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."

Comments

Hmmm (from TFA)

[BlackCobra43]

If the 1.1 billion yen ($10 million) experiment works, Japan's space agency plans to follow up with similar tests of a jet-powered craft, Kyodo News Agency reported.

I, for one, think it would be infinitly cooler to fly in a rocketship than in a crummy supersonic jet.

Seen it already

[Anonymous Coward]

This was seen in the skies over Tokyo in the 1960s. At least the beak is the same.

Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[N8F8]

It ain't cool unless it got a robot.

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[DigitalRaptor]

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).

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[Richard_at_work]

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?

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[David Horn]

To quote from an experienced airline pilot:

"If the depressurization is catastrophic, i.e., a structural failure, like a hatch or cargo door, the flight crew is totally surprised and a little bit shocky. The Captain and co-pilot experience strange physiological events and are thinking, "What the heck is going on?" At an altitude of 34,000 feet, the next thought had better be, "Oh s***t, I need to get on oxygen right now!" If they do not, then it is lights out.

2. Altitude chambers are realistic training devices, but the students are expecting the event and are anxious to see how long they can maintain useful consciousness. Most young pilots can maintain 20-30 seconds. In a real event, lung pressure is sharply reduced as the pilots gasp in surprise. While the brain is in denial, the clock is running, and unconsciousness is only a few seconds away.

3. Since the beginning of high altitude airline operations (60 years or so), crew oxygen bottle valves have been mistakenly turned off, or rather, failed to be turned on when that bottle is replaced for normal maintenance or refill. Part two of this scenario- the pilots fail to find the closed valve during preflight. Then, when the crew tries to use their quick donning masks... oops!"

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[ukleafer]

They do, if they suspect one of the packs to be out of order. As soon as you go above 10,000ft in those circumstances, one of the pilots should be wearing a mask.

Asking one of the pilots to wear one at all times while airborne is like asking you to wear a lifejacket while you're taking a walk in the park, just in case you fall into the lake.

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[ptbarnett]

Why don't they require at least one pilot to have a mask on at all times?

The FAA does, unless the mask can be placed on the pilots face, sealed, and supplying oxygen within 5 seconds.

However, wearing a mask is required if either pilot leaves the cockpit (for a bio-break) above approximately 25,000 MSL.

The rules are here:

http://www.flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_12 1-333.html

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[tyler_larson]

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 technology is there, but they decided that it's safer not to implement it that way. Sensors do alert the pilot if the cabin pressure exceeds safe levels, but the plane never takes control away from the pilot.

Consider the facts:

• The highest "safe" (i.e. allowed) altitude without pressurization or oxygen is 12,500 feet.
• Mountain peaks are often thousands of feet above that level.
• Pilots have ample time (i.e. useful consciousness) to put on their oxygen masks in the event of depresurization. (Ever been in an aircraft that depressurized at altitude? I have. There's time.)
• If the plane is flying so high that the pilot won't have plenty of time to assess the situation and put on his mask, one of the two must wear his oxygen mask at all times.
• In the event that some major system on the aircraft malfunctions (like the pressurization system), the chances of another system malfunctioning because of some related damage are higher. In that case, having the aircraft make course adjustments on its own without the pilot's input could cause even more disasters.

All things considered, the existing system was deemed the safest. We may never know the full details of the recent crash in Greece, but we can be sure that there was more to the story than just that.

That being said, I would also point out that there is some merit to your argument. There have been enough crashes like the one in Greece to warrant further investigation--yes, it has happened multiple times that jets have depressurized and flown on autopilot until they run out of fuel. And in some of these cases, fighter jets have intercepted these craft in the air and found things like frosted over windows and a fully unconscious crew. Spooky.

The technology exists (though, admittedly not in the older 737s). Modern civilian aircraft can navigate between any two points on their earth avoiding terrain and reporting their location and status to ATC, all without pilot intervention. If the airport and aircraft are properly equipped (most aren't), they can even land unassisted by the pilot. But while we tend to tolerate some degree of human error in almost everything, if some undamaged computer or mechanical component fails to perform adequately, inquiries and lawsuits always follow.

The equipment to do all this is frighteningly expensive, but available. It's reliable, but not foolproof. But then again, the same goes for a human pilot.

So is it worth it? I don't know.

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[gstoddart]

Never heard of RADAR or TCAS, have you? I honestly can not think of one modern airline-type aircraft in existance without TCAS.

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.

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[DigitalRaptor]

I can think of at least one golfer and his family, a politician and his family, and a plane full of Greeks that all died when there wasn't ample time. In each case the plane just kept on cruising at altitude, was observed by escort planes that could do nothing, then ran out of gas and crashed.

So I don't think there is "ample" time, though maybe sufficient time under normal to optimal conditions (both pilots in their seat, everything goes according to plan, etc).

I agree the technology exists while the profit motive doesn't.

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[Viol8]

Their brains wouldn't swell up since they're not exposed directly to the atmosphere. They have this thing called The Skull surrounding them you know.

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[GlassHeart]

The equipment to do all this is frighteningly expensive, but available. It's reliable, but not foolproof.

