Comments:UK firm designs hypersonic passenger jet

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

Exciting!

I think this is quite interesting. I always wanted to go to Australia but the journey is obviously too long. --Mephiles 17:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Environment

Nitrous oxide is indeed emitted by the combustion of hydrogen in air, due to the extreme enthalpy heat generated. This gas is an extremely problematic greenhouse gas, around 300 times more impactive per molecule than carbon dioxide over the course of a century.

Using liquid hydrogen as fuel also releases large amounts of carbon dioxide (at least using the current prevalent production methods), since it is produced by the cracking of fossil fuels. The cryogenic conditions required for liquefication also are predominantly electricity-consuming, which, in most countries is generated with fossil fuels. In fact, all the additional conversions and storage required only serves to release greater volumes of greenhouse gases than would be released with conventional technology and fuels.

Granted, the advantages of flying half-way round the world in five hours are indeed wonderful, but the green credencials claimed by this project are at least questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.219.196 (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think that the vehicle is likely to be far cleaner than normal aircraft, including Concorde. With Concorde they found that the exhaust had sulphates in it due to fuel contaminants, but they would be entirely absent in liquid hydrogen; and in addition the aircraft need not produce any net CO2, depending on how the hydrogen was manufactured (for example hydroelectric would be a clean energy source).Wolfkeeper 00:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• First, how much nitrous oxide is created is likely very trace, and will be lesser in the atmospheric pressures at which this will be used. Second, it will be a lot better than the fuel used by the Concorde, which produced copious nitrogen oxides that both "contribute to global warming" and are detrimental to the ozone layer. --Kitch 17:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing new

Projects for hypersonic civil planes have been proposed for decades. The hard thing is turning them into reality. tcp-ip 09:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, and man-made objects have already been at this speed, just not manned ones. --Mephiles 12:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)