4 ms·

4. "Call me when you've built an actual plane and not just a PowerPoint deck." And in this case, I think this would be a valid complaint. This is just an anno

4. "Call me when you've built an actual plane and not just a PowerPoint deck." And in this case, I think this would be a valid complaint. This is just an announcement that some people might look into some things. It's also a company that has wanted to build a spaceport in Australia for 20 years, and... hasn't.

trhway 5y ago
Yes, framing this as "Australia Joins..." is a bit misleading. It is by an Ukranian immigrant who is coming from USSR times. His idea seems to involve the Ukrainian MotorSich engine factory. He may get a lot of support from the current Ukrainian government - in my view it is a pretty progressive one which tries to pay attention to Ukraine industrial development, and the MotorSich is among the key objects of this attention. For the space port venture they are planning to launch Ukraninan made Zenith rocket (which was used for Sea Launch back then). Looking into their top people - there are also Canadian based Ukraine immigrants, etc. One can see the pattern here. It is a pretty typical style of venture in immigrant communities with its natural advantages and disadvantages. Wrt. SST to Australia - the best trajectory is ballistic, and Starship 1 hour flight LA to Sydney, 100 pax business or 500 cattle class is the future I think.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Does it make sense to distinguish between cattle- and bizniz-class in the context of hypothetical hypes like Starship? With hypothetical hype I mean the assumption this will be used for ballistic pax transport. What would be the differentiator, if the ballistics dictate a full seat/couch anyways? The cattle in a mesh net, the bizniks in full divan? Would it make sense when any conceivable trip would be three hours max? Not to mention constraints mandated by entities like FAA for ... I don't know ... spatial arrangement regarding speed of evacuation to the emergency chutes, whatever? edit: Thinking about it, would they even bother? Or would it rather be something like one seat fits all, after the applicants have sworn their fealty to their elonzniak overlord by opting into NetJets style access card? Similar to how Starlink is 99 universal credits everywhere?
  - trhway 5y ago
    >Does it make sense to distinguish between cattle- and bizniz-class in the context of hypothetical hypes like Starship? i believe in the almighty symmetry breaking power of the price differentiation (or like it was said in one Soviet movie "There is no goal when the society doesn't practice differentiation based on the color of one's pants") >ballistics dictate a full seat/couch anyways? technically you're right, and thus instead of 100 (i used 500/100 just based on ballpark comparison of Starship payload volume vs. 747) there would be more like 300+ business - good for SpaceX :) >applicants have sworn their fealty to their elonzniak overlord by opting into NetJets style access card? and 1000000 credits gets you around the Moon, couple 00 more - around the Mars. The future is bright. To some.
baybal2 5y ago
Out all things a supersonic aircraft needs, an engine is the roadblock bigger than everything else combined. Uncounted supersonic aircraft startups went bust trying to make own engines (and that with making turbojets actually being easier than modern turbofans) For everything else, it's sixties-seventies materials, and technology. In fact, it's much easier for example to get steel, and aluminium alloys withstanding 200C°-300C° than in sixties. Strong actuators for control surfaces are both better, and easier to make now because of aircraft electrification. Internal structure can be made easier with composites today than with complex forged parts 60 years ago. And of course, supersonic aerodynamics is now much easier with computers.
- opwieurposiu 5y ago
  Modern non-military jet engines are designed with high pressure ratios around 50-60 to get good subsonic cruise efficiency. For a supersonic jet, a lot of the compression is done by the intake, so the compression in the engine must be much lower, around 10-20. This is why off the shelf engines don't work very well for supersonic. The concorde used a pressure ratio 11.3 from the engine, but combined with the intake it was 82 when at cruise. This actually made it very efficient at 43%. During taxi and climb-out however, the low pressure ratio made it a real gas guzzler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593
  - trhway 5y ago
    To get to the efficient supersonic mode asap they even used afterburner. Military engines are 20-30 so they would be most suitable COTS.
    - mshook 5y ago
      There was a B version on the drawing board which would have dropped the afterburner... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Range And you're right, the ballpark fuel consumption for Concorde says your hourly rate is not that dissimilar in subsonic than in supersonic so you better fly fast quick...