The Tomahawk missile can fly several hundred miles at very low altitude, avoiding terrain all the while, and hit a target within a few feet of error margin. Current production units cost under $600,000 per missile (and you don't need the rest of the missile), which might be less than the life insurance of one passenger.

Another alternative comes from Predator UAV technology, which I believe allows a ground station within line-of-sight to land the unmanned craft by remote control. The system cost is $40M, but the system is designed to be mobile, so you don't even have to equip every airport with it.

I do agree with you that any machine that can take over the controls from the pilots must be approached with extreme care. I just think that the system is not so much "frighteningly expensive", but too expensive for the "few" lives it will save. We don't like to admit that, of course.

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[Viol8]

I'm not sure it did run out of fuel. It was supposed to land at Athens and it only crashed about 30 miles away from it. Unless the pilot intended to land in Athens flying on nothing but fumes I suspect it crashed for another reason. Plus there were some big fires in the crash , things that tend to be caused by lots of fuel.

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[DigitalRaptor]

It flew to Athens, over Athens, past Athens, turned toward the sea and entered a holding pattern for an hour, then ran out of gas.

The fire was a brush fire ignited by the crash. Planes and their contents are surprisingly flammable, even without excess fuel.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280 ,-5219231,00.html

Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled?

[hoofie]

Some speculation would indicate that there may have been problems with the oxygen supply to the two pilots.

If this was inoperative, then they may well have passed out whilst trying to figure out what was wrong or even trying to get to a secondary source [e.g. portable bottles held in the cabin].

There was an incident on board an aircraft in 1989 over the English Channel [I've lost the link to the official report]. The aircraft cabin altitude rose; the captain passed out; the first officer took control; the flight attendant on seeing the captain lying on the floor tried to help and passed out as well. The first officer managed to carry out an emergency descent to lower altitude and all survived. It took 4 mins to descend from the flight level (35,000ft+ I recall) down to some 12,000 feet as you cannot just throw the plane into a dive - it has to be controlled to avoid overspeed etc.

The reason for the depressurisation ? - which wasn't explosive but was fast enough - a fatigue crack hidden behind a door seal.

This is the next step

[Crixus]

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.

Re:This is the next step

[Bastian]

I'm curious why you use the term 'necessary.'

The Concorde, having come into existence decades before the explosion of the Internet and stuff like videoconferencing, was rolled out at a time when business and government folks (the only ones for whom it could ever be anything but a luxury) had a much greater need for a supersonic jetliner, and yet only sixteen were ever built. The entire project would almost certainly have been a complete and dismal failure had there not been massive subsidies from the French and British governments keeping the thing in the air.

There in the end, the Concorde was having a hard time filling seats - yes, the crash in 2000 and Sep. 11 played into this, but my guess is that the demand was already dropping, and these events just exacerbated the situation.

This Japanese supersonic jetliner is about as necessary as the Bugati Veyron or a jet turbine powered motorcycle.

Re:This is the next step

[dtmos]

You obviously do not fly across the Pacific very often. Realizing that you're flying at 550 mph when technology to fly at 1400 mph was introduced in the 1970s becomes really excruciating after about 10 hours into the flight.

To the point that you'd pay a significant surcharge to already be at your destination, asleep in your hotel room.

The high fuel consumption difficulty mentioned in TFA is what kept Concorde off of the Pacific routes; if that is resolved as the Japanese intend, I see a nice market for this plane.

Re:This is the next step

[Brando_Calrisean]

Dude, that happens with subsonic planes too. Face it - if something goes wrong up there, you're pretty much screwed, regardless.

Re:This is the next step

[Tyler Eaves]

Huh?

I don't think I can think of a *single* incident in which an aircraft has broken up during supersonic flight, excepting the early, fatally flawed attempts in the 1940s. There is counter-evidence as well. The SR-71s would sometimes stall an engine at Mach 3, resulting in a hard yaw to the side. That never broke the wings off any of 'em. Plane crashes basically happen only during takeoff and landing. Cruise flight is *incredibly* safe. You're up above the birds, the majority of the weather, etc. Besides that, losing your wings or half of the fuselage at 500mph is no LESS fatal than at 1500.

Re:This is the next step

[Tyler Eaves]

Supersonic flight means that a miniscule problem can sometimes cause the whole damned thing to disintegrate in mid-air into scrap metal.

That's simply bullshit. There is NOTHING magical about being supersonic. In fact, drag (and thus stress on the airframe) actually dips DOWN quite a bit just through the sound barrier. This is why you see few if any planes that just barely break mach 1. If it has enough thrust to go supersonic at all, it'll get to at least mach 1.7 or so. Mach 2 is NOT rocket science. This is not the shuttle re-entering at Mach 30.

Re:This is the next step

[Shotgun]

Never say never.

Someone posted a story from one of the SR-71 test pilots just a few days ago to my local EAA chapter's mail list. The pilot was recanting a test in the early days of the test program, when the engine stall was still a major problem. His engine stall on a maneuver, and the result hard yaw put him into a spin.

