If it even needs stating....

[nibb31]

An economical SST would be nice, just like a space elevator or a reusable SSTO Shuttle II. However, the laws of physics will always be there.<br /><br />Besides, what is the added value of going from Paris to New York in 2 hours ? If you're in that much of an hurry, in the day of widespread broadband communications, it is easier to develop 3D VR conferencing solutions than to make an economical SST. <br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Besides, what is the added value of going from Paris to New York in 2 hours ?</i> <br /><br />It's certainly not negligible. But how about the value of being able to travel from the United States to China or Australia or Russia, etc without having to spend an entire day sitting in a cramped seat? <br /><br />20+ hours in a 747 or A380? In coach? Ouch!

 

[tomnackid]

How is technology supposed to advance if nobody tries to make things such as SST's economically viable? Or would you rather see 707-style Mach 0.85 airframes for the next 500 years?<br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Just because NASA (or anyone else) hasn't built an operational system doesn't mean that the technology isn't advancing. NASA has warehouses full of data on things like hypersonic airflow, supersonic combustion, airframe heating, etc., etc. All there ready and waiting for someone in the private sector to make use of it. The fact is there is nothing foreseeable that will make supersonic travel any cheaper than the Concorde. The only alternative is to wait until the world's economic situation changes enough that significant numbers of people can and want to pay for Concorde-like service. Forcing the technology down society's throat just because we can do it will only result in more bankrupt and failed programs like Concorde, the shuttle, etc.<br /><br />Now its possible that some unforeseeable could come up that completely changes the situation (Mr. Fusion? Ultra strong and lightweight materials? Antigravity? Large scale beamed power?) but these things are inherently unpredictable.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>The fact is there is nothing foreseeable that will make supersonic travel any cheaper than the Concorde.</i><br /><br />I can't believe that's true. Certainly a modern SST would be at least somewhat cheaper to fly than the Concorde. I would think that a modern SST would be to the Concorde what the F-22 Raptor is to the F-4 Phantom.

 

[crix]

The 777 Dreamliner is to those 50 year old commercial planes what the F-22 Raptor is to the F-4 Phantom. The new CEV capsule is to the old Apollo capsule what the F-22 Raptor is to the F-4 Phantom.<br /><br />Air hasn't changed in 50 years. Neither have vacuums. However, electronics, material science, manufacturing knowledge, etc., HAVE. And we'll be putting that knowledge into the CEV. Without some pure-science breakthroughs (and those will come someday... im expecting some new magneto-gravitic theory in the next 15 years) we're not goign to see anything revolutionary.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> The new CEV capsule is to the old Apollo capsule what the F-22 Raptor is to the F-4 Phantom.</font>/i><br /><br />I like that comparison. Although, the only thing I would add is: "the <i>original</i> F-4 Phantom." The F-4 was upgraded over the years.</i>

 

[nacnud]

The thing is would you choose to fly once every other year on a SST or three or four times a year on a A380/787?<br /><br />My time is not worth the extra money to fly on an SST, there are <b>a lot</b> of people in the same position.

 

[tomnackid]

I would think that a modern SST would be to the Concorde what the F-22 Raptor is to the F-4 Phantom.<br />---------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Exactly right--10 times more expensive!

 

[elguapoguano]

Better question, how many F-4 Phantom's could you shoot down with 1 F-22 Raptor? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Which all shows the futility of comparing military hardware with commercial hardware.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Better question, how many F-4 Phantom's could you shoot down with 1 F-22 Raptor?<br /><br /><font color="white">9+?<br /><li> 1× M61A2 Vulcan 20 mm Gatling gun with 480 rounds<li> 6× AIM-120C AMRAAM<li> 2× AIM-9 Sidewinder</li></li></li></font></font>

 

[vt_hokie]

Somehow, I could see those of you who say that SST's will never be practical saying the same thing about jets back when they were in their infancy.

 

[tomnackid]

Actually jets were much cheaper to run than piston engine planes--speed was an added by product. Jets burn cheap kerosene instead of high grade gasoline and rotary engines last much long than reciprocating ones. When turbojets were first put into service airlines used the same maintenance schedules they used for their piston planes. Mechanics were surprised to find that in the same period of time that would call for a major overhaul of a piston engine the jet engine was barely worn. <br /><br />Air travel "took off" (sorry about that) because jets made it CHEAPER than it could be with piston engined planes, not because jets were faster. On the other hand sustained supersonic flight is an expensive proposition. It hard to do and takes massive amounts of energy. It will always be an expensive proposition. There are just too few people who absolutely need that much speed to make the proposition economically viable. Again just because its "cool" doesn't mean its worth doing.

