Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (01/21/89)
Actually what stopped the SST in the US were the enviro-nuts who probably thought the sonic booms would vibrate the tail feathers off the ducks. Or maybe they felt that if man were meant to fly at MACH god would have given him a higher methane storage capacity... :-) and :-( Seriously though, it was a bunch of noisy neo-luddites who got them banned from all but NY and DC, and I think they even tried to stop them there. I don't remember to well how much they had to do with killing the Boeing SST. The cancelation certainly didn't help the Seattle economy much. But then, my feeling is that if it required government funding to create a COMMERCIAL product, then it probably means that the technology of 1970 was just not up to the job. When an SST is economically viable, they will be built. The Concorde is nice, but I wonder if it ever paid off it's full development cost? I would guess we'll see the return of the SST sometime in the early part of the next century. It will then be the standard aircraft for fairly long haul flights. If the NASP does turn into a commercial product, I will predict it will follow the same path as the SST, and for the same reasons. There will be a few built by some country by 2010 or so. They will be used for very long haul flights for very premium prices. Then, by around 2040 or earlier (the technological exponential), they will become a common place form of transport for those distances and for LEO.
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (01/22/89)
In article <601326396.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: > Actually what stopped the SST in the US were the enviro-nuts who > probably thought the sonic booms would vibrate the tail feathers off > the ducks. I seem to recall that one serious objection to the SST (aside from the obvious economic ones) was its potential deleterious impact on the ozone layer. Turns out to have been misplaced, I suppose, now that the ozone layer seems to be doomed in any case... > But then, my feeling is that if it required government funding to > create a COMMERCIAL product, then it probably means that the technology > of 1970 was just not up to the job. When an SST is economically viable, > they will be built. The Concorde is nice, but I wonder if it ever paid > off it's full development cost? Every major existing transportation system I can think of required some sort of start-up subsidy for building necessary infrastructure. Not a few of these systems require ongoing public expenditures or some sort of indirect cost-spreading. > I would guess we'll see the return of the SST sometime in the early > part of the next century. It will then be the standard aircraft for > fairly long haul flights. When speculating on the likely state of transportation technology in the next century, be sure to remember that telecommunications technologies won't exactly be sitting still in the meantime. In a couple more decades, we will probably have telecommunications of such speed, power, and transparency that most of our present-day shuttling back and forth will become superfluous. Transportation and communications technologies have historically competed with each other. Fossil-fuel-based transportation technologies have more or less "topped out" against theoretical and practical limits. Communications technologies, on the other hand, are improving exponentially and have many orders of magnitude of theoretical headroom left. In a couple of decades, we can safely predict that the terrestrial communications network will provide the average individual with bandwidth and fidelity equal to the limits of his or her sensory apparatus. People interested in transacting serious business will simply not be able to waste time sitting on aircraft if they want to stay competitive. However, I think transportation, and perhaps space exploration, will remain popular as leisure-time activities. Perhaps when information technologies increase our disposable income by large factors, groups of enthusiasts will be able to develop their own private ventures, irrespective of possible economic return. Cheers, Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) (01/22/89)
One question about SST flights over land. Is it possible to have supersonic flight at a high enough altitude that the shock wave doesn't reach the ground? It it still possible to use reasonably standard wings, engines, etc, at that altitude? ++PLS
mike@mfgfoc.uucp (Mike Thompson) (01/23/89)
From article <601326396.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU: > of 1970 was just not up to the job. When an SST is economically viable, > they will be built. The Concorde is nice, but I wonder if it ever paid > off it's full development cost? In the early part of this decade, I seem to remember reading that a new type of wing was being developed by NASA and some aerospace firm which could lead to a supersonic aircraft which didn't create a sonic boom (or at least much reduced in magnitude). The wing was long, thin, and narrow like the one on the U2 and pivoted as one piece where it was attached to the fusalage. This meant one wing- tip swung toward the nose and the other swung towards the tail in a scissor like motion. I think a small single seat sub-sonic aircraft was built and flown for testing. Does anyone remember what happened to this research? I assume it either died from lack of funding or the findings did not live up to their claims. Mike Thompson --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael P. Thompson FOCUS Semiconductor Systems, Inc. net: (sun!daver!mfgfoc!mike) 570 Maude Court att: (408) 738-0600 ext 370 Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) (01/24/89)
From article <601326396.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU: > Seriously though, it was a bunch of noisy neo-luddites who got them > banned from all but NY and DC, and I think they even tried to stop them > there. I don't usually disagree with you Dale, but you really blew it on this one. There were three very good environmental reasons not to build SSTs. I don't know if they are still problems. But they seemed pretty good reasons in 1970. These were all explained to me by a fairly well respected ecologist; who just happend to be my father. 1) The effects of sonic booms on the oceans. It was believed that sonic booms killed plankton. Dead plankton doesn't feed fish, and it doesn't release oxygen. In fact as it dies and breaks down it absorbs oxygen. So it was feared that SSTs endangered the basis of the ocean ecology and might adversely effect the oxygen content of the atmosphere. 2) SSTs release water vapor at very high altitudes. It was believed that this water vapor would form permanent, or nearly permanent, clouds at altitudes where clouds are not normally found. These clouds would reduce the amount of sun light reaching the ground and cause a global cooling. It was believed that contrails were already having this effect. 3) Passenger safety. SSTs fly high enough that passengers are exposed to cosmic radiation and to radiation from solar storms. The U.S. SST designs couldn't come down fast enough to save the passengers lives in the event of a loss of pressure accident or an intense solar storm. The Concorde doesn't fly as high or as fast as the U.S. SST designs were planning on. It also became very obvious that having an SST was becoming a national status symbol with very little economic justification. Times change. Technology advances. When its time to railroad you railroad. Maybe now is the time for SSTs. But only if these questions have been resolved. Branding people as "neo-luddite" because they put the habitability of the only planet we have ahead of their desire for neat technological toys is wrong. Bob P. -- Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. UUCP Address: decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet Reality is what you make of it.
