NASA's Next-Generation Airplane Concepts 120
faisy writes "NASA has taken the wraps off three concept designs for quiet, energy efficient aircraft that could potentially be ready to fly as soon as 2025. The designs come from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and The Boeing Company. In the final months of 2010, each of these companies won a contract from NASA to research and test their concepts during 2011."
Uh good job linking to a spamblog (Score:5, Informative)
A spamblog with two boring images. Bravo, editors.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd, when I look at it there are three images. None boring...
Re: (Score:3)
No, wait, you're right. My bad.
In other news (Score:1, Funny)
Bears against the Seahawks. I'm torn. I'm a Bears fan, but we all want to see a losing team win the Superbowl.
I now return you to your usual spam fest...
Re:In other news (Score:4, Funny)
In all fairness they would have a winning record by the time they won the Superbowl!
Re: (Score:2)
in fact that's the only way they *can* end with a winning record.
/. hm (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we are reaching the end of the internet if this is /.worthy.
Re: (Score:3)
It's okay, we just need to flip it upside down to hear the B-Side. Just don't play it backwards for the love of god.
Was this story a mistake? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, a few poorly rendered concept drawings? There aren't words. There isn't anything to discuss here...
Timothy, have you been drinking?
Re:Was this story a mistake? (Score:5, Insightful)
In all seriousness, I wonder how much of it is purposeful. Every time there's a blatant spelling error or TFA is irrelevant, what do we as Slashdotters do? We make a fair number of comments which tends to attract attention/page views. This time, the summary didn't even link to the actual article at NASA; TFA was just a re-hashing (almost copy pasta) of the original. The last time, he managed to misspell Photonic despite it being spelled correctly in the copy/paste of the first few sentences of TFA. So either we have a consistent editing problem or a problem of self interest gone awry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Was this story a mistake? (Score:5, Funny)
I've noticed that Timothy has been banning me for days, even weeks, at a time; because I exposed him as a Jew years ago. See the last article and other Israel-related articles on his watch as proof. Years ago, he made the mistake of posting in a discussion his trip to Israel.
See you all in a month. It's been good knowing you.
Let me clarify to you why you get banned:
I've noticed that Peter has been banning me for days, even weeks, at a time; because I exposed him as a Physicist years ago. See the last article and other Physics-related articles on his watch as proof. Years ago, he made the mistake of posting in a discussion his trip to the Tevatron.
Re: (Score:2)
timothy is a Physicist? He's taken trips to the Tevatron? OMG! We've found us a witch! Get out the gas!
Re: (Score:2)
If I may I would suggest plasma to be the more appropriate medium for punishing visits to a particle accelerator.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh boy, now you've done! Publicly reveling that you a victim of persecution by a Jew is the Worst thing you could do. Now you'll face the full weight of the Kabbalistic pesecution! Now everytime you go to the DMV or a delicatessen, your number will be skipped! Every time you go through airport security, the TSA will give your scrotum an extra squeeze and every time a UFO flys by your going to get an anal probing! Oh woe is you.
My airplane concept was also given a grant. (Score:3, Funny)
You see, by bio-engineering giant birds, and strapping a freight container to the back, we can eliminate the need for pilots.
Re: (Score:1)
Actual article link (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/flight_2025.html
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The lifting body design (Boeing) has been publicly tested at NASA for a couple of years now. They are even at the stage of scale testing in wind tunnels. The other concepts are .... well concepts as far as I can tell.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if we can expect something Boeing-like coming to fruition anytime soon. Seems a bit incompatible with installed airport infrastructure or maintenance methods. More than the other concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest challenges are really in pressurizing the hull, as you lose the benefits of a cylendrical shape. Maintenance wise, it shouldn't be any worse than a tri-engine design. Loading and unloading could be resolved gracefully.
Re: (Score:2)
Point taken, but this deal seems pretty short-term to me. 15 years is basically in the range of timescales needed from conception to introduction of any new airliner. Might be too short for new major airport or terminal... (plus many places just got or are getting new modern ones, they sure won't be willing to quickly do major changes geared for just one aircraft type)
The other major component discussed, going beyond turbofan engines, is relatively low-risk and incremental.
Re: (Score:1)
They're past wind tunnels. There's flying 20 foot span scale models for developing control laws now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-48
Re: (Score:2)
How the pilot even get in the Northrup concept? Is there an elevator that lowers from the floor of the cockpit? Maybe they have a crane?
