About
TheFutureOfThings - SciTech Daily - Nature - New Scientist - Popular Science - Scientific American - Science Blogs - EurekAlert - NanoTech/Topix - NanoTechWire - MIT TechReview - MIT News - MIT TechTV - DailyTech - MotlBlog - ScienceDirect - MindHacks - NakedScience - ScienceFriday - RedOrbit - OLED Info - RationallySpeaking- ScribeMedia - Retro/CuttingEdge - H+Magazine- Nanowerk - WiredScience - GizMag - DiscoverMag - SmartPlanet - ScienceMag - BBCScienceInAction - SeedMagazine - NeuralScince -
Accounts
Friends
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
May 01 2012
The Jets of the Future
How NASA and aircraft engineers intend to shape the future of air travel
BOX WING JET, LOCKHEED MARTIN
Target Date: 2025
Passenger jets consume a lot of fuel. A Boeing 747 burns five gallons of it every nautical mile, and as the price of that fuel rises, so do fares. Lockheed Martin engineers developed their Box Wing concept to find new ways to reduce fuel burn without abandoning the basic shape of current aircraft. Adapting the lightweight materials found in the F-22 and F-35 fighter jets, they designed a looped-wing configuration that would increase the lift-to-drag ratio by 16 percent, making it possible to fly farther using less fuel while still fitting into airport gates.
They also ditched conventional turbofan engines in favor of two ultrahigh-bypass turbofan engines. Like all turbofans, they generate thrust by pulling air through a fan on the front of the engine and by burning a fuel-air mixture in the engine’s core. With fans 40 percent wider than those used now, the Box Wing’s engines bypass the core at several times the rate of current engines. At subsonic speeds, this arrangement improves efficiency by 22 percent. Add to that the fuel-saving boost of the box-wing configuration, and the plane is 50 percent more efficient than the average airliner. The additional wing lift also lets pilots make steeper descents over populated areas while running the engines at lower power. Those changes could reduce noise by 35 decibels and shorten approaches by up to 50 percent.—Andrew Rosenblum
SUPERSONIC GREEN MACHINE, LOCKHEED MARTIN
Target Date: 2030
The first era of commercial supersonic transportation ended on November 26, 2003, with the final flight of the Concorde, a noisy, inefficient and highly polluting aircraft. But the dream of a sub-three-hour cross-country flight lingered, and in 2010, designers at Lockheed Martin presented the Mach 1.6 Supersonic Green Machine. The plane’s variable-cycle engines would improve efficiency by switching to conventional turbofan mode during takeoff and landing. Combustors built into the engine would reduce nitrogen oxide pollution by 75 percent. And the plane’s inverted-V tail and underwing engine placement would nearly eliminate the sonic booms that led to a ban on overland Concorde flights.
The configuration mitigates the waves of air pressure (caused by the collision with air of a plane traveling faster than Mach 1) that combine into the enormous shock waves that produce sonic booms. “The whole idea of low-boom design is to control the strength, position and interaction of shock waves,” says Peter Coen, the principal investigator for supersonic projects at NASA. Instead of generating a continuous loop of loud booms, the plane would issue a dull roar that, from the ground, would be about as loud as a vacuum cleaner.—Andrew Rosenblum
SUGAR VOLT, BOEING
Target Date: 2035
The best way to conserve jet fuel is to turn off the gas engines. That’s only possible with an alternative power source, like the battery packs and electric motors in the Boeing SUGAR Volt’s hybrid propulsion system. The 737-size, 3,500-nautical-mile-range plane would draw energy from both jet fuel and batteries during takeoff, but once at cruising altitude, pilots could switch to all-electric mode [see Volta Volare GT4]. At the same time Boeing engineers were rethinking propulsion, they also rethought wing design. “By making the wing thinner and the span greater, you can produce more lift with less drag,” says Marty Bradley, Boeing’s principal investigator on the project. The oversize wings would fold up so pilots could access standard boarding gates. Together, the high-lift wings, the hybrid powertrain and the efficient open-rotor engines would make the SUGAR Volt 55 percent more efficient than the average airliner. The plane would emit 60 percent less carbon dioxide and 80 percent less nitrous oxide. Additionally, the extra boost the hybrid system provides at takeoff would enable pilots to use runways as short as 4,000 feet. (For most planes, landing requires less space than takeoff.) A 737 needs a minimum of 5,000 feet for takeoff, so the SUGAR Volt could bring cross-country flights to smaller airports.—Rose Pastore
June 29 2011
Video: A Dolphin-Like Speedboat That Can Reach 50 MPH and Launch 18 Feet Into the Air
Outfitted with a 1500cc engine, a watertight cockpit and six dolphin-like fins, the Innespace Seabreacher redefines personal watercraft. The 17-foot vessel can reach 50 mph on flat water, cruise beneath the surface, and launch 18 feet into the air. It's also got an iPod-compatible sound system and a digital periscope. Summer may never be the same.
