On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:41:17 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>THIS is the answer to the magnificent now-gone Concord? The Concord could carry passengers. The Concord was MUCH faster. This is just an experimental aircraft.
>
>https://techxplore.com/news/2024-01-nasa-lockheed-martin-reveal-quiet.html

But the Concord design is unusable technology at any practical scale.
You apparently don't understand the concept of "experimental" and its
role in developing new technology.

On 20/01/2024 15:51, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:41:17 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3128@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> THIS is the answer to the magnificent now-gone Concord? The Concord could carry passengers. The Concord was MUCH faster. This is just an experimental aircraft.
>>
>> https://techxplore.com/news/2024-01-nasa-lockheed-martin-reveal-quiet.html
>
> But the Concord design is unusable technology at any practical scale.

The Concorde design was in regular commercial service for a considerable
period of time. It was very noisy, expensive to run and had dirty
engines but it worked very well for its time and could maintain
sustained Mach 2 flight for longer than most military aircraft. It was
quite deafening at take-off on full afterburners.

It was also pretty funny when they aborted a landing and went from glide
path descent to go round again using full afterburners and setting off
every car alarm in all the airport carparks as a result.

It was killed off because some US cowboys had used a titanium strip for
a bodged engine cowl repair on another aircraft and it destroyed their
tyres and ruptured a wing tank on take off. Concorde never recovered
from that (even though it was in no way their fault). Any other airliner
striking a titanium runway hazard would be in just as much trouble.

https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/10r62b0/the_17inch_titanium_strip_that_caused_the_crash/

NO other commercial supersonic airliner ever even entered service.
Russian Conkordski famously fell out of the sky at the Paris air show
because they hadn't stolen a sufficiently complete set of plans.

SR71 was the closest that the US came and that leaked aviation fuel like
a sieve until it was in flight and properly warmed up.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-the-sr-71-blackbird-airframe-was-designed-to-leak-fuel/

Boeing made the 747 instead which proved to be a very wise choice.

> You apparently don't understand the concept of "experimental" and its
> role in developing new technology.

Making a quiet supersonic passenger plane strikes me as rather unlikely.
Once you engage afterburners to get the ultimate acceleration it is
never going to be quiet.

It looks to me like this prototypes claimed quietness comes from having
next to no volume to carry passengers in and an incredibly sharp long
nose intended to disperse most of the shockwave upwards.

Laws of physics mean that once you are travelling faster than the speed
of sound you must leave behind an expanding conical shock wave. You can
only control how much goes downwards and its duration.

Destructive supersonic shockwaves in the UK are short duration from
fighter aircraft going off to make an interception. It only happens in
rural places where the interceptors are based (like where I live).
And very infrequently - once or twice a year.

--
Martin Brown

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 14:25:55 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20/01/2024 15:51, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:41:17 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3128@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> THIS is the answer to the magnificent now-gone Concord? The Concord could carry passengers. The Concord was MUCH faster. This is just an experimental aircraft.
>>>
>>> https://techxplore.com/news/2024-01-nasa-lockheed-martin-reveal-quiet.html
>>
>> But the Concord design is unusable technology at any practical scale.
>
>The Concorde design was in regular commercial service for a considerable
>period of time. It was very noisy, expensive to run and had dirty
>engines but it worked very well for its time and could maintain
>sustained Mach 2 flight for longer than most military aircraft. It was
>quite deafening at take-off on full afterburners.
>
>It was also pretty funny when they aborted a landing and went from glide
>path descent to go round again using full afterburners and setting off
>every car alarm in all the airport carparks as a result.
>
>It was killed off because some US cowboys had used a titanium strip for
>a bodged engine cowl repair on another aircraft and it destroyed their
>tyres and ruptured a wing tank on take off. Concorde never recovered
>from that (even though it was in no way their fault). Any other airliner
>striking a titanium runway hazard would be in just as much trouble.
>
>https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/10r62b0/the_17inch_titanium_strip_that_caused_the_crash/
>
>NO other commercial supersonic airliner ever even entered service.
>Russian Conkordski famously fell out of the sky at the Paris air show
>because they hadn't stolen a sufficiently complete set of plans.
>
>SR71 was the closest that the US came and that leaked aviation fuel like
>a sieve until it was in flight and properly warmed up.
>
>https://theaviationgeekclub.com/heres-why-the-sr-71-blackbird-airframe-was-designed-to-leak-fuel/
>
>Boeing made the 747 instead which proved to be a very wise choice.
>
>> You apparently don't understand the concept of "experimental" and its
>> role in developing new technology.
>
>Making a quiet supersonic passenger plane strikes me as rather unlikely.
>Once you engage afterburners to get the ultimate acceleration it is
>never going to be quiet.
>
>It looks to me like this prototypes claimed quietness comes from having
>next to no volume to carry passengers in and an incredibly sharp long
>nose intended to disperse most of the shockwave upwards.
>
>Laws of physics mean that once you are travelling faster than the speed
>of sound you must leave behind an expanding conical shock wave. You can
>only control how much goes downwards and its duration.
>
>Destructive supersonic shockwaves in the UK are short duration from
>fighter aircraft going off to make an interception. It only happens in
>rural places where the interceptors are based (like where I live).
>And very infrequently - once or twice a year.

