THIS is the answer to the magnificent now-gone Concord? The Concord could carry passengers. The Concord was MUCH faster. This is just an experimental aircraft.
https://techxplore.com/news/2024-01-nasa-lockheed-martin-reveal-quiet.html
On Saturday, January 20, 2024 at 11:08:54?AM UTC-8, Rich wrote:
On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 04:33:47 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:41:19?PM UTC-7, Rich wrote:They already had one that could fly as fast as the concord, it was called, "the concord." As for the sonic booms, there are plenty of continuous noises in cities that are worse
THIS is the answer to the magnificent now-gone Concord? The ConcordYes, but if the experiment _succeeds_, then the technology could be used >> > to make an airplane that can fly as fast as the Concorde over the oceans, >> > and faster than the speed of sound, without sonic booms, over land...
could carry passengers. The Concord was MUCH faster. This is just an
experimental aircraft.
which is also big enough for passengers.
John Savard
and are tolerated.
Reason the Concord was scrapped because the accident, also the company was not making money.
Sonic boom was just a nuisance, people complained about!
On Saturday 20 January 2024 at 04:33:47 UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 10:41:19 PM UTC-7, Rich wrote:
THIS is the answer to the magnificent now-gone Concord? The ConcordYes, but if the experiment _succeeds_, then the technology could be used
could carry passengers. The Concord was MUCH faster. This is just an
experimental aircraft.
to make an airplane that can fly as fast as the Concorde over the oceans,
and faster than the speed of sound, without sonic booms, over land...
which is also big enough for passengers.
They already had one that could fly as fast as the concord, it was called, "the concord." As for the sonic booms, there are plenty of continuous noises in cities that are worse
and are tolerated.
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:41:17 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:
THIS is the answer to the magnificent now-gone Concord? The Concord could carry passengers. The Concord was MUCH faster. This is just an experimental aircraft.
https://techxplore.com/news/2024-01-nasa-lockheed-martin-reveal-quiet.html
But the Concord design is unusable technology at any practical scale.
You apparently don't understand the concept of "experimental" and its
role in developing new technology.
On 20/01/2024 15:51, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:41:17 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:
THIS is the answer to the magnificent now-gone Concord? The Concord could carry passengers. The Concord was MUCH faster. This is just an experimental aircraft.But the Concord design is unusable technology at any practical scale.
https://techxplore.com/news/2024-01-nasa-lockheed-martin-reveal-quiet.html >>
The Concorde design was in regular commercial service for a considerable >period of time. It was very noisy, expensive to run and had dirty
engines but it worked very well for its time and could maintain
sustained Mach 2 flight for longer than most military aircraft. It was
quite deafening at take-off on full afterburners.
It was also pretty funny when they aborted a landing and went from glide
path descent to go round again using full afterburners and setting off
every car alarm in all the airport carparks as a result.
It was killed off because some US cowboys had used a titanium strip for
a bodged engine cowl repair on another aircraft and it destroyed their
tyres and ruptured a wing tank on take off. Concorde never recovered
from that (even though it was in no way their fault). Any other airliner >striking a titanium runway hazard would be in just as much trouble.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/10r62b0/the_17inch_titanium_strip_that_caused_the_crash/
NO other commercial supersonic airliner ever even entered service.
Russian Conkordski famously fell out of the sky at the Paris air show
because they hadn't stolen a sufficiently complete set of plans.
SR71 was the closest that the US came and that leaked aviation fuel like
a sieve until it was in flight and properly warmed up.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-the-sr-71-blackbird-airframe-was-designed-to-leak-fuel/
Boeing made the 747 instead which proved to be a very wise choice.
You apparently don't understand the concept of "experimental" and its
role in developing new technology.
Making a quiet supersonic passenger plane strikes me as rather unlikely.
Once you engage afterburners to get the ultimate acceleration it is
never going to be quiet.
It looks to me like this prototypes claimed quietness comes from having
next to no volume to carry passengers in and an incredibly sharp long
nose intended to disperse most of the shockwave upwards.
Laws of physics mean that once you are travelling faster than the speed
of sound you must leave behind an expanding conical shock wave. You can
only control how much goes downwards and its duration.
Destructive supersonic shockwaves in the UK are short duration from
fighter aircraft going off to make an interception. It only happens in
rural places where the interceptors are based (like where I live).
And very infrequently - once or twice a year.
On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:58:28 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I just don't see much of a market. Airplanes are going to be
electrified over the next few decades.
I am aware that some experimental electrical aircraft have actually
left the ground. I'm not terribly optimistic about the rapid progress
of this technology, but I have to admit that it probably will eventually
be achieved faster than I'm inclined to expect.
