The Future of Supersonic Aviation

[jimmy olsen]

Five hour transpacific flight? Sign me the fuck up!

Links a plenty within
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/05/17/why_does_it_still_take_five_hours_to_fly_cross_country_a_future_tense_event.html

In particular you can watch a two hour conference on the subject here
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/86722688

Why Does It Still Take Five Hours to Fly Cross-Country?! A Future Tense Event Recap.

By Emily Fritcke

In January 1959, the first transcontinental commercial jet trip flew from Los Angeles to New York City in five and a half hours. Today, the same trip will take a half hour to an hour longer (that is, if your flight isn't delayed). A lot has changed since 1959—fares are less expensive, planes have reduced effects on the environment, and we've reached astonishing levels of safety—yet the speed hasn't increased, and the romance of flying is gone. So why is the Concorde, the fastest commercial airliner ever built currently sitting in a museum collecting dust? And what's next for aviation? On Wednesday, May 11, Future Tense—a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University—brought together industry experts, leaders, and innovators to weigh in on the future of flight at an event in Washington, D.C.


Greg Zacharias, chief scientist of the U.S. Air Force, joined NASA Deputy Administrator Dava Newman in conversation with moderator James Fallows, national correspondent for the Atlantic, to discuss the historic role the Air Force and NASA have played in driving the research and investment that gets adopted by the private sector and creates jobs in the U.S. economy. In February, NASA announced the arrival of a new era of cleaner, quieter, and faster aircraft. "New Aviation Horizons," an initiative included in the president's budget, will design, build and fly a series of X-planes, or experimental aircraft, during the next 10 years. Newman emphasized the importance of investing in such new initiatives to ensure the United States is a leader of this field. According to her, the public/private partnerships are stronger than they've ever been with the goal of "transition[ing] these technologies sooner, quicker, and cheaper" into commercial markets.


The private sector, however, faces the financial challenge of taking designs to market. Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis for the Teal Group Corp., reminded the audience that even with the support of public sector partnerships, the commercial aviation industry is a low-margin business. So private sector companies that aim to design paradigm-shifting planes face the additional challenge of making them economically viable. Joining Aboulafia in conversation were representatives of three companies—Airbus, Boom Technology Inc., and Lightcraft Technology Inc.—that are attempting to do just that. Airbus and Boom are aiming to build and market the next supersonic jet that can achieve what the Concorde could not, unmatched speed at a cost-effective price. Leik Myrabo's lightcraft technology aspires to achieve speed and environmental sustainability within an entirely new infrastructure for air travel that includes light-ports and laser-projecting satellites.

But it's not just about the cool new technology. David Lackner, vice president and head of research and technology for North America Airbus Group Innovations, reminded the audience that the industry must also grapple with existing policy and infrastructure. For instance, one of the greatest barriers to supersonic air travel is bans on flight over land. When supersonic jets travel at a speed of Mach 1 and above, they generate the sound we know as the sonic boom. Today, NASA is working with Lockheed Martin on a preliminary design for Quiet Supersonic Technology, aircraft that can fly at supersonic speeds while only registering a soft thump. As the technology moves to market, the public's appetite will change and so will the policies that once limited supersonic travel. For example, when consumers realize they can travel faster from Los Angeles to Tokyo than from L.A. to New York due to regulations of supersonic travel over land, policymakers will feel the need to respond. Michelle Schwartz, chief of staff of the Federal Aviation Administration, said the FAA is more collaborative with industry than ever before and she understands that with "industry moving at the speed of Silicon Valley, FAA can't be moving at the speed of government."

But new technology won't fix our aviation system. We still have other problems to deal with—like long lines at airports and an air traffic control system that needs modernization.  Justin Powell, principal at Arup Group, and Diana Pfiel, CTO of Resilient Ops Inc., believe that innovation in the private sector can respond to the infrastructure problems that affect passengers' journeys. For instance, Pfiel and her team use crowdsourcing and data sharing to increase transparency and give passengers more control of their experience by identifying the source of delays in airports.

As Fallows noted, "Flight today is both a miracle and a frustration." Perhaps in the future the romance of flying will once again return.

[Monoriu]

A few months ago, we heard that a particular ice-cream shop was doing a buy one get one free day.  So we went there, only to discover that there were hundreds of people already lining up.  We gave up immediately.  Afterwards, the news reported that people spent 2-3 hours to get the cheaper ice-cream.  The discount was only worth about US$3-4.  People spent that much time for US$3-4. 

The lesson that I learned is that, for many people, they don't consider their time to be worth that much. 

People already vote to have cheaper airfares over better service.  I think they'll also vote for value over speed.  That's one of the major reasons why air travel has not gone faster. 

[Eddie Teach]

Not everyone is willing to spend a lot of time to save money. The question is whether there are enough willing to spend extra to keep an airliner busy. I suspect that comes down to fuel economy. The Concorde had to pay too much in fuel costs to let customers in at a price point where they'd keep enough customers. If they can get the plane to go faster without wasting so much fuel, someone will do it.

[The Brain]

What happened to time for quiet contemplation? Everything's a mad dash these days.

[grumbler]

Not everyone is willing to spend a lot of time to save money. The question is whether there are enough willing to spend extra to keep an airliner busy. I suspect that comes down to fuel economy. The Concorde had to pay too much in fuel costs to let customers in at a price point where they'd keep enough customers. If they can get the plane to go faster without wasting so much fuel, someone will do it.

