources that would only help for the short term. Give a man a donkey, and he can plow his field for a decade. Teach a man how to fly Mach 20 and he could plow all the fields he wants. Or something like that.

Next time, i advise that you think about what you are about to say before you stand on your high horse.

@loveistheanswere, I feel you....I really do. But the bottom line is I love my freedom and you should too. And without things like this that could be taking away. Plus this is an unmaned vec, that means IF it is a weapon that's one less servicemen to be in harms way. I wish we as a country wouldent need these (in your words) "weapons" but I know if we are thinking this up you can bet our unfriendley's are too.

wow, that is impressive, it re-entered the atmosphere and flew on at that speed, that is an incredible achievement, it will only get better, loveistheanswer needs a reality check

@loveistheanswere P.S. escape velocity is approximately 25,000 mph and we have been escaping with humans since 1961. Mach 20 is just over 15,000 mph so as long as the acceleration stays below a "comfortable" 9g (space shuttle is about 3g), human flight on this thing should be no problem.

@loveistheanswer "How many innocents die in the name of Amerikan freeedom?" Maybe I'm an Ameri'k'an a$$, but as many as it takes to keep my Ameri'k'an a$$ free.

Seriously the only reason you are able to post inane comments like this is because we are better than anyone else at war. Go ahead and try to make a post like that in one of the countries you are so worried about harming innocents in.

@Loveistheanswer

Have you never noticed how the U.S. has given more to international aid than any other nation in history and the world still hates us?

If you believe that giving tractors and plows to Pakistan is going to make them want to be our best friends, then you truely are naive.

Mandating health care? What a waste of money. America is a nation that grants everyone the same OPPORTUNITY, not the same OUTCOME.

It is not the obligation of tax payers to cover medical expenses for fellow citizens.

Therefore, I think $320 million spent on a system that potentially will help keep this country sovereign and free is well worth it.

@Loveistheanswer

AMERICA FUCK YEAH!!!
FREEDOM COST A BUCK O' FIVE!!!

Imagine the ground rush if you could fly that at low altitude!

@loveistheanswer

I hear you, and philosophically, I agree with you 100%. In reality, however, you have to acknowledge some truths about humans. We're competitive, greedy and jealous. I don't care how zen you are, you too experience these feelings. Even if you overcome them, they are intrinsic to our nature.

That said, we've been at the top of the heap for 60 years. What do people feel about those at the top? They want what they have.

Sadly, often times the best defense is a good offense. I'm a service academy grad, but also a polysci major - I'm about as liberal (yet a realist) as they come. This thing will have an amazing deterrent effect on those who would like to put us in our place (uhhh, CHINA anyone?).

@loveistheanswer

"What has happened to our once great country?"

Well let me tell you. The problem is this: We allow liberal idiots to vote. You know the kind that mindlessly drink all of the cool-aid their masters are feeding them then parrot it all over like they actually know something. I'll tell you what why don't you go get your super rich leader George Soros to go buy some tractors for Pakistan then come back and tell us how right you are. While you are at it take a look at the increase in net worth of your liberal democratic congressmen and senators since they have become such and come back and explain to us how concerned they are about anything other than themselves.

BOTTOMLINE! This is an amazing feat in aeronautical development. With DARPA at the helm (because this sorta project wouldn't get much love if NASA were doing it; winning small wars and the war of tomorrow is the U.S.'s everlasting agenda) Continued focus on this technology may yet lead to 'hypercruise' in my lifetime. Not to mention the aerospace application.

Just think, single stage to orbit space planes. With the privatization of aerospace in this new era, people may be closer to owning there own personal orbital spacecraft before you know it (even if it does take almost a century).

@D13

I kinda like the way you think.

@johncos

Somebody woke up on the Fox News side of the bed this morning. I'm sensing some mega hatred towards liberals. One mentions master fed cool-aid drinking and know-it-allism to an extent that borderlines racial intolerance.

I agree, liberals are the reason the U.S. Military was greatly disrespected for all their efforts during Vietnam, and liberals were the reason the Shuttle Program almost got shut down in 1986, and eventually met the ax in 2003, but let's face it. You gotta have someone shouting "Love is the Answer." This nation would be viewed worldwide as a bunch of rich, spoiled, mis-educated, heartless bigots instead of just rich, spoiled, and mis-educated without them.

