It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan and the US to develop supersonic aircraft (Passenger)

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2006 @ 09:58 PM
link   


TOKYO, May 7 (Reuters) - The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and several Japanese firms will launch a joint project with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Boeing Co. (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) of the United States to develop a next-generation supersonic passenger aircraft, business daily Nihon Keizai Shimbun (Nikkei) reported on Sunday.

The project, due to start this summer, aims to develop a supersonic jet by around 2020 that could travel at Mach 2, or twice the speed of sound, carrying 200-300 passengers, the daily said.


Source Link


Supposedly it would just make 1/100 of the noise made by the Concorde. So is this for real or just a paper study that will end up as a curiosity like so many projects out there?

I honestly don't think a supersonic passenger plane that is profitable can be built with today's commercial technology, but I'm not sire the US would want to make public some of their black projects knowledge...

Or being on the conspiracy side, they need to release some technology and they made up this project to do so...

Mod Edit: Clarified Title and fixed spelling, and the source URL


[edit on 5/8/06 by FredT]




posted on May, 7 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Sounds both interesting and doable. The article does mention the involvement of some impressive and successful industrials. Kawasaki and Nikkei are of note both having a long relationship with aerospace. My experience has so far been that if a Japanese corp makes a statement of intent they rarely back out till success is achieved. Expect a very cool name...

That they'll achieve the sound spec? The claim would not be unreasonable with noise-cancelling and some other aero-tricks (perhaps air-spike) to massage the shock wave.

Profitable? What cost is too much for the ultra-rich of the corporatti? I'm thinkin' if it is "secure" and fast and exclusive that they'll fill every seat.

I wonder how they'll get around the landing hassles that previous SST attempts have experienced due to the fuselage layout?

I'll see if I can scare up some links on the airtist concept of what such a swift bird might look like. Thanx for the post.

Victor K.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
I'll believe it when I see it, Personally I think the airlines could of done it 20 years ago (Mach 1 and change) but probably decided not to because it wouldn't be the most prudent idea for its earnings. They can talk all they want about aircraft like this, but that doesn't mean the average joe will be able to afford it.

This news shows just how great of a jet the concorde was. We have nothing today and for AT LEAST the next 15 years like the concorde. When this craft is released to the public in 2020 it will probably cost the relative same amount of money it cost a passenger on the Concorde in 1970.

To me this is Nasa and big business rubbing it in on the fact that the american masses are no more than moo cows at pasture. Great you are building a plane that is faster than the concord and you are going to charge rediculous amounts of money to ride it. Great I'm sure it will make a great poaster for my kid, but unless you are in the top 5% of the social stratisphere you are never going to ride it.

They have been using the same jets more or less flying at the same speeds for the last 40 + years. THAT IS REDICULOUS!!!!
Whatever they decide to build, understand that it will be a JOKE compared to what those engineers and scientists are capable of creating and big business is capable of funding.

To me this should of had BIG SCAM across the top of it.



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Saw some of that on this link here
www.theregister.co.uk...

The more information the better!

Edited for all caps
U2U sent

[edit on 12-5-2006 by masqua]



posted on May, 8 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Also a Japanese/American/Australian/British company could organize and execute a project like this much quicker and cheaper than could our governments.

So in 2006 it is going to cost us 6 billion to build a super concorde?

Warning, complete ripoff!!!





[edit on 12-5-2006 by masqua]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:56 PM
link   
Nasa and Boeing denied that they talked to Japan about the SST.

It looks like this is pretty much strictly a Japan (and I think France) venture.

NASA Denies Talks With Japan On Supersonic Jet



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   
It will only be faster on the new world trade center... Sorry about that, but it will happen. Government didn't understood well the message. (will I be banned for that?, if it is THAT irrespectfull, sorry and mods delete it)

But it is good for passengers, they will travel faster! Maybe we could go to australia in less than 10 hours?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
It will only be faster on the new world trade center... Sorry about that, but it will happen. Government didn't understood well the message.


I'm trying to decipher your message... I think your saying that the US doesn't want faster airliners because then the terrorist can strike a building quicker, giving the US military less time to find it and shoot it down.

If thats what your saying, then ya couldn't be more wrong. It simply comes down to costs... supersonic airliners are not economical. I dont think (at least in the US) another "terrorist hi-jacking planes & crash them into buildings" thing will happen again...they allready used that card...the chances of them even getting one plane now is next to impossible. The closest they would get to that these days is a Flight 93 type of event.

[edit on 11-5-2006 by Murcielago]



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   
How do you know another attack will happen on the World Trade Center? What info do you have that we don't?



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
How do you know another attack will happen on the World Trade Center?

The World Trade Center buildings are gone...so another attack on them is impossable.



posted on May, 11 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
So the question would be, why the japanese divulge this information, if it is not true?

Was this part of a black project or maybe the americans didn't think the japanese were seroius about it.

Japan's problem it seems is that they can't developed the projects alone. By the article it seems they don't have the technology to do it...



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   
The Japanese have been working on the engines for an SST for ages now, see the HYPR/ESPR research programs.

NASA have been working on SSTs as well, but not as a priority project - its just something on the side.


I don't know where you get the idea of 'black' technology going on a civilian jet from. Its not exactly rocket science to know what needs to be done to produce a 'viable' (as far as they go) supersonic engine, its just the technicals in achieving it that are the problem.




One of the big problems with SSTs is one of government legislation - currently all supersonic civilian overland flight is banned in the US, France and the UK. Japan, being an island (well, 2 islands), would be able to utlise fully an SST on all flights into and out of the country quite well, whereas within the states for instance, its usefulness is limited.

I think the aircraft manufacturers have been pushing for amendments to the laws, with max allowable dB ratings for supersonic flight, and not a blanket ban. But with oil prices etc, its not a big issue for them at the moment.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
I'll believe it when I see it, Personally I think the airlines could of done it 20 years ago (Mach 1 and change) but probably decided not to because it wouldn't be the most prudent idea for its earnings. They can talk all they want about aircraft like this, but that doesn't mean the average joe will be able to afford it.

This news shows just how great of a jet the concorde was. We have nothing today and for AT LEAST the next 15 years like the concorde. When this craft is released to the public in 2020 it will probably cost the relative same amount of money it cost a passenger on the Concorde in 1970.

To me this is Nasa and big business rubbing it in on the fact that the american masses are no more than moo cows at pasture. Great you are building a plane that is faster than the concord and you are going to charge rediculous amounts of money to ride it. Great I'm sure it will make a great poaster for my kid, but unless you are in the top 5% of the social stratisphere you are never going to ride it.

They have been using the same jets more or less flying at the same speeds for the last 40 + years. THAT IS REDICULOUS!!!!
Whatever they decide to build, understand that it will be a JOKE compared to what those engineers and scientists are capable of creating and big business is capable of funding.

To me this should of had BIG SCAM across the top of it.


This is still a big scam. Unless you make over 300k a year, you will never ride it!



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
I'll believe it when I see it, Personally I think the airlines could of done it 20 years ago (Mach 1 and change) but probably decided not to because it wouldn't be the most prudent idea for its earnings. They can talk all they want about aircraft like this, but that doesn't mean the average joe will be able to afford it.


They have been using the same jets more or less flying at the same speeds for the last 40 + years. THAT IS REDICULOUS!!!!
Whatever they decide to build, understand that it will be a JOKE compared to what those engineers and scientists are capable of creating and big business is capable of funding.

To me this should of had BIG SCAM across the top of it.





Go learn about transonic drag rise before posting drivel please.

The basic reason that there is no demand for supersonic aircraft is expense. Public won't pay the extra prices so airlines don't need them hence manufacturers don't build them.

More in-depth, legislation is preventing SSTs from operating to their potential overland - so the concept is entering the face off against the slower, cheaper jets with one arm tied behind its back, its a fight that the SST cannot win against rising fuel prices.


A supersonic bizjet - now thats a different story.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
"Go learn about transonic drag rise before posting drivel please.

The basic reason that there is no demand for supersonic aircraft is expense. Public won't pay the extra prices so airlines don't need them hence manufacturers don't build them.

More in-depth, legislation is preventing SSTs from operating to their potential overland - so the concept is entering the face off against the slower, cheaper jets with one arm tied behind its back, its a fight that the SST cannot win against rising fuel prices.


A supersonic bizjet - now thats a different story."

That's cute, first you insult me, and then you use my argument? ? Is that typical of the Irish?

So are you trying to say that they are too expensive to build? Are you trying to ALSO say they are a rip-off

That word-a-day calender is paying off in dividends for you, keep it up!

The Reason why SST's don't fly overland, is because of the sonic booms associated with it, fix that and you fix the problem.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Let's not allow this thread to degenerate with comments directed towards the intelligence behind anothers' comment or what their racial tendencies may be.

Please keep this on topic.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

That's cute, first you insult me, and then you use my argument? ? Is that typical of the Irish?

So are you trying to say that they are too expensive to build? Are you trying to ALSO say they are a rip-off

That word-a-day calender is paying off in dividends for you, keep it up!

The Reason why SST's don't fly overland, is because of the sonic booms associated with it, fix that and you fix the problem.



I called your post drivel - that is not the same as insulting the poster. There is a clear distinction.


Now, use your argument? What the argument its all a massive conspiracy, and that neither the airlines and the aircraft manufacturers are interested in giving the public what they want.

Remind me, did BA and Air France cancel Concorde flights due to the terminals being unable to cope with the massive queues of people trying to get on them? Not what I recall.



They are (with current legislation in europe and the US) unprofitable as the price of building and flying is simply prohibitive to enough of the public for flight operations to be unsustainable. I don't know how you get from too expensive to rip-off, rip-off would clearly imply that either the airlines, or the manufacturer is making excess profit. Considering that Concorde was built and run at a loss, the idea that its a rip-off doesn't even being to stack up.



