Japan Solicits NASA's Help on Supersonic Jet

An anonymous reader writes "Since the Concorde supersonic jet is now retired, Japan is looking for the next generation supersonic flight solution. Japan's space agency is planning talks with NASA next month. They are looking for a partner since they have experienced a 'string of glitches, including a nose cone problem during the latest test flight in March.'"

Comments

Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

From the article:

The United States has already carried out a flight test with a scramjet engine, while the European Union, Japan, China, Russia and India are in different stages of testing their technologies.

*sighs*

Think how much money, time & effort could be saved if resources were pooled. (maybe this thing would be ready before 2025).

I guess we'll all have to learn to get along first (oh & hopefully, the cooporation will be more equal then it was on the Joint strike fighter project between Britain & the US)

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[polar red]

Problem is, most people will keep on thinking in terms of 'us' and 'them'. Barbaric.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Problem is, most people will keep on thinking in terms of 'us' and 'them'. Barbaric.

Unless they're 'axis of evil' countires - in which case they'll be thinking in terms of 'us' and 'US'

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[colganc]

If everything is pooled and one giant project is undertaken there is a good chance many interesting and novel solutions to supersonice transportation might not be discovered. Many different projects almost guarentees a couple of good and different solutions. Each solution will have it pro's and con's. Be better for one thing and slightly worse for something else. Competition is good.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[jkrise]

Think how much money, time & effort could be saved if resources were pooled.

Who will head the pool? That's the big question... there's hardly any point in joining a syndicate, if the Board is excusively controlled by an elite few, whose only claim to power is their nation's military might.

Whether it's satellites, rockets, missions to the moon or supersonic jets, few BIG nations want to co-operate or pool - just exploit hi-tech low-paid manpower from abroad.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[agent dero]

I'd say that given that America is the only country with a working scramjet, maybe...we'd head the team? Or it'd be something like the international spacestation project.

The reasons for pooling aren't simply political or otherwise, it's much easier to fund such things between a couple countries working together, as opposed to each on their own (faster results as well, unless you forget to convert from meters to feet)

Hate to squash your obvious anti-american quip here, but we've got the bombs, as well as quite a few brains. As soon as you start to see Germany, Japanese, or Chinese space probes shooting out of the solar system, you can stuff your opinions; there's a reason America asserts its power in this arena, because we've done it already, most sane individuals can recognize that experience is valuable in science, and it's usually the most experienced researcher that heads the research team...

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Aglassis]

I agree completely. When you pool resources you get things like the ISS. At this point in that project can we really say we haved saved money by doing it the international way?

One of the big things that you lose when you pool resources is adaptability. Now that's fine if you are building a piece of technology that is completely understood, but it is death to people who want to compete in emerging technologies.

Would the US space program be better off if we were able to cut off funding to the ISS and focus on the CEV? I think so. But that is not possible because we have international agreements. We have to finish our share before we abandon it.

These international resource pools remind me of the old engineering maxim:

• How long will your project take?
  
  • Two weeks.
• What if we double the amount of people on it?
  
  • Four weeks.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Richard_at_work]

I'd say that given that America is the only country with a working scramjet, maybe...we'd head the team? Or it'd be something like the international spacestation project.

Huh? Do I not recall a successful test of the British and Australian built Hyshot III in Australia earlier this year, that was definately a scramjet. Nasas X-47 is not the only successful scramjet.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[FirienFirien]

While the theory of consortiums is a nice one, there's too many parties interested in keeping the technologies (read: profits) for themselves. Too many people want a slice of the pie, and the people who get these projects started aren't going to divvy out unless those wanting a slice of that pie are willing to invest in them strongly - and then they still want to keep hold of the reins.

However, at least one of the positive aspects of competition is that you don't get stuck in a rut with working on a single design; working on multiple parallel designs leads to better technology, because the people who will buy a working technology will go for the better ones. There's more pressure to do better, or be left behind.

We can hope. Personally, I think the internet age and rising costs of fuel will scrap this project; with free video conferencing improving, the value of face time is no longer such an absolute leader, and will quickly become outweighed by the cost of fast travel. It's an interesting idea - but 2025? I just can't see it staying viable.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Scramjets are so rediculously energy inefficient that I don't see them in widespread use other than in the military. It isn't like electronics technology where smaller transistors can be made to do more with less electricity, there are fundemental physics at issue here. The same goes for space passenger services, the amount of energy needed to get into orbit is staggering that I'm skeptical that it can ever be made affordable for middle class use.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[hcdejong]

Here's one area where capitalism shoots itself in the foot: by not sharing new information, everyone has to reinvent the wheel, wasting massive amounts of money. The scientific ideal of sharing all new discoveries would make innovation much more efficient.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[jcr]

an elite few, whose only claim to power is their nation's military might.

Well, let's see... The only country that springs to mind whose "only claim to power" is their "military might" would be North Korea.

All of the G8 nations have vast, diversified economies, which are the basis of their power and influence.

-jcr

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[jcr]

Scramjets are so rediculously energy inefficient that I don't see them in widespread use other than in the military.

Yeah, they're almost as bad as the first turbojets were. Gotta start somewhere, though.

-jcr

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[ozmanjusri]

Do I not recall a successful test of the British and Australian built Hyshot III in Australia earlier this year

You do recall. In fact, all this bleating about lack of collaboration and pooling resources is just polemic. Hyshot IS a collaborative effort, and results ARE being shared.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Anonymous Coward]

Britain has a long memory, and we remeber all to well the way were shafted by the US over the original jet engines.

A "Technology Transfer" agreement was initiated by the US. We agreed to host their scientists, and then they would host ours. What actually happend was that US scientists came over here... spent weeks going over our (much advanced) technology (admittedly due to captured german scientists and freed jewish scientists) then went home.

When the UK wanted to send its scientists over, there were always "problems" and "difficulties" with the arrangements until finally the US just refused to answer queries.

A couple of years later the US had it's first viable jet engine... whose design (not suprisingly) looked very much like the british design the US scientists had been shown.

Past american governments have show themselves to be perfectly happy to steal from their allies, why should anyone therefore want to enter into such a deal with the US without massive safeguards? I'm sure other countries have equally sordid tales of government sponsored scientific thievery.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[clickclickdrone]

Britain has a long memory, and we remeber all to well the way were shafted by the US over the original jet engines.

And the TSR2

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[agent dero]

It's a Dennis Leary reference silly.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Lars T.]

When you pool resources you get things like the ISS.

And when you don't pool, you get the MIR - if you still have the USSR at hand. And Skylab.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[cyclone96]

When you pool resources you get things like the ISS. At this point in that project can we really say we haved saved money by doing it the international way? ?

As a NASA employee who has worked on ISS, no.

All the usual criticism of ISS aside, there are a few things that the cooperation with Russia enabled. Politically it made ISS much more viable as a program (frankly, it wouldn't be around without it) and an easier "sell" to congress. The alternate access with Soyuz has had obvious benefits with the orbiter problems. Personally, I enjoy working with my Russian counterparts very much and I love traveling there.

But cheaper? No way. It takes 10 times as long to solve even the most basic problems. With the Russians, the language barrier is significant (ever try to work out a complex technical problem through an interpreter?). The Europeans and Japanese communicate much faster since they have excellent English skills, but their overall lack of experience with manned spaceflight programs offset that advantage. Time zone differences are significant (all of our meetings must be extremely early in the morning for us and late in the afternoon for them). We spend a ton of money on international travel (there is no substitute for face to face meetings).

There is a lot of overhead associated with export control since anything associated with aerospace may be classified as a munition. Stuff that is classified can't be shared, period.

The Russians are so strapped for cash they generally won't give up documents/engineering support without a contract (and payment).

There is no "chief engineer". Whenever the crap hits the fan, there is no person at the top who can make a final decision (as would be the case in a program managed by, say, the Air Force). Many engineering problems become international negotiations with politics in the mix. When Dennis Tito paid for his Soyuz trip a number of years ago, the US laboratory had a massive systems failure several days before his launch. Some members of Russian management thought (due to the poor way NASA handled his flight) it was some sort of staged event and basically said they were going to launch him no matter what.

I'm sure many of you have international project success stories. For a large aerospace program, however, I think the only model that is really cost effective is having an international partner supply a subsytem as a "black box" and in a role subordinate to a overall integrator. That worked for the FGB module of ISS (which was procured from Krunichev under subcontract, on time, on budget). Partnership is definitely not cheaper.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you're saying you get a decade long-lived, extremely useful space stations marred by public opinion because over a decade in space combined with budget shortages left it with maintanance problems, or simple, relatively inexpensive to launch and maintain space stations which served their purpose well, then were abandoned? I can't tell if you're being pejoritive, or supportive. I really can't.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Philip K Dickhead]

Ah. Those clever Japanese involed NASA. They must need it late, and dangerous.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[wasted]

Problem is, most people will keep on thinking in terms of 'us' and 'them'. Barbaric.

