Hermeus is the most vaporware of vaporware. The engine is the easy part, who tf cares about the engine if the airframe can only do one flight cycle?
7 днів тому
Aerion went belly up and they had deeper pockets and ridiculous engineering support. There is even less demand for hypersonicish air travel than SSBJ. This whole venture is absolutely pointless except as an engine option for the SR-72.
Flying on slow plain didn't used to suck you used to be treated very well you used to be able to get things like lobster or crab and all kinds of fancy desserts and there might even be the last show on bored
Nice and fun and all, but what fuel will these planes use? And how much? One of the main reasons for Concorde's commercial failure was the first oil crisis. This fantastic bird had a drinking problem, Concorde guzzled fuel, like all supersonic / afterburner-using planes. There's few doubts about the possibility of building hypersonic planes, but making them viable commercially and environmentally is a wholy different challenge, and one that's much more unlikely to succeed. The AB duopoly is producing planes that need less fuel per passenger than cars. So, how are hypersonic planes going to work energy-wise? We just can't go back to the era of fuel guzzling aviation.
Ramjets are more efficient than compressor fed turbines. An appropriately designed plane at Mach 4 will have better mpg than a similar conventional jet powered plane at 6-800 mph.
Astro Mechanica isnt a hypersonic company. They also have built barely any hardware. Thats not a knock on Astro Mechanica its still early days for them. But Hermeus without a doubt is the more impressive and mature company.
@@bluceree7312 New does not mean better. The respective engine technologies arent even that comparable considering they are for entirely different speed regimes and are based on fundamentally different operating principles. Rather than simply refreshing old tech, Hermeus is integrating proven tech into a uniquely capable aircraft. That is derisking and a competitive advantage. And while I won't take it away from Astro Mechanica that they are inventing a new kind of aircraft engine they still rely heavily on existing concepts of turboelectric and adaptive cycle engines and their concept is especially reminiscent of turboelectric transmissions in marine propulsion. Similarly this is derisking and can be a competitive advantage. Personally my biggest question regarding what Astro Mechanica is doing has been the power losses through the mechanical-electrical interfaces. Is the adaptive capability worth it if you're losing XX% of your turbine power compared to a continuous shaft? Even if they're betting on super high efficiency motors/generators being a thing theres also battery charging limitations. Maybe they have a solution that people havent thought of on those fronts but they havent shared it yet. I've got nothing against Astro Mechanica, the concept is still super cool and could have applications even if they are yet to address the things i mentioned. And I'm glad that they've gotten the funding to just go for it to see how well it works. I have similar concerns relating to some aspects of Hermeus' technology and business case. I just think its an oversimplification to say "Astro Mechanica > Hermeus" or vice versa when theyre so different and each have their own variables and problem areas.
I think the biggest problem with hypersonic engines is the development cycle. When things go wrong at mach 5, you may not get enough information from the debris to establish what you need to do to avoid this happening again. It is going to take a lot of mistakes before the deaths slow down enough to recover investment costs.
28:00 Interviewer gets it. The "maniacal focus" on succeeding, regardless of impediments means sacrificing a meaningful fraction of one's best productive years on making this technology work, keeping the West in leadership and ensuring our values and the international rules-based order do not fracture.
@4:52, the video has an text overlay error in it... the Concord program wasn't about building the first hypersonic commercial aircraft, it was to build a supersonic commercial aircraft.
How are they going to commercialize hypersonic flight when commercial planes are banned from flying over Mach 1 as mentioned at the beginning of the video?
I would rather see super-efficient air transportation, that may be slower and cheaper, but also more energy efficient. I don't think these super fast planes will make sense except for the super rich.
The number 1 use case is defense. Even catering to the super rich is a shaky business model. But the demand from the DoD has made hypersonics a national priority. So what Hermeus is doing makes a lot of sense its just that the most likely end result doesnt fully align with what theyre saying.
Today’s jetliners do fly at roughly Mach 0.8-0.85, but this is at altitude, generally greater than 30,000ft. That doesn’t correspond to 600-650mph. At such altitudes, the speed of sound is lower. Mach 0.85 at 36,000 ft is only 560mph. Strange to provide such an inaccuracy in a video like this. Further, these are airspeeds, not speed over ground.
Todays airliners have ground speeds ranging from 525 (727) to 585 mph (787) between 30 and 40 thousand feet in still air. In 1960, a Boeing 707 cruized FASTER at 620 mph ground speed, in still air at between 35,000 and 40,000 feet. (Ignoring Concorde of course, todays turbofanjets are more fuel effecient, have faster climb rates, but they have more drag at altitude and are slower.
