Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Drops $2.3M On Supersonic Aircraft Research

Posted by samzenpus on from the softening-the-boom dept.

coondoggie writes: This week the space agency said it invested $2.3 million for eight research projects that will address sonic booms and high-altitude emissions from supersonic jets. NASA's Commercial Supersonic Technology Project, which picked the new projects, focuses on developing sonic boom reduction methods and defines the necessary approaches or techniques for objectively assessing the levels of sonic boom acceptable to communities living in the vicinity of future commercial supersonic flight paths.

20 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. So sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There is very little (none, really) demand for supersonic passenger transport, and in any case this kind of research has been going on for 30+ years now.

    1. Re:So sorry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There'd be plenty of demand if these two particular problems (sonic-boom reduction and high-altitude emissions) can be overcome.
      http://www.gizmag.com/supersonic-passenger-aircraft-revival/32600/

    2. Re:So sorry... by bloodhawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The biggest problems with supersonic flight weren't emissions or the sonic boom. It was the financial viability of it, enough people simply aren't willing to pay the extra to make this viable (at least historically).

    3. Re:So sorry... by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $2.3 million across 8 projects? That's less than $300,000 / project. Jack-squat to do much besides running a bunch of simulations on computers. Maybe one or two test flights.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    4. Re:So sorry... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the biggest problem was indeed the sonic booms - from the airlines privatisation in the 1980s and right up until 9/11, Concorde was profitable for British Airways on the trans-atlantic routes it typically operated on, and one of the main reasons Concorde became less profitable after that was because a lot of the services clientèle were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The crash didn't help of course, but the aircraft was still profitable after that point.

      The main issue was the major restrictions on the service over land - it was forbidden from flying supersonic over pretty much every land mass, meaning it had no benefits on overland routes than a more spacious aircraft (Concorde had a smaller cabin than a Boeing 737, with only a 4 across seating arrangement rather than the 737s 6 across), so the economics of those routes were murdered by the restrictions on causing sonic booms. On routes which allowed Concorde to show its legs, airlines made a profit.

    5. Re:So sorry... by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not really. While this over-simplification ("It was too expensive!") might sound reasonable the true story is more complicated. Richard_at_work pointed at some of the issues. Another issue was that because of the Air France 4590 crash (which was largely due to bad luck), both British Airways and Air France got really jittery and anxious to pull the plug before another disaster happened.

      Another thing that people ignore was that the Concorde was put to retirement largely because it was just a really old plane. It was designed in the 60's. It still had an _engineer_ in the cockpit - that's how old the design and avionics were. Unlike other planes designed during that period that are still flying, it never got any significant upgrades. It had a run of 27 years; more than good enough for any plane. Ultimately, it's not that Concorde failed, it's that we failed to replace it.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    6. Re:So sorry... by Beck_Neard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not many aspects of the SR-71 would have translated into a passenger jet. The thing was huge and it was composed almost entirely of fuel tanks - and it had a passenger capacity of 2. It was obscenely expensive to operate. It needed in-air refueling. In the 80's a journalist wrote a piece about how SR-71-based tech would lead to hypersonic transport planes, and Ben Rich - the head of Lockheed Skunkworks which designed the SR and one of the designers of the SR's intakes - objected and said that such a thing would never happen in his lifetime.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    7. Re:So sorry... by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Concorde was profitable for British Airways on the trans-atlantic routes it typically operated on,

      I don't call anything profitable until it makes back its development costs. Concorde never came close to doing that.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    8. Re:So sorry... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That depends on whose profit you are talking about - the aircraft made a profit for its operators, British Airways and Air France, but lost its manufacturers money. Two entirely different set of accounts, and its easy to turn that on its head for other aircraft as well - the Boeing 747 made Boeing a lot of money, but while it bankrupted more than a few airlines whose egos were bigger than their fiscal abilities, you wouldn't say that the Boeing 747 wasn't profitable for Boeing.

      The reason it lost its manufacturers money was because of the 1970s oil crisis, it had plenty of orders before that baby hit - indeed, the oil crisis depressed the entire airline industry, and many people believe that if the Concorde production run had outlasted the effects of the oil crisis, orders would have resurfaced, but alas the order book was filled (at least in terms of long lead time parts) before the crisis passed, and thus no more orders were possible.

      The Convair 880 and 990 were also profitable for its operators, but lost its manufacturer money. Same goes for the L1011. But operators loved both types and they lasted decades in operational service precisely because they were profitable to fly.