To make a long story short, the wind forces shredded the airplane from around him and he landed with his ejection seat intact from an initial altitude of 78,000 ft. He gave a lot of credit to his altitude suit for saving his life. His co-pilot died with a broken neck before reaching the ground.

Re:This is the next step

[vought]

And realizing that planes occasionally will violently break up into little pieces at supersonic speeds, with no hope of survival, when some tiny thing goes just a tiny bit wrong... makes you realize that getting to Japan in four hours might not be so important after all.

Like when the Concorde lost part of it's rudder at Mach 2 over the Atlantic and no one knew until a few minutes before landing?

Drag (the force that pulls badly-fastened cargo doors off of 747s) is reduced at Supersonic speed. The Concorde wasn't lost during supersonic flight, and a supersonic passenger aircraft has never been lost in revenue service because of structural failure.

The Concorde went down shortly after takeoff because a piece of metal on the runway pierced a fuel tank and started a catastrophic fire. In other words, the accident happened when most aircraft accidents happen: during takeoff or landing, the two most dangerous parts of any flight, no matter the aircraft's type, purpose, or cruising speed.

None of the giants of supersonic flight (MiG-25, SR-71, A-12, Concorde) were ever lost due to structural failure during supersonic flight - so your post about "no hope of survival" when a supersonic plane breaks up makes little sense to me. There's little hope of survival in anything that happens to come apart at over 20,000 feet.

I must admit that after reading your post, it was tempting to advise you to have a rectocraniotomy, but I think Slashdot needs more info and less flaming. I hope my simple presentation of facts will enlighten you.

Re:This is the next step

[modecx]

Hey, as long as you're willing to take out a bank loan to fly then I guess that's your problem. Concorde cost 1,000 per person per hour to fly--then France and Britian took about half of that in the shorts. The program was never meant to be profitable, it was a demonstration of technology, ability, and the economic superiority of the west.

It will never be profitable to fly a supersonic airliner. It's barely profitable to fly a giant sky bus, and the aircraft manufactuers realize this. They're building even bigger planes to take advantage of economy of scale and the increased efficiency of ginormous engines--and they're aimed specifically at the pacific routes.

The only way supersonic travel will ever be profitable is in the Gulfstream V size class. Get one of those to go Mach 2, and people/businesses that can afford $25,000/hour will eat it up like mad.

Re:This is the next step

[Bergie3218]

Thought you might enjoy reading this article sent to me days ago! LONG, BUT A GREAT READ! Bill Weaver : SR-71 BREAKUP Among professional aviators, there's a well-worn saying: Flying is simply hours of boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror. And yet, I don't recall too many periods of boredom during my 30-year career with Lockheed, most of which was spent as a test pilot. By far, the most memorable flight occurred on Jan. 25, 1966. Jim Zwayer, a Lockheed flight test reconnaissance and navigation systems specialist, and I were evaluating those systems on an SR-71 Blackbird test from Edwards AFB, Calif. We also were investigating procedures designed to reduce trim drag and improve high-Mach cruise performance. The latter involved flying with the center-of-gravity (CG) located further aft than normal, which reduced the Blackbird's longitudinal stability. We took off from Edwards at 11:20 a.m. and completed the mission's first leg without incident. After refueling from a KC-135 tanker, we turned eastbound, accelerated to a Mach 3.2-cruise speed and climbed to 78,000 ft., our initial cruise-climb altitude. Several minutes into cruise, the right engine inlet's automatic control system malfunctioned, requiring a switch to manual control. The SR-71's inlet configuration was automatically adjusted during supersonic flight to decelerate air flow in the duct, slowing it to subsonic speed before reaching the engine's face. This was accomplished by the inlet's center-body spike translating aft, and by modulating the inlet's forward bypass doors. Normally, these actions were scheduled automatically as a function of Mach number, positioning the normal shock wave (where air flow becomes subsonic) inside the inlet to ensure optimum engine performance. Without proper scheduling, disturbances inside the inlet could result in the shock wave being expelled forward--a phenomenon known as an "inlet unstart." That causes an instantaneous loss of engine thrust, explosive banging noises and violent yawing of the aircraft--like being in a train wreck. Unstarts were not uncommon at that time in the SR-71's development, but a properly functioning system would recapture the shock wave and restore normal operation. On the planned test profile, we entered a programmed 35-deg. bank turn to the right. An immediate unstart occurred on the right engine, forcing the aircraft to roll further right and start to pitch up. I jammed the control stick as far left and forward as it would go. No response. I instantly knew we were in for a wild ride. I attempted to tell Jim what was happening and to stay with the airplane until we reached a lower speed and altitude. I didn't think the chances of surviving an ejection at Mach 3.18 and 78,800 ft. were very good. However, g-forces built up so rapidly that my words came out garbled and unintelligible, as confirmed later by the cockpit voice recorder. The cumulative effects of system malfunctions, reduced longitudinal stability, increased angle-of-attack in the turn, supersonic speed, high altitude and other factors imposed forces on the airframe that exceeded flight control authority and the Stability Augmentation System's ability to restore control. Everything seemed to unfold in slow motion. I learned later the time from event onset to catastrophic departure from controlled flight was only 2-3 sec. Still trying to communicate with Jim, I blacked out, succumbing to extremely high g-forces. The SR-71 then literally disintegrated around us. From that point, I was just along for the ride. My next recollection was a hazy thought that I was having a bad dream. Maybe I'll wake up and get out of this mess, I mused. Gradually regaining consciousness, I realized this was no dream; it had really happened. That also was disturbing, because I could not have survived what had just happened. Therefore, I must be dead. Since I didn't feel bad--just a detached sense of euphoria--I decided being dead wasn't so bad after all. AS FULL AWARENESS took hold, I realized I was not dead, but had somehow separated from the airplane.

