Supersonic Green Machine sends greetings from the future

While many of us are busy debating the relative merits of pocket-sized technology, NASA is mulling over ideas on a much grander scale. Submitted as part of the Administration's research into advanced aeronautics, the above Lockheed Martin-designed aircraft is just one vision of how air travel might be conducted in the future. It's a supersonic jet employing an inverted-V engine-under-wing configuration, which apparently helps to significantly reduce the resultant sonic boom. Other than that, we're only told that "other revolutionary technologies" will provide for the achievement of range, payload and environmental goals. So that snazzy paintjob wasn't just for show, after all -- who'd have guessed?

[coolblue2000 Posted Jun 29th 2010 7:06AM]

"employing an inverted-V engine-under-wing configuration,"

That pic clearly shows a dihedral wing with the engines on top.

Also surely an anhedral wing (which I presume is what is meant by inverted v) can't be a great idea for a large civilian aircraft? (Although I presume NASA scientists know a lot more about wing design than me so they hopefully have answers for this).

[tikigawd Posted Jun 29th 2010 5:14PM]

@coolblue2000

I think the "inverted-V" was referring to the tail. I know there has been some research into putting dihedral on tails for noise suppression in supersonic aircraft. Connecting it to the wing as the picture shows seems to be a structurally efficient way of ensuring stiffness of the tail.
It's hard to tell from that picture if it has any dihedral or anhedral; it looks planar to me. But who knows.

Yes, I am also confused why they call it an under-wing-engine config when the picture clearly shows otherwise...

Also, NASA didn't design it; NASA ran the competition. This particular design was by Lockheed-Martin. There were supersonic and subsonic entries provided by MIT, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and GE Aviation.

[Fishbulb2020 Posted Jun 29th 2010 8:07AM]

It reminds me of the Gekko-Go from Eureka Seven.

[Kozmo Posted Jun 29th 2010 8:15AM]

Hadoken!

[McHoffa Posted Jun 29th 2010 8:34AM]

When will they realize that the best, fastest and most efficient design for aircraft is saucer shaped? They should know this.....

[Bervick Posted Jun 29th 2010 9:00AM]

But does it have a gyroscope like the one Apple invented for the iPhone ?

[apeguero Posted Jun 29th 2010 10:01AM]

NASA and the US Government teasing us once more with a concept of an SST. Yeah. Right. Next!

[technoreaper Posted Jun 29th 2010 10:32AM]

It's must be nice to design something you know will never have to really fly.

[patches66 Posted Jun 29th 2010 10:44AM]

@IMarius
talk about silly: the concorde was extremely inefficient, too noisy to use most airports, carried less than 200 people, famously exploded over paris, and cost over $15k round-trip to europe.

[MAS Posted Jun 29th 2010 10:53AM]

supersonic != green
quick transport != green

quick transport = more fuel to accelerate
quick transport in atmosphere = more fuel to keep at speed

Might as well make it out of unobtanium. This will never be economincal.

[tikigawd Posted Jun 29th 2010 4:59PM]

@MAS

You can't categorically say that.
The Concorde certainly wasn't economical, but it all depends on the design...

[xler8r Posted Jun 29th 2010 10:55AM]

Too bad theres not a serious market for this just yet. Just look at Aerion, the supersonic business jet design firm. Despite them having 70+ reservations, they still can't find a manufacturer to go in with them for production (and they've been around for years). Companies like Dassault and General Dynamics programs have been halted to to economy and short lifespan on some parts....
Maybe 20 years from now it'll heat up for this market niche, but props for their research at least. Its what the industry needs at this point.

[TomaytoTomawto Posted Jun 29th 2010 11:00AM]

It's powered by a rainbow on it's back!

[xler8r Posted Jun 29th 2010 11:13AM]

@TomaytoTomawto
Fabulous

[recharged95 Posted Jun 29th 2010 12:06PM]

All I have to say is:

Space Elevators.


SSTs are not practical--more prone to failures at high speed.

[speculatrix Posted Jun 29th 2010 12:21PM]

Having visited Duxford Air Museum in England recently, and seen concorde, I can only lament the loss of supersonic commercial airflight and hope that mankind can offer it again.

[gatorduck Posted Jun 29th 2010 1:34PM]

looks like that one laptop made for third world children, uhhhhhhhhhhhhh forgot the name

[enbadesign Posted Jun 29th 2010 1:36PM]

I'm more interested in the recently declassified laser based propulsion system for launching vehicles into orbit.

They fire a laser at the bottom of a craft causing the air to become a superheated plasma which then propels the craft into low orbit and then the laser ignites a small amount of propellant in high orbit to give the craft the last boost it needs to escape gravity.

[Phuk0ff Posted Jun 29th 2010 1:54PM]

and the pilot goes.... where?

[tikigawd Posted Jun 29th 2010 4:57PM]

Another report I just received regarding this competition:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/nplus3-0517.html?tr=y&auid=6536766

[BrianEngadget Posted Jun 29th 2010 4:57PM]

Sure the airfare price is reasonable, but then they sock you $45 for the in-cabin oxygen fee.

[Yago Bal Posted Jun 29th 2010 11:42PM]

I wonder how a plane like that can land or take off, with such a small wing surface...

[omga14 Posted Jun 30th 2010 2:52AM]

Nice but I'm still waiting to see NASA come out with a new Space Shuttle that can get to space and back under it's own power. The SR-71 Blackbird can skirt the edge of space and that sucker was designed in the 50's.

Take off into space with some kind of new fuel and glide back with some spare fuel just in case. In space use solar power for all other manuevers.