Check out this video of the Seabreacher X in action:
Tail Fin
The Seabreacher's top rear fin acts like a car spoiler. When the craft is underwater, aiming its water jet toward the tail fin produces drag that pushes the craft's rear downward and the nose upward, launching the vessel out of the water.
Water Jet
A single jet controls propulsion and steering. Drivers aim it with two foot pedals in the cockpit. Pointing the stream left or right initiates a turn; directing it down pops the tail up and aims the craft's nose down for a dive.
Engine
The 260-horsepower gas engine--similar to a Jet Ski's--generates speeds of 50 mph on the surface and 25 mph beneath. Air intake at the dorsal fin lets the craft cruise underwater while getting oxygen to the engine.
Side Fins
Two manually controlled side fins add maneuverability. Tilting the fins forward sucks the vessel deeper into the water; tilting them backward helps it rise. One forward and one back forces the craft to roll onto its side underwater or on the surface.
Cockpit
The two-seat, pneumatically sealed cockpit is outfitted with a GPS, an iPod dock and speakers. LCD screens display live footage taken from a camera mounted on the dorsal fin, which acts like a digital periscope.
Get It: Innespace Seabreacher X, From $81,000; Innespace
June 17 2011
Ultra-Bright Burst of Light Marks the Death Throes of a Star Being Eaten Alive
Astronomers have solved the mystery of a gargantuan cosmic explosion first spotted in March: A black hole did it, by killing and eating a star the size of our sun.
A couple months ago, we told you about an unusually bright and long-lasting blast of energy emanating from the center of a galaxy 3.8 billion light-years away in the constellation Draco. At first, astronomers thought it was a gamma-ray burst from a collapsing star, but when it kept shining in a variable pattern (brightening and fading) scientists realized it wasn't your average GRB.
Astronomer Joshua Bloom at the University of California-Berkeley suspected it was a high-energy jet produced as a sun-sized star fell into a black hole and was torn to pieces. Bloom and researchers from several other institutions in the US and UK started analyzing data from the Swift Gamma Burst Mission, which first spotted the blaze of glory, as well as the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra X-ray Observatory and the Keck Observatory. Their analysis confirmed the theory, and was published Thursday in Science Express.
As tidal forces tear the star to pieces, some of the star's mass is turned into energy. Some of that energy radiates as x-rays and gamma ray jets that spew from the swirling disk of star guts. The variable brightness is the result of new flares that occurred as more chunks of the destroyed star fell into the black hole, researchers said. Earth happened to be directly in the path of one of those gamma ray jets, which is why it looked so incredibly bright, scientists said.
By the way, this is still going on, more than two months later. Most star-death events last a matter of hours or maybe days, not weeks or months. (This star really died about 3.8 billion years ago.)
The black hole in question has a mass about six or seven times that of the sun, but that's not really that big in terms of active galactic nuclei. Massive black holes, as compared to supermassive black holes, can quietly munch on gas for long periods of time, and roar to life when something wanders too close. That seems to be what happened here, Bloom said in a Cal news release.
"Here, you have a black hole sitting quiescently, not gobbling up matter, and all of a sudden something sets it off," he said. "This could happen in our own galaxy, where a black hole sits at the center living in quiescence, and occasionally burbles or hiccups as it swallows a little bit of gas. From a distance, it would appear dormant, until a star randomly wanders too close and is shredded."
This is a very rare event, and it's even more unlikely that Earth would get such a great view, Bloom said - probably once in 100 million years in any given galaxy.
April 18 2011
Jet-Propelled Surfboard Battles the Breakers
Unlike a Jet Ski’s circular exhaust nozzles, the oblong ones on the WaveJet save space and add power. By forcing water through smaller, flatter openings, the jets produce a higher-pressure stream. Riders turn the jets on and off with a bracelet remote control that also acts as a kill switch if they wipe out. Because the battery-and-jet module sits just ahead of the fins, where a standing surfer’s weight rests, the 15 pounds it adds only minimally affects the board’s balance and performance.
Although the WaveJet’s power could realistically help pro surfers shred harder, its true purpose is to make water sports less frustrating for amateurs. The board’s propulsion system is currently built into 11 surfboard models, including paddle- and lifeguard boards, and will soon be installed in bodyboards, kayaks and kiteboards as well.
Dimensions: 7.1 ft. x 21 in. x 3.125 in.
Weight: 32 lbs.
Run Time: 39 min.
Price: $4,500 (est.)
