Slashdot Mirror
NASA Wants To Get Supersonic With New Passenger Jet (networkworld.com)
coondoggie writes: NASA wants to put a supersonic passenger jet back in the sky that promises to a soft thump or supersonic heartbeat as the agency called it - rather than the disruptive boom currently associated with such high-speed flight. The 'low-boom' aircraft known as Quiet Supersonic Technology (QueSST) will be built by a team led by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. It will cost $20 million to develop baseline aircraft requirements and a preliminary aircraft design.
...and what sort of fuel economy will it get?
Boeing failed with the SST, due to anticipated fuel costs not meeting market needs. Similarly with the Concorde, which couldn't operate profitably.
Sure, there are some rich folk who would pay for short flight times, but the mass market is price conscious. The problem with supersonic flight is not sonic booms, but efficiency.
Finally, why is NASA wasting taxpayer money designing passenger aircraft for the civilian market?
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Concord is a variety of grape. Indeed, there can be some expensive wines out there. This story is about fast planes, however. Maybe you mean the Concorde?
The regulatory barriers had more to do with concorde being a foreign invention. No reason to block a US design.
Nullius in verba
The only thing any of us should "promise to a soft thump" are our heads hitting our desks after we all get aneurysms trying to figure out how the hell to parse these inane and poorly edited summaries.
I'm not a Republican and I flew on the Concorde.
I remember most of the passengers being Hollywood types, and Rod Stewart flying to New York for his weekly haircut (no shit).
More pork for Lockheed Martin.
Obvious pork is most definitely obvious. After spending $20 million, NASA gets... a pile of paper. For $20 million, not one sheet of metal will be bent, not one rivet will be hammered, not one seam will be welded. And why is NASA spending this $20 million? Because it might not work. Or maybe nobody will want one.
After 70 years of this bullshit, we're suffering far more than we realize. Because of contracts like this, big business is now convinced of its own infallibility, and Republicans are convinced of the ineptitude of government. This is not the capitalism they've been selling us all these decades. This is ridiculously socialized risk. If we were pursuing actual capitalism, Lockheed would have done a market analysis, possibly discovered that there's a profitable niche going unfilled, and attempted to fill it by designing and building an aircraft. With their own goddamn money.
Instead, Lockheed did a market analysis, possibly discovered there's a profitable niche, and hedged their bets by shoving their risk up our collective asses. So now it's all upside for Lockheed. They can't lose. If it turns out that designing planes on paper is still a stupid idea (F-35, we're looking at you), and the pile of paper NASA receives can't be used to build a plane anybody wants, it's "government" that failed. "NASA Failure!" "NASA Boondoggle!" "NASA's Plane Can't Fly!" The headlines write themselves.
And so the perception that government is incompetent is reinforced, and Lockheed Martin's stock doesn't take a hit, because hey, they delivered a pile of paper. That's what the contract specified. US businesses are never wrong, US businesses never make mistakes, especially not big expensive multi-million dollar mistakes. No, only governments do that.
It's insidious. It's wrong. Every contract like it should be opposed by every American.
I don't understand why a superjet for rich people is something that should eat a single cent of NASA's budget.
In ten years, SpaceX will have accomplished everything NASA has planned for the next forty. They need a Plan B.
$20 for a buildable design is either entirely impossible or fantastically efficient.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Forget supersonic. New York to Tokyo at mach three is still a five hour flight. Suborbital is what I want.
Refrigeration is only for the wealthy. Automobiles are only for the wealthy. Indoor plumbing is only for the wealthy. Computers are only for the wealthy. Going to college is only for the wealthy. Electric cars are only for the wealthy.
Ethanol subsidies are just corporate welfare. Windmill subsidies are just corporate welfare. Solar panel subsidies are just corporate welfare. Electric car subsidies are just corporate welfare. Government backed student loans are just corporate welfare. CFL subsidies are just corporate welfare.
Isn't it funny on how the definition of "wealthy" and "corporate welfare" changes depending on the who, when, and where? There's plenty of evidence that what is now a luxury that only the 1% could afford will eventually become affordable for the other 99%.
Oh, and let's pick on just the Republicans because the Democrats NEVER give free stuff to corporations.
If there is something to complain about with government spending then I can give much better examples than funding NASA to research high speed flight. Researching high speed flight is EXACTLY the kind of thing that NASA was created to do.
Go soak your head.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
With all the fun description in the article I did not see any mention of how many people can fly on this. I was never able to fly on the Concorde, though I have walked through the one on display at the USS Intrepid. Walking through it one thing that I noticed immediately was how small it actually was; it took about as many passengers as a large EmbraerJet - and far fewer than a 747 or even 737.
I don't want to try to oversimplify aeronautical engineering - and I am certainly not an aeronautical engineer myself - but in the current economy it certainly seems that something this expensive will only be viable if it can take a larger number of passengers than the Concorde could.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I would agree with most of what you say until you get to "Researching high speed flight is EXACTLY the kind of thing that NASA was created to do." Technically, NASA was created because of Sputnik and had nothing to do with anything but the space race.
But ignoring that point. Isn't the US about free market capitalism. Doesn't that mean that those that risk capital benefit from the success of taking that risk? Government funding of the project removes the risk, but Lockheed still gets the reward. Now government funding makes sense when there is low return so nobody takes the risk such as certain medical research, infrastructure projects, etc. But that is not the case with this. Government funding of this is like government funding of an oil pipeline. Surely the private sector can do this on their own.
If one truly values capitalism as an economic system, then how can this be seen as anything other than corporatism, which is basically corporate welfare.
