Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hypersonic Spaceliner to Fly Passengers in 2050

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeoVain
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.


Hold on with that! The 787 is sitting on the ground, and the Airbus, or the pilots does/do funny things from time to time, so that's technological progress to date. The tube, any tube is a good idea, but not let us put it on the ground, stick it up in the relative safety of er, space, used at any speed. A tube, or tubes around the exact circumference of earth, (to avoid turbulence) all interconnected like a dirty great buckyball, with a way station tentacled into the atmosphere, which would also provide a power source and regulator. Yeah, I know that's silly, but you have to ask why after over a half century of space flight, there still seems to be no primary goal that could advantage the human condition in a big way, for the here and now.
edit on 27-1-2013 by smurfy because: Text.




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by juleol

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.


That's progress for you. I don't think that anyone really thinks that Concorde didn't work, and work well, but it was past it's time, as is the Shuttle. The well heeled are always served best simply because they pay for it, just like the Titanic, which obviously didn't work so well. I grant you that the Titanic did have different degrees of ticket, but the actual amounts were humongous for those days, equivalent to like £2000 or more first class, near £1000 second class, and over £500 for the not even average Joes, if you get the drift.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by juleol
 


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.


(sigh) the singular focus on class warfare and who has more to do more is just a sad thing to see. We can't even discuss something with awe and wonder like the new technology this might represent without the ugliness of that coming into it.


Passenger train travel was a pretty penny when it first came. Transportation by jet aircraft wasn't exactly the modern equivalent of $99 each way 'super saver fares' when it first came. Even the Model T set people back a staggering sum for it's day. Technology advancement is a GOOD thing all around and eventually what may start as outrageous in price will scale as the costs and market fall and rise respectively to support the changes.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by juleol
 


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.


(sigh) the singular focus on class warfare and who has more to do more is just a sad thing to see. We can't even discuss something with awe and wonder like the new technology this might represent without the ugliness of that coming into it.


Passenger train travel was a pretty penny when it first came. Transportation by jet aircraft wasn't exactly the modern equivalent of $99 each way 'super saver fares' when it first came. Even the Model T set people back a staggering sum for it's day. Technology advancement is a GOOD thing all around and eventually what may start as outrageous in price will scale as the costs and market fall and rise respectively to support the changes.

Sure you can... I just dont find it very impressive myself considering this is about 2050 and still is not really useful since it has to be launched from middle of nowhere using a rocket stage.
And my comment was about you thinking that your children would ever get to enjoy this which is not true at all if you look at the plannet price tag for tickets.

Your kids will be lucky if they even can afford a normal plane ticket with our economy going downhill like now.
And this is no real advancement of technology. We already have suborbital planes/toys for the rich guys.
Absolutely nothing has happened with rocket technology either.. It is still the same old technology we had for decades and so far they have not been able to get the costs down much.
In fact we cant even afford sending humans to the moon anymore.

Edit: I would be alot more optimistic if this had come ages ago.. but this is something that is expected to be ready nearly a century after the concorde first lifted off and yet it is more expensive, takes fewer passengers and needs a rocket stage to take off. It is just not very impressive.
edit on 27-1-2013 by juleol because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
What a beautiful plane, nice find. If I let all my frequent flier miles build up, I should be able to afford it by then



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


That's IT!! I'm going to the future!



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
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.

edit on 27-1-2013 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)


In a world with muslim terrorists, eco terrorists and militant marxists, err I meant in a world with peaceful muslims, environmentalists and "respectable communists", it would simply be too dangerous as such structures are easily sabotaged. Don't get me wrong, they could be used to some extent within a nation or in regions that are stable, but any type of global network just wouldn't be safe.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



Currently they're having a lot of problems with hypersonic flight.


Would that be the inherent instability of the combustion zone in different Mach thresholds?

The thermal tolerances of the materials?

Or finding some way to get up to scramjet speed without including like... 4 different engines that only work one at a time?




posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Awesome. Don't be so sure you'll be old though. You never know which scientific discoveries may be around the corner to reverse or suspend the ageing process.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
Thats what the world needs, another challenger type explosion, this time with 200 people on board.

If they can do it by not using thousands of pounds of highly flammable fuel, it would be better.



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 



If they can do it by not using thousands of pounds of highly flammable fuel


You do realize that.... the only reason that fuel is useful at all, is because it is highly flammable, right?

Take this ironic example, for.... er... example:



This was a test of a fuel additive, that was supposed to make the fuel... Not Burn.

Figure that one out, eh?

"Hey Bob... did the engines start up?"

"Yeah fred... they did"

"Well, I guess that new additive didn't exactly work out then, eh?"