There are a few good reasons NOT to share technology, the best one being competitive advantage. In this particular case, the US is the people who paid for the research, and the THEM is those who did not pay for the research. As a U.S. taxpayer, I prefer that technology developed with U.S. tax dollars is NOT shared in a way that would give non-U.S. firms a competitive advantage over U.S. firms, (possibly causing a loss of U.S. jobs,) unless there is some other benefit to the U.S. In this case, if Japan develops a supersonic airliner, their aircraft industry would benefit at the expense of other airline manufacturers, such as Boeing and Airbus. Since Boeing is a U.S. company, sharing this technology with Japan could result in the loss of U.S. jobs. That isn't exactly a good use of tax dollars, in my opinion.

I would expect other countries to behave similarly. I could be wrong, though.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Anonymous Coward]

If Boeing shows no interest in developing a supersonic airliner, why not provide the informaiton to a group that will. If Boeing is correct that such a plane is not commercially viable (except at the expense of massive infusions of government cash the US is unwilling to supply), then why not let the Japanese "waste" their money?

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[FirienFirien]

Yes, but the money still goes somewhere, in this case to the workers that supplied whatever the money is being wasted on. If capitalism is shooting itself in the foot there, it's also growing a new foot elsewhere in a system that creates those parts. Maybe the people who are buying the parts are suckers for not conferring - but that just means there's more people further down the chain that are doing better out of that sucker cash. The money just goes round and round; sometimes it gets stuck in some places, sometimes in others.

Remember that until the advent of the telephone and internet, communication was too slow to allow mass innovation. Now we have companies that do nothing but sell innovation, because they can access the resources and attract people from a wide net to bounce ideas and improve them; think tank companies.

Also ask a PhD student or look up for yourself how many citations are going on in academia - I don't know how the scales of academia-innovation and corporate-innovation compare, but even if the second is far more closed-in and impressive, it doesn't mean the former doesn't exist. Maybe academia doesn't work in the same way as capitalism, validating your point; I suspect that's true. But the money is still going somewhere.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[hcdejong]

Sure, the money still goes somewhere, but in the grand scheme of things, it's not accomplishing as much as it could. Using your logic, it's okay for pork barrel contracts to exist; I'd rather see that money being applied to where it'll do some good beyond providing people with a living.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[DerekLyons]

When you pool resources you get things like the ISS. At this point in that project can we really say we haved saved money by doing it the international way?

As a NASA employee who has worked on ISS, no.

[snippage: discussion of costs and problems caused by the partnership]

You missed one of the biggests costs and impacts of the partnership; an increase in total risk to the Shuttle and astronauts caused shifting the orbital plane to one the Russians can reach. This reduces the effective cargo capability - thus requiring more flights.

I'm sure many of you have international project success stories. For a large aerospace program, however, I think the only model that is really cost effective is having an international partner supply a subsytem as a "black box" and in a role subordinate to a overall integrator. That worked for the FGB module of ISS (which was procured from Krunichev under subcontract, on time, on budget).

Except the full deliverables called out for under the contract have yet to the provided. Last I heard, the Russians had not delivered the full documentation or the control codes. (I say 'the Russians' because the various agencies/companies/etc... are largely one incestous game of twister.)

Partnership is definitely not cheaper.

The problem with the ISS 'partnership' is that the Russians are in the drivers seat, have been so from fairly early on, and are fully aware of it and take full advantage of it. The 'partnership' was doomed the day the Russians were added to the critical path to Core Complete. (Even without the delays subsequent to the Columbia accident.)

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[wasted]

I would agree with you totally given an even playing field. Unfortunately, it is likely that the Japanese government would provide help (subsidies) to the japanese aircraft industry, allowing them to operate profitably, resulting in competition to Boeing.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[avronius]

Are you suggesting that if an American company is unwilling to develop the technology, the rest of the world can't either? Interesting how you have a problem with a foreign nation competing in a market that the US *DOES NOT WISH* to compete in.

If you are unwilling or unable to play in the global sandbox, fine. You are welcome to take your ball and go home. It's a good thing that NASA doesn't take your stance. Otherwise, there'd be a large number of pieces missing from your space shuttles. Like the Ballard power systems (ok, so it's an American company now, but it used to be Canadian) for example.

Sharing technology is not new. When it's done at a price that is amenable to both parties, everyone wins. Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, but being angry at Japan is not the solution. You should be angry at other American companies for not wanting to spend development dollars to create American jobs building American made products.

Be a part of the solution, not a part of the problem.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Kangburra]

I can't believe this was modded troll.

I guess you can't state your opinion of Bush if you don't like him.

Noted for further reference.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[wasted]

Are you suggesting that if an American company is unwilling to develop the technology, the rest of the world can't either? Interesting how you have a problem with a foreign nation competing in a market that the US *DOES NOT WISH* to compete in.

I'm not suggesting that the rest of the world can't compete in an area that US companies are unwilling to compete in. What I am suggesting is that the US government shouldn't help foreign companies to compete against US companies unless there is something in it for the US.

Sharing technology is not new. When it's done at a price that is amenable to both parties, everyone wins.

I agree.

Maybe you have a chip on your shoulder, but being angry at Japan is not the solution. You should be angry at other American companies for not wanting to spend development dollars to create American jobs building American made products.

I am not angry at anyone, especially a country I lived in for nine years. I just prefer that my tax dollars are not used to help foreign competition unless the US sees some other return on the investment.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[avronius]

From where I sit (which I freely admit is on the sidelines), it appears that JAXA (Japan's space agency) is investing in a technology that NASA (the American's space agency) has knowledge in. JAXA has some engine technology, but no successful tests. Japanese companies believe that there is a market for supersonic aircraft, but don't have quite enough technological experience with this type of flight technology. It needs a partner to produce an effective and safe product. NASA has some engine technology, but there are no corporations in the US that believe there is an adequate market to acheive a profit. From the article, JAXA and a handful of Japanese companies would PARTNER with NASA and Boeing. Japan would develop / build the engine, while Boeing would build the airframe. Seems like a partnership, not a competition. Sure, JAXA and Japanese companies will gain some knowledge about scramjet (a technology that they are already investing in) that they don't currently have. Rather than spending money that has already been spent, they can help NASA to recoup some of the money that they've spent (aka: your tax dollars), and both parties end up winning. As near as I can tell (again, from tfa), everyone wins. Both governments, companies in both countries, and the travelling public.

Re:Cooporation is the way of the future.

[Kangburra]

I still can't Jeez

What happened to sub-orbital?

[plasmacutter]

When last I heard about this issue, it was considered completely feasible to develop a sub-orbital passenger service for those super-premium customers who would otherwise spend some $3000 US on a concorde ticket.

Further, considering the resources required to maintain the concorde, which is reportedly the norm for such high performance aircraft, I see no reason why it wouldn't be more cost effective to move forward with the concept.

Granted the maintainance would need to be even more intensive and exacting, but rather than 2 hour transcontinental flights it would be on the order of 30 minutes, allowing for more time in maintainance between trips and creating a more compelling reason for those who consider time more important than money.

Re:What happened to sub-orbital?

[MichaelSmith]

it was considered completely feasible to develop a sub-orbital passenger service for those super-premium customers who would otherwise spend some $3000 US on a concorde ticket.

It is worth noting that a long semiballistic trajectory (say half way around the Earth) requires almost as much energy as achieving orbit. Then you have similar thermal protection issues to deal with.

You could do it with a space shuttle but its not going to be much safer.

Re:What happened to sub-orbital?

[GoatMonkey2112]

This might sound stupid, but I'd feel ripped off if I paid $3000+ for a plane ride that only lasted 30 minutes, even if it did take me to the other side of the planet.

Re:What happened to sub-orbital?

[SpaceLemur]

$3000? For a trip on the Concord? Who's your travel agent and how can I get deals like that.

Lowest I've heard for a ticket (besides the one flight a year they sold tickets for about $100) was about $4000 and ranged all the way up to $20,000

Stling of gritches?

[Anonymous Coward]

solly...

Before re-inventing the wheel...

