Slashdot Mirror
Japan Plans Test of 'New Concorde'
Steve Nixon writes "Japan's space agency plans to launch an arrow-shaped airplane at twice the speed of sound high over the Australian outback as early as next month in a crucial test of the country's push to develop a supersonic successor to the retired Concorde."
I saw this this morning and all I could see was the abandoned Republic XF-103.
Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars
Some sort of high altitude Concorde replacement is necessary.
:-)
My choice would be a spaceplane of sorts that takes parabolic trajectories. I've been hearing about plans of a craft of this type that would get you from NY to Tokyo in 45 minutes.
Burt Rutan WHERE ARE YOU?!
Sign me up.
Ignore Alien Orders
Wow, when was the last time the US did an experiment for that little money?
Of course, their last one crashed into the desert in a fireball...so perhaps a little extra money could have been put to good use.
A man with a gun is called a citizen. A man without a gun is called a subject.
This deserves to succeed. Slow travel along long distances is a pain in the butt. If they can make it consume about 3/4th of the fuel that Concorde needed, that it'll probably already make a profit.
The techonology is already there, they just need to optimise it. This is a great collaboration of the two frontiers of technology, Europe and Japan.
This will probably get modded down by those American Boeing supporters, who have made nothing but new versions of 40 year old aircraft.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
1) Concorde was an engineering marvel that never got stepped up with the times. Japan and France are betting they can make a much more efficient engine that would save on fuel consumption.
2) Large bodies of water. You can't fly the concord at full speed over the continental united states (pretty much squashing SST in America). But you can do it over the vastness of the pacific. If you shorten that route, business men and women will beat a path to your door, check book in hand. So would international parcel carriers.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
The United States definitely isn't ready for something like this. With so many airlines going bankrupt because of a super competitive market and absurd fuel costs, I don't see this taking off. (Pun fully intended) ;-)
I don't see too many people using this service, unless somehow they can keep the ticket prices reasonable. And even that isn't very likely, considering the plane is strapped to a rocket.
Calling Concorde a fiscal failure is a little deceptive. Sure, the British and French government's never got their investment back from British Airways and Air France, but they never wanted it back. European government often backs extremely expensive development of aviation projects without requiring the money is paid back. It annoys Boeing and Lockheed no end. But they do it to keep jobs and confidence going in the industry.
And besides, it's cool.
Sometimes you have to look beyond simply making a profit.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Besides, did they really make you eat 2 movies? Does it hurt?
Fleur de Sel
One might suspect the real purpose is more along the lines of keeping the aircraft industry ticking over at some minor level. There have been billions already spent on supersonic wind-tunnel tests. It's extremely unlikely any new design will be found that's even 10% more efficient than those already developed. And as long as oil is at the current prices, there's no chance the plane would be able to pay for itself, even at $15,000 a seat.
You praise this "new" Concorde for basically being a new, slightly improved version of the old one and then bash Boieng for doing pretty much the same thing with its own models. Come on, the Concorde is 40 years old too y'know
THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Yet another example of the rest of the world surpassing the US in a key engineering endeavor. We reward all the wrong things in America (think about reality TV, political correctness, the religous right, and so on) and then wonder why the rest of the world is churning out better engineers and scientists and why our technical jobs are being off-shored.
Even companies we think of as technology leaders may not be anymore. This quote:
A breakthrough in supersonic flight could help Japan leapfrog ahead in the aerospace field. The country, which does much of parts manufacturing for U.S.-based Boeing Co...
says just as much about what's going on as anything else in the article.
And, yes, I'm an American engineer.
You would rather they tested it over a populated area? It's the closest land area to Japan where they could test. Tests over the ocean might result in a loss of the vehicle, so they go to the Outback where they have lots of land with few people. Makes perfect sense.
This concept, the piggy-backed plane, is basically the original concept for launching the space shuttle. The idea was to launch the space shuttle aboard a high altitude, re-usable airplane (rocket powered). Once at a specific altitude, the space shuttle would detach and use it's own power to continue into space.
Congress killed it because of money problems.
Over 25 years later, we see the Japanese using the same technology as a commercial airliner. There is nothing really new here, only the implementation has changed.
Nonetheless, it's a good idea.
Some sort of high altitude Concorde replacement is necessary
The original concorde had a failed business model (granted, noise regulation around some American airports didn't help).
What has fundamentally changed since then, that is likely to make this more successful? I think on the contrary when new "regular" flights such as 787 (or the new Airbus) are somewhat faster and have much better communications (internet, etc), it will make the value proposition for a super-fast, super-expensive flight even more questionable.
