94 replies to this topic

[THBatMan8]

The B-2 isn't all that modern either. Are we forgetting it was also manufactured in the 80s-90s?

[LA_PHX]

Duke, on Nov 4 2010, 01:15 PM, said:

As long as they don't get sucked into the jet intake, conveniently located behind them...

I will admit, there are flaws in my system.

[THBatMan8]

Brian_Griffin, on Nov 4 2010, 03:17 PM, said:

Yes they do, because the Average Joe, who is not as well versed on airliners as you and me are (yes, this is debatable), will see it as some sort of alien space-ship that has been reproduced in the movies. Why do you think airliners have liveries? It is to attract customers (as well as distinguish themselves) from others [as well as some other reasons]. I bet you more than 70% of normal travelers would be pretty freaked out at this new concept. I mean, hey, this might be the future, but then I guess we will have to wait and see.  

What I meant was that looks aren't the primary reason airliners buy airframes.

bigflyersmallbyer, on Nov 4 2010, 04:20 PM, said:

I've noticed that you seem to think that computers are a fail safe. They're not. They're made by humans, so they will have mistakes in them.

No, he has the "computers and BWB's will remove pilots" mentality. The technology simply doesn't exist for that.

[bigflyersmallbyer]

Water_Boy, on Nov 4 2010, 08:35 PM, said:

What I meant was that looks aren't the primary reason airliners buy airframes.
No, he has the "computers and BWB's will remove pilots" mentality. The technology simply doesn't exist for that.

People won't put 100% trust into it anyway, so it wouldn't be feasible.

[THBatMan8]

bigflyersmallbyer, on Nov 4 2010, 04:41 PM, said:

People won't put 100% trust into it anyway, so it wouldn't be feasible.

Yup. Also, MIT has been throwing out designs like this for a while. You can't argue the fact that BWB's can save a bunch of fuel, but you also can't argue the fact that they aren't safe. Lose a engine in a BWB, and everyone on that aircraft is as good as dead. Stall a BWB, and everyone on the aircraft is as good as dead. Etc, etc....


Comforting facts to know.  

Edited by Water_Boy, 04 November 2010 - 04:06 PM.

[Prancer]

Remember, this is NASA. You know, the same people who landed on the moon. I imagine they know a bleeding heck of a lot more about this than any of you. I also doubt they're doing this just for kicks.

Water_Boy, on Nov 4 2010, 03:30 PM, said:

The B-2 isn't all that modern either. Are we forgetting it was also manufactured in the 80s-90s?

That's kind of the point. If a computer system from the 80s can make the B-2 perform so well, then one from 2010-2015 will make it perform very, very, very well.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 5 2010, 03:07 AM, said:

Remember, this is NASA. You know, the same people who landed on the moon. I imagine they know a bleeding heck of a lot more about this than any of you. I also doubt they're doing this just for kicks.

Blind faith in them?   Now you just don't have an argument to pass so you're saying that

[Prancer]

___, on Nov 4 2010, 04:58 PM, said:

Blind faith in them?   Now you just don't have an argument to pass so you're saying that

Well, you're more than welcome to call the engineers at NASA and tell them you know more than they do.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 5 2010, 03:33 AM, said:

Well, you're more than welcome to call the engineers at NASA and tell them you know more than they do.

Call the FAA and ask them if it's ok if it takes 5 minutes to evacuate an aircraft

[Cactus]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 4 2010, 06:03 PM, said:

Well, you're more than welcome to call the engineers at NASA and tell them you know more than they do.

"Brought to you by the folks who created the Challenger and Columbia disasters"

PS: This is an MIT design, not NASA. NASA merely provided the $2.1 million so a graphic designer could make these renderings (we all know the technical data is fictitious - just look at the promises manufacturers themselves make)

Anyhoo, give me a couple million and I can make some nice Photoshop drawings too... where do I stand in line?

[Prancer]

Duke, on Nov 4 2010, 05:27 PM, said:

"Brought to you by the folks who created the Challenger and Columbia disasters"

PS: This is an MIT design, not NASA. NASA merely provided the $2.1 million so a graphic designer could make these renderings (we all know the technical data is fictitious - just look at the promises manufacturers themselves make)

Anyhoo, give me a couple million and I can make some nice Photoshop drawings too... where do I stand in line?

Actually, those were flaws with the SRBs and ET. And considering the shuttles have been serving the harshest enviroments faithfully for over 20 years.

That's another thing. With all the security precautions they take, it stands to reason...

All these problems being mentioned here, they have already thought of.

[Gym_Class_Hero]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 5 2010, 04:00 AM, said:

Actually, those were flaws with the SRBs and ET. And considering the shuttles have been serving the harshest enviroments faithfully for over 20 years.