More Info: WaveJet
Jet-Propelled Surfboard Battles the Breakers
Surfers want to ride waves, not tire out while paddling to them. That's where the WaveJet comes in. Two battery-powered jets tucked into the shortboard's three-inch shell provide 20 pounds of thrust to propel riders at 12 mph-three times the average paddling speed.
Unlike a Jet Ski's circular exhaust nozzles, the oblong ones on the WaveJet save space and add power. By forcing water through smaller, flatter openings, the jets produce a higher-pressure stream. Riders turn the jets on and off with a bracelet remote control that also acts as a kill switch if they wipe out. Because the battery-and-jet module sits just ahead of the fins, where a standing surfer's weight rests, the 15 pounds it adds only minimally affects the board's balance and performance.
Although the WaveJet's power could realistically help pro surfers shred harder, its true purpose is to make water sports less frustrating for amateurs. The board's propulsion system is currently built into 11 surfboard models, including paddle- and lifeguard boards, and will soon be installed in bodyboards, kayaks and kiteboards as well.
Dimensions: 7.1 ft. x 21 in. x 3.125 in.
Weight: 32 lbs.
Run Time: 39 min.
Price: $4,500 (est.)
More Info: WaveJet
March 17 2011
FYI: Could A Layperson Land A Jumbo Jet?
Simply getting to the controls is going to be very difficult. After 9/11, all commercial aircraft have secure cockpit doors designed to prevent anyone from entering during a flight. If you did manage to get inside and get in touch with a control tower or, more likely, the radar room (the control tower takes over only after an airplane is within 10 miles of landing), it’s crucial that there be a pilot on hand who has flown that specific type of plane (or someone else very familiar with it) to give instructions. In most cases, the controller in the tower would instruct you to input basic adjustments to altitude, airspeed and direction into the aircraft’s autopilot system.
“It’s much like a VCR, where you’ve got certain commands you have to set up to record, only much, much more difficult,” says Dale Wright, the director of safety and technology for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. If you punch in the correct settings on the right instruments and then hit autopilot, the airplane does the rest.
Assuming you remain composed, the biggest factor in a successful landing is whether or not the plane is equipped with an auto-land system to control the throttles and, as its name suggests, land the plane. Not all large commercial aircraft have auto-land, however, and without it, you would be forced to disconnect autopilot to land. At that point, says Chris Dancy, a spokesman for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the most likely mistake an amateur would make would be to fly too low, or too slow, which could lead to an aerodynamic stall, in which the airflow around the wing is no longer smooth enough to keep the plane in the air.
Even if the plane has autoland, setting down a 400-ton jet is still an enormous task. After activating the system, you’d have to engage the wing flaps and the landing gear and continually input new speed settings as the plane descended. But if you can dial in all the right numbers (aided by your pal in the control tower), once the plane is about three miles from touching down, the auto-land system kicks in and does the rest of the work, letting you sit back and enjoy the view.
Without auto-land, on touching down you would have to hit the brakes, which are controlled by way of a complicated foot pedal system, and reverse the thrust of the engines (if the runway is short) to stop the plane, Wright says. He guesses that a novice has a “less than 1 percent chance of landing and keeping [the plane] on the runway and not hurting anybody. And that's on a good day."
Have a science question you've always wondered about? Send an email to fyi@popsci.com
May 27 2010
Archive Gallery: A Century of Aviation, From the Wright Brothers to Stealth
In just over 100 years, we've gone from the first powered flight to a scramjet capable of Mach 6. Amazing.
Click to launch the photo gallery
On December 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers embarked on the first sustained, heavier-than-air, man-powered flight aboard the Wright Flyer. Although they made history that day at Kitty Hawk, people were skeptical of aviation technology's potential. An article we published in March 1904 examined what the brothers' feat meant for aviation before concluding that the machines would never develop into commercial carriers. "To say nothing of the danger, the sizes must remain small and the passengers few....navigable balloons and flying machines will constitute a great mechanical triumph for man, but they will not materially upset existing conditions as has sometimes been predicted."
Well, shame on us, because just over a hundred years later, we're launching wingless jets and maneuvering zombie satellites. There's even talk of an electric tethered hovering platform.
Of course, the progression we've made in aviation was largely a matter of trial and error. For every legendary fighter jet that soared, there was a sausage plane or a zeppelin that went under. Still, as the content our archives will attest, a little imagination and perseverance went a long way.
Click through the gallery for our favorite airplanes, airships, flying boats, and spaceships.
Archive Gallery: A Century of Aviation, From the Wright Brothers to Stealth
Earlier this week, the Air Force announced that the X-51 WaveRider, a wingless scramjet, would make its first hypersonic flight. After learning that the scramjet would reach Mach 6, we couldn't help but reflect on the progress aviation has made in just a century. We've combed the archives to build just one of many amazing snapshots of these incredible 100 years.