Only 10 million?

[TurdTapper]

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.

This is Japan we're talking about

[BlackCobra43]

The entire PLANE is probably a robot. With superfluous robot crew and robot stewardesses with creepy hands.

Re:This is Japan we're talking about

[Drooling Iguana]

No, no, the plane turns into a robot.

Re:This is Japan we're talking about

[LifesABeach]

Rocket Plane: "GodzillaX, at 100 miles in the slot, request ILS approach"
Tokyo Tower: "Toy Plane 2, you are cleared for downwind approach behind the Mothera 747 traveling heavy."

Japan's FAA is going to have my butt on a sword if something like this happens for real. :0)

Also; It would cool if the booster took the aircraft up to an altitude of 60 miles before letting go.

I don't get it.

[bigtallmofo]

The Concorde first flew in 1969 and became a symbol of French and European industrial acumen. But the planes were retired from commercial service in October 2003, never having recouped the billions of tax dollars invested in them.

The article did a good job writing up all the past failures of this Japanese program, but one thing that was conspicuously absent was a rationale for why Japan is doing this at all. Considering the fiscal failure of the Concorde, I would expect any article on this topic to include what the "next generation" plans to do differently other than just niftier technology.

Re:I don't get it.

[onion2k]

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.

Re:I don't get it.

[Malc]

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 ;)

Re:I don't get it.

[quanticle]

Well, if it never turned a profit, or even broke even, I think "fiscal failure" is a pretty appropriate term. I agree with you in the sense that sometimes fiscal failures are necessary to develop and refine technology, as with the Concorde. But that doesn't change the fact that the venture didn't turn a profit. It also doesn't change the fact that the venture may have had successes in a non-financial sense (i.e. advancement of technology, boost of national prestige, etc.)

Perhaps, instead of fiscal failure, we could use the term "financial nonperformer".

Re:I don't get it.

[ifwm]

"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.

Re:I don't get it.

[Jherek Carnelian]

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

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=417 5069&CFID=59782316

Re:I don't get it.

[amabbi]

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.

there's a need for it

[PureCreditor]

i think there's a decent-size market of businessmen between North American and Japan/China that will appreciate the HUGE time savings when frequently traveling across the Pacific Ocean. Instead of having to eat 3 meals, 2 movies, and 1 hibernation, a businessman can depart San Francisco at 9am, have brunch on the plane, browse the internet and work on polishing his powerpoint presentation, take a quick 1.5 hr nap, and arrive at Shanghai at 7:30am, refreshed, and ready to meet with his business partners.

what we need is a Concorde-replacement, not more bureaucracy and political bickering.

Re:there's a need for it

[matt4077]

well, developing it in japan doesn't mean that they are planning to use it (only) there. There is certainly a market for this between all three major economic areas: North America, Europe, Asia. The Japanese will certainly be happy to sell it.

Besides, did they really make you eat 2 movies? Does it hurt?

Not really very impressive.

[onion2k]

This new plane is supposed to be able to carry 300 people at Mach 2. Concorde's top speed was Mach 2 as well. It was designed over 40 years ago.

I'd have thought we'd be capable of at least twice that by now.

Re:Not really very impressive.

[pohl]

The Concorde carried 100 passengers at Mach 2, or 50 passengers per Mach...this new plane will do three times the number of passengers-per-Mach as the Concorde, which works out to a rate of advancement of 3.75 passengers-per-mach-per-year.

I just wrote that because I thought passengers-per-Mach was an amusing metric.

Re:Not really very impressive.

[Have Blue]

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.

Re:Not really very impressive.

[mikerich]

This new plane is supposed to be able to carry 300 people at Mach 2. Concorde's top speed was Mach 2 as well. It was designed over 40 years ago.

The designers of Concorde looked at Mach 3 flight but were constrained by the materials available at the time. The only material up to Mach 3 were various titanium alloys of which neither Britain nor France had much experience, so they chose aluminium alloys. Aluminium has a much lower tolerance to high temperatures, so they had to reduce the maximum speed to keep frictional heating low.

I wonder if the same applies today? Titanium was used on the SR71, but that was a plane notorious for leaking fuel when sitting on the ground - not the most inspiring sight for wannabe passengers!

But how much fuel does it use?

[tepples]

How much energy does it take to break the sound barrier? I'm curious because I know that relatively cheap oil (< $200 per barrel) will end in a few decades, and there don't yet seem to be any renewable jet fuels. After it becomes too expensive to extract oil from the ground, how are airlines going to keep their birds in the air?

