i hope we get supersonic planes back. ofcourse it whould only be usefull for very long flights. (5 hours or more today). but if you could shrink a 15h flight to only 5 hours. that whould be fantastic.
Are there any dates when the first demonstrater plane will take off? 2020? The Boom Technology do the same things. Japanese aerospace company tested little model of such kind of airplane but there are no plans to make it real for a long time. We try to reboot supersonic civil flights for decades. I hope that someday I will fly from London to NY at 3 or more Mach.
If there is a ban on supersonic overland flight.......then why is it constantly being done on a regular basis by the military? Sonic booms can be heard all over airforce bases around the country but a commercial flight would be out of the question?
do they have to re-invent the wheel? can't they re-work the wing + vertical stab of the Concorde and save 100 billions dollars? BTW, I heard the Concorde's sonic boom when I was on deck of a cruise ship in the atlantic...I thought someone was firing artillery at us.
supersonic flight will still be economically nonviable if each plane has to have such a long nose/tail to reduce sonic boom that it takes up twice as much space on the runway or in the hangar than a plane which could carry twice as many passengers. perhaps a possibility for private/business jets, but in mainstream commercial aviation, passenger numbers are the most important factor.
Lift an aircraft into sub-orbit altitude with a hydrogen balloon. Having oxygen and silver on-board on the way up have the aircraft inhale the hydrogen mixing the H2O2 or hydrogen peroxide. When at the given altitude release from the balloon and fire the 'jet pack engine'. At this altitude there will be very very little or no air resistance and no sonic boom. Then land it like the space shuttle.
What I really want to see is a supersonic airliner whose fares are affordable to the middle class. The problem with Concorde is that the fares charged by British Airways and Air France were affordable to only the very rich.
They probably won't ever go electric with supersonic flight. Low speed flight: yes, commercial flight: maybe some year, supersonic flight: probably not.
Unless such an aircraft can operate on something other than fossil fuels, or operate with better economy (defined as lower per seat/per mile cost) and less damage to the environment than current subsonic passenger aircraft, its use ought to be restricted to military necessity. Scientific investigation must continue, but my guess is that fuel consumption per passenger mile will be orders of magnitude higher than what we are achieving today, and that higher altitude environmental damage will be more damaging than what we are causing now.
Bravo NASA! A mere $20m contract to develop this test jet?!? Hello? Just $20m? Seriously, why can't DoD simply outsource all further military aircraft research and development programs to NASA!! The current 'MIC' system is fatally broken, unsustainable and constipated. And that said, USAF should cancel the current $80B NGB Program, initiate an accelerated modernization and modification of existing deterrent platforms as a stopgap measure (15 yrs) and simply wait for an accelerated Production quiet-supersonic civilian model to be developed and then just acquire a militarized variant (with bomb bay), similar USN's procurement of the P-8! Not stealthy enough?? Forget it! They won't be stealthy in 20-30 yrs anyway as the tech is flat-out accelerating too quickly worldwide. Rather, the cost-effective and economic value of a quick-reaction (supersonic) platform, coupled with advanced next-gen stand-off munitions, would be a far superior alternative pathway for USAF's bomber replacement requirements... End rant.
Reduced boom from one plane=yay. Reduced boom from 20 planes overhead=still annoying and disruptive..boom boom boom Something fishy here..NASA does not build passenger jets.
NASA does not build passenger jets, but they do develop technologies to make flight safer, quieter and more environmentally friendly. Space isn't their only role.
Very clear and to the point. And VERY interesting! Thanks!
imagine the scenes one the path of that jet
" hey !!who farted? "
i hope we get supersonic planes back.
ofcourse it whould only be usefull for very long flights. (5 hours or more today).
but if you could shrink a 15h flight to only 5 hours. that whould be fantastic.
Are there any dates when the first demonstrater plane will take off? 2020? The Boom Technology do the same things. Japanese aerospace company tested little model of such kind of airplane but there are no plans to make it real for a long time. We try to reboot supersonic civil flights for decades. I hope that someday I will fly from London to NY at 3 or more Mach.
If there is a ban on supersonic overland flight.......then why is it constantly being done on a regular basis by the military? Sonic booms can be heard all over airforce bases around the country but a commercial flight would be out of the question?
extremely gorgeous plane
for such a long design, landing this going to be hard.
nice
do they have to re-invent the wheel? can't they re-work the wing + vertical stab of the Concorde and save 100 billions dollars? BTW, I heard the Concorde's sonic boom when I was on deck of a cruise ship in the atlantic...I thought someone was firing artillery at us.
supersonic flight will still be economically nonviable if each plane has to have such a long nose/tail to reduce sonic boom that it takes up twice as much space on the runway or in the hangar than a plane which could carry twice as many passengers.
perhaps a possibility for private/business jets, but in mainstream commercial aviation, passenger numbers are the most important factor.
Once its up and running it won't be spending much time in the hangar.
Lift an aircraft into sub-orbit altitude with a hydrogen balloon. Having oxygen and silver on-board on the way up have the aircraft inhale the hydrogen mixing the H2O2 or hydrogen peroxide. When at the given altitude release from the balloon and fire the 'jet pack engine'. At this altitude there will be very very little or no air resistance and no sonic boom. Then land it like the space shuttle.
+Walter Marlin
I need a job. I do not have a degree but I have imagination. Let me guess. We already thought we this. Then why the video?
What I really want to see is a supersonic airliner whose fares are affordable to the middle class. The problem with Concorde is that the fares charged by British Airways and Air France were affordable to only the very rich.
It's an energy problem and won't be fixed until they're electric and it costs an order of magnitude less in terms of energy costs.
They probably won't ever go electric with supersonic flight. Low speed flight: yes, commercial flight: maybe some year, supersonic flight: probably not.
It may be more useful to invest in a new hydrogen airplane to reduce pollution and GGE instead of a low noise supersonic.
This was a reason why Concord was banned? Seriously? I change my mind... people are stupid :P
Unless such an aircraft can operate on something other than fossil fuels, or operate with better economy (defined as lower per seat/per mile cost) and less damage to the environment than current subsonic passenger aircraft, its use ought to be restricted to military necessity. Scientific investigation must continue, but my guess is that fuel consumption per passenger mile will be orders of magnitude higher than what we are achieving today, and that higher altitude environmental damage will be more damaging than what we are causing now.
Bravo NASA! A mere $20m contract to develop this test jet?!? Hello? Just $20m? Seriously, why can't DoD simply outsource all further military aircraft research and development programs to NASA!! The current 'MIC' system is fatally broken, unsustainable and constipated. And that said, USAF should cancel the current $80B NGB Program, initiate an accelerated modernization and modification of existing deterrent platforms as a stopgap measure (15 yrs) and simply wait for an accelerated Production quiet-supersonic civilian model to be developed and then just acquire a militarized variant (with bomb bay), similar USN's procurement of the P-8! Not stealthy enough?? Forget it! They won't be stealthy in 20-30 yrs anyway as the tech is flat-out accelerating too quickly worldwide. Rather, the cost-effective and economic value of a quick-reaction (supersonic) platform, coupled with advanced next-gen stand-off munitions, would be a far superior alternative pathway for USAF's bomber replacement requirements... End rant.
Shit
Reduced boom from one plane=yay. Reduced boom from 20 planes overhead=still annoying and disruptive..boom boom boom Something fishy here..NASA does not build passenger jets.
well, if the design works, boeing and co will surely be interested. The first supersonic plane also was developed by NASA.
NASA does not build passenger jets, but they do develop technologies to make flight safer, quieter and more environmentally friendly. Space isn't their only role.