Hypersonic Spaceliner to Fly Passengers in 2050

Greetings, ATS!

A hypersonic "SpaceLiner" would whisk up to 50 passengers from Europe to Australia in 90 minutes. The futuristic vehicle would do so by riding a rocket into Earth's upper atmosphere, reaching 24 times the speed of sound before gliding in for a landing. Many challenges still remain, including finding the right shape for the vehicle, said Martin Sippel, project coordinator for SpaceLiner at the German Aerospace Center. But he suggested the project could make enough progress to begin attracting private funding in another 10 years and aim for full operations by 2050. The current concept includes a rocket booster stage for launch and a separate orbiter stage to carry passengers halfway around the world without ever making it to space. Flight times between the U.S. and Europe could fall to just over an hour if the SpaceLiner takes off — that is, if passengers don't mind paying the equivalent of space tourism prices around several hundred thousand dollars.

Discovery News

Wow, can you imagine riding this thing? I'll be an old, old lady (and unable to afford it anyway) but what a thrill to ride at 24 times the speed of sound.

I wonder....what effects might traveling at such speeds have on the human body? Does anyone know?

Anyway....the idea of this spaceliner just makes me grin.

I think it's incredible to think our children may look back on our time and marvel at the idea we could actually spend a day or TWO between flights, airports and connections to pure frustrated madness in getting from one point on Earth to another.

I have a feeling, if we all find a way to get through the immediate troubled times, it'll come. The kids in the future truly will see this as their 'blue marble' and not something like a HUGE planet how we mentally see it. After all, New York to England was once considered many days journey on an Ocean Liner and that WAS 'fast' transport. It's just amazing how tech changes perceptions of everything, isn't it?

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Greetings, ATS!

A hypersonic "SpaceLiner" would whisk up to 50 passengers from Europe to Australia in 90 minutes. The futuristic vehicle would do so by riding a rocket into Earth's upper atmosphere, reaching 24 times the speed of sound before gliding in for a landing. Many challenges still remain, including finding the right shape for the vehicle, said Martin Sippel, project coordinator for SpaceLiner at the German Aerospace Center. But he suggested the project could make enough progress to begin attracting private funding in another 10 years and aim for full operations by 2050. The current concept includes a rocket booster stage for launch and a separate orbiter stage to carry passengers halfway around the world without ever making it to space. Flight times between the U.S. and Europe could fall to just over an hour if the SpaceLiner takes off — that is, if passengers don't mind paying the equivalent of space tourism prices around several hundred thousand dollars.

Discovery News

Wow, can you imagine riding this thing? I'll be an old, old lady (and unable to afford it anyway) but what a thrill to ride at 24 times the speed of sound.

I wonder....what effects might traveling at such speeds have on the human body? Does anyone know?

Anyway....the idea of this spaceliner just makes me grin.

Something like this I'd imagine,

...and how deep will a pocket burn for a ticket??
I'm betting at least a good hundred thousand bucks.

Originally posted by smyleegrl

I wonder....what effects might traveling at such speeds have on the human body? Does anyone know?

Anyway....the idea of this spaceliner just makes me grin.

Almost none. You'll feel some acceleration Gs as you climb out, but once you're up, you won't feel a thing. It'll be just like flying on a regular plane. You might feel somewhere around 3Gs, which is enough to feel slightly uncomfortable, but that's about it. I think the shuttle would get up to about 5Gs on the way to orbit. That was a much harsher launch that this would be I would imagine though.

I'm not sure this will become a reality. Seems like a massive waste of resources. If concord jet couldn't make it, what makes these guys think this one will?

Evacuated tubes is a cheaper alternative. Not quite as fast, but much more efficient. I think that'll win out over this idea.

reply to post by unityemissions


Because for one, they are developing quiet supersonic technology, which would allow supersonic flight over land, unlike with the Concorde. For another, this will be flying much higher than Concorde was, and will be close to a weightless condition during the flight. So any sonic boom will be further alleviated.

One of the reasons Concorde failed was because they had to fly over 150 miles out to sea before they could go supersonic. Which meant you still had to fly hours subsonic.

reply to post by Zaphod58

When I was at Disneyworld it was the low attendance days of the year (timed that way) so we got to really play unlike most times. Mission: Space is one I caught just right to get on almost walk-thru time for returning to a half dozen times in a row. Now I know...they don't like that and the last trip through they flat told me they wouldn't let me BACK for awhile after that one.

I just went back to confirm G-load on that simulation and was shocked to see the info I find today shows 2.5 G's. Thats all that was and it had me feeling wobbly for a minute or two after walking out of the pod. I watched one person get up, walk out and face plant right down too. Someone wasn't allowing for the dizzy after effect. lol... Another pod was closed because someone had puked all over the inside of it and every seat had a bag very prominent that wasn't there for show.