Re:But how much fuel does it use?

[Radres]

Yes but according to this book, people have been saying that oil will run out in 10 years since the discovery of the internal combustion engine. No one really knows how much oil is left in the ground. I find lifeaftertheoilcrash.com to be a bit sensationalist and it seems that its author is mostly interested in selling doomsday books, which will always sell. Running out of oil is of course still a large issue that we must prepare for, but just because that might someday happen, those of us who have no control over such things have no reason to not live there life as normal.

Re:But how much fuel does it use?

[msobkow]

Back in high school the military had brought over one of their choppers. The pilot told us one of the "cool" things about the jet turbine engine was that it could run on almost anything in a pinch, including alcohol, diesel, and gasoline.

That being the case, I don't see why you couldn't use biodiesel or methanol/ethanol to fuel a jet engine. There might be issues with the power curve for some models, but that likely just means changing the design parameters for future aircraft.

Re:But how much fuel does it use?

[arturov]

The issue isn't one of running out of oil, but one of production decreasing. Nobody has said that oil is running out, in fact we'll probably never extract all the fossil fuel from the ground. The world's economy depends on the assumption that there will be more fuel tomorrow than there is today. This assumption cannot hold forever, and there are some indications that worldwide petroleum production is close to peak. In fact, oil production in the US, UK and other nations has already peaked. This, coupled with huge increases in Chinese fuel consumption, have led to the current increase in oil prices. I am not an environmentalist, but I realize that serious steps must be taken to mitigate the economic and geopolitical consequences.

With all that in mind, I have a hard time justifying a supersonic commercial airplane, especially when our airlines are already struggling to operate. For example, Delta airline's stock price has fallen from over $75 per share in 1999 to $1.41. Granted, 9/11 did affect air travel, but the number of airline passengers has since surpassed 9/11 levels. Fuel prices are currently gutting the airlines. How would such an aircraft help an airline continue to move people and goods by returning a profit?

Re:But how much fuel does it use?

[twiddlingbits]

My "2" key is a bit sticky and does not work. I didn't see the missing 2 until I posted it. It's bad form to reply to my own post, I know some smarty pants would correct it. If you can PROVE Global Warning beyond a doubt just as the laws of physics are, then do so, otherwise shut up about it. When we have a planet that is 4 BILLION years old and we have a record of perhaps 1-5 Million years, that is NOT significant. Ice Core samples, volcanic rocks, etc give some readings but you only see data published to support GW, never does anyone tout results that disprove it since that would cut off thier research funds. It is a self-perpetuating lie. Here is a quote from the Global Hydrology and Climate Center, University of Alabama - Huntsville, USA who have been running experiments from 1978 to present refining thier techniques and publishing peer reviewed papers on the data and analysis. "The new global trend from Dec 1978 to July 2005 is +0.123 C/decade, or +0.035 C/decade warmer than v5.1. This particular error is within the published margin of error for LT of +/- 0.05 C/decade (Christy et al. 2003)." Also look at this chart: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/land_o_ C.all You'll see that the raw data and you can see there is very little to indicate a warming. The data goes up and down, with overall a tiny positive trend but not significant. In case you live in the UK here is something about warming there: Tony Blair appears convinced by the enhanced greenhouse hypothesis but atmospheric CO2 levels do not fit changes in the CET [Central England Temperature] at all well. For example, from 1695 to 1733, the annual mean temperature rose from 7.25 C to 10.47 C at a time when there was negligible change in atmospheric CO2 - the running mean did not return to such readings until the 1990s. On the other hand, annual mean temperatures fell from 10.62 C in 1949 to 8.47 C by 1963, a period when atmospheric CO2 levels were measurably rising. Greenhouse does not appear to be exerting a strong influence on the CET.

Finally.

[Walterk]

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.

Our technical peak was the 60's?

[HairyCanary]

When was the last time we sent someone to the moon? The 60's. And the last time a supersonic plane was developed? The 60's. Is it just money? Why else did we begin to achieve notable success in aerospace in the 60's, and then backslide to where we are now? By 2020 we hope to be back where we were in the 60's. Great.

Re:Our technical peak was the 60's?

[Ced_Ex]

When was the last time we sent someone to the moon? The 60's. And the last time a supersonic plane was developed? The 60's. Is it just money? Why else did we begin to achieve notable success in aerospace in the 60's, and then backslide to where we are now? By 2020 we hope to be back where we were in the 60's. Great.

I believe the drop in development seems to be curiously related to the drop in the use of slide-rulers and the subsequent usage of electronic calculators.

Quick, someone smart research this and back me up.

Re:Our technical peak was the 60's?

[RexRhino]

Neither the Concord nor the Moon Landings were economicly sustainable. They were impressive acomplishments, but neither one really served too much of a purpose for society at large. They were more propoganda stunts and political gestures than the start of any real industry.

It seems like it is possible to push ahead on certain technologies by throwing massive amounts of money at it, but unless the economy and society are ready for that technology, then it is going to fall flat on its face.

