Would really fast commercial air travel pave way for commercial space travel?

[nec207]

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  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.

[A_M_Swallow]

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.

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

[Lar]

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.

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

[Robotbeat]

Depends. If we're talking hypersonic, then yes, there's a connection there. Mere low-supersonic? No.

[Steam Chaser]

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).

[nec207]

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.

[KelvinZero]

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.

[john smith 19]

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."

[john smith 19]

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  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.

[llanitedave]

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.

[nec207]

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.

[Lar]

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?

[CameronD]

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... 

[Bynaus]

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.

[john smith 19]

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.

[john smith 19]

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.

[nec207]

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... 

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

Travel between London and New York, cost the standard Ł4,350 one-way Concorde ticket returning on World Traveller, and up to Ł8,292 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.

 

[CameronD]

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..

[Asteroza]

I believe there is a quote attributed to Burt Rutan where someone asked him what he is investing in, and he replied VR companies, because it will kill the business traveler market, decimating airline companies.

[CameronD]

I believe there is a quote attributed to Burt Rutan where someone asked him what he is investing in, and he replied VR companies, because it will kill the business traveler market, decimating airline companies.

'Dent' maybe, but not so sure about 'decimate'.  Human interaction is something VR will need to go a long way yet to properly demonstrate.. and until then, there are plenty of honeymooners and holiday travellers willing to occupy vacant seats in business-class.

..but since I indirectly work for the airline industry, maybe I'm biased. 

[Robotbeat]

People read more paper books now than ever. New media, new tech do not always displace old tech but instead add to and enrich it.

[CameronD]

People read more paper books now than ever. New media, new tech do not always displace old tech but instead add to and enrich it.

Yep, Ray Bradbury got it wrong. ..still a good read though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

[M_Puckett]

Well, if it's decimated, it will still be 90% intact.

I believe there is a quote attributed to Burt Rutan where someone asked him what he is investing in, and he replied VR companies, because it will kill the business traveler market, decimating airline companies.

'Dent' maybe, but not so sure about 'decimate'.  Human interaction is something VR will need to go a long way yet to properly demonstrate.. and until then, there are plenty of honeymooners and holiday travellers willing to occupy vacant seats in business-class.

..but since I indirectly work for the airline industry, maybe I'm biased. 

[nec207]

So what technology will be needed to bring down the cost or make it a reality? Better engines, better way they add fuel mixtures, improvements in materials, regenerative cooling, new thrusters, Fuel efficiency to craft weight or higher powered engines?

[nec207]

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..

May be Spaceship 3 or Spaceship 4 will not need this. 

Also there really is no R&D into supersonic or hypersonic out side the military because it is too costly for market demand.

Has most people are happy with 10 to 20 hour flight and don't want to pay more than $1,000 plane ticket.

[Bynaus]

Going from LA to Hong Hong really fast but Virgin Galactic spaceship 2 is prohibitively expensive for most people.

Also, VG SS2 would simply not survive re-entry from a suborbital hop from LA to Hong Kong. The required velocities are much higher, and the VG SS2 is just not built for that kind of thermal stress. I doubt it can even be "improved", to the point of a complete re-design being required. A suborbital point-to-point transport will have much more in common with the X-33 than with VG SS2. So its essentially rocketry.

This is why I think VG-style space tourism is a dead end (in contrast to BO-style space tourism).

[john smith 19]

'Dent' maybe, but not so sure about 'decimate'.  Human interaction is something VR will need to go a long way yet to properly demonstrate.. and until then, there are plenty of honeymooners and holiday travellers willing to occupy vacant seats in business-class.

..but since I indirectly work for the airline industry, maybe I'm biased. 

I think it would be interesting to see how the high end seat sales (mostly business travelers) varied around 9/11/01 and wheather (and if so how quickly) they recovered.

My expectation was it would radically drop as US executives decided to do more by video conferencing.

But I don't know that it did. Which is sort of encouraging.

Concorde was also pretty well booked throughout its operating life, given it roughly cut the London/New York travel time. BTW the 17th Concorde was planned to be the start of a block upgrade that (among other things) would have eliminated the need for an afterburner (and its associated tripling of fuel consumption and hence reduced range).

[RanulfC]

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  would this pave way for commercial space travel?

Simple answer? No in the same way that cheaper and faster railroad or ocean travel will "pave-the-way" because the actual useful development is largely non-applicable.

Now having said that care to take a guess at how many concepts and ideas there are out there that incorporate not only "fast" air travel but trains and various ocean transport ideas?

The actual "holy grail" of commercial space flight is less about technology than about having it be as close as possible to every other form of transportation we know with regular schedules and wide access.

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?

It's 'costly' because of both the fuel consumption and the cost of designing, building and maintaining/operating a supersonic (or faster) airframe. But both these costs have come down significantly with technological advances yet we still don't have common super-sonic travel you will note.

