1969 moon landing

[mushroom 14,009]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I think space planes will be the next ‘concord’. Once they figure out the engine tech to transition between atmospheric and exoatmospheric flight it really opens up huge potential. London to Sydney in an hour…

But also there’s a lot of research going into hypersonics now which will potentially advance air travel too.

I’m a firm believer that travel will go that way. Hypersonic in my humble opinion is the realm of out in space. The sheer energy needed to take a plane to those speeds within an atmosphere is mental, let alone materials to withstand the forces and temps.

Charts or maybe you will be able to confirm this. Didn’t concord expand at full Mach cruising speeds so much you could get your hand in the joints? With heat expansion.

[chartpolski 27,451]

Just now, Born Hunter said:

I think space planes will be the next ‘concord’. Once they figure out the engine tech to transition between atmospheric and exoatmospheric flight it really opens up huge potential. London to Sydney in an hour…

But also there’s a lot of research going into hypersonics now which will potentially advance air travel too.

Once again, would commercial airlines operate these craft ? Would they be able to use current airports or need specially constructed ones . 
It all comes down to money. 
It seems to me that airlines are going in the direction of non-stop , long haul, high passenger volume, a bit like Aldi and Lidl, “ stack ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap “ philosophy! 

My missus has recently flew non-stop New Zealand - London and non-stop Australia - Dubai. No landing and take off or ramp time fees and taxes at the stopover airports, save the airlines a fair bit of money !
It seems like the “pack them in” high passenger density Dreamliner type aircraft are the way airlines are going these days.

Cheers.

[mushroom 14,009]

3 minutes ago, mushroom said:

I’m a firm believer that travel will go that way. Hypersonic in my humble opinion is the realm of out in space. The sheer energy needed to take a plane to those speeds within an atmosphere is mental, let alone materials to withstand the forces and temps.

Charts or maybe you will be able to confirm this. Didn’t concord expand at full Mach cruising speeds so much you could get your hand in the joints? With heat expansion.

To be clear, I’m talking upper upper atmosphere not out in space  

[Born Hunter 17,907]

Just now, mushroom said:

I’m a firm believer that travel will go that way. Hypersonic in my humble opinion is the realm of out in space. The sheer energy needed to take a plane to those speeds within an atmosphere is mental, let alone materials to withstand the forces and temps.

Charts or maybe you will be able to confirm this. Didn’t concord expand at full Mach cruising speeds so much you could get your hand in the joints? With heat expansion.

I imagine charts will know. I think there may be advances from hypersonic research that cross pollinate but it won’t lead to hypersonic commercial flights, just cheaper subsonic ones.

Space planes though will be game changing. Though reaction engines have already gone bust trying to develop one.

Another potential big push will be in carbon neutral commercial air travel. Potentially e-planes or some other alternative engine solution.

[chartpolski 27,451]

5 minutes ago, mushroom said:

I’m a firm believer that travel will go that way. Hypersonic in my humble opinion is the realm of out in space. The sheer energy needed to take a plane to those speeds within an atmosphere is mental, let alone materials to withstand the forces and temps.

Charts or maybe you will be able to confirm this. Didn’t concord expand at full Mach cruising speeds so much you could get your hand in the joints? With heat expansion.

Concorde could expand 10-12 inches. 
Cheers.

[Born Hunter 17,907]

3 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

Once again, would commercial airlines operate these craft ? Would they be able to use current airports or need specially constructed ones . 
It all comes down to money. 
It seems to me that airlines are going in the direction of non-stop , long haul, high passenger volume, a bit like Aldi and Lidl, “ stack ‘em high, sell ‘em cheap “ philosophy! 

My missus has recently flew non-stop New Zealand - London and non-stop Australia - Dubai. No landing and take off or ramp time fees and taxes at the stopover airports, save the airlines a fair bit of money !
It seems like the “pack them in” high passenger density Dreamliner type aircraft are the way airlines are going these days.

Cheers.

The concept is that they would operate from all airports yes. And they would overcome problems like sonic booms because they’d never generate one. But it requires a very advanced engine.

[mushroom 14,009]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

The concept is that they would operate from all airports yes. And they would overcome problems like sonic booms because they’d never generate one. But it requires a very advanced engine.

But a sonic boom is a pressure wave, not engine noise. How can an advanced engine overcome that? Fuselage design can minimize it but it still exists until you have no medium.

[mushroom 14,009]

Or maybe I’m confusing sound and friction  

[chartpolski 27,451]

2 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

The concept is that they would operate from all airports yes. And they would overcome problems like sonic booms because they’d never generate one. But it requires a very advanced engine.

I asked about airports, because Concorde was restricted to airports with ground air-start facilities as it didn’t have an auxiliary power unit , presumably to save weight or maybe a balance problem, I don’t know.

When the airline I worked for bought three MD 11 freighters and two 747 freighters , they had to have additional landing gear fitted because of the runway constraints because of the widly varying temperatures in the Middle East. 
There’s a lot more to air travel than most people could imagine ! LOL !

Cheers.

[Born Hunter 17,907]

2 minutes ago, mushroom said:

But a sonic boom is a pressure wave, not engine noise. How can an advanced engine overcome that? Fuselage design can minimize it but it still exists until you have no medium.

Remain below the sound barrier at all times. Once the planes at 400 km altitude there is no atmosphere and no potential for a sonic boom. That said I’m not totally sure if they could remain below the sound barrier while in the atmosphere or if they would need to break it. 

[Born Hunter 17,907]

2 minutes ago, chartpolski said:

I asked about airports, because Concorde was restricted to airports with ground air-start facilities as it didn’t have an auxiliary power unit , presumably to save weight or maybe a balance problem, I don’t know.

When the airline I worked for bought three MD 11 freighters and two 747 freighters , they had to have additional landing gear fitted because of the runway constraints because of the widly varying temperatures in the Middle East. 
There’s a lot more to air travel than most people could imagine ! LOL !

Cheers.

It may be that the first space plane products do require special airports but I’m not really aware of any. The concept being they take off and land like any other plane except they achieve very efficient long haul flight by escaping the drag of the atmosphere.

[mushroom 14,009]

Just now, Born Hunter said:

Remain below the sound barrier at all times. Once the planes at 400 km altitude there is no atmosphere and no potential for a sonic boom. That said I’m not totally sure if they could remain below the sound barrier while in the atmosphere or if they would need to break it. 

Aye that. So have to get above to the thinner atmosphere to get beyond the pressure wave problem.

Now that’s interesting. How to achieve that, without creating a boom on the way up or burning more fuel than a tanker.

 

[Born Hunter 17,907]

Just now, mushroom said:

Aye that. So have to get above to the thinner atmosphere to get beyond the pressure wave problem.

Now that’s interesting. How to achieve that, without creating a boom on the way up or burning more fuel than a tanker.

 

I think these planes would burn a lot of fuel on the way up but then they save it by effectively ‘freewheeling’ at 15k+ mph 400 kms above the earth. Unlike a jet which trudges through thick air at 10 kms altitude the entire way.

They may need to break the sound barrier on the way up but at least it’s a short period of such before leaving the atmosphere and being in a boom less environment for the majority of the flight.

[chartpolski 27,451]

You guys will know more about the space stuff than me if that’s what you’re interested in. 
I’ve been retired for 21 years and the aircraft type I last had recurrent training on is obsolete and out of service now ! LOL ! 
I know technology has come on greatly and I’d be considered a bit of a Luddite now !

Cheers.

Edited June 9 by chartpolski

[mushroom 14,009]

10 minutes ago, Born Hunter said:

I think these planes would burn a lot of fuel on the way up but then they save it by effectively ‘freewheeling’ at 15k+ mph 400 kms above the earth. Unlike a jet which trudges through thick air at 10 kms altitude the entire way.

They may need to break the sound barrier on the way up but at least it’s a short period of such before leaving the atmosphere and being in a boom less environment for the majority of the flight.

Maybe one of the scram jets could achieve it in a thin atmosphere but you still need conventional to get there before engaging them and don’t they scrams work by forcing air in for combustion? So will the new design need something like a two/three stage engine system with extra oxygen. One conventional to take off and then a scram to get up above the atmosphere and then just something simple for positioning/direction once there? 

So those scalar and vector classes mean fuuck all in this new world then!  

Edited June 9 by mushroom