[jkrise]

Why was the Conconrde retired? Something very mysterious there, considering the success of that design over several years.
-

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[Richard_at_work]

Number of reasons, fuel costs being high and rising, low passenger numbers after 9/11 and the fact that Airbus refused to renew the maintenance and parts contract that was due to expire. Normally, aircraft maintenance would be picked up by a third party in that case, but with only 12 aircraft in an airworthy state, and not all of them flying, it wasnt cost effective for the normal maintenance companies to step in.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[aadvancedGIR]

Simply too expensive. The accident was just an excuse.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[joecm]

Nova had a great show on the history of the Concorde recently and talked in detail about why it went under. Though there were many reasons, I was a bit suprised that one of the main reasons was that 40 of their most regular customers died in the World Trade Center. Though the number does not seem that high, these same people also allowed other execs in their company to fly which really hurt the concorde.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[Bloke down the pub]

It crashes if it hits a bit of wreckage that some idiot left on the runway.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[jkrise]

Why can't the 'DESIGN' of the Concorde be shared? That's got nothing to do with the economics and all these speculative conspiracy theories.

It appears the single largest cause for the failure of the Concorde was bad management, not bad design.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[jkrise]

Simply too expensive. The accident was just an excuse.

What'd make the Japanese hope the NASA design would lead to a cheaper product?

Five reasons already for my question, and ALL DIFFERENT! Really mysterious, it appears.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[JRGhaddar]

Here is an article about the concorde retiring

EXCERT
"The airline said that its decision had been made for commercial reasons with passenger revenue falling steadily against a backdrop of rising maintenance costs for the aircraft.
Detailed discussions over an extended period with Airbus, the aircraft's manufacturer, confirmed the need for an enhanced maintenance programme in the coming years, the carrier added.
British Airways has decided that such an investment cannot be justified in the face of falling revenue caused by a global downturn in demand for all forms of premium travel in the airline industry.
The downturn has had a negative impact on Concorde bookings and is set to continue for the foreseeable future, according to the airline."

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[Richard_at_work]

Because its too small - it was only designed to seat 140 passengers, and under todays economics that simply is not enough. Oil today is touching $100 a barrel for aviation requirements and that produces a CASM (cost per average seat mile) thats pretty much unsustainable even for the wealthy. The aircraft needs to me bigger and carry more people and cargo (which produces a substantial income for airlines on most routes).

Aviation has moved on considerably since Concorde was designed in the 1960s, and much more efficient and wider fuselages can be designed today to accomodate a lot more passengers with lower drag.

Rolls Royce are also on record saying that there would be little improvement efficiency wise in newer turbojet and turbofan engines over the engines Concorde used, those engines were as efficient as they can be made even with current technology. The efficiencies seen elsewhere in engine design do not scale all the way up to engines capable of sustained mach 2.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[Richard_at_work]

There were a lot of reasons for Concordes retirement. The Japanese approach uses different engine technology so it can achieve a different efficiency, which is the main reason for any retirement of any aircraft type.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[Hal_Porter]

Concorde was expensive, it's true. That's because it used an afterburner to fly through the atmosphere like a fighter jet.

But space planes which cruise above the atmosphere in a series of bounces sound efficient to me. Once you reach cruising altitude, you can fire the engine a short burst every so often to maintain altitude. Since you're so high up, air resistance should be rather low.

I'm no aero engineer, but it seems like it could be cheaper than Concorde as well as faster. I'm not sure what the cost would be relative to a 747. But Tokyo to LA in 3 hours should allow them to charge a lot more for the tickets, so perhaps it's economic. Also, I reckon there are enough super rich people in the world for a few supersonic planes, regardless of how economic they are.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[wulfhound]

Concorde only used afterburner at take-off and acceleration to supersonic. Once it reached cruising speed (mach 2) they could turn the afterburner off.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[hcdejong]

That's because it used an afterburner to fly through the atmosphere like a fighter jet.

Actually, it didn't. The afterburners were only used on takeoff, and during the accelleration from Mach 1 to about 1.7. For the second part, afterburning wasn't strictly necessary, but turned out to be more efficient than accelleration on dry thrust.
Can't find good data on required runway length, but Concorde typically took off at 400 km/h, which is rather high. Accelleration from dry thrust may not have been enough to achieve 400 km/h on a typical runway.

IOW, people who refer to the F-22's supercruise ability as something new or unique, are wrong. Concorde could do this. (So could the English Electric P.1, prototype for the EE Lightning, by the way).

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[Anonymous Coward]

Concorde was not a failure - it exceeded the design specs and flew for double the design life.

It did not sell because of politics - Concorde was designed for the Paris/London - New York route, when Boeing failed with an over-ambitious design (swing-wing double droop nose) the route was denied to AF/BA. By the time NY allowed Concorde to operate the production run had effectively ended.

Wrt fuel efficiency - the concorde engines were the most fuel efficient jet engines ever made. They have not been bettered today.

As for sharing the design - airbus are a little more sensible than that. The Japanese attempted to get them interested in a jv a while ago but airbus have plenty of investment risk at the moment without helping competitors.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[clickclickdrone]

Why was the Conconrde retired

British Airways made over GBP1bn from Concorde, Air France made a loss. AF wanted out but the agreement with BA said neither side could unilaterally stop flying concordes and BA were making money so...

Concorde's airworthiness certificates were owned by Airbus via aquisitions over the years and Airbus under pressure from AF withdrew the airworthiness certificate thus grounding the lot. To guarantee it stayed that way and couldn't be reversed, all the spare parts were sold off/auctioned on Ebay.

BA were particularly annoyed because Airbus had told them it was OK to go ahead and spend some GBP70m (ish) refitting their fleet and bringing them up to date, just before they were finally grounded.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[HaydnH]

Don't forget about the accident and the grounding - these didn't help much. IIRC they had to do work on the engines while it was grounded to get their airworthiness certificate back as it was possible that the 2 engines on each wing weren't protected well enough from each other during failure.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[Anonymous Coward]

So now the truth come out, 9/11 was a plot to support the NASA and hurt the French Industry.
Probably plotted by the NSA, (a subdepartment of N(A)SA ) and a tee totaller association.

---------
A day without a conspiration theory is a lost day.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[JPribe]

Uh, the F-22 is the first aircraft to intentionally be designed for supercruise...the Concorde was an accident. Also, many jets have had supercruise over the years...small, light fighters get upgraded engines and all of a sudden zoom zoom..

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[hcdejong]

Uh, the F-22 is the first aircraft to intentionally be designed for supercruise...the Concorde was an accident.

I find that hard to believe. In the EE P.1, this ability might have been accidental, but by the time Concorde was designed, the physics involved were understood well enough that it was possible to design for supercruise.
Had Concorde been unable to supercruise, its range would have been halved (4 hours at Mach 2 instead of 8).
Likewise, Concorde's Mach 2.04 cruise speed was no accident: at that speed, you've got a 'sweet spot' in the speed/power required curve.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't this have something to do with retiring the Concorde?

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[Bob3141592]

IOW, people who refer to the F-22's supercruise ability as something new or unique, are wrong. Concorde could do this. (So could the English Electric P.1, prototype for the EE Lightning, by the way [thunder-an...ings.co.uk]).

So could the F-14D and the later versions of the F-15.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[hcdejong]

Wikipedia disagrees

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, BAC TSR2. Uh, Designed in the early 1960s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR2

Uh, please learn. Uh, dumbass.

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[tengwar]

Ah, the Lightning - two honking big engines with a couple of control surfaces stuck on the side and a man sitting in the inlet tract: the antithesis of Concorde. BTW, I take it we're going to keep quiet about the P1 that was down to normal reserve after seven minutes of an aerobatic display?

Re:Before re-inventing the wheel...

[hcdejong]

Keep quiet? Nah, the short range of the Lightning is legendary. That's more due to its lack of internal fuel tankage than because its engines were unusually thirsty.
The fact remains that the P1, and IIRC at least some production Lightnings (F.2A?) could reach Mach 1+ without afterburners.

Artist's Rendition of the Japanese Supersonic Jet

[reporter]

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has a web page offering an artist's rendition of the supersonic jet plane. There is also a picture of a scaled-down model of the plane. The model was successfully tested in late 2005.

A little bit of mental morphing of the image could transform it into the pre-Federation Enterprise (NX-01). Will the Vulcans make first contact in Tokyo?

Seems like a bad business decision

[gundamstuff]

Consumers need a super sonic jet just about as much as they need a 300kph Ferrari. It wasn't practical with the Concorde and it won't be pratical now. Planes cost too much already, an Airbus A380 goes for $300,000,000 USD. I don't see how Japan expects some plane that won't fly until 2025 at the earliest, to transform their aerospace industry. People aren't going to pay the premium ticket price if the plane is ever finished just like few paid the steep ticket cost of the concorde. It seems this money could be better spent on current planes that are actually economically feasible for airlines to fly.

