Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mattie_p on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the so-it-runs-linux? dept.

girlwhowaspluggedout writes:

"Spike Aerospace has revealed how the Spike S-512, which is planned to be the first supersonic business jet, will be able to fly from New York to London in half the time that the flight requires now. The plane, which is expected to carry 12-18 passengers, will enjoy the reduced drag and lower weight that come with an advanced engine and no windows:" Read more below.

The new supersonic jet will feature a revolutionary windowless passenger cabin so no more glaring sun and no more shades to pull down or push up. Instead, the interior walls will be covered with a thin display screens embedded into the wall. Cameras surrounding the entire aircraft will construct breathtaking panoramic views displayed on the cabin screens. Passengers will be able to dim the screens to catch some sleep or change it to one of the many scenic images stored in the system.

Without windows, the S-512 is expected to reach speeds between Mach 1.6 and 1.8.

Dr Darren Ansell, an expert in space and aerospace engineering at the University of Central Lancashire, told BBC News what passengers in a plane without windows can expect to experience:

There will be no natural light it will all be simulated so it will be a bit like being in a tube. And how would it work from a safety perspective? If there was an accident how would you know which way the plane was facing, and where you had landed, when the cameras have failed?"

You just know that some imaginative hacker is going to have a field day with this..."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by similar_name on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:22AM

    by similar_name (71) on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:22AM (#4753)

    Thinking about windows causing drag, I'm wondering; Could you make a plane (or anything for that matter?) more seamless with something like a thin coat of acrylic applied to the whole thing?

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by isaac on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:43AM

      by isaac (500) on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:43AM (#4759)

      Thinking about windows causing drag, I'm wondering; Could you make a plane (or anything for that matter?) more seamless with something like a thin coat of acrylic applied to the whole thing?

      Even if there weren't all kinds of other ports, hatches, and other perforations that were needed for the aircraft to operate or be maintained (defeating the integrity of this coating,) the extra weight would offset any benefit at low speeds and it wouldn't hold up to the stresses of high speeds.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by NovelUserName on Saturday February 22 2014, @05:51PM

        by NovelUserName (768) on Saturday February 22 2014, @05:51PM (#4883)

        NASA [nasa.gov] used a high temperature carbon composite for the leading edge surfaces of the Hyper-X planes. Those were only designed to last for a few minutes, but they were also good to skin temps up to 3000deg or something silly. Presumably the resin materials for those composites would work fine for the GP's hypothetical plane-dip. The plane is apparently being designed with composite materials anyway, so it will probably come out of the factory with a sanded/painted resin skin already, which will be pretty close to the hypothetical dip.

        Cheers

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Saturday February 22 2014, @07:54PM

        by edIII (791) on Saturday February 22 2014, @07:54PM (#4926)

        Heck, I'm wondering if you could make a whole plane with absolutely minimal perforations and not even cockpit windows. Just a redundant array of sensors and a full touch screen pit completely surrounded with displays that allow the pilots a 360 degree view with minimal obstructions.

        It's all going to be fly-by-wire, so safety is simply a matter of redundant systems. If you're dropping like a rock, and all the systems are dead, I don't see how seeing the ground rushing up at you helps all that much.

        As for all the ports and hatches, perhaps that can be minimized, or put in only a few places to allow otherwise seamless skin around the whole thing.

        If they're serious about making this thing, it could be done and look almost transparent on the inside.

        Since I bet the cost will likely be 20k per trip, I'm betting that most of us will never see the insides of one of these things.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by evilviper on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:23PM

          by evilviper (1760) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:23PM (#4980) Homepage Journal

          not even cockpit windows [...] I don't see how seeing the ground rushing up at you helps all that much.

          I can think of situations such as flying through volcanic ash clouds, or bird strikes, that have partially blinded pilots before, which likely would have COMPLETELY blinded them if they only had a much smaller surface (a couple camera lenses) to look through.

