Air Travel Tomorrow

[cjackson]

Will it ever be profitable to operate hypersonic, suborbital craft running on renewable fuel? The longest nonstop flight today covers 9,600 miles and lasts over 18 hours at mach .8 - Newark to Singapore. Reaction Engines' A2 is a proposed mach 5+ aircraft that they claim can fly from Brussels to Sydney in about 4.6 hours with roughly business class level fares. However, like most of these things it is only 25 years away once there is 'market demand' for it. Since aircraft like this have been proposed for the past 40 years, or more, I'm inclined to believe they will be operational between 100 years from now, and never. Will flights like Newark to Singapore always be so daunting, will they be made slightly less grueling by incremental changes, or are such revolutionary vehicles like A2 possible given enough time and demand?

[Solfe]

I think the issue is how useful is it to fly to arbitrarily distant cities. I would say the ability to conduct high speed flights is well established (but not at the high speed listed above), but the general public is selecting destinations that don't require the ability.

NYC to LA, Honolulu, Paris, London or Rome would be very enjoyable at high speeds, but I suspect that most travellers are actually staying on their own continent and choosing travel methods that are much slower.

As I understand it, you can't get from Brussels to Sydney on just one airplane or that the flight would be boring and very long. How often do such trips actually occur? I would image most fliers from Brussels don't go that far, there are far too many exciting destinations too close to Brussels.

Personally, I want to go to Brussels someday... why leave there?

I wonder if high speed flight can create traffic at a rate high enough to sustain the cost?

[Romanus]

I don't think it's going to happen. A supersonic business jet, maybe, but once you start getting into supersonic (let alone hypersonic) airliners the picture gets decidedly blue-sky, pardon the pun. Airlines are consummate bean-counters; supposedly they even factor in the weight of an extra inch of carpet or the number of in-flight magazines when looking at fuel costs. As huge a chunk as business travel contributes to their profits (~40%, IIRC), I can't see a businessman's desire to get to Sydney in five hours outweighing much higher overhead, to say nothing of the years of R&D to get a working model, then to market it. I'm kind of reminded of what one person wrote about the fundamental cause of the dot-com bubble: too many companies made a product and hoped there was a market for it, rather than the reverse.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

[JCoyote]

I don't think it is likely at all to take off... mostly because of improved communication technologies. Need for expertise? This is handled. Even need for skilled workers can currently be handled very well via video conferencing and similarly capable workers on site. I've been on both sides of that situation a lot as a technician. The need to actually physically move people to accomplish things is just... decreasing.

For certain sales/demonstration purposes maybe. But then again the major issue is... how important a factor is speed in the rest of this? Very rare are the situations where you need to get someone physically on site in less than a day. Most of the ones I can think of are in the range of military needs, not business or recreational ones.

And while it might have fuel savings by running at certain mach factors, I wonder is it worth the added safety concerns? There are a lot of things that can go wrong on a subsonic craft that don't end as disastrously as they would if they happened at Mach 5 or at higher altitudes. Maintenance costs will be cut until disaster happens... this seems to be the rule of for-profit business, it's exceptional when it doesn't happen.

[JustAFriend]

Yup, too few people actually need it and high-dpi videowalls and holograms will make it unnecessary.

There will always be government officials and ultra-rich to whom price is no object, but it would take a LOT of people and major technology breakthroughs to make it profitable.
Even the Concorde couldn't do it with transAtlantic flights in the $10k range.

[Jim]

... NYC to LA ... but I suspect that most travellers are actually staying on their own continent ...

Uhhhh.

High speed flight east to west does present an interesting paradox. It would be possible for you to land before you take off.

[TheBrett]

I think it's unlikely to happen. British Airways had a few profitable years with Concorde flights across the Atlantic, but it was never profitable enough to justify either expanding the fleet of supersonic jets, or to keep them from mothballing the planes in the early 2000s. When presented with a choice between a much longer, cheaper subsonic flight, and a shorter, much more expensive supersonic flight, people seem to usually choose the former. Moreover, modern subsonic flights aren't as bad as they used to be - some have WiFi and better food.

[Ara Pacis]

What everyone else says. We have the technology, if not the aircraft in production. Profitability is ultimately decided by market demand, and that is only partly based on the expense of required resources and labor. Even if we use LH&LOX, and make an aircraft large enough to carry a decent number of passengers, the insurance alone might be prohibitive. Of course, the calculations will vary depending on whether the actual flight envelope suborbital hypersonic is more suborbital or more hyper-sonic.

