News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by barisser on Monday June 13, 2016 @10:49AM (#11894279)
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by baldfat on Monday June 13, 2016 @10:55AM (#11894328)
I actually would think that could be done "safely". No sarcasm. I am expecting that if fusion ever becomes a reality we will go with electric motors which will certainly always be sub-sonic.
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by snovv_crash on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:14AM (#11894504)
If you vary the inlet and outlet geometry of a ducted fan you can have your fan running at subsonic, while the plane moves supersonic.
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by rrmm on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:33AM (#11894676)
You could also heat the airstream after the compressor.
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by zwily on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:04AM (#11894414)
> electric motors which will certainly always be sub-sonic

Why is that?

Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by skykooler on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:13AM (#11894489)
Electric motors have a top speed which is governed by the forces generated by induction. At higher speeds they spend more and more torque countering those forces. Contrast this with turbines, where a higher inlet speed translates into a higher output speed - the amount of energy a turbine uses to keep itself spinning is constant rather than proportional to airspeed. This is why electric motors would have issues flying at high speeds.
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by sliverstorm on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:39AM (#11894721)
Can you not simply use overdrive gearing to keep motor speed down?
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by kabdib on Monday June 13, 2016 @11:47AM (#11894801)
... or spin the motor with another motor. It could be motors all the way down . . .
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by marcosdumay on Monday June 13, 2016 @04:47PM (#11897485)
What may still be simpler than the fusion reactor some posts up.
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by marcosdumay on Monday June 13, 2016 @04:46PM (#11897478)
For a plane, make that a neutron-less kind of fusion.

After fusion becomes commercially viable, and the entire world concerts, we'll still be about as far as neutron-less fusion as we are from fusion right now.

Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by nradov on Monday June 13, 2016 @04:06PM (#11897095)
Airplanes will go nuclear, but not with onboard reactors. There is simply no way to make onboard reactors sufficiently safe, especially in a crash. Instead nuclear power plants will be used to produce synthetic hydrocarbon liquid fuel for airplanes.
Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by outworlder on Monday June 13, 2016 @07:23PM (#11898581)
Are you sure there's no way? Or do you mean that's not economically sensible to do so?

RTGs are designed to survive uncontrolled reentry. I am aware that they are much simpler devices, but we are talking about containment.

There's no way to get the public to accept that though.

Re:Drop the Supersonic Aircraft Ban by TylerE on Monday June 13, 2016 @08:36PM (#11898945)
The most powerful RTG ever flown had a power output of 3kW.

A typical commercial jet engine (on a SUBSONIC aircraft) is on the order of 50MW.

Might as well try to power an ocean-going freighter with a hand-held sterling engine.