If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CTV)   Future flight concepts from NASA, Lockheed-Martin. Boeing etc   (ctv.ca) divider line 85
    More: Cool, Lockheed Martin, NASA, supersonic speeds, Virgin Galactic, gas turbines, aircraft design, spaceport, speed of sound  
•       •       •

8339 clicks; posted to Business » on 12 Jul 2011 at 2:54 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-11 08:53:15 PM
Not one of those looks like a car.
 
2011-07-11 08:59:27 PM
Our computer technology has changed by vast amounts over the last 50 years. However, it seems like our physical technology has not so much. Our airplanes look essentially like they did 50 years ago without any prospects of changing by even this article for decades more into to future. Our cars are basically the same shaped internal combustion engine contraptions. Even the Space Shuttle is from the 1970s. The probable new designs are capsules that look like lightly larger versions of the ones from the 1960s.

In the 1st 50 years of my grandparents' lifetimes we went from the Wright Brothers to passenger jets. I am disappoint.
 
2011-07-11 09:02:22 PM

WorldCitizen: Our computer technology has changed by vast amounts over the last 50 years. However, it seems like our physical technology has not so much. Our airplanes look essentially like they did 50 years ago without any prospects of changing by even this article for decades more into to future. Our cars are basically the same shaped internal combustion engine contraptions. Even the Space Shuttle is from the 1970s. The probable new designs are capsules that look like lightly larger versions of the ones from the 1960s.

In the 1st 50 years of my grandparents' lifetimes we went from the Wright Brothers to passenger jets. I am disappoint.


So, what you're saying is Future, I Am Disappoint?
 
2011-07-11 09:27:37 PM

WorldCitizen: Our computer technology has changed by vast amounts over the last 50 years. However, it seems like our physical technology has not so much. Our airplanes look essentially like they did 50 years ago without any prospects of changing by even this article for decades more into to future. Our cars are basically the same shaped internal combustion engine contraptions. Even the Space Shuttle is from the 1970s. The probable new designs are capsules that look like lightly larger versions of the ones from the 1960s.

In the 1st 50 years of my grandparents' lifetimes we went from the Wright Brothers to passenger jets. I am disappoint.


In the last 50 years I've seen the same 'futuristic' crap rolled out year after year. Settling for 'new models' instead of demanding NEW is leading the US to revert to a medieval mindset.
 
2011-07-11 09:34:49 PM

WorldCitizen: Our computer technology has changed by vast amounts over the last 50 years. However, it seems like our physical technology has not so much. Our airplanes look essentially like they did 50 years ago without any prospects of changing by even this article for decades more into to future. Our cars are basically the same shaped internal combustion engine contraptions. Even the Space Shuttle is from the 1970s. The probable new designs are capsules that look like lightly larger versions of the ones from the 1960s.

In the 1st 50 years of my grandparents' lifetimes we went from the Wright Brothers to passenger jets. I am disappoint.


While I understand your point, if you seriously think the Boeing 707 and the 787 are not miles apart in technology, you need to do some reading. From a shape point of view, air hasn't changed, so neither would aerodynamics. The engines however are barely reminiscent of each other, composites have made the planes stronger and lighter, and fly-by-wire has given them greater controlability. I would keep going, but most people have already stopped reading.
 
2011-07-11 09:52:50 PM

mikesup: While I understand your point, if you seriously think the Boeing 707 and the 787 are not miles apart in technology, you need to do some reading. From a shape point of view, air hasn't changed, so neither would aerodynamics. The engines however are barely reminiscent of each other, composites have made the planes stronger and lighter, and fly-by-wire has given them greater controlability. I would keep going, but most people have already stopped reading.


I agree that again, the computer technology within them has changed just as the computer technology internally in cars has changed quite a bit. However, someone from 1960 transported to 2011 just looking around probably at our infrastructure would be disappointed in "the future" as it would look very much like it did in 1960. Someone going from 1910 to 1960 would have probably been blown away with the changes. As far as passenger planes having hit their ideal shapes, I think simply clicking on the link shows that not to be true. Wide bodied or flying wing passenger liners could carry many more people just as illustrated in this article.
 
2011-07-11 10:13:52 PM
Delta-wing craft? I swear I've seen that first image in a book from the 1950's.
 
