[HN Gopher] DARPA's hypersonic scramjet achieves successful flight
___________________________________________________________________
DARPA's hypersonic scramjet achieves successful flight
Author : geox
Score : 105 points
Date : 2021-10-03 15:08 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.darpa.mil)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.darpa.mil)
| dgregd wrote:
| How a such hypersonic missile locks a target? Does it use a radar
| or some optic system? I guess that plasma around the body might
| disrupt conventional guiding systems.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Ionization applies starting at a given frequency depending on
| heat. You have to reduce the heat around the radar or move the
| radar somewhere where the air is less hot. You also have to use
| a radar of a higher frequency.
| _moof wrote:
| For blunt-body spacecraft, ionization starts at around Mach 10.
| The aerodynamics of a missile will be different of course.
| Regardless, there is headroom above the Mach 5 hypersonic
| threshold before blackout occurs.
| corndoge wrote:
| Is it just me or has the Pentagon and the complex largely
| replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"? Feel like I've
| seen it a lot lately and I'm not sure what the change implies
| tomcam wrote:
| Good call. Seems unnecessary, like the slow transformation of
| "emergency room "which used to be known as the ER to "emergency
| department".
| creddit wrote:
| In fairness, emergency department is more sensible. They
| generally aren't a single room.
|
| Soldier to warfighter seems unnecessary.
|
| EDIT: It seems possibly using "warfighter" is more accurate
| as marines and pilots aren't soldiers?
| cdash wrote:
| Sure but then you get into the situation where even though
| the full name is Emergency Department they still refer to
| it as the ER and not the ED.
| JshWright wrote:
| That's just a bit of lag though. ED is becoming
| increasingly common.
| wincy wrote:
| Well for one US citizens might have to quarter warfighters.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| speedybird wrote:
| It simply means that marines, sailors, etc get bent out of
| shape when you call them "soldiers." In their lingo, soldiers
| are in the Army.
|
| In common parlance, a 'soldier' is anybody who is part of a
| military and an 'army' is any and all military. But I would not
| expect the Pentagon to be so casual with their use of terms
| relating directly to their affairs.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _replaced the word "soldier" with "warfighter"_
|
| Technically, only the Army has soldiers. The non-exclusionary
| term used to be "men and women in uniform," but that got tired,
| so I guess we get "warfighters" now.
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| Yeah, Marines particularly don't like being called "soldier",
| they're not soldiers they're Marines. Probably same for the
| Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, CIA operatives, etc. The
| civilian executive branch probably had a headache over that,
| and just started using the catchall term warfighter to refer
| to them all.
| burkaman wrote:
| We also have "serviceperson", but you can't sell Call of Duty
| games that way.
| gruez wrote:
| The one fps game that contained "warfighter" _wasn 't_ call
| of duty.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor%3A_Warfighter
| [deleted]
| burkaman wrote:
| I assume someone thought it sounds cooler and will help them
| recruit. It's an awful term, although maybe it will make it
| slightly harder for people to claim that the US military is a
| force for good because "our warfighters are global
| peacekeepers". Really highlights the absurdity.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| It is politicians that keep insisting the job of the army is
| to get Afghanis to read and adopt liberal values.
|
| Peacekeeping is not popular in the army, for good reason.
| They are there to fight wars, not deliver social programs,
| build nations, or referee conflicts.
|
| If using language like "warfighter" can get the politicians
| to lay off on using the army for things other than fighting
| wars, then the clumsiness of the phrase is worth it.
|
| I suspect, though, that this is just more corporate-speak
| infiltrating the military bureaucracy.
| rand846633 wrote:
| We as people should start refereeing to them as "nation state
| murder for hire professionals".
| nimbius wrote:
| War fighter showed up to replace soldier about the same time
| the space force was announced.
|
| It's meant to be a blanket term to satisfy categorization from
| rifle carrying traditional soldiers to drone pilots in an Idaho
| parking lot.
| allenrb wrote:
| For a moment, reading only the first paragraph, I was hopeful
| that the problem of accelerating from subsonic to hypersonic had
| been solved. Alas, further down it makes clear that a booster was
| involved. Presumably a small solid rocket that accelerates to
| Mach 3-5(?) prior to scramjet ignition. Fine for a weapons system
| but will never be useful as transportation.
|
| Is anyone aware of progress toward being able to reach these
| speeds without disposable boosters?
|
| The SR-71 could make Mach 3 on its own but at incredible cost in
| fuel and complexity.
| speedybird wrote:
| Unless you're trying to go to space, there really isn't much
| reason to go this fast in the first place. Even _relatively_
| modest supersonic passenger flight has proven to be a
| commercial failure (good luck to _Boom Tech inc..._ you guys
| will need it.)
|
| If you're going to space, an SSTO with scramjets would be
| interesting. But I think if SpaceX's reusable Starship succeeds
| without that tech, it would be hard to justify the additional
| complexity and expense of an SSTO built with a class of engine
| which hardly exists at all right now.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _relatively modest supersonic passenger flight has proven
| to be a commercial failure_
|
| Tried it once in the 70s. Didn't work. Everyone go home.
| soverance wrote:
| Check out Hermeus, working on building a reusable hypersonic
| aircraft. The engine they're using is a proprietary TBCC engine
| based on the GE J85.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Blackbird does 3.75 designed maximum on turbo-ramjet I think?
| panick21 wrote:
| SpaceX Starship will do this and be fully reusable. Starship
| can fly long distance with a reusable booster and somewhat
| shorter distances without a booster.
|
| Granted, its not really 'flying' but it does reach the speed
| needed.
| pengaru wrote:
| > The SR-71 could make Mach 3 on its own but at incredible cost
| in fuel and complexity.
|
| the SR-71 never struck me as "incredibly complex", the space
| shuttle however...
| sonofhans wrote:
| The J58 powering the SR-71 is still one of the most complex
| engines ever built. The space shuttle is a simple rocket by
| comparison.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_J58
| pengaru wrote:
| And the SR-71 is so simple the complexity falls off a cliff
| at the engine, hence your inclination to only care about
| that in comparing the two.
|
| The space shuttle is like a reusable mobile space station,
| airlocks and all. Occupants of the SR-71 wore space suits
| the entire time, there's a lot of minimalism on display in
| the SR-71 which is a large part of what makes it so
| glorious.
| speedybird wrote:
| You seem to be suggesting but not outright saying
| something that is a misconception: The SR-71 did in fact
| have a pressurized cockpit, which was also air
| conditioned as well (it had to be, because the aircraft
| would cook the crew otherwise.)
|
| The SR-71 was sophisticated in other ways as well; for
| instance in having ejection seats. In fact the first four
| shuttle flights (all Columbia) had ejection seats too and
| guess where they got those seats from? The SR-71 of
| course. And on those flights with ejection seats, guess
| what the shuttle crew wore? They wore pressure suits,
| like those worn by SR-71 crew! They stopped wearing those
| starting with STS-5, when they removed the ejection
| seats. However the pressure suits (though not the
| ejection seats) came back after the demise of the
| Challenger.
|
| What I am not saying: that the shuttle was simple.
|
| What I am saying: That the SR-71 was more sophisticated
| than you've given it credit for.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| The SR-71 was very complex. For example it had multiple
| heat exchangers to get rid of heat, to transfer it to the
| fuel before it was combusted. The titanium structure was
| complex to maintain. Welding needed to be done in
| "bubble" work stations under protective gas.
| pengaru wrote:
| > The titanium structure was complex to maintain. Welding
| needed to be done in "bubble" work stations under
| protective gas
|
| Operational complexity is orthogonal, and tends to be
| inversely proportional to simplicity in implementation...
|
| For instance they needed to refuel the thing immediately
| upon reaching operating temperature in flight, since it
| leaked like a sieve on the runway until everything
| expanded. Rather than try fix that somehow with more
| engineering, they shifted the complexity into operations.
|
| IIRC it couldn't even start its own engines cold, relying
| instead on hot-rod v8s setup on the runway to bootstrap
| the thing. More operational complexity in favor of
| leaving an entire subsystem out of the plane.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the SR-71, but so
| much of that appreciation stems from its ruthless pursuit
| of its narrow operational goals, for as much what it
| isn't as it is.
|
| It's the polar opposite of stuff like the space shuttle
| or F-35 where the aggregate complexity is through the
| roof to accommodate a kitchen sink.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Oh come on. SR-71 was a complex military aircraft. Maybe
| it was not as complex as the space shuttle. Certainly
| much more complex than an F-16.
|
| One can start here for example http://www.enginehistory.o
| rg/Convention/2014/SR-71Inlts/SR-7...
| moralestapia wrote:
| >Operational complexity is orthogonal, and tends to be
| inversely proportional to simplicity in implementation
| ...
|
| I'm not sure what your point is with this. All complexity
| _is_ operational complexity.
| avmich wrote:
| The arguably most complex technology of Space Shuttle was
| SSME. Also, arguably the most important part of LEO
| rocket technology is engine - as soon as engines matured
| enough, space era started. Yes, there are gyros and
| superlight tanks, but Lambda-4S still does illustrate the
| importance. And hypersonic winged flight problems were
| greatly decreased in the Space Shuttle case by a "brute
| force" approach with ceramic tiles.
|
| SSME was more or less repeated in results by RD-0120, and
| rather soon. I'd argue RD-0410 was more complex. SR-71
| engine works in two different modes, and even today is
| not really repeated elsewhere. I think that shows how
| awesome the SR-71 design was - especially, but not only,
| for its time.
|
| I'd appreciate a good analysis of design problems and
| solutions of SR-71 to decide which project was
| technically more complex.
| detritus wrote:
| I believe the descendant of HOTOL is intended to bridge that
| gap... https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/
| jokoon wrote:
| I don't understand the purpose of having a missile that fast.
| scanny wrote:
| More speed = more difficult to both intercept and detect (less
| response time).
|
| Not sure what the commercial applications would be though.
| [deleted]
| jahewson wrote:
| Nothing can shoot it down (yet).
| nimbius wrote:
| Missile interception technology like aegis relies on other
| ships detection and coordination with onboard defenses in an
| aegis fleet network.
|
| Faster missiles mean a solution may be coordinated or
| countermeasure plotted too slowly to have any effect, or to arm
| things like CIWS countermeasures.
|
| hypersonics, simply put, can sink US aircraft carriers before
| their protective fleet can take action, effectively
| neutralizing US presence in a region.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _hypersonics, simply put, can sink US aircraft carriers
| before their protective fleet can take action_
|
| Hypersonic missions are slower than ballistic missiles. Their
| advantage isn't speed _per se_ , but in being able to fly
| under the horizon for longer. They're also more manoeuvrable,
| though at those airspeeds you're somewhat limited in this
| domain.
| dylan604 wrote:
| "Goals of the mission were: vehicle integration and release
| sequence, safe separation from the launch aircraft, booster
| ignition and boost, booster separation and engine ignition, and
| cruise. All primary test objectives were met."
|
| When the booster separation occurs, what happens to that booster?
| Does it self destruct on the way back down? Would any part of it
| be recoverable by inquisitive minds? Is booster tech so
| rudimentary that no secrets would be lost if recoverable?
