Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 171 posts

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#111

Post by monocasa »

deelowe wrote: post #63
ren_engineer wrote: post #6

both test failures seem to have been during the booster rocket phase and they weren't even able to test or collect data on the missile component Lockheed is in charge of development, just like the SLS program. I'm curious how hard it would be to have SpaceX make an attempt or if they would even be willing. Seems safe to say they know rockets far better than Lockheed

> Lockheed is in charge of development, just like the SLS program. Several big defense contractors are involved, but Lockheed isn't one of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

ULA is a Lockheed and Boeing joint venture, and the Orion capsule itself is a straight up Lockheed built ship.

Now, the fuckups seem to be mainly on Boeing's side of the fence, but it's incorrect to say that Lockheed isn't involved.

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#112

Post by Someone »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #30
superkuh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct. No one has "real" hypersonic missiles that travel in the atmosphere for extended periods(*1). The heating problems for shock impingment in non-"simple conicals" has *not* been overcome and won't be. "Hypersonic" missiles are mostly just ICBMs with a very brief passage through the dense lower atmosphere where there's enough lift. And if they try to go higher up to escape the heat flux there's not enough for l…

"Sprint accelerated at 100 g, reaching a speed of Mach 10 (12,300 km/h; 7,610 mph) in 5 seconds. Such a high velocity at relatively low altitudes created skin temperatures up to 6,200 °F (3,430 °C)" This is in 1975.

Seems like you almost wouldn’t even need explosives if you could push that through an aircraft carrier at that speed.

Who could build something like that today?

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#113

Post by softcactus »

tablespoon wrote: post #110
softcactus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best defense is probably still going to MAD with second strike capabilities. Assuming that a hypersonic first strike would destroy a majority of our silos and bombers, we'll probably have to beef up our submarine fleet.

> The best defense is probably still going to MAD with second strike capabilities. Assuming that a hypersonic first strike would destroy a majority of our silos and bombers, we'll probably have to beef up our submarine fleet. For MAD scenarios, wouldn't attacking the US with stuff like fractional-orbital bombardment be more effective than hypersonic weapons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardmen…

Not sure, my orbital mechanics is bad, but reading that Wikipedia article it seems that a circular orbit might require a larger rocket than a sub-orbital trajectory? Hypersonics probably also give some advantage against terminal interceptors.

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#114

Post by antihero »

hsnewman wrote: post #86

Why can't they just have some Spacex falcon 9's outfitted with multiple small missiles as payload? The falcon can boost the missiles and upon release they can easily go hypersonic while the falcon comes back for more?

What if missiles all launched their own missiles, and went infinitely fast

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#115

Post by onmobile2022 »

lettergram wrote: post #99

I always hate the discussion around “hypersonic missiles” The US has had some version since the 1960s. What do you think ICBMs are? Real discussions should quantify precision, error rate, speed, payload of missiles, etc.

Perhaps I'm stupid, but I thought they were differentiated from classic missiles by actively diverging from a birds eye path at random during flight. Do ICBMs already do this?

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#117

Post by throwaway894345 »

lettergram wrote: post #99

I always hate the discussion around “hypersonic missiles” The US has had some version since the 1960s. What do you think ICBMs are? Real discussions should quantify precision, error rate, speed, payload of missiles, etc.

While the terminology is imprecise, ICMBs tend to go up in a big arc making them visible to radar well in advance of a strike, whereas “hypersonic” missiles fly close to the earth, effectively hiding behind its curvature.

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#119

Post by logicchains »

treeman79 wrote: post #20
swamp40 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia already has hypersonic. And there is no realistic defense against them. They scare the crap out of DC because a Russian sub could pop up off the coast of New Jersey and 5 million people including 99% of all US politicians would be dead 6 minutes later. So of course the US needs them.

20 minutes later Russia would be dead. 20 minutes later the world. Been like this for many decades. That it hasn’t happened is kind of surprising.

> 20 minutes later Russia would be dead. 20 minutes later the world.

The idea of nuclear winter has been largely debunked by modern science. Sure the places hit by nukes would be destroyed, but most nukes aren't powerful enough to push smoke into the atmosphere, so there'd be no global cloud blackening out the sun and ending all life on earth.

Re: US hypersonic missile fails in test- 2nd consecutive failed attempt

#120

Post by trasz »

mrits wrote: post #94
rootusrootus wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems more likely that Russia and China are still decades behind the US but considerably more willing to hype up technology they don't actually have. China has made some progress but they are a long ways behind. Russia, well, ... Ukraine is demonstrating how stagnant their military capability has become. I kinda wonder how many of their nukes would actually fly right now if they were crazy enough to push the butto…

It seems likely that no one in Russia knows how many working nukes they have.

And if any of them still work.
Post reply on HN