Future Air Craft

[rocketoink 3]

Three words; Thunderbirds Are Go!

Ironically, I was watching Path of Destruction, the one with the Crablogger and the dam in it's uncontrolled path when I found this thread, and it is now 23 min through.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Not an aircraft, I hope.  These things use too much fuel and energy.

How about a nice auxiliary powered sailing vessel with backup diesel engines for crossing the oceans, or an electrically powered dirigible air-ship covered with solar cells, also with a hybrid auxiliary set of diesels?

Rail should be used continentally.  Aircraft are too expensive for commercial use now, and the loss of the airlines would make funds available for other modes of travel.

Society should learn to live at a more leisurely pace.  With all the communications systems we have now, personal presence is no longer of the essence when contact is needed with a person except to exercise the biological imperative.

The only outfit I know of that could survive such a displacement is Canadian Pacific Enterprises (CPE) which used to have all the necessary know-how for passenger services via both rail and surface water.  I suspect that it would be a matter of digging in their archives to unearth the necessary protocols and procedures to resume this part of their business.

As for Boeing, on the west coast like that, how hard would it be to convert an aircraft plant into a shipyard?  Or to build rolling stock for passenger rail?  Hmmmm?

[xiziz 11]

coming back like a year from my last post;

For me the future of Aviation will be in Hydrogen as it is now, its even more powerful than petroleum(its what for instance the space shuttle burns in its rocketengines), and the Soviets/Russians flew planes with it during the cold war, although Hydrogen is extremly hard to actually store onboard, they are solving this too(Tu-155 for example). This is good because in this form it releases no greenhouse-gases, which is a major concern nowadays.

@Fusion, the problem is that we dont yet have fusion, the best estimates are about 50 years away, but even when we are able to harness Fusion Power it will require a lot of time minuturizing the technology so that its light enough for aircraft/spacecraft. Seeings as we have yet to be able to do that with standard Nuclear Energy(because of the weight needed to sheild people from the radiation, again the Soviets did fly aircraft with Nuclear Reactors onboard, and the US had a reactor developed but never did fly it because of the radiation hazards).

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

xiziz:  Hydrogen is more powerful?  I don't think so.  It is certainly capable of producing energy, but breaking the bonds in a fossil fuel, mol per mol produces a lot more energy, and unfortunately a lot more waste. 

One of the biggest problems with Hydrogen is where do you plan to get it?  Electrolysis of water is not practical unless you find a non-fossil energy source to do it on a large scale.

Also, how do you plan to store it.  Hydrogen migrates through metals and makes them brittle if you try to store it for any length of time.  I think there are some large scale engineering problems to be solved here.

[M-SIL 2]

an electrically powered dirigible air-ship covered with solar cells, also with a hybrid auxiliary set of diesels?quote>

You mean something like this? link

[ShadeSlayer 15]

I'm going to assume that the 797 will be next, then the 808? p

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body Society should learn to live at a more leisurely pace.  With all the communications systems we have now, personal presence is no longer of the essence when contact is needed with a person except to exercise the biological imperative.quote>

For doing business, that may be true. But I don't think too many people would like the idea of going on vacation without leaving their homes...

Besides, the pace isn't the only issue, it's what to do with the time. I don't think too many people would consider spending time on a plane (or train, or bus) "leisurely". That's not the point. The point is to get you from point A to point B, not to be fun. And thus, the faster it happens the better, this way you can get it over with and move on to the fun part of things: what to do when you arrive.

Don't underestimate the value of speed. When I flew to Denver a couple summers ago (a little under 4 hours), I was basically at my wits end by the time I got there and glad to be out of the plane and on the ground. Not because I'm afraid of flying. I'm not. But rather because it's exceedingly boring and monotonous. 4 hours on a plane is 4 hours sitting in cramped seat with basically nothing to do. And some people fly to Asia for 14 hours. I can't imagine how they handle it. In order to manage that, I'd basically need to say "put me under anesthesia and wake me up when we get there". I mean, sure, you can bring your Gameboy and your laptop, but those things are limited by their battery life there (and without internet access, the laptop has greatly decreased functionality). And I myself can't just load up a video game and start enjoying it, I need to be in the mood for it. I brought my DS on that trip to Colorado and didn't touch it the entire time. Mood never struck me.