2011-07-11 10:52:32 PM

WorldCitizen: Wide bodied or flying wing passenger liners could carry many more people just as illustrated in this article.


There's more at work than just maximizing internal volume though; things like passenger comfort (yeah I know) due to proximity to windows, speed of evacuation of a cabin where the "middle" seats might be some distance from any walls, actually building the pressure vessel light enough to realize the benefits of the blended wing configuration while still being economical enough to make the cost palatable to carriers.. The gulf between "can we" and "can we and still make money on it" is a big one in aviation.
 
2011-07-11 10:57:28 PM
Also, the one with the single tail-mounted engine will never happen.
 
2011-07-11 11:04:46 PM
Really cool stuff!
 
2011-07-12 02:05:46 AM

costermonger: There's more at work than just maximizing internal volume though; things like passenger comfort (yeah I know) due to proximity to windows, speed of evacuation of a cabin where the "middle" seats might be some distance from any walls,


Not far from the ceiling or floor, however.

costermonger: actually building the pressure vessel light enough to realize the benefits of the blended wing configuration while still being economical enough to make the cost palatable to carriers.. The gulf between "can we" and "can we and still make money on it" is a big one in aviation.


This is the real problem. It also requires much in the computer department as a flying wing is very unstable. This is why it took so long for the first viable one (stealth bomber). It is only now that it can be considered.

The real trick is to beat the "supersonic over land" problem, with economy and sound abatement.

More than the flying car, I miss the promised SST.
 
2011-07-12 03:38:55 AM
Why don't we build a 10km canon up the side of a mountain and fire things into LEO? I mean, you couldn't send people, but you could shoot a few tons of food or water in one go. You could rifle the thing to cut through the air better.
 
2011-07-12 04:26:35 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Why don't we build a 10km canon up the side of a mountain and fire things into LEO? I mean, you couldn't send people, but you could shoot a few tons of food or water in one go. You could rifle the thing to cut through the air better.


www.scifisaturdaynight.com
Sup.


http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/horizontallaunch.html (new window)

also read this: www0.alibris-static.com
 
2011-07-12 04:30:32 AM
[CSB] My university's work features in three of those slides! [/CSB]

And yes, none of those passenger planes are going to happen in the near future. Only two companies left that can make large passenger jets, both of them need frequent injections of cash. They won't risk money on a radical design.

Not to mention blended-wing-body designs look cool but aren't very good for 1) claustrophobic people and 2) those sitting furthest from the central axis each time it banks.

/Would love to be proven wrong
//Still pissed that the Concorde has passed on and the Sonic Cruiser was not built
 
2011-07-12 04:32:16 AM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: Why don't we build a 10km canon up the side of a mountain and fire things into LEO? I mean, you couldn't send people, but you could shoot a few tons of food or water in one go. You could rifle the thing to cut through the air better.


These guys are hoping to do just that. If you are interested here is a Google tech talk they did.
 
2011-07-12 04:38:08 AM
Ah, the graphic designers are at it again. Kind of like condo ad copy.
 
2011-07-12 04:47:58 AM

lewismarktwo:

also read this: [www0.alibris-static.com image 133x187]


It's a lot easier to launch into orbit from the moon. No atmosphere to worry about and 1/6 the gravity to overcome.

Also, it seems a bit complicated to use a rail gun to launch a scramjet that is going to fly and then rocket into space. Why not just launch a rocket plane? Or, if it's just cargo, skip the rocket part and shoot it right into space?
 
2011-07-12 04:52:40 AM
One of those looks EXACTLY like the normandy from Mass effect. They TOTALLY stole it.
 
2011-07-12 05:03:03 AM

WorldCitizen: As far as passenger planes having hit their ideal shapes, I think simply clicking on the link shows that not to be true. Wide bodied or flying wing passenger liners could carry many more people just as illustrated in this article.


Have you ever given any thought to how you would pull a BWB aircraft up to a gate at a major airport? Jetway designs have been based on the tube-with-wings model of aircraft design since the 1940s. In many cases it would require totally rebuilding the terminal gates to service aircraft that are shaped completely differently, and when you multiply it by every major airport on the planet that is a huge investment nobody wants to make.