I can't see it used for passenger flight, either:
"Hey Stewardess, can I go over and talk to my friend?"
"No, he's in the B pod, this is the A pod."
"Oh..."
A longer article for aircraft of the 2030s (Score:4, Informative)
NASA's goals for a 2030-era aircraft, compared with an aircraft entering service today, are:
A 71-decibel reduction below current Federal Aviation Administration noise standards, which aim to contain objectionable noise within airport boundaries.
A greater than 75 percent reduction on the International Civil Aviation Organization's Committee on Aviation Environmental Protection Sixth Meeting, or CAEP/6, standard for nitrogen oxide emissions, which aims to improve air quality around airports.
A greater than 70 percent reduction in fuel burn performance, which could reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the cost of air travel. The ability to exploit metroplex concepts that enable optimal use of runways at multiple airports within metropolitan areas, as a means of reducing air traffic congestion and delays.
There's also an image gallery link for more concept art and some PDF-converted presentations from Boeing, GE, MIT and Northrop Grumman.
Re: (Score:1)
A 70% reduction in performance doesn't sound like a good thing.
Two problems with flying wings (Score:5, Interesting)
A while back I watched a documentary on flying wings and with all the their advantages, they have two major drawbacks. Firstly, we don't have the airport infrastructure to support their form factor. Secondly, passengers would be seated further away from the centerline of the aircraft. That means whenever you're making turns, passengers will experience pronounced pitching. That means more air sickness, discomfort, complaints, etc.
Re:Two problems with flying wings (Score:4, Funny)
Sell it as a ride
Re: (Score:2)
Sell it as a ride
The TSA should try that too.
Re:Two problems with flying wings (Score:5, Funny)
Which airlines are concerned with discomfort or complaints?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, so they can charge extra for the barf bags!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem is that you need to be able to evacuate the airplane swiftly. If it wasn't for this, the Airbus A380 would have a wider body today.
Re: (Score:2)
The blended-wing body design was probably originally developed as a bomber (like the B2).
So that solves your swift evacuation plans quite nicely!
Re: (Score:1)
Third is that they are not naturally suited to being pressurized like cylinders. Flying wing cargo planes make tons of sense on the first two points, though I think most cargo is pressurized.
Old hat? (Score:2)
I remember design drawings that looked like this in the 1980s.
Re: (Score:2)
The one fan can be driven from two turbines, but that's besides the point. If the fan of such a size decides to disintegrate, good luck containing the failure. You lose the empennage, adios.
Re:Old hat? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually it looks like the Lockheed proposal is two-engined. I posted this comment downthread, but there's a pretty good chance it'll just get buried down there, so I thought I'd post it here too.
Here's [nasa.gov] a larger picture. Notice how the engine is mounted on a fin that does not emerge vertically from the tail of the aircraft. The engine mount comes out of the fuselage at an angle, and then curves up towards the vertical through the space occupied by the engine. If you look at the bottom of the fuselage, you can just make out the edge of a second engine's bluish cowling. It's mounted on the other side, also angled out from the aircraft, but almost completely obscured by the fuselage because of the point of view of the image.
I don't think they chose a very good camera angle for showing off the concept.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think they chose a very good camera angle for showing off the concept.
Agreed. The wing and tailplane look to be a continuous loop, too, which is not immediately obvious (to me, anyway)
Re: (Score:3)
Much better view at this resolution, thanks. Kinda looks like someone started with the flying wing concept, then hollowed it out and pasted it onto a standard fuselage. Which might be more promising than a totally new design.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, the Lockheed design is actually a type of biplane, where the bottom wing is swept back and the rear wing is swept forward (and each top wing holds an engine)
This "internal wing" design is similar, except it has a third bottom wing as well:
http://www.precisiondesigninc.com/iwa012.jpg [precisiondesigninc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1980s? I was thinking they look more like toy models I had when I was a kid... 50 years ago. Of real planes. Now, ask yourself, why didn't those designs succeed into the present?
2025? (Score:3)
Lockheed wins.. (Score:1)
Just looking at the pics, Lockheed wins. It is enough of a departure from the standard to believe they can gain significant efficiency while at the same time it's recognizable enough to current aircraft that it should fit into existing infrastructure without too much issue.
Can't wait to fly in one in 20 years!
