Starship Asterisk*

JerryB wrote:Why are we so worried about sonic booms from aircraft, since we experience several "sonic booms" during a thunderstorm? Or is it because that is what we expect? I have been close to a lightning strike, and pretty much all I heard was a loud snap...as would happen with a spark plug. However, as you would know, the echo from the clouds of the "strike", is what most people hear, and at times can become house rattling. Would a large aircraft create a louder sonic boom than a "regular" lightning strike? The sonic boom from the Russian asteroid a few years back, was quite significant, when it shattered windows and the like.

Jim Leff wrote:I guess no windows because they'll be projecting or otherwise portraying the outside views. Maybe this is naïve and Luddite-ish of me, but I think directly-perceived reality (i.e. windows) will always feel distinct.

MDB wrote:Cool air and or space plane! In flight lift overcomes gravity and thrust overcomes drag. Why would you want a wing producing lift placed at an angle to the vector needed to overcome gravity? Wouldn't that be like placing your engines to thrust at an angle to the direction you want to go?

MDB wrote:Yes, I was referring to the v wing. If it's not a vertical launch vehicle like a rocket would't the wing have to be a primary lift component? Thank you.

Catalina wrote:How serious of a concept design is this? It seems to me that stress levels placed on the engines by the attached "V wing" would render that design implausible. The perspective for the entire left swept wing and the left side of the "V wing" seems way off to me, as well, both appearing to be much too short on the side closest to the viewer.

Chris Peterson wrote:

MDB wrote:
Yes, I was referring to the v wing. If it's not a vertical launch vehicle like a rocket wouldn't the wing have to be a primary lift component? Thank you.

It sounds to me like the primary purpose of that wing is to modify the aerodynamics in a way that reduces the intensity or direction of the shockwave (not that it can't also be a source of lift). I think the conventional swept wings are the primary source of lift, and to a lesser degree the canards.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=canard wrote:
canard (n.) "absurd or fabricated story intended as an imposition," 1851, perhaps 1843, from French canard "a hoax," literally "a duck" (from Old French quanart, probably echoic of a duck's quack); said by Littré to be from the phrase vendre un canard à moitié "to half-sell a duck," thus, perhaps from some long-forgotten joke, "to cheat." But also compare quack (n.1).

quack (n.1) "medical charlatan," 1630s, short for quacksalver (1570s), from obsolete Dutch quacksalver (modern kwakzalver), literally "hawker of salve," from Middle Dutch quacken "to brag, boast," literally "to croak" + salf "salve," salven "to rub with ointment." As an adjective from 1650s. The oldest attested form of the word in this sense in English is as a verb, "to play the quack" (1620s). The Dutch word also is the source of German Quacksalber, Danish kvaksalver, Swedish kvacksalvare.

Jim Leff wrote:Chris, i'm not going to be able to come up with a reference, but I've read multiple articles on next wave flight designs not including windows for efficiency/aerodynamics/cost reasons. They're counting on advanced presentation methods to simulate views and prevent claustrophobia. I can't say for sure that's what's going on with this design, but that is the trend.

Re: cockpit windows, I'm not sure, but may be same.

zzwerzy wrote:...the skunk? (logo on inverted V wing)

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/aeronautics/skunkworks/origin.html wrote:
Skunk Works® Origin Story

<<In 1943, the U.S. Army’s Air Tactical Service Command (ATSC) met with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation to express its dire need for a jet fighter to counter a rapidly growing German jet threat.

One month later, a young engineer by the name of Clarence "Kelly" L. Johnson and his team of young engineers hand delivered the XP-80 Shooting Star jet fighter proposal to the ATSC. Quickly the go-ahead was given for Lockheed to start development on the United States' first jet fighter effort. It was June of 1943 and this project marked the birth of what would become the Skunk Works® with Kelly Johnson at its helm.

The formal contract for the XP-80 did not arrive at Lockheed until October 16, 1943; four months after work had already begun. This would prove to be a common practice within the Skunk Works. Many times a customer would come to the Skunk Works with a request, and on a handshake the project would begin, no contracts in place, no official submittal process.

Kelly Johnson and his team designed and built the XP-80 in only 143 days, seven less than was required.

What allowed Kelly to operate the Skunk Works so effectively and efficiently was his unconventional organizational approach. He broke the rules, challenging the current bureaucratic system that stifled innovation and hindered progress. His philosophy is spelled out in his "14 rules and practices."

---

How the Skunk Works® Got Its Name

It was the wartime year of 1943 when Kelly Johnson brought together a hand-picked team of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation engineers and manufacturing people to rapidly and secretly complete the XP-80 project. Because the war effort was in full swing there was no space available at the Lockheed facility for Johnson’s effort. Consequently, Johnson's organization operated out of a rented circus tent next to a manufacturing plant that produced a strong odor, which permeated the tent.

Each member of Johnson’s team was cautioned that design and production of the new XP-80 must be carried out in strict secrecy. No one was to discuss the project outside the small organization, and team members were even warned to be careful how they answered the phones.

A team engineer named Irv Culver was a fan of Al Capp's newspaper comic strip, "Li'l Abner," in which there was a running joke about a mysterious and malodorous place deep in the forest called the "Skonk Works." There, a strong beverage was brewed from skunks, old shoes and other strange ingredients.

One day, Culver's phone rang and he answered it by saying "Skonk Works, inside man Culver speaking." Fellow employees quickly adopted the name for their mysterious division of Lockheed. "Skonk Works" became "Skunk Works."

The once informal nickname is now the registered trademark of the company: Skunk Works®.>>

Steve Dutch wrote:
The Concorde was supposed to make supersonic travel routine but the cost never became competitive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde wrote:
<<Aérospatiale/BAC Concorde is a British-French turbojet-powered supersonic passenger jet airliner that was operated until 2003. It had a maximum speed over twice the speed of sound at Mach 2.04, with seating for 92 to 128 passengers. First flown in 1969, Concorde entered service in 1976 and continued flying for the next 27 years.

On 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590 crashed in Gonesse, France after departing from Paris-Charles de Gaulle en route to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, killing all 100 passengers and 9 crew members on board the flight, and 4 people on the ground. It was the only fatal accident involving Concorde. The crash was caused by a metallic strip that fell from a Continental Airlines DC-10 that had taken off minutes earlier. This fragment punctured a tyre on Concorde's left main wheel bogie during take-off. The tyre exploded, and a piece of rubber hit the fuel tank, which caused a fuel leak and led to a fire. The aircraft entered a rapid pitch-up then a violent descent, rolling left and crashing tail-low into the Hôtelissimo Les Relais Bleus Hotel in Gonesse. Prior to the accident, Concorde had been arguably the safest operational passenger airliner in the world in passenger deaths-per-kilometres travelled with zero, but there had been two prior non-fatal accidents and a rate of tyre damage some 30 times higher than subsonic airliners from 1995 to 2000.

On 10 April 2003, Air France and British Airways simultaneously announced that they would retire Concorde later that year. They cited low passenger numbers following 25 July 2000 crash, the slump in air travel following the September 11 attacks, and rising maintenance costs. Although Concorde was technologically advanced when introduced in the 1970s, 30 years later, its analogue cockpit was outdated. There had been little commercial pressure to upgrade Concorde due to a lack of competing aircraft, unlike other airliners of the same era such as the Boeing 747.

It has been suggested that Concorde was not withdrawn for the reasons usually given but that it became apparent during the grounding of Concorde that the airlines could make more profit carrying first-class passengers subsonically.>>