          I'd also be concerned about power draw, in the event of multiple engine failures. Is the RAT going to be able to provide enough power for several large TV screens, in addition to what it powers now, even at low air speeds?

          --
          Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by CluelessMoron on Sunday February 23 2014, @01:52AM

            by CluelessMoron (1374) on Sunday February 23 2014, @01:52AM (#5038)

            On the other hand, while you can have backup cameras (with protective covers that can be ejected), you cannot have backup windshields. I know of the flight you're probably thinking of near Australia years back that got sandblasted from a volcano and I'm sure they would have loved to have been able to say "eject cover on camera #2 and switch to that".

            As for power, I don't see that as a problem. I am currently looking at a 25" monitor and it's drawing a puny 23W according to my meter, and you really only need one monitor to land in a pinch. In a FBW airplane 23W is peanuts. If your RAT can't handle that it can't handle the flight control surfaces for sure.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by hb253 on Saturday February 22 2014, @05:19PM

      by hb253 (745) on Saturday February 22 2014, @05:19PM (#4875)

      Per the website, the windows are removed to make the airframe more robust and reduce weight.

      --
      The firings and offshore outsourcing will not stop until morale improves.
    • (Score: 1) by tangomargarine on Monday February 24 2014, @06:10PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday February 24 2014, @06:10PM (#6006)

      I'm wondering how all the cameras they say they're mounting on the outside of the plane to simulate windows aren't going to affect the aerodynamics...

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by girlwhowaspluggedout on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:25AM

    by girlwhowaspluggedout (1223) on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:25AM (#4755)

    I guess the BBC's journalist didn't tell the doctor he interviewed that the company plans to remove the windows in the passenger cabin alone. That is, the pilots will still get to keep a window, which mitigates his safety concerns. So hooray for sensationalism, however small.

    The only reason to swap the pilots' windows with screens is, of course, to show movies about gladiators.

    --
    Soylent is the best disinfectant.
    • (Score: 1) by davester666 on Saturday February 22 2014, @07:06PM

      by davester666 (155) on Saturday February 22 2014, @07:06PM (#4917)

      The pilots can still watch movies on the head-up display.

      Anyway, now that there won't be any windows, we can go back to the good ole days where we can have guns in carry-on.

  • (Score: 2) by combatserver on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:35AM

    by combatserver (38) on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:35AM (#4758)

    I had an Estes model rocket that looked curiously similar to this.

    --
    I hope I can change this later...
  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:55AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:55AM (#4761)

    I realize Windows is pretty stable now but I would really appreciate somebody cracking a joke about this jet not easily crashing. Also, is this the day of Linux on the supersonic jetstop?

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by Gryle on Saturday February 22 2014, @11:52AM

      by Gryle (2777) on Saturday February 22 2014, @11:52AM (#4789)

      Well it was until RMS started griping that passengers weren't free to move their seats to any portion of the aircraft they liked.

      --
      Ignorance can be remedied. Stupid seems to be a permanent condition.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:58AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:58AM (#4762)

    Pretty much anything gets faster after removing Windows...

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Sir Finkus on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:05AM

    by Sir Finkus (192) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:05AM (#4763) Journal

    I'm curious what the camera/display latency would be on that. Looking at the interior concept, I could see this causing motion sickness if they aren't synced very closely. I'd also worry about the cameras vibrating.

    That said, it looks neat.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by kebes on Saturday February 22 2014, @06:18PM

      by kebes (1505) on Saturday February 22 2014, @06:18PM (#4899)
      Motion sickness is a valid concern.

      On the one hand, for most of the flight the plane will be cruising and so will be quite steady. It will be displaying images of distant objects, so the images will not be varying much from frame-to-frame. Moreover, since the image being displayed is 2D, most people will actually just perceive it to be like a still image/painting, and may not even associate it with being 'the outside world' (which, in fact, calls into question the reason for having these screens at all).

