Meet ‘Stargazer,’ the New Hypersonic Plane That Will Fly From New York to Tokyo in One Hour

Texas-based Venus Aerospace is working with rotating-detonation propulsion technology to turn the "Stargazer" from sci-concept to Mach-9 business jet that flies at 6,900 mph.

Well this sounds incredibly... ambitious. A Mach 9 aircraft travelling at 170K feet? Sounds far fetched as well. Article claims that it will be using a pulse detonation engine to go fast. Also it will switch to rockets once it reaches altitude. Those tickets will be expensive.

The rotating-detonation concept, which burns 20 percent less fuel than a conventional engine, is being promoted by the US Navy. This technology has been successfully tested before. But the Venus test was the first time using a room-temperature storable propellant, which will make the engine more viable for aircraft. “We now have both the technical knowledge and engineering to fully advance into next steps of development and flight testing,” said Duggleby.

The 150,000-lb. Stargazer will take off with conventional jet engines, but then transition to rockets once it reaches altitude. The route it will fly is not technically on the edge of space, or the Karman line, which is 100 kilometers above the Earth’s surface. But it will be high enough to see the planet’s curve and the blackness of space.

a reply to: grey580

But it will be high enough to see the planet’s curve and the blackness of space.

You mean the earth isn't flat

That's one plane ride I'll definitely pass on. In fact, I hope to never be in another plane again.

a reply to: grey580

If this ever comes out, people would have to have balls of steel to get on it IMO.

In a normal flight, if something goes wrong it’s incredibly turbulent, but can often be mitigated. At those speeds, if they hit any kind of low earth orbit debris I have to imagine that’s game over. Even if the aircraft isn’t terribly harmed for the strike, I’d have to imagine a quick change in dynamics could tear the ship apart.

Then again, I’m not an expert here. And they did run concord for a while. I believe they’re bringing back supersonic if I remember correctly.

a reply to: grey580

Would cost billions in development. Many mere supersonic biz jet ventures went belly up for that very reason.

The military might fund this for their purposes, but a civilian version is extremely unlikely....and even then, they would have to fight the eco-freaks....

Of course, this aircraft will be all electric in accordance with Biden's Go Green for Climate Change policy, right?

Maybe solar powered?

a reply to: nugget1

LOL. They'll have to fly over the water mountains that obscure boats as well.

Same old pipe dream...
I will see it when they put a date on it

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

The RPDE uses 20% less fuel. So there is that.

a reply to: grey580

Amazing If I ever have the money, sign me up!

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: grey580

Would cost billions in development. Many mere supersonic biz jet ventures went belly up for that very reason.

The military might fund this for their purposes, but a civilian version is extremely unlikely....and even then, they would have to fight the eco-freaks....

Exactly, and even if it were to come to fruition only the wealthy could afford it. I still don't know why we don't have bullet trains like Japan and parts of Europe have. Makes absolutely no sense except oil, gas, airline, and automobile lobby are dead set against it.

a reply to: nugget1

that is not high enough to see any kind of 'whole earth' edge to edge of the 'globe' the edges would fade off into the distance endlessly.

a reply to: grey580

Actually, it won't go from New York to Tokyo in one hour in as it's forbidden for airliners to exceed mach 1 over the U.S..

www.faa.gov...

a reply to: billxam

At that altitude the sonic boom wouldn’t be a problem. The supersonic ban is for aircraft that fly at normal altitudes, that have a big sonic footprint.

a reply to: billxam
I read that document. I didn't see any mention of altitude. Does this rule extend all the way out to space? Or is there an altitude that would be so high as to have almost no perceptible sonic boom at the ground?

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: grey580

If this ever comes out, people would have to have balls of steel to get on it IMO.

In a normal flight, if something goes wrong it’s incredibly turbulent, but can often be mitigated. At those speeds, if they hit any kind of low earth orbit debris I have to imagine that’s game over. Even if the aircraft isn’t terribly harmed for the strike, I’d have to imagine a quick change in dynamics could tear the ship apart.

Then again, I’m not an expert here. And they did run concord for a while. I believe they’re bringing back supersonic if I remember correctly.

Came here to say this. I'm kind of a nervous flyer as it is. No way I'd get on this thing.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: M5xaz
a reply to: grey580

Would cost billions in development. Many mere supersonic biz jet ventures went belly up for that very reason.

The military might fund this for their purposes, but a civilian version is extremely unlikely....and even then, they would have to fight the eco-freaks....

Exactly, and even if it were to come to fruition only the wealthy could afford it. I still don't know why we don't have bullet trains like Japan and parts of Europe have. Makes absolutely no sense except oil, gas, airline, and automobile lobby are dead set against it.

Unlike Europe or Japan, North America simply does not have the population density required to make high speed trains economically viable

a reply to: M5xaz

I could see it in a run from NYC to DC to Charlotte to Atlanta to Orlando; that one would at least make sense. So an East coast only thing, you could maybe extend it as far as the Mississippi river with some of the larger cities, but even then, it would be pushing it. It would always be faster and cheaper to fly beyond that point.

Then again, it's a 7-hour drive from Tokyo to Osaka; I think the Shinkansen is around $100, which takes it down to 2.5 hours. You can also catch a flight for $89 that takes you around 3 hours or so. I'm frankly jealous of the travel options they have available and at such reasonable prices. I live close to a hub city for American, and it still is a few hundred bucks to fly anywhere.

originally posted by: Hypntick
a reply to: M5xaz

I could see it in a run from NYC to DC to Charlotte to Atlanta to Orlando; that one would at least make sense. So an East coast only thing, you could maybe extend it as far as the Mississippi river with some of the larger cities, but even then, it would be pushing it. It would always be faster and cheaper to fly beyond that point.

Then again, it's a 7-hour drive from Tokyo to Osaka; I think the Shinkansen is around $100, which takes it down to 2.5 hours. You can also catch a flight for $89 that takes you around 3 hours or so. I'm frankly jealous of the travel options they have available and at such reasonable prices. I live close to a hub city for American, and it still is a few hundred bucks to fly anywhere.

Even a short flight will take a few hours out of your life when you add in the time it takes to get through airport security, get to the gate and wait for boarding/departure. Add the time it takes on the arrival side and a 60 minute flight becomes a half-day ordeal.

a reply to: Hypntick

Tokyo to Osaka is 300 miles

New York City to Charlotte is 644 miles, more than double the distance, thus double the infrastructure

Osaka has a population of almost 3 million
Charlotte has less than 1 million


With high speed trains, they are only (marginally) cost effective if you have high population over short distances
Thus, even NYC to Charlotte would never work

a reply to: grey580

looks alot like a large DynaSoar