Japan Plans Test of 'New Concorde' 424
Steve Nixon writes "Japan's space agency plans to launch an arrow-shaped airplane at twice the speed of sound high over the Australian outback as early as next month in a crucial test of the country's push to develop a supersonic successor to the retired Concorde."
I don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
The article did a good job writing up all the past failures of this Japanese program, but one thing that was conspicuously absent was a rationale for why Japan is doing this at all. Considering the fiscal failure of the Concorde, I would expect any article on this topic to include what the "next generation" plans to do differently other than just niftier technology.
there's a need for it (Score:5, Interesting)
what we need is a Concorde-replacement, not more bureaucracy and political bickering.
Not really very impressive. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd have thought we'd be capable of at least twice that by now.
But how much fuel does it use? (Score:5, Interesting)
How much energy does it take to break the sound barrier? I'm curious because I know that relatively cheap oil (< $200 per barrel) will end in a few decades [lifeaftertheoilcrash.net], and there don't yet seem to be any renewable jet fuels. After it becomes too expensive to extract oil from the ground, how are airlines going to keep their birds in the air?
Our technical peak was the 60's? (Score:5, Interesting)
Supersonic security lines? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey. That one actually seemed plausible. Oh well...
OK, seriously. Yes it's all well and good to go Mach 2 but this sounds like another pork barrel (rice basket?) project on the part of the Chinese. Aircraft speed is increasingly becoming less relevant to total travel time. Traveling to Asia will always take the better part of a day. There will always be an hour's drive to the airport, a two hour security buffer time, then 1 hour of customs on the other side. It gets even worse when you consider that Japan might not be your final destination.
8 hours is optimistic because the developers don't seem to have a plan for getting rid of the sonic boom, which means the airliner will have to fly overwater instead of over Canada. That might make supersonic flight to Asia only possible from the West Coast, not the East Coast.
When enough processes have been revamped to make traveling to Japan like going to New York for a day then maybe a supersonic transport might be worthwhile.
Re:But how much fuel does it use? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in high school the military had brought over one of their choppers. The pilot told us one of the "cool" things about the jet turbine engine was that it could run on almost anything in a pinch, including alcohol, diesel, and gasoline.
That being the case, I don't see why you couldn't use biodiesel or methanol/ethanol to fuel a jet engine. There might be issues with the power curve for some models, but that likely just means changing the design parameters for future aircraft.
Mark Twain's view on it (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps our CEOs and salesmen would actually work better if they had slower travel and had to organise their lives and companies in a more structured way. Perhaps they'd have to delegate more? Find local representatives they could trust? Learn to use video conferencing properly? Even make better business decisions.
Yes, I do know this is heresy on slashdot. And you know what? I don't care. Not now I know that Linus uses potty words and my last illusion is broken.
Re:Two reasons: (Score:2, Interesting)
The Atlantic is a very large body of water as well. Yet businesspeople did not beat a path to the old Concorde's doorstep looking for high-speed transatlantic flights. Why will the Pacific market be any different?
As for cargo, the original Concorde only had room enough for 100 or so passengers. That doesn't translate into a whole lot of cargo space. Considering the fact that cargo usually doesn't need to travel as quickly as people (even the most perishable cargo can last a few hours with proper packing), the concept of SST as a cargo hauler is almost a sure bust.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, if it never turned a profit, or even broke even, I think "fiscal failure" is a pretty appropriate term. I agree with you in the sense that sometimes fiscal failures are necessary to develop and refine technology, as with the Concorde. But that doesn't change the fact that the venture didn't turn a profit. It also doesn't change the fact that the venture may have had successes in a non-financial sense (i.e. advancement of technology, boost of national prestige, etc.)
Perhaps, instead of fiscal failure, we could use the term "financial nonperformer".
Going faster or going smarter? (Score:3, Interesting)
Point-to-point travel is the future - we may not realize it, but there's a lot of economic activity that goes on in places that aren't well served by the airlines. That's why Southwest is eating everyone's lunch. I'd think it would save more time in the long run to develop "free flight" systems so that air taxis and passenger services could fly people from smaller airports. Now that avionics manufacturers are really getting onto ease of use, flying a plane could become not that much harder than driving a car.
Potentially, "free flight" could be as disruptive as the Internet.
