APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Comments and questions about the APOD on the main view screen.
User avatar
APOD Robot
Otto Posterman
Posts: 2964
Joined: Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:27 am

APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby APOD Robot » Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:09 am

Image Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine

Explanation: What will passenger airplanes be like in the future? To help brainstorm desirable and workable attributes, NASA sponsors design competitions. Shown here is an artist's depiction of a concept plane that was suggested in 2010. This futuristic plane would be expected to achieve supersonic speeds, possibly surpassing the speeds of the supersonic transport planes that ran commercially in the late twentieth century. In terms of noise reduction, the future aircraft has been drawn featuring an inverted V wing stretched over its engines. The structure is intended to reduce the sound from annoying sonic booms. Additionally, future airplanes would aim to have relatively little impact on our environment, including green limits on pollution and fuel consumption. Aircraft utilizing similar design concepts might well become operational by the 2030s.

<< Previous APOD This Day in APOD Next APOD >>

JerryB

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby JerryB » Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:49 am

Why are we so worried about sonic booms from aircraft, since we experience several "sonic booms" during a thunderstorm? Or is it because that is what we expect? I have been close to a lightning strike, and pretty much all I heard was a loud snap...as would happen with a spark plug. However, as you would know, the echo from the clouds of the "strike", is what most people hear, and at times can become house rattling. Would a large aircraft create a louder sonic boom than a "regular" lightning strike? The sonic boom from the Russian asteroid a few years back, was quite significant, when it shattered windows and the like.

ta152h0
Schooled
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Auburn, Washington, USA

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby ta152h0 » Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:47 am

glad to know there are modern day prof Sanger around and active
Wolf Kotenberg

User avatar
geckzilla
Ocular Digitator
Posts: 8601
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
Location: Modesto, CA

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby geckzilla » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:09 pm

JerryB wrote:Why are we so worried about sonic booms from aircraft, since we experience several "sonic booms" during a thunderstorm? Or is it because that is what we expect? I have been close to a lightning strike, and pretty much all I heard was a loud snap...as would happen with a spark plug. However, as you would know, the echo from the clouds of the "strike", is what most people hear, and at times can become house rattling. Would a large aircraft create a louder sonic boom than a "regular" lightning strike? The sonic boom from the Russian asteroid a few years back, was quite significant, when it shattered windows and the like.

You... haven't ever lived next to an airport, have you?
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.

Jim Leff
Science Officer
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:00 pm

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby Jim Leff » Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:56 pm

I guess no windows because they'll be projecting or otherwise portraying the outside views. Maybe this is naïve and Luddite-ish of me, but I think directly-perceived reality (i.e. windows) will always feel distinct.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13186
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby Chris Peterson » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:44 pm

Jim Leff wrote:I guess no windows because they'll be projecting or otherwise portraying the outside views. Maybe this is naïve and Luddite-ish of me, but I think directly-perceived reality (i.e. windows) will always feel distinct.

Lockheed is actually testing a supersonic plane right now in collaboration with NASA, and it doesn't look like this one from a few years back. It's just a concept, which is unlikely to ever be adopted, and I'll bet the reason there are no windows is because the design at that point was all about the structure, not any details about the interior. So it was rendered without windows. No way is any plane in actual use going to lack windows... especially cockpit windows!
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

MDB

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby MDB » Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:46 pm

Cool air and or space plane! In flight lift overcomes gravity and thrust overcomes drag. Why would you want a wing producing lift placed at an angle to the vector needed to overcome gravity? Wouldn't that be like placing your engines to thrust at an angle to the direction you want to go? Just curious.
Mike

User avatar
Case
Commander
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:08 pm
Location: (52°N, 06°E)

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby Case » Sun Oct 01, 2017 4:17 pm

Will movies with (sci-fi) space accidents be banned from in-flight entertainment on such planes?

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13186
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby Chris Peterson » Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:12 pm

MDB wrote:Cool air and or space plane! In flight lift overcomes gravity and thrust overcomes drag. Why would you want a wing producing lift placed at an angle to the vector needed to overcome gravity? Wouldn't that be like placing your engines to thrust at an angle to the direction you want to go?

Are you talking about the "v" wing? It's not clear that its primary function is to produce lift.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

MDB

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby MDB » Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:20 pm

Yes, I was referring to the v wing. If it's not a vertical launch vehicle like a rocket would't the wing have to be a primary lift component? Thank you.
Mike

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13186
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby Chris Peterson » Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:31 pm

MDB wrote:Yes, I was referring to the v wing. If it's not a vertical launch vehicle like a rocket would't the wing have to be a primary lift component? Thank you.

