Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
YaBB - Yet another Bulletin Board
  Latest info can be found on the YaBB Chat and Support Community.

FFDS Home | TIPS Section | Tutorials Section | Resources Section | Utilities Section

Military | FSDS | Jetliners | Real Planes Section | Gmax | Rotorcraft | Business | Civilian

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
New Supersonic Plane deal setting up (Read 2306 times)
8th May, 2006 at 12:17am

lionheart   Offline
Inspecteur des Polygonnes
Phoenix Arizona

Gender: male
Posts: 5782
*****
 
Hey gang,

Man, I hope this happens....

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
 

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
IP Logged
 
Reply #1 - 12th May, 2006 at 12:19pm

Foxwolfen   Ex Member
the less I think, the
more I am

Gender: male
*****
 
I'm torn.

On the one hand, I love aviation.

On the other hand, high flying fast jet aircraft are devistating to the environment.

Now with Bill Gate wanting to put a jet in every garage, we need to start to worry.

I wrote an article way back in 2003 about Linux, and in it I discussed the untold ramifications of the "computer on every desktop" policy. There are litterally hundreds of millions of computers and PCB boards in landfills oozzing tons of toxic waste and mercury. It is now illegal to dispose of computers in the garbage in most modern countries.

Consider the following... there are more plastic particles in the oceans than there is plankton. All modern AC use tremendous amounts of plastic. Some of it is so stable it wont even begin to break down for tens if not hundreds of years, and plastic never decomposes. it just breaks up into a plastic "sand" (even so called bio-degradible).

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register

Now, relating that back to aircraft, consider all those jet engines pumping hydrocarbons into the stratosphere (where the effects are 1000 times worse than on the ground by the way), and then consider the effects the exhaust will have on planes like an SST that fly even higher and faster.

Then think of the cost to recyle all the plastic (which is far too expensive to recycle -  dont be fooled when you see "made from recycled materials", if its not post consumer its meaningless - and thus dumped)

All I can say is... no thanks, but wouldn't it be nice if...?
 
Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register may not be smart enough to do everything, but I am dumb enough to try." - Beast Boy&&&&Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2700mhz OC , ASUS P5E, 4GB OZC Hi-Perf PC6400 DDR2,  Nvidia 8800GTX 786MB GDDR3, 2 x Sata 3.0
IP Logged
 
Reply #2 - 12th May, 2006 at 1:28pm

lionheart   Offline
Inspecteur des Polygonnes
Phoenix Arizona

Gender: male
Posts: 5782
*****
 
Shad,

You see, you are giving up too easy.

Enter your equasions for a clean world and environment into the engineering side of the project.

First off, it the vehicle 'leaves' the atmosphere, would you still have a polution problem?  I realise gravity decay will pull down particulants, but with their mass being quite 'nill', I would think it would be a little easier on the atmosphere.

Also, new forms of bio fuels that are genetically engineered to burn 'a certain way' and a propulsion system that produces a 100% clean burn, would also aid in such a 'environmentally friendly' vehicle.

As for plastics, watch BMW.  In Germany, they have entire departments that are studying recycling the entire vehicle.  They are already on it.  Every single piece is saught to be recycled.  (I saw a very good documentary on BMW's recycling programs, and this was years ago).

Speaking of designing planes, lol.  For a year now, I have wanted to do a Gmax model of a concept.  Its a hybrid rocket/jet airliner.  It leaves the atmosphere via an electric accellerator rail gun/track at 400 MPH, uses a water/selzer rocket for a burn time needed to put it in low orbit, then on orbital insertion when in the atmosphere (FL 50,000 feet), after a comfortable fuel free glide, she lowers turbine nacellses from the belly and begins entry into controled airspace for approach and landing.

.......and, electric servos (motors) powered by the APU would enable cleaner 'taxi' runs.

Grin

The jet turbine's fuel would be corn based and not pulled from Earth and would be designed to burn extremely clean...
 

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
IP Logged
 
Reply #3 - 12th May, 2006 at 1:33pm

lionheart   Offline
Inspecteur des Polygonnes
Phoenix Arizona

Gender: male
Posts: 5782
*****
 
Remember when we didnt have plastic yet? 

