You must log in or register to comment.

TattoedBacon t1_je67ys2 wrote

No mention of payload potential…why?


A40 t1_je69fbr wrote

It's a theoretical design based on a theoretical concept based on a theoretical future economy and a possible (in theory) public demand for such an outrageously expensive flight.

But (in theory) it will seat up to ten billionaires. But then their people will have to slum it on regular service along with the bags.


phdoofus t1_je6fat2 wrote

Plus theoretical materials and a theoretical infrastructure. NB, it hasn't even gone supersonic yet so the hypersonic part is still theoretical too.


E_Snap t1_je7hsup wrote

Normal people won’t pay extra for faster flights— that’s why the Concorde failed.


Specific-Salad3888 t1_jebp32m wrote

Concorde didn't fail because of that. Concorde only sat 128 people it wasn't made for everyday traffic for the most of us, it was niche expensive experience for the few.


bdsee t1_je8fzrp wrote

Not true, I basically always pay extra to fly direct rather than have a layover...that is paying for a faster flight.

I would absolutely pay more to make the direct flight faster is much easier to justify to myself than paying for premium economy or business class is.


Qarbone t1_je90nly wrote

If they're rich enough to afford this flight, they don't fly with bags. They buy everything custom everywhere they land.


altmorty OP t1_je6afuf wrote

>Destinus’ Eiger Prototype which conducted its maiden flight on April 13th, 2022

>Destinus has been testing its prototype aircraft for the past couple of years, announcing successful test flights of its second prototype - Eiger - at the end of 2022.

Maybe you should read more than just the title.


baggier t1_je7mc6p wrote

The prototype was a large sized drone powered by a conventional aviation fuel powered turbojet at speeds of about 200 km/h. The switch to hydrogen is theoretical, the hyperspeed (let alone supersonic) is just aspirational. And by aspirational I mean

  1. Raise lots of grants and venture capital
  2. Keep lots of scientists, engineers and management paid for many years
  3. Give up in about 10 years and move on to new project

A40 t1_je6hgso wrote

Not even supersonic yet.


erosram t1_je6b290 wrote

That quote says it’s a prototype. Better than completely theoretical, but still a bit theoretical compared to the claim. And still a theoretical future economy. And still crazy expensive.


aneeta96 t1_je6enc8 wrote

If something is no longer an idea on paper but an actual working object it is no longer a theory.


rsta223 t1_je8cjjw wrote

A 200km/h drone is so far from a passenger carrying hypersonic plane that the hypersonic plane is absolutely still theory.

This is a complete pipedream and will likely never work.


Ihavenoideawhatidoin t1_je7cl9y wrote

Which is why they’re still theoretical. They don’t have hydrogen engines and they’re subsonic on the prototype they have. They don’t have a working object that matches their stated goals. Not even close.


kthegee t1_je7o8mu wrote

You do realise prototype /= end product , this is why engineers of all kinds hate management.

Yea yes the bare basic flight tests rule the design capable of staying aloft , straight into production it goes.



erosram t1_je7cn7j wrote

Only if it accomplishes the claim, which this doesn’t.


aneeta96 t1_je7hi1a wrote

Reality rarely lives up to the theoretical expectations. Doesn't make it any less real however.


blargh9001 t1_je8m7k3 wrote

I made a paper plane prototype of my faster-than-light spaceship, so FTL travel is no longer just theoretical.


altmorty OP t1_je6euvy wrote

>It's a theoretical design based on a theoretical concept

It can't be clearer. A prototype that's passed tests is not a theoretical design/concept.

Every single tech is expensive to begin with. New tech is almost always initially aimed at the rich, who can afford the expense.


Ihavenoideawhatidoin t1_je7ccmv wrote

Well so far they’re flying subsonic on normal jet engines. So yes, they’re still theoretical.


ryan30z t1_je7rdb1 wrote

I don't think you quite get the engineering challenges of building a hypersonic aircraft.

It's not just a case of slapping bigger engines on. The demand for a passenger scramjet isn't high enough to offset development and maintenance costs.

For moving large payloads, we're not moving away from turbofan any time soon.


pavlik_enemy t1_je6tqgp wrote

Except it won't being a complete vaporware.