Re:USSR did it earlier (Score:1, Interesting)
By a couple of months each time, after the Concorde timetables were published. It was also the first to crash on test and in service. Typical late Soviet tinplate engineering - did you see that the first into service would only exceed Mach 1 with full afterburners? That would SEVERELY limit range! The Tu-144 was a hastily put together spoiler built from military bits and bobs to an outline stolen from the published Concorde specs.
Re:Mark Twain's view on it (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is the next step (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Mark Twain's view on it (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I'd like to take a zeppelin to somewhere far away, like australia ( I'm in DC ). It'd be a two week trip each way, probably. I'd relax, and see the country, and ocean. My god, would it be beautiful.
Everybody's in too much of a damn hurry. I commute by bike, or on foot ( an hour walk, about ), and people are always shocked that I'm willing to take the time. I tell them it's good for the mind, for the soul. They shake their heads in disbelief.
Re:Our technical peak was the 60's? (Score:3, Interesting)
It seems like it is possible to push ahead on certain technologies by throwing massive amounts of money at it, but unless the economy and society are ready for that technology, then it is going to fall flat on its face.
If some pressing need for a supersonic airliner would emerge (right now, thanks to telecommunications, we need a supersonic airliner less than in the 60s), or we discovered something terrificly valuable on the moon, then no doubt those technologies would be revived very quickly.
In terms of this new supersonic liner, with fuel prices skyrocketing, people freaking out about terrorism in the airline industry, and with customers that want cheap cheap cheap, I think the new supersonic liner will be no better than the last one.
Why can't they take that money and research how to make more ergonomic and comfortable seating? THAT is something airlines desperatly need!
Problem is now ground/ airport issues ... (Score:2, Interesting)
With speeds like this (Tokyo to L.A. in four hours) the issue is ground transportation to and around the airport and then security lines.
A cross country flight for me, from Denver to Washington D.C. takes about four hours from aircraft door closing in Denver to opening in Washington DC.
But due to security constraints and the volume of air travellers I have to leave my home 2-1/2 hours before the flight leaves. It then takes anywhere from 15-30 minutes to park and walk to the terminal or park in an outlying lot and taking the shuttle bus.
So from closing my door at home to stepping onto the airplane at the airport I'm looking at three hours for a four hour flight. Toss in a weather delay here in Colorado and I can often spend more time on the ground than in the air.
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:5, Interesting)
The technology is there, but they decided that it's safer not to implement it that way. Sensors do alert the pilot if the cabin pressure exceeds safe levels, but the plane never takes control away from the pilot.
Consider the facts:
All things considered, the existing system was deemed the safest. We may never know the full details of the recent crash in Greece, but we can be sure that there was more to the story than just that.
That being said, I would also point out that there is some merit to your argument. There have been enough crashes like the one in Greece to warrant further investigation--yes, it has happened multiple times that jets have depressurized and flown on autopilot until they run out of fuel. And in some of these cases, fighter jets have intercepted these craft in the air and found things like frosted over windows and a fully unconscious crew. Spooky.
The technology exists (though, admittedly not in the older 737s). Modern civilian aircraft can navigate between any two points on their earth avoiding terrain and reporting their location and status to ATC, all without pilot intervention. If the airport and aircraft are properly equipped (most aren't), they can even land unassisted by the pilot. But while we tend to tolerate some degree of human error in almost everything, if some undamaged computer or mechanical component fails to perform adequately, inquiries and lawsuits always follow.
The equipment to do all this is frighteningly expensive, but available. It's reliable, but not foolproof. But then again, the same goes for a human pilot.
So is it worth it? I don't know.
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:3, Interesting)
So I don't think there is "ample" time, though maybe sufficient time under normal to optimal conditions (both pilots in their seat, everything goes according to plan, etc).
I agree the technology exists while the profit motive doesn't.
I can work on my back porch (well balcony) (Score:3, Interesting)
Supersonic speed is S-L-O-W compared to light speed.
What keeps me commuting every damn day is that my manager INSISTS on my showing up at the office.
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Tomahawk missile can fly several hundred miles at very low altitude, avoiding terrain all the while, and hit a target within a few feet of error margin. Current production units cost under $600,000 per missile (and you don't need the rest of the missile), which might be less than the life insurance of one passenger.
Another alternative comes from Predator UAV technology, which I believe allows a ground station within line-of-sight to land the unmanned craft by remote control. The system cost is $40M, but the system is designed to be mobile, so you don't even have to equip every airport with it.
I do agree with you that any machine that can take over the controls from the pilots must be approached with extreme care. I just think that the system is not so much "frighteningly expensive", but too expensive for the "few" lives it will save. We don't like to admit that, of course.