      On the other hand, during tight manoeuvres and whenever there is turbulence, any slight mismatch between the movement of the images and the true movement of the cabin will indeed be unsettling (and worsen any motion sickness). Most people ignore the windows on an airplane except during takeoff and landing, when there is something interesting to actually look at. So, these viewscreens will be especially unsettling particularly during those times when people are most likely to want to look at them!

      Hopefully they will do a bit of research inside flight simulators, and design their video frame-rate and latency to minimize such problems.
    • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:13PM

      by evilviper (1760) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:13PM (#4976) Homepage Journal

      Why don't we just stop denying reality? Even aircraft manufacturers have admitted that passengers' ideal flights are the ones they entirely sleep through. Forget windows, forget video, forget reclining seat-backs, just drug everybody out of their minds before takeoff, and wake them up after landing. No motion sickness, no need for food/drink service, no rowdy passengers, fewer lavatories, etc.

      --
      Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:56PM

        by VLM (445) on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:56PM (#5169)

        "have admitted that passengers' ideal flights are the ones they entirely sleep through." ... here's someone who doesn't know about the "mile high club".

        The killer problem is I've taken the train from Chicago to NYC and had a nice steak dinner on board not some airline garbage (although congress has been trying to get rid of the good food to make Amtrak fail for political soundbite reasons), slept in a real bed, its really pretty nice. Laze around the fireplace in the 1st class lounge in CHC until dinner time, hop on the train, leisurely evening relaxing in my cabin with my laptop, wake up and eat breakfast, dropped off in downtown NYC at Penn station around lunchtime. Return trip about the same, more like hop on the train mid afternoon, arrive in CHC right at breakfast time. Movies on a projector in the recreation car, real bartenders serving real drinks, its like a very narrow cruise ship, minus the topless sunbathing deck (which could probably be arranged on a train if they really wanted it...) Changing your business model to match something where your competitor absolutely excels, is a fools game.

        True, I'm not going to take the train from CHC to Japan anytime soon (although that would be impressive as hell, the zillion mile detour and amazing bridge in Alaska to .ru would be something to see) This railroad bridge (nearly need a covered tunnel?) between Alaska and .ru is likely to be the engineering achievement of my kids generation. Imagine continuous double track from .de or heck, .uk, all the way to north america. Maybe not so much for people, other than people with a hell of a lot of spare time, but cargo. Ship tank cars of hot grits from Georgia to Georgia, or York to (new) York.

    • (Score: 1) by thoughtlover on Tuesday February 25 2014, @09:23AM

      by thoughtlover (3247) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @09:23AM (#6500) Journal

      If the camera were mounted flush with the surface, I don't see a problem.

      I do see an 'entertainment bonus' with video cameras by adding an augmented overlay of a crazy creature tearing parts off the wing...

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by moo kuh on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:12AM

    by moo kuh (2044) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:12AM (#4765) Journal

    I wonder if this will have the same problems with air friction as the concorde?

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by glyph on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:21AM

      by glyph (245) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:21AM (#4769)

      Or the same problems with regional authorities banning supersonic commercial flights in their airspace...

      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by combatserver on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:44AM

        by combatserver (38) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:44AM (#4777)

        They're working on that...

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Spike [wikipedia.org]

        --
        I hope I can change this later...
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by TheRaven on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:50AM

        by TheRaven (270) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:50AM (#4778) Journal

        That's not so bad for the London-New York route - even if you can't fly supersonic for the couple of hundred miles over the UK or the last bit of the approach, you still can for 90% of the distance over sea. The same is true for US west coast to Australia, Japan, and costal parts of China. The flights that had problems were the US coast-to-coast flights and ones from Europe to the Far East, as these are all over land, in high demand, and long. Suborbital flights might be possible on those routes, as they're not sufficiently low to cause noise problems for most of the trip.

