New rocketplane 'could fly Paris-Tokyo in 2.5 hours' (Zero Emission Hypersonic Transportation)

AFP ^ | June 19, 2011 | Unknown

[hopespringseternal]

the passengers will need some sort of space/pressure suit, because even the tiniest leak of air at that height would be horribly and painfully fatal ...

A bit overly dramatic, don't you think? The tiniest leak would not be noticed. A little bigger and you could compensate by increasing the oxygen flow. And you aren't in orbit -- as long as it isn't sudden depressurization, you do what any plane does today: Lower your altitude/speed. I'd still want a pressure suit. But since you aren't building the space station it need not be so terribly sophisticated.

Not to mention that the only aviation facilities I am aware of that have the ability to handle large amounts of cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen belong to NASA. To my knowledge there is no space launch or support facilities in either Paris or Tokyo, so that relegates this entire story to Science Fiction.

LOX, no problem. It is a standard industrial material. Even your podunk local hospital has a LOX tank out back. And while engineers' hearts all go aflutter over the high ISP of hydrogen, the massive tanks you need and far higher cost of the fuel itself make kerosene a better choice for anything that has to return a profit.

Of course, even bringing up "green" in a launcher discussion, tells you all you need to know about the (lack of) seriousness of the people proposing this. Not to mention that even the healthiest European countries aren't looking too good. This ain't going anywhere anytime soon. And it will make the Concorde look like an economy flight from Chicago to Detroit by cost comparison.

[decimon]

And if you are going to fly at that altitude, the passengers will need some sort of space/pressure suit, because even the tiniest leak of air at that height would be horribly and painfully fatal to everyone who was not wearing a suit.

OTOH, “You don’t pollute, you’re in the stratosphere.”

[Vinnie]

Ignition by Lucas. G

[patton]

Thanks, I think I will walk.

[LS]

Lessee, I think the USA worked on this in the late 1980s in a program I was the official historian for, the National Aerospace Plane, only we were trying to do it with scramjets, not rockets. The advantage is that if you can get the scramjets to work, you can achieve airplane-like turnaround times. And, yes, we used liquified hydrogen as fuel---one of the most successful parts of the program.

We could never get the scramjets to perform anywhere near the needed thrust ratios, though, so the program was broken up into three research programs to work on this.

If you can get it (limited release), see my book, "The Hypersonic Revolution, vol. III: The Quest for the Orbital Jet."

[decimon]

If you can get it (limited release), see my book, "The Hypersonic Revolution, vol. III: The Quest for the Orbital Jet."

Looks like the AF is offering it gratis, in PDF: http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/Publications/Annotations/hallionhypersonic.htm

[mc5cents]

To land, the pilot cuts the engines and glides down to Earth before reigniting the regular engines before landing.

"O.K. We will now reignite the engines! Stand by..."

[FreedomPoster]

LOL! Well put.

[FreedomPoster]

LOL! Well put.

[LS]

Great! Pretty boring stuff, although I write like a business historian, not a flight/aerospace historian, but I think there is some great stuff in there. (NASA wouldn’t publish this: too critical).

[decimon]

I haven’t read this so I don’t know what I’m talking about, however...the Air Force part in the space program might be more interesting than the NASA part. I say that cuz I’ve always been much more keen on X-20 than on Apollo. Lost much interest after X-15.

I do know that the AF continued with its projects to the extent they were allowed. But low-key.

[LS]

The history was that NASP (X-20) was a joint DARPA/NASA/USAF/SDI/NAVY project that, before long, simply became a USAF/NASA project. NASA never really believed in the technology and the shuttle lobby was always trying to stall the program or minimize its accomplishments. On the other hand, the USAF overplayed the potential benefits of the program, especially in the civilian area. It was the “orbital” aspect that gave the program its sex appeal-—no one would fund a Mach-10 plane, which is what needed to happen first.