Author Topic: Would really fast commercial air travel pave way for commercial space travel?  (Read 12559 times)

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
We where discussing this with a friend of mine and topic is if technology for cheap and really fast commercial air travel like Concord 2 came to be  :P ::) would this pave way for commercial space travel?

But we don't go supersonic because it is very costly and is like a drunken sailor when comes to jet fuel. If these two problems where solved it could pave way for cheaper space travel?

But some people say in past 15 to 20 years airplane engines like the rocket engines have not really changed much. :( :( :(  And most likely will not change in the future because this is mature technology. And we have squeezed as much as we can out of airplane engines and rocket engines. And that it not really going to get better.

Some say scramjets or space plane / rocket combo may be the future. If this is the case planes and rockets may be harder to tell apart in the future. If it like a combo. But some say this technology is really too new and have not mature enough for scramjets and space plane / rocket combo to take of yet.  That we need more time to mature this technology before scramjets or space plane / rocket combo become reality.

That we should not be trying to build scramjets or space plane / rocket combo to the technology mature.



Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Concorde flew at Mach 2, spacecraft need to do about Mach 20. Something like 10 times as fast. Concorde's engines need air so it could not fly in space.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6458
No, not likely, because none of the most-likely technologies to first enable commercial space travel lend themselves to fast commercial air travel.

For example, one of the most promising technologies for near-term commercial space travel is using two-stage reusable rockets that land their stages.  Both Blue Origin and SpaceX are pursuing this technology.  But no part of that is remotely practical for fast commercial air travel.

Of course, it's possible there will be some unexpected breakthrough that first enables high-speed commercial air travel and then later enables commercial space travel.  But it's not likely.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11081
I thought REL  had a proposal called LAPCAT for a high speed SABRE engined airliner at one point (??)

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html

Tend to agree that there's not a lot of overlap at present though.
« Last Edit: 08/12/2016 04:02 am by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6458
I thought REL  had a proposal called LAPCAT for a high speed SABRE engined airliner at one point (??)

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html

Tend to agree that there's not a lot of overlap at present though.

That's true, so if you believe that Skylon is the path to commercial space travel and that a high-speed air system would choose LAPCAT, then fast commercial air could lead to fast commercial space.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39254
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25206
  • Likes Given: 12104
Depends. If we're talking hypersonic, then yes, there's a connection there. Mere low-supersonic? No.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Steam Chaser

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
On the other hand, really slow commercial air travel might pave the way for commercial space travel.  The airline passengers would want to purchase lots of satellite communications bandwidth during their flights so they could download YouTube videos, access Facebook, and read the latest NSF.com posts.  That would result in demand for more satellites and more launches, giving more business to business interested in commercial space travel that are also involved with satellites and/or launches (e.g.: SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic).

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
Depends. If we're talking hypersonic, then yes, there's a connection there. Mere low-supersonic? No.

What do you mean? The reason why we don't have supersonic commercial air travel like Concord 2 is cost and fuel problem. The Concord was like a drunken sailor when comes to jet fuel and cost more than want they got in profit. The tickets for flight was well over $1,000.

If these two problems where solved it could pave way for cheaper space travel?

Or like the poster above said the supersonic commercial air travel would have to go Mach 20 or up? And any Concord Mach 2 to 19 would not spin off to commercial space travel.

I hear there is research and development now into private businesses jets for supersonic travel just not research and development into mainstream commercial air travel like Concord 2.  It is private businesses jets.

But most likely any air travel or military plane will not be Mach 20 or up even if money was not problem.

So I don't know how that would work if requirements for commercial air travel have to be  Mach 20 or up and price of flight under $1,000 for it to pave wave commercial space travel.
« Last Edit: 08/13/2016 12:52 am by nec207 »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Depends. If we're talking hypersonic, then yes, there's a connection there. Mere low-supersonic? No.

What do you mean? The reason why we don't have supersonic commercial air travel like Concord 2 is cost and fuel problem. The Concord was like a drunken sailor when comes to jet fuel and cost more than want they got in profit. The tickets for flight was well over $1,000.

If these two problems where solved it could pave way for cheaper space travel?

Or like the poster above said the supersonic commercial air travel would have to go Mach 20 or up? And any Concord Mach 2 to 19 would not spin off to commercial space travel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_speed : "Since the 1970s, the term has generally been assumed to refer to speeds of Mach 5 and above."