|
| "and cruise...met" does that mean it just essentially flew in a
| straight-ish line? seems like guidance would be important.
| walking before running?
| moffkalast wrote:
| These absurd speeds result in a significant amount of
| aerodynamic heating, so assuming the booster is simply not
| shielded much it'll likely disintegrate in seconds after being
| detached and no longer in the missile's shadow.
| jhgb wrote:
| > The HAWC vehicle operates best in oxygen-rich atmosphere, where
| speed and maneuverability make it difficult to detect in a timely
| way.
|
| I'm reasonably sure that the infrared trace of a hypersonic
| vehicle doesn't make it difficult to detect. Likewise existing
| approaches to radar stealth are hard to reconcile with hypersonic
| speeds, which doesn't help avoid radar detection either.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Plasma stealth is an existing approach to radar stealth that is
| made easier by hypersonic speeds.
|
| Infrared targeting of multiple hypersonic missiles is easier
| said than done. The missile you're hitting them with is going
| to be heating up the air around the camera probably at the same
| temps as the missile it's intercepting, and a base station
| wouldn't have enough resolution to guide a missile accurately
| from 100+km away while being alert for other missiles.
| jhgb wrote:
| > The missile you're hitting them with is going to be heating
| up the air around the camera probably at the same temps as
| the missile it's intercepting
|
| That would only apply if it were to hit it at comparable
| speeds. That's not necessary in many cases, especially in
| point defense when the target is heading towards you.
| Furthermore the limited time of flight of the interceptor
| might also allow for active cooling of the IR window in that
| brief period.
|
| Also, even detection from a fixed ground base (or from space
| - see SpaceX's newest missile detection project) is still
| detection in the first place, which is what I was commenting
| on. Wasn't even going to veer into interceptor guidance, but
| I'm sure there's multiple ways to do it.
| [deleted]
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Interception against an actively manoeuvring target is a
| question of kinetic energy. If the intecepting missile is
| smaller all the hypersonic missile has to do is zig-zagging
| randomly and you're toast.
|
| If you're going to wait for the hypersonic missile to be
| close enough that this isn't a problem, you have the issue
| that your missile won't be able to manoeuvre right and
| might still be building up velocity. Plus there won't only
| be one!
|
| > the interceptor might also allow for active cooling of
| the IR window in that brief period.
|
| The issue isn't the IR window, it's the air directly in
| front of the interceptor missile, which has to target from
| the frontal aspect.
|
| >Also, even detection from a fixed ground base (or from
| space - see SpaceX's newest missile detection project) is
| still detection in the first place, which is what I was
| commenting on. Wasn't even going to veer into interceptor
| guidance, but I'm sure there's multiple ways to do it.
|
| Detection is not enough. We can already detect missiles
| from satellites even. The issue is calculating their
| velocity accurately and locating them at +- 10m from 100km+
| away is not feasible without really large apertures and
| pretty long focal lengths. You wouldn't be able to
| accurately track more missiles than you have optics and the
| optics would be mind-boggingly expensive. Besides that, the
| target acquisition radar to maintain a feasible or even
| physically possible relative aperture for target
| acquisition would be unable to resolve any detail about the
| missile, so it would have no way of telling the difference
| between a missile and a flare of the same brightness and
| color.
| jhgb wrote:
| > Interception against an actively manoeuvring target is
| a question of kinetic energy. If the intecepting missile
| is smaller all the hypersonic missile has to do is zig-
| zagging randomly and you're toast.
|
| What you're describing is not a matter of kinetic energy
| (clearly if it were about kinetic energy, this would be
| defeated by making the interceptor weigh 30 tonnes) but a
| matter of transverse acceleration. On that matter, as far
| as I understand it, current AAMs/SAMs are somewhere in
| the 50g region. I strongly suspect that hypersonic
| vehicles due to their lower L/D are nowhere near that --
| hell, many of them seem to have a hard enough time flying
| straight, if US military's experience is of any relevance
| here.
|
| Also, due to low L/D ratio in the high Mach region, if
| your missile is zig-zagging randomly, it won't stay fast
| for long. And if it's _not_ zig-zagging randomly, then
| the question is how it gets the information how to zig-
| zag, since the nose of a hypersonic vehicle seems to be
| an extremely poor sensor platform -- which you admitted
| yourself. It 's virtually certain that it won't be able
| to see the interceptor.
|
| > The issue isn't the IR window, it's the air directly in
| front of the interceptor missile, which has to target
| from the frontal aspect.
|
| It seems unlikely that the interceptor will have to fly
| at a comparable speed in a frontal aspect interception
| situation (considering that it doesn't need to catch up).
|
| But as for terminal interception, I suspect that here the
| inverse-fourth-power-of-distance operation of an active
| radar homing solution might help you if all else fails --
| at a small enough distance this will work even better
| than the inverse square applicable to passive optical/IR
| detection.
|
| > would be unable to resolve any detail about the
| missile, so it would have no way of telling the
| difference between a missile and a flare of the same
| brightness and color.
|
| It would seem that the easiest way to distinguish a flare
| would be to look if it's in a controlled flight? Unlike a
| flare, the hypersonic vehicle will continue flying, and
| the difference is readily apparent. Besides, you can't
| have _that_ many flares on it, so you can 't keep firing
| them continuously -- again, the only thing that's
| available to you if you can't see the incoming
| interceptor.
| jack_pp wrote:
| Isn't the point of these weapons that even if you can detect
| them they are too fast to intercept?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _even if you can detect them they are too fast to
| intercept?_
|
| No. They still travel far slower than ballistic missiles.
| Their advantages are in being able to fly low and
| (theoretically) manoeuvre to avoid interceptors.