The problem with the whole supersonic aircraft issue is that the flight is just a portion of the time commitment.  Saving two hours to Europe isn't that big a deal if you are still spending two hours in airports (because then you are just cutting a nine hour commitment to seven hours, at quintuple the prices).  if you still want to save that time, you hire a private jet and fly out of and to smaller airports without the lines and delays.

I would agree with you that there is a niche for faster travel that isn't as expensive as a private jet but is faster than current commercial airliners, but I'm not convinced that the answer is in hardware.  If it is, it probably is in very fast/high altitude aircraft, because the cost of going just a bit faster than the critical mach number is very high (C sub D is the coefficient of drag):

[Monoriu]

I am not entirely convinced that flight time is the limiting factor to faster travel.  In Mainland China, 80% of airspace is reserved for the military.  As long as this remains true, a huge number of flights will continue to be delayed due to congested airspace, and faster planes won't solve the problem.  That's probably a more extreme example, but lack of runway capacity, outdated IT systems and crumbling infrastructure (say, radars) are also problems.  The problem with air travel is that there is always a lot of uncertainty.  A flight from HK to Europe is 13 hours, plus x amount of time to cover flight delays, waiting time to claim baggages, etc etc.  Quick travel is hardly anybody's first priority.  The pilots don't care, the airport security staff don't care, the traffic control staff don't care.  Their priority is to prevent another 911, to save their own skin in case some accidents happen.  I am not going to pay a lot to cut those 13 hours to 10, because the x factor is still there and it can be a large number. 

[Malthus]

There is probably a niche for luxury airline checkouts and security clearance, though. People would pay money not to have to show up at an airport two hours early and stand in line for lengthy periods. Problem is, that would have to involve a certain degree of government co-operation.

[Berkut]

There is probably a niche for luxury airline checkouts and security clearance, though. People would pay money not to have to show up at an airport two hours early and stand in line for lengthy periods. Problem is, that would have to involve a certain degree of government co-operation.

And that would piss everyone else off - the story we hear now is that this time is *necessary* for our safety. If you can "buy" your way out of that necessary time in a manner that doesn't compromise safety, then why aren't we doing that for everyone? Supposedly, safety is that piece of the puzzle that doesn't care how rich you are...

Of course, the reality is that most security is largely a nice show to make people feel like they are secure, and that Things Are Being Done By Your Representatives. The real security is happening behind the scenes. But acting out the play seems to be important, so that when something fails, everyone can make sure they have their asses covered.

[frunk]

From wiki:

In a program begun in October 2011, the TSA's Precheck Program allows selected members of the American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, Virgin America, Southwest Airlines, Air Canada, JetBlue Airlines, and Sun Country Airlines frequent flyer programs, members of Global Entry, NEXUS, and SENTRI and active duty members of the US military[citation needed] to receive expedited screening for domestic and select international itineraries.[48] As of August 2015, this program was available at 156 airports.[49] TSA currently only allows US citizens and permanent residents to apply[50] for Precheck. After completing a background check, being fingerprinted,[51] and paying an $85 fee, travelers will get a Known Traveler Number. The program has led to complaints of unfairness and longer wait lines.

[Malthus]

There is probably a niche for luxury airline checkouts and security clearance, though. People would pay money not to have to show up at an airport two hours early and stand in line for lengthy periods. Problem is, that would have to involve a certain degree of government co-operation.

And that would piss everyone else off - the story we hear now is that this time is *necessary* for our safety. If you can "buy" your way out of that necessary time in a manner that doesn't compromise safety, then why aren't we doing that for everyone? Supposedly, safety is that piece of the puzzle that doesn't care how rich you are...

Of course, the reality is that most security is largely a nice show to make people feel like they are secure, and that Things Are Being Done By Your Representatives. The real security is happening behind the scenes. But acting out the play seems to be important, so that when something fails, everyone can make sure they have their asses covered.

I suspect you are right, not that I know shit about airport security.  However, the security concern appears to be handled by background checks and the like. Also, simply having more staff per passenger would reduce wait times.

My favorite anecdote about "security theatre" I've probably told before, and it took place a couple of decades ago in Thailand. It seems the Thai authorities had vaguely heard about this concept of "security", but hadn't really thought the matter through - what happened was this: after standing in line to have one's bags checked, the security staff slapped a sticker on the bag and then just - handed the bags back to the passengers. The passengers were expected to carry them to the airplane, through the unsecured, open area they had just arrived in.

There was, in short, nothing to prevent a passenger from walking right out the door of the airport with the "checked bags" (and putting whatever they wanted in them), or, for that matter, simply peeling off the stickers and putting them on different bags (containing whatever).

It was a sort of cargo-cult version of cargo security. 

[viper37]

A few months ago, we heard that a particular ice-cream shop was doing a buy one get one free day.  So we went there, only to discover that there were hundreds of people already lining up.  We gave up immediately.  Afterwards, the news reported that people spent 2-3 hours to get the cheaper ice-cream.  The discount was only worth about US$3-4.  People spent that much time for US$3-4. 

how can you expect to save more than that for an ice cream?  It's not like it's worth 1000$...

[Monoriu]

A few months ago, we heard that a particular ice-cream shop was doing a buy one get one free day.  So we went there, only to discover that there were hundreds of people already lining up.  We gave up immediately.  Afterwards, the news reported that people spent 2-3 hours to get the cheaper ice-cream.  The discount was only worth about US$3-4.  People spent that much time for US$3-4. 

how can you expect to save more than that for an ice cream?  It's not like it's worth 1000$...

I don't expect to save more on ice-cream.  I do expect that I don't need to line up for 2 hours for it.