Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

8340 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
 
2011-07-12 11:17:23 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: 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.


I will add that I'm pretty sure this is what Richard Branson is thinking.
 
2011-07-12 11:24:41 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.


D.D. Harriman likes this idea.
 
2011-07-12 12:03:04 PM  
www.seykota.com
 
2011-07-12 12:04:29 PM  
up-ship.com
 
2011-07-12 12:12:08 PM  
If we never had The Jetsons, we'd already have more stuff like they do in The Jetsons.
 
2011-07-12 12:14:53 PM  

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

[i278.photobucket.com image 588x330]

[i279.photobucket.com image 640x360]


I'd still be able to take those down in a heartbeat with this:

xbox360media.ign.com
 
2011-07-12 12:15:45 PM  
They should've just dug in their own vaults for ideas.
Plenty of good designs waiting to be built already.

img.photobucket.com
 
2011-07-12 12:19:23 PM  
Beechcraft 2000 Starship

sp8.fotolog.com
 
2011-07-12 12:21:26 PM  
media-3.web.britannica.com
 
2011-07-12 12:23:17 PM  
Kinda lame. Some of those are old spaceplane and/or shuttle replacement concepts. Some are old airplane concepts (pretty sure one of those was a possible concept for what turned into the 787). Few if any are "future" airplane concepts.
 
2011-07-12 12:26:37 PM  
rmparchive.com

rmparchive.com
 
2011-07-12 12:36:07 PM  
www.upperplayground.com

You're right, sometimes it's the old airplane designs that are best.
 
2011-07-12 12:42:32 PM  

mekkab: [www.upperplayground.com image 590x578]

You're right, sometimes it's the old airplane designs that are best.


That may work for building a plane, but what if you want to build a city?
 
2011-07-12 12:49:12 PM  

Hawnkee: If they're going to stick with the usual pattern, at least tweak it to construct the following:

[www.y-wing.net image 352x480]


yes!
 
2011-07-12 12:54:59 PM  
Everyone always complains about how much things changed between the first half of the 20th century. Why was that? Oh yeah, two world wars and a Cold War. Those kind of things tend to speed up development. Today, however, there is no incentive to go out and develop things at such a rapid pace. The money is not there. The profit is not there. It is about taking existing tech and shrinking it or making it more cost effective without changing the basic design. Additionally, we are not as interested with large scale construction projects because computers are more important to a lot of people at the moment. In the US, we do need those large construction projects though. We need better and more rail lines, better power grid, better phone/internet lines, and better roads.
 
2011-07-12 01:02:10 PM  
news.cnet.com

They're finally making the Normandy with the help of the Turians.
 
2011-07-12 01:02:17 PM  

ActionJoe: Everyone always complains about how much things changed between the first half of the 20th century. Why was that? Oh yeah, two world wars and a Cold War. Those kind of things tend to speed up development. Today, however, there is no incentive to go out and develop things at such a rapid pace. The money is not there. The profit is not there. It is about taking existing tech and shrinking it or making it more cost effective without changing the basic design. Additionally, we are not as interested with large scale construction projects because computers are more important to a lot of people at the moment. In the US, we do need those large construction projects though. We need better and more rail lines, better power grid, better phone/internet lines, and better roads.


Do not forget the obstacles large scael constuction projects face now that they did not face in the first half of ther 20th Century . Would there have been a Hoover Dam, TVA or interstate highway systme had we had the EPA and OSHA regulations, environmentalists and NIMBYs with an army of lawyers existed back then?
 
2011-07-12 01:05:58 PM  

TheTeethoftheTiger: 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.


I prefer Razgriz, but they only got to shoot down this thing:

i278.photobucket.com
 
2011-07-12 01:24:54 PM  

hasty ambush: Do not forget the obstacles large scael constuction projects face now that they did not face in the first half of ther 20th Century . Would there have been a Hoover Dam, TVA or interstate highway systme had we had the EPA and OSHA regulations, environmentalists and NIMBYs with an army of lawyers existed back then?


No. You should see the hoops they're having to jump just to extend an interstate part of the way through Indiana. There's no way we could build the interstate from scratch today. Not without a giant perceived external threat that would trump all that you mentioned as standing in the way.

And yes, I agree that the great force behind the major large scale structural changes and innovations in the last century were the World Wars and the Cold War. Without those, we would not be anywhere close to where we are in our level of technology and infrastructure. Kind of sad to think about that as a species we need that to make large scale progress.
 