Re:Seems like a bad business decision

[WindBourne]

It seems this money could be better spent on current planes that are actually economically feasible for airlines to fly.

By your thinking, then we should not even be flying. Look, we use to be on the piston engines. In fact, a great economical aircraft was the DC-7. A piston engine that flew at 300 MPH. But it was maxed out. When the 707 came out, it overtook quickly, even though initially it cost more to own and to fly. But once the jet era took off, then research invented the turbofan and then the low costs kicked. Plain and simple, the rich to middle class will probably fly this new aircfaft, but if successful, it would stimulate new lower costs and more economical aircraft at high speeds.

As to current aircrafts, well the 787 is off course very high milage (lower weights, and wing design). Of course, airbus is now going to borrow and create the 350 (similiar design). In addition, airbus's 380 will also have a high mileage/passenger. You can bet that it will be flown at close to max loads so that economy is high.

Re:Seems like a bad business decision

[mathijskok]

Well, Ferrari can sell a lot more cars then they can build, so there are certainly SOME consumers who need them. And hey... those could be the same folks willing to pay alot for fast travel! And keep in mind that Japan is rather a long way from the US and Europe, flying the pacific at mach 3 makes a lot morse sense then flying the atlantic at mach 3.

Re:Seems like a bad business decision

[Tenebrious1]

The biggest benefit of supersonic travel would be the elimination of jet lag. The long flight, not only in taking up half a day, results in you being groggy for a day or two as you adjust. Then the reverse coming back. And the older you get, the harder it is to adjust (at least for me).

I don't know what it would cost, but some of it will be offset since they won't need two full flight and cabin crews, they won't need to carry three meals and snacks.

Just wish I had the money to take it, I'm sure I'll always be stuck in coach with all those screaming kids and crying babies.

Re:Seems like a bad business decision

[Anonymous Coward]

"Consumers need a super sonic jet just about as much as they need a 300kph Ferrari."

There are enough consumers who "need" a Ferrari to keep them in business. Supersonic flight may be similar. The average college kid flying home for the holidays or family going on vacation isn't going to be able to afford a ticket on the next-generation SST, but there will be people who can. Instead of trying to be Ford and investing all the money required to develop a 200 to 300 passenger SST that will never be paid back, I think that the airlines and aircraft companies (and their customers) would be better served to try and be Ferrari and focus on a smaller investment in a smaller plane that caters to organizations and people who can afford it. One day, hopefully, the average John Q. Public will be able to afford 300km/hr cars and SST tickets... but it won't be in time for the next generation airliner.

Here is my suggestion, a small quiet supersonic business/commuter jet: http://ideasinprogress.blogspot.com/2005/06/japane sefrench-son-of-concorde-vs.html

But then maybe these aerospace engineers are smarter than we give them credit for. They don't have to worry whether performance of the jet will pay back the huge development cost if they can dupe the taxpayers into funding the development for them. Perhaps the jet doesn't even need to be built for them to make money if they can get the gov't to give them suitibly lucrative R&D contracts out of the NASA and JAXA budgets. It probably is a bad business deal for society in general and if the aerospace companies had to pay for the development cost out of their own pocket they would never be able to justify it economically, but thanks to gov't meddling it might be very profitable for a few well connected companies. You see, politicians know much better where your money should be invested than that mean old marketplace.

Unequal

[Mark_MF-WN]

Even an unequal cooperation can have enormous benefits. Look at Canada and the US with regards to nuclear research. Canada didn't get any bombs out of it (not that we particularly need any when our allies are armed to the nuts with them), but our scientists saw enough of the action to later on make us a leader in nuclear power. Having some of the world's biggest uranium deposits helps, of course, but still. An unequal partnership, if leveraged properly, can be just awesome. It's definitely better than no partnership at all, especially for wee little nations like the aforementioned Canada.

Why NASA?

[Cicero382]

Haven't the British and French teams who designed and built Concorde got the best experience?

Re:Why NASA?

[Chrisq]

The senior engineers have probably retired

Re:Why NASA?

[arivanov]

They are all but retired now. They need to look elsewhere.

Only one company has designed, built and tested a non-military supersonic plane since Concorde and Tu-144. It is Sukhoi for Gulfstream. SUKHOI-GULFSTREAM S-21. http://www.x-plane.org/home/spiff000/S21/S21specs. html

It is not completely clear what Lokheed Martin will do with the patents for the low sonic boom hypersonics and they are rumoured to have a Skunkworks project on it. Noone has seen it yet so the jury is still out on that one.

It is a very good indication about the tentative market that no orders were ever placed for a hypersonic built by Sukhoi and Gulfstream. Even putting the Ferrari and Rolls Royce of aviation together did not cause enough interest so I do think there is a viable market for this.

Re:Why NASA?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Haven't the British and French teams who designed and built Concorde got the best experience?

Yes. But now they're retired or dead.

Re:Why NASA?

[advocate_one]

It is not completely clear what Lokheed Martin will do with the patents for the low sonic boom hypersonics and they are rumoured to have a Skunkworks project on it. Noone has seen it yet so the jury is still out on that one.

has anyone heard it???

I'll get my coat...

Re:Why NASA?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Haven't the British and French teams who designed and built Concorde got the best experience?

Believe it or not, the Japanese want it to actually be a success.

Re:Why NASA?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd have thought that Rolls Royce are the Rolls Royce of aviation (but that's just being silly I guess)?

Re:Why NASA?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

As others have noted the engineers are long retired.

But ironically, in any case the engineers decided (probably very wisely) that going faster than mach ~2.02 causes problems with the airframe, and in particular the nose cone... guess what problems the Japanese are having with their mach mucho vehicle?

Specifically, the engineers decided to make it easy for themselves and use aluminium for constructing Concorde, and got a working vehicle; whilst spending less than the American companies, who tried to go faster (Mach 2.5+) and hence had more problems and thus didn't get any working hardware.

Of course we all know that Concorde economically failed, but it wasn't really the fault of the engineers that the market instantly dried up as soon as they'd got it working...

Re:Artist's Rendition of the Japanese Supersonic J

[segedunum]

A little bit of mental morphing of the image could transform it into the pre-Federation Enterprise (NX-01). Will the Vulcans make first contact in Tokyo?

I read that link......and...I'm...lost for words. Maybe I'm not so much of a geek as I thought I was?

linear aerospike

[distantbody]

Something with an aerospike engine would be nice...Or not.

Re:Artist's Rendition of the Japanese Supersonic J

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

has a web page offering an artist's rendition of the supersonic jet plane

Just an artist's rendition? How about a video of the prototype taking off instead? :-)

Re:Artist's Rendition of the Japanese Supersonic J

[Aglassis]

A little bit of mental morphing of the image could transform it into the pre-Federation Enterprise (NX-01). Will the Vulcans make first contact in Tokyo?

I know I'm going to regret mentioning this.... but,

First contact with the vulcans was made with the Phoenix, not the NX-01.

It'll never fly

[Deathmatchbunny]

Commercial supersonic flight is dead. -There is just no way that you can get around the fact that it takes roughly two to three times the fuel per km flown to travel at supersonic speed. There are fairly fundamental reasons why there will be no significant advances in this area. A future supersonic jet transport might have a glide angle of 12:1 (concorde was ~8:1) while a modern commercial jet is over 20:1 and a future BWB is over 30:1 (some gliders hit 60:1). -The sonic boom prevents any overflight of populated areas and even if significant noise reduction could be achieved the very small constituency for such a service would still see any residual boom noise used as an excuse by the general (and envious) public to restrict or outright ban such overflight. - Exhaust emissions at 20km altitude (roughly double 10km of commercial jets) are of far greater environmental concern due to lower mixing rates with lower atmosphere, impact of water vapour as the number one greenhouse gas and proximity to the politically and environmentally sensitive ozone layer. -Technology really hasn't improved much in relevant materials or engines. Add to this the high costs of development, relatively restricted range and limited routes and you have a total non-starter.

Re:It'll never fly

[ratbag]

Whilst I accept your environmental concerns (though a scramjet could reduce the impact), I think the sonic boom issue is irrelevant for a Japanese trans-Pacific plane, since there are relatively few inhabited places over-flown whilst travelling from Japan to the Americas.

Rob.

Re:It'll never fly

[Kopretinka]

this is off topic, don't waste time or moderation points...

For the parent - you might consider telling the submit form that you do your formatting in plain text. It was so much easier to read your comment in source view than rendered as HTML.

Re:It'll never fly

[Vo0k]

> it takes roughly two to three times the fuel per km flown

First class is roughly two times more expensive than economy class. This one charging ten times the economy class will still produce enough demand to fill all seats.