|
| They're an evolution of cruise missiles, not strategic
| ballistic missiles.
| jhgb wrote:
| But maneuvering at high velocities won't be that easy. As
| far as I understand it, your lift/drag ratio decreases
| appreciably with increasing Mach numbers. So either you'd
| have to limit your maneuvering, or you'd have to have a
| propulsion unit with ridiculous amounts of thrust - at a
| situation when _any_ amount of useful thrust is hard to
| obtain, since we still don 't know really well how to do
| propulsion in this regime.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Thrust is not the issue, the issue is net thrust.
| Essentially the missile/engine is compressing so much air
| that trying to get more air to produce more thrust
| doesn't work, you have to manage to increase efficiency,
| by increasing compression, without melting or blowing
| apart your engine
|
| Once you manage to make significant net thrust making a
| bit more isn't that big of deal, it's really a critical
| point you have to pass.
| jhgb wrote:
| Yes, that's what makes it even worse. Flying as fast as
| you can means you have very little reserve for velocity
| losses from extensive maneuvering.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| You're still limited by your fuel and flight envelope.
| The latter which bleeds the former.
|
| Hypersonic missiles will be harder to intercept than
| cruise missiles. Due to their novelty, they'll also be
| harder than ballistics. (Ballistic projectiles don't
| continuously illuminate their flight path. That permits
| for subterfuge options an air-breathing missile
| forfeits.)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| As a former aerospace engineer, I'm sceptical of the
| strategic value of hypersonics. Tactical? Sure. They'd
| have a better chance of taking out SAMs, light radar, _et
| cetera_. But the talk about these being carrier killers
| is, based on everything we've seen, off the mark.
| (Spending the cost of one hypersonic on a swarming attack
| would probably do more damage.)
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The biggest difference between hypersonics and swarms of
| slow missiles is that the hypersonics can get there fast
| enough that you might not need high-quality targeting
| information. That's definitely a strategic advantage!
|
| Also the 3M22 is estimated to only cost around 2 million
| dollars.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _hypersonics can get there fast enough that you might
| not need high-quality targeting information_
|
| The strategic systems hypersonics are hyped to hit have
| been hardened against ballistics. Hypersonics are slower
| than ballistics. (Their plasma envelope also makes them
| easier to track by satellite.)
|
| This is a tactical evolution. Meaningful. Helpful. But
| not a strategic shift.
| jhgb wrote:
| > that you might not need high-quality targeting
| information
|
| I don't see how this would work, unless of course you're
| talking about nuclear weapons. With a conventional
| warhead you _still_ need to hit your target.
| jhgb wrote:
| They're too fast to catch up with (i.e., from behind). But if
| someone sprints straight into your fist, that person will be
| hurt even if your fist itself is fully stationary. In fact
| this probably makes them somewhat _more_ vulnerable to an
| interceptor 's warhead's shrapnel: even lesser damage,
| survivable for a slower target, might be much more serious
| for a target flying at high Mach speeds (not the mention the
| imminent "Columbia syndrome" of very hot air suddenly inside
| your vehicle).
| sudosysgen wrote:
| That only works if your rate of tangential acceleration is
| quite low. The reason why you'd make an airbreathing
| hypersonic instead of a ballistic missile is so it could
| manoeuvre.
| jhgb wrote:
| Your tangential acceleration is zero in a sustained
| flight. So it works, then.
| jackschultz wrote:
| DARPA has such a list of impressive, world wide useful
| technologies that wouldn't have been able to be created without
| funding from the government at the time given the time and money
| and at time, unlikeliness to be successful [0].
|
| It really sucks that there's a 'D' for 'Defense' at the front of
| the acronym. Their website says they're "creating breakthrough
| technologies and capabilities for national security". Horrible
| that national security is the reason for this, when it should be
| human progress.
|
| [0] https://www.itpro.com/technology/34730/10-amazing-darpa-
| inve... [1] https://www.darpa.mil/
| BobbyJo wrote:
| Not to be a Debbie Downer, but functional Scramjet technology
| does very little for humanity outside of defense. As is the
| case with most of what DARPA funds, no? If that wasn't the
| case, then the market itself would be chasing the technology.
| Like, what would this be useful for?
|
| I guess I'm just fundamentally questioning what you mean when
| you say 'human progress'. I assume you mean it more in terms of
| improvement as opposed to preservation, but given the fact that
| life itself is a struggle against entropy on all levels,
| preservation is a very important foundation on which to build.
| science4sail wrote:
| What about the ARPAnet? That seemed to have found several
| applications outside of national defense.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Shrinking the world would be a good use of it if we could get
| it to work for commercial air travel (and if we solve the
| sonic boom problem, but that's another issue a different part
| of government is working on)
| silexia wrote:
| The faster you go and the further you go, the more energy
| you use. We have limited resources and these technologies
| damage our planet.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| It's very hard for me to imagine a world in which scramjet
| technology is both useful for commercial travel, and
| impossible to develop without massive government funding.
| It seems to me like technology needs to reach a point that
| it can be developed entirely commercially before it can be
| made safely and consistently enough enough for commercial
| passengers.
|
| Take rockets for instance. Technology had to catch up to
| make them commercially viable to develop before they were
| commercially viable to operate.
| qq4 wrote:
| I would argue that in order to make great progress a nation
| needs great security.
| throwaway803453 wrote:
| I suspect you know this but it was ARPA until 1972:
| https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/arpa-name-change
| vmception wrote:
| Just assume its technologists that wanted to trick Congress
| into giving them free money
|
| You know you can get entire new agencies created for yourself
| by the same lobbying process that private sector uses for laws
| that benefit them
| 5faulker wrote:
| Human progress can be itself a trap too, but often we can only
| tell how history rolls out in retrospect.