Then there are problems with seating arrangements: very few window seats compared to lots of space buried deep within the cabin; the need for lots of aisles to let people move around (the 747 already looks like a stadium inside, a BWB would be nuts), so the weight-distribution problem when 50 out of your 400 pax are up and moving during cruise gets much more complicated than with a simple tube design. Opposing sides of the cabin could be 20 or 30 feet different in elevation during a steep bank, which would be quite the roller-coaster ride for anyone on the outside.

It's an awesome design for bulk cargo, but maybe not the greatest idea for moving human beings around.
 
2011-07-12 05:12:29 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: WorldCitizen: As far as passenger planes having hit their ideal shapes, I think simply clicking on the link shows that not to be true. Wide bodied or flying wing passenger liners could carry many more people just as illustrated in this article.

Have you ever given any thought to how you would pull a BWB aircraft up to a gate at a major airport? Jetway designs have been based on the tube-with-wings model of aircraft design since the 1940s. In many cases it would require totally rebuilding the terminal gates to service aircraft that are shaped completely differently, and when you multiply it by every major airport on the planet that is a huge investment nobody wants to make.

Then there are problems with seating arrangements: very few window seats compared to lots of space buried deep within the cabin; the need for lots of aisles to let people move around (the 747 already looks like a stadium inside, a BWB would be nuts), so the weight-distribution problem when 50 out of your 400 pax are up and moving during cruise gets much more complicated than with a simple tube design. Opposing sides of the cabin could be 20 or 30 feet different in elevation during a steep bank, which would be quite the roller-coaster ride for anyone on the outside.

It's an awesome design for bulk cargo, but maybe not the greatest idea for moving human beings around.


Airport retrofits would be cheaper than the planes themselves. At the very least, they can switch to buses like Frankfort.
 
2011-07-12 05:37:02 AM
Yeah right. Like we were supposed to flying around in these by now.

www.rafmuseum.org.uk

I dunno, color me cynical, but airlines don't care about innovation. They want cheap flying busses. Somehow I get the feeling that 50 years from now, passenger aircraft will look exactly the same, except maybe for materials and engines.
 
2011-07-12 05:41:05 AM

rwfan: lewismarktwo:

also read this: [www0.alibris-static.com image 133x187]

It's a lot easier to launch into orbit from the moon. No atmosphere to worry about and 1/6 the gravity to overcome.

Also, it seems a bit complicated to use a rail gun to launch a scramjet that is going to fly and then rocket into space. Why not just launch a rocket plane? Or, if it's just cargo, skip the rocket part and shoot it right into space?


Because NASA is a works program? Nice google talk, btw. Seems like 'we' could do that right now. Hell, it would be a fraction of the cost and size of the LHC and way more likely to actually pay off.
 
2011-07-12 05:44:31 AM

rwfan: It's a lot easier to launch into orbit from the moon. No atmosphere to worry about and 1/6 the gravity to overcome.


Also no industrial infrastructure and people. Yup, nothing like an utter and complete void to support a vast industrial complex for what exactly?
 
2011-07-12 06:26:59 AM

WorldCitizen: Our computer technology has changed by vast amounts over the last 50 years. However, it seems like our physical technology has not so much. Our airplanes look essentially like they did 50 years ago without any prospects of changing by even this article for decades more into to future. Our cars are basically the same shaped internal combustion engine contraptions. Even the Space Shuttle is from the 1970s. The probable new designs are capsules that look like lightly larger versions of the ones from the 1960s.

In the 1st 50 years of my grandparents' lifetimes we went from the Wright Brothers to passenger jets. I am disappoint.



You should read how changes happen in human society.

Before it became a management buzzbord, "paradigm change" used to describe how changes happen in human thinking.

A new idea comes along, millions/billions people develop/use it and refine it quickly and then it becomes mature and nothing changes.

Wright brothers was a paradigm change, the transistor was a paradigm change.

This whole notion that everything changes and progresses at a constant rate is not true. Some changes really fast while the rest stay the same.
 
2011-07-12 07:28:41 AM

poisonedpawn78: One of those looks EXACTLY like the normandy from Mass effect. They TOTALLY stole it.


Came here to say this. I wouldn't say no, but the SR2 beats the balls off the original if ya ask me!
 
2011-07-12 07:36:01 AM
I vote Space Trebuchet
 
2011-07-12 07:46:11 AM

GAT_00: Delta-wing craft? I swear I've seen that first image in a book from the 1950's.