> The sonic boom prevents any overflight of populated areas and even if significant noise reduction could be achieved the very small constituency for such a service would still see any residual boom noise used as an excuse by the general (and envious) public to restrict or outright ban such overflight

Most of the route over ocean, no problem. The part over populated land can be either performed at altitudes where the residual boom (after active silencing, tech already present in fighter planes) reaching the ground will be unaudible - or travel at subsonic speeds over the land.

> Exhaust emissions at 20km altitude (roughly double 10km of commercial jets) are of far greater environmental concern due to lower mixing rates with lower atmosphere

So there will be just a few such planes. With prices this high there won't be all that much demand anyway... and with enough lobbying environment impact will just get forgotten. Not that I want it, it's just a realistic look at what happens.

> Add to this the high costs of development,
Government-funded, NASA plus JSA, come on...

> relatively restricted range

Half the Earth. Do you need more?

>and limited routes

Only routes where it would make sense. Really no need to fly supersonic from New York to Washington DC. It's not meant to replace current planes, it's just to fill a small niche where there's small but constant demand and no supply.

> and you have a total non-starter.

You have some not all that hard obstacles, no showstoppers.

Re:It'll never fly

[Subbynet]

Commercial supersonic flight is only dead because we have no capable aircraft. If Virgin Galactic can sell tickets at $200,000 for a trip landing where they started then people will pay (like they did before) to cross the world in the shortest time possible.

Re:It'll never fly

[Alomex]

The sonic boom prevents any overflight of populated areas and even if significant noise reduction could be achieved the very small constituency for such a service would still see any residual boom noise used as an excuse by the general (and envious) public to restrict or outright ban such overflight

The sonic boom is a redherring thrown by the US airline industry when they lost the SST race. There are many cities in the US where sonic booms are (or used to be) routine. Tucson, Seattle, and anyother city with major military related development areas nearby. Nobody ever complained.

Re:It'll never fly

[gardyloo]

Most of the route over ocean, no problem. The part over populated land can be either performed at altitudes where the residual boom (after active silencing, tech already present in fighter planes) reaching the ground will be unaudible - or travel at subsonic speeds over the land.

    Um... As far as I know, a source-based active-silencing system will only make things worse. You can actively silence a relatively small space (even the cockpit of a fighter plane is a big space, acoustics-wise), but an active-silence system ON the jet, FOR the ground doesn't make sense. Once you're a wavelength away from the area that's being silenced, the resulting pressure amplitude is TWICE the unsilenced amplitude. That's how it works, sorry.

    Also, having shock fronts traveling subsonically is nothing special -- it's what generally happens in gases anyway, at least to good approximation.

      Finally, Wikipedia has this to say:
       
In the late 1950s when SST designs were being actively pursued, it was thought that although the boom would be very large, they could avoid problems by flying higher. This premise was proven false when the North American B-70 Valkyrie started flying and it was found that the boom was a very real problem even at 70,000ft (21,000m). It was during these tests that the N-wave was first characterized.

Re:It'll never fly

[Vo0k]

> Um... As far as I know, a source-based active-silencing system will only make things worse. You can actively silence a relatively small space

That's the case for classic noise reduction. This thing is not about responding with equal but opposite force but about distributing the wave over time, so that the front isn't a sharp spike in pressure but a gradual rise. The energy is same or slightly stronger, but by distributing it over time (even miliseconds) you reduce the sudden impact effect.

Re:It'll never fly

[Vo0k]

> Nobody ever complained.

Nope. Simply no complains were ever respected by the army ;)

We've had this discussion before

[dtmos]

In August 2005.

To sum up, the rationale for the Japanese to work on a supersonic transport is based on three assumptions:

1. The scramjet engine will reduce operating (read: fuel) costs per average passenger mile significantly below that of the Concorde (by supporting a larger plane and being more fuel-efficient at cruise),

2. The plane will be capable of nonstop trans-Pacific flight (an ability also largely due to the fuel-efficiency of the scramjet), and

3. The much longer trans-Pacific flights in which the Japanese are interested will more dramatically show the time-of-arrival advantage of the supersonic plane than the shorter trans-Atlantic flights of the Concorde, and make it more appealing to seat-weary passengers.

I suppose there is also a fourth assumption, that cheap, fast, trans-Pacific travel would greatly improve the national economy of Japan in general and the Japanese aircraft industry in particular. This is the reason the Japanese government is expressing interest.

Whether these assumptions turn out to be factual or not requires research, which the Japanese are now doing.

I now return you to your previously-scheduled discussion, already in progress.

Re:We've had this discussion before

[Anonymous Coward]

Military intention, it's not just business!

Worth the Ticket Price

[rtobyr]

I know this may be an unpopular point of view, but I recently flew to the Philippines with a layover in Taiwan. From San Francisco to Taiwan, it was a 14 hour flight. That sucked. It sucked big time. I don't know how much extra I'd have had to pay for a supersonic flight, but it may have been worth it. It would be interesting to know whether all the people posting comments about what a waste of money this is have ever flown nonstop to Asia.

Re:Worth the Ticket Price

[coofercat]

This is broadly how BA used to market Concorde - as a time management tool. Flying Concorde would cost you something like three to five times as much as conventional flights. If your time is worth enough, that actually saves you money. Especially as you could go from London to NY and back again without particularly having to contend with jetlag. Given the flights were pretty plush (although a bit cramped inside, you got use of the lounge, bags carried etc) you'd arrive at your destination in pretty good shape, rather than having had the life sucked out of you for 8 hours+ each way.

The same questions remain though: Are there significant numbers of people who's time is worth the premium price? (especially as the premium price is likely to be high unless this thing runs on a teaspoon of fuel). Sonic boom issues will slow flights down, although new technology will enable faster non-supersonic and presumably faster supersonic flight. It's not like the Japanese to bugger up the business angle on things, so maybe they've got something...?

Re:Worth the Ticket Price

[MichaelSmith]

From San Francisco to Taiwan, it was a 14 hour flight.

The last time I went from Melbourne to Dublin it took me 30 hours. I don't like it but the business travelers who pay a lot of the running costs of airlines are using email, video conferencing and MS office documents instead of their expensive travel.

Re:Worth the Ticket Price

[AGMW]

If your time is worth enough, that actually saves you money.

As I understand it, BA had a bunch of meeting rooms you could hire that were "this side" of customs and immigration, allowing a UK (European) visitor to have a meeting in JFK without having to clear customs and hence saving even more time!

There will always be people willing to pay the extra. I paid £40 extra for more legroom the last time I returned from New York, and that would seem like a waste to many. If I could pay maybe a couple of hundred more for a 3 hour flight instead of 7 or 8, that'd be money well spent in my book, and I'm not that wealthy, I just don't like sitting on a plane for hours! It's really not that big a leap to see people willing to spend a couple of grand to fly supersonic, and all you really need to do is look back at Concorde, under BA, and see it basically working!

Re:Worth the Ticket Price

[rthille]

Well, at least in the short term, supersonic will be more than first class. Since first class would have made those 14 hours much more comfortable at only 2-4 times the price, and still cheaper than supersonic, you definitely paid for that right?

I wish we had an ultrasonic jet

[Raindeer]

All this talk of supersonic passenger jets, great nice, but it will never be economically feasible, certainly not with the $100/barrel oil prices. What would be much more appreciated by the market and politicians is ultrasonic or anti-sonic jets. Anything that kills the noise of jets

Re:I wish we had an ultrasonic jet

[Vo0k]

Nope. There are people ready to pay enough to make it feasible. Increase price, increase unit profit, decrease number of potential customers, either increase or decrease total profit. I bet if they made 2-seat 6-mach fighter planes available for plain human transport across the ocean (pilot+1 passenger), there would be still enough demand to make it pay if the travel lasted 3h instead of 14. Likely impossible for military reasons, not economic.

This is not the point...

[ufoot]

Whatever time you may gain by flying at supersonic speeds, you'll lose it at the customs because this flight is so highly controlled that one needs to really check that your best friend is not likely to have a relative which has spent 3 days in Irak 20 years ago...

You'll loose 3 hours in traffic jams on both sides of your trip, not even gaining them back on flight.

Talking about comfort? 15 hours trips not being comfortable? Well, at this speed, you spend so much fuel that using the same fuel, at the same price, you could fly at a "standard" speed but using more space in the plane. Enough space to have a comfortable sit, be able to put your kids in a real bed, and so on. You know, all the prototypes Boeing and Airbus show you before the planes ship, and which are never used by companies because noone will ever pay 3000$ instead of 1000$ just to be more comfortable, except people who don't pay for it (their companies do). Get serious.

