Boeing's Hybrid Electric Airliner of the Future 152
fergus07 writes "Borne out of the same NASA research program that gave birth to MIT's D 'double bubble,' Boeing's Subsonic Ultra Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Volt concept is a twin-engine aircraft design notable for its trussed, elongated wings and electric battery gas turbine hybrid propulsion system — a system designed to reduce fuel burn by more than 70 percent and total energy use by 55 percent. The goal of the NASA supersonic research program is to find aircraft designs that will significantly reduce noise, nitrogen oxide emissions, fuel burn and air traffic congestion by the year 2035."
Always 25 years (Score:3, Insightful)
All the coolest technology is always now()+25 years away.
Re:Supersonic?!? (Score:3, Insightful)
The first car was unprofitable. The first version of the Internet was unprofitable. The first everything is generally unprofitable. Reduce fuel costs by about 50%, reduce sonic boom to match federal guidelines for land crossing, and you have a profitable supersonic airplane.
Re:Always 25 years (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Always 25 years (Score:5, Insightful)
We live in the goddamn future!
Re:Always 25 years (Score:4, Insightful)
When you're talking about advanced aircraft, the "25 years effect" is not the same as it is for overhyped things like fusion power; here, there's actually a reason. Aircraft take a loooooooong time to go from concept to flight: recall that Airbus starting thinking about the A380 in 1988, made it an official project in 1994, and it started commercial flight in 2007. And that's for a conservative design that was just building on existing principles. For a radical, untested design it would be considerably longer. Looking at it from that point of view, 2035 is actually a very reasonable target.
Re:Always 25 years (Score:2, Insightful)
I would gladly exchange all the cellphones in the world for being able to walk on the moon.
You know, I'm thinking that the ability for *anyone* to communicate instantly with *anyone else* in the world by voice or text (or for a few, video) with just a tiny box about the size and shape of a "communicator" from Star Trek from—get this—40 years ago, is probably better than sitting at home watching on TV a couple of other guys bounce around hitting golf balls on a cold, dead rock that offers us no immediate chance for advancement beyond the psychological thrill of saying "someone else other than me walked on the moon." Never even mind smart phones and the ability to watch video or read web pages from *anywhere*... even the ubiquitous manifestation of cellular telephony is a fucking MIRACLE of technology that has immediate, palpable consequences for all of humanity. It has made the world smaller; the moon walk just made it seem a bit smaller. I wouldn't exchange cell phones for watching some guy walk on the moon... they're really more important than the moon landing.
Re:Always 25 years (Score:3, Insightful)
You're going to have to convince me that a majority of Americans want our country to be hiding what's really going on in Afghanistan.
See, it's easy to say "I want to protect national security, so there should be secrets" but then everything suddenly becomes an issue of national security.
In 2003 when Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration asserted "national security" as a reason why the names of the people who had worked with the Administration to create an energy policy should not be released to the public, it was pretty clear we had left a reasonable level of secrecy in the dust just to protect the administration from the embarrassment of having everyone know they'd sold the country out to the oil interests. If "whether or not we are actually accomplishing anything in Afghanistan" becomes a state secret based on national security, there's a bigger problem than wikileaks.
Re:"supersonic" (Score:5, Insightful)
obscure?
Definitely obscure. "Ecological" cars and airplanes? Carbon-powered? Obscure motivations? Trains are 100% electric, infinitely safer, more spacious, smaller footprint than roads, etc. On short routes, they can be faster than flying, after factoring taxis and airport waits. And, there are bar-cars. -- http://gizmodo.com/5434582/the-fastest-train-in-the-world [gizmodo.com]
Re:Always 25 years (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obvious question (Score:1, Insightful)
Another problem this raises: large rows of seats... with no way to get out quickly. It's a death trap. An initial design study for the A380 suggested two tubes alongside, yet it was mostly scrapped due to difficulties and delays in case of emergency evacuation