Speaking of delta wings, I'd like to see something like the Facetmobile go into production:

www.wainfan.com
 
2011-07-12 08:24:31 AM
If they're going to stick with the usual pattern, at least tweak it to construct the following:

www.y-wing.net
 
2011-07-12 08:29:00 AM

lewismarktwo: rwfan: lewismarktwo:

also read this: [www0.alibris-static.com image 133x187]

It's a lot easier to launch into orbit from the moon. No atmosphere to worry about and 1/6 the gravity to overcome.

Also, it seems a bit complicated to use a rail gun to launch a scramjet that is going to fly and then rocket into space. Why not just launch a rocket plane? Or, if it's just cargo, skip the rocket part and shoot it right into space?

Because NASA is a works program?

LOL, how could I forget. I did some software development for a NASA SBIR on the James Webb ST (back when it was the NGST). I think they threw it away as soon as we delivered it. I am pretty sure we got the contract because the guy I worked for knew the guy doling out the money. Seemed like white collar welfare.

Nice google talk, btw. Seems like 'we' could do that right now. Hell, it would be a fraction of the cost and size of the LHC and way more likely to actually pay off.
Well it is private industry so if they can do it and make money off it they will.
 
2011-07-12 08:34:30 AM
The basic plane design probably won't change much since, as has been pointed out, aerodynamics hasn't changed much. Plus, the airplane manufacturers aren't goign to go with anything too radical because it costs money.

However, materials have changed quite a bit, as evidenced by the Boeing 777 Wing Test
 
2011-07-12 08:54:11 AM

Old enough to know better: Yeah right. Like we were supposed to flying around in these by now.

[www.rafmuseum.org.uk image 600x315]

I dunno, color me cynical, but airlines don't care about innovation. They want cheap flying busses. Somehow I get the feeling that 50 years from now, passenger aircraft will look exactly the same, except maybe for materials and engines.


You nailed it. Hell, they don't even want the latest products from Boeing and Airbus. How many 777s do you see flying around? They got what they wanted with the 737. That's basically the only way their business model is able to make money.
 
2011-07-12 09:04:56 AM
We are more likely to get rid of air-travel entirely within the next 50 years than we are to develop a new round of planes. Everyone will just sit around computers and chat constantly
 
2011-07-12 09:28:20 AM

WorldCitizen: Our computer technology has changed by vast amounts over the last 50 years. However, it seems like our physical technology has not so much. Our airplanes look essentially like they did 50 years ago without any prospects of changing by even this article for decades more into to future. Our cars are basically the same shaped internal combustion engine contraptions. Even the Space Shuttle is from the 1970s. The probable new designs are capsules that look like lightly larger versions of the ones from the 1960s.

In the 1st 50 years of my grandparents' lifetimes we went from the Wright Brothers to passenger jets. I am disappoint.


You build what works for the job. Jets changed a lot, but yeah, the same basic shapes tend to get the job done best so that is what they use.

Take a space capsule. It does what it does very very well. Modern ones are a marked improvement in terms of cost and materials compared to early ones.

there is no reason to go fancy if you don't have to, it just adds on even more problems and such to overcome.
 
2011-07-12 09:34:13 AM

costermonger: The gulf between "can we" and "can we and still make money on it" is a big one in aviation.


... which is precisely why the end of the space shuttle is sad. There is a role for science-for-science's-sake, exploration at any cost, basic medical research just-to-see-how-[something]-works, etc. And those endeavors do not guarantee profit. Which is why we, as a society, funded through our taxes and managed by our government, need to support them -- we can't just turn every damned thing over to corporate-profit operations! Grumble!

Thats No Moose: //Still pissed that the Concorde has passed on and the Sonic Cruiser was not built


Right there with you. Lifelong dream to fly on the Concorde, after being lucky enough to board one on the ramp as a weeeee lad. Private tour and everything. Now it's gone. Not, of course, that it ever made much economic sense (oh... wait... see previous), but still!
 
2011-07-12 09:49:05 AM
I don't think he's making it to the moon

images.ctv.ca
 
2011-07-12 09:49:13 AM

haemaker: This is the real problem. It also requires much in the computer department as a flying wing is very unstable. This is why it took so long for the first viable one (stealth bomber). It is only now that it can be considered.


But the blended wing-body with its sharper sweep-back and vertical stabilizers are very stable.
 