Of course, I can't really blame NASA for this one... I know for sure, that If I worked for NASA, and the FAA said to me:

"Hey, we want you to remote pilot an empty 747 into a controlled crash in the middle of the desert to see if it explodes"

I would defiantly respond with "[snip] YEAH!"
edit on 27-1-2013 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Greetings All,

My grandfather, Laurence J. Lesh, proposed something like this during a luncheon with McDonald, Lear, Douglas and quite a few of the other early aviation pioneers at the Chicago Worlds Fair. His concept though involved a permanent space station where you disembarked and caught another flight back down. The idea is great but I won't live to see it. Good posts and thanks,



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
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.


Yeah, but those videos are all of pilots over 7Gs. The average person can withstand about 5-6Gs without a suit, and without passing out. Around 6 is where they start to have problems. What's interesting is that with even just 5 minutes of training, you can increase your G tolerance 1-2Gs.


Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Would that be the inherent instability of the combustion zone in different Mach thresholds?

The thermal tolerances of the materials?

Or finding some way to get up to scramjet speed without including like... 4 different engines that only work one at a time?


Yes and no. All of those problems have fixes in the works, including a hybrid engine that starts out as a jet engine, and when they reach a speed where a ramjet works, then it will convert over to a ramjet. It's really complicated, but they're working on it.

The real problem seems to be that they have found another Sound Barrier. At least three, but I believe every one of the flights that has successfully separated from the booster, and began hypersonic flight failed at 8 minutes. It's unofficially known as the 8 minute barrier. One went into an unsafe attitude, and forced the failsafes to crash it, one just lost telemetry, and the other one lost bigger pieces of airframe than expected, and the computers lost control. But again, at 8 minutes. It seems that there's something about 8 minutes of hypersonic flight that is causing issues, almost like they were having with the sound barrier during the 40s when they were trying to break it.


Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
"Hey, we want you to remote pilot an empty 747 into a controlled crash in the middle of the desert to see if it explodes"


It was actually a Boeing 720, which was a shorter legged version of the 707, and what was used to make the KC-135 for the USAF.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by smurfy
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.


Yeah, but those videos are all of pilots over 7Gs. The average person can withstand about 5-6Gs without a suit, and without passing out. Around 6 is where they start to have problems. What's interesting is that with even just 5 minutes of training, you can increase your G tolerance 1-2Gs.


 


Well, I was going with a little sense of humour. But since you mentioned over 7G that's tearing the arse out of it a bit, it's usually MAX 7G at Randolph, some of them flake out much less than that.
But that's okay, Wrabbit and I will make the movie







edit on 28-1-2013 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Yeah, but Randolph is a special case, because those are student pilots. Randolph is home of the 12th Flight Training Wing, operating the T-6A, T-38, and T-1A. More experienced pilots generally make it to 8-9 before they pass out. At least higher than 7, because they've had more training, and more experience with Gs.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



The real problem seems to be that they have found another Sound Barrier. At least three, but I believe every one of the flights that has successfully separated from the booster, and began hypersonic flight failed at 8 minutes.


Oh! This IS juicy.... I did not know!

Thank you for the interesting information, I will begin research on it right away!


It was actually a Boeing 720, which was a shorter legged version of the 707, and what was used to make the KC-135 for the USAF.


Meh.... tomato, tomAto.

Twisted wreckage has no model number.... lol



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Meh.... tomato, tomAto.

Twisted wreckage has no model number.... lol


No, but there's a lot more twisted wreckage with a 747.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy
 


Yeah, but Randolph is a special case, because those are student pilots. Randolph is home of the 12th Flight Training Wing, operating the T-6A, T-38, and T-1A. More experienced pilots generally make it to 8-9 before they pass out. At least higher than 7, because they've had more training, and more experience with Gs.


The point I'm making is civilians would be unused to high G's, at least just as unused as the new training pilots, and you can see from the video where some of them fainted.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by smurfy
 


Sure they would, but they wouldn't be exposed to high G forces on this. The shuttle at launch and reentry had a maximum of 3Gs. Unless you have some underlying condition, 3Gs is going to cause probably vomiting in some people, dizziness in others, but is highly unlikely to cause someone to pass out. And if they flatten the trajectory somewhat, it should stay under 3Gs, which would be even more manageable. Some roller coasters out there pull more than 3Gs. I've heard of some that can pull almost 6 at certain points in the ride.
edit on 1/28/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



No, but there's a lot more twisted wreckage with a 747.


That... is a fair point


As it so happens, I was doing a little research on this "8 minute" problem for hypersonic travel, and it appears that the information I can find is quite limited.

You wouldn't happen to have any resource links on the subject, would you?






top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join