 

[josh_simonson]

Air travel takes about 45 minutes to get to the airport, nearly 2 hours to get tickets and pass through security without risk of missing the flight, maybe another 2-3 hours on the plane for a continental flight, half an hour to get your luggage, then 45 minutes to drive to your destination. That's 6.5 hours of BS to visit your family for xmas. Now provide a SST, that comes down to 5.5 hours. Nobody is willing to pay several times as much to cut the overall average travel time by such a small amount. That limits SST to long haul flights that make up a much smaller percent of the travel market. Even on the long haul, most folks will say "Hmm, I save $50/hour if I take the longer flight plane - that'll pay for the christmas presents!"<br /><br />The market just isn't that big unless the price for the supersonic jet is the same as the subsonic one. I don't believe that's likely in the near future.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i> rotary engines last much long than reciprocating ones.</i><br /><br />I guess it depends on the application. Gas turbines have been tried numerous times in railroad applications, but never with great success. They have a much higher power to weight ratio than diesels, and have been seen as an alternative to electrification for high speed rail. But the maintenance requirements and fuel consumption have always led to them being tossed aside in favor of diesels. Here's the most recent experiment with turbine rail propulsion, but the prototype is now sitting in storage at Bombardier. So, it looks like another dead end project much like the French Turboliners (and their Rohr built American clones) and the United Aircraft Turbo Train before that.<br /><br />Anyway, getting back on topic, I really hope to see commercial aviation break through the Mach 0.85 barrier. It's pretty sad that my grandparents got to fly at Mach 2 on the Concorde, and I might never have the same opportunity in my lifetime!

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"I guess it depends on the application."</font><br /><br />Well airplanes have a bit different weight restrictions than railroad engines. Otherwise A380 would be powered by one of those insanely big Wartsila twostroke seadiesels, unbeatable fuel economy!<br /><br /><font color="yellow">"It's pretty sad that my grandparents got to fly at Mach 2 on the Concorde, and I might never have the same opportunity in my lifetime!"</font><br /><br />For a mere $200K you can beat your grandparents in both speed and altitude real soon now <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The thing is would you choose to fly once every other year on a SST or three or four times a year on a A380/787? <br /><br />My time is not worth the extra money to fly on an SST, there are a lot of people in the same position. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />That's a valid point, but bear in mind that airlines make their profits from price insensitive customers, not from the occassional traveler in the cheap seats.<br /><br />The Firm I work for is American Airlines largest single customer. We always fly on full fare unrestricted tickets due to the unpredictable nature of our travel. The partners in my firm have charge-out rates that run well over $1,000 per hour. If they have to pay $2,000 extra for a LGA-JFK return and can save two hours both ways, it pays at 100% ROI.<br /><br />SST's may not be economical for leisure travelers and will never replace all customers, but there is definitely a market for them for price insensitive business travelers. The barriers remain a lack of funds to build them and restrictions on over-land use.

 

[tomnackid]

There was an airplane company a few years ago that was offering to build a supersonic business jet for anyone willing to put up the cash up front. I forget how much they were charging, but I seem to recall that it was within the realm of possibility for big corporations or Bill Gates types. Since it was small the restrictions for overland flight were suposedly less as well. Seems like it would be a much more economical solution for those who "absolutely possitively have to be there" in a couple of hours than ttrying to fill up a Concorde and still loosing money on the deal.

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">think about it this way: <br />3 people in 3 rocket chairs or 3 people in one lander. something goes wrong...at least in the first case 2 can make it.</font><br /><br />Yep... and with three rocket chairs, there are two additional opportunities for something to go kaflooey. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>For a mere $200K you can beat your grandparents in both speed and altitude real soon now </i><br /><br /><br />If only aerospace engineers made that kind of money! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I was tempted to fly on the Concorde before it was retired, and I almost wish now that I had. But it was just so expensive! So, I had to settle for just watching it fly in on the approach to JFK with all those rich passengers aboard! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I wonder if Concorde "Model B" would have been more successful.<br />

 

[john_316]

Not at the moment but I would say in about 15 years we will see a second Concorde SST type of jet because the Wealthy will demand it and they will pay the cost to fly it...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

Actually, a better analogy would be: How cheaply could you build an F-4 today vs 40 years ago? Same flight regime, same technology, same design, all new manufacturing technologies, lighter materials, and lighter/more powerful/more efficient engines.<br /><br />Given the advances of CNC machining, automated wing and airframe riveting and welding and NDI, for the same production numbers you ought to be able to produce the same plane for less than half the original cost.

 

[n_kitson]

The major capital costs of any aircraft pregram are resident in the detailed engineering design and in the test program. Building an aircraft that looks the same with modern materials will require a complete redesign from scratch and will incur the same costs as any other aircraft program.<br /><br />In fact, it may even be substantially more expensive. You are trying to build to an airframe design that may just not be suited to modern materials and modern engines, especially if you are making them more powerful.<br /><br />There is a real case example of this in the auto industry. BMW wanted to relaunch the classic BMW2002 in 2002. After a conceptual investigation they discovered that it would in fact be more expensive to relaunch the old design, updated with modern engines, materials and instrumentation, than designing a vehicle from scratch. And thus was born the BMW 1-series.