Space Plane to Offer 2 Hour Flight around the World

secretsather writes "Two hour flights to the other side of the world may seem like a scene from a science fiction movie; but the technology is in place, and a plane that can do just that is currently in development. While it looks like a scene from a flight simulator, the Astrox space plane is the real deal, and the Astrox Corporation says it could revolutionize the transportation industry. Traveling as fast as Mach 25 with at least 30 minutes of space shuttle-like views while in orbit is the highlight of this plane, and The Astrox Corporation, along with their partners, are claiming to have finally overcome their largest problem, mixing fuel."

Trans-Atlantic Abort Mode SSTO

[Atlantis-Rising]

I actually thought about this a while ago, when I read on Wikipedia that in a trans-atlantic abort, the space-shuttle would take only twenty-minutes from SSME ignition to touchdown in Europe or Africa. I pointed out to a friend of mine that it would probably cost on the order of half a billion dollars (space shuttle launch is approximately 500 million dollars, plus a million or so to fly it back via 747 to Kennedy), and my friend pointed out that in quite a few cases, it might well be worth it- a milti-billion dollar merger, a head of state's emergency meeting, etc, etc.

If the space shuttle launched more frequently, of course, the launch costs would decrease significantly and make it even more economically viable.

This has been a long time in coming- suborbital flight hops are damned fast, and even if it does cost a million bucks a ride, I'm sure there'll be plenty of customers willing to use it.

Re:Jetlag was bad? Watch out for ScramJet lag

[ztransform]

Also, wouldn't passengers need to be in really good health to endure such a journey, and would they need to wear flight suits like fighter pilots just to keep from blacking out?

The article didn't appear to mention acceleration. I'm sure it would be impractical for any mass transport system to accelerate too quickly. However it is entirely possible to have a very fast flight without unreasonable acceleration forces placed on the human body (smacking into another object excepted).

As for the jetlag issue, is it any worse than getting up 6am during the work days, and partying until 6am on weekends? That to me is the more serious jetlag issue! Transcontinental flight has never been that much different for me.

The Real Problem

[coobird]

The real problems with scramjets [wikipedia.org] and ramjets [wikipedia.org] have been that the engine (and the vehicle) need to be brought to a speed where the ramjets can operate.

I'm sure many of you have seen videos of those German V-1 buzzbombs [wikipedia.org] launched by the Germans during World War II. The reason for those launchers was to get those ramjets to operational speed -- For a ramjet to work, it must have airflow. Without it, the engine just won't light.

Scramjets are just an extension of the ramjet where the airflow within the engine is at supersonic speeds. A scramjet cannot fire unless the vehicle is brought to supersonic speeds. The NASA tests of the X-43 [wikipedia.org] were conducted by first carrying the X-43 mated with a rocket up to 43,000 ft by the B-52 bomber, then dropping the rocket which carries the X-43 up to 100,000 ft and accelerates it to over Mach 6, and finally the X-43 lights its scramjets and accelerates to Mach 10.

The real problem is bringing the scramjet up to the required speeds for operation. The real revolution to space travel or suborbital travel is to achieve a single-stage-to-orbit [wikipedia.org](SSTO) system, where one doesn't need multiple stages (B-52 mothership, Pegasus rocket, etc.) in order to complete the trip.

Re:Jetlag was bad? Watch out for ScramJet lag

[Anonymous Coward]

Whether that (0.15 g acceleration) is too much to be comfortable or healthy, I don't know.

I have seen a figure of 4 feet per second per second for the acceleration of a mass transit subway car. That works out as about 1.2 metres per second per second, or 0.125g.

Re:Jetlag was bad? Watch out for ScramJet lag

[Anonymous Coward]

If you build the seats the correct way you can get away with a fair amount G's of acceleration up to 3 to 4 times earth gravity without discomfort. You can get to the other side of world without the acceleration of the space shuttle so you don't need to have the special training of the space shuttle astronauts. However the acceleration will be much like a roller coaster on the downhill side and if you are faint of heart for that then you will definitely not like the ride of this plane.

Cost make it unfeasible?

[Salvance]

Will enough people really want to spend $100K or so to travel halfway around the world in 2 hours vs. 20? After the novelty of going into space wears off for the rich, I see this as being about as exciting (and economically feasible) as the Concorde.

Re:Jetlag was bad? Watch out for ScramJet lag

[Khabok]

I used to love this old ride called The Gravitron. There's a similar one out there called SpacShip 2000. It's a big flying-saucer looking thing with foam pads all around the insides nd no restraints or anything. Passangers stand with their backs against the pads and the ride spins them up to slightly above 1g for roughly three minutes. I'm here to tell ya, even that isn't uncomfortable. It didn't require especially fit people to go on this ride. It didn't even have a height or age requirement. Sure it was short, but it always felt to me (twice a year until I was 12) that it could've gone on quite forever. It would've gotten rather boring, though. I don't see how 0.15g could be a big deal when 1.1g is literally child's play.

Something flying

[Esteanil]

Scramjets are the "fusion" of aircraft research. Always 10-20 years away. I'll believe it when I see something flying.

Nasa X-43A Scramjet [nasa.gov] (With videos) - First flew in 2004
First successful scramjet (2001) [af.mil] (With video)

More out there. Of course, none of these have launched under their own power, yet. But the scramjet concept certainly works.
The Astrox Corporation does not seem to have updated their web site recently, but the latest bit on their news page (Nov.05) is a contract from ATK/GASL (NASA's co-developers of the X-43A) "to study turbine/scramjet combined cycle cruise vehicles (X43C)"

This may be the real deal. Hard to say.

