Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
New York To London In 40 Minutes  
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9502 posts, RR: 13
Posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3544 times:

2:00 a.m. Apr. 19, 2001 PDT
Imagine waking up in New York at sunrise, commuting to London for work and returning home to your spouse and kids for dinner.

It is a dream that could be one step closer to reality in about three weeks. On Wednesday, NASA announced that in early May, it will work with Boeing and Micro Craft to test their high-speed creation, the X-43 -- or Hyper-X.

"Remember, the 'X' is for experimental," NASA spokesman Jim Cast said, trying to contain some of the excitement over the new machine.

I strongly doubt that the price of flying on it can be any cheaper than the Concorde. Why? It costs so much to fly supersonically.

What do you guys think?  Smile

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineJETPILOT From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3130 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3467 times:

Isn't one of the objectives of new technology to make things cheaper and available to the masses?

Its a completely new technology having nothing to do with the old technology from the 1960's used in the Concorde.

Will it be cheaper? Absolutley. Hydrogen is not expensive as a fuel and is the most abundant element in the universe.

I dont think anyone would be excited about building another vehicle which fails to profit that no one carees to operate.

From what it sounds like we wont see a commercial vehicle flying during our lifetime.


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 20
Reply 2, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3435 times:

UMMMM.Stacking around Heathrow would take like 20 minutes anyway...

User currently offlineCorey777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3389 times:

Haven't experimental hypersonic a/c been planned before and failed to 'get off the ground?' I don't think this'll be any different at this point. Think of the development costs. Though it would be cool to see/ride on one.

Donder10: Who says it has to use LHR? Why not LGW or STN?


User currently offlineJet_lag From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3387 times:

I would image at least a million people a day would take advantage of this
opportunity. The air traffic would be horrible (to say nothing of poor Heathrow )  Smile

What will probably happen is this vehicle will be used by NASA and partners to make
space access cheaper. Maybe it will be used for very lon-haul commercial flights, such
as JFK - HKG.

One thing for sure, people will want faster access, and this not being a jet plane,
a new infrastructure will have to be built. Personally, I'm waiting for the teleporters.
They are the safest way to travel, you know!

User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 43
Reply 5, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3385 times:

Just one comment regarding hydrogen as the most common element in the universe.

That may be true....all the stars are made of it. Gas nebulae are made of it...Jupiter and Saturn are made of it...

But how much of it is actually here on earth? How easy is it to synthesize from other elements (being number 1 on the periodic table...would that process add to the cost?)?

User currently offlineAerLingus From China, joined Mar 2000, 2371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3351 times:

I like the idea, but it seems to cost intensive to match the purpose that NASA has in mind. For the next century, aero-commuting seems unlikely.

Get your patchouli stink outta my store!
User currently offlineNa From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 11588 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3340 times:

As much as I would love mankind to finally find a proper environmentally friendly and economical energy substituting oil I don´t expect this hypersonic-project to be reality during my lifetime. And one other oint about it is: What exotic materials will this aircraft be built from? It cannot be constructed from cheap aluminium. I guess such a "Hyper-X" will have an NASA-style price-tag on it. Even in 50 years from now.

Anyway, its nice to hear things a going forward. My wish is all engineering power would be concentrated on finding an endless energy source that can be used after the oil-sheikhs have to declare bancruptcy because the tank is empty.

User currently offlineCatpac From Australia, joined Mar 2001, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

Yeah I agree that this plane will probably not fly commercially in our lifetime...as it takes forever to deisgn, built, test,..research,...It takes almost a decade to get a conventional airliner up and running from drawings to airline flights...

Anyway just my thought.

User currently offlinePmk From United States of America, joined May 1999, 664 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3285 times:


Just a couple of things, not really aviation related but...

1.The most abundant element on earth is Oxygen form O2. The earth's crust is made of silicon dioxide which is SiO2. That makes oxygen the most abundant

2.There is plenty of Hydrogen on earth, you are made of it! Water is 2/3 hydrogen.

3.Making hydrogen, let's make this an experiment, take a glass of water and a 6 volt lantern battery. Take 2 pieces of wire, connect one to the positive terminal and another to the negative, do not connect the wires together. Put the wires in the glass of water, don't let them touch. After a while bubbles will form on the wires, the oxygen is on the negative terminal, hydrogen is on the positive. That's how to make hydrogen. The great thing is after going through the engine of a ramjet it usually makes water! So the cycle never ends! Hydrogen is a good readily available material that is self regenerating! Mazda/Ford (aka Toyo Kogyo) have developed a version of their wankel rotary automobile engine that burns hydrogen, the exaust is drinkable water!!! It's time to work on hydrogen as a fuel of the future. However until that works, I'll take my 2 ton gasoline loving Cadillac!


User currently offlineGOT From Sweden, joined Dec 2000, 1912 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3281 times:

I doubt it will ever be a reality.


Just like birdwatching - without having to be so damned quiet!
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8656 posts, RR: 53
Reply 11, posted (15 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

Great if you live in Queens and commute to Southall in West London. Otherwise where's the saving? Traffic in London is slower now than in the days of horse-drawn carts - average speed is 3 and a half miles an hour. And NY always seems worse when I'm there, so who cares if the flight is 6 hours with three or four at each end spent fucking about in stationary taxis or mile long immigration queues, or just one hour in flight with the same three or four at each end.

Anyway, it's an old argument so I won't labour the point. It's just pointless and here is a true fact: no objective market study has ever shown a viable market for an SST, let alone an HST. The market worldwide for a new SST is about 50 aircraft, but with a $200 billion development cost, you're looking at something like $400m development cost PER AIRFRAME. No airline could afford to buy them in any great number. Remember that BA and AF only make a slim profit charging astronomically high fares, and never paid a penny for the aircraft, or spares (including engines) and most of the maintenence was also completely paid for by the British and French gov'ts for most of the aircraft's service life.

The next step from M.84 is teleportation.

fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New York To London Frequencies posted Mon Jul 19 2004 19:50:12 by Ord777
New York To London... A Question posted Sun Dec 12 1999 22:09:52 by Everett, WA
New York To Oslo? posted Sun Jul 2 2006 17:05:35 by EIASJ
SXM New Terminal To Open In September posted Sun Jun 11 2006 03:05:07 by A388
New York To Philadelphia posted Sun Jan 15 2006 16:52:25 by Highpeaklad
New Concept (To Australia) In Trans-Pacific Flights posted Sun Dec 4 2005 04:24:44 by Simpilicity
Air New Zealand To London posted Wed Nov 2 2005 01:48:19 by Usa1984
No AA Directs From New York To ATL? posted Mon Oct 25 2004 18:36:55 by Starlionblue
New York To Lagos - Strong Demand? posted Mon Jun 7 2004 17:11:29 by AF022
New York To Hong Kong, Which Airline? posted Tue Apr 27 2004 03:51:19 by COEWR2587