Space Plane to Offer 2 Hour Flight around the World 214
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."
Jetlag was bad? Watch out for ScramJet lag (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure the fight may last only 2 hours, but after spending much of that time in heavy acceleration, I wonder how long it would take to recover. 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? I suspect that regular passenger use may be out of the question if these problems aren't solved by altitude/weightlessness.
Wikipedia's entry for Scramjet [wikipedia.org] mentions
As the company claims a top speed of Mach 25, could this be the 'cheap' way to get to low Earth orbit?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Jetlag was bad? Watch out for ScramJet lag (Score:5, Informative)
x = 20,736,000 feet = 3927 miles. The whole, two hour flight would be 7854 miles. Not quite halfway around the world (12000 miles).
To do halfway around the world in 2 hours, we need to get 6000 miles = 31,680,000 feet, accelerating from zero, in 1 hour = 3600 seconds. For that, we need a = 2x / t^2 = 4.89 ft / sec^2 = 0.15 g.
Whether that's too much to be comfortable or healthy, I don't know.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You mean the Vomitron.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, the time in orbit does not necessarily depend solely on distance between the two points. One can adjust altitude, flight path, and in the process speed, to create an optim
Jet lag isn't about acceleration.. (Score:5, Informative)
I can get you jet lagged by putting you in an isolation suite and resetting the clock you pay attention to, no acceleration involved.
That being said, the human body takes about a day to resynchronize from a shift of an hour.
I suppose you need to accelerate to get that far that fast if you do it by travel, but you can put away the equations that figure the precise acceleration of this plane to discuss jet lag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Waking up at 4am in California (Score:2)
Then fly to Germany (-6 hours). Perform the same tasks, but now you're getting up at 1am (which was really 11pm).
Yeah, so I was messed up for about 2 months afterwards...
Programmers don't get jet lag ... (Score:2)
(or as some would say, they're permanently lagged - making 25 hours of work a day)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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. The
Re:Jetlag was bad? Watch out for ScramJet lag (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't want to go around the world (Score:5, Funny)
Wow! (Score:2, Funny)
UK, I take it? (Score:3, Insightful)
I assume you're talking about the UK, based on terminology and your URL.
A big difference between the UK and the USA is that in the latter, most people think it's the greatest place on earth (usually those who've never lived anywhere else), and it isn't; in the UK most think it's a shithole (usually those who've never lived anywhere else), and it isn't. At a certain point your miserable attitude becomes self-fulfilling. You should actually try hopping to the other side of the world and see how much they e
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
We're certainly happy to give them something else to whinge about http://www.abc.net.au/cricket/scores/ckt_scorecar d _1016_4.htm [abc.net.au].
Though this scramjet will wreck one of the classic English visitor jokes;
Q: How can you tell when a 747 full of poms lands in Australia?
A: The whining keeps going after the engines have been shut off...
Problems mixing fuel? (Score:4, Funny)
Their new college intern probably solved this problem for them. Beer before liquor, never been sicker... now, OTOH, liquor before beer...
Re:Problems mixing fuel? (Score:5, Funny)
Or would that be ETOH? Skip straight to the ethanol and ignore the irrelevant flavorings and bubbles.
Sci Fi (Score:5, Funny)
At this point in my life, mating seems like science fiction let alone flying around the world in a space plane.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I am instantly reminded of the docking sequence from 2001.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I don't in what sense you're using mate, but unless it involves chess here's what you do:
1. Take two weeks vacation.
2. Fly to the Central American country of your choice.
3. Hang out for two weeks, and explain why you're there.
I guarantee you will have offered to you whatever it is you're looking for*.
*Of course, the usual "be careful what you wish for" caveat applies.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
* For best results, confine to kitchen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sci Fi (Score:4, Funny)
should have been in vaporware story (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pish-posh! Just look at their mockup: http://www.blorge.com/images/Hypersonicspaceplane
Scramjets? (Score:2)
The F4 Phantom II and other aircraft from decades ago were able to approach Mach 3, without using a scramjet. (Admittedly, the afterburners were ramjets, but that still isn't scramjet tech.) NASA-Dryden (at Edwards AFB) has recently conducted successful tests with
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the info.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost by definition, afterburners (fuel dumps after the turbine) are not ramjets (tubes with clever geometry that are engines.) Afterburners are an inefficient way to get a bit more thrust for a short time (e.g. takeoff, evasion,) ramjets are engines (that don't work until you have a fair bit of airspeed.)