        The real issue for supersonic flight has always been economics, and a private jet might have better luck there. Flying on Concorde gave you a seat that was about the size of an economy seat on most airlines and got you from London to New York in about 3 hours, but for the same price (often quite a bit less) you could fly first class in another airline and the trip would take around 7-8 hours. But you need to be at the airport an hour or so before departure anyway, and you probably have another hour of travelling at each end on top of the flight, so you've got 3-4 hours of non-flight time, meaning that your total trip is going from about 10-11 hours to 6-7, and you spend three of those in significantly less comfort than you would if you took the slower trip. You're also limited by scheduled flight times, so you may actually get to your destination earlier if you take another flight.

        With a private jet, there's no need for advanced check-in, airport security is much faster, and you can fly from whichever airstrip is closest and has a runway that can handle you (or get a helicopter from there to a larger one), so the time savings can be quite considerable. When you're the sort of person whose company thinks a private jet is a good investment, saving a few hours of travel time may actually be worth the expenditure (or, perhaps more accurately, in an accounting bucket were value is poorly defined) and this looks like it's no less comfortable than competing aircraft in the same space.

        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by nobbis on Saturday February 22 2014, @01:33PM

          by nobbis (62) on Saturday February 22 2014, @01:33PM (#4815) Homepage Journal

          Agreed, I flew on Concorde once, but only because I got a special deal. It was fun as a one off, but even if I had the money I don't think it would make sense to travel on it regularly
          Will the lack of windows will also strengthen the airframe ? If there is an accident, I don't think a lack of windows will matter, there will probably be gaping holes in the fuselage to see out of.

          --
          It's easy to look up when your mind's in the gutter
          • (Score: 2, Informative) by andrew on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:09PM

            by andrew (755) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:09PM (#4973)

            It would strengthen the airframe. Like you say, it wouldn't matter in a crash but there are advantages. Without cut out portions for the windows a solid continuous fuselage could be designed to be stronger with less weight. This weight savings could be significant to efficiency, flight characteristics, and flight tolerances.

            The other thing to keep in mind is when planes go this fast they stretch and expand. The Concorde would stretch 6-10 inches during flight. These high speeds had such an effect on the airframe of the SR-71 Blackbird that it was designed so body panels fit together loosely on the ground, so much so that it would actually leak fuel. The aircraft would take off and then a short high speed trip to get everything sealed up properly before refueling in flight and going on it's mission.

            It's likely there are a lot of benefits and we will see more plans like this in the future.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by lubricus on Saturday February 22 2014, @12:33PM

    by lubricus (232) on Saturday February 22 2014, @12:33PM (#4797)

    TheRaven has already covered the operational economics [soylentnews.org] well. Could someone with aerospace experience comment on the feasibility of a startup company producing an aircraft like this as their first and only product? (the website lists no other products). What does it take for a small aircraft manufacturer to get the certifications etc to introduce a new aircraft to market? Does the supersonic design fall under any additional regulation?

    In short: how likely is this to be a supersonic vapour aircraft?

    --
    ... sorry about the typos
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by aiwarrior on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:42PM

      by aiwarrior (1812) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:42PM (#4988) Journal

      It is highly likely it is vaporware unfortunately. The know-how required for supersonic research is mostly in big military companies. Just to give you some food for thought, do you know how many supersonic wind tunnels exist and how expensive it is to operate them? I don't know how many but surely they can be counted with my hands. Take a look at the power requirements http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_wind_tunne l#Power_requirements [wikipedia.org].

      The certification costs of new commercial aircraft are normally prohibitive and I find it hard that someone outside some superstar millionaire like Musk would have the capital for such an endeavor without the right reputation. Remember aviation is a very conservative industry.

      I am in my last year of aeronautical studies and from my experience most of the new companies are in the UAV sector. First because the capital cost and risk is much smaller and second because for an university it is easier to pass experience through inexpensive wind tunnels and equipment than special one of a kind wind tunnels and aircraft. So it is unlikely there are many new supersonic engineers out there. The ones that are, are already in the big military companies.

