Message posted by JoeinTX on October 20, 2008 at 21:13:28 PST:
Military entities may be jaunting such examples around to see what they can do and all, but, they are certainly not financially sound methods of running a business at this time or in the near future. Rest assured, we'll still be flying between New York and L.A. on high-subsonic medium/wide-body twin engine liners fifty years from now. What the world's military's have conjured up by them, who knows, but it won't be commercially viable.
I don't think I'd consider activities at GLR to have clamed down in recent years...........the newly extended runways, new hangars, and new signal arrays all point to robust and ongoing projects underway as we speak. We don't have any info on them right now, but, an analytical look at the facility suggests activity as significant as years past if not more so.
"the old aviation mantra of "Higher, Farther, Faster" seems to have been suspended...."
Serious intercontinental travel of scale is right now the domain of the commercial aviation industry. Commercial operators, rightly so, are concerned first and foremost about efficiency and affordability.........exotic propulsion systems and fuels do not lend themselves to being terribly economical for hauling bulk cargo and passengers at this time. The Concorde died exactly because with even the most conventional of propulsion at market prices it could not consistently deliver a profit for its users. Is a hypersonic platform using hydrogen and pulse-detonation engines going to be capable of larger loads at better economics? Not even close to hardly.
In Reply to: Re: Higher, Farther, Faster? posted by Robert on October 20, 2008 at 10:54:53 PST:
Replies: