Talk:DARPA Falcon Project

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Aviation: Aircraft Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Spaceflight Start‑class

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Removing POV tag

I am removing the "this neutrality is disputed" tag, as the user who added it gave no rational as to its addition. If any reason why the neutrality of the article should be disputed are given, please discuss them here on the talk page.--Sp. Furius Fusus 22:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isinglass and Rheinberry

These subjects are presented without any source or additional information to provide evidence to their existence. The sentence that references them should also be corrected for structure and punctuation. 170.35.224.64 14:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 videos of HTV-3

I'd like to share 2 videos of the HTV-3 I've found on YouTube. They appear to be a promotional video from DARPA, divided into 2 parts by the uploader.

What do you think of these videos? Do you know where the original (uncut) video can be downloaded from? Should these 2 videos be added to the "External links" section of the article, with a sub-header called "Video links"? --Henrickson ^{User talk | Contribs} 05:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took screencaps of Part 2 and added them into the article. --Henrickson ^{User talk | Contribs} 23:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those video appear to be official from DARPA, making them works on the US government and public domain. Maybe those videos are on darpa.mil. I'm not finding any videos there yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make "blackswift" link to this article

If you type blackswift in the wiki search box, nothing comes up. Surely this is the best place to come? -ggm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.69.148 (talk) 05:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on "Blackswift" (upper case B) worked. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images are Renders

It should be noted that all images shown in this article are 3d conceptual renders, and and not real photographs. Skaz (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal

The current name, "Force Application and Launch from Continental United States", is quite cumbersome and really doesn't reflect the most common way the program is referred to either by DARPA, the contractors nor by the major media. Therefore, I propose renaming this article DARPA Falcon. Comments? AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say FALCON Project. --Henrickson ^{User talk | Contribs} 06:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd considered that, too, and I'd still be open to it, except that none of the literature actually uses all caps, as if it was an acronym. MOS would suggest the most common usage, especially in this case, the most common by the official agency. Thoughts? AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you call it "DARPA Falcon Project" while the USAF is also involved? --84.63.127.178 (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's what all the sources call it. While the USAF is involved to a degree, DARPA is the project's sponsor and funder. It's like saying that a 747 is a Boeing even though there are other companies involved in its production. AKRadecki^Speaketh 14:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Deindent) I've now renamed this, and reworded the intro to reflect it. As I'm getting ready to add more content on the Falcon launch system development, I've come to realize that all the material I've come across on Blackswift refers to this as a separate follow-on project, rather than part of the Falcon project. As the refs seem to support this view, I propose splitting off the majoritiy of the Blackswift text into its own article, while leaving a brief summary here. Any objections? AKRadecki^Speaketh 18:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be different project, but I'm not clear on it. Splitting off Blackswift seems reasonable if there's enough info. If there's not enough to make a long stub of an article with enough Falcon info left here, Bleckswift should stay here in a seperate section, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganizing

I tried reorganizing the main section in this article so it is generally in chronological order as I understand it. The background/cost section is long and seems to ramble a bit. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I've got some good sourced data to add, just haven't had the time, what with the WK2 rollout and trying to write about it. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-41

In the article it is said that the X-41 already flew in 2005? Is that true? What's the source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.63.127.178 (talk) 18:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfocused -- HTV-2?

The article as written is very confusing, with a good mix of alphabet soup and unclear emphasis. Which probably just reflects the project as it exists. But I think that now that the HTV-2 has actually flown, whereas the HTV-3X has been cancelled, the article should be changed to focus more on the HTV-2, which isn't even pictured in the article as it stands, whereas we have several renders of the cancelled HTV-3X. Alternately a new article could be budded off for the HTV-2 since it now seems more important than the rest of the project. I don't believe the existing article titled HTV-2 refers to the same craft since it is Japanese rather than American, but this is all rather unclear to me. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article could probably be organized better, sure. There does not seem to be enough detailed public info and images on the HTV-2/HCV currently to split off a separate article that is more than a stub. Yes, HTV-2 covers an unrelated Japanese spacecraft that will resupply the International Space Station. -Fnlayson (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approximate size and weight

Can somebody mention any known basic physical information about the tested aircraft? Nobody can tell from the article whether these things are two feet long or 200 feet long, for instance. Thanks. CountMacula (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Here is a source with some decent context on the program, as of the day before the test flight of the second HTV-2: Wired Magazine. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Test flight has been delayed

Due to weather at the Pacific test range, the test flight of the second HTV vehicle has been delayed: [1] N2e (talk) 04:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second HTV-2 has crashed

Article: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-08-hypersonic-glider-contact-lost.html