      About the lack of windows...I find that the concept would decrease operational costs tremendously even in the normal airliners, because a window is a hole in the fuselage. This means the strength of the fuselage has to be over dimensioned when compared to a windowless fuselage. The over dimensioning reflects itself through additional structural elements and complexity which cost money to implement and fuel to take it "upstairs".

      This is my perspective of course. It would be great to have other inputs.

  • (Score: 2, Funny) by Boxzy on Saturday February 22 2014, @01:39PM

    by Boxzy (742) on Saturday February 22 2014, @01:39PM (#4817) Journal

    Windows was a heavy burden, maan.

    --
    Go green, Go Soylent.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Open4D on Saturday February 22 2014, @03:24PM

    by Open4D (371) on Saturday February 22 2014, @03:24PM (#4840) Journal

    Cameras surrounding the entire aircraft will construct breathtaking panoramic views displayed on the cabin screens.

    I presume a first generation of such aircraft would have to do this because people have always been used to having windows. But if people come to accept the idea of windowless passenger cabins, any cameras that didn't serve a strictly functional purpose could eventually be considered for removal. This would be fine by me.

     

    There will be no natural light - it will all be simulated - so it will be a bit like being in a tube. And how would it work from a safety perspective? If there was an accident how would you know which way the plane was facing, and where you had landed, when the cameras have failed?"

    These concerns shouldn't be a big deal. We're already used to being without natural light for several hours each day. And a cost/benefit analysis of the usefulness of windows after an accident would probably show you're better off spending the money on reducing the chance of an accident, or on alternative post-accident countermeasures.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by johaquila on Saturday February 22 2014, @03:46PM

      by johaquila (867) on Saturday February 22 2014, @03:46PM (#4848)

      Alternative post-accident countermeasures are psychologically more important for the same reason people are afraid of flying but not of driving a car on their own, even when they are tired and can't drive. It's about feeling in control in case something goes wrong. The odds of something going wrong don't factor into it.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2014, @06:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 22 2014, @06:37PM (#4908)
        Dying for your own direct screw ups is arguably good for the species as a whole. So driving yourself is a gene fitness test. In contrast plane flights/crashes aren't so good - your genes don't have as much influence over the outcomes.

        Might be why many young guys have the urge to do stupid crazy stuff- create more opportunities for fitness testing of their other genes (healing, reflexes etc). And if they survive to get older they tend to stop doing the crazy stuff (till maybe they hit 40-50 ;) ).
      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by evilviper on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:07PM

        by evilviper (1760) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:07PM (#4971) Homepage Journal

        people are afraid of flying but not of driving a car on their own, even when they are tired and can't drive. It's about feeling in control in case something goes wrong.

        I never bought this argument... People who are afraid of flying aren't afraid of riding a bus or a train, and probably aren't afraid of crossing a bridge or looking over the edge of a building. It doesn't seem like "control" has anything to do with it.

        --
        Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Angry Jesus on Saturday February 22 2014, @04:32PM

      by Angry Jesus (182) on Saturday February 22 2014, @04:32PM (#4865)

      But if people come to accept the idea of windowless passenger cabins, any cameras that didn't serve a strictly functional purpose could eventually be considered for removal.

      They wouldn't really need cameras to begin with, just pre-recorded video. After all, how would the people inside know the difference once they got off the ground? Get 50 or so different recordings for different conditions (rainy, sunny, night, winter, summer, etc) and you'd fool pretty much anyone flying on these things, they aren't likely to be focusing on the verisimilitude anyway.

      • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:03PM

        by evilviper (1760) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:03PM (#4970) Homepage Journal

        how would the people inside know the difference once they got off the ground? Get 50 or so different recordings for different conditions (rainy, sunny, night, winter, summer, etc) and you'd fool pretty much anyone flying on these things,

        If the video doesn't match the inertia, people wouldn't accept it. When you feel yourself suddenly dropping, climbing, accelerating, slowing, etc., but the video is smooth and level, you know it's fake without thinking about it.

        Theme park rides make it work because they're on stable ground, and they CAUSE the motion at the exact moment needed to match-up with the video.

        The video could potentially be adjusted on-the-fly (so to speak) but it would take a vastly larger video (or something fake and both vertically and horizontally tiled), and a very impressive computer on-board

        --
        Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
        • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:37AM

          by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:37AM (#5023)

          That's only a problem when you are very near the ground. Most of the time you are too far away from any reference point for there to a be visible correlation to movement. Any sudden drops that are discernible mid flight will be so serious that the last thing the passengers will be worrying about is whether the video is in sync or not.

          • (Score: 1) by evilviper on Sunday February 23 2014, @03:03AM

            by evilviper (1760) on Sunday February 23 2014, @03:03AM (#5053) Homepage Journal

            Have you ever heard of "clouds"?

            And I disagree with the assumption that people shut off their brains when there's turbulence/air pockets/wind shear/etc.

            --
            Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
            • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:30AM

              by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:30AM (#5088)

              Have you ever heard of "clouds"?

              Have you ever flown in a plane?

              • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:49AM

                by evilviper (1760) on Sunday February 23 2014, @05:49AM (#5090) Homepage Journal

                All the time.

                --
                Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Sunday February 23 2014, @01:27PM

                  by Angry Jesus (182) on Sunday February 23 2014, @01:27PM (#5174)

                  Then clearly you've never paid attention to the clouds because anyone who has paid attention knows that clouds only look like they have a perceptible edge when you are too far away for a couple hundred foot change in altitude to be noticeable. And in the rare case of suddenly dropping more the a couple of hundred feet, nobody gives a shit what is outside the window.

                  • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Monday February 24 2014, @12:00AM

                    by evilviper (1760) on Monday February 24 2014, @12:00AM (#5383) Homepage Journal

                    clouds only look like they have a perceptible edge

                    They don't have sharp edges, but they do have areas of differing density. You absolutely can clearly see horizontal and some vertical columns of thinner and denser "fog" (for lack of better terms) while flying through clouds.

                    And in the rare case of suddenly dropping more the a couple of hundred feet, nobody gives a shit what is outside the window.

                    I still don't buy that, and you've certainly provided no evidence to support the claim. People may be scared, but that doesn't mean their brain shuts-off to everything they're seeing. In fact looking out the "window" is precisely what people would be doing, once they've got a good grip on the arm-wrests.

                    --
                    Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                    • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday February 24 2014, @02:58AM

                      by Angry Jesus (182) on Monday February 24 2014, @02:58AM (#5474)

                      You absolutely can clearly see horizontal and some vertical columns of thinner and denser "fog" (for lack of better terms) while flying through clouds.

                      So what? If you are inside the cloud you don't have any reference to figure out the scale of those areas.

                      I still don't buy that, and you've certainly provided no evidence to support the claim. People may be scared, but that doesn't mean their brain shuts-off to everything they're seeing

                      Maybe the reason you don't "buy that" is because I didn't say "their brain shuts-off" -- I said they don't care. If the the video doesn't sync up and the illusion is lost it doesn't fucking matter.

                      • (Score: 1, Troll) by evilviper on Monday February 24 2014, @03:47AM

                        by evilviper (1760) on Monday February 24 2014, @03:47AM (#5503) Homepage Journal

                        If you are inside the cloud you don't have any reference to figure out the scale of those areas.

                        So when the jet banks and rolls 45 degrees, and starts climbing/diving you won't notice that the picture out the window is following right along with you? Uhhh...

                        If the the video doesn't sync up and the illusion is lost it doesn't fucking matter.

