Boeing Unveils Hypersonic "Son-of-Blackbird" Demonstrator Design

a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey it's ATS here!
Just tell me this, would you think that for example an invention like a power plant that would be able to give every person on earth unlimited supply of energy in pocket size could be a reason to not release that tech due to implications on military or economic stability ?

a reply to: EartOccupant

I think it wouldn't be released because nothing even remotely close to it exists. We don't have that kind of technology and aren't anywhere near that kind of technology. As for what gets released, the military of course gets first shot at anything and determines what will and won't be released. It was developed for them after all, but eventually, yes, it would be released if it ever existed.

Didn't mean to get this thread off the rails. Talking about airplanes here. iRobots, replicators and free energy will probably hafta wait a bit longer. In the meantime, I'll use my thin little pocket sized TV/phone/computer/to monitor this thread as I travel about today. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Thanks for your thoughts , i do have a bit of a smile with "it can't be released because it don't exist" is not a fair answer to a hypothetical question in my book.

But i understand how the proces works, the patent system, the people who pay and the military (and economic) filter.

I do not however underwrite your conclusion that they will release it at the end if it would exist (in the current system).

originally posted by: SonofaSkunk
Didn't mean to get this thread off the rails. Talking about airplanes here. iRobots, replicators and free energy will probably hafta wait a bit longer. In the meantime, I'll use my thin little pocket sized TV/phone/computer/to monitor this thread as I travel about today. Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Fair enough, i will give myself a gag order

a reply to: EartOccupant

Which is your opinion. The company that owns the patent is going to do what's best for their bottom dollar once they have clearance from the military to do with it what they will. It's all about the dollar, and if they can develop something, and then turn around and make billions off it, they're going to release it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: EartOccupant

Which is your opinion. The company that owns the patent is going to do what's best for their bottom dollar once they have clearance from the military to do with it what they will. It's all about the dollar, and if they can develop something, and then turn around and make billions off it, they're going to release it.

Hiya Zaphod58. Whilst I totally agree with you I think that's it summed up in a sentence. "once they have clearance from the military"

You have a million miles better knowledge than myself, but I do think there are things that could maybe help that are kept classified

a reply to: expatwhite

There are several things that will be opened up to the public once the military reaches certain milestones with them. There are others that won't be opened, simply because there isn't a big call for them in the civilian world at this point. And some that would reveal too much about military operations if they were released to the public.

a reply to: Zaphod58

While having my self-indicted gag order... I guess i'm leaking.
Out of fun and with respect, i'm going to ant-f#ck this post with a little playful exaggeration:

There are several things that will be opened up to the public once the military reaches certain milestones with them.

So it DOES exist!

There are others that won't be opened, simply because there isn't a big call for them in the civilian world at this point.

How can you call for something you do not know exists????

And some that would reveal too much about military operations if they were released to the public.

Back to my first point: Due to military (or economic) interests some stuff will not be released.

originally posted by: EartOccupant

How can you call for something you do not know exists????

So what exactly is the civilian world going to do with hypersonic aircraft? Allow the super rich to travel to Europe in an hour, while the rest of us poor schlubs still have to take 6+ hours. Yeah, there's a lot of call for that.

Back to my first point: Due to military (or economic) interests some stuff will not be released.

A number of things that weren't released immediately due to military considerations have later been released after there was no longer a need for military secrecy. There are things we take for granted now that started life as classified programs, that no longer required secrecy.

a reply to: Zaphod58

So what exactly is the civilian world going to do with hypersonic aircraft? Allow the super rich to travel to Europe in an hour, while the rest of us poor schlubs still have to take 6+ hours. Yeah, there's a lot of call for that.

Real-estate!

Breakfast in your pine gap underground aquifer oasis, play a bit of snow golf at Jack F. Paulus Skiway, and having lunch at your cabin in the near of Thule Air Base.

Now where would i buy my afternoon nap condo?

A number of things that weren't released immediately due to military considerations have later been released after there was no longer a need for military secrecy. There are things we take for granted now that started life as classified programs, that no longer required secrecy.

No problems here.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: expatwhite

There are several things that will be opened up to the public once the military reaches certain milestones with them. There are others that won't be opened, simply because there isn't a big call for them in the civilian world at this point. And some that would reveal too much about military operations if they were released to the public.

Thanks for the response. Is there nothing you maybe aware of that could possibly help the white world at all? Even if it's simply reducing drag on commercial wings that could lower costs due to using less fuel? Not fishing, it's an honest question.

originally posted by: EartOccupant

Real-estate!

Breakfast in your pine gap underground aquifer oasis, play a bit of snow golf at Jack F. Paulus Skiway, and having lunch at your cabin in the near of Thule Air Base.

Now where would i buy my afternoon nap condo?

The Concorde, which flew at Mach 2, cost on average $12,000 for a round trip ticket when it began service in 1976. Building an aircraft to fly at Mach 2 is relatively easy. They've been trying to develop an air breathing hypersonic aircraft for decades and are still having problems with it. If they were to successfully build one that was used for commercial transport, then ticket prices would probably be closer to $100,000 round trip, and only the absurdly rich would be able to fly on it. So unless you have a few million laying around that you can spare, good luck with that.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Not disagreeing with the sentiment, but $12k 1976 dollars would be $53k in 2017 dollars:

data.bls.gov...

a reply to: anzha

Yep. It's not easy to find ticket prices since it's no longer in service. Had to go with the original prices, which were listed.