If some pressing need for a supersonic airliner would emerge (right now, thanks to telecommunications, we need a supersonic airliner less than in the 60s), or we discovered something terrificly valuable on the moon, then no doubt those technologies would be revived very quickly.

In terms of this new supersonic liner, with fuel prices skyrocketing, people freaking out about terrorism in the airline industry, and with customers that want cheap cheap cheap, I think the new supersonic liner will be no better than the last one.

Why can't they take that money and research how to make more ergonomic and comfortable seating? THAT is something airlines desperatly need!

Two reasons:

[mekkab]

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.

Re:Two reasons:

[quanticle]

The Atlantic is a very large body of water as well. Yet businesspeople did not beat a path to the old Concorde's doorstep looking for high-speed transatlantic flights. Why will the Pacific market be any different?

As for cargo, the original Concorde only had room enough for 100 or so passengers. That doesn't translate into a whole lot of cargo space. Considering the fact that cargo usually doesn't need to travel as quickly as people (even the most perishable cargo can last a few hours with proper packing), the concept of SST as a cargo hauler is almost a sure bust.

Price to fly

[NelsonM]

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.

Very curious.

[Ancient_Hacker]

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.

Supersonic security lines?

[BucksCountyCycleGeek]

And I for one would like to welcome our Mach 2 Japanese overlords...

Hey. That one actually seemed plausible. Oh well...

OK, seriously. Yes it's all well and good to go Mach 2 but this sounds like another pork barrel (rice basket?) project on the part of the Chinese. Aircraft speed is increasingly becoming less relevant to total travel time. Traveling to Asia will always take the better part of a day. There will always be an hour's drive to the airport, a two hour security buffer time, then 1 hour of customs on the other side. It gets even worse when you consider that Japan might not be your final destination.

8 hours is optimistic because the developers don't seem to have a plan for getting rid of the sonic boom, which means the airliner will have to fly overwater instead of over Canada. That might make supersonic flight to Asia only possible from the West Coast, not the East Coast.

When enough processes have been revamped to make traveling to Japan like going to New York for a day then maybe a supersonic transport might be worthwhile.

What?

[BlackCobra43]

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

Re:Don't kill the Kangaroo(s)

[twiddlingbits]

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.

Spot the disgruntled Brit

[Obvius]

"The Concorde first flew in 1969 and became a symbol of French and European industrial acumen."
Actually the Concorde was a Franco-British project, not a Franco-European one (whatever that means).
"The development project was negotiated as an international treaty between Britain and France ..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
Surely such a rare collaboration between the cheese-munchers and the Perfide Anglais deserves to be recognised... 8-)

Old Concept

[isa-kuruption]

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.

Re:Old Concept

[ausoleil]

Not exactly what happened. Close, but it was never the design of the shuttle that was so costly as it was the lack of political will on the part of the Niuxon administration, who had no real clue as to how to proceed once Apollo was winding down.

According to Wikipedia:

However, in reality, NASA found itself with a rapidly plunging budget. Rather than trying to adapt their long-term future to their dire financial situation, they attempted to save as many of the individual projects as possible. The mission to Mars was rapidly dismissed, but the Space Station and Shuttle conserved. Eventually only one of them could be saved, so it stood to reason that a low-cost Shuttle system would be the better option, because without it a large station would never be affordable.

A number of designs were proposed, but many of them were complex and varied widely in their systems. An attempt to re-simplify was made in the form of the "DC-3" by one of the few people left in NASA with the political importance to accomplish it, Maxime Faget, who had designed the Mercury capsule, among other vehicles. The DC-3 was a small craft with a 20,000-pound (9 tonne) (or less) payload, a four-man capacity, and limited maneuverability. At a minimum, the DC-3 provided a baseline "workable" (but not significantly advanced) system by which other systems could be compared for price/performance compromises.

The defining moment for NASA was when they, in desperation to see their only remaining project saved, went to the Air Force for its blessing. NASA asked that the USAF place all of their future launches on the Shuttle instead of their current expendable launchers (like the Titan II), in return for which they would no longer have to continue spending money upgrading those designs -- the Shuttle would provide more than enough capability.

The Air Force reluctantly agreed, but only after demanding a large increase in capability to allow for launching their projected spy satellites (mirrors are heavy).

The original space shuttle was just that -- a shuttlecraft not designed to carry heavy cargo into orbit.

At the end of the Apollo era, the politicians had collectively decided to give in to the "spend the money on earth" socialist types and were cutting the budget of a program that had succeeded both politically and technically. NASA had plans to build space stations, go to Mars and also to develop new vehicles to ferry cargo and another for crew. The "DC-3" space shuttle was that.

Instead, to preserve any of it's plans, NASA had to fold in the triumvirate of new spacecraft into one, and that to accomodate the Air Force.