                        Well, if Angry_Jesus says it doesn't matter, than I'm sure nobody else in the world will care...

                        Why not just put a matte painting up there, instead, and save tons of money and power consumption on those LCD displays?

                        --
                        Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
                        • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Monday February 24 2014, @03:14PM

                          by Angry Jesus (182) on Monday February 24 2014, @03:14PM (#5858)

                          Lol, good thing Foobar Bazbot was there to do your thinking for you.

                          • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by evilviper on Monday February 24 2014, @11:34PM

                            by evilviper (1760) on Monday February 24 2014, @11:34PM (#6279) Homepage Journal

                            A shame you can't do any...

                            --
                            Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
          • (Score: 1) by Foobar Bazbot on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:32PM

            by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:32PM (#5208) Journal

            The problem isn't position changes (as you say, reference points are too far away for those to matter), but attitude changes. When the plane starts to roll, any visual lag will be very perceptible, because the entire view should exhibit the same roll rate, regardless of distance.

  • (Score: 1) by Khyber on Saturday February 22 2014, @04:49PM

    by Khyber (54) on Saturday February 22 2014, @04:49PM (#4871) Journal

    Concorde, anyone?

    --
    Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.
    • (Score: 1) by Popsikle on Saturday February 22 2014, @05:45PM

      by Popsikle (77) on Saturday February 22 2014, @05:45PM (#4882) Homepage

      Concorde is not in the same class. BJ's are (well fun...) 8-16 pax normally.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by Khyber on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:10PM

        by Khyber (54) on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:10PM (#5157) Journal

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_business_j et [wikipedia.org]

        Concorde is listed as one.

        --
        Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.
        • (Score: 1) by Foobar Bazbot on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:42PM

          by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:42PM (#5214) Journal

          No. Allow me to quote the paragraph:

          Typically intended to transport about ten passengers, proposed SSBJs would be about the same size as traditional subsonic business jets. Larger commercial supersonic transports such as the Aérospatiale/British Aerospace Concorde and Tupolev Tu-144 'Charger' had relatively high costs, high noise, high fuel consumption and some environmental concerns.

          That's not listing the Concorde and Tu-144 as SSBJs, that's listing them as "larger commercial SSTs" and contrasting that class of SSTs with SSBJs. Reading comprehension FTW.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Foobar Bazbot on Saturday February 22 2014, @06:05PM

      by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Saturday February 22 2014, @06:05PM (#4890) Journal

      "Business Jet" refers to aircraft designed or adapted for a certain role [wikipedia.org], and sometimes to airframes designed for that role, even if adapted for other roles. Thus, some jetliners have been converted to business jets (Airforce One being perhaps the most prominent and ostentatious example), but most are not. In particular, I'm pretty sure no Concordes have ever been converted to business jets, so this probably would be the first SSBJ.

      If there is an earlier SSBJ example, it's probably a converted military aircraft -- there are quite a number of obsolete fighters in private hands these days, and any two-seat model (e.g. trainer or ground-attack variants) is at least theoretical capable of having the second seat overhauled to business-jet standards. But I've not heard of such a conversion.

      • (Score: 1) by Khyber on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:24PM

        by Khyber (54) on Sunday February 23 2014, @12:24PM (#5159) Journal

        As I posted in a reply above, the Concorde is listed as a supersonic business jet in several articles about SSBJs (plus Wikipedia.)

        So is the Tupolev Tu-144. And that was in operation back in the 60s.

        --
        Destroying Semiconductors With Style Since 2008, and scaring you ill-educated fools since 2013.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by useless on Saturday February 22 2014, @07:47PM

    by useless (426) on Saturday February 22 2014, @07:47PM (#4925)

    "If there was an accident how would you know which way the plane was facing"
        Because gravity stops working when you can't see? (assuming they are refering to orientation, because otherwise, it doesn't really matter if you're pointed north, east, south or west when THE PLANE HAS JUST CRASHED!)