Familiarity is important (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of mine is a aerospace engineer at Lockheed, and about four years ago we were talking about future improvements to airplanes. I don't recall how it came up, but I was wondering how the design could really develop much beyond where it already is... a tube full of people, with wings. He sketched out something almost identical to Lockheed's submission here, and bemoaned the fact that buyers tend to reject out of hand anything they don't immediately recognize. He told me that modern design software makes it possible to design far more efficient planes that would look very different from the ones we now have, but it's difficult (read: impossible) to get anyone to invest in a plan that deviates from the known-good designs that have been working for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
The key phrase there is that last one. The last major development in passenger air travel (Concorde) was a technical success, but certainly not a business one and airliners are loathe to invest in anything but tr
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Familiarity is important (Score:5, Insightful)
In contrast, a more efficient aircraft has obvious advantages. Even if it's slightly slower, passengers will often pick the cheapest flight even if it's slightly longer. If it's about the same speed, then operators can keep prices the same and make more profits until their competitors try bringing the price down.
Re: (Score:2)
He told me that modern design software makes it possible to design far more efficient planes that would look very different from the ones we now have, but it's difficult (read: impossible) to get anyone to invest in a plan that deviates from the known-good designs that have been working for decades.
For good (short- medium- and long-term financial) reasons. Any design that is a substantial departure from known-good designs is a big risk for delays, extra costs, or outright failures in development, construction, testing, certification, and operation due to novel factors that are largely unpredictable, no matter how modern the design software is. In order to explore a larger problem space and avoid being trapped in a local optimum, you need an interested neutral player like the government to fund broad
Re:Familiarity is important (Score:4, Insightful)
Airplanes can't get much more fuel efficient (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This contest isn't all about energy efficiency, though.
The other design criteria were low noise and reduced emissions of certain types. I think airspace congestion might also have been included in the weightings?
Personally I would have thought that the emissions criteria would really be more of an engine design issue rather than aircraft design, but I'm not an aeronautical engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
You can pretty much solve the most egregious problems with aircraft emissions by just not putting terrible additives in the fuel. You can solve the carbon balance by using sustainable feedstocks. The problem is not a lack of ability to improve aircraft emissions today, but a lack of will.
Re: (Score:2)
If the aircraft is easier to push, less drag, more lift, the engines wouldn't suck down as much fuel resulting in lower emissions. it's a case of everything effects everything.
Re: (Score:2)
less drag, more lift,
Uh...
Single Engine Lockheed? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Lockheed design has a single fan. This doesn't imply a single engine (turbine) driving it.
Re: (Score:2)
Four words (Score:2)
Miracle on the Hudson
Re: (Score:2)
Fans methinks can be made to survive bird strikes. It's everything else downstream that doesn't like it.
Re:Single Engine Lockheed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I don't think it does.
Here's [nasa.gov] a larger picture. Notice how the engine is mounted on a fin that does not emerge vertically from the tail of the aircraft. The engine mount comes out of the fuselage at an angle, and then curves up towards the vertical through the space occupied by the engine. If you look at the bottom of the fuselage, you can just make out the edge of a second engine's bluish cowling. It's mounted on the other side, also angled out from the aircraft, but largely obscured by the point of view of the image.
I don't think they chose a very good camera angle for showing off the concept.
Re: (Score:2)
If you look at the bottom of the fuselage, you can just make out the edge of a second engine's bluish cowling. It's mounted on the other side, also angled out from the aircraft, but largely obscured by the point of view of the image.
Thank you, I didn't notice that. Yes, this makes much more sense like that.
Now I can wrap my head around that rendering too.
I don't think they chose a very good camera angle for showing off the concept.
Indeed not. From this angle, it looks more like an Escher drawing than a feasible aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://aero.stanford.edu/Reports/Nonplanarwings/ClosedSystems.html [stanford.edu]
http://www.airmailmagazine.com/closed-wing-aircraft-designs [airmailmagazine.com] (4th picture down)
http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=1986 [up-ship.com]
Directions to make the next generation ... (Score:3)
Thunderbirds are go! (Score:1)
Seriously, the two Boeing models could have come straing from an episode of Thunderbirds.
I was reminded of that only this week as Jerry Anderson was on the BBC talking about his plans for 'Thunderbirds, the next generation' (or whatever)
flying/delta wings are so 1950's in concept. Look at the designs from that period.
Concorde and the Avro Vulcan come to mind. They were not so popular in N. Americal though.
more Tax Dollars wasted methinks.
