Japan Solicits NASA's Help on Supersonic Jet 162
An anonymous reader writes "Since the Concorde supersonic jet is now retired, Japan is looking for the next generation supersonic flight solution. Japan's space agency is planning talks with NASA next month. They are looking for a partner since they have experienced a 'string of glitches, including a nose cone problem during the latest test flight in March.'"
Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:3, Insightful)
Think how much money, time & effort could be saved if resources were pooled. (maybe this thing would be ready before 2025).
I guess we'll all have to learn to get along first (oh & hopefully, the cooporation will be more equal then it was on the Joint strike fighter [timesonline.co.uk] project between Britain & the US)
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the big things that you lose when you pool resources is adaptability. Now that's fine if you are building a piece of technology that is completely understood, but it is death to people who want to compete in emerging technologies.
Would the US space program be better off if we were able to cut off funding to the ISS and focus on the CEV? I think so. But that is not possible because we have international agreements. We have to finish our share before we abandon it.
These international resource pools remind me of the old engineering maxim:
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:4, Informative)
And when you don't pool, you get the MIR - if you still have the USSR at hand. And Skylab.
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:5, Interesting)
When you pool resources you get things like the ISS. At this point in that project can we really say we haved saved money by doing it the international way? ?
As a NASA employee who has worked on ISS, no.
All the usual criticism of ISS aside, there are a few things that the cooperation with Russia enabled. Politically it made ISS much more viable as a program (frankly, it wouldn't be around without it) and an easier "sell" to congress. The alternate access with Soyuz has had obvious benefits with the orbiter problems. Personally, I enjoy working with my Russian counterparts very much and I love traveling there.
But cheaper? No way. It takes 10 times as long to solve even the most basic problems. With the Russians, the language barrier is significant (ever try to work out a complex technical problem through an interpreter?). The Europeans and Japanese communicate much faster since they have excellent English skills, but their overall lack of experience with manned spaceflight programs offset that advantage. Time zone differences are significant (all of our meetings must be extremely early in the morning for us and late in the afternoon for them). We spend a ton of money on international travel (there is no substitute for face to face meetings).
There is a lot of overhead associated with export control since anything associated with aerospace may be classified as a munition. Stuff that is classified can't be shared, period.
The Russians are so strapped for cash they generally won't give up documents/engineering support without a contract (and payment).
There is no "chief engineer". Whenever the crap hits the fan, there is no person at the top who can make a final decision (as would be the case in a program managed by, say, the Air Force). Many engineering problems become international negotiations with politics in the mix. When Dennis Tito paid for his Soyuz trip a number of years ago, the US laboratory had a massive systems failure several days before his launch. Some members of Russian management thought (due to the poor way NASA handled his flight) it was some sort of staged event and basically said they were going to launch him no matter what.
I'm sure many of you have international project success stories. For a large aerospace program, however, I think the only model that is really cost effective is having an international partner supply a subsytem as a "black box" and in a role subordinate to a overall integrator. That worked for the FGB module of ISS (which was procured from Krunichev under subcontract, on time, on budget). Partnership is definitely not cheaper.
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
[snippage: discussion of costs and problems caused by the partnership]
You missed one of the biggests costs and impacts of the partnership; an increase in total risk to the Shuttle and astronauts caused shifting the orbital plane to one the Russians can reach. This reduces the effective cargo capability -
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
Who will head the pool? That's the big question... there's hardly any point in joining a syndicate, if the Board is excusively controlled by an elite few, whose only claim to power is their nation's military might.
Whether it's satellites, rockets, missions to the moon or supersonic jets, few BIG nations want to co-operate or pool - just exploit hi-tech low-paid manpower from abroad.
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
The reasons for pooling aren't simply political or otherwise, it's much easier to fund such things between a couple countries working together, as opposed to each on their own (faster results as well, unless you forget to convert from meters to feet)
Hate to squash your obvious anti-american quip here, but we've got the bombs, as well
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say that given that America is the only country with a working scramjet, maybe...we'd head the team? Or it'd be something like the international spacestation project.
