Space rocket launches and ISS docking news

171 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, slammer said:

I would doubt that, Concord is, or was, a sloution to a problem that never really existed. it was the next logical step in aviation in the post-war period so it was built and at the time they did have military tech to use as a template. You could say that concord was the offspring of the vulcan bomber.

But attitudes are changing in the avialtion world, even the A380 is now considered a lemon and production will stop in 2021. I don´t think that there is any reason why an airline would want a supersonic passenger jet.

 

If you fly to asia in first class, you pay upward of 8000€ and the flight is slow. But people still pay for it. There is a huge wealthy market out there, for intercontinental flights.

Also a large market for executive flights. An executive for a large company can cost easily more than 1000€ per hour in salary alone. A hotel night probably 400€. Shaving 6h from a flight, plus avoiding one night stay pays a Concord ticket.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

If you fly to asia in first class, you pay upward of 8000€ and the flight is slow. But people still pay for it. There is a huge wealthy market out there, for intercontinental flights.

Also a large market for executive flights. An executive for a large company can cost easily more than 1000€ per hour in salary alone. A hotel night probably 400€. Shaving 6h from a flight, plus avoiding one night stay pays a Concord ticket.

The Concord was only profitable because the French paid millions in taxes to support it.  It was terribly fuel inefficient had terrible range. It could only fly to certain airports because of how loud it was and range restrictions. It was a taxpayer subsidized toy for the super rich. I doubt anyone is planning on bringing it back any time soon.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

If you fly to asia in first class, you pay upward of 8000€ and the flight is slow. But people still pay for it. There is a huge wealthy market out there, for intercontinental flights.

Also a large market for executive flights. An executive for a large company can cost easily more than 1000€ per hour in salary alone. A hotel night probably 400€. Shaving 6h from a flight, plus avoiding one night stay pays a Concord ticket.

I don´t doubt that there would be a market but it would only be a tiny market and for that I don´t think that the major players would take the risk. There are a handful of dreamy-eyed startups with pictures of CGI supersonic jets on the website but they are begging for invenstors.

I would also think that there is a market for airships doing air-cruises, there was the cargo lifter concept a few yonks ago but apart from a huge building near Berlin where it would have been built if management inompetence hadn´t scuppered the project, nothing has come of the airship. Except of course the Zeppelin NT.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slammer said:

I don´t doubt that there would be a market but it would only be a tiny market and for that I don´t think that the major players would take the risk. There are a handful of dreamy-eyed startups with pictures of CGI supersonic jets on the website but they are begging for invenstors.

I would also think that there is a market for airships doing air-cruises, there was the cargo lifter concept a few yonks ago but apart from a huge building near Berlin where it would have been built if management inompetence hadn´t scuppered the project, nothing has come of the airship. Except of course the Zeppelin NT.

Zeppelin NT is a different beast.  It is built in Friedrichshafen by ZF.  ZF is still very much a going concern and if you have enough cash, you can order a Zeppelin from them today (or take a ride on one if you are near there).  https://zeppelin-nt.de/de/zeppelin-fluege/rundfluege-friedrichshafen.html   

 

The other company you mentioned was Cargolifter AG.  They went broke and the giant hall they built is now an indoor resort:  https://www.tropical-islands.de/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BradinBayern said:

Zeppelin NT is a different beast.  It is built in Friedrichshafen by ZF.  ZF is still very much a going concern and if you have enough cash, you can order a Zeppelin from them today (or take a ride on one if you are near there).  https://zeppelin-nt.de/de/zeppelin-fluege/rundfluege-friedrichshafen.html   

 

The other company you mentioned was Cargolifter AG and the giant hall they built is now an indoor resort:  https://www.tropical-islands.de/

The Zeppelin also flys from the Flugwerft in Schleißheim, it´s huge and gracefull to see from close up and you can only fail when you try to imagine the gigantic scale of the great Zeppelins in the 20ties and 30ties.

I have seen the hall, it´s quite amaizing in it´s own right.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MikeMelga said:

If you fly to asia in first class, you pay upward of 8000€ and the flight is slow. But people still pay for it. There is a huge wealthy market out there, for intercontinental flights.

Also a large market for executive flights. An executive for a large company can cost easily more than 1000€ per hour in salary alone. A hotel night probably 400€. Shaving 6h from a flight, plus avoiding one night stay pays a Concord ticket.

