that NASA is developing a Concorde 2.

Or that's what the article said, not another type of SST but Concorde 2.

https://www.luxurytraveldiary.com/20...t-three-hours/

It aims to address one of the main complaints about the original Concorde, which is the sonic boom, by flying at 55,000 feet instead of 30,000 and also operate at 60 instead of 90 dBs.

Here's an older article which covers the history and also new designs:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...sonic-jet.html

Hmm, some of these talk about 20 passengers so it's for the truly jetset, who've been slumming in Gulfstreams.

The 1-hour NY to London sounds intriguing but after Brexit, there may not be as many potential clients needing to make that trip.

I've seen lots of SST prototype/design articles, but none that call it a "Concorde 2". None of the other NASA articles I've seen use that...it doesn't seem like it'd make sense for them to use that name for both technological and IP reasons. (Wouldn't the Concorde IP be owned by BAE or Airbus?)

Most talk seems to be around building the next SST as a "boomless" business jet.

The first article is kinda thin on details and takes seems to have taken liberties in applying the Concorde 2 name to NASA's project. Here's one of several recent articles with some more detail.

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...one-ncna779626

The NASA Quiet Supersonic Transport (QueSST) program is the preliminary design stage of NASA's Low Boom Flight Demonstration (LBFD) experimental airplane. Looks like earlier this month QueSST passed preliminary design review. This is a step on the way to an X-plane for testing and experimenting, though it could take a few years just to reach that point:

The Airbus patent is interesting, though companies will file patents for all sorts of things as a matter of course, so it doesn't necessarily mean they have any firm intent to pursue actual production.

I came along too late for the Concorde so selfishly, I'd sure like to see a new supersonic passenger plane some day.

Yeah but how expensive was it back in the day and now with these designs which carry much smaller number of passengers than the Concorde, it would be very expensive.

Title updated with additional information.

A reminder:

http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php#threadtitles

Quote:

Please create thread titles that are specific and descriptive and that contain an accurate (not misleading or sensational) characterization of the topic. If you wish to change your thread's title, please contact a moderator. Moderators may also edit thread titles to clarify content.

Thanks. /Moderator

same?

That reflects on the quality of reporting, not reality.

Airbus also was developing a "Concorde 2" a few years back, according to some.

The NASA initiative is an X-plane, intended to test concepts and designs rather than as a prototype of an actual plane intended for commercial deployment. Its size reflects its mission and doesn't mean that commercial planes using concepts from the X-plane program would be that size.

Similarly the Airbus patent, while it reflects a smaller passenger capacity, may or may not have any bearing to something that would be produced.

Potential passenger capacity would be a factor among many, of course, in any sort of commercial production aircraft designs.

A big part of why it originally failed was because it could only be deployed in basically one place - TATL. The economics weren't there in the 70s for TPAC, plus the value prop of flying supersonic starts to decrease if you have to make fuel stops due to the range of the aircraft. The sonic boom was a problem for overland routes.

Boomless technology changes some of that, since U.S. transcons plus Europe-ME routes could present some high-yield demand. My guess is that's why they're started with a business jet...it's an easier problem to solve than a large airliner and they must believe there's *some* demand there.

I'd love to see a large SST with range to fly all TPAC routes, but it still feels like we're 50 years away from that...if the business case ever develops at all.

Concorde cruised at 55,000 ft +

This.

NASA doesn't build prototypes of commercial or military aircraft, but rather experimental research aircraft to explore/study/evaluate/validate technical concepts. In the case of the Low Boom Flight Demonstrator, design concepts toward reducing sonic boom and its effects that show promise would ultimately be considered for application/implementation on aircraft being developed by airframe manufacturers.

The problem with SS commercial aircraft has always been utterly shameful fuel burn. Programs like Concorde never turned a profit, and spent the final years in the red. Booms and decibels led to flight restrictions, which had the effect of increasing burn as well. Prices ended up rising on the tickets, and that led to a niche exclusivity rather than widespread airline transport.

If someone could find a way to make a fuel efficient SS airliner, it could be a game changer. But it's precarious, because it's been decades since speed was the primary factor in airline innovation. The last 20 years have seen capacity take it's place. The more butts in seats, the better. I would even go so far as to say that planes have gotten slower since the 80's. Fewer clean wing aircraft with 3 engines mounted at the back..speed restrictions to spare fuel..fewer powerful heavies on transcons.

It may be possible to bring down consumption from Concorde levels using lighter materials, carbon fiber, efficient engines etc..but would it compete with the new next gen fuel sipping aircraft?

So does NASA patent designs and collect royalties?

Supposedly there were all these innovations from the space program, which made it to a lot of products.

Did they get money from Tang?

Concorde didn't fly at 30,000ft, it cruised at 55,000+

It's a very situation-specific question. You may have inventions by NASA employees and then inventions by other entities (e.g., companies or non-profits) doing work under contracts and other arrangements with NASA. Patent rights may (or may not) go to the other entities for their inventions under a NASA contract or other arrangement, but there are several types of relationships that other entities can have with NASA - contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, etc. so it depends.

Aside from patents there are also rights in technical data and computer software that have their own regulations and terms & conditions.

Some NASA programs are intended to foster progress for wider application in industry so those may be set up with terms & conditions that reflect that goal. The LBFD description of later competing the production of an X-plane from the work under QueSST sound like NASA probably would have the right to provide the design details to competitors for the later phase, but you'd have to read the terms of the QueSST contract/agreement to really know the specifics.

NASA procurement and related regulations have changed since the initial space program, not sure what the arrangements were back then. Interestingly, Tang was actually invented independently before NASA happened to use it in the early space program, leading to its popularity.