2011-07-12 01:34:46 PM  

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: That may work for building a plane, but what if you want to build a city?


... *really* hoping someone else pics up on this one!!


/great setup!
 
2011-07-12 01:40:33 PM  

eddyatwork: Not one of those looks like a car.


The facetmobile kind of looks like a car.
 
2011-07-12 02:01:20 PM  
www.allstar.fiu.edu

file1.bobaedream.co.kr

i.ebayimg.com

rmparchive.com
 
2011-07-12 02:20:21 PM  

WorldCitizen: Kind of sad to think about that as a species we need that to make large scale progress.


It has been my observation that humans never get off their dead ass to do anything worthwhile for their nation, or their species as a whole, unless they are facing a looming crisis that threatens to destroy them or their way of life.
 
2011-07-12 02:22:18 PM  

Caelistis: It has been my observation that humans never get off their dead ass to do anything worthwhile for their nation, or their species as a whole, unless they are facing a looming crisis that threatens to destroy them or their way of life.


This is true; unless my wife complains about it, I don't do it.
 
2011-07-12 02:30:39 PM  

hasty ambush: [www.allstar.fiu.edu image 602x480]

[file1.bobaedream.co.kr image 600x479]

[i.ebayimg.com image 600x481]

[rmparchive.com image 600x480]


Yeah, the future used to be cool.
 
2011-07-12 02:31:06 PM  

hasty ambush: www.allstar.fiu.edu


Such a shame. Probably one of NAA's best looking aircraft (and when you consider they created the Mustang, Rapier and Vigilante, that's a compliment).
 
2011-07-12 03:04:35 PM  

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

[images.ctv.ca image 217x121]


I don't think he's making it to noon.
 
2011-07-12 03:30:05 PM  
The laws of physics don't change, no matter what the calendar says. TV shows can depict wingless flying machines and time machines and humanoid robots, because fictional depictions are easy.

TV and movies don't change the facts that mass attracts and humans only know a couple of tricks to beat gravity.

And the laws of economics demand that money goes towards the easiest route to make profit. New ideas move uphill in a free market.

www.saturnfans.com
 
2011-07-12 04:13:39 PM  

minnesotaboy: TV shows can depict wingless flying machines


Barnaby Wainfan built a wingless flying machine. It flew, and was registered as N117WD.
 
2011-07-12 04:35:10 PM  
upload.wikimedia.org
STILL WANT
/45 years later
 
2011-07-12 06:51:21 PM  

mekkab: Caelistis: It has been my observation that humans never get off their dead ass to do anything worthwhile for their nation, or their species as a whole, unless they are facing a looming crisis that threatens to destroy them or their way of life.

This is true; unless my wife complains about it, I don't do it.


The true deciders. Always have been, and as long as a majority of strait men still 'run things' they always will be the true deciders.
 
2011-07-13 12:44:56 AM  
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.

Don't kid yourself. The 787 is SLOWER than the 707 was. The USAF is planning to use B-52s 80 years into their service life. And I'm a materials scientist, so yes I appreciate the improvements for what they are, but fundamentally not much has changed.

WorldCitizen: 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.


Someone from 1910 seeing the world of 1960 would have had a farking anyeurism or gone into cardiac arrest and died. They wouldn't have been able to conceive of things like skyscrapers, jet aircraft, color televisions, LSD, etc. Like the story of the people who fled an early movie theater in a panic because they thought a train was going to run them over. Someone from 1960 to today, yeah, you pretty much nailed it. They would ask how many people were living on martian colonies or how many cities had been built in the seas, or ask to make a video phone call and wonder why the iphone is so big and can't even sustain a call, since dick tracy had a video watch even in the 40s. They would have been like "wait, a billion people are starving? WTF, future?"

Someone from 1970 would be fine because the 60s had some real bummer sci-fi and the dawning horror of the cold war. They'd be surprised the planet was still here.
 
2011-07-13 07:37:18 AM  
i56.tinypic.com
 
2011-07-13 01:53:39 PM  
WorldCitizen [TotalFark] Quote 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.


I agree. and while we're at it whats the deal with birds? They have been around for, I dont know, like, 500 years or something and they still look pretty much the same! Get with it birds!
 
2011-07-14 02:07:37 AM  

TheOther: 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.


I was just thinking that most of these designs look exactly like entries in an old book I have, The Future of Aviation... dated 1985.
 
Displayed 35 of 85 comments

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



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report