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mark Twain's view on it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This is the next step (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, but is it robot controlled? (Score:3, Interesting)
Some speculation [pprune.org] would indicate that there may have been problems with the oxygen supply to the two pilots.
If this was inoperative, then they may well have passed out whilst trying to figure out what was wrong or even trying to get to a secondary source [e.g. portable bottles held in the cabin].
There was an incident on board an aircraft in 1989 over the English Channel [I've lost the link to the official report]. The aircraft cabin altitude rose; the captain passed out; the first officer took control; the flight attendant on seeing the captain lying on the floor tried to help and passed out as well. The first officer managed to carry out an emergency descent to lower altitude and all survived. It took 4 mins to descend from the flight level (35,000ft+ I recall) down to some 12,000 feet as you cannot just throw the plane into a dive - it has to be controlled to avoid overspeed etc.
The reason for the depressurisation ? - which wasn't explosive but was fast enough - a fatigue crack hidden behind a door seal.
The Story (Score:3, Interesting)
Bill Weaver : SR-71 BREAKUP
Among professional aviators, there's a well-worn saying: Flying is simply hours of boredom punctuated by moments of stark terror. And yet, I don't recall too many periods of boredom during my 30-year career with Lockheed, most of which was spent as a test pilot. By far, the most memorable flight occurred on Jan. 25, 1966. Jim Zwayer, a Lockheed flight test reconnaissance and navigation systems specialist, and I were evaluating those systems on an SR-71 Blackbird test from Edwards AFB, Calif. We also were investigating procedures designed to reduce trim drag and improve high-Mach cruise performance. The latter involved flying with the center-of-gravity (CG) located further aft than normal, which reduced the Blackbird's longitudinal stability. We took off from Edwards at 11:20 a.m. and completed the mission's first leg without incident. After refueling from a KC-135 tanker, we turned eastbound, accelerated to a Mach 3.2-cruise speed and climbed to 78,000 ft., our initial cruise-climb altitude. Several minutes into cruise, the right engine inlet's automatic control system malfunctioned, requiring a switch to manual control. The SR-71's inlet configuration was automatically adjusted during supersonic flight to decelerate air flow in the duct, slowing it to subsonic speed before reaching the engine's face. This was accomplished by the inlet's center-body spike translating aft, and by modulating the inlet's forward bypass doors. Normally, these actions were scheduled automatically as a function of Mach number, positioning the normal shock wave (where air flow becomes subsonic) inside the inlet to ensure optimum engine performance. Without proper scheduling, disturbances inside the inlet could result in the shock wave being expelled forward--a phenomenon known as an "inlet unstart." That causes an instantaneous loss of engine thrust, explosive banging noises and violent yawing of the aircraft--like being in a train wreck. Unstarts were not uncommon at that time in the SR-71's development, but a properly functioning system would recapture the shock wave and restore normal operation.
On the planned test profile, we entered a programmed 35-deg. bank turn to the right. An immediate unstart occurred on the right engine, forcing the aircraft to roll further right and start to pitch up. I jammed the control stick as far left and forward as it would go. No response. I instantly knew we were in for a wild ride. I attempted to tell Jim what was happening and to stay with the airplane until we reached a lower speed and altitude. I didn't think the chances of surviving an ejection at Mach 3.18 and 78,800 ft. were very good. However, g-forces built up so rapidly that my words came out garbled and unintelligible, as confirmed later by the cockpit voice recorder. The cumulative effects of system malfunctions, reduced longitudinal stability, increased angle-of-attack in the turn, supersonic speed, high altitude and other factors imposed forces on the airframe that exceeded flight control authority and the Stability Augmentation System's ability to restore control. Everything seemed to unfold in slow motion. I learned later the time from event onset to catastrophic departure from controlled flight was only 2-3 sec. Still trying to communicate with Jim, I blacked out, succumbing to extremely high g-forces. The SR-71 then literally disintegrated around us. From that point, I was just along for the ride. My next recollection was a hazy thought that I was having a bad dream. Maybe I'll wake up and get out of this mess, I mused. Gradually regaining consciousness, I realized this was no dream; it had really happened. That also was disturbing, because I could not have survived what had just happened. Therefore, I must be dead. Since I didn't feel bad--just a detached sense of euphoria--I decided being dead wasn't so bad after all. AS FULL AWARENESS took hold, I realized I was not dead, but had somehow separated from the airpla