Those magnificent men in their flying machines..

Moominpapa

There's a good pub in Clifden (does great fish and chips) that has its walls decorated with photos and press clippings about the Alcock and Brown landing. Brave men indeed - I hope a few glasses were raised in their honour there yesterday.

Kilgore

ICBM said:

Kilgore said:

Remarkable indeed. But I find it depressing that manned space missions have stalled. Those astronauts are now in their 80's and gradually dying off but we have gone no further than low earth orbit since. 

The incredible costs and debate about 'value for money' are legitimate concerns but I still want Moon Base Alpha and guys playing golf on Mars. Looks like it's down to Elon Musk.

Unfortunately it's beyond the resources of any individual or company - the Apollo project cost over 100 billion dollars in today's money, and that would only be a starting point compared to establishing a permanent base or going to Mars.

The costs is a legitimate concern, but in fact they can be viewed as investment as much as spending - the employment it creates and the technology developed is worthwhile. Although it can be argued that you could use it for similar high-tech projects on Earth which would benefit more people.

But if Trump *really* wants to "Make America Great Again", manned exploration of the Moon and possibly Mars would be at the top of the list of ways to achieve it, and also establish his place in history.

It may be worth mentioning that if we don't go back, then the President whose name will endure the longest is Richard Nixon... because it's written on the descent stage of Apollo 11, which will last for millions of years .

I agree that Mars is out of reach for a private company, but I'm not convinced that the Moon is. Until relatively recently it was considered to be axiomatic that just putting a payload in orbit was beyond the scope of a private company.

Apollo was expensive, but it hadn't been done before. We have over 50 years of of advancements in material and rocket sciences, computer technology, etc

. As for a 'permanent' base, what does that mean?  I see no technical obstacle why it couldn't be anything more than a pressurised 'tent'.

 I'm not  trying to understate the challenges, and do not believe it would be a 'commercial' proposition but as a vanity project for a determined super billionaire prepared to empty his/her wallet I'm not convinced that it is impossible.

Paul_C

Just think, it's only taken us 258 years to get from the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution to the utter mess we've made of the planet now.

Impressive.

ICBM

Kilgore said:

As for a 'permanent' base, what does that mean?  I see no technical obstacle why it couldn't be anything more than a pressurised 'tent'.

 I'm not  trying to understate the challenges, and do not believe it would be a 'commercial' proposition but as a vanity project for a determined super billionaire prepared to empty his/her wallet I'm not convinced that it is impossible.

Good question. If you look at Antarctic exploration as an analogy, do you count Scott's hut as a 'permanent base'? I would say probably not, even though it was intended for use as a base over the winter - but its main purpose was simply habitation to provide a launching point for the expedition the following spring, with some science and local exploration as a side benefit. Amundsen-Scott at the pole is clearly a permanent base, with science as its main purpose and habitation as the means to support that.

I think you may be right that a simple 'hut' base is within the reach of private enterprise, but I don't think a more established base which would be needed for the wider exploration of the Moon with a longer-term scientific (or even commercial, depending on the minerals there) community is.

Kilgore

ICBM said:

Kilgore said:

As for a 'permanent' base, what does that mean?  I see no technical obstacle why it couldn't be anything more than a pressurised 'tent'.

 I'm not  trying to understate the challenges, and do not believe it would be a 'commercial' proposition but as a vanity project for a determined super billionaire prepared to empty his/her wallet I'm not convinced that it is impossible.

I think you may be right that a simple 'hut' base is within the reach of private enterprise, but I don't think a more established base which would be needed for the wider exploration of the Moon with a longer-term scientific (or even commercial, depending on the minerals there) community is.

I believe such a base, however rudimentary, could act as a key psychological milestone. We're not just visiting the Moon, we're on the Moon.

stickyfiddle

darthed1981 said:

ICBM said:

Vickers repaired the plane and it's now in the Science Museum.

Yeah great point.

The aircraft gallery in their is lovely, they have the Supermarine S6B that won the Schneider Trophy (and indeed the trophy) in there as well, the Spitfire's older brother.

I'm lucky enough to have seen a shitload of world-first planes. This one, the Wright flyer, the Spirit of St Louis, Chuck Yeager's Bell X-1, the Boeing Dash-80, the Virgin/Steve Fosset Global Flyer, the Enola Gay and the both the Yuri Gagarin's Vostok module and theApollo 11 command module.