Where in the world did you get the idea that 600 miles per hour was only 0.8 Mach? 600 mph is about 92 Mach primarily because at altitude the speed of sound is slower than it is at Sea level. And if you tried to fly a commercial aircraft at 600 Mi an hour at sea level you would have already torn the Wings off of the aircraft. They are not capable of flying that fast at sea level.
Why does this wreak of propaganda?? Capitalism isn't the solution, it's *part* of the solution. Most big leaps forward, the jet engine is an appropriate example in this case, were funded by tax dollars and not entrepreneurs. Hypersonic flight is a totally worthwhile endeavor, but this is just a commercial.
@jordansiegel I'm a pilot and this is a solution looking for a problem. What killed the Concorde is costs....we can fly at high rates of speed, but the costs to the environment, fuel and etc may not be worth it. Not to mention SpaceX is already planning point to point long distance travel... Mach 5 can't really compete with this... but I would love to be proven wrong. The idea of traveling at Mach 4, is something I would buy a ticket for.
They are not only true but they are underestimate so... we need to go way faster we are talking space flight UP and won to land in order push no only speed but quantity and size of cargo
True the future is reentry speed not hypersonic. CH4/LOX bell-nozzle turbopump easy to economy of scale rather than over-engineered chemical jet fuel and scramjet technology.
I still think boom overture low supersonic design with astro mechanica partnering on engines will be the lowest cost most environmental aproach of these aerospace companies. Other than straight up manmade antigrav nuke UAPs.
Big rocket making midsize ramjet obsolete. Why bother hypersonic when you already can do reentry speed. CH4/LOX Turbopump bell-nozzle easy to scale than over-engineered jet fuel ramjet.
There is no big market for massive hypersonic passenger travel. There are about a 100 people in total who might be interested in this service. For me, the commercial 5-Mach air travel is irrelevant because it will be expensive as F*** and unsustainable. 5-Mach airplane will never outrun a Zoom call, it will never get cheaper than a flight in a business class. I know that he knows those limitations. Yet he makes his pitch as if he imagines that his audience is dumb and ignorant about the price and unsustainability of hypersonic passenger flight.. Thus, this strong smell of hypocrisy spoils the video. Some investors may actually take the bait. I would rather like him to propose hypersonic flights as entertainment for the rich.
Musk's latest sc@m that he will probably get billions in govt funding through Trump: 'Cross continents at 16,700 mph': Elon Musk says New York City to Shanghai in 40 minutes is 'now possible' Musk says his dream of rocketing passengers across the world in under an hour on the Starship rocket is “now possible” after Donald Trump’s re-election.
I'm not sure how you're relating Trump's reelection to Musk's plans... the Starship is flying already and can already go half way around the world and make a pin point landing in that timeframe. It's been his plan for years and has nothing at all to do with the election.
Logical approach, dod pays for the development that leads to commercial application. Solar, battery tools, the www and so much more followed the same path.
We haven't been back to the moon because we have never been to the moon at least the Comercial space science scene yhe secret black programs have many times
a lot of people doesn't know about it, and they will never see it coming to disrupt a lot of logistic company. It will be one of a kind transport that no other company would be ever able to compete, in terms of speed, and price point. Now Starship development has moved to V2 Starship. When they move to V3, with payload capacity reach 200 tons, that will be a game changer.
Hermeus is the most vaporware of vaporware. The engine is the easy part, who tf cares about the engine if the airframe can only do one flight cycle?
Aerion went belly up and they had deeper pockets and ridiculous engineering support.
There is even less demand for hypersonicish air travel than SSBJ.
This whole venture is absolutely pointless except as an engine option for the SR-72.
How do you eject out of dark horse cuz dark horse is going so fast I think if you rejected you just die immediately
Also how would you handle G-Force in dark horse you feel heavy in a fighter jet imagine how you feel in dark horse going to hypersonic speed
Flying on slow plain didn't used to suck you used to be treated very well you used to be able to get things like lobster or crab and all kinds of fancy desserts and there might even be the last show on bored
I can think of someone who might be interested in a one-way version.
Nice and fun and all, but what fuel will these planes use? And how much?
One of the main reasons for Concorde's commercial failure was the first oil crisis.
This fantastic bird had a drinking problem, Concorde guzzled fuel, like all supersonic / afterburner-using planes.
There's few doubts about the possibility of building hypersonic planes, but making them viable commercially and environmentally is a wholy different challenge, and one that's much more unlikely to succeed.
The AB duopoly is producing planes that need less fuel per passenger than cars. So, how are hypersonic planes going to work energy-wise?
We just can't go back to the era of fuel guzzling aviation.