However, there are other solutions. Biofuel is one way to use
liquid fuels in a carbon-neutral manner. While ethanol may beat
putting high-fructose corn syrup in people's bodies, fuel production
ought not to compete with food production. However, Robert Zubrin,
author of A Case for Mars, pointed out that using methyl alcohol
instead would allow the use of sawdust, grass clippings, and leaves
to make fuel, genuinely using waste instead of food.
Business travel will be
dramatically reduced by augmented reality technology.
At least this is dependent on computer electronics which,
despite the tapering off of Moore's Law, still is making
rapid progress. I am not, however, inclined to be wildly
optimistic about people changing the way they do things.
And it's easy to
imagine a lot of tourist travel shifting to dirigibles, replacing
speed with the luxury of a cruise.
Yes, dirigibles are a very good idea for tourist travel and for
freight transport by air as well.
I tend to think of air travel as being dominated by business
travel, though. Aside from the use of methanol as fuel, which
is a very simple measure, another form of high-speed transport
which does not have to spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
is high-speed rail.
While I can imagine a business trip to Europe consisting of
three legs - a high-speed rail trip to northern Quebec, followed
by a dirigible flight to Brittany, and then a high-speed rail
trip to one's destination... at least if the world got genuinely
serious about reducing carbon-dioxide emissions... I have to
admit that this is likely more wildly optimistic than expecting
electric airplanes to be suitable for flying across the Atlantic.
When they're the size of jetliners, that is. Of course a two-person
airplane with a wide wingspan that could even cross the Pacific,
with its batteries supplemented by solar power, is perfectly
possible - if, indeed, it hasn't been achieved already.
Perhaps someday we will even have solar-powered dirigibles!
However, world economic collapse due to global warming being
neglected until it is too late is still not ludicrously impossible.
An even more immediate threat is potential political change in
the United States leading to *all three* of the world's nuclear
superpowers being dictatorships, which, to my mind, seems
likely to plunge humanity into a new dark age.
Some people spoke of moving to Canada if Trump got
elected. In Canada, though, I despair of somehow designing
a contraption in my backyard to fly to Proxima Centauri b,
which, to my mind, seems like a more appropriate choice of
destination to escape the consequences of that event.
On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:58:28?AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I just don't see much of a market. Airplanes are going to be
electrified over the next few decades.
I am aware that some experimental electrical aircraft have actually
left the ground. I'm not terribly optimistic about the rapid progress
of this technology, but I have to admit that it probably will eventually
be achieved faster than I'm inclined to expect.
However, there are other solutions. Biofuel is one way to use
liquid fuels in a carbon-neutral manner. While ethanol may beat
putting high-fructose corn syrup in people's bodies, fuel production
ought not to compete with food production. However, Robert Zubrin,
author of A Case for Mars, pointed out that using methyl alcohol
instead would allow the use of sawdust, grass clippings, and leaves
to make fuel, genuinely using waste instead of food.
Business travel will be
dramatically reduced by augmented reality technology.
At least this is dependent on computer electronics which,
despite the tapering off of Moore's Law, still is making
rapid progress. I am not, however, inclined to be wildly
optimistic about people changing the way they do things.
And it's easy to
imagine a lot of tourist travel shifting to dirigibles, replacing
speed with the luxury of a cruise.
Yes, dirigibles are a very good idea for tourist travel and for
freight transport by air as well.
I tend to think of air travel as being dominated by business
travel, though. Aside from the use of methanol as fuel, which
is a very simple measure, another form of high-speed transport
which does not have to spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
is high-speed rail.
While I can imagine a business trip to Europe consisting of
three legs - a high-speed rail trip to northern Quebec, followed
by a dirigible flight to Brittany, and then a high-speed rail
trip to one's destination... at least if the world got genuinely
serious about reducing carbon-dioxide emissions... I have to
admit that this is likely more wildly optimistic than expecting
electric airplanes to be suitable for flying across the Atlantic.
When they're the size of jetliners, that is. Of course a two-person
airplane with a wide wingspan that could even cross the Pacific,
with its batteries supplemented by solar power, is perfectly
possible - if, indeed, it hasn't been achieved already.
Perhaps someday we will even have solar-powered dirigibles!
However, world economic collapse due to global warming being
neglected until it is too late is still not ludicrously impossible.
An even more immediate threat is potential political change in
the United States leading to *all three* of the world's nuclear
superpowers being dictatorships, which, to my mind, seems
likely to plunge humanity into a new dark age.
Some people spoke of moving to Canada if Trump got
elected. In Canada, though, I despair of somehow designing
a contraption in my backyard to fly to Proxima Centauri b,
which, to my mind, seems like a more appropriate choice of
destination to escape the consequences of that event.
John Savard
Possibly the U.K. and France, having their own nuclear capabililties,
might be able to keep their independence, though.
That's why I'm saying that nothing less than Proxima Centauri b
is a genuinely safe place of refuge.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 33:39:01 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,098 |