If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wired) NewsFlash US Air Force's X-51A Waverider Mach 5 test missile goes kablooey. Which can only mean one thing: Iran is years ahead of the US in photoshop expertise   (wired.com) divider line 165
    More: NewsFlash, air forces, Iran, rocket booster, hypersonic flight, intercontinental ballistic missiles, missiles, hypersonic speeds  
•       •       •

16789 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Aug 2012 at 3:01 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

165 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-15 03:28:52 PM

Girion47: vodka: It's not just about weapons, this technology could advance travel in general.

There really isn't any demand for hypersonic travel though. Otherwise the Concorde would have gotten a sequel.


The kind of people with technofetishes don't like reality. It's like a form of mental illusion, pretty pictures in magazines are more important than reality, but not everyone sees that illusion. But if they do, you can't tell them it's just an illusion.
 
2012-08-15 03:29:06 PM

amindtat

Maybe they just want the world to THINK it failed.

/adjusts tin foil hat


ORRRR..Aliens. I mean, this isn't the only hypersonic thing that's failed recently. They "lost" a hypersonic missle not too long ago. Aliens are probably taking it to "check our levels" and in December of this year, they will show themselves.

/closes bomb shelter door.
 
2012-08-15 03:31:21 PM
Actually, everyone involved is thrilled about the success of the testing.

The results were beyond expectation, so now it is time for it to drop out of public view and continue onward as a secret black-funds project.
 
2012-08-15 03:32:04 PM
The military has driven technology as far back as the Roman Empire. The Roman road system, for example, was originally built for troop transport, but civilians were the ultimate beneficiaries. The same could be said about Eisenhower's interstate highway system, designed during the cold war.

Military R&D often leads to advancement in civilian applications.

For instance(past and current programs):
THE INTERNET (a great place to biatch about military spending)
space program (the first astronauts were launched on what were basically ICBM's)
GPS
jet aircraft
many medical advances
computers
semiconductors
chemicals needed to mass produce biofuels
potable, desalinated drinking water anywhere in the world
cheap way to manufacture titanium
nanotechnology
...and many, many more

But NO! fark all that shiat! The military is evil

/and yes, unfortunately, we always need new and better ways to kill people
 
2012-08-15 03:32:39 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: Girion47: That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now? We can blow anyone up at anytime, lets put that cash towards infrastructure, both roads and communications back home. Focusing on those two things will do far more damage towards our enemies than some super fast farking missile.

Moron. Spending money on something other than defense contractors and tax cuts for rich people is socialism.


I asked my mom, who is really against welfare, what do people on welfare spend money on?

"Alcohol and cigarettes, and some food."
"Aren't most alcohol and cigarettes made here in the US?"
"Yes."
"What else do they spend money on. Rent?"
"Yes."
"Is that spent in the US?"
"Yes."
"What about utilities. Those are US utility companies too right?"
"Yes."
"OK. Now what about tax breaks for the wealthy? Isn't that welfare?"
"No."
"Couldn't you look at tax breaks for the wealthy as a subsidy to business owners, akin to welfare, where we are not taxing our rich enough in a time when we need revenues to close the deficit gap?"
"I suppose."
"And where are they reinvesting that money not collected?"
"Here, I suppose."
"But mostly global companies, China and India."
"Probably."
"So what's worse, giving government money to poor people who disproportionately spend the money on US goods and services, or not taking money from rich people who disproportionately spend the money on foreign investments?"

This is when she stopped talking.

For the record, I am in favor of getting rid of a lot of welfare spending over time (75% or so of it over 10-20 years) provided we replace the system with programs that encourage education, help people find jobs, and teach personal and financial responsibility. I am also in favor of getting rid of 75% of our defense spending over 10-20 years and similarly funding programs which move defense R&D money and technology into new business ventures.
 
MrT
2012-08-15 03:33:48 PM

Girion47: There really isn't any demand for hypersonic travel though.


Air-breathing hypersonic engines would be very interesting as the first stage of a launch vehicle for getting things into orbit.
 
2012-08-15 03:34:23 PM
snuff3r.com

Step it up, USAF.
 
2012-08-15 03:34:47 PM

Obbi: Came for exploding Speed Racer, leaving disappointed.


Came in to say I blame Racer X.
i39.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-15 03:36:22 PM

make me some tea: DarnoKonrad: Meh, it's just a weapons platform. Don't we have enough ways to kill people at the moment?

Nope. We are always searching for quicker, more efficient ways to kill people.

[onesidedconversations.files.wordpress.com image 320x240]


Especially ways that don't require us to have bases in foreign countries or ships in far-away oceans. The point of this is to have a cruise missile that can get from anywhere in the US to anywhere else on the planet in 2 hours or less.