 

The reason, why Concorde stopped flying, was because of 9/11 - around the time Concorde came back after the crash, almost half its frequent flyers were killed in 9/11. They never got enough customers back willing to pay the price - so it stopped flying.

6 hours ago, BradinBayern said:

The Concord was only profitable because the French paid millions in taxes to support it.  It was terribly fuel inefficient had terrible range. It could only fly to certain airports because of how loud it was and range restrictions. It was a taxpayer subsidized toy for the super rich. I doubt anyone is planning on bringing it back any time soon.  

 

In the 80's and 90's the Concorde generated 30 % of BA's profits - even though they only had 7 of them !!!, compared to hundreds of other types of aircraft.

 

Concorde, is the most efficient civil plane flying, its the only civilian aircraft to be able to super-cruise ie fly at more than mach 1, without afterburners. Which vastly reduces fuel consumption to mile - afterburners were only required for take off and transition from sub-mach 1 to post mach 1. Concorde still holds the record for most number of hours in supercruise.  You could sit at 60000 ft drinking and eating, while looking down on military airplanes, pilot wear the full protection suits!

With the noise reduction profile, Concorde was quieter than most other commercial aircraft flying at the time.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, slammer said:

The Zeppelin also flys from the Flugwerft in Schleißheim, it´s huge and gracefull to see from close up and you can only fail when you try to imagine the gigantic scale of the great Zeppelins in the 20ties and 30ties.

I have seen the hall, it´s quite amaizing in it´s own right.

Have you seen the two giant hangers at Cardington outside Bedford? Built for the R100 and R101 in the 20's I believe. You can see them for miles and one of the hangers is now home to the Airlander 10.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_Air_Vehicles_HAV_304/Airlander_10

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

The reason, why Concorde stopped flying, was because of 9/11 - around the time Concorde came back after the crash, almost half its frequent flyers were killed in 9/11. They never got enough customers back willing to pay the price - so it stopped flying.

  There was also the little issue of 109 people killed in the crash in Paris.

 

16 minutes ago, yesterday said:

Which vastly reduces fuel consumption to mile

  What?  The Concorde had the same fuel consumption as a 747 that could carry 4 times as many passengers and fly twice as far.  The Concorde could barely make it to the East Coast of the US. 

 

19 minutes ago, yesterday said:

With the noise reduction profile, Concorde was quieter than most other commercial aircraft flying at the time.

What noise reduction profile? Could be, but I never have heard of anything like that.  I know  it was banned from most airports because it was so noisy and because of the sonic boom. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

The reason, why Concorde stopped flying, was because of 9/11 - around the time Concorde came back after the crash, almost half its frequent flyers were killed in 9/11. They never got enough customers back willing to pay the price - so it stopped flying.

 

In the 80's and 90's the Concorde generated 30 % of BA's profits - even though they only had 7 of them !!!, compared to hundreds of other types of aircraft.

 

Concorde, is the most efficient civil plane flying, its the only civilian aircraft to be able to super-cruise ie fly at more than mach 1, without afterburners. Which vastly reduces fuel consumption to mile - afterburners were only required for take off and transition from sub-mach 1 to post mach 1. Concorde still holds the record for most number of hours in supercruise.  You could sit at 60000 ft drinking and eating, while looking down on military airplanes, pilot wear the full protection suits!

With the noise reduction profile, Concorde was quieter than most other commercial aircraft flying at the time.

Uuuh, what? Where do you get this information from..?  One gallon on a concord will get you 16 miles instead of 100 on a 747 at around 120 db on take off.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slammer said:

Uuuh, what? Where do you get this information from..?  One gallon on a concord will get you 16 miles instead of 100 on a 747 at around 120 db on take off.

Many sources, but here is one

Quote

The Concorde was famously loud: a take-off at Washington airport in 1977 measured 119.4 decibels.

By comparison, a clap of thunder hits 120 decibels while the pain threshold for the human ear is around 110.

When the jet broke through the sound barrier, it created a "sonic boom", a huge crashing noise which led many countries to banish it from flying over their territory.

Quote

Another black mark was the Concorde's high fuel consumption. Its four Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 engines together guzzled on average 20 tonnes of kerosene per hour of flight and 450 litres (nearly 120 gallons) per minute at take-off.