Much better article (Score:5, Informative)
There's a much better article on this in Cnet, by the excellent Chris Matyszczyk:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20028638-71.html?tag=mncol;title [cnet.com]
Re:Much better article (Score:5, Funny)
AKA Chris, the Unpronounceable!
Re: (Score:2)
Matt tee sizz ick.
I think it's the national sport in Poland to try and create a name with the highest number of redundant consonants.
Re: (Score:2)
He makes a few quips about how ugly they are, and then admits he knows nothing about airplanes. How could that POSSIBLY be much better than... ANYTHING?
I'd love to hear an expert opinion, and see some projected performance stats. Now THAT would be a much better article.
What do they know? (Score:4, Funny)
Those are them nutjobs thinking that the climate is changing [nasa.gov], and that it's our fault [nasa.gov]. Now they want us to fly "energy efficient" airplanes. That's code for socialist airplanes! And they'll probably be serving vegan food on them as well. Don't fall for it!
why don't they pay for their own R&D! (Score:1)
I've never seen less need for the US govt to step in and fund research. This is the next generation of planes for two established companies in a mature industry. So first these companies get 'paid' by NASA for the R&D, then they'll get paid to build and test prototypes, and things will cycle like that until a new plane design proves out and Northrop and/or Boeing own it, build it, and privatize the profits.
Re:why don't they pay for their own R&D! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Bemoan loss of US tech edge
2. Bemoan lack of profits in long term research
3. Get government to spend taxpayer $$ for research the companies should do for themselves
4. Use taxpayer paid R&D to develop new products - $$ profit!
5. Sell new products in China - $$ profit!
6. China gets all that taxpayer funded R&D to develop their own products, which are cheaper than US made versions
7. Bemoan loss of US tech edge....
Next Generation (Score:5, Funny)
This is hardly next generation. There isn't even a saucer section to separate. Where is the holodeck? This isn't even a galaxy class starship. NASA is so far behind it's going backwards. I bet they don't even do warp 3.
Re: (Score:1)
All American...Amazing! (Score:2)
This is starting to look a lot like when the first few pathetic, failure-prone Japanese and European cars came into the American market. Yeah, they sucked. Twenty years later, they'd driven the US auto industry to the verge of bankruptcy.
So now we have three US aerospace/defense industry companies that are pretty much useless without all that good, old-fashioned American payola putting out three or four concepts that are supposed to leave us all swooning.
So why do I have the feeling that the rest of t
Hijackers (Score:2)
But why are they interesting? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the BWB COULD be here sooner (Score:2)
Or (Score:1)
no, not trains (Score:2)
Suppose we did spend the ridiculous amount of money to forcibly purchase enough land by right of eminent domain. (yeah, right!)
Nobody wants a slow-ass train. How do you make a train go 600 miles per hour? (1000 km per hour) The very fastest and most exotic trains can almost do half of that. Note that this is still going to be slower than a plane because there just isn't a way to do straight point-to-point links for every pair of major cities.
Never minding the track itself, air friction will be a problem. Th
Like a fashion show (Score:4, Insightful)
Airplanes are exactly the same.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA was just a renaming of NACA which existed way back in the 1930s.
Airbus made more mistakes with the conventional A380 than Boeing has with the futuristic 787. The A350 response to the 787 is even farther behind, and isn't as advanced in spite of Boeing leading the way.
Try looking at that marketplace. Airbus is by no means kicking Boeing's ass. Tey've been running in a more or less dead heat for years.
We went to the moon because Kennedy needed a political distraction after Sputnik, Gagarin, the Bay of
Re: (Score:1)
An excellent summary..
Really, the West should concentrate on not giving the Chinese everything we have.
This is how it is working:
1) We have the ideas and make East Asian people make them cheap.
2) They profit we do not.
3) They buy everything we have.
4) They have the ideas and since we have all gone bankrupt we make it cheap.
And yeah, dump NASA and get yourself a working healthcare system at least! Then ban guns (yeah HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE OF GUN CRIME IN THE US?)
Re: (Score:3)
Next thing you know, we will be flying on Chinese jets while we listen to our Chinese ipods through our Chinese earbuds eating our Chinese peanuts wearing our Chinese shoes.
But the IP, DRM and other legal challenges will still be American :)
I live close to one of the largest wind tunnels in Europe and the Chinese have hired it for testing of their own civilian aircraft designs.
What I hear of those involved is they are so terrible bureaucratic, for even the most trivial deviation they need to call home, that any results are a very long way down the road.
Re: (Score:1)