Tele-presence may just be more competitive... but we should not underestimate the desire of people to press the flesh. One of the two perceived technical problems, as I see it, is the assumption of a Dead Stick Landing and re-entry heating, both of which are often based on comparisons with the Space Shuttle. For an HSSO craft to overcome market skepticism, I think it'll have to overcome those physical issues. I'd suggest using relatively normal air-breathing engines for take off and landing and wave-riding principles for hypersonic flight on re-entry. I suspect that both solutions involve variable geometry to some extent.

Instead of selling it as just a fast intercontinental flight, sell it as a way for travelers to also get their "Space Wings" or whatever civilians passengers/tourists get while also experiencing weightlessness for an extended period of time.

[JCoyote]

Instead of selling it as just a fast intercontinental flight, sell it as a way for travelers to also get their "Space Wings" or whatever civilians passengers/tourists get while also experiencing weightlessness for an extended period of time.

Don't forget: sex SELLS.

[swampyankee]

Yup, too few people actually need it and high-dpi videowalls and holograms will make it unnecessary.

There will always be government officials and ultra-rich to whom price is no object, but it would take a LOT of people and major technology breakthroughs to make it profitable.
Even the Concorde couldn't do it with transAtlantic flights in the $10k range.

Concorde may have been profitable for British Airways; Air France explicitly said the Concorde lost money for them.

Airlines, at least when there is sufficient government oversight (this was not the case with, say, ValuJet Flight 592), do pay a great deal of attention to safety: fatal crashes tend to place them at a competitive disadvantage. While the fatal accident that did involve Concorde had multiple causes, the proximate cause was FOD resulting in a tire burst (large aircraft tires run at about 300 psi (2000 KPa)) which ruptured a wing tank (this is not a problem for most transport aircraft, as the tires are behind the fuel tanks)

[NEOWatcher]

Concorde may have been profitable for British Airways; Air France explicitly said the Concorde lost money for them.

Concorde may be a good baseline for discussion. But; to the OP's question ("Will it ever be profitable to operate hypersonic, suborbital craft running on renewable fuel?") There's going to be a lot of crystal ball readings to answer that question.
How far can we lower the cost (per passenger mile) of such a craft? **
Who and for what reasons will people want that kind of speed by the time that kind of craft is "near commercial" technology?
What will be the state of conventional airlines at that time?
What other technologies will be available by the time suborbital flight is accepted?

** I think this is the biggest factor.
Certainly, there's going to be people willing to pay just about anything to get there that quickly. So it's going to be a balance of cost of those flights and craft capacity. Certainly a large craft will need a lot of people in that situation to make it affordable, and a smaller craft will be expensive per passenger mile. But; there may be those "elite" few that would be willing to put forward the cost of that smaller craft.

[swampyankee]

Trying to estimate the cost of developing a hypersonic aircraft is not trivial. The NASA Airframe Cost Model (http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/airframe.html), which certainly underestimates the cost, gives about $35 billion (2004 USD), exclusive of engines. This is almost certainly radically optimistic for a hypersonic aircraft, which would require new structural technology, new engine technology, and new aerodynamics technology. Triple that, and we might be in the ballpark.

[NEOWatcher]

The NASA Airframe Cost Model

Is that the same kind of model as the Ares-I

No, it's not trivial... Curious though:

gives about $35 billion (2004 USD)

What parameters did you use?

[Ara Pacis]

Concorde may be a good baseline for discussion. But; to the OP's question ("Will it ever be profitable to operate hypersonic, suborbital craft running on renewable fuel?") There's going to be a lot of crystal ball readings to answer that question.

Right, depends on the renewable fuel we use. Bio-Kerosene?

How far can we lower the cost (per passenger mile) of such a craft?

Or should we start using passenger minutes instead?

Who and for what reasons will people want that kind of speed by the time that kind of craft is "near commercial" technology?

How fast can we get near commercial. How long did it take Rutan to design and build SpaceShipOne? SpaceShipTwo? Add more size and/or complexity and it may longer. Add more engineers and it may take less.

What will be the state of conventional airlines at that time?

I think the trend has been toward larger craft not faster craft, so it'd be a price and perhaps a comfort comparison, not a speed comparison.

What other technologies will be available by the time suborbital flight is accepted?

Super-speed Maglev Vacuum-Tube trains! Unfortunately those don't really do intercontinental unless we do a bridge or tunnel across the Bering strait.