It sounds to me like the primary purpose of that wing is to modify the aerodynamics in a way that reduces the intensity or direction of the shockwave (not that it can't also be a source of lift). I think the conventional swept wings are the primary source of lift, and to a lesser degree the canards.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Catalina

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby Catalina » Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:39 pm

How serious of a concept design is this? It seems to me that stress levels placed on the engines by the attached "V wing" would render that design implausible. The perspective for the entire left swept wing and the left side of the "V wing" seems way off to me, as well, both appearing to be much too short on the side closest to the viewer.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13186
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby Chris Peterson » Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:52 pm

Catalina wrote:How serious of a concept design is this? It seems to me that stress levels placed on the engines by the attached "V wing" would render that design implausible. The perspective for the entire left swept wing and the left side of the "V wing" seems way off to me, as well, both appearing to be much too short on the side closest to the viewer.

Considering that the design looks nothing at all like what Lockheed is actually building with NASA, I'd say, "not too serious".
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 14280
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby neufer » Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:36 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
MDB wrote:
Yes, I was referring to the v wing. If it's not a vertical launch vehicle like a rocket wouldn't the wing have to be a primary lift component? Thank you.

It sounds to me like the primary purpose of that wing is to modify the aerodynamics in a way that reduces the intensity or direction of the shockwave (not that it can't also be a source of lift). I think the conventional swept wings are the primary source of lift, and to a lesser degree the canards.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?all ... rch=canard wrote:
canard (n.) "absurd or fabricated story intended as an imposition," 1851, perhaps 1843, from French canard "a hoax," literally "a duck" (from Old French quanart, probably echoic of a duck's quack); said by Littré to be from the phrase vendre un canard à moitié "to half-sell a duck," thus, perhaps from some long-forgotten joke, "to cheat." But also compare quack (n.1).

quack (n.1) "medical charlatan," 1630s, short for quacksalver (1570s), from obsolete Dutch quacksalver (modern kwakzalver), literally "hawker of salve," from Middle Dutch quacken "to brag, boast," literally "to croak" + salf "salve," salven "to rub with ointment." As an adjective from 1650s. The oldest attested form of the word in this sense in English is as a verb, "to play the quack" (1620s). The Dutch word also is the source of German Quacksalber, Danish kvaksalver, Swedish kvacksalvare.
Art Neuendorffer

zzwerzy
Asternaut
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:56 pm

What's up with...

Postby zzwerzy » Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:49 pm

...the skunk? (logo on inverted V wing)

Jim Leff
Science Officer
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:00 pm

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby Jim Leff » Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:50 pm

Chris, i'm not going to be able to come up with a reference, but I've read multiple articles on next wave flight designs not including windows for efficiency/aerodynamics/cost reasons. They're counting on advanced presentation methods to simulate views and prevent claustrophobia. I can't say for sure that's what's going on with this design, but that is the trend.

Re: cockpit windows, I'm not sure, but may be same.

User avatar
Chris Peterson
Abominable Snowman
Posts: 13186
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby Chris Peterson » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:37 pm

Jim Leff wrote:Chris, i'm not going to be able to come up with a reference, but I've read multiple articles on next wave flight designs not including windows for efficiency/aerodynamics/cost reasons. They're counting on advanced presentation methods to simulate views and prevent claustrophobia. I can't say for sure that's what's going on with this design, but that is the trend.

Re: cockpit windows, I'm not sure, but may be same.

I have no doubt at all that people discuss these things and imagine them as plausible future solutions. And I also have little doubt that we're not too likely to see them implemented any time soon. Of course, I doubt we'll see supersonic transports implemented, either, unless it's in some very narrow niche market.
Chris

*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Steve Dutch

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby Steve Dutch » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:49 pm

Unless the price is comparable to present economy, it won't fly. The Concorde was supposed to make supersonic travel routine but the cost never became competitive.

De58te
Ensign
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:35 pm

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby De58te » Mon Oct 02, 2017 12:36 am

"Concept plane suggested in 2010"? Take a look at The Thunderbirds ( circa 1966) Fireflash supersonic jet. http:// thunderbirds.wikia.com/wiki/Fireflash Notice any similarities?

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 14280
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

Re: What's up with...

Postby neufer » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:36 am

zzwerzy wrote:...the skunk? (logo on inverted V wing)
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/aerona ... rigin.html wrote:
Skunk Works® Origin Story

<<In 1943, the U.S. Army’s Air Tactical Service Command (ATSC) met with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation to express its dire need for a jet fighter to counter a rapidly growing German jet threat.

One month later, a young engineer by the name of Clarence "Kelly" L. Johnson and his team of young engineers hand delivered the XP-80 Shooting Star jet fighter proposal to the ATSC. Quickly the go-ahead was given for Lockheed to start development on the United States' first jet fighter effort. It was June of 1943 and this project marked the birth of what would become the Skunk Works® with Kelly Johnson at its helm.

The formal contract for the XP-80 did not arrive at Lockheed until October 16, 1943; four months after work had already begun. This would prove to be a common practice within the Skunk Works. Many times a customer would come to the Skunk Works with a request, and on a handshake the project would begin, no contracts in place, no official submittal process.

Kelly Johnson and his team designed and built the XP-80 in only 143 days, seven less than was required.