The only real interest would be for workers who really need to cross oceans quickly. I bet their employers would save a bunch of money learning how to use remote conference tools efficiently. You can decide to build a factory 10 000 miles from the physical place it will be built on. This is called progress, evolution. No need to move the body of the bright guy who makes decisions.

Get serious, civil supersonic flight might be cool, thrilling for its passengers and rewarding for the engineers involved in it, but it's pointless.

Don't underestimate JSA.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't underestimate Japan Space Agency. They are the guys who invented the Ramen Noodles, together with agency that invented Velcro they are bound to create something revolutionary.

Re:No arms race if everyone wins

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it'd be nice if they stayed at their own walls and left ours to us.

Re:No arms race if everyone wins

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Great idea, lets all lay down our arms, hold hands and sing songs about peace and love.

I called for greater international coorporation (in a non-military context even). Nothing more, nothing less.

You're entire reactionary, pro-military, knee-jerk rant was irrelevant - but I have to reply to a couple of points.

Our military has a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for wasted expenditures, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what the military knows.

You say 'Our' military - but I am not British (or French/Iranian/US/whatever you are), I come from & live in countries that are small, have minimal military budgets & rely on good relations for defense.

That military spending, while tragic and excessive, probably saved lives.

Uh huh. I feel safer allready (btw, if I was an Iraqi I'd definitely be disagreeing with you)

Either way, I don't give a damn what you think.

You obviously do - or you wouldn't have posted.

I see

[WindBourne]

So you live in a country like kuwait of 1990 perhaps?

Personally, I tend to like the swiss model. Have good relations with everybody and have a good mliitary.

Where we go wrong is that we have presidents who every so often have to prove something or they want something such as oil. Then we throw out might around (basically a bully or being greedy).

Re:I see

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

So you live in a country like kuwait of 1990 perhaps?

Please either reread my comment - particularly the line rely on good relations for defense. or understand a little history - particularly the sort of relations Kuwait had with its neighbours in 1990.

Personally, I tend to like the swiss model. Have good relations with everybody and have a good mliitary.

Swiss are completely different - they're a neutral country (not even a part of the UN) and hard to compare. As for a 'good military'...well it aint so expensive.

Swiss military expenditure 1% of GDP

US military expenditure 4%+ of GDP" (interestingly, slightly less then Kuwait you mentioned earlier.

Where we go wrong is that we have presidents who every so often have to prove something or they want something such as oil. Then we throw out might around (basically a bully or being greedy).

I'm afraid more then 'every so often'.

Re:I see

[Anonymous Coward]

interestingly, slightly less then Kuwait you mentioned earlier.

Prior to the invasion, Kuwait had minimal military (20K troops and fourty tanks). For some odd reason, After the invasion, they have been working to have a decent military.

I'm afraid more then 'every so often'.

Yes, I am aware of our excesses. Of course, that makes us on par with Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, USSR, Japan, China, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, etc.

Re:I see

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I am aware of our excesses. Of course, that makes us on par with Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, USSR, Japan, China, Iraq, Iran, Cuba, etc.

Can you please link to the countries that Iran & Cuba* have invaded?

Can you please link to the 130 countries Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, USSR, Japan, China, Iraq, Iran & Cuba have military bases in?

Can you please link to the one-overseas-military-conflict-per-year that Britain, France, Spain, Germany, Russia, USSR, Japan, China, Iraq, Iran & Cuba have had?

* Including Cuba on your list shows that you are a fucking retard.

Re:I see

[Lars T.]

Since when does pissing of your biggest neighbor (by suddenly demanding back the money you financed the war with between him and the big neighbor across the gulf and slant drilling for oil under his soil) count as "relying on good relations"?

Re:I see

[Anonymous Coward]

* Including Cuba on your list shows that you are a fucking retard.

Yeah, Cuba never had any involvements or troops located in say Nicaragua, Angola, Afghanastan, etc. nor involvements in any other african or south american country (Shining Path ring a bell????)

Likewise, Iran is well known for its funding and support of terrorists groups , most of which are dedicated to the downfall of Isreal or any western country.

As to links, well, google for it. Your laziness does not mean that I have to do the work for you.

Just as bush is an idiot for ignoring history, I would have to say that you are just as bad, if not worse. Bush has an excuse (he is persuing money for him self and friends). OTH, you are simply blathering and appear to no capabilities except to resort to being foul mouth.

fucking classic

[Anonymous Coward]

that was the most original joke I've seen on slashdot in maybe 9 or 12 months, heh.
u're a fag

Tokyo to NY in 3 Hours

[digitaldc]

For those who can afford it its great, for the vast majority of the world's population, they will never fly on it.
Should taxpayers have to fund NASA supersonic jet projects that they will never fly on?

Then again, the money is better spent here than say some new WMD.

Re:Tokyo to NY in 3 Hours

[DRM_is_Stupid]

Well, NASA was probably going to spend money on supersonic jets anyway, so which is better - NASA developing super sonic jets and not selling any, vs. developing them, then selling it to Japan for profit?

Also, only a few generations ago, air travel was enjoyed by only the richest. But now most people in developed nations can afford to fly at least once in their lifetime. Most technology that's expensive one day eventually drops in price. This is usually the case (people on /. should know this), however with airlines the main cost factor is fuel, which is a problem we are increasingly having trouble dealing with.

Re:Tokyo to NY in 3 Hours

[digitaldc]

But now most people in developed nations can afford to fly at least once in their lifetime.

But why would they except for the fact that they said the did it? Most likely, people will spend that money on a vacation that last 3+ days and not 3 hours.

Re:Tokyo to NY in 3 Hours

[Too many errors, bai]

Who said supersonic vehicles can only be used for personal transport? Might just be the way to go for 1-day cargo shipping. Supersonic shipping would be the logistics industry's wet dream.

Correction:Tokyo to LA in 3 Hours

[digitaldc]

Sorry....just woke up, haven't had my jet fuel yet.

Is this fesable?

[ColourlessGreenIdeas]

Current scramjets are very small pilotless machines that fail half the time, don't work below mach 5 and are crashed on landing. It seems quite a lot of work needs to be dont to make a commercial scramjet. 2025 seems ambitious for getting it done.

How do they intend to get the thing started? Can scramjets work at slower speeds with more development? Will they strap a load of booster rockets on the back?

Re:Is this fesable?

[Anonymous Coward]

> that fail half the time, don't work below mach 5 and are crashed on landing

Man, that last one would just really be pretty harsh for commercial use.

"Ladies and gentlemen, there is no need to fasten your seatbelts, for these are the last 20 minutes of your life. We are scheduled to smack into the ground near Seattle at mach 7 at roughly 5:58 pm today - several minutes ahead of schedule due to a tailwind we'll have on the way. Weather in Seattle is light rain and 51 degrees. We know you have a choice of carriers, and we thank you for flying United."

Calling Mr. Smith, Calling Adam Smith, STAT!

[argStyopa]

Well, I'd look at it this way.

You're the smartest kid in the class. Your project is 75% done.
The other kids, not from perhaps as nice a home as yours, without your rich parents and ample access to resources, are only 10-50% done.

What possible motivation could you have for handing your project materials over to the others, to help them get theirs done? Note: before you answer, please remember that as far as I know, nobody (no landlords, grocers, car dealers, universities, doctors, etc) let you pay for anything with "good karma".

Because in the real world, people have to have reasons and motivations to do things. This project is progressing on multiple fronts because a multiple of people see that there is commercial/scientific/national opportunity in it. If those are the motivations for pursuing the projects in the first place, how could any of them be advanced by 'pooling' resources (in any way that would be an advantage to the leader).

And lest you cast the US as the sole bogeyman here, I'd be just as interested to see if the people that are second-most-advanced would be willing to share their tech with the 3-4-5th most. (Although there, there is at least the motivation that perhaps together they could be first, and thus gain the benefits of first place, which none of them probably will reach alone....)

Re:Calling Mr. Smith, Calling Adam Smith, STAT!

[ritzKracker]

Well, you have removed the classroom from its context. Why are you and all the students there? Are you there to beat your classmates, or are you there to better your self. Not to say that competition and being the best is bad, its only part of the over all endeavor. You would be better served to share knowledge, which would uplift everyone, or atleast all who could get along. Its impossible to always be the best, eventually you will be supplanted, and then where will you be?

Re:Calling Mr. Smith, Calling Adam Smith, STAT!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the smartest kid in the class. Your project is 75% done. The other kids, not from perhaps as nice a home as yours, without your rich parents and ample access to resources, are only 10-50% done.
What possible motivation could you have for handing your project materials over to the others, to help them get theirs done? Note: before you answer, please remember that as far as I know, nobody lets you pay for anything with "good karma".

