azorius.net

China's New Hypersonic Passenger Plane Can Fly From London to New York in Under 2 Hours (vocal.media)
from Lord01@lemmy.world to technology@lemmy.world on 03 Nov 01:32
https://lemmy.world/post/21570108

A Chinese aerospace company has successfully completed the first test flight of a groundbreaking hypersonic passenger aircraft.

#technology

threaded - newest

umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml on 03 Nov 02:35 next collapse

All I want to know is how safe it is, and how loud the sonic boom would be when flew over, not how expensive the ticket would be, nor “Will regular passengers be able to handle the physical effects of such high-speed travel.”

JesusSon@lemmy.world on 03 Nov 03:48 next collapse

I am sure it is just as safe as it sounds lol

superkret@feddit.org on 03 Nov 14:51 collapse

The problems start when it breaks through the safe barrier.

raynethackery@lemmy.world on 03 Nov 04:57 collapse

It’s not the speed, it’s the acceleration that kills you. Or deceleration, if you’re unlucky.

vulture_god@lemmy.dbzer0.com on 03 Nov 03:42 next collapse

I’ve heard of Boom Aerospace from the US, which is a little further along in their development process, although they are only super sonic.

just_another_person@lemmy.world on 03 Nov 03:50 next collapse

Call me when they actually show it flying.

Cheradenine@sh.itjust.works on 03 Nov 03:56 next collapse

This article is based on a report from the Independent independent.co.uk/…/china-hypersonic-flights-spee… nowhere does it say they have completed a test flight.

The brand Space Transportation, also known as the company Beijing Lingkong Tianxing Technology, has released an animated video which shows how its proposed “space flights” might look

pycorax@lemmy.world on 03 Nov 05:54 next collapse

That’s actually hilarious that this outlet thought a animated video was real.

mac@lemm.ee on 03 Nov 15:28 collapse

This “outlet” is barely a news outlet and keeps getting posted on Lemmy recently…

Edit: over the past 12 days OP has posted 7 articles posted by the same user. I think I see what’s going on here…

todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee on 03 Nov 12:48 collapse

The article does link to that URL behind the line “the first test flight”, but that seems erroneous. This story actually seems to be based on this Chinese press release: www.spacetransportation.com.cn/news/info/22.html

But it also seems like there’s some confusion between an “aircraft test” and a “test flight”. I’m not convinced this thing has ever flown.

randompasta@lemmy.today on 03 Nov 04:32 collapse

Won’t happen. The primary reason the Concord failed was that they couldn’t make enough money. Running engines to push a plane that fast are super expensive.

Frozengyro@lemmy.world on 03 Nov 05:06 next collapse

And most are willing to pay less even if it’s a 6 hour flight.

echodot@feddit.uk on 03 Nov 05:09 collapse

Because it turned out that no one really needs to get between the UK and the US that quickly. If they do need to get between the UK and the US they’re prepared to pay less for it to take longer because the price difference is substantial.

Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works on 03 Nov 05:22 next collapse

Would certainly want to though. I hate sitting on planes and also get very little time off work, so wasting 12h of a trip for plane time is a lot to me. First class tickets are often 3x regular price and all you get is a bigger seat and slightly better food. I’d find way more value in a shorter trip than a first class ticket. Not saying I could afford it, but if it cost around 3x as much it seems feasible that it would sell at that level at least.

echodot@feddit.uk on 03 Nov 08:21 next collapse

Well Concord was mostly for business people so they weren’t buying their own tickets. Which was ultimately their downfall because a company would just decide to spend less money and make their employees sit on a plane for longer, it wasn’t really a personal choice the passenger was making.

Frozengyro@lemmy.world on 03 Nov 13:42 collapse

It was more than that. I’m 1996 round trip tickets were 7500, about 12000 in today’s dollars. I can get a round trip ticket under 400 bucks today for NYC to LHR. So it wasn’t 3x, but 30x the price.

brsrklf@jlai.lu on 03 Nov 12:16 next collapse

Not only nobody needs to do that trip that fast, but we’re not in the early 00’s anymore, and there has never been as many tools to communicate and collaborate remotely. So I’d expect a non-negligible part of these don’t even need to do the trip anymore if they want to save money and time.

echodot@feddit.uk on 03 Nov 14:47 next collapse

To be honest conferencing was pretty easy even back in the days of Concord. It was kind of a pointless vehicle really.

0x0@programming.dev on 04 Nov 12:49 collapse

But the status… /s

0x0@programming.dev on 04 Nov 12:49 collapse

Not only nobody needs to do that trip that fast,

I’d say using “nobody” is unwarranted… some people might’ve needed at some point. Regardless, it’s not a need, it’s a want.

0x0@programming.dev on 04 Nov 12:46 collapse

I’m sure executives would disagree if their companies allow for it.

potatopotato@sh.itjust.works on 03 Nov 06:15 collapse

Let’s not forget that the Concord failed in 2003. I wonder what started happening around then that made that actual flying part a smaller fraction of the overall time spent traveling…

Even if you can step through a portal and instantaneously get to London from NY, if you still have to go through the rest of the airline process the time savings just isn’t that huge.

randompasta@lemmy.today on 03 Nov 14:12 collapse

The one where a part from another plane fell off and got ingested into the Concord’s engine? It’s hard to see that as Concord’s fault, but there was significant loss of life and reputation. But that really shouldn’t be characterized as a Concord failure.

potatopotato@sh.itjust.works on 03 Nov 17:33 collapse

No, 9/11 security theatre