| xvilka wrote:
| There are also IARPA[1] and ARPA-E[2] (and few others as well).
| ARPA-E is more "peaceful" agency.
|
| [1] https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs
|
| [2] https://arpa-e.energy.gov/
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Have they produced any breakthroughs?
| thawcixr4R wrote:
| IARPA has produced quite a few:
|
| - https://arstechnica.com/science/2010/12/sciences-
| breakthroug...
|
| - https://web.archive.org/web/20160312133713/http://www.del
| tek...
|
| - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-
| governmen...
|
| Those are just recent, unclassified ones.
|
| ARPA-E being the "peaceful industry" is a lot more open
| about private partnerships and generally just funds and
| provides oversight: https://web.archive.org/web/20100527161
| 846/http://www.energy...
|
| Some renewable fuel projects:
| https://arpa-e.energy.gov/news-and-media/blog-
| posts/refuelin...
|
| They're focused on renewables, lessening waste, etc. and
| have made some contributions in that space, just not as
| sexy as "borgsects" and "space lasers" like DARPA or
| advancing nation state surveillance and electronic warfare
| capabilities like IARPA.
|
| Everything is starting to get an ARPA though because of how
| it's somewhat allowed to cut through red tape for
| innovation which is hard for usgov:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01878-z
| speedybird wrote:
| > _It really sucks that there 's a 'D' for 'Defense' at the
| front of the acronym._
|
| Time for a new euphemism? The _U.S. Department of Defense_ was
| called the _U.S. Department of War_ until the end of the 1940s.
| Maybe this time we can call it the _Department of Peace_ since
| defense apparently doesn 't sound so good to people anymore.
| bobthechef wrote:
| > Horrible that national security is the reason for this, when
| it should be human progress.
|
| I don't understand the point of comments like this.
|
| Are you lamenting that human beings are such that such defense
| programs are necessary? Okay, I can sympathize with the general
| sentiment, but it's weird bringing that up in this specific
| context, especially since the tech in question is defensive.
| Yes, the need for defense is an unfortunate necessity given the
| reality of the world. No sense in pretending we can achieve
| some world where defense is not needed (we can of course try to
| cultivate cooperation and peace, but these are delicate
| arrangements that are constantly in flux). The most dangerous
| belief is believing you can achieve this utopian peace on earth
| because it makes you defenseless.
| Atlantium wrote:
| Many humans are quite aggressive. Pacifists are easily defeated
| by force. How can you have progress without security?
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| That's a straw man. The problem is tons of research and
| development won't happen without the state, but the main
| avenue the state funds _development_ (as opposed to research)
| is the military.
|
| There are many possible futures, and the world is highly non-
| ergodic, so there is a real cost here to biasing the
| development of technology in this matter. "Opportunity cost"
| doesn't do the concept justice.
|
| We don't have to stop military research, but we should bring
| up the Arpa-E and other such things to bring balance to the
| situation.
| eganist wrote:
| > That's a straw man. The problem is tons of research and
| development won't happen without the state, but the main
| avenue the state funds development (as opposed to research)
| is the military.
|
| The reason the op's comment is not actually a straw man
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) is because the
| first governments were developed out of a necessity to
| ensure a unity of peoples, the functioning of essential
| systems, and the protection of said peoples and systems.
| It's also why (for instance) the very first sentence of the
| US constitution has multiple touch points with national
| security:
|
| > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
| more perfect Union, *establish Justice, insure domestic
| Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the
| general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty* to
| ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
| Constitution for the United States of America.
|
| To summarize: defense is how so much of our monetarily non-
| viable societal advances take place because defense is
| primarily why governments exist at all. Even arpa-e (thanks
| for your edit--it's a good topic to bring up) exists to
| minimize our reliance on foreign energy, which is directly
| motivated by national security.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Come on, nobody knows how the first governments were
| developed. No written records exist.
| bobthechef wrote:
| We know what government is per se, regardless of the
| motives of the earliest state governments.
|
| But here we miss an important point which is that
| government is natural to human societies. The mistake is
| to think that government is some artificial construct at
| odds with human nature. Tribes are governed. Families,
| the smallest society, are governed. What we call
| "government" is just a modification of the most basic
| form of government of the family (kings, for example,
| were analogically fathers of the kingdom). The authority
| of the state is derived from the authority of parents
| through the principle of subsidiary.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| I agree with the spirit, but I prefer to reject the
| natural/artificial distinction. Societal and biological
| evolution can be a very "arbitrary" processes. Sometimes
| something just _happens_ , and is good enough, and sticks
| around. It's ultimately pretty subjective which things
| are "over-determined" and what wasn't (photosynthesis?
| agriculture? Something like eukaryotes from endo-
| symbiosis?), without being able to run a bunch of
| difficult experiments.
|
| Government and money are two institutions who's origins
| are much debated, but I would be find replacing them with
| something else, "self-perpetuation" replaces "natural"
| for me.
|
| I also so think this is dovetails with the best argument
| for reproducible bootstraps (as the follow up to
| reproducible builds). Without that, and like with our
| socials institutions, we have a a "historical bootstrap"
| we are constrained by. But by making an artificial
| bootstrap, we gain some freedom to tinker rather than
| being completely constrained by historical happenstance.
|
| With software it is clear what this looks like. With
| something like governance and money it is less clear.
| Certainly it's hard to imagine the John Locke style
| arguments bootstrapping from "primitive man" working out,
| as children must be raised _in_ a culture before they get
| the privileges of democracy, and are thus biased. But
| perhaps there are other more feasible ways.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Yeah, and as far as we can tell those first states
| massively sucked for almost everyone, too.