Certainly, there's going to be people willing to pay just about anything to get there that quickly. So it's going to be a balance of cost of those flights and craft capacity. Certainly a large craft will need a lot of people in that situation to make it affordable, and a smaller craft will be expensive per passenger mile. But; there may be those "elite" few that would be willing to put forward the cost of that smaller craft.

Depends on how the market is manipulated and how many people are interested in taking an intercontinental trip. How many people routinely want to go from the US to Australia? One or more carriers could decide to consolidate intercontinental flights into only couple flights a day or less, as it's still faster than conventional aircraft.

[Ara Pacis]

Trying to estimate the cost of developing a hypersonic aircraft is not trivial. The NASA Airframe Cost Model (http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/airframe.html), which certainly underestimates the cost, gives about $35 billion (2004 USD), exclusive of engines. This is almost certainly radically optimistic for a hypersonic aircraft, which would require new structural technology, new engine technology, and new aerodynamics technology. Triple that, and we might be in the ballpark.

How much would SS1, SS2 cost in that model?

[danscope]

Doesn't make sense. If you put half that money into the next generation blended wing transport, you get even better mileage ....= better profits. Supersonic transport only promises hungrier engines and exhorbitant costs for super heated airframes and higher radiation exposure. As has been said..... telepresence beats ss transport.

[swampyankee]

Is that the same kind of model as the Ares-I

No, it's not trivial... Curious though:

What parameters did you use?

500,000 lb empty weight, 4 prototype aircraft, 2500 knots, cargo-type aircraft. It appears to be a strictly statistical model based on a small sample of military aircraft.

[Ara Pacis]

Doesn't make sense. If you put half that money into the next generation blended wing transport, you get even better mileage ....= better profits. Supersonic transport only promises hungrier engines and exhorbitant costs for super heated airframes and higher radiation exposure. As has been said..... telepresence beats ss transport.

Depends on the type of wing you're blending into. Superheated airframes depends on the air density and speed combination. How much more radiation do you think it will encounter? Are you assuming it'll be flying into the Van Allen radiations belts?

[KABOOM]

Note this is not confirmed but this tidbit showed up in one of my morning on-line aviation newsletters (UBM Aviation - Jason Holland).



‘Son of Concorde’ – a realistic prospect, or just another pipe dream?
The Concorde is a much-missed aircraft, but a new-generation of supersonic jets could be within touching distance. Rumours and reports are swirling that a prototype aircraft, dubbed ‘Son of Concorde’ and collaboratively designed by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Gulfstream, and NASA, is to be revealed during the Farnborough International Airshow next month.
We’ve heard this sort of claim before, and usually reports of a viable Concorde successor aren’t to be taken too seriously; indeed, all such claims have so far proved unfounded. But could it be a different story this time, given the companies involved and the pieces of information they are putting out there?
The supersonic commercial passenger aircraft would have the ability to fly from London to Sydney in four hours – a journey which would normally take over 23 hours – at a speed of more than 2,485 miles per hour, almost twice as fast as the original Concorde. It would initially be aimed at the business jet market.
The aircraft, codenamed X-54, might fly soon after 2020 and be available as a full-sized jet carrying about 300 passengers in 2030, if the new technology used proves reliable and successful. As well as X-54, a number of supersonic prototypes are set to be unveiled at Farnborough, with lighter composite materials, more advanced engines, and smaller fuselages expected to be part of the designs being outlined.
One of the biggest drawbacks of the original Concorde was the sonic boom produced, but those working on the X-54 project say they are close to overcoming this obstacle. A Gulfstream engineer described the sound the new jet would make as closer to a “puff or plop”, according to a report in UK newspaper The Daily Mail. To add more substance to the claims, NASA has previously released images of a test aircraft in a wind tunnel which appear to show that the sonic boom could nearly be silenced using super-thin wings and hidden engines.
So could a commercially successful supersonic jet really be a viable prospect by 2030?
Jason Holland, Editor, Aircraft Technology Engineering & Maintenance
jason.holland@ubmaviation.com

[DonM435]

Great. You'll have to go through two hours of security checks for a one-hour cross-country flight.

[danscope]

Maybe that article came out on April 1 .

[NEOWatcher]

Doesn't make sense. If you put half that money into the next generation blended wing transport, you get even better mileage ....= better profits. Supersonic transport only promises hungrier engines and exhorbitant costs for super heated airframes and higher radiation exposure. As has been said..... telepresence beats ss transport.

Depends on the type of wing you're blending into. Superheated airframes depends on the air density and speed combination. How much more radiation do you think it will encounter? Are you assuming it'll be flying into the Van Allen radiations belts?