Rikuddo t1_je7s5ul wrote

Nah, I'll use it to travel between my Atlantis resort and my penthouse in The Line in Saudi Arabia.


ramtax666 t1_je6nbb0 wrote

Many such designs have a huge flaw: the fuel. We don't have a good way of producing hidrogen without high energy demand and it requires very low temperature for any significant amount to be stored. Basic 30-40% if the energy potential is wasted for production and storage. So it is a huge pain to work with it, this being the reason why it doesn't catch as a car fuel, it is to expensive just to have it and potentially dangerous. Now taking all of this in consideration and putting the system in a supersonic device that can suffer 10% thermic delation dosen't sounds a good idea, but who knows history favours the bold


BungOnMimosas t1_je730xe wrote

That’s why the Starship from SpaceX is such a great design, it uses Methane as it’s fuel


ramtax666 t1_je757uq wrote

More or less, I'm not so hyped about the vertical landing, especially for a design that will carry people and without an ejection system. But they got the safest fuel available that is for sure, still needs cryogenic for the oxygen but is safer.


do_you_even_ship_bro t1_je8t6by wrote

Starship has never flown…


BungOnMimosas t1_je8ya5g wrote

I mean it takes a long time to make a rocket, but starship is developing rather rapidly and should see its first orbital launch within the next two months


SEquenceAI t1_je79kvr wrote

Sounds nice but what are they gonna do about the sonic boom? The Concorde plane was a supersonic passenger plane but never really took off for many reasons...

Namely no one wants to hear or live by a place where sonic booms happen on the regular which is most major cities with an airport capable of landing one of these bad boys.


Kevin_Jim t1_je6cz7o wrote

I had hopes for UK’s SABRE engine, but that doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. And by the time it could be operational, rocket companies like SpaceX, might get to the point where they can carry individuals.


BernieEcclestoned t1_je6fwe1 wrote

I read somewhere that SpaceX has a contract to deliver payloads to US armed forces anywhere in the globe in minutes, making war logistics incredibly efficient


danielravennest t1_je72bio wrote

They have a contract to study the use of their Starship rocket for fast wartime logistics. Studies are way less expensive than doing what you are studying.


unfathomableocelot t1_je6n357 wrote

Just as soon as it can make use of those new room temperature superconductors and that nuclear fusion generator that's only 10 years away.


BrightLuchr t1_je84b9q wrote

Skin heating is the usual problem: repeated heating eventually takes any hardening out of the material leading to failure. Plus, hydrogen is very bulky. That airframe doesn't look large enough. You'd need a denser fuel.


Cliff_Dibble t1_je89zv4 wrote

Geez, regular commercial pilots already need ample amount of hours to be a regular passenger jet pilot. Wonder what rating they'll need for these?


danielravennest t1_je72qo0 wrote

Why fly when you can just use a 3D Zoom booth? That's a cubicle size device that uses multiple cameras and projectors to provide a 3D experience.


Throwaway08080909070 t1_je6cv71 wrote

What is the highest speed reached by the prototype, and how long were they able to sustain it? Can the prototype go hypersonic, land, turn around and fly again?


KrazyUncleCatLady t1_je6edyq wrote

"Listen, [to] maintain airspeed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings 43 times every second, right?"


EDMElevatorguy t1_jeai8d1 wrote

Used only the for the ultra rich! Yay science!


CypripediumCalceolus t1_je6nenx wrote

But isn't hypersonic a little silly when you can take a SpaceX suborbital with a hundred+ passengers?


TrixieIsTrans t1_je8cc6t wrote

Ah yes, SpaceX Suborbital flights for commercial, paying customers. Just ignore the fact you can't have them anywhere near cities (for the same reason why we don't put rocket launchpads near cities), and training every paying customer to be accustomed to suborbital flights. Honestly, I don't see this new Swiss jet working either, especially because the OG hypersonic jet, Concorde, got canned partially due to noise complaints and how many people didn't go on Concorde (costs), leading to higher ticket prices, leading to less people going on Concorde... you get the idea.


garlicroastedpotato t1_je78mv5 wrote

The trick with a Space-X suboribital is having enough landing and launch platforms in the world. Currently it's cheaper to ship payloads to their one launch platform than setup closer launch platforms.


BungOnMimosas t1_je72qju wrote

It’s always good for their to be competition in the market, but you are right, I don’t see this thing as having anywhere near the capability the Starship will have. Maybe I’ll be proven wrong though


do_you_even_ship_bro t1_je8t3px wrote

You have to have capability to be compared. Currently no rockets have ever done commercial transportation from one place to another.