I just don't see much of a market. Airplanes are going to be
electrified over the next few decades. Business travel will be
dramatically reduced by augmented reality technology. And it's easy to
imagine a lot of tourist travel shifting to dirigibles, replacing
speed with the luxury of a cruise.

On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:58:28 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> I just don't see much of a market. Airplanes are going to be
> electrified over the next few decades.

I am aware that some experimental electrical aircraft have actually
left the ground. I'm not terribly optimistic about the rapid progress
of this technology, but I have to admit that it probably will eventually
be achieved faster than I'm inclined to expect.

However, there are other solutions. Biofuel is one way to use
liquid fuels in a carbon-neutral manner. While ethanol may beat
putting high-fructose corn syrup in people's bodies, fuel production
ought not to compete with food production. However, Robert Zubrin,
author of A Case for Mars, pointed out that using methyl alcohol
instead would allow the use of sawdust, grass clippings, and leaves
to make fuel, genuinely using waste instead of food.

> Business travel will be
> dramatically reduced by augmented reality technology.

At least this is dependent on computer electronics which,
despite the tapering off of Moore's Law, still is making
rapid progress. I am not, however, inclined to be wildly
optimistic about people changing the way they do things.

> And it's easy to
> imagine a lot of tourist travel shifting to dirigibles, replacing
> speed with the luxury of a cruise.

Yes, dirigibles are a very good idea for tourist travel and for
freight transport by air as well.

I tend to think of air travel as being dominated by business
travel, though. Aside from the use of methanol as fuel, which
is a very simple measure, another form of high-speed transport
which does not have to spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
is high-speed rail.

While I can imagine a business trip to Europe consisting of
three legs - a high-speed rail trip to northern Quebec, followed
by a dirigible flight to Brittany, and then a high-speed rail
trip to one's destination... at least if the world got genuinely
serious about reducing carbon-dioxide emissions... I have to
admit that this is likely more wildly optimistic than expecting
electric airplanes to be suitable for flying across the Atlantic.

When they're the size of jetliners, that is. Of course a two-person
airplane with a wide wingspan that could even cross the Pacific,
with its batteries supplemented by solar power, is perfectly
possible - if, indeed, it hasn't been achieved already.

Perhaps someday we will even have solar-powered dirigibles!

However, world economic collapse due to global warming being
neglected until it is too late is still not ludicrously impossible.
An even more immediate threat is potential political change in
the United States leading to *all three* of the world's nuclear
superpowers being dictatorships, which, to my mind, seems
likely to plunge humanity into a new dark age.

Some people spoke of moving to Canada if Trump got
elected. In Canada, though, I despair of somehow designing
a contraption in my backyard to fly to Proxima Centauri b,
which, to my mind, seems like a more appropriate choice of
destination to escape the consequences of that event.

John Savard

On 22/01/2024 07:05, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:58:28 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> I just don't see much of a market. Airplanes are going to be
>> electrified over the next few decades.
>
> I am aware that some experimental electrical aircraft have actually
> left the ground. I'm not terribly optimistic about the rapid progress
> of this technology, but I have to admit that it probably will eventually
> be achieved faster than I'm inclined to expect.

I'm inclined to the view that hell will freeze over before electric
passenger planes become a realistic proposition for intercontinental
travel. They might just possibly do some commuter runs though.
>
> However, there are other solutions. Biofuel is one way to use
> liquid fuels in a carbon-neutral manner. While ethanol may beat
> putting high-fructose corn syrup in people's bodies, fuel production
> ought not to compete with food production. However, Robert Zubrin,
> author of A Case for Mars, pointed out that using methyl alcohol
> instead would allow the use of sawdust, grass clippings, and leaves
> to make fuel, genuinely using waste instead of food.