Huh? Do I not recall a successful test of the British and Australian built Hyshot III in Australia earlier this year, that was definately a scramjet. Nasas X-47 is not the only successful scramjet.
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
You do recall. In fact, all this bleating about lack of collaboration and pooling resources is just polemic. Hyshot IS a collaborative effort, and results ARE being shared.
Re: We've got [some of] the bombs (Score:2)
Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) 5,830/16,000
United Kingdom France 350
People's Republic of China 400
India 75-110
Pakistan 65-110
Those are some wacky statistics there. Can you provide a link? Any collection of nuclear statistics that leaves off Israel's large arsenal (third to fifth largest in the world, depending on which estimates you look at) is rather messed up. Also, it's important to know how many are mated to long-range delivery systems. For example, of China's nuclear fo
Re: We've got [some of] the bombs (Score:2)
Neither does China, for example, but they're on your list due to estimates. There's more information out there about Israel's nuclear program than China's (thanks in part to Mordechai Vanunu, who is fascinating to read about, by the way, but not exclusively due to him). Israel is actually top of the line on uranium isotope separation -- they did a lot of pioneering work on large scale LIS (Laser Isotope Separation), while we in the US are so backwards that
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unequal (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey! (Score:2)
Re:Hey! (Score:2)
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
However, at least one of the positive aspects of competition is that you don't get stuck in a rut with working on a single
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Calling Mr. Smith, Calling Adam Smith, STAT! (Score:2)
You're the smartest kid in the class. Your project is 75% done.
The other kids, not from perhaps as nice a home as yours, without your rich parents and ample access to resources, are only 10-50% done.
What possible motivation could you have for handing your project materials over to the others, to help them get theirs done? Note: before you answer, please remember that as far as I know, nobody (no landlords, grocers, car dealers, universities, doctors, etc) let you pay for anyt
Re:Calling Mr. Smith, Calling Adam Smith, STAT! (Score:2)
Since you disagree (strongly), you're saying that you've been one of the top students, finishing a project first, and have actually handed your project materials over to the others, to help them get theirs done? This is to the detriment of your own project, taking resources, if not your actual project, and giving it away. THEN you have to start over, or re-make much of your project (perhaps gathering new resources, etc).
I've been in a position to help other students and have
Competition generates solutions (Score:2)
NASA has a full plate (Score:2)
NASA is fully preoccupied with finishing the space station for our international partners and developing the CEV and new lunar landing infrastructure. NASP, X-33, Boeing's Supersonic Airliner.. There will be no major expendatures on yet another pie in the sky aerospaceplane. The justification is pretty weak - Tokyo to L.A. It sounds more like a bumbling attempt to grab technology from the US.
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:3, Funny)
Unless they're 'axis of evil' countires - in which case they'll be thinking in terms of 'us' and 'US'
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
There are a few good reasons NOT to share technology, the best one being competitive advantage. In this particular case, the US is the people who paid for the research, and the THEM is those who did not pay for the research. As a U.S. taxpayer, I prefer that technology developed with U.S. tax dollars is NOT shared in a way that would give non-U.S. firms a competitive advantage over U.S. firms, (possibly causing a loss of U
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
If you are unwilling or unable to play in the global sandbox, fine. You are welcome to take your ball and go home. It's a good thing that NASA doesn't take your stance. Otherwise, there'd be a large number of pieces missing from your space shuttles. Like the Ballard p
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
I'm not suggesting that the rest of the world can't compete in an area that US companies are unwilling to compete in. What I am suggesting is that the US government shouldn't help foreign companies to compete against US companies unless there is something in it for t
Re:Cooporation is the way of the future. (Score:2)
Re:No arms race if everyone wins (Score:2)
I called for greater international coorporation (in a non-military context even). Nothing more, nothing less.
You're entire reactionary, pro-military, knee-jerk rant was irrelevant - but I have to reply to a couple of points.
Our military has a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for wasted expenditures, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what the
Re:I see (Score:2)
Please either reread my comment - particularly the line rely on good relations for defense. or understand a little history - particularly the sort of relations Kuwait had with its neighbours in 1990.