Then we can blow up baby-milk factories the next time the President gets a beej from a fat intern, no matter where they are.
 
2012-08-15 03:37:21 PM
i.imgur.com

You are not ready.
 
2012-08-15 03:42:18 PM
The failure also has serious implications for the military's "prompt global strike" mission, which aims to use missiles with engines capable of hypersonic flight to wallop targets hundreds - even thousands - of miles away and do so within minutes.

And we wonder why the whole world is against us.
 
2012-08-15 03:42:55 PM

MrT: Girion47: There really isn't any demand for hypersonic travel though.

Air-breathing hypersonic engines would be very interesting as the first stage of a launch vehicle for getting things into orbit.


Yep, all you have to carry on board is fuel, not the oxidizer. Saves a lot of weight.
 
2012-08-15 03:46:28 PM
For those of you wondering why "Hyper Sonic" missiles are a priority in the face of all of our other societal problems when we already have "Super Sonic" missiles, the answer is simple. China already has "Hyper Sonic" missiles, now we need them too regardless of the cost.
 
2012-08-15 03:48:35 PM

chixdiggit: Was it a gooey kablooey?

/Hamster Hughie


Spaceman Spiff agrees.

/Does a hamster hop
 
2012-08-15 03:48:50 PM

Hobo Jr.: This was for cruise missiles right?

Couldn't we have spent that money more wisely like going to Mars or something?


When you strip down the size of your military to the point that we have, you have to rely on expensive weapons systems to maintain capability, or you lose the ability to project power. Some would argue we have no business projecting power in the first place, to them I point to the usual Hitler footage and Stalin footage and ask if that's what you really want running amok out of range of your stuff, thereby eventually forcing you into a massive and much more expensive military build up later to deal with the problem.

/yeah, I'd prefer to be going to to Mars too
//doesn't do us much good if there's no United States on Earth to come back to later
 
2012-08-15 03:51:42 PM
www.sierrafoot.org

/eyeroll
 
2012-08-15 03:51:43 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Fastest waste of $140 million ever.


Doesn't sound like it was that fast.

Maybe they could transfer the program to NASA, and we could waste even more money on it.
 
2012-08-15 03:53:22 PM
Nice of teh USAF to prove at least the the missile is definately not Scottish.
 
2012-08-15 03:53:37 PM
It went so fast that it went back in time and should be hitting somewhere yesterday pretty soon.
 
2012-08-15 03:53:58 PM

JackieRabbit: Damn! I was so looking forward to getting one for Christmas!


Why? Do you live in Iran?
 
2012-08-15 03:55:58 PM

hdhale: When you strip down the size of your military to the point that we have,


And by that you mean, to the largest and most expensive on earth, right?
 
2012-08-15 03:56:03 PM

TheGhostofFarkPast: imnotadoctor: Why are we wasting money on a missile that can go Mach 5?

so we can kill people in huts faster. Plus its a great way to defend us against pissed off muslims who over take planes with box cutters. i heard mach 5 is the best way to defend against small knives.


it was either that or teach every man woman and child in the USA for the same price how to defend themselves.
Hey... wait a minnit....
 
2012-08-15 03:59:41 PM

imnotadoctor: Why are we wasting money on a missile that can go Mach 5?


So we can be the first ones to the scene of the accident
 
2012-08-15 04:01:39 PM

SonOfSpam: /eyeroll


the X-15 was a rocket, the X-51 is a SCRAM jet

\eyeroll
 
2012-08-15 04:02:13 PM

wraithmare: chixdiggit: Was it a gooey kablooey?

/Hamster Hughie

Spaceman Spiff agrees.

/Does a hamster hop


Beat me to it.
 
2012-08-15 04:02:45 PM

imnotadoctor: Why are we wasting money on a missile that can go Mach 5?


It's a cost saving measure -- the one that went Mach 7 was too pricey.
 
2012-08-15 04:03:23 PM
There may be a limit to the speed things are allowed to go, you know, at least while we are inside the atmosphere. Only one Earth-based vehicle has ever been Mach 5

2.bp.blogspot.com

That I am first is a disgrace to everyone else here on Fark.
 
2012-08-15 04:03:58 PM

maniacbastard: the X-51 is a SCRAM jet pile of shiat on the ocean floor


FTFY
 
2012-08-15 04:05:00 PM

imnotadoctor: Why are we wasting money on a missile that can go Mach 5?


Because we need to use it to stop the jet the terrorist are developing made of sand that goes Mach 4!!!! booga booga!!!!
 
2012-08-15 04:06:37 PM
Why oh why would you turn a Gundam into a missile?
And besides, a wavedasher would be far better.
 