This, in turn, led to the "compromise" design that has plagued the Shuttle since it's inception. fourteen people have died as a result of these compromises, which are namely:

1. Solid rocket boosters. The SS is the only man-rated vehicle of any nation to use SRB's as a primary boost source.

2. Side-carried "payload" -- namely the Shuttle itself. The original DC-3 design was a top-payload vehicle much like every other manned spaceraft. However, the size of the compromiwe vehicle would have required a booster larger than the Saturn V in order to achieve LEO. This, obviously was not enable, so the side-payload "piggyback" design was created using engines on the payload itself as a source of thrust for the vehicle.

Thus, we have what we have, and it is a flying compromise built by the lwest bidder by a company no longer in business for itself (Boeing acquired North American Rockwell.)

Time for a new shuttle, and one that goes back to the original vision.

Why?

[f97tosc]

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

Re:Why?

[Richard_at_work]

Concorde didnt have a failed business model, it was actually making money on each flight once British Airways took over Concorde operations totally. What it did have was huge development costs, mainly because in the end only 14 aircraft were sold. If all the options were exercised by the airlines, Concorde would have sold over 600 airframes and been very successful but unfortunately it turned out that it couldnt fly supersonic over land and the most profitable route for Concorde was already taken by Air France and British Airways.

I dont understand your comment about the 787 or A350 being 'faster', as they are both subsonic. There will always be a market for supersonic flights, whether its serviced by a major airline or a private aircraft.

Mark Twain's view on it

[panurge]

Mark Twain (who was a lot more than the author of Tom Sawyer) was of the view that the perfect way to travel was slowly, on a boat, across the Pacific.

Perhaps our CEOs and salesmen would actually work better if they had slower travel and had to organise their lives and companies in a more structured way. Perhaps they'd have to delegate more? Find local representatives they could trust? Learn to use video conferencing properly? Even make better business decisions.

Yes, I do know this is heresy on slashdot. And you know what? I don't care. Not now I know that Linus uses potty words and my last illusion is broken.

Re:Mark Twain's view on it

[TheRaven64]

I agree. Almost anything really time-critical can be done remotely now. A cruise liner can travel at around 35 knots. At this speed it would take roughly 100 hours - just over four days - to get between the UK and the USA. If I could have a comfortable cabin and an Internet connection, I could be just as productive on the trip as I could be at home. Get the speed up to 70 knots (two days) and price it competitively with aircraft and I'd use it.

Re:Mark Twain's view on it

[TomorrowPlusX]

I wish more people felt this way. What's the damn rush, anyhow? ( Yes, yes, I know there are many situations where a rush is important, and that's fine. )

Personally, I'd like to take a zeppelin to somewhere far away, like australia ( I'm in DC ). It'd be a two week trip each way, probably. I'd relax, and see the country, and ocean. My god, would it be beautiful.

Everybody's in too much of a damn hurry. I commute by bike, or on foot ( an hour walk, about ), and people are always shocked that I'm willing to take the time. I tell them it's good for the mind, for the soul. They shake their heads in disbelief.

Re:Mark Twain's view on it

[ross.w]

If you can do your work on a cruise liner while travelling to your destination, why not do all that at home and avoid travelling altogether?

Re:Looks like ...

[magarity]

So the XF-103 was a Mach-3 project in 1956-7, a dozen years after the invention of the jet engine. It's now 2005 and there's just one country even trying to make a supersonic passenger aircraft. Sad, sad, sad.

Ugh

[mattcurrie]

Did anyone else read JAXA as AJAX? ~_~

Damn that horrible buzzword. Damn it to hell!

USSR did it earlier

[Anonymous Coward]

Soviets had the first Supersonic aircraft; Tupolev TU-144

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-144

Concorde was NOT the first supersonic passenger aircraft.

Going faster or going smarter?

[BucksCountyCycleGeek]

I honestly think that going faster has its limits - it's no use going faster if you get stovepiped into taking a train to a secondary airport, doing security, then flying to a major airport, then switching to an SST. It just doesn't work.

Point-to-point travel is the future - we may not realize it, but there's a lot of economic activity that goes on in places that aren't well served by the airlines. That's why Southwest is eating everyone's lunch. I'd think it would save more time in the long run to develop "free flight" systems so that air taxis and passenger services could fly people from smaller airports. Now that avionics manufacturers are really getting onto ease of use, flying a plane could become not that much harder than driving a car.

Potentially, "free flight" could be as disruptive as the Internet.

RTWFA

[gr8_phk]

Read the WHOLE fine article. This is an experiment to test aerodynamics. If successful, they intend to test something with a jet engine. This one is by no means the intended passenger carrying configuration.

I would support this ...

[Muad'Dave]

... 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.

Re:Looks like ...

[TheRaven64]

Flying faster than sound is not that hard. Flying faster than sound in something big enough to carry 300 passengers is harder. Economically flying faster than sound in something big enough to carry 300 passengers is a lot harder.

Transform?

[Franklinstein]

Does it even transform into anything? No?! How disappointing....

Re:Arrow shaped, hmm

[twifosp]

Cool but is it tested for aerodynamics?

Nope, they are just going to wing it. According to the article, there aren't even any engineers on the project. Only anime artists who are concerned with making the shape "as arrow as possible".

Problem is now ground/ airport issues ...