Personally, I tend to like the swiss model. Have good relations with everybody and have a good mliitary.
Swiss are completely different - they're a neutral country (not even a part of the UN) and hard to compare. As for a 'good military'...well it aint so expen
Re:I see (Score:2)
Re:No arms race if everyone wins (Score:2)
Mod up, not down, and if you don't know the reference, pass it by. Sheesh. Your mod points could be put to better use modding up an insightful post someplace.
Re:It was a freaking joke (Score:2)
Re:It was a freaking joke (Score:2)
What happened to sub-orbital? (Score:2, Interesting)
Further, considering the resources required to maintain the concorde, which is reportedly the norm for such high performance aircraft, I see no reason why it wouldn't be more cost effective to move forward with the concept.
Granted the maintainance would need to be even more intensive and exacting, b
Re:What happened to sub-orbital? (Score:2)
It is worth noting that a long semiballistic trajectory (say half way around the Earth) requires almost as much energy as achieving orbit. Then you have similar thermal protection issues to deal with.
You could do it with a space shuttle but its not going to be much safer.
Re:What happened to sub-orbital? (Score:2)
If you can do orbital velocity for $3000 (Score:3, Informative)
LEO time to orbit is about 90 minutes, so that is 45 minutes to make it halfway around the world (or to just about anywhere from anywhere if you think about it). In order to make a suborbital hop "on the order of 30 minutes" you'd have to do orbital velocity...
Stling of gritches? (Score:2, Funny)
Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:1)
-
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:2)
It appears the single largest cause for the failure of the Concorde was bad management, not bad design.
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:3, Interesting)
Aviation has moved on considerably since Concorde was designed in the 1960s, and muc
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:1)
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:2, Interesting)
EXCERT
"The airline said that its decision had been made for commercial reasons with passenger revenue falling steadily against a backdrop of rising maintenance costs for the aircraft.
Detailed discussions over an extended period with Airbus, the aircraft's manufacturer, confirmed the need for an enhanced maintenance programme in the coming years, the carrier added.
British Airways has decided that such an investment cannot be justified in the face of fal
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:3, Informative)
British Airways made over GBP1bn from Concorde, Air France made a loss. AF wanted out but the agreement with BA said neither side could unilaterally stop flying concordes and BA were making money so...
Concorde's airworthiness certificates were owned by Airbus via aquisitions over the years and Airbus under pressure from AF withdrew the airworthiness certificate thus grounding the lot. To guarantee it stayed that way and couldn't be reversed, all the spare parts were sold off
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:2)
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:2)
What'd make the Japanese hope the NASA design would lead to a cheaper product?
Five reasons already for my question, and ALL DIFFERENT! Really mysterious, it appears.
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:2)
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it didn't [concordesst.com]. The afterburners were only used on takeoff, and during the accelleration from Mach 1 to about 1.7. For the second part, afterburning wasn't strictly necessary, but turned out to be more efficient than accelleration on dry thrust.
Can't find good data on required runway length, but Concorde typically took off at 400 km/h, which is rather high. Accelleration from dry thrust may not have been enough to achieve 400 km/h on a typical runway.
IOW, people who refer to the F-22's supercruise ability as something new or unique, are wrong. Concorde could do this. (So could the English Electric P.1, prototype for the EE Lightning, by the way [thunder-an...ings.co.uk]).
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:2)
So could the F-14D and the later versions of the F-15.
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:2)
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:2)
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:2)
The fact remains that the P1, and IIRC at least some production Lightnings (F.2A?) could reach Mach 1+ without afterburners.
Re:Before re-inventing the wheel... (Score:2)
I find that hard to believe. In the EE P.1, this ability might have been accidental, but by the time Concorde was designed, the physics involved were understood well enough that it was possible to design for supercruise.
Had Concorde been unable to supercruise, its range would have been halved (4 hours at Mach 2 instead of 8).
Likewise, Concorde's Mach 2.04 cruise speed was no accident: at that speed
Seems like a bad business decision (Score:2, Insightful)
We've had this discussion before (Score:5, Informative)
To sum up, the rationale for the Japanese to work on a supersonic transport is based on three assumptions:
1. The scramjet engine will reduce operating (read: fuel) costs per average passenger mile significantly below that of the Concorde (by supporting a larger plane and being more fuel-efficient at cruise),
2. The plane will be capable of nonstop trans-Pacific flight (an ability also largely due to the fuel-efficiency of the scramjet), and
3. The much longer trans-Pacific flights in which the Japanese are interested will more dramatically show the time-of-arrival advantage of the supersonic plane than the shorter trans-Atlantic flights of the Concorde, and make it more appealing to seat-weary passengers.
I suppose there is also a fourth assumption, that cheap, fast, trans-Pacific travel would greatly improve the national economy of Japan in general and the Japanese aircraft industry in particular. This is the reason the Japanese government is expressing interest.
Whether these assumptions turn out to be factual or not requires research, which the Japanese are now doing.
I now return you to your previously-scheduled discussion, already in progress.
Re:Seems like a bad business decision (Score:2)
By your thinking, then we should not even be flying. Look, we use to be on the piston engines. In fact, a great economical aircraft was the DC-7. A piston engine that flew at 300 MPH. But it was maxed out. When the 707 came out, it overtook quickly, even though initially it cost more to own and to fly. But once the jet era took off, then research invented the turbofan and then the low cos
Re:Seems like a bad business decision (Score:2)
I don't know what it would cost, but some of it will be offset since they won't need two full flight and cabin crews, they won't need to carry three meals and snacks.
Just wish I had the money to take it, I'm sure I'll a
Why NASA? (Score:3, Interesting)
Haven't the British and French teams who designed and built Concorde got the best experience?
Re:Why NASA? (Score:1)
Re:Why NASA? (Score:2)
Only one company has designed, built and tested a non-military supersonic plane since Concorde and Tu-144. It is Sukhoi for Gulfstream. SUKHOI-GULFSTREAM S-21. http://www.x-plane.org/home/spiff000/S21/S21specs . html [x-plane.org]
It is not completely clear what Lokheed Martin will do with the patents for the low sonic boom hypersonics and they are rumoured to have a Skunkworks project on it. Noone has seen it yet so the jury is still out on that one.
It is a
Re:Why NASA? (Score:2)
has anyone heard it???
I'll get my coat...
Re:Why NASA? (Score:2)
But ironically, in any case the engineers decided (probably very wisely) that going faster than mach ~2.02 causes problems with the airframe, and in particular the nose cone... guess what problems the Japanese are having with their mach mucho vehicle?
Specifically, the engineers decided to make it easy for themselves and use aluminium for constructing Concorde, and got a working vehicle; whilst spending less than the American companies, who tried to go
linear aerospike (Score:1)
It'll never fly (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It'll never fly (Score:2)
Rob.
Re:It'll never fly (Score:5, Interesting)
First class is roughly two times more expensive than economy class. This one charging ten times the economy class will still produce enough demand to fill all seats.
> The sonic boom prevents any overflight of populated areas and even if significant noise reduction could be achieved the very small constituency for such a service would still see any residual boom noise used as an excuse by the general (and envious) public to restrict or outright ban such overflight
Most of the route over ocean, no problem. The part over populated land can be either performed at altitudes where the residual boom (after active silencing, tech already present in fighter planes) reaching the ground will be unaudible - or travel at subsonic speeds over the land.
> Exhaust emissions at 20km altitude (roughly double 10km of commercial jets) are of far greater environmental concern due to lower mixing rates with lower atmosphere
So there will be just a few such planes. With prices this high there won't be all that much demand anyway... and with enough lobbying environment impact will just get forgotten. Not that I want it, it's just a realistic look at what happens.
> Add to this the high costs of development,
Government-funded, NASA plus JSA, come on...
> relatively restricted range
Half the Earth. Do you need more?
>and limited routes
Only routes where it would make sense. Really no need to fly supersonic from New York to Washington DC. It's not meant to replace current planes, it's just to fill a small niche where there's small but constant demand and no supply.
> and you have a total non-starter.
You have some not all that hard obstacles, no showstoppers.