2012-08-15 04:07:05 PM

groppet: imnotadoctor: Why are we wasting money on a missile that can go Mach 5?

Because we need to use it to stop the jet the terrorist are developing made of sand that goes Mach 4!!!! booga booga!!!!


...and fueled with Dirka Dirka Muhammad Jihad.
 
2012-08-15 04:08:03 PM
Looks like I'm late to the thread, so I'll just toss a few things out there...

The point of this project is to have rapid global strike capability -without- the use of ICBMs. Rapid global strike allows the military to cut back on the REALLY expensive things like ships and long range bombers. Research here also has application towards civilian avionics as well, so yes, the R&D is worth it.
 
2012-08-15 04:09:07 PM

imnotadoctor: Why are we wasting money on a missile that can go Mach 5?


War. Huh, yeah!

/What is it good for?
//Absolutely nothing.
///Say it again, y'all.
 
2012-08-15 04:10:14 PM
I like the future transport application of this type of engine. However a vacuum tunnel/mag lev train combo would be more awesomer
 
2012-08-15 04:12:47 PM

The Bestest: Looks like I'm late to the thread, so I'll just toss a few things out there...

The point of this project is to have rapid global strike capability -without- the use of ICBMs. Rapid global strike allows the military to cut back on the REALLY expensive things like ships and long range bombers. Research here also has application towards civilian avionics as well, so yes, the R&D is worth it.


Here's a plan: set up a front company to sell AK rounds filled with high-explosive rather than smokeless powder in the areas prone to terrorism. See what kind of chamber pressure those old Soviet AKs or home-made Khyber Pass guns can handle during "training". ;-) The problem should solve itself in a few weeks, and cheaply.
 
2012-08-15 04:13:14 PM

The Bestest: Research here also has application towards civilian avionics as well, so yes, the R&D is worth it.


Wait. Is this the good government spending that Ryan likes, or the bad type that he doesn't? And will all of the folks in "the industry" be claiming that they can do it better than the government can? After making use of the initial government R&D, anyway?
 
2012-08-15 04:14:05 PM

h4b1t: I like the future transport application of this type of engine. However a vacuum tunnel/mag lev train combo would be more awesomer


Sure, until it "derailed" and created a fireball like a small nuclear weapon.
 
2012-08-15 04:15:18 PM

trippdogg: It's nice, but $300 million sounds a little over-priced...

[www.kidlantis.com image 600x491]


i178.photobucket.com
 
2012-08-15 04:16:25 PM

nonsequitor: For those of you wondering why "Hyper Sonic" missiles are a priority in the face of all of our other societal problems when we already have "Super Sonic" missiles, the answer is simple. China already has "Hyper Sonic" missiles, now we need them too regardless of the cost.


India already has them as well (from a joint program with Russia).

In addition to the USAF "global strike" doctrine, hypersonic missiles are needed to keep the advantage in a naval confrontation. Hypersonic missiles are great for getting past a carrier's outer defenses and sinking a billion dollar floating city with 5,000 people on board and several billion dollars worth of aircraft.

On the civilian side, if they can't get hypersonic technology working for something as simple as a missile, don't expect any hypersonic aircraft that can go from New York to Tokyo in two hours anytime soon.
 
2012-08-15 04:16:44 PM

hdhale: yeah, I'd prefer to be going to to Mars too


The two goals are not mutually exclusive.
The military was one of NASA's biggest initial backers when it came to ripping the technology from German hands and influencing the politicians to back the space race. They were an investor for the shuttle and buy a large number of rockets from the contractors, keeping them in the business. They are even getting into the newspace game as a customer.
The Military has brought the bacon home with technologies like GPS and satellite surveillance.

A high speed missile that teaches them how to build high speed jets may also give us a cheap way to access orbit (and cheaper tickets to mars). So its not really money wasted.
Its not a NASA test program, but its still science.

/Unfortunately this is rocket surgery of the highest order.
/A number of unexpected Kbooms are to expected.
 
2012-08-15 04:18:43 PM

way south: Its not a NASA test program


We know this because only $140 million was wasted. NASA throws out tax dollars around in much larger amounts.
 
2012-08-15 04:19:40 PM
The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades. MinuteMan III travels at mach 25 and has a range of 8,000 miles. just put come fancy guidance on it and replace the nuke with regular explosives and you have your fast response precision ordinance already sitting there tested and ready.
 
2012-08-15 04:24:13 PM
Dial-a-Marine will have to wait a little longer.
 
2012-08-15 04:26:09 PM

dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades. MinuteMan III travels at mach 25 and has a range of 8,000 miles. just put come fancy guidance on it and replace the nuke with regular explosives and you have your fast response precision ordinance already sitting there tested and ready.