That's another thing. With all the security precautions they take, it stands to reason...

All these problems being mentioned here, they have already thought of.

You just keep on going don't you?


Show me where they've thought of the evac problem?

Edited by ___, 04 November 2010 - 05:39 PM.

[Prancer]

___, on Nov 4 2010, 05:38 PM, said:

You just keep on going don't you?
Show me where they've thought of the evac problem?

http://www.evacmod.net/?q=node/2080

http://fseg.gre.ac.u...strib_final.pdf

http://fseg.gre.ac.uk/fire/VELA.html

Quote

The airEXODUS evacuation simulation suggests that the NACRE BWB with 1045
passengers and crew can be evacuated within 80.6 sec to 92.8 sec with an average
of 85.9 sec. Improved performance can be expected by better utilisation of the
rear, and in particular the corner cabin exits. This may be achieved through
improved passenger familiarisation with the cabin layout and improved visual
access. However these times represent out of aircraft time and not the on-ground
time as required by current regulation.

Quote

This work has demonstrated that the NACRE BWB configuration has
the potential of satisfying such safety criteria and is arguably capable of providing an
equivalent or better level of safety to today’s conventional aircraft.

Edited by hgtkifhieoplwoji, 04 November 2010 - 05:57 PM.

[THBatMan8]

Quote

Well, you're more than welcome to call the engineers at NASA and tell them you know more than they do.

This isn't about knowing more than the engineers at MIT (not NASA). This is about knowing the criteria needed for airplanes to be certified to fly in the US. You're fighting a lost battle. I suggest you go to this website and look up FAR 25, which outlines the criteria transport category (turbines) airplanes need to meet before you keep posting more biased arguments. Educate yourself in the facts before you argue over something you obviously know nothing about.

Also, NASA doesn't have the time to research these projects on their own, which is why they fund others to do it. They are too wrapped up in their own agenda to worry about what's happening in the commercial industry.

Edited by Water_Boy, 04 November 2010 - 07:03 PM.

[Prancer]

Water_Boy, on Nov 4 2010, 06:53 PM, said:

This isn't about knowing more than the engineers at MIT (not NASA). This is about knowing the criteria needed for airplanes to be certified to fly in the US. You're fighting a lost battle. I suggest you go to this website and look up FAR 25, which outlines the criteria transport category (turbines) airplanes need to meet before you keep posting more biased arguments. Educate yourself in the facts before you argue over something you obviously know nothing about.

Also, NASA doesn't have the time to research these projects on their own, which is why they fund others to do it. They are too wrapped up in their own agenda to worry about what's happening in the commercial industry.

So, the EU study is a biased argument? o.O Not like the ones here aren't biased at all..lol.

[THBatMan8]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 4 2010, 08:04 PM, said:

So, the EU study is a biased argument? o.O Not like the ones here aren't biased at all..lol.

Yeah, your argument is biased. You would have responded to the rest of my post if your intentions were otherwise.

Edited by Water_Boy, 04 November 2010 - 07:57 PM.

[Prancer]

Water_Boy, on Nov 4 2010, 07:57 PM, said:

Yeah, your argument is biased. You would have responded to the rest of my post if your intentions were otherwise.

He asked me for a source citing if the teams have thought of the evacuation. I posted a study which looked carefully at it and concluded through real world testing the BBW would be just as safe, if not safer than convetional planes. That's not biased, that's stating the facts. I just blew your whole argument right out of the water. And you didn't even acknowledge the study. Which shows bias on your end.

Edited by hgtkifhieoplwoji, 04 November 2010 - 08:01 PM.

[THBatMan8]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 4 2010, 09:00 PM, said:

He asked me for a source citing if the teams have thought of the evacuation. I posted a study which looked carefully at it and concluded through real world testing the BBW would be just as safe, if not safer than convetional planes. That's not biased, that's stating the facts. I just blew your whole argument right out of the water. And you didn't even acknowledge the study. Which shows bias on your end.

My argument goes further than evacuations. Read FAR 25.

[Prancer]

Water_Boy, on Nov 4 2010, 08:02 PM, said:

My argument goes further than evacuations. Read FAR 25.

I did. And...

Once more! You seriously don't think the effin' NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, and companies like BOEING have not thought about that? If someone like you, a lowly bus driver, can consider that, the people who actually build and design the darn things most certainly will.

[THBatMan8]

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Nov 4 2010, 09:08 PM, said:

I did. And...

Once more! You seriously don't think the effin' NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, and companies like BOEING have not thought about that? If someone like you, a lowly bus driver, can consider that, the people who actually build and design the darn things most certainly will.

Once more,

This is not NASA or Boeing doing this.