Re:It'll never fly (Score:2)
The sonic boom is a redherring thrown by the US airline industry when they lost the SST race. There are many cities in the US where sonic booms are (or used to be) routine. Tucson, Seattle, and anyother city wit
Re:It'll never fly (Score:2)
Nope. Simply no complains were ever respected by the army
Re:It'll never fly (Score:2)
Um... As far as I know, a source-based active-silencing system will only make things worse. You can actively silence a relatively small space (even the cockpit of a fighter plane is a big space, acoustics-wise), but
Re:It'll never fly (Score:2)
> Um... As far as I know, a source-based active-silencing system will only make things worse. You can actively silence a relatively small space
That's the case for classic noise reduction. This thing is not about responding with equal but opposite force but about distributing the wave over time, so that the front isn't a sharp spike in pressure but a gradual rise. The energy is same or slightly stronger, but by distributing it over time (even miliseconds) you reduce the sudden impact effect.
Worth the Ticket Price (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Worth the Ticket Price (Score:2)
The last time I went from Melbourne to Dublin it took me 30 hours. I don't like it but the business travelers who pay a lot of the running costs of airlines are using email, video conferencing and MS office documents instead of their expensive travel.
Re:Worth the Ticket Price (Score:2)
Re:Worth the Ticket Price (Score:2)
As I understand it, BA had a bunch of meeting rooms you could hire that were "this side" of customs and immigration, allowing a UK (European) visitor to have a meeting in JFK without having to clear customs and hence saving even more time!
There will always be people willing to pay the extra. I paid £40 extra for more legroom the last time I returned from New York, and that would seem like a waste to many. If I could pay maybe a couple of
I wish we had an ultrasonic jet (Score:2)
Re:I wish we had an ultrasonic jet (Score:2)
With a plane that fast... (Score:2, Funny)
Of course you can only fly out of each airport once before you have to repaint the plane to disguise it! Eventually all that extra paint will slow down the plane... hmmm maybe you are right. Oh! I know - don't use paint! They can change colors with sharpies!
Tokyo to NY in 3 Hours (Score:2)
Should taxpayers have to fund NASA supersonic jet projects that they will never fly on?
Then again, the money is better spent here than say some new WMD.
Correction:Tokyo to LA in 3 Hours (Score:2)
Re:Tokyo to NY in 3 Hours (Score:2)
But why would they except for the fact that they said the did it? Most likely, people will spend that money on a vacation that last 3+ days and not 3 hours.
Is this fesable? (Score:2)
How do they intend to get the thing started? Can scramjets work at slower speeds with more development? Will they strap a load of booster rockets on the back?
What about Unobtainium? (Score:2)
I don't get it (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be cheaper for them to open up a few shooting ranges domestically for vacationers to go to, or do they also want to be able to practice their English on the locals while playing Dirty Harry?
A cover-up for weapon research (Score:2)
Re:A cover-up for weapon research (Score:2)
It's more rational than the largest aircraft carrier in the US Navy trying to develop its own weapons program. At the very least they'd amendmend their constitution first before trying to break into a defense market that's so completely dominated by American and European companies.
"The military spending of Japanese government is second in the world
Re:Artist's Rendition of the Japanese Supersonic J (Score:1)
I read that link......and...I'm...lost for words. Maybe I'm not so much of a geek as I thought I was?
Re:Artist's Rendition of the Japanese Supersonic J (Score:3, Interesting)
Just an artist's rendition? How about a video of the prototype taking off [www.jaxa.jp] instead?
Re:Is there a market for this ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The regulations regarding supersonic flight over populated areas weren't concorde specific. Breaking the speed of sound over land will ge
A380 and comfort in the same sentence? (Score:2)
What's going to happen with the A380 is the same thing that always happens with new passenger jets: it'll be shown and sold with "generous legroom, fully-reclining seats, and a lounge" and in a year or two the airlines will have "increased their efficiency" by adding sixteen rows of seats, reducing the leg room to 12" per row and replacing the "lounge" with more first-class seats.
Riding the A380 is going to be like riding the train in India, you'll just get to your destination faster.