Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

A40 t1_je69fbr wrote

Reply to comment by TattoedBacon in This Swiss hypersonic hydrogen-powered jet will cut flights from Europe to Australia to 4 hours by altmorty

It's a theoretical design based on a theoretical concept based on a theoretical future economy and a possible (in theory) public demand for such an outrageously expensive flight.

But (in theory) it will seat up to ten billionaires. But then their people will have to slum it on regular service along with the bags.

62

phdoofus t1_je6fat2 wrote

Plus theoretical materials and a theoretical infrastructure. NB, it hasn't even gone supersonic yet so the hypersonic part is still theoretical too.

10

E_Snap t1_je7hsup wrote

Normal people won’t pay extra for faster flights— that’s why the Concorde failed.

4

Specific-Salad3888 t1_jebp32m wrote

Concorde didn't fail because of that. Concorde only sat 128 people it wasn't made for everyday traffic for the most of us, it was niche expensive experience for the few.

1

bdsee t1_je8fzrp wrote

Not true, I basically always pay extra to fly direct rather than have a layover...that is paying for a faster flight.

I would absolutely pay more to make the direct flight faster too...it is much easier to justify to myself than paying for premium economy or business class is.

−4

Qarbone t1_je90nly wrote

If they're rich enough to afford this flight, they don't fly with bags. They buy everything custom everywhere they land.

1

altmorty OP t1_je6afuf wrote

>Destinus’ Eiger Prototype which conducted its maiden flight on April 13th, 2022

>Destinus has been testing its prototype aircraft for the past couple of years, announcing successful test flights of its second prototype - Eiger - at the end of 2022.

Maybe you should read more than just the title.

−4

baggier t1_je7mc6p wrote

The prototype was a large sized drone powered by a conventional aviation fuel powered turbojet at speeds of about 200 km/h. The switch to hydrogen is theoretical, the hyperspeed (let alone supersonic) is just aspirational. And by aspirational I mean

  1. Raise lots of grants and venture capital
  2. Keep lots of scientists, engineers and management paid for many years
  3. Give up in about 10 years and move on to new project
10

A40 t1_je6hgso wrote

Not even supersonic yet.

3

erosram t1_je6b290 wrote

That quote says it’s a prototype. Better than completely theoretical, but still a bit theoretical compared to the claim. And still a theoretical future economy. And still crazy expensive.

−2

aneeta96 t1_je6enc8 wrote

If something is no longer an idea on paper but an actual working object it is no longer a theory.

3

rsta223 t1_je8cjjw wrote

A 200km/h drone is so far from a passenger carrying hypersonic plane that the hypersonic plane is absolutely still theory.

This is a complete pipedream and will likely never work.

5

Ihavenoideawhatidoin t1_je7cl9y wrote

Which is why they’re still theoretical. They don’t have hydrogen engines and they’re subsonic on the prototype they have. They don’t have a working object that matches their stated goals. Not even close.

4

kthegee t1_je7o8mu wrote

You do realise prototype /= end product , this is why engineers of all kinds hate management.

Yea yes the bare basic flight tests rule the design capable of staying aloft , straight into production it goes.

Smh

3

erosram t1_je7cn7j wrote

Only if it accomplishes the claim, which this doesn’t.

2

aneeta96 t1_je7hi1a wrote

Reality rarely lives up to the theoretical expectations. Doesn't make it any less real however.

−3

blargh9001 t1_je8m7k3 wrote

I made a paper plane prototype of my faster-than-light spaceship, so FTL travel is no longer just theoretical.

6

altmorty OP t1_je6euvy wrote

>It's a theoretical design based on a theoretical concept

It can't be clearer. A prototype that's passed tests is not a theoretical design/concept.

Every single tech is expensive to begin with. New tech is almost always initially aimed at the rich, who can afford the expense.

−6

Ihavenoideawhatidoin t1_je7ccmv wrote

Well so far they’re flying subsonic on normal jet engines. So yes, they’re still theoretical.

5

ryan30z t1_je7rdb1 wrote

I don't think you quite get the engineering challenges of building a hypersonic aircraft.

It's not just a case of slapping bigger engines on. The demand for a passenger scramjet isn't high enough to offset development and maintenance costs.

For moving large payloads, we're not moving away from turbofan any time soon.

2