Ramjets are more efficient than compressor fed turbines. An appropriately designed plane at Mach 4 will have better mpg than a similar conventional jet powered plane at 6-800 mph.
Freethink uploaded a video about this a couple of weeks ago. Astro Mechanica seems to be doing better theory than Hermeus.
But Hermeus have better R&D
Astro Mechanica isnt a hypersonic company. They also have built barely any hardware. Thats not a knock on Astro Mechanica its still early days for them. But Hermeus without a doubt is the more impressive and mature company.
Hermeus are refreshing old tech. Astro Mechanica are inventing new tech. I would say the latter is far more superior.
@@bluceree7312 New does not mean better. The respective engine technologies arent even that comparable considering they are for entirely different speed regimes and are based on fundamentally different operating principles. Rather than simply refreshing old tech, Hermeus is integrating proven tech into a uniquely capable aircraft. That is derisking and a competitive advantage. And while I won't take it away from Astro Mechanica that they are inventing a new kind of aircraft engine they still rely heavily on existing concepts of turboelectric and adaptive cycle engines and their concept is especially reminiscent of turboelectric transmissions in marine propulsion. Similarly this is derisking and can be a competitive advantage. Personally my biggest question regarding what Astro Mechanica is doing has been the power losses through the mechanical-electrical interfaces. Is the adaptive capability worth it if you're losing XX% of your turbine power compared to a continuous shaft? Even if they're betting on super high efficiency motors/generators being a thing theres also battery charging limitations. Maybe they have a solution that people havent thought of on those fronts but they havent shared it yet. I've got nothing against Astro Mechanica, the concept is still super cool and could have applications even if they are yet to address the things i mentioned. And I'm glad that they've gotten the funding to just go for it to see how well it works. I have similar concerns relating to some aspects of Hermeus' technology and business case. I just think its an oversimplification to say "Astro Mechanica > Hermeus" or vice versa when theyre so different and each have their own variables and problem areas.
@@bluceree7312 but overall commercial passenger rockets make all these companies obsolete.
I think the biggest problem with hypersonic engines is the development cycle. When things go wrong at mach 5, you may not get enough information from the debris to establish what you need to do to avoid this happening again. It is going to take a lot of mistakes before the deaths slow down enough to recover investment costs.
28:00 Interviewer gets it. The "maniacal focus" on succeeding, regardless of impediments means sacrificing a meaningful fraction of one's best productive years on making this technology work, keeping the West in leadership and ensuring our values and the international rules-based order do not fracture.
GODSPEED to all Involved!
@4:52, the video has an text overlay error in it... the Concord program wasn't about building the first hypersonic commercial aircraft, it was to build a supersonic commercial aircraft.
thank you both
still will be too expensive..
Will still be good because the business people can go have their meetings and make deals.
best replacement for never flying Concorde
How are they going to commercialize hypersonic flight when commercial planes are banned from flying over Mach 1 as mentioned at the beginning of the video?
And the problem with hypersonic flight is how it ruins neighborhoods that experience the hypersonic impact physically and audibly.
maybe only when it reaches a specific altitude?
Over the ocean, mach 5 is worth dodging continents.
Supersonic air travel is still legal on open airspace like oceanic flights. Its only banned overland.
That's why Concord closed and that's why SR72 flew over 70.000 feet..
Let’s just remember why Concorde crashed shall we. It was nothing to do with it being supersonic!
This looks so rehearsed.
I would rather see super-efficient air transportation, that may be slower and cheaper, but also more energy efficient. I don't think these super fast planes will make sense except for the super rich.
The number 1 use case is defense. Even catering to the super rich is a shaky business model. But the demand from the DoD has made hypersonics a national priority. So what Hermeus is doing makes a lot of sense its just that the most likely end result doesnt fully align with what theyre saying.
Thank you!
Today’s jetliners do fly at roughly Mach 0.8-0.85, but this is at altitude, generally greater than 30,000ft. That doesn’t correspond to 600-650mph. At such altitudes, the speed of sound is lower. Mach 0.85 at 36,000 ft is only 560mph. Strange to provide such an inaccuracy in a video like this. Further, these are airspeeds, not speed over ground.
Todays airliners have ground speeds ranging from 525 (727) to 585 mph (787) between 30 and 40 thousand feet in still air. In 1960, a Boeing 707 cruized FASTER at 620 mph ground speed, in still air at between 35,000 and 40,000 feet. (Ignoring Concorde of course, todays turbofanjets are more fuel effecient, have faster climb rates, but they have more drag at altitude and are slower.
Where in the world did you get the idea that 600 miles per hour was only 0.8 Mach?