The real problem with this country is the divide between the revolutionary and classical mindset. Many tend to think they're down for being old-fashioned except for all the negative associations to 'Good Ole-Fashion America,' (especially in a nation that is the prime melting pot of the world with more racial diversity than anyone can fathom in one sitting).

It's hard trying to rally Team America when some members of the Team are trying to claim they love America more than you because they're Catholic, Rich, despise abortion, taxation, and social economic reform and you're not and you don't. Couple the bitter disagreement on political views with a teenage angst like desire to rebel and 'express individualism' by being bullheaded, and you got a classic recipe for what the past generations of America were saying would happen to the country they built with the generations they bred as their progeny; The Future of America: Don't Worry Everythings Gonna be Aaallright... ? (It's also a Maximum Exposure episode).

The problem with the State of the Union is that it's not strong and it hasn't been since the 1980s (1950s to 1960s depending on who you ask). Not enough open-minded people. Too many people commenting on how money is spent for war rather than economic reform, and too many people challenging someone's patriotism for not having conservative values (hint, hint: anyone who really loves the U.S. will serve it by volunteering for military service). With open-mindedness comes the gateway to compromise and internal co-operation. Realization that everyone is different and moving to work with them anyway will fix the problem. Putting emphasis on things that move us forward (scientific exploration and application) and disregarding the things that hold us back (warfare, politically commercial diplomacy, TMZ, American Idol, and Man vs Food Nation) will fix the problem.

The animosity is uncalled for. America's problem is all around. Not one sided.

@loveistheanswer: I'm pretty sure the thing would be satellite guided, so I doubt the thing would be even close to being considered "off-target." Then there's the whole part where it takes a crap-ton of force to send something up to mach 20. I REALLY doubt that it is a weapon. It's just not going to be heavy enough. Now, you could say it's a missile platform, which would be possible until you realize that missiles have a tendency to ping long before that... Like mach 3 or some such speed. Oh, and wind sheers aren't going to do much of anything going that fast. Think of the relative velocity caused by this thing trying to fly through, let's say 100 mile an hour winds. It's going 25kmph. The wind is .1kmph. So, 250 times more speed in one direction as the other... Not only that but the aerodynamics of it is probably going to negate that a lot.
I won't say anything about your political views...

@johnnyphoenix: And I'm about as conservative as they come, but only philosophically (I too am a realist). I once took a political alignment test in AP government and got a 27 (30 basically means fascist and 0 means communist), by far the highest in the class (and I come from an extra-conservative small town in a conservative state), and my friends were amazed simply because while that's how I am ideologically, I know that in practice things don't always work out so I compromise. And despite being worlds apart philosophically from people like you, I still love having discussions with realists simply because they can actually be reasonable as opposed to simple ideologues. I tip my hat for you sir.

@D13: I like the way you think as well ;)

As for my general comments on the subject, the military aside from being awesome (I do actually giggle slightly whenever I see a new video of a weapon's test lol), will be necessary as long as other nations will us harm. The government's job is to protect us from external and internal threats. Obviously, terrorists and rogue nations are external threats that need to be dealt with (though if North Korea or Iran do ever nuke anyone, they'll probably be glass within the hour). Alas, I *highly* doubt that this is actually a weapon. D13 is probably in the right direction, even if the details are off. The thing itself was probably "worthless" drone. As for what was actually being tested (the shape, maneuverability, and skin)that I'd think would be more useful for later craft, and yes, weapons.

Once again, I'm not saying that arbitrary construction of a massive military is the way to go. Defense on the other hand is. Until people stop being crazy (unlikely any time soon), defense spending will still be required. That no longer means making bigger booms (we already could wipe out the earth's population many times over). It means making faster, more accurate booms with less collateral damage. If this could bring about that, that means less friendlies sacrificing their lives in battle and less civilians on the dying needlessly. I'd say that's a win for everybody.

@loveistheanswer-

What was your question? Did it have anything to do with what's in POPSCI?!?

This is Awesome. I want one

@Marcharius

So you think innocent people should be KILLED just so we don't have to worry a bit about our future?

