Can someone explain to me why supersonic business flight didn't work out?

[MossRoad]

Gray water made potable in house.

Mmmmm. That's tasty!

 

[kenmbz]

Moon missions led to amazing updates in science.
Including commercial aircraft, computers and miniaturization.

And yes velcro

 

[the old grind]

Mmmmm. That's tasty!

"Coming soon to an off-grid homestead near you." So much for, "I'll have what he's having."

Meanwhile, we hear that several of Starlink's satellites likely won't achieve full orbit due to 'stuff happens' getting 'em 'up there'. Expect them to go supersonic on their way in to someones yard, roof, stock tank, etc. ISS may do just so by ~2030 or recent NASA projections are a bit off.

Technology still can't predict the future, the weather, or whether Ukraine will invade Russia any time soon. 'Bad news' and reactions may travel at Mach one 'organically', rockets or low-bypass turbo-fans not required. See how far we've come since abaci and slide rules?

 

[MossRoad]

I never knew the plural of abacus.

Learn something new every day.

 

[Sigarms]

Well, we got Tang out of it, what more could you ask for?

You're comment is funny, but the irony is what could have been spent trying to help people and would the money have been "better spent"?

Long story short, if I can make pretty much getting to anywhere in the world within 24 hours, exactly how much am I willing to spend more to get there quicker?

Supersonic "commercial flights" really don't seem worth the investment unless the state is willing to give the manufacturer a crapload of money to build a plane a that isn't even approved yet, nor is guaranteed to actually happen

 

[etpm]

It's not a question of if some technology could work, but more a question is if the technology applied to society is economically feasible?

That's a broad statement I understand, but for what it cost to put a man on the moon, exactly what was the return on investment since what, 1969?

We have billionaires now that can spend exactly how much time in space at what cost?

My only point is heck yeah, commercial flights could fly past the sound barrier, but at the end of the day, is it really worth it?

Interesting read...

apollo-11-moon-mission-cost

I'm glad I won't be around for when we can use a transporter like on the Enterprise NCC 1701 LOL

That said, the money spent on military technology generally permeates to civilian technology.

Some of the investment return was intangible, but one tangible return was that the moon mission was instrumental in the development of the integrated circuit. That alone more than paid for the moon mission.
Eric

 

[Sigarms]

Some of the investment return was intangible, but one tangible return was that the moon mission was instrumental in the development of the integrated circuit. That alone more than paid for the moon mission.
Eric

You're smarter than me.

The bigger question is when you spend that kind of money, do you always get a "integrated circuit" back for the investment?

Exactly what will we learn for supersonic commercial flights when it's already been done? Where do you draw the line per the potential return on investment?

 

[etpm]

You're smarter than me.

The bigger question is when you spend that kind of money, do you always get a "integrated circuit" back for the investment?

Exactly what will we learn for supersonic commercial flights when it's already been done? Where do you draw the line per the potential return on investment?

You are pulling my leg, right? If not then consider this below:
I will ignore that "smarter than me" comment. As to your bigger question, well, you are talking about investing, and investing comes with risk. So no, you don't always get integrated circuits, or the equivalent, back.
As to investing in supersonic aircraft when it has already been done? The Wright brothers flew their powered airplane a long time ago. It was subsonic. Since they did it why would anybody invest in subsonic aircraft? Because there was plenty that folks didn't know about powered flight. Like how to fly longer than just seconds. And after folks figured out how to fly for minutes and then hours some clever persons decided that passengers might like to be sheltered from the wind and weather. And so on.
Since we have achieved commercial supersonic flights why do it again? What could be the potential return on investment? Let's say someone decided to look at the aerodynamics of planes that must fly major portions of a flight at supersonic speeds yet still be frugal with fuel use AND not make those annoying sonic booms? As it turns out there are lots of people working on how to make planes that meet the above requirements. They apparently see a good potential for a good return on their investment.
Private industry and NASA are both working on designs that reduce drag and reduce sonic booms. Some designs that reduce the sonic booms also reduce drag. This is one reason that millions are being spent on supersonic passenger jet designs. So I guess some investors feel the potential return on their investment is worth the risk.
I, and nobody else, knows exactly what we will learn for commercial supersonic flights. And where to draw the line is of course up to the investors. Which you know.
Eric

 

[BoylermanCT]

I was in grade school in the early 80's when my dad flew on the Concord from London to NY coming home from a business trip. Cost was $6000 or so. A year or so later, he bought a new Chevy for around $6000.

 

[MossRoad]

...

Long story short, if I can make pretty much getting to anywhere in the world within 24 hours, exactly how much am I willing to spend more to get there quicker?
...