600 mph is about 92 Mach primarily because at altitude the speed of sound is slower than it is at Sea level. And if you tried to fly a commercial aircraft at 600 Mi an hour at sea level you would have already torn the Wings off of the aircraft. They are not capable of flying that fast at sea level.
Why does this wreak of propaganda?? Capitalism isn't the solution, it's *part* of the solution. Most big leaps forward, the jet engine is an appropriate example in this case, were funded by tax dollars and not entrepreneurs. Hypersonic flight is a totally worthwhile endeavor, but this is just a commercial.
Reek*
Right? He's relying on military funding from the government to make his company work, so he really should be thanking socialism.
They need funding, if people aren’t on board with the project then no one will invest. That’s all this is about and I don’t see why that’s a bad thing
@jordansiegel I'm a pilot and this is a solution looking for a problem. What killed the Concorde is costs....we can fly at high rates of speed, but the costs to the environment, fuel and etc may not be worth it. Not to mention SpaceX is already planning point to point long distance travel... Mach 5 can't really compete with this... but I would love to be proven wrong. The idea of traveling at Mach 4, is something I would buy a ticket for.
Write to your congressman to ask them to buy you a hypersonic plane.
Hope I get into a new concorde by the end of this decade.
You likely will NOT
1:01 why to look 👀 up and not down 😮
They are not only true but they are underestimate so... we need to go way faster we are talking space flight UP and won to land in order push no only speed but quantity and size of cargo
You can take a quarter horse to the water, capitalism will make it drink.
What a waste. Flying the Atlantic in 90 mins is a requirement very, very few people have.
I think starship is a better bet. Less than 40min to arrive at any point on earth
True the future is reentry speed not hypersonic. CH4/LOX bell-nozzle turbopump easy to economy of scale rather than over-engineered chemical jet fuel and scramjet technology.
Lol
@@theamazingreptar this guy said hell with mach 5 he wants to hit mach 25
I still think boom overture low supersonic design with astro mechanica partnering on engines will be the lowest cost most environmental aproach of these aerospace companies. Other than straight up manmade antigrav nuke UAPs.
What? Super sonic airfreight? Creating more trade? Literally Noone will ever ship freight Super sonic. That's just stupid
This is so cool. Love the editing on this one too!
Big rocket making midsize ramjet obsolete. Why bother hypersonic when you already can do reentry speed.
CH4/LOX Turbopump bell-nozzle easy to scale than over-engineered jet fuel ramjet.
Welcher Probleme ohne Lösungen gibt..........?
There is no big market for massive hypersonic passenger travel.
There are about a 100 people in total who might be interested in this service.
For me, the commercial 5-Mach air travel is irrelevant because it will be expensive as F*** and unsustainable.
5-Mach airplane will never outrun a Zoom call, it will never get cheaper than a flight in a business class.
I know that he knows those limitations.
Yet he makes his pitch as if he imagines that his audience is dumb and ignorant about the price and unsustainability of hypersonic passenger flight..
Thus, this strong smell of hypocrisy spoils the video. Some investors may actually take the bait.
I would rather like him to propose hypersonic flights as entertainment for the rich.
Put the fries in the bag elon musk will probably be able to offer faster and cheaper flights with spaceX yall too late
Wo ist meine Einkommen & wer ist der verantwortlich bittschön ................?
Musk's latest sc@m that he will probably get billions in govt funding through Trump:
'Cross continents at 16,700 mph': Elon Musk says New York City to Shanghai in 40 minutes is 'now possible'
Musk says his dream of rocketing passengers across the world in under an hour on the Starship rocket is “now possible” after Donald Trump’s re-election.
I thought the Earth 🌎 would soon be unlivable and we needed to colonize Mars.
So why do we need this??
I'm not sure how you're relating Trump's reelection to Musk's plans... the Starship is flying already and can already go half way around the world and make a pin point landing in that timeframe. It's been his plan for years and has nothing at all to do with the election.
Logical approach, dod pays for the development that leads to commercial application. Solar, battery tools, the www and so much more followed the same path.
@@justinmas299 that always happens its kinda bullshit if dod pays for tech they should have rights to that tech
We haven't been back to the moon because we have never been to the moon at least the Comercial space science scene yhe secret black programs have many times
Hypersonic travel will be a thing of the past. Why because we have subspace travel with spacex starship
a lot of people doesn't know about it, and they will never see it coming to disrupt a lot of logistic company. It will be one of a kind transport that no other company would be ever able to compete, in terms of speed, and price point. Now Starship development has moved to V2 Starship. When they move to V3, with payload capacity reach 200 tons, that will be a game changer.