Do I have any left? The shuttle Columbia isn't an option  

darthed1981

stickyfiddle said:

darthed1981 said:

ICBM said:

Vickers repaired the plane and it's now in the Science Museum.

Yeah great point.

The aircraft gallery in their is lovely, they have the Supermarine S6B that won the Schneider Trophy (and indeed the trophy) in there as well, the Spitfire's older brother.

I'm lucky enough to have seen a shitload of world-first planes. This one, the Wright flyer, the Spirit of St Louis, Chuck Yeager's Bell X-1, the Boeing Dash-80, the Virgin/Steve Fosset Global Flyer, the Enola Gay and the both the Yuri Gagarin's Vostok module and theApollo 11 command module.

Do I have any left? The shuttle Columbia isn't an option  

No but the actual first shuttle, the Enterprise, is, she never went into space but was the first shuttle.

She's on the USS Intrepid in New York.

stickyfiddle

darthed1981 said:

stickyfiddle said:

darthed1981 said:

ICBM said:

Vickers repaired the plane and it's now in the Science Museum.

Yeah great point.

The aircraft gallery in their is lovely, they have the Supermarine S6B that won the Schneider Trophy (and indeed the trophy) in there as well, the Spitfire's older brother.

I'm lucky enough to have seen a shitload of world-first planes. This one, the Wright flyer, the Spirit of St Louis, Chuck Yeager's Bell X-1, the Boeing Dash-80, the Virgin/Steve Fosset Global Flyer, the Enola Gay and the both the Yuri Gagarin's Vostok module and theApollo 11 command module.

Do I have any left? The shuttle Columbia isn't an option  

No but the actual first shuttle, the Enterprise, is, she never went into space but was the first shuttle.

She's on the USS Intrepid in New York.

Yeah. I skipped that in NY but did see the Discovery at the Udvar hazy centre a few days later.

..which reminds me I have a trip report to post!

Emp_Fab

ICBM said:

But if Trump *really* wants to "Make America Great Again", manned exploration of the Moon and possibly Mars would be at the top of the list of ways to achieve it, and also establish his place in history.

It may be worth mentioning that if we don't go back, then the President whose name will endure the longest is Richard Nixon... because it's written on the descent stage of Apollo 11, which will last for millions of years .

All they have to do is tell Trump that NASA can write "Lock her up !" or "No Collusion !" on the moon in letters visible from Earth and there will be a mission on the table before he's finished his morning dump.

Dominic

That's what is great about guitars ......in 1952 they made a Telecaster and 1959 a Les Paul that were the epitome of their best incarnation...........in 2018 they are still trying to copy them 

Wolfetone

Next year it will be 50 years since Concorde first flew. Nothing has replaced it. 

stickyfiddle

Wolfetone said:

Next year it will be 50 years since Concorde first flew. Nothing has replaced it. 

I'd argue that a combination of VOIP calls and greater luxury in business/first class on regular flights has made supersonic flights redundant. 

There is not enough need to go anywhere that quickly, and those with the money to do so would prefer to spend a little more time in comfort than in something like the cramped noisy things that Concorde actually was. 

ICBM

Wolfetone said:

Next year it will be 50 years since Concorde first flew. Nothing has replaced it. 

Nor should it. It was uneconomical to develop and operate, unacceptably noisy, inefficient and polluting, and inherently dangerous. It was also a brilliant piece of technical and aesthetic design... but that doesn't really outweigh the other things.

Very soon it will be possible to fly between any two cities on Earth, non-stop and in less than a day. If you need to be anywhere faster than that, you need to be there electronically not physically. Supersonic air transport is simply not necessary.

Boeing designed the 747 as a passenger aircraft which would be converted to freighters when, as expected, demand for them as airliners tailed off. Fifty years later, that is finally happening - after more than 1500 were made - but they're not being replaced by supersonic airliners as Boeing (and everyone else) expected, they're being replaced by highly efficient long-range subsonic ones.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

Wolfetone said:

Next year it will be 50 years since Concorde first flew. Nothing has replaced it. 