The fuel consumption per passenger was 14-17 litres for every 100 kilometres travelled four times more than for an aircraft today.

https://www.france24.com/en/20190301-concorde-technical-feat-financial-fiasco

 

Or here:

Quote

The Concorde could barely fly from the UK to US East Coast, indeed it lacked the range to make it the US West Coast. The aircraft had a total passenger capacity of 100 but consumed the same amount of fuel as a Boeing 747, while the 747 could fly twice as far and had four times the passenger capacity. The Concorde was also incredibly noisy.

https://interestingengineering.com/concorde-the-real-reason-why-the-supersonic-passenger-jet-failed

 

Quote

A Concorde uses, during the course of a typical trans-Atlantic flight, about 5650 gallons of kerosene every hour.  This translates to about 6 gallons of fuel per mile flown.  A Boeing 747 consumes about 5 gallons of jet fuel per mile flown.

While this difference seems very small, remember that the Concorde can only carry a maximum of 100 passengers, whereas the 747 is typically configured to carry about 400 passengers.  In terms of fuel use per passenger carried, one gallon of fuel on Concorde will take one passenger 16.7 miles, but on a 747 one passenger can travel 80 miles.  The 747 is 4.8 times more fuel efficient than a Concorde (and more fuel efficient than two people sharing a private car, too!).

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must admit, I have just watched video's on youtube at lot of them, which talk about, what I said above - cannot find what I am looking for in terms of documents ... on the internet -- I guess because its all a long time ago

 

See here  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bjzoh3iQJc  at about time 4:09 the pilot goes through the noise reduction procedure!

 

Here is an artikel  https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/concorde-noise.htm , saying the US would allow the concorde to fly to airports in the US ( east side ) - I always thought and I have heard on other youtube video's, Concorde was allowed to fly, because the noise reduction routine made it acceptable to fly to the US !  But as it does not really sayit, it could be that there were so few airplanes they allowed it anyway.

 

While the crash was very bad, and killed alot of people, the concord was never grounded because of it - the airplane was judged safe to fly, and it did, it did not fly much longer because of the lack of passengers because of the high price/ maybe fear of passengers because of the accident.   

 

ok fuel consumption high, but then 747 is not going that fast

 

Concorde was over the atlantic, no noise problem

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

Concorde was over the atlantic, no noise problem

 

Yes, but only over the Atlantic.

 

1 hour ago, yesterday said:

In the 80's and 90's the Concorde generated 30 % of BA's profits - even though they only had 7 of them !!!, compared to hundreds of other types of aircraft

Quote

he project ultimately cost British and French taxpayers over $1.5 billion even prior to operation by the airlines, which some still consider a drastic underestimate. Capital costs were written off by government subsidies, and elevated national pride justified high taxes. Self-selecting passengers who could afford fares represented operating costs, thus contributing to the illustrious Concorde aura. Still, Concorde’s first six years ran at a loss, launching an initiative to rebrand, introducing a new fare structure. Early on, one-way tickets from JFK to Heathrow were roughly $1,500; by the 2000s, $7,000 was standard, and $10,000 round-trip was a deal. “In its heyday, BA was making 30 [to] 50 million pounds per year in operating profit, but it was not financially sustainable after 30 years of service,” Stebbing said.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/supersonic-airplanes-concorde/396698/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he project ultimately cost British and French taxpayers over $1.5 billion even prior to operation by the airlines, which some still consider a drastic underestimate. Capital costs were written off by government subsidies, and elevated national pride justified high taxes. Self-selecting passengers who could afford fares represented operating costs, thus contributing to the illustrious Concorde aura. Still, Concorde’s first six years ran at a loss, launching an initiative to rebrand, introducing a new fare structure. Early on, one-way tickets from JFK to Heathrow were roughly $1,500; by the 2000s, $7,000 was standard, and $10,000 round-trip was a deal. “In its heyday, BA was making 30 [to] 50 million pounds per year in operating profit, but it was not financially sustainable after 30 years of service,” Stebbing said.