Yes, I've said here and in other threads its a problem of legislation, one which has repeatedly been put to the different governments involved - the manufacturers want a dB rating for supersonic flight, and the governments have all blanked on the issue. Boeing, Airbus, Tupolev, Bombardier and the others are not going to take the massive financial risk in developing an SST if they don't have assurances that legislation will change - and they don't have that assurance.


Again, with fuel rises, operating a commerical SST will only get harder, whereas a bizjet has an infinitely better business case as it has a diffferent customer base.



So are you denying that there is a massive rise in drag (which would increase fuel burn) associated with high transonic flights 'starting' at a normalised Mach number of about 0.7? Are you denying the customer demand for SSTs simply isn't there? Are you denying that subsonic airliners offer a product that meets the paying publics demands?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
nice sig,

the way I saw it was that even with the increase in drag there would be ways to increase/maintain fuel economy. At those speeds, mach .7 and above teh aerodynamics of the Aircraft are crucial. Match an aerodynamically efficient aircraft with a combo of highly efficient jet/ram jet combo and mach 1 -2 would be possible for passenger jets.

At speeds above mach .7 yes there is much more drag, but Ram Jets can operate much more efficiently than a jet engine ever could.

The Big Rip-Off comes in from the Airline industry. While profits have been all over the place for them over the years they have been making huge amounts of money off of us. Just as with the Oil industry the Airline industry attempts to squeeze as much out of the consumer as is humanly possible. So, what I was alluding to was that if they do ever build one of these supersonic passenger aircraft it is going to make the Concorde look economical to fly.

While this type of aircraft does great things for the top 1% of society, my guess is that not too many of us ATSers are in that group.

It would seem much more affordable both to the airline industry and to its consumers to instead revamp the Concorde. Yes, the Concorde did have some faults, hence the reason why they eventually decommissioned it, however, it does have an incredible track record with all things considered. They could revamp the concorde for a small fraction of what it will cost to start over from scratch.

My point is who really cares if it will take an extra 25 minutes getting from Los Angeles to Tokyo if it could mean saving billions?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
the way I saw it was that even with the increase in drag there would be ways to increase/maintain fuel economy. At those speeds, mach .7 and above teh aerodynamics of the Aircraft are crucial. Match an aerodynamically efficient aircraft with a combo of highly efficient jet/ram jet combo and mach 1 -2 would be possible for passenger jets. At speeds above mach .7 yes there is much more drag, but Ram Jets can operate much more efficiently than a jet engine ever could.



The Big Rip-Off comes in from the Airline industry.



It would seem much more affordable both to the airline industry and to its consumers to instead revamp the Concorde.



My point is who really cares if it will take an extra 25 minutes getting from Los Angeles to Tokyo if it could mean saving billions?




- Simply wrong, go read up on the transonic drag rise and then supersonic drag effects thereafter. I have no idea where you get the idea that a ram/scramjet is more efficient than a turbofan engine, I think you need to do some more background reading.



- The airline industry? Tell me, how many airlines have made a sustainable profit?
Answer: Not too many - currently the only ones doing it are the cheapest no-frills airlines.


The 20th century is dotted with names that embodied globe-trotting luxury before facing fiscal demise: Pan Am, Braniff, Eastern, TWA. In the United States alone, the Air Transport Association records at least 100 airline bankruptcies since deregulation in 1978.

"More airlines have gone out of business than have stayed in business," says Tom Cauthen of Accenture's airline consulting practice.

The rest of the world has fared little better. Many flagship carriers are artificially preserved with government support, only to collapse when officials pull the plug or when the airlines try to expand beyond their borders. Swissair and Belgium's Sabena are recent casualties. And the merger of KLM and Air France shows that even the most storied airlines are facing hard financial realities.


www.msnbc.msn.com...

Is it still all a massive conspiracy to you?



- More affordable to revamp the concorde? Affordable to whom? What are they going to do with it then? Continue the unwanted service?



- Your final point is at total odds with your argument up to this point, I think you've typo'd or gotten confused somewhere along the way.

edit to add ex tags



[edit on 12-5-2006 by masqua]



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by V Kaminski
Sounds both interesting and doable.


QFE. I concur. What with the vast improvements in sound-wave and compression-wave reducing technology I think it is quite possible to do this. Being able to make it to Tokyo in very short amounts of time is an excellent idea. Its kind of like a high-speed train connecting Britain to France...Except bigger and more ambitious. But I don't think it will go the way of the Concorde as long as they can keep the costs down. What was the ticket price on the Concorde? Well, a few of my paychecks anyway.

Always wanted to go to Japan. And this will pave the way for other high-speed networks across the world as well. New York To Heathrow or Du Gualle. Nice. Like the Concorde Days.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join