3 ms·

2 hours? What's the point? It could be 0 minutes with a 0% explosion rate and the total travel time would probably be longer.

by casey2 1y ago

zdragnar 1y ago
The point is reduced fuel use and faster response times (either emergencies or warfare). Maintaining a detonation (as opposed to deflagration) is quite a technical challenge. If nothing else, it pushes mechanical engineering and material science forward.
- K0balt 1y ago
  At supersonic speeds, the efficiency of an engine like this can be very high, and at high altitudes, travel is very efficient. People don’t seem to get that there is potential for more efficient transport at supersonic speeds/ hypersonic speeds. The ultimate example of this a satellite. How many times does it circle the world every 45 min, all on that initial fuel it took to get it up there? It seems wasteful, but it’s actually the most efficient form of transportation in existence. Of course, hypersonic transport would not be as efficient as a satellite, but still, at 100k feet, for example, you can go 5000km/h while only consuming the same amount of fuel that you would use to go 300km/h at sea level. The potential for efficiency gains are huge, and the fuel cost of getting to altitude is mostly returned in the descent. Of course, the technical challenges are also huge, so I don’t expect to see hypersonic airliners any time soon, but when we do get them, they could easily be 6-7x as efficient as existing transports. And it would be nice to have long haul flights be 3x as fast or faster. People mistakenly assume that this kind of travel only has applications for the military or the elites, and, like air travel in general, that will probably be initially true. But after the rich and the government foots the bill in lives and research to make it safe and economical, it should hold huge gains for society at large. Science and engineering is one of the only cases where trickle down economics actually kind of works. In knowledge, a rising tide really does lift all boats.
  - hermitcrab 1y ago
    Presumably, you have to be travelling quite a distance before hypersonic/high-altitude flight becomes more efficient than current commercial airliners.
    - K0balt 1y ago
      Certainly not for short hops, but if regular aviation is any indication, it’s more efficient even if you don’t even reach cruising altitude before beginning to descend, so I’d imagine any flight that currently is around 4 hours or more would potentially benefit. (Given full technology maturity) that said, we are a long, long way from having efficient engines for that wide of a speed envelope.
  - Voultapher 1y ago
    What about noise? So far all we have gotten is companies trying to build planes that still are very loud and produce audible booms all the way along their travel path. Pitched to the empathetic heros that are billionaires. And to sway public opinion they fly test planes at slightly over mach one in specific weather and altitude setting that avoids having the sonic booms reach the ground. While marketing and selling the idea of not mach 1.1 but mach 2-3 supersonics. Which is AFAIK completely impossible without the boom issue, even if made less bad - but arguably still bad - by fancy wing shapes. So all I see is selfish people trying to build something at expense of everyone else, including the environment.
    - K0balt 1y ago
      Flying it the high limits of the atmosphere reduces sonic boom intensity due to both the extremely low density of the air and the distance from the ground. Ultimately, sonic boom is a sign of wasted energy, so if (big if) we can make aircraft that conform to the required aerodynamic ideals for efficient hypersonic flight, they will be relatively quiet. Just like with regular air travel, though, I would expect a few decades of practical application for specialized service before it was commodified to be really useful for large amounts of passengers.
alnwlsn 1y ago
Fuel efficiency is the answer for "why would you do this?" That's really important for rockets, since to launch each gram of fuel you have to have some more fuel which you also have to lift.

2 hours? What's the point? It could be 0 minutes with a 0% explosion rate and the total travel time would probably be longer.

by casey2 1y ago

2 hours? What's the point? It could be 0 minutes with a 0% explosion rate and the total travel time would probably be longer.

zdragnar 1y ago

The point is reduced fuel use and faster response times (either emergencies or warfare). Maintaining a detonation (as opposed to deflagration) is quite a technical challenge. If nothing else, it pushes mechanical engineering and material science forward.

K0balt 1y ago
At supersonic speeds, the efficiency of an engine like this can be very high, and at high altitudes, travel is very efficient. People don’t seem to get that there is potential for more efficient transport at supersonic speeds/ hypersonic speeds. The ultimate example of this a satellite. How many times does it circle the world every 45 min, all on that initial fuel it took to get it up there? It seems wasteful, but it’s actually the most efficient form of transportation in existence. Of course, hypersonic transport would not be as efficient as a satellite, but still, at 100k feet, for example, you can go 5000km/h while only consuming the same amount of fuel that you would use to go 300km/h at sea level. The potential for efficiency gains are huge, and the fuel cost of getting to altitude is mostly returned in the descent. Of course, the technical challenges are also huge, so I don’t expect to see hypersonic airliners any time soon, but when we do get them, they could easily be 6-7x as efficient as existing transports. And it would be nice to have long haul flights be 3x as fast or faster. People mistakenly assume that this kind of travel only has applications for the military or the elites, and, like air travel in general, that will probably be initially true. But after the rich and the government foots the bill in lives and research to make it safe and economical, it should hold huge gains for society at large. Science and engineering is one of the only cases where trickle down economics actually kind of works. In knowledge, a rising tide really does lift all boats.
- hermitcrab 1y ago
  Presumably, you have to be travelling quite a distance before hypersonic/high-altitude flight becomes more efficient than current commercial airliners.
  - K0balt 1y ago
    Certainly not for short hops, but if regular aviation is any indication, it’s more efficient even if you don’t even reach cruising altitude before beginning to descend, so I’d imagine any flight that currently is around 4 hours or more would potentially benefit. (Given full technology maturity) that said, we are a long, long way from having efficient engines for that wide of a speed envelope.
- Voultapher 1y ago
  What about noise? So far all we have gotten is companies trying to build planes that still are very loud and produce audible booms all the way along their travel path. Pitched to the empathetic heros that are billionaires. And to sway public opinion they fly test planes at slightly over mach one in specific weather and altitude setting that avoids having the sonic booms reach the ground. While marketing and selling the idea of not mach 1.1 but mach 2-3 supersonics. Which is AFAIK completely impossible without the boom issue, even if made less bad - but arguably still bad - by fancy wing shapes. So all I see is selfish people trying to build something at expense of everyone else, including the environment.
  - K0balt 1y ago
    Flying it the high limits of the atmosphere reduces sonic boom intensity due to both the extremely low density of the air and the distance from the ground. Ultimately, sonic boom is a sign of wasted energy, so if (big if) we can make aircraft that conform to the required aerodynamic ideals for efficient hypersonic flight, they will be relatively quiet. Just like with regular air travel, though, I would expect a few decades of practical application for specialized service before it was commodified to be really useful for large amounts of passengers.

alnwlsn 1y ago

Fuel efficiency is the answer for "why would you do this?" That's really important for rockets, since to launch each gram of fuel you have to have some more fuel which you also have to lift.