You can mix ramjets and rockets (stuff the ramjet with solid fuel, use it as a booster to get to speed,) but ramjets and j
Operate at Mach 9.6, not Accelerate To (Score:3, Informative)
However, the X-43 was a very, very far cry from a commercially viable transport. It was 12 feet long and had something like a 100 pound usable payload, dedicated entirely to instrumentation. It was a single use, throw away, test plane. The engine only ran for just over 10 seconds (the goal was not to accelerate the plane to Mach 10, but to prove it is p
Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
I also want my flying car that I was promised 35 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At Least a Flash Animation! (Score:3, Funny)
Something flying (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, none of these have launched under their own power, yet. But the scramjet concept certainly works.
I could just as easily say, "of course, none of these fusion reactors have sustained the reaction using their own power, yet. But the fusion concept certainly works."
Of course, the "concept" works. But as usual, the devil is in the details of making these incredibly fragile and complex devices work in a practical, economical and reliable way.
Re: (Score:2)
In scramjets, it's "just" engineering. The process works. They've reached Mach 10(7000 mph), breaking the previous jet-powered aircraft record by 4500 mph.
Still might take a long while before it's in commercial use though. Heck, even new aircraft designs seem to take a couple of decades to get into production th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And none of them are going to. One of the limitations of scramjets (and the earlier ramjets) is that they have no static thrust: they have to be hauling considerable ass before they'll even start up. They have to serve as auxiliary propulsion for a vehicle that is launched by something else.
rj
It would still take 6 hours to get there (Score:5, Insightful)
2.0 hours - security/checkin
1/2 hours - sit on space-plane tarmac
2.0 hours - flight
1/2 hour - baggage claim
1/2 hour - drive from space-port
Re: (Score:2)
15 minutes to (space|air)port.
15 minutes check-in including security.
120 minutes flight time.
15 minutes bagage claim.
15 minutes to location.
Don't consider budget options (major airports, living in the USA, etc.) as the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Trans-Atlantic Abort Mode SSTO (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
The reality is that the principals almost never meet until the deal has been made.
There are good arguments for keeping your distance. FDR's failing health colors every intepretation of the Yalta Conference, even though it is not at all clear that he had any better cards to play.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
in quite a few cases, it might well be worth it- a multi-billion dollar merger, a head of state's emergency meeting, etc, etc.
Unlikely. That's what phones are for. Mergers aren't rush jobs, anyway; they take weeks to months to set up, half the time they fall through, and most of the time they lose money for the stockholders. There are some efforts underway to design a supersonic business jet [aviationweek.com], but the price has to be no more than 2x that of a comparably sized Grumman Gulfstream for it to sell. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, having it mid-air refuled (because yes, it does leak jet fuel until it's warmed up and then has to refuel and take off on it's mission) is probably the problem.
Also,
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, I'm sure this could be highly modified for civilian use. Obviously all the steps relating to the camera can be eliminated. I wonder how many passengers it could accomodate by removing the recon equipment. I imagine fuel and engine takes up almost all available space. I recall seeing a TV interview with a crew, and they remarked they were too busy to enjoy the views! Now, maybe this was because they were wrapped up making sure the pictures got taken, and didn't get shot down; but maybe the thing re
Re: (Score:2)
Um... say you design it for three passengers, Mach 3.5 travel, etc, etc. With no recon equipment and scramjet-oriented propulsion like on the SR-71 (which got more efficient as it got faster), you could probably make a good little speedster.
Plus,
Bloatware (Score:5, Insightful)
Post 9/11; four hours pre-flight, eight hours in flight, one hour at the other end : 13 hours
Hyperdrive; four hours pre-flight, two hours in flight, one hour at the other end : 7 hours.
Pre-flight security bloatware, god-dammit. I upgrade my plane so it's four times faster and I'm still only 50% better off than I was originally!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bloatware (Score:4, Insightful)
For a flight to London maybe that is correct, but for a long international flight the situation looks much better. For example, the flight from Los Angeles, USA to Sydney, Australia takes somewhere around 18 hours today (depending on the jet stream). In this scenario, you go from 23 hours to 7. That is a huge improvement. This new plane is for the very long flights that take you around the world.
After having flown the Sydney to L.A. flight a number of times, I laugh whenever I hear someone complaining about a "long" domestic flight. I would much rather take the two-hour-with-a-great-view flight than endure 18 hours on a single plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Post 9/11; four hours pre-flight, eight hours in flight, one hour at the other end : 13 hours
Where are you flying out of?
