Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Next-Generation Airplane Concepts
faisy writes "NASA has taken the wraps off three concept designs for quiet, energy efficient aircraft that could potentially be ready to fly as soon as 2025. The designs come from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and The Boeing Company. In the final months of 2010, each of these companies won a contract from NASA to research and test their concepts during 2011."
A spamblog with two boring images. Bravo, editors.
I think we are reaching the end of the internet if this is /.worthy.
Seriously, a few poorly rendered concept drawings? There aren't words. There isn't anything to discuss here...
Timothy, have you been drinking?
In all fairness they would have a winning record by the time they won the Superbowl!
You see, by bio-engineering giant birds, and strapping a freight container to the back, we can eliminate the need for pilots.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/flight_2025.html
A while back I watched a documentary on flying wings and with all the their advantages, they have two major drawbacks. Firstly, we don't have the airport infrastructure to support their form factor. Secondly, passengers would be seated further away from the centerline of the aircraft. That means whenever you're making turns, passengers will experience pronounced pitching. That means more air sickness, discomfort, complaints, etc.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
You mean 2030, after NASA's next budget cut, then 2035 after the prototype is over budget and under-preforms, then 2040 after the project is taken over by new management, 2044 because of a new presidential administration's dislike of NASA, and finally canceled in 2503 for a different presidential administration's bid for re-election, showing that they can cut budgets and save money.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
of paper airplanes worthy of this article and also of our tax paying dollars. 1. Fold in half, then open 2. Put paper in palm of open hand (pick one) 3. Crumple paper rigoriously 4. Lean back in rocker and shoot for the downtown shot and swish. 5. Send a bill for 5 million dollars to NASA for a superior design flaw, used paper.
A friend of mine is a aerospace engineer at Lockheed, and about four years ago we were talking about future improvements to airplanes. I don't recall how it came up, but I was wondering how the design could really develop much beyond where it already is... a tube full of people, with wings. He sketched out something almost identical to Lockheed's submission here, and bemoaned the fact that buyers tend to reject out of hand anything they don't immediately recognize. He told me that modern design software makes it possible to design far more efficient planes that would look very different from the ones we now have, but it's difficult (read: impossible) to get anyone to invest in a plan that deviates from the known-good designs that have been working for decades.
There's a much better article on this in Cnet, by the excellent Chris Matyszczyk:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20028638-71.html?tag=mncol;title
Those are them nutjobs thinking that the climate is changing, and that it's our fault. Now they want us to fly "energy efficient" airplanes. That's code for socialist airplanes! And they'll probably be serving vegan food on them as well. Don't fall for it!
My UID is prime. Hah!
This is hardly next generation. There isn't even a saucer section to separate. Where is the holodeck? This isn't even a galaxy class starship. NASA is so far behind it's going backwards. I bet they don't even do warp 3.
Actually, I don't think it does.
Here's a larger picture. Notice how the engine is mounted on a fin that does not emerge vertically from the tail of the aircraft. The engine mount comes out of the fuselage at an angle, and then curves up towards the vertical through the space occupied by the engine. If you look at the bottom of the fuselage, you can just make out the edge of a second engine's bluish cowling. It's mounted on the other side, also angled out from the aircraft, but largely obscured by the point of view of the image.
I don't think they chose a very good camera angle for showing off the concept.
Actually it looks like the Lockheed proposal is two-engined. I posted this comment downthread, but there's a pretty good chance it'll just get buried down there, so I thought I'd post it here too.
Here's a larger picture. Notice how the engine is mounted on a fin that does not emerge vertically from the tail of the aircraft. The engine mount comes out of the fuselage at an angle, and then curves up towards the vertical through the space occupied by the engine. If you look at the bottom of the fuselage, you can just make out the edge of a second engine's bluish cowling. It's mounted on the other side, also angled out from the aircraft, but almost completely obscured by the fuselage because of the point of view of the image.
I don't think they chose a very good camera angle for showing off the concept.
NASA's goals for a 2030-era aircraft, compared with an aircraft entering service today, are:
A 71-decibel reduction below current Federal Aviation Administration noise standards, which aim to contain objectionable noise within airport boundaries.
A greater than 75 percent reduction on the International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection Sixth Meeting, or CAEP/6, standard for nitrogen oxide emissions, which aims to improve air quality around airports.
A greater than 70 percent reduction in fuel burn performance, which could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the cost of air travel. The ability to exploit metroplex concepts that enable optimal use of runways at multiple airports within metropolitan areas, as a means of reducing air traffic congestion and delays.
There's also an image gallery link for more concept art and some PDF-converted presentations from Boeing, GE, MIT and Northrop Grumman.
Next thing you know, we will be flying on Chinese jets while we listen to our Chinese ipods through our Chinese earbuds eating our Chinese peanuts wearing our Chinese shoes.
But the IP, DRM and other legal challenges will still be American :)
I live close to one of the largest wind tunnels in Europe and the Chinese have hired it for testing of their own civilian aircraft designs.
What I hear of those involved is they are so terrible bureaucratic, for even the most trivial deviation they need to call home, that any results are a very long way down the road.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
That's one way to deter would-be hijackers: require a wing walk to get to the cockpit.
The profit motive is very good at making incremental improvements to aircraft and move towards a locally optimal solution. The problem is that capital will never be invested in big changes to aircraft concepts because that is entirely too costly and risky. (If you don't believe me, try to get a simple change to airframe design or materials certified by the FAA and try to estimate the resulting risk of failure with the amortized costs of potentially crashed airplanes full of dead and injured people). So the only way to get beyond a local optimum and try to find a better solution is to fund it from a source that is not tied to medium and long term stockholder value. Of course, it might not be worth it to search for better solutions, but, really, that is unknowable before doing the work.
1. Bemoan loss of US tech edge
2. Bemoan lack of profits in long term research
3. Get government to spend taxpayer $$ for research the companies should do for themselves
4. Use taxpayer paid R&D to develop new products - $$ profit!
5. Sell new products in China - $$ profit!
6. China gets all that taxpayer funded R&D to develop their own products, which are cheaper than US made versions
7. Bemoan loss of US tech edge....
Much better view at this resolution, thanks. Kinda looks like someone started with the flying wing concept, then hollowed it out and pasted it onto a standard fuselage. Which might be more promising than a totally new design.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
You see people trotting down a runway with bird cages on their heads, all kinds of awful colors mixed together, and various body parts showing that maybe shouldn't be showing. Half a year later, the shops are actually selling normal clothes in the general average color of the ones you were shown on the show, with a few accents of the other colors, and no longer showing all those body parts.
Airplanes are exactly the same.