It looks like ticket prices were about the same in 2003, going by anecdotal evidence.

a reply to: Zaphod58

regardless of whether hypersonic exist or not I have 2 questions.

any more pics of the Boeing bird other than the single one posted on the last page. i don't have a membership to the where the link goes.

second question. if companies like Lockheed do make classified aircraft that until the military says so can't have the technology released into the public sector to reach its full monetary potential. sometimes for decades. do the govt pay them a annual amount of money as a way to compensate them for lost potential revenue. some of these technologies could feasibly make these corporations billions if released to the public. if I were lockheed I'd say to heck with building stuff for the govt if they're going to hamstring our profits. so does the govt give them a little (lot actually) extra to mitigate the revenue loss due to products and technology being forced into classification.

why do you think Northrop and Boeing are working together on this with Northrop if I read the posts here correctly, building the engines.
and why the entrant by Boeing when it would seem like Lockheed got this niche on lock. Boeing got a kick ass materials science dept with something new and kick ass material wise? Northrop got experience with some componant of the 'tbcc' that Boeing wants synergize with their expertese. or is lockheed so damned monopolistic that the govt said you two (Northrop and Boeing ) work together on this and give lockheed some competition knowing that as a whole it would make the whole hypersonic r&d more robust and healthy?

finally questions aside. I've always loved the xb70 and would love to see some of her lines brought back. she was beautiful looking. happy to see Boeing return to examining aspects of her design for presumably the compression lift aspects. her anhedral wingtips were a cool design you don't see to much on other fast birds like the sr71. also a beautiful aspect as I believe they too added to her compression lift characteristics. plus I would definitely want a long fuselage like the xb70.

herea reply to: BASSPLYR

I think this was in a way answered by Bedlam, a to me highly repsected member, unfortunatly do not see him around these days.

ATs Topic (from the ancient time I still had my H clearence) : www.abovetopsecret.com...

Bottom line: They can take it, no funds transferred, just forget it. Or if they are kind and you follow the right track you might get some compensation.

None of this surprises me. With the release of the Sabre engine out of the UK, news about hypersonic airplanes has picked up much momentum. US aerospace companies have long known and developed the technology that is demonstrated in the Sabre engine. I'm willing to bet in Vegas they already have follow-on engines to the Sabre Engine design. Read in-between the lines, and see large-scale composite construction and thermal dissipation advances are key to Mach 3+ velocities. The realization is there that advance meta-materials and spooky physics phenomenon have been developed and exploited in classified airframes. It isn't about Speed or Time-on-Target, but how to keep the airframe in one-piece while achieving it design objectives and goals, which, is the reason for keeping this developed technology classified. Plus, anything this exotic is extremely low in numbers and takes a specially trained support crew to run and oversea, which, keep these planes grounded and doors closed. Most of this technology is written up in research papers in the "white" world. It is the cost of developing the technology, which, took it black.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
any more pics of the Boeing bird other than the single one posted on the last page. i don't have a membership to the where the link goes.

No. That was the only picture in the article.

second question. if companies like Lockheed do make classified aircraft that until the military says so can't have the technology released into the public sector to reach its full monetary potential. sometimes for decades. do the govt pay them a annual amount of money as a way to compensate them for lost potential revenue. some of these technologies could feasibly make these corporations billions if released to the public. if I were lockheed I'd say to heck with building stuff for the govt if they're going to hamstring our profits. so does the govt give them a little (lot actually) extra to mitigate the revenue loss due to products and technology being forced into classification.

No, but it does give them a big advantage. If Lockheed developed a hypersonic platform, and were still making commercial aircraft, then by the time it was declassified and allowed to go into production, they would have a fully mature aircraft ready to go. They would also have a good idea of what problems they were going to see as it ages, and ways to get around those problems, by the time a commercial platform went into production.

why do you think Northrop and Boeing are working together on this with Northrop if I read the posts here correctly, building the engines.

Northrop is in the process of buying Orbital ATK, who was selected to produce the engines by Boeing.

and why the entrant by Boeing when it would seem like Lockheed got this niche on lock. Boeing got a kick ass materials science dept with something new and kick ass material wise? Northrop got experience with some componant of the 'tbcc' that Boeing wants synergize with their expertese. or is lockheed so damned monopolistic that the govt said you two (Northrop and Boeing ) work together on this and give lockheed some competition knowing that as a whole it would make the whole hypersonic r&d more robust and healthy?

Whoever cracks the TBCC/hypersonic issue is going to be in the catbird seat. Boeing may feel that they have some materials breakthrough that will give them a leg up, or their Black Diamond process may be able to bring costs down where they think that they can scale up something at a reasonable cost, compared to before.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Did they ever consider dual engine types on one plane?

For example one pair of turbines for the take off and initial speed and for higher speeds shut them off and use another pair of ramjets or else?

a reply to: EartOccupant

That's what a TBCC engine is. You can't put regular engines and ramjets on the same platform, because it would be too much weight, and drag.

ntrs.nasa.gov...