[joelsanda]

With speeds like this (Tokyo to L.A. in four hours) the issue is ground transportation to and around the airport and then security lines.

A cross country flight for me, from Denver to Washington D.C. takes about four hours from aircraft door closing in Denver to opening in Washington DC.

But due to security constraints and the volume of air travellers I have to leave my home 2-1/2 hours before the flight leaves. It then takes anywhere from 15-30 minutes to park and walk to the terminal or park in an outlying lot and taking the shuttle bus.

So from closing my door at home to stepping onto the airplane at the airport I'm looking at three hours for a four hour flight. Toss in a weather delay here in Colorado and I can often spend more time on the ground than in the air.

I have a plan..

[seven of five]

We could send people from Nebraska to Beijing in a half-hour AND solve the ICBM stockpiling problem!

I can work on my back porch (well balcony)

[crovira]

and do it anywhere on earth that requires the deliverable.

Supersonic speed is S-L-O-W compared to light speed.

What keeps me commuting every damn day is that my manager INSISTS on my showing up at the office.

Teenagers

[XFilesFMDS1013]

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.

It's All About Jet-A

[mirio]

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.

Re:It's All About Jet-A

[magarity]

airspeed is inversely proportional to the amount of fuel you burn
 
Um, no, it's a curve. At slow speeds the fuel use per distance is less than at the optimum speed and then it decreases again from there. It's like this: /\
Anyway, my point is that the designers are stuck in a mindset of using only turbofan engines. Pulsejet engines in particular promises to be much more fuel efficient at high speeds per mile travelled and passenger carried. Technology has gone from props to jets in a quick amount of time and then from turbojets to... turbofans (a relatively minor inprovement) in a long amount of time.

The Story

[sr180]

Unfortunately I cant credit where it came from, but its an awesome story.

Bill Weaver : SR-71 BREAKUP

Among professional aviators, there's a well-worn saying: Flying is simply hours of boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror. And yet, I don't recall too many periods of boredom during my 30-year career with Lockheed, most of which was spent as a test pilot. By far, the most memorable flight occurred on Jan. 25, 1966. Jim Zwayer, a Lockheed flight test reconnaissance and navigation systems specialist, and I were evaluating those systems on an SR-71 Blackbird test from Edwards AFB, Calif. We also were investigating procedures designed to reduce trim drag and improve high-Mach cruise performance. The latter involved flying with the center-of-gravity (CG) located further aft than normal, which reduced the Blackbird's longitudinal stability. We took off from Edwards at 11:20 a.m. and completed the mission's first leg without incident. After refueling from a KC-135 tanker, we turned eastbound, accelerated to a Mach 3.2-cruise speed and climbed to 78,000 ft., our initial cruise-climb altitude. Several minutes into cruise, the right engine inlet's automatic control system malfunctioned, requiring a switch to manual control. The SR-71's inlet configuration was automatically adjusted during supersonic flight to decelerate air flow in the duct, slowing it to subsonic speed before reaching the engine's face. This was accomplished by the inlet's center-body spike translating aft, and by modulating the inlet's forward bypass doors. Normally, these actions were scheduled automatically as a function of Mach number, positioning the normal shock wave (where air flow becomes subsonic) inside the inlet to ensure optimum engine performance. Without proper scheduling, disturbances inside the inlet could result in the shock wave being expelled forward--a phenomenon known as an "inlet unstart." That causes an instantaneous loss of engine thrust, explosive banging noises and violent yawing of the aircraft--like being in a train wreck. Unstarts were not uncommon at that time in the SR-71's development, but a properly functioning system would recapture the shock wave and restore normal operation.

On the planned test profile, we entered a programmed 35-deg. bank turn to the right. An immediate unstart occurred on the right engine, forcing the aircraft to roll further right and start to pitch up. I jammed the control stick as far left and forward as it would go. No response. I instantly knew we were in for a wild ride. I attempted to tell Jim what was happening and to stay with the airplane until we reached a lower speed and altitude. I didn't think the chances of surviving an ejection at Mach 3.18 and 78,800 ft. were very good. However, g-forces built up so rapidly that my words came out garbled and unintelligible, as confirmed later by the cockpit voice recorder. The cumulative effects of system malfunctions, reduced longitudinal stability, increased angle-of-attack in the turn, supersonic speed, high altitude and other factors imposed forces on the airframe that exceeded flight control authority and the Stability Augmentation System's ability to restore control. Everything seemed to unfold in slow motion. I learned later the time from event onset to catastrophic departure from controlled flight was only 2-3 sec. Still trying to communicate with Jim, I blacked out, succumbing to extremely high g-forces. The SR-71 then literally disintegrated around us. From that point, I was just along for the ride. My next recollection was a hazy thought that I was having a bad dream. Maybe I'll wake up and get out of this mess, I mused. Gradually regaining consciousness, I realized this was no dream; it had really happened. That also was disturbing, because I could not have survived what had just happened. Therefore, I must be dead. Since I didn't feel bad--just a detached sense of euphoria--I decided being dead wasn't so bad after all. AS FULL AWARENESS took hold, I realized I was not dead, but had somehow separated from the airpla