| echelon wrote:
| America is preventing Russia from antagonizing Europe, all
| the while we foot the bill for maintaining a capable
| military.
|
| China is a looming threat. If you don't see that, I don't
| know what I can say.
|
| Take away America's military and see what happens.
|
| Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Spratleys, 9-dash, water rights,
| Belt+Road indebtedness, Crimea, Ukraine...
|
| The US has to be strong out of necessity, and we get
| treated like shit for it. America is far from perfect, but
| it's Democratic and celebrates individualism and free
| speech. And I'm not persecuted for being LGBT. I'd hate to
| be in Russia or China where I'm told I can't think my own
| thoughts or have my own preferences.
|
| If we didn't have to pay so much for our military
| capabilities, maybe we'd all get to enjoy the same free
| health care and social programs that Europe, Canada, and
| other nations enjoy.
|
| Europe needs to carry some of this weight.
| throwaway210222 wrote:
| > America is preventing Russia from antagonizing Europe?
|
| Er, Ukraine is _in_ Europe. Out of 10, how would you rate
| the USA 's efforts at stopping Russia there so far?
| nradov wrote:
| "Europe" is probably the wrong term here. The USA's
| efforts to stop Russia from antagonizing _NATO_ members
| probably rates 8 /10.
|
| Part of Russia is also in Europe.
| dylan604 wrote:
| >Part of Russia is also in Europe.
|
| Care to explain?
|
| Edit: sorry, my brain read Europe as EU.
| throwaway210222 wrote:
| No, no.
|
| Ukraine paid the 'entry price' that was asked of them to
| be protected by USA, (and France, UK, Russia, China) by
| surrendering their nuclear weapons.
|
| This was a level of vulnerability and trust in third
| parties the good citizens of USA (and the others above)
| would never for a second countenance.
|
| The USA (and the others) willingly signed up to the deal
| [1]. And then failed to do any deterring when it was time
| to walk the talk.
|
| [1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
| _on_Securit...
| nradov wrote:
| That was a non-binding memo. If Ukraine wanted protection
| then they should have insisted on a mutual defense and
| non-aggression treaty.
| avmich wrote:
| > That was a non-binding memo.
|
| That's not the problem of Ukraine. The whole world sees
| what agreements like that are worth. Alternatively, if
| that would be the binding memo, and USA broke the
| "legally binding" promise, nobody would prosecute. The
| reaction of the world would be about the same.
|
| Bottom line: non-bindingness doesn't matter here.
| qaq wrote:
| The cat is out of the bag, Ukraine gave up 3d largest
| Nuclear arsenal on the promise that other nuclear powers
| mainly US would provide security. Everyone saw how that
| played out so a country would need to be suicidal not to
| start a nuclear program.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Just ask Gadhafi, Saddam and Kim Jung Un. Oh, right, only
| one can answer!
| tada131 wrote:
| > Ukraine gave up 3d largest Nuclear arsenal on the
| promise that other nuclear powers mainly US would provide
| security
|
| > mainly US
|
| You missing historical order here. Ukraine gave up their
| arsenal long before they decided to drop Russia as an
| ally and play with Europe/USA (latter happens after
| "Maidan"). So at given time point (when Ukraine signs
| memorandum) they done it with _only_ Russia' protection
| in mind (as there was single country in past and they're
| both slavic)
| qaq wrote:
| Please enlighten me on the order :) being a Ukrainian
| born in 70th
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Ukraine did not have as much of a choice as one would
| think. All the nukes were set up to be controlled by
| Moscow and it would have taken enough time to bypass the
| controls that the Russian army could feasibly have
| invaded or destroyed them.
| qaq wrote:
| They were not a major portion of Nuclear Weapons R&D and
| manufacturing were done in Ukraine including design and
| manufacture of majority of electronics including guidance
| systems, comms etc. as well as most top tear weapons were
| designed by Yuzhnoye Design Office (Dnepr Ukraine) and
| manufactured by Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant (Dnepr
| Ukraine)
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Ukraine indeed had a lot of manufacturing and design of
| nuclear weapons. Even then the control, launch and
| timings were all centralized in Moscow. They would have
| had to reverse engineer and hack a lot of it amidst
| attacks from Russia and perhaps even the US.
| nradov wrote:
| Ukraine never really possessed nuclear arsenal. There
| were nuclear weapons on their territory but they lacked
| full operational capability to employ them, and didn't
| have the technical infrastructure to maintain them
| without Russian support. Those capabilities could have
| been built out in time but it would have required
| significant resources.
| qaq wrote:
| Right casuse Yuzhny Machine-Building Plant and Yuzhnoye
| Design Office are not in Dnepr Ukraine.
| qaq wrote:
| Well could you point to the downside of this? From teflon
| to internet and countless other things you use every day
| that came out of DARPA and other def. research, what would
| have changed if it was funded via different model?
| AQuantized wrote:
| The problem is privileging technologies that have defence
| capabilities. There are likely countless ideas that could
| have similar success to DARPA projects if they had
| similar access to capital and state support.
|
| However, unless it can show off some military capability
| its funding can't be justified using the current model,
| leaving a gigantic subsections of technologies that could
| have similar innovative impact underserved by this level
| of support.
| bobthechef wrote:
| Without defense, the others cannot exist. Without
| defense, you cannot have a space within which you can
| securely do other work. So it cannot be a matter of
| competition but prioritization.
|
| Of course, we can criticize the massive amount of funding
| that goes to military contractors and the like
| (Eisenhower did). That's where the devil is: the
| military-industrial complex.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| "Defense" is the worst euphemism for the military. I wish
| it was still called the Department of War, which is
| honest.
