What is Digg?121 Comments
- dheller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+42Wouldn't it be great if we could do this? Take off at 5p EST and land at 4p PST.
Too bad they are only marketing to the exec class to start. - atlantisceo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Not the newest news if you watch the aviation industry, but definitely worth a digg.
Boeing is actually using some of the technology developed for their version of the high-speed jet on their new 787 (which is supposed to be available in late 2007 I believe). The 787 will travel faster than just about every other jetliner out there today. Normally when an aircraft is traveling near the speed of sound the plane is producing tons of drag - Boeing has figured a way to push this point to a higher speed. Very cool technology.
@stealthboy - don't mistake Boeing/Lockheed with the makers of the Concorde. Also, there has been decades between that very old tech and this very new tech. Apples and Oranges... - Vlatro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21"Time to make some huge leaps again. I want NY to Melbourne in 2 hours. Hell, I want NY to Melbourne in 2 minutes"
2 Min. Let's see... That's about 10,355 Miles (estimate compliments of indo.com)
That's 86.3 Miles per second
The speed of sound is 0.211446403 miles per second
Your speed divided by the speed of sound = Mach 408.1
Air friction would basically incinerate even the best insulations at that speed. You'd be riding a wave of superheated plasma, even your ashes would be burned up. Of course accelerating that fast to begin with would force all the blood in your body through the tissue and skin right out of your back, and you'd be unconscious before the pain even registered. Of course the amount of fuel required to maintain that speed for 2 minuets would be substantial, but I'm betting it would most likely ignite under the extreme temperatures, turning the vehicle into a giant flying Molotov cocktail.
But on the bright side, they would be awfully hard to Hijack. Maybe that would shorten the lines at the security checks. - jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21"Even at say 35,000 feet you can't break the speed of sound over a populated area without angering some group"
So what's the downside? :) - Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Yeah, it will be for private jets to start with, but if it works, and there is demand, it will move over to the mainstream.
If you think about it, advances in travel really have been at a stand-still for about 60 years now. From 1900 to 1950 we went from steam trains and horse drawn carriages to jet airliners and personal automobiles. Since then, we've just been refining, not innovating.
Time to make some huge leaps again. I want NY to Melbourne in 2 hours. Hell, I want NY to Melbourne in 2 minutes. - saleens281, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19@all of you talking about supersonic over land mass:
You can't do it because of the sonic boom it creates. This jet has no sonic boom, therefore there's absolutely no reason not to allow it to fly over land mass at supersonic speeds. Critical thinking skills help every now and again, try em ;) - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Okay, to every idiot out there whose attitude is, "He he! NARF! Concorde!" Shut up. Seriously, shut up. I've already seen about 7 or 8 Concorde comments.
Last time I checked, there aren't many aeronautical engineers on digg. So unless you actually know what you're talking about, shut your hole. Do you honestly believe that someone else didn't look at the designs for a new civilian supersonic aircraft and NOT take into account the Concorde? Did you honestly think someone would decide, "Hey, let's re-brand that old SST as a new, hip business jet, and hope they conveniently forget what a failure the other one was! Ignore the technical problems and improvements made over the past several decades since the first Concorde! We want the SAME dud product!"
Shut up. - sinfree, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18You die.
- 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I remember something in the 1970's about using evacuated tunnels to travel fast below ground(+400mph?).
Plus I just think terminals that look like this are just cool
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Stockholm_subway_radhuset_20050808_002.jpg - MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -5/+16EIGHTY-EIGHT MILES PER HOUR!!!!
- Terc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@DBCubix,
Did you even read the Digg headline? Supersonic travel over land is EXACTLY what we're talking about here. - ajchavar, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17why would you even think that that was an acceptable thing to say?
- mrbambastik, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Wired's article states something untrue: "Concorde was barred from flying at supersonic speeds over the United States [...] because excessive noise was produced by pressure waves colliding in the plane's wake.".
The thing that killed the Concorde was purely and simply American sour grapes when Boeing finally admitted that their own late entry into supersonic air travel was over budget, overdue and over weight and would never fly. There were plenty of American airline with options to buy, but they all pulled out when the American government then decided to ban overland commercial supersonic flight, making the aircraft practically useless to American airlines. Of course, many military aircraft continue to fly supersonic over the American mainland, and cows still give uncurdled milk, children are not thrown from their beds by the sonic shock-wave, and there are not hoards of angry sleep-deprived and shell-shocked American citizens beating at the doors of congress to limit this evil. - atlantisceo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I think you missed the sarcasm...
- tofuoni, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"I'm sure at that speed it can't be good."
You're sure? Really? What makes you sure? What is your educational background? The truth is, you can't possibly be sure. What you are is afraid. You have fear that the fuel effeciency isn't good. You're uncertain because you have no knowledge of jet engines. And you doubt because you're typically cynical.
So that's what your comment amounts to, fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Good job. - stealthboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Uhh... the Concorde failed because it was way to expensive and most of the initial buyers backed out, leaving an expensive niche market. The failure of the one Concorde in 2000 was because of a shredded tire after it ran over a strip of metal on the runway; it did not "fall apart in mid flight". Do some research before you spout off.
- thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7>Why haven't we made any progress since then? Air flight from NY to LA is virtually identical today as it was in 40 years ago.
We have made progress, the flights are much more numerous and less expensive. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The concorde failed for many reasons, not the least of which was a Concorde bursting into flame on take off in 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_4590 - atlantisceo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Not at all - they are using engines vastly different from today's turbofans. Some are using scram jets, others are using variations. These aircraft won't be worse for the environment than what we have now.
What we need to get rid of is the straight turbojets from the 1960's and 70's that can still be found on tons of business jets (and even some really old jetliners). Those things emit black clouds when running. - pcheaven2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I also want to point out that the sonic boom is caused by the air that rushes over the surface of the plane and collides behind the plane. These new jet designs disperse that air as it travels across the fuselage so that the wake behind the plane is much much larger and therefore there is very little collision of air.
- FanofFilm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, I am an aerospace engineer. And I am on digg. And you're right about all the other stuff.
- pcheaven2k, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Alright let me point out a few things.
1.) The Concord was designed and they were all built like 30 years ago (some maybe a few years less than that)
2.) The Concord was NOT DESIGNED worth a damn, it was basically a quickly slapped together airplane with oversized engines and extra fuel capacity. It was never designed to be quiet or to fly Mach+ over land
3.) The new corporate jets being built by BOEING/LOCKHEED are being designed from the ground up to be super fast, light weight, extremely quiet and fuel efficient.
Additionally this new bread of Mach+ planes are all being designed with special wing configurations/angles/surfaces that disipate the air more widely and therefore minimize or maybe even elimenate the sonic boom effect. Also, from what I have read these planes will fly at Mach 1.8 and burn less fuel than a freaking Cesna flying at 300 mph. - SlowOnTheUptake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'd be content if they could arrange to get me from the main concourse to the gate in two hours.
- matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I want NY to London in 1 hour!
Transatlantic train ftw, too bad it will cost trillions and a century to build.
Guess the next best thing is supersonic jets. - Xalorous, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@smackfu - sonic boom is a legal issue, the reason it was not a problem is that they only flew the thing > M when over the ocean. They only flew it over the ocean because the only flights long enough to be practical were transoceanic flights. The reason for the downfall of the Concorde is that it was extremely expensive to operate, and the fleet was aging to the point where it needed to be replaced.
And if you'll notice, the jet in question will accomodate 12 passengers. Not exactly a jetliner. This is just a souped up corporate jet. - Leathersoup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6My big issue with SUV's isn't the fuel efficiency. As far as I'm concerned if you can afford to waste fuel for a status symbol all the power to them. My problem is people who own SUVs but can't drive.
If people are unable to drive properly, they should not be allowed to own such a large vehicle. SUVs seem to be compensation for a lack of ability to drive. I think of them as the bullies of the road. - JAKN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@0crabby0
there is a guy who is really pushing for "Evacuated Tube Transport" - but he says we can do it above ground, and even through water (have my doubts). He quotes a study for some science tunnel (could be a particle accelerator) that is as close to a perfect vaccum as you could expect - and it held it's pressure for 1 year with no discernable changes.
http://www.et3.com/
He lectures at the Engineering school I graduated from, about once a year. Apparently he's got a business deal in China right now. Based on this comment I clearly wasn't paying enough attention. - wistar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4As if Europe allowed supersonic overflight.
- JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Concorde : Maiden flight 2 March 1969
They were designed almost 50 years ago. The first prototypes were being built in the mid 60s.
From the Wikipedia entry "...although the outside air temperature was typically -60 °C, air friction would heat the external skin at the front of the plane to around +120 °C making the windows warm to the touch..."
They flew for over 30 years.... badly designed? - rnelsonee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4RTFA.... they've reduced the sonic boom to 1% of the levels that are usually associated with sonic booms.
- wistar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is not what killed Concorde. Concorde wasn't killed. It fThere was no supersonic overflight of Europe allowed, either. Extraordinary cost of operation throughout the entire SST realm was the dagger to the heart.
- dougmc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3`Of course, many military aircraft continue to fly supersonic over the American mainland'
Sure, if they're actually in a combat or emergency situation, but if not, only in certain areas.
For more details, read http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0060b.shtml - HRF1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's not the 4 to 6 hour flights that I want shortened, it's the 12 to 13 hour flights from Japan to Chicago or New York I want shortened with improved aero transportation! Flights from LAX to LGA seems like nothing if you've ever flown cross continent.
- beand1p, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ 0crabby0
I don't think that is a terminal, I think that looks like a leaked Halo 3 map. - NSMike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Supposed to. Then again, by now, we were supposed to be commuting to Mars to work, if you follow past predictions.
- ImmortalLobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Someone here mentioned a lack of Aero Engineers here, well hell, ill just register then ;)
The idea is actually rather cool looking, seems that the point of the inverse V tail is to funnel the shockwave through the tail creating a very focused beam of noise, rather then dispersing the wave all over the place, which is whats heard on the ground. rather the concept I see here is the shocks would be focused in such a way that they all ricohette in the tail, and either disperse, or as I said, create a focused wave which would not be audible outside of the chamber, kind of like a hose, the sound cannot escape this channel much like water cant escape a hose. eventually the waves would disapate and unless your standing directly behind it...unlikely, your not going hear it.
with regards to the FAA, the FAA blocked supersonic flight over the US becuase of the noise, certain planes can, and most likely will be able get a specal permit to breach that rule provided they can prove the plane will not produce an 'audible' supersonic boom.
as to the concorde....someone mentioned ***** design, he/she is right. the planes could go fast, yes. but they were indeed literally falling apart in mid air, also they were inefficient as hell with fuel consumption.
Prior to 9/11 and the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing was developing the Boeing Sonic Cruiser, a plane desighned to cruise at .99 mach, but after the airline economic collapse of 9/11 they dropped the project and produced the 787 which sacrifices speed for fuel efficiency. - ZachPruckowski, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Well, the execs would be the early adopters. Then once it gets cheap enough (component prices coming down, more fab plants come online, better designs, whatever) and gets big enough (100 seat jets or so), we can talk about using it for vacations or something. I'm sure it'd be great for a East Coast to Las Vegas flight Friday afternoon/evening and back on Sunday afternoon. Save 3 hours of flight time, the casinos have you gambling for 3 more hours.
- ImmortalLobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Remember the concept of the sound barrier, after breaching it flight was easier on the other side? the Lift to drag curve drops off drastically behind Mach1
see this image, which is accurate to most any application
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/4219-082.jpg - sporkman, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6did you read the ***** article? I didn't think so.
it states why this will be better than the concorde, it's quieter, and faster.
and the reason the concorde failed is because they were ***** quality, and were falling apart in mid flight. - rnelsonee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The 'whisper' comment in the artice was talking about the sonic boom, not engine noise. The article is devoid of any real detail, but this probalby involves breaking up the waves at the front on the sonic wave, so they hit the ground at different times. How much of a delay will determine how much quieter their sonic boom will be from a traditional one - although it is hard to imagine something sounding like a 'whisper'. Hell, even if it is a whisper sound, you're still subjecting millions of Americans to the sound whenever you fly from NY to LA.
- jzulli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3That's a funny thought.. traveling back in time!
- iamhrh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Good god wired's website blows. It is always so slow!
- ImmortalLobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Agreed, the wing failed at I believe 147% instead of the mandatory 150%, am I correct?
what I was saying just the political jumble a cross country deal brings to the table as t is, eitherway, Airbuses current slump is its own doing - NospmisRemoh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"...he sonic boom is caused by the air that rushes over the surface of the plane and collides behind the plane..."
That is not quite what really what happens. There is a cone (or wedge) shaped shock wave that forms from the leading edge of any surface on the plane. The shape of the shock wave depends on the speed and the shape of the leading edge. This shock wave the first (an louder) sonic boom at ground level. The expansion fan at the trailing edge (the opposite of a shock wave) is the second part of the sonic boom. It is not really caused by air colliding but rather a sudden change in pressure across shock waves and expansion fans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_boom - FanofFilm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i took it he, like some other comments here, was refering to some kind of political jealousy on the part of the american government after the boeing and lockheed SST projects failed before they could even get to production, where the concorde project was able to succeed.
airbus problem with the a380 is that they just can't meet ultimate load requirements. it's not american political pressure holding it back. it's poor engineering. - ImmortalLobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, a plane flying in a supersonic state gets better fuel efficiency then a plane flying in subsonic, this aircraft and related designs could pull the ticket prices back down some.
- ImmortalLobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Buelldozer: Dropp -off trend continues, the faster the plane goes the less drag, its inverse in comparison to normal subsonic flight
dougmc: the image was from google image search, needed a fast example,but every drag-to speed curve will sho that, once Mach oneis breached, drag goes down. Yes, planes designed for supersonic flight exhibit less drag, but they also exhibit less lift, which means, *gasp* more fuel needed to keep it afloat. shockwaves produce more lift then normal air, and the waves also distribute skin friction further over the aircraft thereby decreasing overall drag. there is no simple way to put all this into writing. but once a plane is cruising in supersonic speeds, it is indeed more fuel efficient - atlantisceo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If "slightly quieter" is 1% the volume of the original, sure. If I were 1% my height I wouldn't be slightly shorter.
- atlantisceo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Because all of the shuttle crashes happened within 10 years of the vehicle's introduction...
What bull - the new plane wouldn't be certified by the FAA (and used by airliners) unless it was safe. The shuttle was always known to be risky (I believe NASA expected an 1 accident for every 200 launches). The new SST is completely different - a plane fling Mach 1.8 isn't inherently more dangerous than one going Mach 0.8.
It is this type of thinking that slows down development of new technologies. Just stop. - ImmortalLobster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, from the description, the sonic boom wouldnt be audible unless you elect to stand right behind it, and the future is smaller aircraft, since less people are flying and securiy is getting tighter, dollars and sense it makes perfect sense ^_^
-
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