Some bio alcohol mix might work as aviation fuel but it would put air
travel beyond the means of all but the richest people again.

>> Business travel will be
>> dramatically reduced by augmented reality technology.
>
> At least this is dependent on computer electronics which,
> despite the tapering off of Moore's Law, still is making
> rapid progress. I am not, however, inclined to be wildly
> optimistic about people changing the way they do things.

Business travel hasn't ever recovered from the Covid pandemic. You can
do remote PPT presentations over Zoom or (groan) Teams (other platforms
available) without the discomfort of an overnight flight jet lag and
sleep deprivation and most people have got used to doing it. Only for
very serious big meetings do people physically travel on business now.
Who would miss out on the possibility of skiing at Davos for example.

Its a tricky problem for the airlines since there was a lot of money to
be made in that market in the pre-pandemic era.

>> And it's easy to
>> imagine a lot of tourist travel shifting to dirigibles, replacing
>> speed with the luxury of a cruise.
>
> Yes, dirigibles are a very good idea for tourist travel and for
> freight transport by air as well.
>
> I tend to think of air travel as being dominated by business
> travel, though. Aside from the use of methanol as fuel, which
> is a very simple measure, another form of high-speed transport
> which does not have to spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
> is high-speed rail.
>
> While I can imagine a business trip to Europe consisting of
> three legs - a high-speed rail trip to northern Quebec, followed
> by a dirigible flight to Brittany, and then a high-speed rail
> trip to one's destination... at least if the world got genuinely
> serious about reducing carbon-dioxide emissions... I have to
> admit that this is likely more wildly optimistic than expecting
> electric airplanes to be suitable for flying across the Atlantic.
>
> When they're the size of jetliners, that is. Of course a two-person
> airplane with a wide wingspan that could even cross the Pacific,
> with its batteries supplemented by solar power, is perfectly
> possible - if, indeed, it hasn't been achieved already.
>
> Perhaps someday we will even have solar-powered dirigibles!

They would likely have the surface area to augment their batteries that
way. It depends a bit how thin and lightweight solar panels become.

> However, world economic collapse due to global warming being
> neglected until it is too late is still not ludicrously impossible.
> An even more immediate threat is potential political change in
> the United States leading to *all three* of the world's nuclear
> superpowers being dictatorships, which, to my mind, seems
> likely to plunge humanity into a new dark age.

The hyper rich Silicon valley types are buying up nuclear hardened
bunkers in New Zealand which would likely be the last place affected by
global thermonuclear war (which I agree is looking more rather than less
likely than it has done at any time since the Cuban missile crisis). It
will seriously screw up microchip manufacture if there is a nuclear
airburst (or worse still ground detonation).
>
> Some people spoke of moving to Canada if Trump got
> elected. In Canada, though, I despair of somehow designing
> a contraption in my backyard to fly to Proxima Centauri b,
> which, to my mind, seems like a more appropriate choice of
> destination to escape the consequences of that event.

New Zealand is where its at if you are hyper rich and worried enough.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prepper-bunkers-apocalypse-survival-richest-rushkoff