What allowed Kelly to operate the Skunk Works so effectively and efficiently was his unconventional organizational approach. He broke the rules, challenging the current bureaucratic system that stifled innovation and hindered progress. His philosophy is spelled out in his "14 rules and practices."


How the Skunk Works® Got Its Name

It was the wartime year of 1943 when Kelly Johnson brought together a hand-picked team of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation engineers and manufacturing people to rapidly and secretly complete the XP-80 project. Because the war effort was in full swing there was no space available at the Lockheed facility for Johnson’s effort. Consequently, Johnson's organization operated out of a rented circus tent next to a manufacturing plant that produced a strong odor, which permeated the tent.

Each member of Johnson’s team was cautioned that design and production of the new XP-80 must be carried out in strict secrecy. No one was to discuss the project outside the small organization, and team members were even warned to be careful how they answered the phones.

A team engineer named Irv Culver was a fan of Al Capp's newspaper comic strip, "Li'l Abner," in which there was a running joke about a mysterious and malodorous place deep in the forest called the "Skonk Works." There, a strong beverage was brewed from skunks, old shoes and other strange ingredients.

One day, Culver's phone rang and he answered it by saying "Skonk Works, inside man Culver speaking." Fellow employees quickly adopted the name for their mysterious division of Lockheed. "Skonk Works" became "Skunk Works."

The once informal nickname is now the registered trademark of the company: Skunk Works®.>>
Art Neuendorffer

User avatar
neufer
Vacationer at Tralfamadore
Posts: 14280
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:57 pm
Location: Alexandria, Virginia

A Series of Unfortunate Events

Postby neufer » Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:50 am

Steve Dutch wrote:
The Concorde was supposed to make supersonic travel routine but the cost never became competitive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde wrote:
<<Aérospatiale/BAC Concorde is a British-French turbojet-powered supersonic passenger jet airliner that was operated until 2003. It had a maximum speed over twice the speed of sound at Mach 2.04, with seating for 92 to 128 passengers. First flown in 1969, Concorde entered service in 1976 and continued flying for the next 27 years.

On 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590 crashed in Gonesse, France after departing from Paris-Charles de Gaulle en route to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, killing all 100 passengers and 9 crew members on board the flight, and 4 people on the ground. It was the only fatal accident involving Concorde. The crash was caused by a metallic strip that fell from a Continental Airlines DC-10 that had taken off minutes earlier. This fragment punctured a tyre on Concorde's left main wheel bogie during take-off. The tyre exploded, and a piece of rubber hit the fuel tank, which caused a fuel leak and led to a fire. The aircraft entered a rapid pitch-up then a violent descent, rolling left and crashing tail-low into the Hôtelissimo Les Relais Bleus Hotel in Gonesse. Prior to the accident, Concorde had been arguably the safest operational passenger airliner in the world in passenger deaths-per-kilometres travelled with zero, but there had been two prior non-fatal accidents and a rate of tyre damage some 30 times higher than subsonic airliners from 1995 to 2000.

On 10 April 2003, Air France and British Airways simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year. They cited low passenger numbers following 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following the September 11 attacks, and rising maintenance costs. Although Concorde was technologically advanced when introduced in the 1970s, 30 years later, its analogue cockpit was outdated. There had been little commercial pressure to upgrade Concorde due to a lack of competing aircraft, unlike other airliners of the same era such as the Boeing 747.

It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of Concorde that the airlines could make more profit carrying first-class passengers subsonically.>>
Art Neuendorffer

ta152h0
Schooled
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Auburn, Washington, USA

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby ta152h0 » Mon Oct 02, 2017 4:10 pm

I know where " The Incredibles " got their name at The Boeing Company It started in a marshland near Everett, Washington and became the 747 factory ....
Wolf Kotenberg

zzwerzy
Asternaut
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:56 pm

What's up with...

Postby zzwerzy » Mon Oct 02, 2017 6:46 pm

Thanks, Art! Great backgrounder.

starstrukk

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby starstrukk » Tue Oct 03, 2017 6:50 am

employing propulsion technology derived from extraterestrial alien handouts would be a lot greener

and

cassini space probe should have been recovered and returned to the earth for recycling

or

held in saturn orbit until such recovery would have been made possible

-

that was more than two tons of precious metal of earth origin lost to the saturn void forever

-

any space exploration program which relies on use and throw away of hardware is non sense

not science

_

ta152h0
Schooled
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 12:46 am
Location: Auburn, Washington, USA

Re: APOD: Concept Plane: Supersonic Green Machine (2017 Oct 01)

Postby ta152h0 » Tue Oct 03, 2017 9:55 am

and when Congress finds out algae has oil, only tie will tell. Complications, nothing but annoying complications.Remember when pres Kennedy got " riled up " when PanAm was going to ink a contract with the Concorde manufacturer ?
Wolf Kotenberg


Return to “The Bridge: Discuss an Astronomy Picture of the Day”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], CommonCrawl [Bot] and 3 guests