I'm not quite following, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Danscope, but you are talking about blended wing "instead" of high speed transport.
Ara, It reads to me as you are thinking blended wing as a high speed transport.

I see two different things that will always be different:
- Traditional planes for those looking for affordable transportation. (where blended wing is a way to help affordability)
- High speed transport for those looking to get there as fast as possible.

[Ara Pacis]

I'm not quite following, so correct me if I'm wrong.
Danscope, but you are talking about blended wing "instead" of high speed transport.
Ara, It reads to me as you are thinking blended wing as a high speed transport.

I see two different things that will always be different:
- Traditional planes for those looking for affordable transportation. (where blended wing is a way to help affordability)
- High speed transport for those looking to get there as fast as possible.

Right, one can have a slow blended-wing, such as a flying wing, but the same idea can be extended to hypersonic/sub-orbital as either a lifting body or a wave-rider, unless you define a BWB as excluding the other designs. All three types will look radically different, but they'd all qualify as blended-wing and should help increase internal volume without sacrificing much in aerodynamic efficiency.

[danscope]

We know from the research by John Northrup that the flying wing enjoys long range efficiency. No question.
We know that fuel is getting scarce and more expensive.
We know that there is a very limited market for a few select individuals who want to go long distances in the very shortest amount of time.
And we have seen the expenditure of funds for supersonic transport which didn't make money considering the
government subsidies poured into it.
I think Boeing got it right with it's next generation blended wing for efficient transport at reasonable prices for the future.
You have to look at the fuel budget first. Once you understand that, you will see the future with a clear eye to what
people really need.

[NEOWatcher]

I think Boeing got it right with it's next generation blended wing for efficient transport at reasonable prices for the future.

Unfortunately it never left the conceptual ( and internet rumor) stage.
I remember when I first saw the original picture and article. I thought "cool" until I started reading some of the problems it would have with infrastructure and "perception". It's gonna be a while.

[danscope]

I have seen a flying scale model of some size as a radio controled model. It did very well. The only perception problems
are ticket prices. When it is cheaper to fly with the installed base, it removes an incentive to build new platforms.
When a new prototype demonstrates better numbers, orders come in. That is how it works, not flashy cover pictures in popular science.

[Ara Pacis]

We know from the research by John Northrup that the flying wing enjoys long range efficiency. No question.

At certain airspeeds.

We know that fuel is getting scarce and more expensive.

Depends on fuel.

We know that there is a very limited market for a few select individuals who want to go long distances in the very shortest amount of time.

Depends on ticket price. I'd go to Australia for lunch if it was cheap enough.

And we have seen the expenditure of funds for supersonic transport which didn't make money considering the
government subsidies poured into it.

Lots of transportation infrastructure has subsidies. You'd need to make a detailed analysis instead of a blanket statement for this point to have any merit.

I think Boeing got it right with it's next generation blended wing for efficient transport at reasonable prices for the future.

For slow transport sure. The problem is that with more seats, it runs the risk of flying with more empty seats, reducing revenue.

You have to look at the fuel budget first. Once you understand that, you will see the future with a clear eye to what
people really need.

A good fuel budget doesn't help if it's incapable of using current infrastructure.

[danscope]

You continue to think of future air transport as supersonic aerospace and discount the cost of fuel.
Supersonic speed costs money. This is a fact. The only people who will pay for that privilige have money to burn.
They are a small market, a portion of which enjoy their own Gulfstream, Citation, Lear etc... Really .

[Ara Pacis]

You continue to think of future air transport as supersonic aerospace and discount the cost of fuel.
Supersonic speed costs money. This is a fact. The only people who will pay for that privilige have money to burn.
They are a small market, a portion of which enjoy their own Gulfstream, Citation, Lear etc... Really .

"I think there is a world market for about five computers." Watson, is that you?

Dan, just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they didn't do the homework. your continued style of argument wherein you make a statement without backing it up except by reasserting it is getting tiresome.

[danscope]

I see..... you don't think oil is getting scarce, and you don't believe that supersonic aircraft devour oil in a very big way.
You should talk to someone who has gone to afterburners with an F-105.
It doesn't work both ways. High speed comes with severe costs. We are moving into an age of higher costs and less
income. Airtravel will follow those facts now and in the future.
Costs and practicality,sir.
By the way: at Laredo Aero CTR 100 LL gasoline is $5.95/gal and JET A is $5.41. Those are 'good' prices .