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.
... since they grounded the fleet.
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.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Actually, "over the top" flights are the standard procedure for the suggested New York to Tokyo and similar flights. Happens every day.
That Woomera was named after an Aboriginal device to assist spear-throwing?
Wikipedia link
I've always thought it's a very fitting name for the town since it's where most of Australia's missle and rocket launches are done from. Whether it is just co-incidence or not I don't know, but it's quite appropriate.
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. With this relatively miniscule customer base, it wouldn't be hard to prescreen them all.
Hell, airlines already have the apparatus in place with existing programs: "When they make the cut, Global Services members are issued a black Global Services card, a leather-bound welcome kit and phone numbers of agents trained to see after their needs. Then the fun begins. The chosen ones are escorted through the security line and ushered into secret waiting lounges..."
And besides, for some of these people, time is the most valuable asset they have. Shaving a few hours off a flight, even supposing they still have to endure the rubber gloved finger in the ass, is a priceless extra few hours they can spend with their families, their consorts, or whatever.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a supersonic plane full of DVDs...
Oh well, what the hell...
At Mach 10, you're talking a shade over 1 hour, 10 minutes. This assumes that the Australians (the only ones with a working Scramjet) can build a commercial version. If you're having to rely on a conventional ramjet, efficiency drops dramatically above mach 6.
The Americans abandoned the advanced passanger airliner project (which was blended-wing) in the late 90s, and there is no obvious indication that NASA has done much work on waveriders - some, mostly by being beaten to it by a bunch of Scots (and they were amateur rocket enthusiasts at that!) - but really not much. The US military seems to be much more interested in slow-moving ROVs and fully-automated robots, so don't look to them for producing anything worthwhile any time soon.
The Australians have the Scramjet, but nothing to speak of to put it on. The joint efforts by the Russians and the ESA to produce an orbiter seem to be stymied by the religious belief in rockets for everything. What we need is either someone who can get these two groups together (a particle accelerator might overcome the repelling forces) OR a non-aligned group with sufficient financial and intellectual backing to reverse-engineer from existing work a combined solution.
Last one to hypersonic mass transit is a chicken!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
You know, if it was as easy as you make it sound, we would have done it by now. Not only are there problems with the technology (a large one being heating of the skin due to aerodynamic friction), but just by the nature of the physics, it'll always cost you several times more fuel to fly at high mach numbers than at low ones. You don't even need to be an aerodynamicist to understand it. Drag goes up with the square of velocity, you figure out what that does to fuel consumption. Existing turbofan engines are extremely efficient, yet airlines still can't turn a profit. You think the solution is to make airplanes that are even less efficient?
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
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.
Or you could do what the rich and self important used to do in the days of Concorde; fly over for a meeting, and fly back the same day. No need to change your timezone at all; you just end up getting a late night.
http://www.themeparks.ie
Are you insane? It gets from NYC to Tokyo in 6 hours instead of 16. Add in your 2 hour security and baggage time and you've still saved 8 hours. Have you ever been on a super-long flight like this? I'd pay a hefty premium to avoid overnighting on the plane, particularly in coach class.
And by the way: you would have to go through airport security either way. What were you going to do, drive to Tokyo?
-Graham