Wow. If that's the typical attitude in the US, then that explains why the rest of the world hates the US so much. (Or, if that's the typical attitude of the Western world, then it explains why the rest of the world hates the Western world....
I'm sick and disgusted of this money-worshipping materialistic attitude. FWIW, I have been among the 5 top students in class (perhaps the top, too), and I have helped others do their homework/project whatever, for no material gain.

Re:Calling Mr. Smith, Calling Adam Smith, STAT!

[j_snare]

I'd say you misread that a bit.

Since you disagree (strongly), you're saying that you've been one of the top students, finishing a project first, and have actually handed your project materials over to the others, to help them get theirs done? This is to the detriment of your own project, taking resources, if not your actual project, and giving it away. THEN you have to start over, or re-make much of your project (perhaps gathering new resources, etc).

I've been in a position to help other students and have even given away resources if it was going to take me some mostly trivial amount of time to rebuild it, but I do not cripple my project for the sake of theirs.

Now, is that a valid comparison to sharing research information on this sort of thing? Perhaps not, though it's not bad to keep in mind that collaboration takes resources, and those resources might be better spent on the actual project. Researchers are not doing this research for the fun of it, and the materials they are using are not free. Anything they use their resources on takes away from other possible uses.

I'm sick and disgusted of this money-worshipping materialistic attitude.

Sorry, but unfortunately, the entire world works this way. You have to trade money for resources. How else are you going to get the metal to build the engine with? How about fuel? It's not money-worship, it's that we can't use materials if we can't pay for them.

What about Unobtainium?

[daBass]

Scramjets at Mach 5+ are nice, but what about the Unobtainium needed to actually build a large airframe that suports that kind of speed?

Re:No arms race if everyone wins

[Xabraxas]

I was just going to mod your comment but there is no mod for "sociopath".

Instead I am just going to suggest you climb out of your bunker and get some air. Don't worry the bogeyman isn't going to get you.

As for your comments. First of all the military doesn't know shit. Governments and intelligence agencies do, well, at least they are supposed to. Second, pork projects don't save lives or else they wouldn't be pork projects. Finally the military, at least the US military, lost the right to use the word honor at Abu Ghraib, if not earlier.

Competition generates solutions

[everphilski]

Competition brings to light solutions that one particular team might elimiate via a trade study by valuing the wrong thing in a trade. Competition is good. Especially in (still) developing fields like high-speed combustion. There is no right and wrong or "My way or the highway (Yet...). We know "In theory" this is how it should be built but "In practice" it is very different. The best tradeoff might be a worse design than the second best tradeoff due to a parameter that was neglected by the engineers. Competition is essential.

If you can do orbital velocity for $3000

[everphilski]

... there are a **lot** of people who would like to talk to you.

LEO time to orbit is about 90 minutes, so that is 45 minutes to make it halfway around the world (or to just about anywhere from anywhere if you think about it). In order to make a suborbital hop "on the order of 30 minutes" you'd have to do orbital velocity...

Re:If you can do orbital velocity for $3000

[Aqualung812]

Good point, but I think he was talking about a 2 hour Concorde trip, such as NY to Paris. THAT could be done in 30 minutes LEO. CHI to Bangalore would be in the 45 minute transit range, or more like 1:30 runway to runway. Just think what we'll have when we can fly to India in under 2 hours, making a 10:00 am meeting and still home by supper. Argue good or bad, but it will be intresting.

Is there a market for this ?

[kegon]

According to my selective memory, Concorde failed because the US, Boeing etc realised that Britain and France had stolen a march on the next generation of aerospace technology. Looking for an excuse to avoid being left behind, they proceeded to campaign bitterly that supersonic flights would be continuously breaking windows in peoples houses everytime they flew overhead and that the environmental damage would be disastrous. This limited the number of routes and carriers that would accept Concorde and in the end only British Airways and Air France ran a token fleet. See here for more neutral reporting.

Granted, Concorde was a noisy beast especially on take off and I believe there was a regulation preventing them from going supersonic over land but it was a superb feat of engineering (the only commercial aircraft to have an afterburner) especially considering that they were designed to fly for 15-20 years and ended up doing almost double that (with extensive maintenance).

At the end of the day, the Airbus A380 is going to carry around 800 people at far greater scales of economy and comfort than any future civilian supersonic aircraft. It would be nice to have one, but haven't airlines already committed to larger and more economic than smaller and faster ?

Also, Japan must partner, otherwise they'll hit the same problems the British and French had, back in the day.

Re:Is there a market for this ?

[Darth_brooks]

Granted, Concorde was a noisy beast especially on take off and I believe there was a regulation preventing them from going supersonic over land but it was a superb feat of engineering (the only commercial aircraft to have an afterburner) especially considering that they were designed to fly for 15-20 years and ended up doing almost double that (with extensive maintenance).

The regulations regarding supersonic flight over populated areas weren't concorde specific. Breaking the speed of sound over land will get you greeted by several members of the the No Fun League (otherwise known as the FAA) who will politely (ha!) remind you about how difficult they can make your life as a pilot. The rules regarding supersonic flight started taking shape around the time the Air Force started getting aircraft that could break the speed of sound into their regular inventory. (Apparently the novelty of man's most recent achievement in flight wore off quickly)

Boeing was behind, but it became very apparent that the SST or Concorde were only going to make the Trans-atlantic run, period. There simply weren't any other places where it could be flown without bothering the general public. Think about it; people who choose to buy houses that are near the airport do nothing but complain about the noise and raise hell when there's any talk of expansion. Think of what kind of NIMBY-ism would have erupted from people 250 miles from the nearest airport who, by a stroke of luck, happened to live near the area where all of the SST's would be going supersonic. I know 50 random sonic booms a day, every day would make me into a *really* happy camper. (ok, so the airplane buff in me would) So Boeing opted to stick with the "whole lot of people, just not quite as fast" track that aviation has been on since the early 50's. It also didn't help when the government teet that they'd been suckling to R & D money dried up.

Maybe the technology has reached a point in terms of fuel efficiency where it might be more cost effective to build an SST, but you're still not going to be able to put enough meat in the seat to keep the bean counters happy.

NASA has a full plate

[amightywind]

NASA is fully preoccupied with finishing the space station for our international partners and developing the CEV and new lunar landing infrastructure. NASP, X-33, Boeing's Supersonic Airliner.. There will be no major expendatures on yet another pie in the sky aerospaceplane. The justification is pretty weak - Tokyo to L.A. It sounds more like a bumbling attempt to grab technology from the US.

It was a freaking joke

[gatzke]

Does nobody get the reference to Jack Nickelson vs. Tom Cruise in "A few Good Men"?? 1992 was not that long ago, or am I getting old? Kids today, no respect for their elders...

Re:It was a freaking joke

[RicRoc]

I thought it was funny and got the reference right away! :-)

Keep up the good comments, even if most people don't get it. At least you provide a chuckle to some of us.

Re:It was a freaking joke

[Xabraxas]

Fuck! I thought it sounded familiar but I haven't seen that movie in years.

Re:It was a freaking joke

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you just proved to everyone that you are not only ignorant but also stupid. Must be bliss to live in your world.

Re:It was a freaking joke

[drinkypoo]

It's probably because most of us would rather watch a few good movies.

I don't get it

[Lars T.]

Why exactly is "Japan is looking for the next generation supersonic flight solution"? They didn't much use the one(s) before.

Re:I don't get it

[cnettel]

Where would they fly with a plane which couldn't cross the Pacific and which was loud enough to not be allowed to go supersonic over land? Australia? (Hm, and don't even think of Japanese planes going to Hawaii...)

With a plane that fast...

[NotQuiteReal]

With a plane that fast fuel costs are irrelevant - you just fill up and take off without paying at the pump. Who can catch you?

Of course you can only fly out of each airport once before you have to repaint the plane to disguise it! Eventually all that extra paint will slow down the plane... hmmm maybe you are right. Oh! I know - don't use paint! They can change colors with sharpies!

Interesting

[Guppy06]

So demand in Japan for a shorter trip to Saipan or Honolulu is so great that they're going to be developing a supersonic passenger jet because of it?

Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to open up a few shooting ranges domestically for vacationers to go to, or do they also want to be able to practice their English on the locals while playing Dirty Harry?

