Slashdot Mirror
NASA Green-lights $16.5M To Advance Future Jets
coondoggie writes "NASA said this week four research teams would split $16.5 million to continue developing quieter, cleaner, and more fuel-efficient jets that the agency says will be three generations ahead of airliners in use today. NASA said the money was awarded after an 18-month study of all manner of advanced technologies from alloys, ceramic or fiber composites, carbon nanotube and fiber optic cabling to self-healing skin, hybrid electric engines, folding wings, double fuselages and virtual reality windows to come up with a series of aircraft designs that could end up taking you on a business trip by about 2030."
I think the study cost more than that.
Award that money to a university and you might get something for it. To a private company and you might get a mock up, which says "Huggies" on the composite carbon hull, if you peek around the back side of it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'm always surprised with the editorial tone of slashdot when they post a figure like $16.5 million and try to draw gasps, as if that's a huge amount of money. I'm on a military contract, and the training portion alone is at about $5 million. $16.5 million for something like a new jet is peanuts.
I was wondering this too. Surely there are two better generations somewhere according to this. Why aren't the airlines using these?
Three generation better than ones "currently in use today." The ones they commonly use today are a couple generations old. Southwest Flight 812, which recently lost a bit of skin, was built in 1996. 737's in general started being built in 1968 and the technology hasn't changed that much.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
It depends what they mean, I assume they mean the most recently approve engines. But with a date like 2030, it sounds like it will take them several generations worth of engines to actually use them. Meaning that they'd be basically on time.
That doesn't mean the effort isn't worth it, but it does make one wonder about whether or not the hyperbole is warranted.
I just cant put my finger on it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_X-30
Airlines are extremely slow to take on new technology. Not because they don't want it, but because there is a huge lag time between technology inception, development, practical application, production of said technology, integration of technology into newer aircraft designs, ordering of aircraft (or retrofitting), and the aircraft actually becoming part of that airline's fleet. That span can easily be greater than a decade or two. Which means, by the time a technology is entering public use, its very likely to be a generation, or two, or three, beyond what's currently being researched.
It's a lengthy, costly, pipeline adoption doesn't happen overnight because the costs are so large. Which means, in many cases, retrofitting is simply not an option. Which means, the only way the technology is going to enter a fleet is from new aircraft purchases.
In fairness, high speed rail would be a huge boon for shipping and would take a huge burden off the roads. A lot of freight moves by truck in the US and that's really not ideal for road costs and would be much more cheaply done via rail. Commuter use of rail would be nice, but you are right, in the US it will likely always be secondary to air travel unless rail freight brought the cost down substantially for commuter use.
I see no indication that any high speed rail systems in the US would carry freight. It'd also have to compete with regular freight rail which is more cost effective (more cars per engine, lower energy costs, etc).
Why NASA? Because aeronautics research is NASA's job.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!