This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
This article is based on a report from the Independent https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/china-hypersonic-flights-speed-concorde-b2051192.html nowhere does it say they have completed a test flight.
The brand Space Transportation, also known as the company Beijing Lingkong Tianxing Technology, has released an animated video which shows how its proposed “space flights” might look
That's actually hilarious that this outlet thought a animated video was real.
This "outlet" is barely a news outlet and keeps getting posted on Lemmy recently...
Edit: over the past 12 days OP has posted 7 articles posted by the same user. I think I see what's going on here...
The article does link to that URL behind the line "the first test flight", but that seems erroneous. This story actually seems to be based on this Chinese press release: https://www.spacetransportation.com.cn/news/info/22.html
But it also seems like there's some confusion between an "aircraft test" and a "test flight". I'm not convinced this thing has ever flown.
Call me when they actually show it flying.
All I want to know is how safe it is, and how loud the sonic boom would be when flew over, not how expensive the ticket would be, nor "Will regular passengers be able to handle the physical effects of such high-speed travel."
It's not the speed, it's the acceleration that kills you. Or deceleration, if you're unlucky.
I am sure it is just as safe as it sounds lol
The problems start when it breaks through the safe barrier.
I've heard of Boom Aerospace from the US, which is a little further along in their development process, although they are only super sonic.
Won't happen. The primary reason the Concord failed was that they couldn't make enough money. Running engines to push a plane that fast are super expensive.
And most are willing to pay less even if it's a 6 hour flight.
Because it turned out that no one really needs to get between the UK and the US that quickly. If they do need to get between the UK and the US they're prepared to pay less for it to take longer because the price difference is substantial.
Would certainly want to though. I hate sitting on planes and also get very little time off work, so wasting 12h of a trip for plane time is a lot to me. First class tickets are often 3x regular price and all you get is a bigger seat and slightly better food. I'd find way more value in a shorter trip than a first class ticket. Not saying I could afford it, but if it cost around 3x as much it seems feasible that it would sell at that level at least.
Well Concord was mostly for business people so they weren't buying their own tickets. Which was ultimately their downfall because a company would just decide to spend less money and make their employees sit on a plane for longer, it wasn't really a personal choice the passenger was making.
It was more than that. I'm 1996 round trip tickets were 7500, about 12000 in today's dollars. I can get a round trip ticket under 400 bucks today for NYC to LHR. So it wasn't 3x, but 30x the price.
I'm sure executives would disagree if their companies allow for it.
Not only nobody needs to do that trip that fast, but we're not in the early 00's anymore, and there has never been as many tools to communicate and collaborate remotely. So I'd expect a non-negligible part of these don't even need to do the trip anymore if they want to save money and time.
To be honest conferencing was pretty easy even back in the days of Concord. It was kind of a pointless vehicle really.
But the status... /s
Not only nobody needs to do that trip that fast,
I'd say using "nobody" is unwarranted... some people might've needed at some point. Regardless, it's not a need, it's a want.
Let's not forget that the Concord failed in 2003. I wonder what started happening around then that made that actual flying part a smaller fraction of the overall time spent traveling.....
Even if you can step through a portal and instantaneously get to London from NY, if you still have to go through the rest of the airline process the time savings just isn't that huge.
The one where a part from another plane fell off and got ingested into the Concord's engine? It's hard to see that as Concord's fault, but there was significant loss of life and reputation. But that really shouldn't be characterized as a Concord failure.
No, 9/11 security theatre