    9. Re:So sorry... by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah....but it is the coolest and fastest fucking plane ever built.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    10. Re:So sorry... by MobSwatter · · Score: 2

      Not that expensive at cruise above 80k feet. I have intimate knowledge of that craft because my family was involved in that and it was my great uncle Jack that cancelled CIA SR in 1964 on account what happened to my grandfather on north shore Tahoe back then. The program had an ultimate goal of escape velocity and a goal of mach 10 for 1970. Kelly Johnson was behind the JP-7 fuel and J-58 mods. That plane was a building block to the actual JFK space program, the one we never got and yes my grandfather was a short list guy.

    11. Re:So sorry... by bobbied · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And the REASON we failed to replace it was that it wasn't profitable enough... That's why it didn't get upgrades, why nobody wanted to restart the manufacturing of it after the 70's oil crisis was over, why we didn't replace it with newer and better aircraft with similar capabilities.

      This thing burned way too much fuel per passenger mile, cost a lot to maintain and there wasn't enough interest for anybody to try to fund the NRE costs to replace it. Everybody knew that it would be impossible to make the thing profitable and we had decades of operational experience to prove it.

      So this was the fault of "all of the above"... Fuel costs, operating costs, maintenance costs, operating restrictions which limited routes they could fly AND the procurement costs of the aircraft which put the Concorde into the dust bin of history with no replacement. In fact, one could argue that its very existence in commercial aviation was an aberration to start with. Hindsight is 20/20, but it seems obvious now that the Concorde really should never have been put into service even though it proved to be marginally successful for operators, but that was only because the manufacturer took a loss on the NRE and sold the planes too cheaply to recover development costs, hoping that they could sell more aircraft to make up for it. They failed, the Concorde failed, and wasn't replaced.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    12. Re:So sorry... by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Not exactly the fastest anymore....

      The Air Force has built and flown a number of transonic (better than MAC 5) unmanned research aircraft and is apparently in the accusation phase for an operational capability for transonic aircraft. The research aircraft are faster than the SR-71 ever was.

      Plus, I'd not be so sure we don't already have an SR-71 replacement which is faster, smaller, better already in operation. It took a number of decades before the public became aware of the SR-71 and it seems reasonable to me that before it was taken out of service, there would have been a suitable replacement in operation, but that's just a wild guess..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  2. 2.3M? gosh! by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    2.3M isn't much for even one supersonic research project. 2.3M for 8 is 300K. That's less than the cost of 2-engineer years at most companies. If they need an actual lab forget it.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  3. That seem most unimpressive. by bobjr94 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They probably spend more than that on kleenex or toilet paper each year. 2 million for supersonic research seems not even worth a press release.

  4. Re:2.3M? gosh! by SQL+Error · · Score: 2

    These are small projects each focused on one specific detail, mostly modelling ways to predict and reduce sonic booms.

    Also, the total amount is $5.7 million; I think the $2.3 million might be the first year.

  5. Re:commercial supersonic by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

    Boeing pushed the Sonic Cruiser concept, which was a half way house in that it flew at just under the speed of sound (mach 0.98) rather than well over the speed of sound (mach 2, which is about where Concorde sat during cruise) - not enough timesaving benefit there to actually justify the additional costs in running such an aircraft, so it was easier to justify cost savings in having a more efficient aircraft to replace current aircraft on a similar basis. And thus the Boeing 787 was born.

    Neither major manufacturer (Boeing and Airbus) pitched a new supersonic aircraft in any seriousness.

  6. Re:Don't forget the Supersonic Business Jet market by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

    Aerion is classed as a joke in the industry, and have been pushing their supersonic business jet concept for a number of years without actually getting anywhere. Their "collaboration with Airbus" is limited to use of Airbuses technical facilities, Airbus isnt actually involved in the design, manufacture or promotion of the concept.

    Pause for a moment and consider why Aerion thinks they can produce a profitable supersonic business jet when companies with decades of experience building successful business jets have already largely dismissed the idea in the same timeframe?

  7. Re:commercial supersonic by coofercat · · Score: 2

    Since no one batted an eyelid to 'enhanced security measures' at airports meaning you needed to get to the airport an hour earlier than you used to, I guess the industry thought there was little point in trying to save the customer any time, and rather to focus on saving them some money instead. Probably a short-sighted view from us customers, particularly those that travel for work.

  8. Traveling for work by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't think that these folks who travel all the time do it because they don't like it do you?

    You've never traveled a lot for work I take it? I have and it's isn't a grand adventure. "High end hotels and food"? Not working for most companies. Certainly none I've ever worked for unless you consider dinner at Applebee's and a Holiday Inn to be high end. Most people who travel a lot for work do it because it pays well, not because it's particularly fun. Once in a while it has its moments but mostly it's just boring, expensive and tiring. There is a reason most consultants that travel a lot tend to be young. Hard to have a family and be on the road constantly.