2011-07-12 09:50:29 AM

Marine1: You nailed it. Hell, they don't even want the latest products from Boeing and Airbus. How many 777s do you see flying around? They got what they wanted with the 737. That's basically the only way their business model is able to make money.


I see triple sevens all the time. They've built 943 of them.

Link (new window)
 
2011-07-12 09:58:05 AM

Phil Moskowitz: I vote Space Trebuchet


It's called a rotovator
 
2011-07-12 10:06:36 AM

Marine1: Old enough to know better: Yeah right. Like we were supposed to flying around in these by now.

[www.rafmuseum.org.uk image 600x315]

I dunno, color me cynical, but airlines don't care about innovation. They want cheap flying busses. Somehow I get the feeling that 50 years from now, passenger aircraft will look exactly the same, except maybe for materials and engines.

You nailed it. Hell, they don't even want the latest products from Boeing and Airbus. How many 777s do you see flying around? They got what they wanted with the 737. That's basically the only way their business model is able to make money.


That isn't really fair. 777's are quite heavily used on intercontinental routes and that's really what they were designed for. It would be terribly inefficient to try and use them for the shorter hauls that are usually handled by 737's.
 
2011-07-12 10:16:01 AM
They'll likely go with the ones which look similar to current.

The decisions will be simply because of established infrastructure, logistics and maintenance.

/the warm & fuzzies of CYA mgmt add to this...
 
2011-07-12 10:21:16 AM
Get back to me when they start building these:

i278.photobucket.com

i279.photobucket.com
 
2011-07-12 10:24:35 AM

Bert_Harbinson: Marine1: Old enough to know better: Yeah right. Like we were supposed to flying around in these by now.

[www.rafmuseum.org.uk image 600x315]

I dunno, color me cynical, but airlines don't care about innovation. They want cheap flying busses. Somehow I get the feeling that 50 years from now, passenger aircraft will look exactly the same, except maybe for materials and engines.

You nailed it. Hell, they don't even want the latest products from Boeing and Airbus. How many 777s do you see flying around? They got what they wanted with the 737. That's basically the only way their business model is able to make money.

That isn't really fair. 777's are quite heavily used on intercontinental routes and that's really what they were designed for. It would be terribly inefficient to try and use them for the shorter hauls that are usually handled by 737's.


Hm, I guess you're right about that. I suppose they could be used for intra-continental routes, but living in Kansas City, you don't have flights that require that kind of range within the US.

Still, few airlines want to upgrade their fleets unless they can make short-term profits by doing so. It's how they think.
 
2011-07-12 10:28:54 AM

I Said: I don't think he's making it to the moon

[images.ctv.ca image 217x121]


Probably not, but if we don;t shoot for the moon, there would be many more like him than there are. Think economics and spin offs.
 
2011-07-12 10:32:37 AM

Dr. Whoof: Get back to me when they start building these:

[i278.photobucket.com image 588x330]

[i279.photobucket.com image 640x360]


She wants a few of these...

www.videodetective.com
 
2011-07-12 10:38:02 AM
Out of all of those, the SELECT is the only one that may ever be built, and even then it will be as watered down from original expectations as the Chevy Volt. They might as well just post old publicity photos of the Millennium Falcon and the Serenity.
 
2011-07-12 10:42:25 AM

Old enough to know better: They want cheap flying busses.


Largely because most passengers base their selections solely on price. Cheap recapitulates cheap.
 
2011-07-12 10:51:09 AM

natazha: Old enough to know better: They want cheap flying busses.

Largely because most passengers base their selections solely on price. Cheap recapitulates cheap.


Exactly, passengers don't reward interesting or innovative. They reward cheap.

Once again, you get what you pay for.
 
2011-07-12 10:53:58 AM

Dr. Whoof: Get back to me when they start building these:

[i278.photobucket.com image 588x330]

[i279.photobucket.com image 640x360]


Good work Garuda team.
 
2011-07-12 11:05:56 AM
Some of those designs are so bad they won't fly based upon the simple principles of flight. They'll fly because the earth finds them so repulsively ugly that gravity will reverse itself to propel it away.
 
2011-07-12 11:14:49 AM
Enough of the goddamn focus on passenger capacity and fuel economy.

Wake me when I can travel to any country in the eastern hemisphere in less than 3 hours for less than $1500.
 
Displayed 50 of 85 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report