ICBMs trigger the fear of a nuclear strike.. and retaliation.
 
2012-08-15 04:26:14 PM
What? You can't stick a nuke on a cruise missile? First I've heard about that ...
 
2012-08-15 04:26:57 PM

Feral_and_Preposterous: What? You can't stick a nuke on a cruise missile? First I've heard about that ...


The whole point of the program is to NOT use nukes.
 
2012-08-15 04:27:29 PM

dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades. MinuteMan III travels at mach 25 and has a range of 8,000 miles. just put come fancy guidance on it and replace the nuke with regular explosives and you have your fast response precision ordinance already sitting there tested and ready.


Sure, but since nobody has done that before, there's lots of built-in conditioning that equates ballistic missiles with nuclear payloads. There's no real reason for that other than a historical association, but it was probably deemed easier to develop a new technology than to convince Russia that we really aren't trying to conduct a sneak-attack 20 years after the end of the Cold War. ...which would make it *especially* sneaky, I suppose.
 
2012-08-15 04:29:49 PM

bdub77: TofuTheAlmighty: Girion47: That's great, can we quit wasting money on R&D now? We can blow anyone up at anytime, lets put that cash towards infrastructure, both roads and communications back home. Focusing on those two things will do far more damage towards our enemies than some super fast farking missile.

Moron. Spending money on something other than defense contractors and tax cuts for rich people is socialism.

I asked my mom, who is really against welfare, what do people on welfare spend money on?

"Alcohol and cigarettes, and some food."
"Aren't most alcohol and cigarettes made here in the US?"
"Yes."
"What else do they spend money on. Rent?"
"Yes."
"Is that spent in the US?"
"Yes."
"What about utilities. Those are US utility companies too right?"
"Yes."
"OK. Now what about tax breaks for the wealthy? Isn't that welfare?"
"No."
"Couldn't you look at tax breaks for the wealthy as a subsidy to business owners, akin to welfare, where we are not taxing our rich enough in a time when we need revenues to close the deficit gap?"
"I suppose."
"And where are they reinvesting that money not collected?"
"Here, I suppose."
"But mostly global companies, China and India."
"Probably."
"So what's worse, giving government money to poor people who disproportionately spend the money on US goods and services, or not taking money from rich people who disproportionately spend the money on foreign investments?"

This is when she stopped talking.

For the record, I am in favor of getting rid of a lot of welfare spending over time (75% or so of it over 10-20 years) provided we replace the system with programs that encourage education, help people find jobs, and teach personal and financial responsibility. I am also in favor of getting rid of 75% of our defense spending over 10-20 years and similarly funding programs which move defense R&D money and technology into new business ventures.


The problem with your argument is threefold. First, it's status quo bias. It assumes that the current tax rates are somehow "right" and that reductions are therefore "wrong".
Second, it equates taking and giving. Guy paying 500k in taxes gets a break and now pays 480, vs another person who pays nothing and takes 20k in benifits (on top of the benefits the govt gives all of us- roads/etc). So one guy now pays 15 times his equally divided share instead of 16, while the other pays no share and gets support. (btw: to calculate your "fair share" of federal taxes, take the 3.6 trillion and divide it by the number of taxpayers (approx 100m). The answer is about 36,000/year. Do you pay your "fair" share?).

Third, it assumes that the money is better off with the government. It's usually not. Taxes inherently reduce economic activity. Whether or not our current tax rate is the correct one, it's on a curve from 100% tax, which would stop all investment and business, to 0% where taxes have no impact on business decisions. Tax incentives work because they reduce the disincentive taxes have on investment. Thats why when cities and states want development in some area, they do it (both liberal and conservative) by tax incentives. Obama says this every week as "keep the wind tax credit".

/thinks the current rates should be about where they are. Not lower at this point, so no, I'm not an arch conservative.
 
2012-08-15 04:30:07 PM

The Bestest: dbaggins: The military already has access to a hypersonic engine. it's called a "rocket" and we've been using them for decades. MinuteMan III travels at mach 25 and has a range of 8,000 miles. just put come fancy guidance on it and replace the nuke with regular explosives and you have your fast response precision ordinance already sitting there tested and ready.

ICBMs trigger the fear of a nuclear strike.. and retaliation.


At this point, would Russia even be *able* to retaliate? I mean, anything left over from the USSR must be held together by duct tape by now...

For that matter, how well do their launch detection satellites work anymore? Would they even know?
 
2012-08-15 04:30:53 PM

arethereanybeernamesleft: hdhale: When you strip down the size of your military to the point that we have,

And by that you mean, to the largest and most expensive on earth, right?


Apparently you haven't been watching the budgets for the coming year.
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report