I LOVED it! However..if that was a measly 2.5g with those rather dramatic effects? What WOULD 3 and more feel like to average people boarding off the street and without conditioning to expect and cope with it? It was just amazing what that lower number felt like now that I see what it was? (I'd forgotten the figure tho I believe it was posted on the warning signs at the ride too)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


It's really not that much worse for 3, as opposed to 2.5. I suspect that 3 is the highest you'll see, and only for a very short time. They can probably set the launch window to a flatter trajectory, so it takes slightly longer to get to altitude, but is a much easier climb, with a lower G rating.

reply to post by Zaphod58


I thought the reason the concorde failed was because of it's outrageous costs. There were few seats booked on most flights, if I'm recalling correctly. The costs were related to it's massive fuel consumption, correct? How does this compare to using a rocket to get into low orbit?! Surely that's not more cost effective.

The evacuated tubes use maglev technology in a weightless environment to propel the tubes up to 3,000mph. Not only that, but it recaptures most of the energy from breaking, and costs 1/4 of the price of a highway lane per mile. Maybe the spaceliner will work for elite, but everyone else will be better suited for these tubes.

reply to post by unityemissions


That was one reason. Another was that you had to be subsonic out to 150 miles, and for flights to LA, you had to be subsonic the entire time across the US, so you weren't saving a whole lot of time. As for a rocket, a number of companies are developing "cheap" rocket systems to use for space tourism. The more commercial companies involved, the lower the costs will come, since they're all about profit, as opposed to a fixed budget.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

I LOVED it! However..if that was a measly 2.5g with those rather dramatic effects? What WOULD 3 and more feel like to average people boarding off the street and without conditioning to expect and cope with it? It was just amazing what that lower number felt like now that I see what it was? (I'd forgotten the figure tho I believe it was posted on the warning signs at the ride too)

I was thinking along those lines too. How often we've seen pilots and astronauts in the centrifuge flaking out. Going with your thinking then, they'll probably make a movie...Airplane IV perhaps.

reply to post by smurfy


Airplane IV?

Oh I wasn't ready for that! I'm glad I wasn't in mid sip of something when I read it. I can't help but imagine a few appropriate scenes to a modern day version of a sequel to that and laugh some more.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Zaphod,

I'm assuming, based on your avatar and knowledge, that you are a pilot. Do you think something like this plane is feasible?

reply to post by smyleegrl


I have some flying experience, but a lot of experience with aircraft. We're moving in this direction, and by the time frame they have given, I can see them flying one. Currently they're having a lot of problems with hypersonic flight. But they're getting better.

reply to post by smyleegrl


2050? My bet is this will be obsolete tech by then, with the current rate of technological progress, we will have teleporters and holograms to represent us on the other side of the world far before this tech is available.

At a 0.2 msec delay.

Originally posted by smyleegrl
Greetings, ATS!

I wonder....what effects might traveling at such speeds have on the human body? Does anyone know?

there is no effect on the human body of that speed. The space shuttle spends days at 23 times the speed of sound. And the ISS spends months at 37 times the SoS. And that is using the "standard atmosphere" value for Mach. At hypersonic cruise altitudes, the speed of sound is pretty much a meaningless concept, since sound needs a medium through which to travel, and at that altitude, there is no air to speak of. Air density at 100,000 feet is only about one-one hundredth of that at the surface. That's why you don't hear a sonic boom when the ISS passes overhead.

reply to post by smyleegrl

I am not at all impressed... In 2050 we will finally have a commericial jet that fly faster than speed of sound.. It has half the capacity of the concorde that flied in the 60s and needs a #ing rocket stage just to get it up to SUBORBITAL altitude and will only be for the rich elite.
Meanwhile standard commerical jets for average joe is the same today as it was decades ago.
We have the capability to get to Mars now if it wasnt for lack of funding, but yet it will take 40 years before this piece of # flies and it is not even able to reach space.

When you look at our technological capability in 60s we really havent gotten very far...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I think it's incredible to think our children may look back on our time and marvel at the idea we could actually spend a day or TWO between flights, airports and connections to pure frustrated madness in getting from one point on Earth to another.

I have a feeling, if we all find a way to get through the immediate troubled times, it'll come. The kids in the future truly will see this as their 'blue marble' and not something like a HUGE planet how we mentally see it. After all, New York to England was once considered many days journey on an Ocean Liner and that WAS 'fast' transport. It's just amazing how tech changes perceptions of everything, isn't it?

Time for you to actually read the article.. This is something for the rich guys. It even needs a rocket stage and can only be launched in middle of nowhere. There is no way any of our children will ever be able to fly one of those. I dont even think the rich elite will be very interested in traveling to some desert in middle of nowhere just so they can pay a fortune to travel at hypersonic speeds.

Nothing at all has happened when it comes conventional commericial jets for average joe. It is still basically the same old technology we have had for decades with absolutely no improvements when it comes to speed or even cabin. The only difference is that some are a bit lighter and is a bit more fuel efficient than before.

Originally posted by Saneeto
...and how deep will a pocket burn for a ticket??
I'm betting at least a good hundred thousand bucks.

You would have gotten your answer if you read the actual article:

if passengers don't mind paying the equivalent of space tourism prices around several hundred thousand dollars.

So in other words nothing more than a expensive toy for the rich elite.
At least the concorde was at least somewhat useful even though it was only for the rich as well. At least it could take off from a normal airport and did not need a separate rocket stage just to be launched..
With this one you will have to first travel to middle of nowhere which i bet will take some time as well.