I think what people are saying is that once you get up to 5 times the speed of sound you are pushing technology relevant to spaceflight, even if only first stages.

I also think that anything that had mundane uses for rockets could help push spaceflight. There would be spin-offs im sure.

If someone can find a niche market for suborbital hops, I think that could help push spaceflight. Can they? I dunno. Some people are apparently trying so they must have done some sort of business analysis which will far exceed my opinion. What do we know about their business plan? My understanding is that it is mainly the thrill rather than getting to another location rapidly.

Concorde failed.. are the underlying issues changing? Technology is moving all the time. Right now the rich are getting richer. That is a factor, though not ultimately a healthy one IMO.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2425
  • Likes Given: 13596
Concorde failed.. are the underlying issues changing?
After a 27 year operating life it had a single crash which seemed to be enough of a reason to scrap the fleet.  :(

BTW Concorde made a profit when it's development expenses were written off by the French and British governments instead of them having to be sold at sufficient volume to recover those costs.

That is unusual for a commercial passenger aircraft but has been absolutely standard procedure for all government funded LV's, and I'm not clear if Musk expects F1 or F9 to recover their development costs or if that's just the "price of doing business."
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¨cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2425
  • Likes Given: 13596
We where discussing this with a friend of mine and topic is if technology for cheap and really fast commercial air travel like Concord 2 came to be  :P ::) would this pave way for commercial space travel?
Very doubtful.   :(

The only real market is passenger carriage to turning a passenger aircraft into launch platform is hard work, as Orbital discovered. Turning a first of its kind passenger M5+ aircraft is going to be harder still.

Passenger aircraft spend most of their working lives at cruise speed. At M5 that is like continuous re entry. But LV continuously accelerate. It's a totally different profile and is likely to deliver completely different design decisions.

SCRamjet proponents like to pitch this idea because they want to build a big SCRamjet. Their maths claims you can accelerate nearly to orbit, if you can build a very complex flow geometry that can change in flight.
I thought REL  had a proposal called LAPCAT for a high speed SABRE engined airliner at one point (??)

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html

Tend to agree that there's not a lot of overlap at present though.
LAPCAT was the EU engine development programme. REL's entry was called Scimitar and their design didn't really have a name beyond version A2. The other entry was German and meant to be an AvGaz powered SCramjet, but they could not get it to the destination runway without slashing it's fuel reserve safety margin.  A2 was LH2 powered and gave an estimated range of 20 000 Km, allowing it to skirt all population areas and do Brussels/Sydney/Brussels  in a single working day.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¨cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline llanitedave

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Nevada Desert
  • Liked: 1545
  • Likes Given: 2051
As long as you're spending most of your trip time in airport security lines, a fast transport system isn't going to help that much anyway.
"I've just abducted an alien -- now what?"

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
It seems to be mixed results as some people believe Hypersonic speed may do it and other people not.

And that supersonic will not do it. There will be no spin of from a supersonic speed.

Some people believe LAPCAT or SABRE engine may do it or the LAPCAT or SABRE engine may be test for bettter LAPCAT or SABRE engine in the future that could do it.

Not much info on the LAPCAT or SABRE engine and want people think of it.



Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13463
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 11864
  • Likes Given: 11081
That is unusual for a commercial passenger aircraft but has been absolutely standard procedure for all government funded LV's, and I'm not clear if Musk expects F1 or F9 to recover their development costs or if that's just the "price of doing business."
What makes you think F1 and F9 haven't recovered their development costs already?  Note that is a bit off topic for this thread so... answer somewhere else?
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 864
  • Likes Given: 548
It seems to be mixed results as some people believe Hypersonic speed may do it and other people not.

And that supersonic will not do it. There will be no spin of from a supersonic speed.

Not really.  At the current state of commercially-available technology, travel within the tangible atmosphere at much more than Mach 2 is the realm of fit, healthy and skilled military pilots.  At that point, travel at Hypersonic speed is ruled out entirely.