A cover-up for weapon research

[AtomicBomb]

The scramjet research for civilian transportation is a poor cover up for weapon research program. I mean getting something about the size of air-to-air missile is not technically feasible at this stage. Getting a 767 size scramjet is at least decades away. I doubt if it is a rational strategy for any country which cannot make a sizable passenger jet at this moment to take on such a massive project right at start. Most are probably aiming to or tracking the technology that can allow them to develop the next generation of spy-plane/ air-to-air/ cruise missile. The military spending of Japanese government is second in the world. It is not at all as peace-loving country as perceived by many.

Re:A cover-up for weapon research

[Guppy06]

"I doubt if it is a rational strategy for any country which cannot make a sizable passenger jet at this moment to take on such a massive project right at start."

It's more rational than the largest aircraft carrier in the US Navy trying to develop its own weapons program. At the very least they'd amendmend their constitution first before trying to break into a defense market that's so completely dominated by American and European companies.

"The military spending of Japanese government is second in the world."

First off, you misspelled either "China" or "United Kingdom," depending on whose numbers you believe. Secondly, Japanese military spending doesn't go to the SDF, but to supporting the US military.

Re:No arms race if everyone wins

[Anonymous Coward]

As for your comments. First of all the military doesn't know shit. Governments and intelligence agencies do, well, at least they are supposed to.

If you knew how many GIs, airman, and sailors work under the indirect auspices of the NSA you might have a goddamned clue. There just might be some affiliation with the NRO, DIA, etc as well.

Finally the military, at least the US military, lost the right to use the word honor at Abu Ghraib, if not earlier.

Wrong answer. Some pissant reserve MP company in Maryland lost the right to use the word honor. I can cite atrocities committed by every major nation's military, to include the majority of those in Europe.

Re: We've got [some of] the bombs

[Malakusen]

(active/total)
United States 5,735/9,960
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 5,830/16,000
United Kingdom France 350
People's Republic of China 400
India 75-110
Pakistan 65-110
statistics provided by the Natural Resources Defense Council

As for brains, http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scor es.htm says differently. Our 4th graders made the best showing of all the categories, coming in at #12. However, it is an incomplete list of countries. Singapore, Korea, and Japan, who dominate grades 4 and 8, are absent from the 12th grade list. However you look at it, it's bad.

Regardless, we do have the advantage of having done things with space no other country has... but back in the 60s and 70s. Innovation in the U.S. has been dragging for decades, we should and easily could have had a manned base on the moon and on Mars by now, and we could even have been in good shape to start mining the asteroids. I look at America's space program, and I see not only all the great stuff we've done, but all the really great stuff we could have done and haven't.

A380 and comfort in the same sentence?

[blueZ3]

Ha!

What's going to happen with the A380 is the same thing that always happens with new passenger jets: it'll be shown and sold with "generous legroom, fully-reclining seats, and a lounge" and in a year or two the airlines will have "increased their efficiency" by adding sixteen rows of seats, reducing the leg room to 12" per row and replacing the "lounge" with more first-class seats.

Riding the A380 is going to be like riding the train in India, you'll just get to your destination faster.

Re: We've got [some of] the bombs

[Rei]

United States 5,735/9,960
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 5,830/16,000
United Kingdom France 350
People's Republic of China 400
India 75-110
Pakistan 65-110

Those are some wacky statistics there. Can you provide a link? Any collection of nuclear statistics that leaves off Israel's large arsenal (third to fifth largest in the world, depending on which estimates you look at) is rather messed up. Also, it's important to know how many are mated to long-range delivery systems. For example, of China's nuclear force, they have under 25 DF-5s (their ICBM), and of these, not all are believed to have nuclear warheads on them.

Re:Hey! Guess what!

[Anonymous Coward]

You clazy amelican plicks!

Re: We've got [some of] the bombs

[Malakusen]

Israel doesn't report how many nukes it has, IIRC. Anyway, here's the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_wit h_nuclear_weapons

As I said, they got their statistics from the Natural Resources Defense Council, published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. The article on Wikipedia states, concerning Israel, that:
 
  Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or to having developed nuclear weapons, or even to having a nuclear weapons program. Although Israel claims that Dimona is a "research reactor," no scientific reports based on work done there have ever been published. Extensive information about the program in Dimona was also disclosed by technician Mordechai Vanunu in 1986. Imagery analysts can identify weapon bunkers, mobile missile launchers, and launch sites in satellite photographs. It is believed to possess nuclear weapons by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Israel may have tested a nuclear weapon along with South Africa in 1979 (see Vela Incident). According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, they may possess 300-400 weapons, a figure which would put them above the median in the declared list.
 
So that's why, on the list, Israel is left off. They've got [some of] the bombs also, they just aren't talking about it. Incidentally, that would seem to indicate that Israel has a greater willingness to use nuclear weapons, since the U.S. and Russia have always used nukes as deterrents, and as such have no reason to keep hidden how many they have. To a point anyway, I'm sure there's plenty of unreported nukes on both sides. But Israel, by playing their nuclear cards very close to the vest, and not threatening with them, seem to indicate that they're saving them for a rainy day when they really need them.
 
I don't see why the statistics seemed so wacky. You thought we were the only ones?

Hey!

[jbeaupre]

Now that you put it that way, it sounds like we in the States got ripped off! Yeah, well, we'll have our revenge. With global warming, how you gonna play hockey? Maybe if we had done all the work, we'd be farther ahead in nuclear power and you'd still have hockey.

Re:Hey!

[Mark_MF-WN]

Well, it's not like the US isn't one of the other leaders in Nuclear technology. And with all the recent interest in nuclear, y'all could make a killing exporting snazzy little reactors that run on the plutonium from de-commissioned weapons. As long as you only export them to people you trust, of course. Everyone else gets depleted landfill-grade radon... :P

Re:Hey!

[jbeaupre]

Ah, but imagine how much farther ahead we'd be if we hadn't, what's the term?, ah yes, 'outsourced' the research to those crafty Canadians! Why I bet they are sitting on a wealth of nuclear info just to make us dependent on their hydroelectric and tar sands. But the South Africans may yet save the world with their snazzy little pebble bed reactors.

Re: We've got [some of] the bombs

[Rei]

Israel doesn't report how many nukes it has, IIRC.

Neither does China, for example, but they're on your list due to estimates. There's more information out there about Israel's nuclear program than China's (thanks in part to Mordechai Vanunu, who is fascinating to read about, by the way, but not exclusively due to him). Israel is actually top of the line on uranium isotope separation -- they did a lot of pioneering work on large scale LIS (Laser Isotope Separation), while we in the US are so backwards that we still have diffusion plants.

Will History repeat itself?

[p33p3r]

My slant on the reason that JA PAN inc. wants NASA collaboration is so they can stick it to the US of A the same way Air France did earlier when they obtained information on research for a quieter, more fuel efficient aircraft. Air France used the Freedom of Information Act to get the plans from the government on a research project that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to the government, Pratt & Whitney, Boeing, Martin - Marietta, et al. This consortium was partially funded by US taxpayer dollars. Therefore, the information was available in the public domain. Air France did nothing but take, for free, data which brought about the Airbus 300. If the US government allows this to occur again, they deserve to be stomped into the ground, aeronautically speaking.
HSR, HSCT, NASP are hotly contested research projects. The issue is how to fund it. Taxpayer funding opens the information to "The Benefit of All". Aircraft and powerplant companies cannot afford to fund the research by themselves. National Resource Facilities like the 10 X 10 supersonic wind tunnel at Glenn /Lewis Research Center did preliminary work on these projects. NRF is the designation of facilities that meet one of two (possibly more) criteria. They are the only type of facility that exists in the US or in the world. The race for commercial hypersonic aircraft *is* the new space race.

Russian to American translator

[Anonymous Coward]

25.4mm = 1 inch

Re: We've got [some of] the bombs

[Malakusen]

Blame the Natural Resources Defense Council, and complain to them. It's not my list, it's theirs.

Re:No arms race if everyone wins

[kimvette]

Why the hell is a funny relevant movie quote modded troll?

Mod up, not down, and if you don't know the reference, pass it by. Sheesh. Your mod points could be put to better use modding up an insightful post someplace.

Cooporation is the way of the future DEAD END

[Anonymous Coward]

From a perspective of working day-to-day with Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and
the Natioanl Space Development Agency (NASDA) types I would recommend NASA to
ignore any and all approaches from JAXA. "Pooling resources" is a fools errand, because
there are no persons at JAXA with any technical training or experience that would make them
competent! That is, every single person who I had a working relationship at NASDA and
now JAXA is incompetent. They, as in JAXA, are mearly looking for someone, NASA, to do
the thinking and work for them, JAXA, which they, JAXA, are incapable of and then they want
to take all the credit and patents for what ever comes of it.

I personally damn them all (JAXA and their croney extra government agencies in Japan).

Toodles!