|
| No one is saying abolish the military. In in fact we are
| saying some forms of state-military complexes might be
| _good_.
|
| It's the idea the state-driven industry _must_ be tied to
| defense and not anything else that 's the problem.
| WhisperingShiba wrote:
| One prominent one is that we use fear to control other
| countries instead of love.
|
| We spend so much human talent on defense, and sure we got
| a bunch of great technologies, but who's to say that we
| wouldn't have got them through some other avenue, later?
| Or perhaps even better technologies. I only speculate
| about the former, but I am quite certain a lot of the
| violence in the world has been caused by American Neo-
| colonialism and the terrorism we imposed upon the world.
| I am a betting man, and I bet that if we didn't fuck the
| Russians over so hard in WW2, that we wouldn't have had
| the cold war.
| merpnderp wrote:
| How did the US fuck over Russia in WWII? And are you
| aware of the billions of foreign aid many countries get
| from the US which is tied to issues like human rights,
| freedom, and democracy?
| WhisperingShiba wrote:
| The US let the Russians break themselves fighting the
| Eastern front while they invaded north Africa. The North
| African front was basically secure while Stalingrad was
| happening, and if the US applied more pressure to Germany
| in this period, as the Russian requested, the Germans
| probably would not have done so much population damage to
| Russia.
|
| Bitterness of this fueled a lot of ideological tensions.
| I was also taught that a large motivation of dropping the
| Bomb was to scare the Russians.
|
| Source: My Highschool education. Obviously, commentary on
| WWII is not objective, but I stand by my thesis,
| considering the actual action that the United States
| engages in in present times. Its in our history to be
| both ideologically driven and meta gamers.
| BenAufero wrote:
| I think the complaint is not that the government funds
| research for defense, it's that it could be funding
| energy, medical, etc research.
|
| I honestly don't know if I fully agree with his
| complaint, because I'm fairly sure the government does
| fund a lot of other research that isn't defense focused
| (see a lot of universities).
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| It funds many sorts of research but much less
| development. Research ideas do not develop themselves and
| so the story of modern academia is zillions of abandoned
| ideas.
| jack_riminton wrote:
| History shows that conflict has actually been rather
| useful for our development
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| That's circular -- it's important precisely because
| nothing else created the political will for that much
| state-run development.
|
| We should at least try to do non-military development,
| even if military dev will continue to have an edge.
| [deleted]
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| DARPA does lots of good things -- I have in fact worked
| on a DARPA project and enjoyed it. It's well run.
|
| But each of those things has to be contorted to have a
| military purpose, even if the main benefit we get in the
| end is not military-related.
|
| We should be able to research those things just because
| they are good, without laundering their best purpose. And
| we should open the door to other things that seem just as
| promising, but are harder to so launder.
|
| The fact I can't tell you the counterfactual is kind of
| the point -- most of us have no idea about the world-
| changing effects of the development not persued might be,
| just as the average person on the 1970s did not envision
| today's internet. The world of possible futures is simply
| too open ended.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Mach 5 is a bit faster than the Virgin Galactic flight (Mach 3).
| The folks on Inspiration reached ~ Mach 23.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Mach 5 is a bit faster than the Virgin Galactic flight (Mach
| 3)
|
| Mach 5 is _a lot_ faster than Mach 3, not only in relative
| terms (it 's 40% faster) but in absolute terms as well: around
| mach 5 is a regime change where the physics of flight get
| altered and interference effects become extremely significant,
| small changes to any surface component will have major impact
| on airflow, and thus will affect any component downstream from
| them.
|
| This makes air-breathing hypersonic devices a much bigger
| challenge than air-breathing supersonic ones.
| speedybird wrote:
| > _This makes air-breathing hypersonic devices a much bigger
| challenge than air-breathing supersonic ones._
|
| Indeed, and the Virgin Galactic vehicle isn't even either of
| those; it uses a hybrid rocket engine instead of breathing
| air. Hybrid rocket engines are fairly simple compared to
| liquid fueled rocket engines and are fairly safe compared to
| solid fuel rocket engines (although the fatal V.G. explosion
| some years ago should perhaps challenge this wisdom?) However
| they're probably a dead end technology and I don't think V.G.
| will ever get to orbit with them.
| ud7d7uegrvvy wrote:
| This is an instance where I think the domain (.mil) explains it
| pretty well. "Warfighter" and "warfighting" have been fairly
| common vernacular in the literature for awhile in the same way
| many fields have specialized jargon that may be largely
| synonymous with more common word choices. If it's unfamiliar it's
| probably because most people don't read military literature
| (despite often having strong opinions on military activity).
| skykooler wrote:
| I'm surprised it uses a hydrocarbon fuel. I thought that
| scramjets pretty much had to use pure hydrogen to keep the flame
| front fast enough to maintain ignition.
| ece wrote:
| For comparison: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The better comparison would be :
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon
| imglorp wrote:
| I'm curious about the PR strategies at play when governments
| either saber-rattle or keep secrets.
|
| Announcing breakthrough, surprising even, HAWC tech seems to clue
| in opponents about what sorts of countermeasures they'd want to
| start developing.
|
| By contrast, the US has held the high-altitude
| Aurora/SR-72/whatever tech very close to the vest for decades,
| when it's pretty much obvious that a new generation of high
| altitude replacements for U-2/SR-71/etc have been in the works or
| operational for a long time.
|
| Could this be economic trolling/baiting like what in the 80's,
| (in part?) contributed to the USSR bankrupting itself trying to
| keep up with cold war tech?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Given the fact that other governments are _fielding_ hypersonic
| scramjet missiles, I don 't think so.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Announcing breakthrough, surprising even, HAWC tech seems to
| clue in opponents about what sorts of countermeasures they'd
| want to start developing.