    "and where you had landed, when the cameras have failed?"
        Pretty sure you landed right at "the crash site". More details will be available when you GET OUT OF THE PLANE THAT HAS JUST CRASHED!

    • (Score: 2) by evilviper on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:56PM

      by evilviper (1760) on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:56PM (#4966) Homepage Journal

      "If there was an accident how would you know which way the plane was facing"
              Because gravity stops working when you can't see? (assuming they are refering to orientation, because otherwise, it doesn't really matter if you're pointed north, east, south or west when THE PLANE HAS JUST CRASHED!)

      Even trained pilots with thousands of hours of experience can become disoriented without visual references if their instruments fail. You really can't expect passengers to do any better.

      --
      Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
      • (Score: 1) by useless on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:57PM

        by useless (426) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:57PM (#4997)

        True, but one of the special conditions in that situation is that the plane is in motion, not lying on the ground. :)

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by rdt on Saturday February 22 2014, @11:05PM

      by rdt (851) on Saturday February 22 2014, @11:05PM (#5000)

      It can be very important to know which direction you are pointing after a crash. Pilots know to put the burning part of an airplane downwind, if possible. Passengers need windows to see if slides have properly inflated, whether the wing on one side is on fire, etc. Getting out of a submerged car is difficult enough, imagine trying to evacuate from a windowless airplane after a water landing. If you've ever wondered why you were asked to raise your window shade before landing, it's because of the safety advantages during an accident.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by jcd on Saturday February 22 2014, @08:47PM

    by jcd (883) on Saturday February 22 2014, @08:47PM (#4947)

    What about people who have motion sickness? My wife gets this pretty frequently, and if they were to simply record something from the outside on a random flight (as some are suggesting) and play it back, what happens to your brain when you're feeling turbulence but seeing a calm flight?

    There's also something to be said for seeing the terrain you're flying with your own eyeballs.

    What about the folks with fear of flying? I think it might make many feel more secure to have a small view, not a wide open view that makes you feel like you could fall out at any time. Depending on how convincing the video is, of course.

    Then of course there's the inevitable BSOD (it'll happen eventually!), which could really mess with people.

    --
    "What good's an honest soldier if he can be ordered to behave like a terrorist?"
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Murdoc on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:44PM

    by Murdoc (2518) on Saturday February 22 2014, @09:44PM (#4964)

    Looking at the thing, it has a straight wing. Is that even possible on a SS aircraft? Or have things just advanced that much lately? Still seems odd to me.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Foobar Bazbot on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:30PM

      by Foobar Bazbot (37) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:30PM (#4983) Journal

      Yes, very recent advances have permitted straight wings on supersonic aircraft like this. [wikipedia.org] Amazing, isn't it.

      • (Score: 1) by Murdoc on Saturday February 22 2014, @11:38PM

        by Murdoc (2518) on Saturday February 22 2014, @11:38PM (#5005)

        No need to be sarcastic wise guy. There must be a reason why they don't do this any more, so I am interested to know why they chose this design given whatever that reason was.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by useless on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:49PM

      by useless (426) on Saturday February 22 2014, @10:49PM (#4991)

      Top View: http://www.spikeaerospace.com/wp-content/uploads/2 013/09/top1a_800x400.jpg [spikeaerospace.com]
      Roughly the same angle as an F/A 18 wing, ignoring the leading edge extension (LEX is for improved maneuvering. Don't think a business jet will need to dogfight)

      • (Score: 1) by Murdoc on Saturday February 22 2014, @11:41PM

        by Murdoc (2518) on Saturday February 22 2014, @11:41PM (#5006)

        Ok, I see that there are exceptions, thanks. I'm no expert and you don't see it very often which is why I was asking.

        • (Score: 1) by useless on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:28AM

          by useless (426) on Sunday February 23 2014, @04:28AM (#5078)

          No worries, glad to help.