@Johncos

Lolwut? The current state of america is the fault of both parties. Also, it is the conservatives who want to give the money to our defense budget.

I think this technology should be developed with a more useful role in mind than a military weapon, though I still think the tech will be used in other areas as well, unless the military is too secretive with it like they often are, and all that does is hinder the rest of the nation. BTW, imagine if we used even a quarter of the money we use on our defense budget to fund our space program. Imagine what humanity as a race could accomplish. (for I see space exploration as helping everyone in the long run, no matter what nation's program it is)

If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?

I think the bigger issue is whether long-term U.S. (and the rest of the world's) decisions are driven by going after important goals or rather by short-term profits. It appears to be short-term profits (let's make sure we've got the American citizen convinced there is a military conflict somewhere - so they'll keep voting to spend some 60% ($1 trillion per year) of their tax dollars on the military (If you think the real budget is only the $700 billion as documented - then you don't realize that the cost of wars is on top of that annual $700 billion.

The human body developed over millions of years - to be quite successful as an "organization". And when it's defense system gets out of balance (it's white blood cells exceed certain levels) - we call that leukemia - a disease.

If we were setting intelligent (rather than political) goals in this country (and in the rest of the world), we'd better allocate our resources to resolve more important long-term issues: 1) avoiding extinction of our species (i.e. all countries) from an asteroid hit within the next 100 years; 2) avoiding mass extinction from disease; and 3) avoiding mass extinction from nuclear holocaust.

Our current systems of world government fail the test - they currently allocate the following amounts for each of the above:

1. about $1 billion annually for protection from asteroids.
2. about $10 billion annually for medical research.
3. who knows - current efforts only seem to increase our chances of nuclear holocaust.

(By comparison, we spend $10 billion PER MONTH on the Iraq war).

This is because our current system of government - where elected politicians are required to give favor to those individuals and corporations who already hold the money - is poorly suited to solving long-term, non-profit focused goals.

So that is why we in the U.S. spend $320 billion for two test flights of yet another weapons system. Because we're focused on the threats.

Oops. Last sentence was meant to be: "Because we're focused on the wrong threats."

:)

loveistheanswer***

Holy crap guy! You are, by far the biggest idiot. NASA ring a bell. By law, every break through made by NASA has to be available to the public within an allotted amount of time. Those break throughs are then used to help other countries.

You have no validity to your argument. Damn hippies, trying to solve the world’s problems with poems and love. And in the aforementioned statements, we fund many countries aid related issues. Current events somehow slip right by you. Yes, people are entitled to their opinions. Well except the stupid ones. And why would DARPA publicly announce some new and great weapon? Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of OPSEC?

Until you come over and fight the battles we are fighting in Afghanistan, shut up. I would love to stay in the safety of the FOB and let some machine take my place at the chopping block. Thats not reality. So rock on DARPA keep building machines that save American soldiers lives, because we know hippies wouldn’t make that kind of sacrifice.

Now Bob, I know you are knew to the Darpa program. I have heard good things about you. As I fly our new hyperspace plane I just want you to sit there and take notes and what ever you do, do not push that little red button.

Ieeeee..........................

Bob, how could you.....

and just another 5 or 10 to orbit :D
before long we will be exploding comets lengthways in order to get a boost up to C.02%

This object did lose connection and dive into the ocean, like it was programed to do in that case. it is a test, that can be used as both military and civilian purposes. at that speed it can reach New York From Los Angeles in 12 minutes. that speed would allow a kinetic strike on any point in the world in less than 1 hour from launch. how certain of this am I? i watched the launch from my backyard. People wonder why we spend so much on a new weapon system? the cost of this would be way cheaper to strike a target on the other side of the world than it would with today's weapons. want to bomb a building that has a high level threat? that take a pilot ( or more) fuel, support services, etc. How much do you think it costs to train a pilot, build a plane, arm it, fuel it, operate a carrier or airport to fly it from, etc. Dont think of the small picture, expand your focus and see how this could be a huge boost to security, and safety of american lives, not to mention the scientific aspects of it.

arm a HTV-2 with a warhead and Iraq won't know what hit them

:)

supposing there are no civilians in the way plus what about collateral damage

Scientific gain is what we're getting planning for more stuff we can do in medical and engineering science.