Heinlein the futurist

[zogger]

yep, pretty close, he's been my fav for nailing the future. Look at major cities, areas akin to the AAs, abandoned areas, offset by guarded gated compounds or "communities". Look at the war in iraq, there are now almost as many "private security contractors"-mercenaries- as there are official US government military people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/12/04/AR2006120401311_pf.html [washingtonpost.com]

And we saw what happend in NOLA after katrina, it got infested with rifle totin Blackwater goons immediately, while non-corporate regular plain vanilla citizens got their self protection tools confiscated, just when they needed them the most.

Yep, I'd say corporate fascism is taking over quite rapidly. Our so called vote is now all privately run where it really counts. They may stick their voting boxes in a public building, but after that point it's for-profit corporate closed source voting. And the rest of government is run as an extension of various multinational corporations via their sock puppets-who got there from the previous closed source corporate voting and propoganda build up from the controlled corporate press.

What about radiation?

[Pitr]

Doesn't suborbital flight still take you out of a significant percentange of earths natural cosmic radiation sheild? Isn't that a problem for people who may want to have kids, or whatever? Maybe 2 hours exposure isn't enough to matter, but if you fly often enough, I'd think you'd still be affected.

Re:Jetlag was bad? Watch out for ScramJet lag

[cyclone96]

Also, wouldn't passengers need to be in really good health to endure such a journey, and would they need to wear flight suits like fighter pilots just to keep from blacking out?

Not really. The space shuttle is in orbit at 5 miles/second about 8 1/2 minutes after liftoff, and it's maximum G forces are limited to 3 G's, something akin to a terrestrial roller coaster. If you listen during a launch, you can hear the commentator mention towards the end of ascent that the main engines are throttling back. They do that to avoid exceeding the 3 G limit when the external tank is almost empty. The Russian Soyuz has an even gentler ride, IIRC.

The suits the astronauts are wearing are pressure suits, not G suits. They don't do anything to counter G forces, they are only there for if the cabin has a depressurization. In fact, pre Challenger they stopped wearing the suits for a time and just went up in cloth flight suits.

The days of spaceflight being limited to fighter pilot types who can take 9 G's was over in the 70s. Most modern manned launchers are fairly easy rides to orbit.

Re:Jetlag was bad? Watch out for ScramJet lag

[Anonymous Coward]

Mach 24 will result in orbit at sea level (v = sqrt(g.r) ). I gather one of the aims of hypersonic flight is to reach Mach 24 so the craft takes off without needing wings or other lifting devices. It would have to be a pretty long runway at 7.5km/s, though I guess one way would be to take off normally and get to orbital speed by flying though the air.

Re:Trans-Atlantic Abort Mode SSTO

[istartedi]

It's funny you mentioned that. Just the other day I was surfing around and came across this [blackbirds.net]. Now of course, like the man says, it could be done faster; but how many executive dollars does it take to equal genuine Cold War, officer barking in your ear, do-or-die mission pressure? Nevermind the nasty chemicals and mid-air refueling procedure the thing went through (thing actually leaks fuel until the skin heats up and seals the tanks!). It's not as bad as a shuttle, of course, but still. Ouch.

Life Insurance Pays Double on Business Trips

[Shihar]

I really doubt that this thing is going to take off (ha ha, pun) in the near future for two reasons.

First, scramjets have been talked about forever. No one has yet to do anything more interesting then blow up a few scramjet drones and waste millions. Certainly we are going to get it 'right' at some point, but I am deeply skeptical that it is going to be in the near future. Even if it was in the near future, I am even more skeptical that it would be cost effective enough to operate as a commercial airliner for such a small nitch market.

Second, who the fuck would be willing to fly these things other then an astronaut? When an astronaut goes up in the space shuttle, they realize that they basically have a significant chance of dying. When your average business man takes a flight, he doesn't expect to be risking his life on an airplane that suffers massive extremes of hot, cold, acceleration, and air pressure. You don't go out of control at mach 25... you just disintegrate.

I am deeply skeptical that this company is going to make a scramjet, make it economical, and then make it safe enough for commercial use. I am not holding my breath on this one. I give Duke Nukem Forever a better chance of seeing the light of day in this decade then I give to this thing.

Re:Jet lag isn't about acceleration..

[Anonymous Coward]

If your sleeping hours are highly irregular (likely to be the case in college, mine were then) then you probably won't notice more irregularity.

Also, do you sleep on planes? It's almost impossible for me to sleep due to my height, but on the rare occasions I have been able to I've felt a lot better when I arrived. From observing other people they seem to do better when they sleep as well. If you sleep easily and frequently on planes then that could explain why you don't have many problems.

For me, I go from feeling alive and full of energy (for a 3-9 time zone westward flight with some sleep) to staying up all night, sleeping at odd hours, and feeling terrible for a week (after one 6 time zone eastward flight where I didn't sleep on the plane, didn't force myself to stay awake after I arrived, and didn't get much exposure to the sun).

Re:I don't want to go around the world

[Anonymous Coward]

just to be modded down for being nerdy, most points on land have their diametrically opposite points in water. forgot what it's called. it was on /. a little while ago.

Re:Jetlag was bad? Watch out for ScramJet lag

[Trizor]

There are two throttle backs during orbiter ascent, neither of which have to do with G forces. The first occurs at approximately 1:31 when the shuttle hits Max-Q, maximum aerodynamic pressure. Once through Max-Q the shuttle is throttled back up until after the 8 minute mark, when the final throttle back commences. This is to turn the engines off before all fuel in the external tank is exhausted, because an emergency shutdown, the one caused by the sensors in the ET is rather painful on the turbopumps, and while better than the explosively catastrophic failure that would occur should the turbopumps run dry, is still not a very happy option. The shuttle doesn't achieve excessive G's by design.