Click to launch the photo gallery
On December 17, 1903, the Wright Brothers embarked on the first sustained, heavier-than-air, man-powered flight aboard the Wright Flyer. Although they made history that day at Kitty Hawk, people were skeptical of aviation technology's potential. An article we published in March 1904 examined what the brothers' feat meant for aviation before concluding that the machines would never develop into commercial carriers. "To say nothing of the danger, the sizes must remain small and the passengers few....navigable balloons and flying machines will constitute a great mechanical triumph for man, but they will not materially upset existing conditions as has sometimes been predicted."
Well, shame on us, because just over a hundred years later, we're launching wingless jets and maneuvering zombie satellites. There's even talk of an electric tethered hovering platform.
Of course, the progression we've made in aviation was largely a matter of trial and error. For every legendary fighter jet that soared, there was a sausage plane or a zeppelin that went under. Still, as the content our archives will attest, a little imagination and perseverance went a long way.
Click through the gallery for our favorite airplanes, airships, flying boats, and spaceships.
March 19 2010
A Naked Engine For Cleaner Flights
In 1983, engineers at General Electric experimented with an "unducted fan" engine. Without the external casing, airflow through the blades increased, delivering more power for the same amount of fuel. The thing was loud, but the company pressed on because the trick could reduce fuel consumption by as much as 26 percent. Then fuel prices dropped, gas guzzling became acceptable, and GE mothballed the project. Now that airlines are again conscious of fuel costs and carbon, the idea is back, and new tech is making it feasible.
Last September, GE began wind-tunnel testing a one-fifth-scale set of the blades at NASA's Glenn Research Center. Using computational-design advances, engineers are redesigning the original blades to evenly distribute the air coming off the tips when they spin at supersonic speeds, which should reduce the noise. The setup more than triples the airflow through the blades, says Theresa Zeug, the project's lead engineer, and allows them to be 14 feet wide, four feet wider than today's largest. The engine also saves fuel by tilting the blades to control speed-rather than throttling up or down-which lets it run at a constant, efficient rate.
GE will probably have to execute some spin of its own to get the public on board with the fearsome design, which engineers have dubbed the "flying Cuisinart." But GE has time to figure that one out: The engine won't be ready for midsize jets, such as the Boeing 737, until at least 2020.
A Naked Engine For Cleaner Flights
A jet engine shelved in the '80s could improve airplane fuel economy today
Last September, GE began wind-tunnel testing a one-fifth-scale set of the blades at NASA’s Glenn Research Center. Using computational-design advances, engineers are redesigning the original blades to evenly distribute the air coming off the tips when they spin at supersonic speeds, which should reduce the noise. The setup more than triples the airflow through the blades, says Theresa Zeug, the project’s lead engineer, and allows them to be 14 feet wide, four feet wider than today’s largest. The engine also saves fuel by tilting the blades to control speed—rather than throttling up or down—which lets it run at a constant, efficient rate.
GE will probably have to execute some spin of its own to get the public on board with the fearsome design, which engineers have dubbed the “flying Cuisinart.” But GE has time to figure that one out: The engine won’t be ready for midsize jets, such as the Boeing 737, until at least 2020.
March 12 2010
Build Your Own Turbojet? Some People Do
Earlier today, I came upon the site of a man who is building his own jet-powered motorcycle. That's right. He's converting turbochargers into jet engines and building a motorcycle around them. But that's not all; there are apparently a lot of these crazies out there. Here's a look at some.
The main components in a turbojet are the compressor, the combustion chamber, and the exhaust turbine. Although the physical configuration is different, turbochargers provide two of those three parts; namely the compressor and the turbine. Adding a combustion chamber more or less completes the package. Some bold DIY adventurers, having realized this, have gone a bit wild.
Sal Aiello's Jet Project website does a great job of describing how people are building DIY turbojet engines. It also shows his work in progress: The Jet Cycle. Have a look in the attached photo gallery and these videos for a sampling of some of the other DIY jet projects out there.
And, if you need a hilarious way to spend three more minutes, there's always these Jet Trucks.
February 24 2010
Saturn's Moon Spews Ice In Magnificent Plumes
One jet that represented a more powerful spout in the past appears less prominent in this mosaic image, which comes from two high-res images captured by Cassini's narrow-angle camera. More than 20 of the jets have never been identified before.
Scientists have long debated whether Enceladus could hold a salty ocean beneath its outer icy shell. Until the science gets settled, feel free to feast your eyes upon more Enceladus views here.
[NASA]
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