Having been around airplanes the first 26 years of my life, and still pretty active in plane watching, I have asked myself that same question regarding private jet ownership. There are people that think nothing of spending $100K+ a year just flying their kids to and from college multiple times a year on private jets VS commercial airlines. If they can justify owning a private jet in their own mind, I'm sure they can justify booking seats on a supersonic transport to save half a day of travel time.

 

[JasperFrank]

Isn't this all just for very rich people?

 

[MossRoad]

Isn't this all just for very rich people?

Supersonic transport? Yes. Absolutely.

There's about zero (0) reason to have to travel across the world in just hours with the advances in electronic communications.

Yet "time is money" may still have some need for personal appearances. I can't think of many, other than military. Maybe a hot-shot person with unique skills.

 

[the old grind]

Like a Kardashian?

 

[Cougsfan]

I can think of a whole lot of things in this world we'd be better off spending money on other than developing high tech machines to fly the super rich across the ocean in a few less hours or allowing them take a 10 minute ride into space. Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done.

 

[dragoneggs]

I will preface my comments with the guess that I am much closer to the topic than many here. Not bragging, but it happens that I am involved as a parts supplier to BOOM Aero, as well as being an aerospace engineering/sales manager for more than 35 years.

First I think BOOM is a great name... whatever. They do still need to prove themselves and my company is supporting the best we can. I know a few of the execs there. I have visited their facility in Englewood, CO multiple times. They are not scam artists... they are trying to advance aviation. Pooh pooh that?

The fact that they are plotting out an assembly line in North Carolina is exciting news. For those of you that might be interested in learning a little more about BOOM...

Boom - The Future is Supersonic

Making the World Dramatically More Accessible

boomsupersonic.com

As some have mentioned, the noise/damage of 1970s technology supersonic aircraft limited their application. Cost per passenger seat mile was also extremely high. I could go on.

Now 40 years later, why would you not applaud entrepreneurs/engineers pushing the envelope? Cutting 8hr to 10hr trips overseas in half is a huge step forward. It's all about efficiency and speed to get things done. Yes, it will first suit business and the 'well to do' first. Just like propeller commercial flight did almost a century ago.

And hey, if better 'household' items such as Velcro, Tang, Sideview mirrors (Indy cars) come out of it... awesome byproducts!

Know that material and processing technologies are quite advanced compared to 40 years ago. Does that not intrigue you as to what we can do?

When your internet is slow or your cell connection is spotty are you frustrated? Do you say I would rather just go back to stationary land line phones and Encyclopedia Brittanica? For those of you that are satisfied with the current state of affairs... raise your white flag and watch it go by... faster than a speeding bullet.

 

[lman]

Isn't this all just for very rich people?

Probably the same people that think us poor people should not drive a ICE car because we're destroying the planet while they're using thousands of gallons of petroleum to fly around needlessly.

 

[MossRoad]

Probably the same people that think us poor people should not drive a ICE car because we're destroying the planet while they're using thousands of gallons of petroleum to fly around needlessly.

Or driving huge pickup trucks as daily drivers...

 

[Jims1025R]

they are trying to advance aviation. Pooh pooh that?

For supersonic flight, sadly, yes. I too work in aviation development, and own an airplane. I have a love for aviation, and appreciation for those who innovate. However, with my work with several climate research agencies (who are using airplanes to record the effects of climate change), I know it's real - we're getting warmer, and sea level is rising. Did mankind cause all of it? I'm not sure. But the fuel we burn, and thus hasten climate change, is our responsibility, and we should really measure the need against the cost to the future.

If the supersonic developers can show me that their aircraft has a greater seat mile efficiency than other aircraft types, I'll listen with great interest, but my knowledge of engines and flight suggests otherwise. Until then, I support any means that our society has to do the things we must do with greater fuel efficiency, and electric or other means if possible. Sometimes that means being patient, and not trying to go so fast. Drag increases as a square of your speed, more speed, much more drag, much more fuel burn - not to carry more, but to carry the same faster.

The children and grandchildren of billion or so people are hoping that their homes won't go under water for no better reason that some well funded people wanted to go faster. Sea level rise won't really affect we who post here so it's hard to see cause and effect, but it's going to affect.....

 

[lman]

Or driving huge pickup trucks as daily drivers...

They probably are, maybe even with a chauffeur. While I drive a hybrid that gets 40 mpg.

 

[tallyho8]

I would gladly pay 1 or 2 hundred dollars more for a supersonic flight to Europe but not $4000 more. We saved most of our lives to see the world when we retired and now my wife has contracted a nerve condition that won't allow her to sit in a plane over 4 hours. She has tried different medications without success.

Now, even though we are financially able to go, and want to go, our dreams of going to Australia, New Zealand, the South Pacific, Norway, Sweden, and many other countries is limited to watching travelogues on TV.