Aside from odd days like when TSA suddenly decides to not let anyone take any liquids on the plane, I haven't noticed any difference between pre- and post- 9/11 total air travel load-in/out times. About the only change I have noticed is that the cutoff for checking bags is 15-30 minutes earli
slashvertisement? (Score:2)
Nice pic (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing. If you're claiming you're going to revolutionize the industry, at least have a product mockup that looks like it's from this century. As much as we all hate marketing, it makes a huge difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The Real Problem (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Pulsejets vs. Ramjets (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
No. You're right about ramjets, but the V-1 did not have one: it had a pulsejet, which started up perfectly well before the launch (though the thrust did increase with airspeed, as it does in other jet engines). It was several years after WW2 before any aircraft flew under ramjet power.
The V-1 needed the launch rail because it was a pilotless
"Currently in development." (Score:2)
And I'll be travelling to the spaceport in my helicar.
I'm glad they've figured out how to mix the fuel, though. I've heard that glitches can occur when rocket fuel isn't mixed well. [sfgate.com]
Details, man, details (Score:2)
The Concord was also supposed to ignite a revolution in air travel.
How many people need to be anywhere in two hours?
---if it means paying a very hefty Concord-like surcharge over first-class air?
How many airports can handle this beast?
---if the number is small, you will be spending hours in transit before you board.
Post 9/11, how many airlines remain financially strong enough to invest in radically new technology, particul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real revolution in travel may be in a return to comfort over speed.
The QM2. Deluxe rail excursions patterned on the Orient Express of legend.
You have retirees in good health and with money to spend. You have a younger generation bone-weary of the airbus.
Cost make it unfeasible? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The Concorde was economically feasible; after raising prices in the mid-to-late-1980s British Airways turned some hefty profits from their Concordes. Air France probably could have done the same if it had been owned by rational people at the time, but French socialists aren't especially good at business. But subsonic air travel is much more profitable, so grounding the planes made a lot of sense once BA had privatized; had there actually been any competition in the market BA would probably have lost many o
Re: (Score:2)
David Frost found it economically feasible some 400 times...
rj
Heinlein's Friday (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm actually interested to see if the rough-and-tumble in the boardroom starts to spill out into the streets, a proxy war fought by mercenaries, hurting corporations where they're most vulnerable -- the bank account and their reputations.
To me, it's absolutely uncanny how dead-on he was about the changes to society the future would bring. The only thing I'd disagree about with his insight is how long it would take for things to fall apart -- IMHO he was an optimist.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I always think we're closer to Stranger myself- the US government seems a lot like theirs, and it has the same religious zealot
Heinlein the futurist (Score:3, Interesting)
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 imm
Re:Heinlein's Friday (Score:5, Insightful)
I tend to think that however bad, the situation today is a whole lot better.
tunnel (Score:3, Insightful)
slashdot gets played again (Score:2)
bah (Score:5, Funny)
Here's a schematic [reallydodgy.org].
Can get i get front page of slashdot now? :D
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
I would have had to bill you for a replacement keyboard!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The precision guidance is so good that there is no need for manouvering whilst not in orbit. :)
Watch for the reallydodgy.com IPO soon :D
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
real? (Score:2, Funny)
What about radiation? (Score:2, Interesting)
Currently in development means please invest (Score:3, Funny)
Additional information (Score:4, Informative)
The blogger suggests that this vehicle is basically a very fast airliner, but this is far from the case. It's a sub-orbital craft that would fly on a parabolic course, thrusting up out of the atmosphere and then coasting the rest of the way. What makes it economically feasible is that a brief, steep climb uses less energy than horizontally plowing through the atmosphere for hours. Most proposed designs use a two-stage launching system. One calls for the airliner to climb to about 50,000 feet and do a midair refueling from a tanker. In another the airliner is carried up by a larger plane and released. In either case the airliner then goes into a steep climb for about 20 minutes and then shuts off its engines, coasting until it nears its destination. It would carry only enough fuel to maintain a holding pattern in case of airport traffic.
Passengers would be strapped into their seats for the entire flight. No food or beverage service, no restrooms. People most likely will take some sort of medication to avert motion sickness, as they would be weightless for much of the flight. There is a lot of research going into the human factors such as the several Gs acceleration and dealing with weightlessness. The bit about space-shuttle views of Earth kind of mystified me, because in all the designs I've read about there would be no windows. Maybe they were talking about view-screens.
It's a pretty interesting subject, and almost certainly will be the way we will fly long distances in 20 or 30 years.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This sort of proposal has been around for a long time. Boeing had a proposal for a giant delta back about 1970. The problem has always been the need for different engine geometries for all the stages in the journey. You can use a complicated piggy-back aircraft design, which has been done - for example the Maia and Gaia flying boats, or the Hotol 2 to be launched from a giant Antonov - but is usually the last desparate at
YAWN (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:2)
Life Insurance Pays Double on Business Trips (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Complete Article is on DefenceTalk.com (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So flights in Europe will take several minutes. (Score:2)