Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

A40 t1_je69fbr wrote

Replying to TattoedBacon (#2,456,063)

It's a theoretical design based on a theoretical concept based on a theoretical future economy and a possible (in theory) public demand for such an outrageously expensive flight.

But (in theory) it will seat up to ten billionaires. But then their people will have to slum it on regular service along with the bags.

62

altmorty OP t1_je6afuf wrote

Replying to A40 (#2,456,339)

>Destinus’ Eiger Prototype which conducted its maiden flight on April 13th, 2022

>Destinus has been testing its prototype aircraft for the past couple of years, announcing successful test flights of its second prototype - Eiger - at the end of 2022.

Maybe you should read more than just the title.

−4

erosram t1_je6b290 wrote

Replying to altmorty (#2,456,530)

That quote says it’s a prototype. Better than completely theoretical, but still a bit theoretical compared to the claim. And still a theoretical future economy. And still crazy expensive.

−2

Throwaway08080909070 t1_je6cv71 wrote

What is the highest speed reached by the prototype, and how long were they able to sustain it? Can the prototype go hypersonic, land, turn around and fly again?

1

Kevin_Jim t1_je6cz7o wrote

I had hopes for UK’s SABRE engine, but that doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. And by the time it could be operational, rocket companies like SpaceX, might get to the point where they can carry individuals.

4

altmorty OP t1_je6euvy wrote

Replying to erosram (#2,456,664)

>It's a theoretical design based on a theoretical concept

It can't be clearer. A prototype that's passed tests is not a theoretical design/concept.

Every single tech is expensive to begin with. New tech is almost always initially aimed at the rich, who can afford the expense.

−6

phdoofus t1_je6fat2 wrote

Replying to A40 (#2,456,339)

Plus theoretical materials and a theoretical infrastructure. NB, it hasn't even gone supersonic yet so the hypersonic part is still theoretical too.

10

unfathomableocelot t1_je6n357 wrote

Just as soon as it can make use of those new room temperature superconductors and that nuclear fusion generator that's only 10 years away.

3

ramtax666 t1_je6nbb0 wrote

Many such designs have a huge flaw: the fuel. We don't have a good way of producing hidrogen without high energy demand and it requires very low temperature for any significant amount to be stored. Basic 30-40% if the energy potential is wasted for production and storage. So it is a huge pain to work with it, this being the reason why it doesn't catch as a car fuel, it is to expensive just to have it and potentially dangerous. Now taking all of this in consideration and putting the system in a supersonic device that can suffer 10% thermic delation dosen't sounds a good idea, but who knows history favours the bold

10

CypripediumCalceolus t1_je6nenx wrote

But isn't hypersonic a little silly when you can take a SpaceX suborbital with a hundred+ passengers?

−5

danielravennest t1_je72qo0 wrote

Why fly when you can just use a 3D Zoom booth? That's a cubicle size device that uses multiple cameras and projectors to provide a 3D experience.

2

ramtax666 t1_je757uq wrote

Replying to BungOnMimosas (#2,462,574)

More or less, I'm not so hyped about the vertical landing, especially for a design that will carry people and without an ejection system. But they got the safest fuel available that is for sure, still needs cryogenic for the oxygen but is safer.

4

SEquenceAI t1_je79kvr wrote

Sounds nice but what are they gonna do about the sonic boom? The Concorde plane was a supersonic passenger plane but never really took off for many reasons...

Namely no one wants to hear or live by a place where sonic booms happen on the regular which is most major cities with an airport capable of landing one of these bad boys.

8

baggier t1_je7mc6p wrote

Replying to altmorty (#2,456,530)

The prototype was a large sized drone powered by a conventional aviation fuel powered turbojet at speeds of about 200 km/h. The switch to hydrogen is theoretical, the hyperspeed (let alone supersonic) is just aspirational. And by aspirational I mean

  1. Raise lots of grants and venture capital
  2. Keep lots of scientists, engineers and management paid for many years
  3. Give up in about 10 years and move on to new project
10

kthegee t1_je7o8mu wrote

Replying to aneeta96 (#2,457,408)

You do realise prototype /= end product , this is why engineers of all kinds hate management.

Yea yes the bare basic flight tests rule the design capable of staying aloft , straight into production it goes.

Smh

3

ryan30z t1_je7rdb1 wrote

Replying to altmorty (#2,457,452)

I don't think you quite get the engineering challenges of building a hypersonic aircraft.

It's not just a case of slapping bigger engines on. The demand for a passenger scramjet isn't high enough to offset development and maintenance costs.

For moving large payloads, we're not moving away from turbofan any time soon.

2

BrightLuchr t1_je84b9q wrote

Skin heating is the usual problem: repeated heating eventually takes any hardening out of the material leading to failure. Plus, hydrogen is very bulky. That airframe doesn't look large enough. You'd need a denser fuel.

3

Cliff_Dibble t1_je89zv4 wrote

Geez, regular commercial pilots already need ample amount of hours to be a regular passenger jet pilot. Wonder what rating they'll need for these?

3

TrixieIsTrans t1_je8cc6t wrote

Replying to CypripediumCalceolus (#2,459,115)

Ah yes, SpaceX Suborbital flights for commercial, paying customers. Just ignore the fact you can't have them anywhere near cities (for the same reason why we don't put rocket launchpads near cities), and training every paying customer to be accustomed to suborbital flights. Honestly, I don't see this new Swiss jet working either, especially because the OG hypersonic jet, Concorde, got canned partially due to noise complaints and how many people didn't go on Concorde (costs), leading to higher ticket prices, leading to less people going on Concorde... you get the idea.

4

rsta223 t1_je8cjjw wrote

Replying to aneeta96 (#2,457,408)

A 200km/h drone is so far from a passenger carrying hypersonic plane that the hypersonic plane is absolutely still theory.

This is a complete pipedream and will likely never work.

5

bdsee t1_je8fzrp wrote

Replying to E_Snap (#2,465,845)

Not true, I basically always pay extra to fly direct rather than have a layover...that is paying for a faster flight.

I would absolutely pay more to make the direct flight faster too...it is much easier to justify to myself than paying for premium economy or business class is.

−4