Just think, we will have new materials in the future that will replace such things.  Materials that will be so revolutionary and hopefully far more 'environmentally' friendly and easier to recycle.

A good designer thinks outside of the box.  For every problem, there is a solution...
 

Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register
IP Logged
 
Reply #4 - 12th May, 2006 at 4:15pm

Foxwolfen   Ex Member
the less I think, the
more I am

Gender: male
*****
 
Not always, often its a compromise of "acceptible risk - or too far away to consder".

Its a "Tragedy of the Commons" kind of thing.

The problem is one of chemistry. The real damage is actually going to occur in 50 years for the smog we produced 25 years ago. This is because the isotopes of oxygen are slow to react, but react they will. The biggest problem is stratospheric particulate does not precipitate, but stays there and slowly moves higher where it becomes even more reactive and destructive.

Do not be fooled by anything you read or hear, there are only two clean sources of energy and thats the sun and the moon (solar, wind, tidal, etc.).
 
Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register may not be smart enough to do everything, but I am dumb enough to try." - Beast Boy&&&&Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2700mhz OC , ASUS P5E, 4GB OZC Hi-Perf PC6400 DDR2,  Nvidia 8800GTX 786MB GDDR3, 2 x Sata 3.0
IP Logged
 
Reply #5 - 12th May, 2006 at 4:24pm

Foxwolfen   Ex Member
the less I think, the
more I am

Gender: male
*****
 
then think about all those catylitic converters chock full of crap thats then dumped into landfill. Yay, its not in the air, its now in the ground.

Even clean burning fuels produce CO2 as a byproduct. Carbon is actually being trapped and prevented from re-entering the carbon cycle in the normal way (through decomposition which produces other byproducts - fixing nitrogen- not just heat), with measurable impact.

And we keep adding more sources of consumption.


errr... must be the gray day Wink
 
Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register may not be smart enough to do everything, but I am dumb enough to try." - Beast Boy&&&&Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2700mhz OC , ASUS P5E, 4GB OZC Hi-Perf PC6400 DDR2,  Nvidia 8800GTX 786MB GDDR3, 2 x Sata 3.0
IP Logged
 
Reply #6 - 7th Aug, 2014 at 1:31am

Mario Ramsey   Offline
Point Pusher
I Love FFDS!

Posts: 2
*
 
foxwolfen wrote on 12th May, 2006 at 4:15pm:
Not always, often its a compromise of "acceptible risk - or too far away to consder".

Its a "Tragedy of the Commons" kind of thing.

The problem is one of chemistry. The real damage is actually going to occur in 50 years for the smog we produced 25 years ago. This is because the isotopes of oxygen are slow to react, but react they will. The biggest problem is stratospheric particulate does not precipitate, but stays there and slowly moves higher where it becomes even more reactive and destructive.

Do not be fooled by anything you read or hear, there are only two clean sources of energy and thats the sun and the moon (solar, wind, tidal, etc.).

Yes there are plenty of clean energy resources which can be used to generate power..Sun is just perfect example and I am using solar power for years..
 
IP Logged
 
Reply #7 - 8th Aug, 2014 at 1:38am

Mario Ramsey   Offline
Point Pusher
I Love FFDS!

Posts: 2
*
 
Mario Ramsey wrote on 7th Aug, 2014 at 1:31am:
foxwolfen wrote on 12th May, 2006 at 4:15pm:
Not always, often its a compromise of "acceptible risk - or too far away to consder".

Its a "Tragedy of the Commons" kind of thing.

The problem is one of chemistry. The real damage is actually going to occur in 50 years for the smog we produced 25 years ago. This is because the isotopes of oxygen are slow to react, but react they will. The biggest problem is stratospheric particulate does not precipitate, but stays there and slowly moves higher where it becomes even more reactive and destructive.

Do not be fooled by anything you read or hear, there are only two clean sources of energy and thats the sun and the moon (Multimedia File Viewing and Clickable Links are available for Registered Members only!!  You need to Login or Register, wind, tidal, etc.).

Yes there are plenty of clean energy resources which can be used to generate power..Sun is just perfect example and I am using solar power for years..

 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print