bob@etive.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) (01/26/89)
In article <601326396.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU> Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes: >Actually what stopped the SST in the US were the enviro-nuts who >probably thought the sonic booms would vibrate the tail feathers off >the ducks. Or maybe they felt that if man were meant to fly at MACH god >would have given him a higher methane storage capacity... :-) and :-( One of the main complaints apart from the noise, was that it was going to make holes in the Ozone layer above the Atlantic. There was also some story at the same time about how rocket launches were making holes in the Ozone layer which took days to close up. Does anyone know if there were ever any follow-up studies of this? Bob.
alastair@geovision.uucp (Alastair Mayer) (01/30/89)
In article <1205@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: [..of course there's stuff deleted..] >2) SSTs release water vapor at very high altitudes. It was believed >that this water vapor would form permanent, or nearly permanent, >clouds at altitudes where clouds are not normally found. These clouds >would reduce the amount of sun light reaching the ground and cause a >global cooling. It was believed that contrails were already having >this effect. That's it! The answer the The Dreaded Greenhouse Effect! We'll just build SSTs and carefully balance the global heating caused by CO2 build up and other nasties, by global cooling caused by high altitude SST contrails. Who says there aren't always technological solutions? (Of course, lotsa smileys :-) :-) :-) -- "The problem is not that spaceflight is expensive, | Alastair J.W. Mayer therefore only the government can do it, but that | alastair@geovision.UUCP only the government is doing spaceflight, therefore | al@BIX it is expensive." |
jcbst3@cisunx.UUCP (James C. Benz) (01/31/89)
>2) SSTs release water vapor at very high altitudes. It was believed >that this water vapor would form permanent, or nearly permanent, >clouds at altitudes where clouds are not normally found. These clouds >would reduce the amount of sun light reaching the ground and cause a >global cooling. It was believed that contrails were already having >this effect. > Heyyy.... The greenhouse effect reversed! There might be something to this. Lets build lots of high-flying SST's and we in the Northeast can get our ski trails back in shape! And then we can all go back to burning all the fossil fuels we can get. -- Disclaimer: All opinions expressed herein are mine alone. I wear an asbestos suit to work, so flame away. Pitt doesn't care *what* I do, so long as I appear to be working behind this terminal. Jim Benz, University of Pittsburgh, UCIR
mvp@v7fs1.UUCP (Mike Van Pelt) (01/31/89)
In article <1205@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes: >From article <601326396.amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU>, by Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU: >> Seriously though, it was a bunch of noisy neo-luddites who got them >> banned from all but NY and DC, ... >I don't usually disagree with you Dale, but you really blew it on this >one. There were three very good environmental reasons not to build SSTs. ... >1) The effects of sonic booms on the oceans. It was believed that >sonic booms killed plankton. This is the first I've ever heard this one. It makes no sense at all to me; why wouldn't thunder have the same effect? Why would plankton have such sensitive ears? >2) SSTs release water vapor at very high altitudes. I think I remember this, and the ozone question, being mentioned at the time as arguments against the SST. >3) Passenger safety. SSTs fly high enough that passengers are exposed >to cosmic radiation and to radiation from solar storms. ... >The U.S. SST designs couldn't come down fast enough to save the >passengers lives in the event of a loss of pressure accident or an >intense solar storm. This is not significantly more true for an SST than for an ordinary passenger liner. It's still below the Van Allen belts, which are the main protection from solar flare radiation. Cosmonauts in LEO don't worry about solar flares, either, though the Apollo astronauts sure did! -- Mike Van Pelt When the fog came in on little cat feet Video 7 last night, it left these little muddy ...ames!vsi1!v7fs1!mvp paw prints on the hood of my car.
ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) (02/08/89)
In article <15438@cisunx.UUCP> jcbst3@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (James C. Benz) writes: >>2) SSTs release water vapor at very high altitudes. It was believed >>that this water vapor would form permanent, or nearly permanent, >>clouds at altitudes where clouds are not normally found. These clouds >>would reduce the amount of sun light reaching the ground and cause a >>global cooling. It was believed that contrails were already having >>this effect. >> > >Heyyy.... The greenhouse effect reversed! There might be something to this. >Lets build lots of high-flying SST's and we in the Northeast can get our >ski trails back in shape! And then we can all go back to burning all the >fossil fuels we can get. And what about all the military supersonic fights? Surely what is true of Eco-concerns for the Concord is also true for the SR71?