Tor
Yeah, and the likes of Boeing and Lockheed get the equivalent of subsidies from the US government. There's no outside competition in their market (defense industry), which annoys Airbus no end ;)
The difference is, this one will be *cheaper*. Your car goes about as fast as one made in the 1960s too, but nobody would argue auto technology has stagnated since then.
Speaking of "robot controlled", I find it amazing that jets like the 747 don't have a way to detect a loss of cabin pressure and go to a lower altitude.
The plane that crashed in Greece flew on autopilot until it ran out of gas.
Had the autopilot detected the loss of cabin pressure and immediately dropped to the lowest safe altitude (10,000 if there aren't any mountains to run into, for instance), the pilots would have regained consciousness and 150+ people wouldn't have died (not to mention the loss of a very expensive piece of equipment).
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
You yourself mention the reason why this doesnt happen - terrain. An autopilot cannot conduct avoidance measures for other aircraft or terrain, so theres little point in having an auto descend capability, because if it happens over, say, Heathrow then you have a huge possibility of collisions with other aircraft, especially if one of them is going to make sudden, unexpected movements like dive 25,000 feet.
What you need to be asking is why didnt the cockpit oxygen systems work? You have 15 - 30 seconds to put an oxygen mask on at 35,000ft so how was it that neither Pilot or Flight Officer managed to get their (independant) mask on and descend the aircraft?
... if they incorporated research into sonic boom supression/elimination like this, or this.
I think finding a way to supress the sonic boom so that it can fly over any country is critical to the success of any future supersonic plane.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
"Calling Concorde a fiscal failure is a little deceptive" Didn't make money. Nothing deceptive there. "Sometimes you have to look beyond simply making a profit." Um, isn't making a profit what "fiscal" success is? Did you bother to look it up before you posted? Yes it's cool, yes it's a great research endeavor, but is WAS a fiscal failure, no way around that.
Yeah, and the likes of Boeing and Lockheed get the equivalent of subsidies from the US government. There's no outside competition in their market (defense industry), which annoys Airbus no end
7 5069&CFID=59782316
Don't be silly. There are PLENTY of foreign companies that sell to the US DoD. They usually have a presence in the American commercial market, but they do not need to be American companies.
For example, see British-based Rolls Royce - the largest customer for their defense division is now the pentagon:
http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=41
Oh no, I've heard of them.
But since we all know the airline industry makes such major changes with a cost-benefit analysis, they're going to do the math on how many planes are likely to have at-altitude decompression, how many people will die, and work out the total cost of the upgrades.
If the upgrades cost more than the insurance payout, no changes will get made. That's a simple fact about the aviation industry.
Sure, you could upgrade all aircraft so that their autopilot can do it's own collision detection, folow terrains, respond to decompressions safely and get you to a safe altitude, and probably quite a few other things. The simple solution of 'auto-pilot detects depressurization and descends' becomes complex in the face of all of the other stuff. And then it becomes massively expensive and entirely unlikely.
Again, in a risk-averse industry with low margins of profit, they will not pay for the upgrading to the super-deluxe model you describe.
As is often the case, economic realities often trump theoretical technical solutions.
Why I'm having this discussion with someone logged in as an AC, I'll never know.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Insightful my ass! Ever heard of EADS? The number one defense contractor in Europe is the parent of Airbus. So tell me, how does Boeing and Lockheed benefit where Airbus doesn't?
Airbus was a joint venture of Britain's BAE Systems and EADS-- combined, they are the world's largest defense contractor. Whiners who complain about Boeing and Lockmart's defense contracts as subsidies should well remember that. Besides, before Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas in the mid 90s, they were a distant second player in the defense market.
Someone who doesn't like him probably got mod points. And think about it, you're dealing with teenagers here, can you get more petty and vindictive? And just to prove my point, this post will get modded troll.
I'm an aviation buff and pilot, so naturally I agree with you that supersonic travel for the masses is a desirable goal.
The one constant about flight that you can depend on is that airspeed is inversely proportional to the amount of fuel you burn -- the faster you go, the more fuel you're burning for less increases in speed. This is why airliners almost *NEVER* fly at their maximum cruise speed...they fly at the airspeed that will get them to their destination using the least amount of expensive Jet-A.
Efficiency increases in the development of jet engines has mostly stalled and now the airline manufacturers are focusing on materials to improve efficiency (i.e. the Boeing 7E7 long-range aircraft).
The free market will decide the type of planes people will travel on. This is why Concorde is no longer flying. As beautiful as she was, she was a government project funded by European tax payers developed only for the purpose of showing European ingenuity and technological innovation. I would have loved to have flown in Concorde, but the airplane never recouped the billions spent developing/maintaining her. The project was a net loss -- big time.
Perhaps there is some future in Scramjet/Ramjet engines, but in today's market with high fuel prices it's all about fuel consumption per passenger per mile.