1-3 person pilotless, lying in 'coffin' wearing VR headset to eliminate claustrophobia. Use just 25-50g/s fuel (1-2MW heat) vs 7kg/s of concorde (300MW). Small power use=tiny boom noise.
-Small ramjets just as efficient as big ramjets (unlike gas turbines), Small turboramjets have good efficiency as most of compression not done by turbomachinery. Use small gas turbine or more efficient IC engine to fly to altitude and dive to accelerate through sound barrier and ignite turbo-ramjet.
-Enables supersonic flight overland without annoying people (low power/small boom).
-Enables use of efficient designs that don't compromise efficiency to minimise boom.
-Enables use of more efficient unconventional Oblique Flying wing design that is not possible within space constraints of airport due to large wingspans for 100-200 person design.
-No volume/weight wasted on galleys, toilets, aisles, overhead lockers, emergency doors, cockpits. Passengers/cargo can be higher proportion of takeoff weight.
-2-3x as many passenger miles per day per 'seat' as subsonic aircraft.
-Development costs at least an order of magnitude lower (possibly $1 billion), manufacturing costs per seat relatively low (possibly up to an order of magnitude) due to high manufacturing volumes, and over time is likely to result in very thoroughly debugged and safe aircraft.
-Small enough to incorporate a ballistic parachute for safety.
-Cost saving on flight crew.
-No long check-in delays or security required - could be flying within minutes of airport arrival.
-Could fly from smaller local airports. No inefficient hub/spoke design required.
-Maybe possible to use vertical supersonic catapult in mineshaft at airports (boom only propegates forwards) to increase speed further
-8000km range with kerosene, 10000km range with LNG, 20000km range with LH2
Likely 2-4x faster than subsonic flight (less wasted time at airports), at similar or lower cost.
Aeronautics
aeronautics
ernôdiks/
noun
noun: aeronautics
the science or practice of travel through the air. Especially at High Speed.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
It's a stepping stone. The long-term hope is for hypersonic transports which reduce the energy cost by "flying" above the atmosphere (sub-orbital ballistic trajectory) for a good portion of the trip. But to do that, you have to go through the supersonic regime.
And aerospace has always been heavily subsidized by the government. The physics in these high-speed / high-altitude / high-temperature environments is frequently not well understood. It makes little sense for every aerospace company out there to do duplicate research into it. So the government pays for that research that all companies have access to, and the companies pay for whatever designs they think will work best based on that research.
While I agree that there is a lower limit on the distance such an aircraft would make sense I do not agree that it must be so large. A flight from MSP to ORD is 1:20 according to Google Maps, that's not where a supersonic transport would be used.
What might get people to buy tickets is a SFO to NYC flight that takes 2 or 3 hours instead of 5 to 7. But it is more than just the time in the air that determines travel time. What really kills short hop flights and supersonic transport is the wait times at airports. TSA checkpoints, the rarity of flight choices, and how sensitive flight times are to weather and other circumstances makes travel by air lengthy, inconvenient, and therefore expensive.
I think we will see cheap and speedy air travel only when the federal government realizes that their are greater threats to our lives than religious nutjobs with suicidal tendencies. I should be able to drive to the airport and buy a ticket to Chicago on the spot for the next flight that leaves. I should not have to reserve a seat in advance, show a government issued ID, or take off my shoes. I can understand a need for some security, we don't want people bringing gas cans and live chickens on the plane. I'm not sure we should even need metal detectors since I see no need to take people's pocketknives and knitting needles. Pat downs and full body scanners don't make sense on matters of security regardless. Anyway, perhaps that is a rant for another time.
If I can get on a plane with such little hassle then I'd quite likely fly more often. If more people fly then the tickets will get cheaper, if tickets get cheaper then more people will fly. If tickets get cheaper then there is more "room" (economically speaking) for things like supersonic passenger aircraft.
Faster airplanes would be nice and I do believe that there is a market for them but the most effective way, IMHO, to shorten travel times by air is to improve the mechanics of the modern airport, not that of the modern airplane. If we can get that fixed then we might see supersonic flights make sense for not just transatlantic and transcontinental distances but also for interstate travel.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
It was very briefly Concord because of a hissy-fit that Harold Macmillan threw.
Then Tony Benn (Minister for Technology) put the e back on the end at it's launch.
It is, and always has been, officially, Concorde.
It seems slashdotter's aren't the only ones who disagreed about the "E"
Quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Naming:
Reflecting the treaty between the British and French governments that led to Concorde's construction, the name Concorde is from the French word concorde (IPA: [kkd]), which has an English equivalent, concord. Both words mean agreement, harmony or union. The name was officially changed to Concord by Harold Macmillan in response to a perceived slight by Charles de Gaulle. At the French roll-out in Toulouse in late 1967,[26] the British Government Minister for Technology, Tony Benn, announced that he would change the spelling back to Concorde.[27] This created a nationalist uproar that died down when Benn stated that the suffixed 'e' represented "Excellence, England, Europe and Entente (Cordiale)." In his memoirs, he recounts a tale of a letter from an irate Scotsman claiming: "[Y]ou talk about 'E' for England, but part of it is made in Scotland." Given Scotland's contribution of providing the nose cone for the aircraft, Benn replied, "[I]t was also 'E' for 'Écosse' (the French name for Scotland) — and I might have added 'e' for extravagance and 'e' for escalation as well!"[28]
Concorde also acquired an unusual nomenclature for an aircraft. In common usage in the United Kingdom, the type is known as Concorde without an article, rather than the Concorde or a Concorde.[29][30]
TODO create witty sig.