Nor should it. It was uneconomical to develop and operate, unacceptably noisy, inefficient and polluting, and inherently dangerous. It was also a brilliant piece of technical and aesthetic design... but that doesn't really outweigh the other things.

There are three or four new supersonic airliners coming .... new tech.

Fretwired

Clarky said:

remember the original Star Trek series..
Kirk stood on a planet with his hand held communicator talking to the Enterprise..
and you'd see his face on the big monitor on the bridge..
that was sic-fi
today it's a pretty normal video call

Very true. One reason for that was the producers insistence they spoke to scientists and tech people at the top US universities. The bridge layout (captain in the middle and helm and nav in front) was copies by the US navy for the uprated nuclear aircraft carriers. And now it looks like tractor beams could be a reality.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

There are three or four new supersonic airliners coming .... new tech.

I’ll believe that when they’re in service. The same was said in the late 60s - it was expected that supersonic would be the norm within ten years, which is why the 747 was built with its distinctive hump - so the existing airframes could be converted to freighters within their expected lifespan. All the major aircraft companies had supersonic designs - Boeing’s was even prioritised over the 747 - but none entered service except Concorde, and very briefly the TU144... and those only because their national governments bankrolled them. Neither would have if it was an economic decision alone.

You can’t change the laws of physics - supersonic flight over land will never be allowed because of the sonic boom, and it simply takes much more energy to fly that fast no matter what the technology. The future is efficient subsonic airliners like the A350, not supersonic ones.

stickyfiddle

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

There are three or four new supersonic airliners coming .... new tech.

I’ll believe that when they’re in service. The same was said in the late 60s - it was expected that supersonic would be the norm within ten years, which is why the 747 was built with its distinctive hump - so the existing airframes could be converted to freighters within their expected lifespan. All the major aircraft companies had supersonic designs - Boeing’s was even prioritised over the 747 - but none entered service except Concorde, and very briefly the TU144... and those only because their national governments bankrolled them. Neither would have if it was an economic decision alone.

You can’t change the laws of physics - supersonic flight over land will never be allowed because of the sonic boom, and it simply takes much more energy to fly that fast no matter what the technology. The future is efficient subsonic airliners like the A350, not supersonic ones.

Exactly. Smaller private-jet style planes are quite likely, not least because there will always be a bunch of uber-rich types who will buy them for bragging rights alone. But I don't see it for commercial flight, at least until we have a better propulsion system than jet fuel

Chalky

stickyfiddle said:

ICBM said:

Fretwired said:

There are three or four new supersonic airliners coming .... new tech.

I’ll believe that when they’re in service. The same was said in the late 60s - it was expected that supersonic would be the norm within ten years, which is why the 747 was built with its distinctive hump - so the existing airframes could be converted to freighters within their expected lifespan. All the major aircraft companies had supersonic designs - Boeing’s was even prioritised over the 747 - but none entered service except Concorde, and very briefly the TU144... and those only because their national governments bankrolled them. Neither would have if it was an economic decision alone.

You can’t change the laws of physics - supersonic flight over land will never be allowed because of the sonic boom, and it simply takes much more energy to fly that fast no matter what the technology. The future is efficient subsonic airliners like the A350, not supersonic ones.

Exactly. Smaller private-jet style planes are quite likely, not least because there will always be a bunch of uber-rich types who will buy them for bragging rights alone. But I don't see it for commercial flight, at least until we have a better propulsion system than jet fuel

Max efficiency is about Mach 0.8, supercruise engines offer Mach 1.2, hypercruise needs about Mach 1.7, aluminium heat stress tops out at Mach 2.0.

Lead time at airport is 2 hours plus?

Sonic boom only acceptable over water?

In other words, going above transonic is not viable in a world governed by considerations of cost effectiveness ratios.

darthed1981

To be fair a sonic boom at altitude is very noisy but harmless.

A couple of QRA Typhoons made one over Northants not that long ago, too high to see well but sounded like a car crash!

Emp_Fab

We used to get them every day at 6pm.  We used to call them "The six o'clock booms".  Mostly because they happened at six o'clock and went 'boom'.  Concorde would accelerate over Mach 1 once it got over the Bristol channel on its daily flight to JFK.  Dunno why is was always two booms though....  always two, about 0.75 seconds apart.