Slashdot Mirror
Successful Supersonic Jet Launch
Cave_Monster writes "Japan has hailed the test of a supersonic jet in South Australia's outback as a success. Unlike the attempt in 2002, this test saw the jet launch successfully from Woomera, South Australia." From the article: "Data gained through the test will be used in joint research by Japan and France towards a next-generation supersonic jet. No budget projections have yet been made for the entire project, which Japanese hope will produce a supersonic passenger jet capable of flying from Tokyo to New York in just under six hours - less than half the current time of a Concorde." We reported on the plan to do this, earlier.
Other than that, hopefully this will continue complementing the work of Airbus.
Unpretentious Sydney reviews by unqualified Sydney reviewers
I wonder how they're going to make that time with the current FAA restrictions that do not permit supersonic travel by passenger jets within the continental United States?
Reminder: Apple owns 1/255th of the internet.
Getting a bit hazy on the definition of "dupe" aren't we? Next you're going to say "Vista released" is a dupe of "Longhorn Announced" or "Man lands on Mars" is a dupe of War of the Worlds.
If my aging memory serves correct, one of the key issues that killed off America's SST project was potential damage to the Ozone layer. Has this problem been solved, or simply ignored?
... perhaps one of the more aggressive ideas like the National Aerospace Plane concept of the 1980's.
I'm not certain which SST program you mean (SST just means supersonic transport, and includes the Concorde)
People were worried about ozone damage, but unless it was really catastrophic an environmental concern like that would never stop a major project if there was money to be made, short of a major international treaty.
No, economic and engineering factors killed the NASP and similar projects. It was cold-war thinking that wasn't even doable on a military budget at the time, and is questionable if it's doable now. It certainly had no chance of producing a profitable civilian commercial venture. Sure, NY to Tokyo in 2 hours is great, but not if you have to play 1.5 million for a ticket.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Well, after years of educating the world, giving away our technology to the Orient and producing lawyers (50% of the world's lawyers!) instead of scientists and engineers, we are no longer capable of leading the world in tech innovations. Get used to it: Japan and China will own the major technological innovations and discoveries 25 years from now. All you guys who slept through Physics and ended up with a Liberal Arts degree instead contributed to this situation. Whine if you want, but we are at war with Japan and China (economically) and most USA Citizens can't even understand the issues. It took us 10 years to get to the moon in the 60's, we are estimating 12-14 years to do it today, and I bet it takes longer than that. Japan will be mining the moon for essential minerals before we ever get there again. We don't have anyone in the US capable of develping an SST.
Here's the other thing: If we did develop an SST before Japan, they would not let us land it in Japan. They would hold us up through safety inspections and paperwork, and finally, the only SST allowed to make trips to Tokyo would be the Japanese-sponsered version. If you think the US Patent process is obstructive to innovation and economic progress, you should compare it to Japan's patent system, which is ruinous to all but Japanese businesses.
I would suggest reading, "The Asian Mind Game" by Chin-Ning Chu, but it would be more productive for folks to read a few science and engineering texts and get to work!
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
As I explain here: http://ideasinprogress.blogspot.com/2005/06/japane sefrench-son-of-concorde-vs.html
the next SST is likely to be a small biz jet from the U.S., Russia, and/or Canada. The Japanese are just putting out cool press releases for their basic research.
The movie is loosely based on the novel "Orbit" by Thomas H. Block, from 1982. Hmmmmmmmmmmm.. sounds rediculously similar. Wonder if we're talking out and out plagarism here. James Follett also wrote Mirage, the story of how Israeli nationals stole the designs for the Mirage fighter plane when the french refused to aid the occupation of Palistine.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The primary reason that the Concordes were scrapped wasn't because of that accident - that was just the last straw. The main reason was that they simply weren't turning a profit. It's yet to be seen whether these new jets will be able to overcome that.
The people who would take a flight like this, at least initially, would be the kinds of people who could be given a special pass to speed through security and baggage check: business executives, financiers, wealthy celebs, politicians (excepting senior senators from Massachusetts), and the like. In a world population of six and a half billion, there's only a few thousand of these people, maybe a couple tens of thousands at most, who would be using this flight as a speedier replacement for private or company jets.
Who the hell modded parent insightful? Did you even read the article? Parent claims only "a couple tens of thousands at most" would use this, yet the article reports a 300 seat aircraft is aimed for. Figure minimum of ten aircraft built (ridiculously low number), that's 3000 seats. Tokyo to New York in six hours; figure one return flight of this distance per aircraft, per day (totally underutilising the aircraft). That's 6000 potential seats per day. Now figure these aircraft are flying 50% empty on every flight (yet again, totally underutilising the aircraft). That's 3000 passengers transported per day.
Every one of these figures has been stacked ridiculously in the parents' favor, and yet still the net result is that with a total market of only "a couple of tens of thousands at most", you'd be relying on every one of your passengers to make just over one flight per week, every week of the year.
With more realistic load figures (say 70%) and more realistic production numbers (figure 32 aircraft minimum, that being exactly twice as many as there were production Concordes built), you'd be carrying 13,440 pax per day - requiring each passenger to take one flight every 36 hours, year-round.
Parent simply doesn't know what they're talking about. There are a LOT more than 20,000 people who would pay the money to fly this, particularly with Asian business expanding, and Asian businessmen wanting to travel to Europe and the US.
I also once "heard" two f4 phantom going supersonic. I couldnt see them, because they were 9km higher and 25km lateral distance... it still make the windows shake and caused the local police being swamped by people reporting bomb detonations or other stuff they thought the report belonged to.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
I'm not really interested in being a test pilot. I just want to get from A -> B in a reasonable time. And, I guarantee you, deep vein thrombosis and a time difference are not the only forms of punishment when u travel. You will STILL be tired when you get off a plane that's travelled that distace.
Give me a seat on an Airbus A380 or Boeings future heavy passenger plane thanks. I'd rather keep conventional flying for the masses. Lets develop a space liner for the moon, not some new fangled jet liner down here.
And no, I dont believe the technology benefits of this are the going to help with space travel more than the continued work with small to mediaum carriers - Space Ship One-esque etc.