Hypersonic Vehicles

>>8783746
The jews desu

>>8783748
At this point I am almost willing to believe this as a real answer

>>8783746
Rocketry and satellites largely replaced any need for things like that.

File: Concorde_Air_France_Flight_4590_fire_on_runway.jpg (41KB, 310x194px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 310x194px

We did. They were expensive and they blew up.

>>8783759
But a single stage space vehicle would be superior in every way

And a 2 hour flight from Los Angeles to Tokyo? Plenty of businessmen would pay top dollar for that

And don't forget the amount of people willing to pay money for a flight into low Earth orbit

>>8783764
>Supersonic
>Hypersonic
>Pick one

>>8783767
SSTO is hard as fuck to do and there hasn't been much incentive to do it, rocketry was pretty stagnant for a fair few years after the USSR fell.
>Plenty of businessmen would pay top dollar for that
Conference calls and the internet replaced the need for that.

>>8783779
>Conference calls and the internet replaced the need for that.
No, no they didn't.

Commercial flight would be impossible due to high costs of operation. The free market puts limits on what is profitable.

Orbital satellites make high altitude reconnaissance redundant.

>>8783785
>Orbital satellites make high altitude reconnaissance redundant.

This is where you are wrong, some satellites need to be moved on short notice, and burning fuel to adjust orbit is never desired since you only have X amount of fuel on a satellite and those things are expensive as fuck, the NRO would cut off their balls to get their hands on a hypersonic spyplane which would be infinitely cheaper than launching satellites

>>8783784
Is that why there are so many supersonic passenger/business jets flying about these days? If there was any market for them they would exist, but they don't.

>>8783794
You're retarded.

>>8783746
Nobody needs one badly enough to pay for it.

Any question that starts with 'Why don't they...?" has two possible answers:

1) It is not actually possible (yet.)

or

2) It$ co$t make$ it uneconomical.

>>8783799
How so? The claim was made that businessmen would pay for high speed transport, and the demonstrable fact that there is no flying supersonic passenger aircraft kinda makes that idea a bit silly. Concorde has been the only one to exist and that had to be propped up by two governments and no one made a successor to it. Even small business jets are subsonic.

>>8783818
Wrong.

>>8783823
Are you just going to keep saying that without saying why? I'll do the work for you then.

Technically I was incorrect since there was a second supersonic passenger jet, the Tu-144. Which stopped being used because it was too expensive.

Anything else?

>>8783830
>Which stopped being used because it was too expensive.

Actually it was because the Soviet people were piss poor and not enough of the Politburo would fly on that thing, not to mention it had mechanical issues they didn't have time to resolve before thy retired it for good

>>8783836
>the Soviet people were piss poor
So it was too expensive for them?

>>8783837
Yeah because they were fucking communist slaves, with refinement and fixing the small issues it had, the Tu-144 would have been more economical in the west than the Concorde

>>8783771
but they are different flight regimes

>>8783746
Supersonic combustion is hard. DARPA's hypersonic test vehicle had its skin peel off during flight