trhway 5y ago

Yes, framing this as "Australia Joins..." is a bit misleading. It is by an Ukranian immigrant who is coming from USSR times. His idea seems to involve the Ukrainian MotorSich engine factory. He may get a lot of support from the current Ukrainian government - in my view it is a pretty progressive one which tries to pay attention to Ukraine industrial development, and the MotorSich is among the key objects of this attention. For the space port venture they are planning to launch Ukraninan made Zenith rocket (which was used for Sea Launch back then). Looking into their top people - there are also Canadian based Ukraine immigrants, etc. One can see the pattern here. It is a pretty typical style of venture in immigrant communities with its natural advantages and disadvantages. Wrt. SST to Australia - the best trajectory is ballistic, and Starship 1 hour flight LA to Sydney, 100 pax business or 500 cattle class is the future I think.

LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
Does it make sense to distinguish between cattle- and bizniz-class in the context of hypothetical hypes like Starship? With hypothetical hype I mean the assumption this will be used for ballistic pax transport. What would be the differentiator, if the ballistics dictate a full seat/couch anyways? The cattle in a mesh net, the bizniks in full divan? Would it make sense when any conceivable trip would be three hours max? Not to mention constraints mandated by entities like FAA for ... I don't know ... spatial arrangement regarding speed of evacuation to the emergency chutes, whatever? edit: Thinking about it, would they even bother? Or would it rather be something like one seat fits all, after the applicants have sworn their fealty to their elonzniak overlord by opting into NetJets style access card? Similar to how Starlink is 99 universal credits everywhere?
- trhway 5y ago
  >Does it make sense to distinguish between cattle- and bizniz-class in the context of hypothetical hypes like Starship? i believe in the almighty symmetry breaking power of the price differentiation (or like it was said in one Soviet movie "There is no goal when the society doesn't practice differentiation based on the color of one's pants") >ballistics dictate a full seat/couch anyways? technically you're right, and thus instead of 100 (i used 500/100 just based on ballpark comparison of Starship payload volume vs. 747) there would be more like 300+ business - good for SpaceX :) >applicants have sworn their fealty to their elonzniak overlord by opting into NetJets style access card? and 1000000 credits gets you around the Moon, couple 00 more - around the Mars. The future is bright. To some.

baybal2 5y ago

Out all things a supersonic aircraft needs, an engine is the roadblock bigger than everything else combined. Uncounted supersonic aircraft startups went bust trying to make own engines (and that with making turbojets actually being easier than modern turbofans) For everything else, it's sixties-seventies materials, and technology. In fact, it's much easier for example to get steel, and aluminium alloys withstanding 200C°-300C° than in sixties. Strong actuators for control surfaces are both better, and easier to make now because of aircraft electrification. Internal structure can be made easier with composites today than with complex forged parts 60 years ago. And of course, supersonic aerodynamics is now much easier with computers.

opwieurposiu 5y ago
Modern non-military jet engines are designed with high pressure ratios around 50-60 to get good subsonic cruise efficiency. For a supersonic jet, a lot of the compression is done by the intake, so the compression in the engine must be much lower, around 10-20. This is why off the shelf engines don't work very well for supersonic. The concorde used a pressure ratio 11.3 from the engine, but combined with the intake it was 82 when at cruise. This actually made it very efficient at 43%. During taxi and climb-out however, the low pressure ratio made it a real gas guzzler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce/Snecma_Olympus_593
- trhway 5y ago
  To get to the efficient supersonic mode asap they even used afterburner. Military engines are 20-30 so they would be most suitable COTS.
  - mshook 5y ago
    There was a B version on the drawing board which would have dropped the afterburner... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Range https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Range And you're right, the ballpark fuel consumption for Concorde says your hourly rate is not that dissimilar in subsonic than in supersonic so you better fly fast quick...