|
| It's pretty hard to hide hypersonic devices these days, and the
| concept is not exactly a secret: Russia and China are testing
| devices, and multiple other countries are working on developing
| their own.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Russia is not really testing devices per se anymore, they are
| preparing for mass production of hypersonic air breathing
| missiles. We don't know too much as for China.
| jhgb wrote:
| > they are preparing for mass production of hypersonic air
| breathing missiles
|
| ...or so they say. Of course they've been preparing for
| mass production of T-14 and Su-57 for quite some time now.
| Any day now they'll get them, I'm sure...
| sudosysgen wrote:
| T-14 is ready for mass production, it's just too
| expensive for the broke Russian government to buy enough
| of them.
|
| 3M22 unlike Su-57 has actually achieved it's goals. It
| has already been fired from ships and hit targets while
| achieving it's speed and altitude goals. Su-57 has not
| been able to achieve it's goals of being stealthy or
| being reliable so there is no reason it would be readied
| for mass production.
| zozin wrote:
| Hypersonics aren't new tech, they were tested and developed
| decades ago by the US. It's only recently that they've made a
| reappearance. Why do you think it took only 2 years for
| multiple military branches to spin up and test multiple
| separate missile designs? I would argue that Russia/China are
| playing the PR game in order for the US to appear behind in
| terms of missile technology.
| [deleted]
| newsclues wrote:
| There are offensive weapons that you advertise so that the
| enemy wastes resources to defend against.
|
| Having nukes for MAD is useless if no one knows you have a
| credible threat.
| lamontcg wrote:
| "Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if
| you keep it a secret!"
|
| I sorta suspect that this is more about the fact that the US
| knows this isn't a secret to China and Russia, so they're
| using it as an opportunity to brag domestically and get more
| funding.
| doovd wrote:
| > contributed to the USSR bankrupting itself trying to keep up
| with cold war tech?
|
| Source?
| Iv wrote:
| It is probably a reference to the SDI program, also called
| the Starwars program. Note that the economic impact on USSR
| is just speculation.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative.
| ..
| imglorp wrote:
| Yes, and yes that remark was speculative.
| qaq wrote:
| USSR was spending majority of it's GDP on mil., hard to
| imagine it was not a major factor.
| amelius wrote:
| US's answer to Russia's Zircon missile?
|
| https://www.military.com/equipment/weapons/why-russias-hyper...
|
| > U.S. Aegis missile interceptor systems require 8-10 seconds of
| reaction time to intercept incoming attacks. In those 8-10
| seconds, the Russian Zircon missiles will already have traveled
| 20 kilometers, and the interceptor missiles do not fly fast
| enough to catch up.
| [deleted]
| jhgb wrote:
| Not quite sure why interceptor missiles would have to "fly fast
| enough to catch up" unless you're shooting at a missile
| _departing_ from you (that is to say, unless you _actually_
| have to catch up with something).
| Shank wrote:
| You don't always have missile interceptors on the target
| land. Aegis is a mobile platform that can be deployed
| anywhere, and being overflown is a real possibility. For
| example, your missile defense platform might be off the coast
| several km, and the target to intercept flies over it aiming
| for the land behind it. In this scenario, any interceptor
| launched from that platform would have to "catch up."
| jhgb wrote:
| No, it would just have to reach the target interception
| area in time. That's not quite the same as "catching up",
| although of course the possible radius within which this
| area must be located shrinks as a function of speed ratios.
|
| And if by "flies over it", you meant the defense system as
| "it", that's still effectively point defense. Although this
| particular situation is unlikely for obvious reasons; the
| chance that your defense system would be exactly below the
| flight path of a missile while not being its target is
| small.
| trhway wrote:
| No. Russian Zircon is to deal with the next after nuclear
| strategic threat to Russia - US aircraft carrier groups. US
| pursue hypersonic weapons for different purpose - fast global
| much less than nuclear strike capability, ie. being able to
| strike any given target anywhere in like under half an hour.
| And thus not really much of hypersonic development in US - the
| cheap ballistic would do it better, especially with SpaceX
| driving down the cost of it. DOD is already excited that almost
| immediate delivery of 100ton, ie. instead of several C-130,
| payload by Starship anywhere in the world looks to be under
| $50M.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _US pursue hypersonic weapons for different purpose - fast
| global much less than nuclear strike capability_
|
| Ballistic missiles fly much, much faster than hypersonics.
| Speed is not their advantage.
| patagurbon wrote:
| I'm not convinced you want air breathing missiles for
| interception, you want solid rockets or something of that sort.
| There are Standard Missiles (SM-3) faster than Zircon, although
| they are for BMD defense.
|
| Faster ESSM/SM-2/SM-6 could be developed, and reaction time
| could be lowered.
|
| This is instead the equivalent to the Zircon.
| dragonelite wrote:
| Pretty much and a counter against Chinese Hypersonic glide
| vehicles.
| politician wrote:
| PSA: Before posting comments decrying military spending, please
| recall that our species now exists perpetually under threat of
| Mutually Assured Destruction from nuclear weapons hanging
| overhead.
|
| Your entire way of life is predicated on this fact.
| echelon wrote:
| Life has been good for so long that many people don't think
| about this.
|
| Power balances, allegiances, resource distribution, and entire
| economies are shifting. This is the real game. It's not about
| which smartphone supplier sells the most units. It's about
| projection of power to secure trade, resources, and national
| interests.
|
| The relative comfort of the post cold war era may not be
| perpetual. Our little Instagram dopamine bubbles divorce us
| from the cold, uncaring reality.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-10-03 23:00 UTC)