Thread: Falcon down

Correct for the test. However in the future, didn't they intend to have this as a platform, and land?

they didn't figure that out yet, lol, thou why can't it land like shuttle does. thou it is true landing would be longer than flight.
did they really think they would get it right with only 2 prototypes?????

Apparently they got 9 minutes of flight data before they lost control, which was better than the first try.

The plan was for 30 minutes of flight after separation.

Originally Posted by Dago

Correct for the test. However in the future, didn't they intend to have this as a platform, and land?

No, this was a testbed to learn how to control the aircraft in the flight regime.

The project is part of Prompt Global Strike, the landings will involve a big boom.

Originally Posted by highsea

No, this was a testbed to learn how to control the aircraft in the flight regime.

The project is part of Prompt Global Strike, the landings will involve a big boom.

Obviously, but I would think there would be a combination of loiter time with the deployment of a canopy? I mean, those speeds, are pretty intense. You would need a canopy to be effective and withstand that type of stress and be light enough. I guess its mute, since the project will be scraped now?

Loitering at Mach 20?

Negative. PGS means you have positive ID on the target, you need to hit it before it moves.

This was only one phase of development. PGS isn't scrapped.

Falcon was a telemetry truck. It wasn't a weapon prototype, it was never intended to evolve into a weapon. It was just one step along the way.

Originally Posted by highsea

Loitering at Mach 20?

Negative. PGS means you have positive ID on the target, you need to hit it before it moves.

This was only one phase of development. PGS isn't scrapped.

Falcon was a telemetry truck. It wasn't a weapon prototype, it was never intended to evolve into a weapon. It was just one step along the way.

I was referring to a vehicle which goes mach 20 and has reentry capability. As for the greater PGS project, we'll which route does it go from here? That now that the vehicle part of the project is scrapped, or at least this portion, go with another slower platform, or go with missiles?

What's the next step?

And yes, I was referring to reentry and landing. I guess it would glide, deliver it's payload, and fly CONUS? It wouldn't have the speed to go back into orbit or low space, and I just wonder how it would slow its speed slow enough to land? Deploying a canopy at MACH 20?

Originally Posted by Dago

I was referring to a vehicle which goes mach 20 and has reentry capability. As for the greater PGS project, we'll which route does it go from here? That now that the vehicle part of the project is scrapped, or at least this portion, go with another slower platform, or go with missiles?

What's the next step?

And yes, I was referring to reentry and landing. I guess it would glide, deliver it's payload, and fly CONUS? It wouldn't have the speed to go back into orbit or low space, and I just wonder how it would slow its speed slow enough to land? Deploying a canopy at MACH 20?

PGS is a doctrine, not a weapon system. It will have a multiple elements. None of the hypersonic vehicles are expected to return home- they are expendables. There are more tests of the X-51 scheduled, DARPA may build another vehicle similar to Falcon, there are a bunch of projects related to the PGS initiative underway.

Falcon was strictly a telemetry vehicle- it wasn't ever going to be a component of PGS. The Falcon program ended 20 minutes early. That's about the extent of it.

We are just beginning to learn about this flight regime. It's unknown territory, and very challenging. The intent is to have something other than ICBM's to deliver conventional strikes on short notice. Avoid WW3 and all that...

I admit I am completely ignorant of global strike, I understood it to be a doctrine, just wasn't up to date on all the platforms, last time I read about it, there was some vision of an ICBM filling that role, how expensive? And then yes the conspiracies of "Aurora" and supersonic bombers.

So, you are certain, there was no intent on this development leading to a bomber vehicle and reentry? I mean you said it your self, these were all trial demonstrators, but I never knew that the program was being lead to expendable vehicles.

Before you can go on with development of other hypersonic, you need to make sure the demonstrator is aerodynamically capable. I guess they can go another route, but alot of thought, and engineering, went into this one, obviously they thought this would be successful, and maybe it is, maybe it was only a minor glitch nonetheless the result of whether it can be aerodynamically capable we'll have to wait and find out.

Also the Next-Generation Bomber is in limbo.

Originally Posted by highsea

We are just beginning to learn about this flight regime. It's unknown territory, and very challenging. The intent is to have something other than ICBM's to deliver conventional strikes on short notice. Avoid WW3 and all that...

Yeah the last time I read about it, I remember ICBM's being considered. Why not a platform that flys a trajectory into orbit with rentry, where it pops up on the other side of the world, drops it's payload of RAMJET powered missiles, or another type that utilizing the speed of the platform, and having that platform land back in the US CONUS? Being remoteness nonetheless.



The DARPA Falcon Project (Force Application and Launch from Continental United States)

FALCON

The overall FALCON program announced in 2003 had two major components: a small launch vehicle for carrying payloads to orbit or launching the hypersonic weapons platform payload, and the hypersonic vehicle itself.


Follow on hypersonic program

Following the Phase 2 contract, DARPA and the US Air Force continued to develop the hypersonic vehicle platform.The program was to follow a set of flight tests with a series of hypersonic technology vehicles.


The FALCON project includes:
X-41 Common Aero Vehicle (CAV) — a common aerial platform for hypersonic ICBMs and cruise missiles, as well as civilian RLVs and ELVs.
Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-1 (HTV-1) — a test concept, originally planned to fly in September 2007, now canceled.[8]
HTV-2 — first flew on 22 April 2010, but contact was lost soon after booster separation[9][10][11]
HTV-3X — Blackswift, now canceled
Small Launch Vehicle (SLV) — a smaller engine to power CAVs, now complete
The Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) would be able to fly 9,000 nautical miles (17,000 km) in 2 hours with a payload of 12,000 lb (5,500 kg).[12] It is to fly at a high altitudes and achieve speeds of up to Mach 6.

The first powered flight of the X-51 was planned for 25 May 2010, but the presence of a freighter transiting a portion of the Naval Air Station Point Mugu Sea Range caused a 24 hour postponement.[21] The X-51 completed its first powered flight successfully on 26 May 2010 by flying for over 200 seconds and reaching a speed of Mach 5; it did not meet the planned 300 second flight duration, however.[1][2] The flight had the longest scramjet burn time of 140 seconds. The X-43 had the previous longest flight burn time of 12 seconds,[2][22][23] while setting a new speed record of Mach 9.8 (12,144 km/h, 7,546 mph).