--
Martin Brown

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 23:05:05 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 8:58:28?AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> I just don't see much of a market. Airplanes are going to be
>> electrified over the next few decades.
>
>I am aware that some experimental electrical aircraft have actually
>left the ground. I'm not terribly optimistic about the rapid progress
>of this technology, but I have to admit that it probably will eventually
>be achieved faster than I'm inclined to expect.
>
>However, there are other solutions. Biofuel is one way to use
>liquid fuels in a carbon-neutral manner. While ethanol may beat
>putting high-fructose corn syrup in people's bodies, fuel production
>ought not to compete with food production. However, Robert Zubrin,
>author of A Case for Mars, pointed out that using methyl alcohol
>instead would allow the use of sawdust, grass clippings, and leaves
>to make fuel, genuinely using waste instead of food.
>
>> Business travel will be
>> dramatically reduced by augmented reality technology.
>
>At least this is dependent on computer electronics which,
>despite the tapering off of Moore's Law, still is making
>rapid progress. I am not, however, inclined to be wildly
>optimistic about people changing the way they do things.
>
>> And it's easy to
>> imagine a lot of tourist travel shifting to dirigibles, replacing
>> speed with the luxury of a cruise.
>
>Yes, dirigibles are a very good idea for tourist travel and for
>freight transport by air as well.
>
>I tend to think of air travel as being dominated by business
>travel, though. Aside from the use of methanol as fuel, which
>is a very simple measure, another form of high-speed transport
>which does not have to spew carbon dioxide into the atmosphere
>is high-speed rail.
>
>While I can imagine a business trip to Europe consisting of
>three legs - a high-speed rail trip to northern Quebec, followed
>by a dirigible flight to Brittany, and then a high-speed rail
>trip to one's destination... at least if the world got genuinely
>serious about reducing carbon-dioxide emissions... I have to
>admit that this is likely more wildly optimistic than expecting
>electric airplanes to be suitable for flying across the Atlantic.
>
>When they're the size of jetliners, that is. Of course a two-person
>airplane with a wide wingspan that could even cross the Pacific,
>with its batteries supplemented by solar power, is perfectly
>possible - if, indeed, it hasn't been achieved already.
>
>Perhaps someday we will even have solar-powered dirigibles!
>
>However, world economic collapse due to global warming being
>neglected until it is too late is still not ludicrously impossible.
>An even more immediate threat is potential political change in
>the United States leading to *all three* of the world's nuclear
>superpowers being dictatorships, which, to my mind, seems
>likely to plunge humanity into a new dark age.
>
>Some people spoke of moving to Canada if Trump got
>elected. In Canada, though, I despair of somehow designing
>a contraption in my backyard to fly to Proxima Centauri b,
>which, to my mind, seems like a more appropriate choice of
>destination to escape the consequences of that event.
>
>John Savard

I think the initial work that has been done with electrifying
airplanes points strongly to this technology becoming dominant in a
matter of a few decades. And as we see fossil carbon taxed, only
synthetic hydrocarbon liquid fuels will be used, and that will bridge
the technologies.

We'll see about business travel. Almost none is currently required; it
exists because of a culture, not an actual need. Economic changes, as
well as virtual meeting tools (which are largely here already) may
change things rapidly.

And yes, this all hinges on the survival of our civilizations in the
form they are currently in, and the risk is very substantial that they
will fail, between the nationalism that is growing around the world
and the collapse of our ecosystems.

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 7:09:25 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:

> New Zealand is where its at if you are hyper rich and worried enough.

As a wealthy, industrialized, English-speaking nation, surely after nuking
the U.S., Canada, the U.K, and Australia, neither Russia nor China would
neglect New Zealand. Unless they planned to occupy it after the war.

Perhaps Tierra del Fuego, in Argentina...

John Savard

On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 9:07:41 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2024 at 7:09:25 AM UTC-7, Martin Brown wrote:
>
> > New Zealand is where its at if you are hyper rich and worried enough.
>
> As a wealthy, industrialized, English-speaking nation, surely after nuking
> the U.S., Canada, the U.K, and Australia, neither Russia nor China would
> neglect New Zealand. Unless they planned to occupy it after the war.
>
> Perhaps Tierra del Fuego, in Argentina...

In attempting to respond directly to the subject matter of your
post, I let one important point slip.

New Zealand or Tierra del Fuego or the Maldive Islands or even
Brazil might make sense if you were trying to escape from a
nuclear war between Russia and the United States.

However, if Donald Trump is re-elected, this would _not_ create
the danger of such a war. I suppose his general incompetence
would aggravate the risks in some ways, but his political
positions are clear: unlike any responsible American leader,
Donald Trump is perfectly willing to throw Ukraine under the
bus.

No. The danger from Donald Trump getting elected is that we would
then live in a world where *all three* nuclear superpowers, China,
Russia, and the United States were dictatorships. In such a world,
there genuinely would be *no* place to hide, no matter how remote,
from the tyranny which would subsequently envelop the world as a
whole.

Possibly the U.K. and France, having their own nuclear capabililties,
might be able to keep their independence, though.

That's why I'm saying that nothing less than Proxima Centauri b
is a genuinely safe place of refuge.

John Savard

On 23/01/2024 02:33, Quadibloc wrote:

> Possibly the U.K. and France, having their own nuclear capabililties,
> might be able to keep their independence, though.

UK's "independent" nuclear deterrent is entirely US Trident based. I'd
be surprised if Uncle Sam couldn't disable it if they really wanted to.

France's force de frappe is still truly independent (as are a few other
somewhat dodgy nuclear states like probably Israel, India and Pakistan).
It wouldn't surprise me if Iran shortly declares itself nuclear capable.

> That's why I'm saying that nothing less than Proxima Centauri b
> is a genuinely safe place of refuge.

The moon would probably do for a little while.
Living there might be a bit tricky though.

--
Martin Brown