The first factor is while the costs have come down, they still aren't cheap and as it turns out "time" is actually NOT "money" in most cases so there is very little incentive to get there as fast as possible.

Next is regulatory and public effect which is both broad and restrictive at the same time. Something like 2/3rds of the supposed negative effects of high-altitude supersonic travel never came about but there are enough actual effects, (sonic booms mainly) that there are strict regulations in place that make actually travelling at supersonic speeds impractical for a majority of routes. Again technology and other advances have changed some of the basic equation with airframe shaping and quieter and more efficient engines, but that increases the cost factor as well and the basic trades still don't show a marked advantage for supersonic air travel.

The factors actually get worse the faster you go which is why even though "fast-package-delivery" (which is the current face of suborbital or hypersonic travel studies and planning) gets study and work it still isn't considered viable yet. While the technology is probably there the other factors end up making it non-viable with any current model.

Cost, both in designing, building and maintaining  a very high speed airframe is a major hurdle as there is a significant difference in operational and maintenance requirements between sub-sonic and supersonic and it gets more complex the faster the airframe is designed to go. (A damaged skin panel on a sub-sonic aircraft is minor, on a supersonic one it is concerning, on a hypersonic airframe it is fatal)

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.

People who say such things obviously have no idea what they are talking about and are basing their statements on what an engine looks like rather than how and how well it works

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.

SCramjets will be ready for normal use "any day now" you know

But seriously the required technology for making a space plane of some type has existed for almost 60 years but it's not that simple. Rocket powered launch vehicles ARE in fact simple but they won't be talking off and landing at any local airport. Noise, facilities, regulatory, maintenance and operational issues alone will preclude directly interfacing with the air travel system. There are some exceptions of course but they prove the rule rather than break it since most of them are either very limited systems or based on standard airframes that can easily be included in the current system. Currently air-travel is a highly integrated and choreographed system that requires high pace and minimal disruption at all times. There's a good reason that those launch system that DO use 'normal' air fields do so where they do.

The goal of "aircraft-like" operations is and always has been more a hope towards a generally easier and more accessible operating regime than an actual end-product. Transportation systems in general have always been compared to previous forms when first introduced in order to offer a comparative between where they are now and where they can be in the future. The actual analogy is more often than not only applicable in general rather than the specific. In the main what drives the advancement of any transportation system is simply need and utility rather than technology. Technology, economics, and ideology along with other factors will be a part of the overall methodology and operations in the end but it's only ancillary to the development, growth and even fading away of the system itself over the long run.

Randy

[Robotbeat]

If "really fast commercial air travel" means Mach 20, then yes.

[Arb]

Aaand Boom 

[RanulfC]

Aaand Boom 

But will it 'pave the way' for commercial space travel? Answer would appear to still be no as it's a niche market, looks to be limited production and unless they make a dedicated version to launch a "Spaceship-3" not really applicable. (And by the look of the "simulated Heathrow" picture it has less room for such a set up than the Hustler did)

The technology to do something like Boom, (and the other proposals) have been developing for decades with the main factors of engine T/W, SFC, and supercruise having come a long way since the Concorde was first designed but it should be made clear that the market this aircraft is aimed at is trying to lure away the 40 passengers who would normally be flying business/first-class on a 767 not the 200+ 'normal' passengers off that same airframe.

Randy

[Ludus]

There's also the reverse of the question whether commercial space travel would pave the way for really fast commercial "air" travel.

Elon Musk at the ITS presentation did briefly wonder whether there might be a market for the ITS system to move cargo or passengers very fast between places on earth.

[maint1234]

After a tiring 15 hr flight , supersonic flight looks very attractive.
Concorde used engine tech from the 1960s ,  and the engine efficiencies on which all the high concorde ticket prices were based  might not apply with the much more fuel efficient engines that can be designed now.
For eg the present jets use 55% less fuel than the jets of the 1960s.
Advances in aerodynamic design could also save fuel.
A plane which reduces the travel time from 15 hrs to 8 hrs will be quite popular with the business and 1st class fliers.

[MATTBLAK]

Aircraft that fly faster than MACH 2 usually need relatively exotic and hardy structural and 'skin' alloys. A 'low boom' airliner with the most efficient engines possible in 'Supercruise', flying at MACH 1.4 could be a very attractive prospect for shaving many hours off super long-haul flights. And the aircraft structure could be closer to conventional.

[Vahe231991]

Although SpaceShipTwo and SpaceShipThree are capable of Mach 3 (SpaceShipTwo attained Mach 3 on one flight in February 2019), supersonic air travel was never going to pave the way for commercial space travel because SpaceShipTwo and SpaceShipThree are purely rocket-powered and only designed for suborbital altitudes, and many hypersonic airliner designs, including Boeing's recent proposal for a hypersonic airliner and the proposed Venus Aerospace airliner, are designed to reach the edge of space.