Though, here's an idea: put outlets on airplanes so people can plug their electronics in. Hey, if I had that, I could stay on a plane for days without leaving. I can always find ways to kill time on the computer. Internet would really put the icing on the cake, but up at 30,000 feet (especially over the ocean) that's a bit much to ask for, at least at this point. In the future it might become more practical if satellites become available for it.

------------------------------

Cost isn't really the issue with supersonic flight. Once it became more common, the prices would drop.

Back in the 60's into the 70's, supersonic jets were "the wave of the future", how all air traffic would be within the next few decades. But it was not to be. Concorde produced a few supersonic jets which flew safely and just fine... the technology was perfectly sound. We could easily do it, all we'd have to do is build the planes. No, the reason it was not to be was not a technological block, and not an economic one, but an environmental one. See, in order to reduce the air resistance, supersonic jets fly in the stratosphere- right through the ozone layer. And they produce a crapload of emissions (comparable to a fair size coal power plant)- not exactly good for that ozone. So one it was discovered this was an issue, the idea was completely killed. The sonic boom is an issue, too. Supersonic jets are not permitted to fly supersonic over land unless they're military jets in active combat or over military owned land. Which means that they're useless for flights that aren't ocean-crossing.

What's interesting was that Boeing had produced this huge, slow clunky jet, intended to be used for cargo (since passengers would be flying supersonic). That jet was called the 747. After the supersonic thing died, it all of a sudden became really popular and airlines were ordering passenger converted versions all over the place. So Boeing, a company never known for good planning or organization, had this really big succe

[xiziz 11]

Originally posted by: N_O_Body xiziz:  Hydrogen is more powerful?  I don't think so.  It is certainly capable of producing energy, but breaking the bonds in a fossil fuel, mol per mol produces a lot more energy, and unfortunately a lot more waste.  quote>

Hydrogen is much more explosive, which is the driving force in a combustion/jet/rocket engine, im having a hard time finding the power produced by jet fuel per molecule(found it for hydrogen without a problem), but the fact that the Space shuttle uses Hydrogen instead of a Petroleum based fuel is prettey explanatory, especially since Hydrogen is a lot more dangerous to handle(Hindenburg comes to name). However i do reserv that i might be wrong, but from what i know hydrogen is more efficent.

One of the biggest problems with Hydrogen is where do you plan to get it?  Electrolysis of water is not practical unless you find a non-fossil energy source to do it on a large scale. quote>

This is the main problem ofc, today the most practical source for Electrolysis is by Atomic Energy, and in 50 years time or so, Fusion. So essentially you will be flying on fusion power, without having the excess weight(or endurance) of having a reactor onboard.

Also, how do you plan to store it.  Hydrogen migrates through metals and makes them brittle if you try to store it for any length of time.  I think there are some large scale engineering problems to be solved here.quote>

You store it in Cryogenic Tanks, at a very low temprature, which of course have their own set of problems, but seeing as it has already been done the technology only needs to be improved on, which is a lot cheaper than developing the technology in the first place.

I see that this will become a larger and larger market over the coming decades, once the public gets its head up for this sort of new technology it will sneak its way in and eventually(probably once fuel becomes more obtainable) replace the petroleum based jet-fuels. Seeing how enviromentally aware the world is growing(atleast here in Europe) i belive that companies will start looking for technology to reduce pollution further, maybe we will se more joint European and Russian projects in the furture, the soviet union left a vast ammount of knowlege to the Russian(and other member states ofc) which they no longer have the accute need for, hence its really up to us that need or could use this technology to get help from our russian friends, and seeing how this is really happening(ISS anyone) to an even larger extent means loosing less of what one huge supernation has come up with the 70 years it existed.