Put simply, it is currently not commercially feasible and/or far too dangerous for the average Joe to travel much faster than airliners do now.  And it's likely to stay that way for many years to come.  OTOH, there are many issues both technological, environmental and legal operating conventional rocket-powered craft (hypersonic or not) from commercial airports at any speed including standing still and finally, military technology is classified...  :-X

« Last Edit: 08/16/2016 05:38 am by CameronD »
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

Offline Bynaus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Scientist, Curator, Writer, Family man
  • Switzerland
    • Final-Frontier.ch
  • Liked: 424
  • Likes Given: 315
In my view, only if "really fast" means not only supersonic but suborbital point-to-point travel. If there is market for that (and assuming this market is easier to fill in large volume than the orbital market), it is very likely that filling that niche would also help develop the market for commercial space travel, because you basically need the same set of technologies: rocket engines (with the possible addition of sc/ramjets), thermal protection, lightweigth materials, rapid reusability, protection of passengers from decompression / orbital debris / radiation.
More of my thoughts: www.final-frontier.ch (in German)

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2425
  • Likes Given: 13596
That is unusual for a commercial passenger aircraft but has been absolutely standard procedure for all government funded LV's, and I'm not clear if Musk expects F1 or F9 to recover their development costs or if that's just the "price of doing business."
What makes you think F1 and F9 haven't recovered their development costs already?  Note that is a bit off topic for this thread so... answer somewhere else?
I hadn't run the numbers on the NASA CRS contract.

Yes SX probably have recovered all their costs even with the extra work for NASA flights.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¨cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10346
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2425
  • Likes Given: 13596
Not much info on the LAPCAT or SABRE engine and want people think of it.
Apart from the 6 threads devoted to Reaction Engines.

This site has a search facility.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¨cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline nec207

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 2
It seems to be mixed results as some people believe Hypersonic speed may do it and other people not.

And that supersonic will not do it. There will be no spin of from a supersonic speed.

Not really.  At the current state of commercially-available technology, travel within the tangible atmosphere at much more than Mach 2 is the realm of fit, healthy and skilled military pilots.  At that point, travel at Hypersonic speed is ruled out entirely.

Put simply, it is currently not commercially feasible and/or far too dangerous for the average Joe to travel much faster than airliners do now.  And it's likely to stay that way for many years to come.  OTOH, there are many issues both technological, environmental and legal operating conventional rocket-powered craft (hypersonic or not) from commercial airports at any speed including standing still and finally, military technology is classified...  :-X

When you go supersonic it cost more money for plane ticket.

Travel between London and New York, cost the standard £4,350 one-way Concorde ticket returning on World Traveller, and up to £8,292 for a return trip, both ways on Concorde.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-196994/Concorde-tickets-snapped-up.html

The Concorde was more wealthy people, business VP's and not he average person flying.

It was crazy expensive because going supersonic is really expensive even Mach 1 or Mach 2!!!!!!!!!

Now with internet, chat rooms, e-mail, skype and video conferencing there is less demand for business VP's going from city A to city B really fast.

Such Concorde 2 with today's technology going Mach 1 or Mach 2 would be prohibitively expensive for most people that fly from point A to point B.

And I would think that Hypersonic would be even more costly than supersonic.

With out some new engine, fuel, material or some new technology any plane going supersonic or Hypersonic will be prohibitively expensive. Same with any space plane, SSTO or space plane/rocket .

Virgin Galactic spaceship 2 could be city hop of going really fast of almost going into space. Going from LA to Hong Hong really fast but Virgin Galactic spaceship 2 is prohibitively expensive for most people.

If you had plane going supersonic or Hypersonic for under $1,000 plane ticket than space plane, SSTO or space plane/rocket would be much cheaper than today.

Even a Hypersonic plane of $5,000 or $10,000 for ticket would make space plane, SSTO or space plane/rocket really cheap.

 

Offline CameronD

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2369
  • Melbourne, Australia
    • Norton Consultants
  • Liked: 864
  • Likes Given: 548
Cost is irrelevant (and meaningless) if the concept is not technically possible to build.

Virgin Galactic spaceship 2 could be city hop of going really fast of almost going into space. Going from LA to Hong Hong really fast but Virgin Galactic spaceship 2 is prohibitively expensive for most people.

You are forgetting that VG's Spaceship 2 needs to be carried to a height greater than the regular cruising altitude of commercial airliners before it can be launched.  That takes quite a long time.  And then it has to get down again..
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine - however, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are
going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0