 

By putting the price up, it made it profitable, as you said, until, lost half its regular passengers, as Mike says - if you can find the passengers willing to pay - then go faster

 

Glad you agree, no noise problem over the atlantic

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, yesterday said:

By putting the price up, it made it profitable, as you said, until, lost half its regular passengers, as Mike says - if you can find the passengers willing to pay - then go faster

 

Glad you agree, no noise problem over the atlantic

 

Yes, a taxpayer subsidized, dirty, noisy toy for the super rich - as long as you don't fly over land or too far.  It is a wonder why the Concorde had no successor.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BradinBayern said:

Yes, a taxpayer subsidized, dirty, noisy toy for the super rich - as long as you don't fly over land or too far.  It is a wonder why the Concorde had no successor.

 

Humm, Concorde was deigned  in a time when, fuel consumption was not an issue - then that changed - no design fault - Concorde just did its job - without a problem. Concorde was developed for the normal person, but when gas prices went up, it was only the rich that could afford it ( it was not designed for rich people as you seem to think). The Space Shuttle was designed to be reusable, thus making space cheap to get to, and could therefore be used almost every week. It turned out that because of the long turn around times, it became the most expensive way to put Satellites into space, with only 1 or 2 launches per year, before losing 2 units and being grounded and through technical defects. Concorde did not crash through a technical defect

 

Here, is a link to the Boeing subsidy's from the US government,  https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/september/tradoc_146484.pdf   - this this is current - but its common in the A/C industry to subsidize.  Almost all airplane development is subsidized, wherever its done - either directly or indirectly.  Even SpaceX, get its technical innovation grants to help it.

 

Sure the Concorde used more fuel than a subsonic airplane, but that's like comparing chalk with chesse, eg A Porsche ( 2 to 4 people )  use more fuel than VW transporter van ( carry 9 or 12 people ) . Does that make a the Porsche  a bad car, no of course not - its just designed for a different market that's all. That's why I cannot see why you want to compare the Concorde with the 747, they are just in different markeks.

 

Ok, subsonic airplanes, had been developed for many  year, including their engines, Concorde was the first of its kind, further development might have produced a better solution, we do not know.

 

Also American had an SST, design, supposed to be much  more advanced, but after many years of finance by the US government, was scraped a un-workable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, yesterday said:

 

Humm, Concorde was deigned  in a time when, fuel consumption was not an issue - then that changed - no design fault - Concorde just did its job - without a problem.

The question was - should we try to bring back the Concorde.  My answer was - no, we should not for all of the reasons I mentioned.  Let the super rich buy and pay for their own toys if they wish.  Who is stopping them?

Quote

Concorde did not crash through a technical defect

A burst tire should not take down an aircraft.  A tire had burst and penetrated the fuel tank of a Concorde n 1979 (but didn't cause a crash) so the engineers were aware of the problem. After the crash, they spent millions in upgrades to the tires and the fuel tanks.  I would call that a technical defect.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't just the burst tyre, it was the debris from the tyre hitting an overfilled fuel tank that could not absorb the shock wave that then ruptured the tank, the tank blew out, it wasn't punctured from the outside. In addition, the balance of the aircraft was wrong by too much heavy luggage being loaded at the back of the aircraft thereby altering the centre of gravity. Next issue was the flight engineer going through the procedure for an engine fire when the engine wasn't burning and the aircraft was still trying to take off. That meant the aircraft (badly loaded and carrying too much fuel) then loss 25% of its power.

 

Aeronautical Engineers will always try to design for the worst case scenario but unfortunately as is usual with accidents this was a case of lots of little things coming together to cause the tragic accident.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, French bean said:

It wasn't just the burst tyre, it was the debris from the tyre hitting an overfilled fuel tank that could not absorb the shock wave that then ruptured the tank, the tank blew out, it wasn't punctured from the outside. In addition, the balance of the aircraft was wrong by too much heavy luggage being loaded at the back of the aircraft thereby altering the centre of gravity. Next issue was the flight engineer going through the procedure for an engine fire when the engine wasn't burning and the aircraft was still trying to take off. That meant the aircraft (badly loaded and carrying too much fuel) then loss 25% of its power.

 

Aeronautical Engineers will always try to design for the worst case scenario but unfortunately as is usual with accidents this was a case of lots of little things coming together to cause the tragic accident.

So why did the same thing happen in 1979 if it wasn't a design error?  Why did they bother to upgrade the planes if it was simply pilot/flight engineer error?  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now