Sounds to me like someone may actually finally have BINGO! Yes, it will take a lot of hydrogen to power this thing, and it has to be produced somehow. But there is more than enough renewable energy out there that can be harnessed to make hydrogen; we just need to get to it and set up that renewable energy infrastructure.

This is one of the coolest looking jets I've seen. I once lived in London and watched the Concorde go over my house every day. I never got to ride it, but maybe I will get a chance to board this someday.

Wauw, thats a great idea. Just last week there were postings in treehugger about the problems of electric aircrafts limited range and power but hydrogen seems to be possible to do right now.
I can't see why zero emissions should be impossible to obtain - just get a 6 megawatt windturbine to generate the needed electricity to make the hydrogen. Easy.

Put down the Pop Sci- the likelihood of any of us flying around in hypersonic hydrogen aircraft is about as high as driving to the airport in a fission powered flying car.

Also, it's clear from that artist's rendering that this company is in the business of designing engines rather than airframes.

It's like a Naboo starship mated with a squid... Hehe...

We could power a hydrogen revolution , we have the technology . Unfortunately we have to many deep pocketed cronies , in to many places keeping real world solutions at bay . Stirling Energy Systems Inc. , and other similar designs could meet demands in the short term , if industry , could shift to full scale production of these technologies, or designs . A solar farm 100 miles by 100 miles could satisfy 100% of America’s annual electrical needs , and in areas with poor soil , and extreme heat , Arizona , South Eastern California , Nevada , Utah , New Mexico etc . Don't take my word for it , do some quick searches , contact your local Senators or Representatives about current energy policy? Any of our domestic , or foreign auto makers or aeropsace industries , could easily facilitate the production needs for these technologies. Sustainable solutions now ,and for our future ! Treehugger want to do some homework ,and and cover this ?

Cool I'm looking forward to this. Airline companies will be able to fly all they want if they get the Hydrogen thing to work.

Another Topic

I'm not entirely positive on this but didn't Nasa propose a space craft concept where the vessel was able to travel into space briefly. Much like a rock skimming the surface of water when thrown at a high velocity.

Was it supposedly fuel efficient?

Hopefully it'll be an efficient way to get around.

Sorry to rain on the "zero-emissions" dream folks, but according to the IPCC Special Report on Avaiation, CO2 is only a third of the greenhouse gas emissions from flying. Nitrous oxides and water vapour in it's many forms make up most of the rest. The nitrous oxides are formed when the two most common elements in the air, N and O, are subjected to high heat. And the water vapour shows up when you burn hydrogen in presence of oxygen.

So even if this Hyper-Hydrogen fantasy became reality it would still have massive GHG emissions. Per flight emissions would drop 33% perhaps but total flying emissions are growing 50% per decade worldwide and 10%-15% per year in asia. Flying emissions are up 100% since 1990 base year...and we all know we have to cut emissions big time from 1990 base levels.

So the gains from this multi-decade huge project would be wiped out in a few years of increasing flights. Ditto for bio-fuel nirvana in jets, where 20% bio-fuel = only 7% GHG reduction.

The future of flying is looking a lot like the past...much, much less per person. Plenty of other ways to have grand adventures. Get creative and plan your fun the old-school ways.

That's pretty dang sweet, but moving "300 passengers from Brussels to Sydney in under 4 hours" is not really a priority is it?

It's interesting that Scott just dismisses this thing so casually.I wonder how many people said the same thing about putting men on the moon or other similar feats. With an attitude like that we'd never get anything done. While it may seem like a flight of fancy now (no pun intended) who know what might happen in the future. Probably won't see it in my own lifetime but future generations may well be doing London to Sydney in 4 Hours, and for someone who suffers that 24 hour slog every year, plus puts in countless other miles around the globe I dream of that kind of convenience coupled with lower emissions. The fact that funding is in place for this research is encouraging anyway.

Water vapor at ground level is "zero-emissions", but at altitude is a pollutant. Jet contrails have been shown to directly add to global warming. TANSTAAFL

Just to set the record straight, there is no such thing as 'Nitrous Oxides". There is a gas Nitrous Oxide which has nothing to do with combustion engines unless you use it to increase power. There are however Nitric Oxides which are produced mainly by the incomplete combustion of whatever fuel is being used. Hydrogen internal combustion engines produce significantly less NOx than fossil fueled engines and with EGR and catalytic converter, they put out nothing but water vapor like the BMW 7 sereis hyrogen cars. The contrails are nothing but formation of ice crystals or the condensation of water vapor already in the air and do not contribute to globla warning. In fact the 3 days after 9-11 when there were not jets in the air over the US the daily temperature was actually higher due to the lack of contrails. Don't take my word for it.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/08/020808075457.htm

All of you that are so excited to hop on-board this eco-bird: be sure to have $15,000 - $20,000 dollars ready. I think the Concord was about $12k (last time I checked). And a first class ticket on a 747 to Sydney from anywhere is about the same.

CNCMike,

"Nitric Oxides which are produced mainly by the incomplete combustion of whatever fuel is being used."

No, oxides of nitrogen are produced by the oxidation of atmospheric nitrogen during the combustion process (what Barry said). This occurs whether or not combustion of the fuel is complete. As a matter of fact, if complete combustion results in a higher flame temperature, more NOx may be produced.

The BMW hydrogen engine produces lower amounts of NOx through techniques of engine management and the catalyst. Whether any similar techniques of engine management (likely the delivery of excess fuel to reduce flame temperature - which also reduces efficiency) are effective in a ram jet application is questionable. The fitting of a catalytic converter to a jet engine is even more unlikely, so NOx may still be produced by this engine.

"The contrails are nothing but formation of ice crystals or the condensation of water vapor already in the air..."

No. Contrails ARE formation of ice crystals, but not only of atmospheric water vapor. The contrails from jet exhaust are produced by high concentrations of water vapor in combustion product that is produced by the hydrogen component of the hydrocarbon jet fuel.

"3 days after 9-11 when there were not jets in the air over the US the daily temperature was actually higher due to the lack of contrails."

The article you site does not support your conclusion that contrails do not contribute to global warming. It says the DIFFERENCE between the daytime and nighttime temperatures increased during that time, but drew no conclusion as to whether it was resulted in an increase or decrease of temperature overall or whether contrails do or do not contribute to global warming.

"It's interesting that Scott just dismisses this thing so casually."

Matthew-

As a frequent business traveler, I would be thrilled if I could cut my 24 hour flights to Asia down to a few hours. But it ain't happening in my lifetime, and I've got a long life ahead of me. In the 60's readers of Popular Science were told we would be living on the moon by now. We have the technical capability to do so, today, but we haven't been back since Apollo. Why not? Money. Enthusiasts of the future always vastly overestimate the pace of technical progress, because they never consider economics. Go back and read old issues of Pop Sci, even as recent as 20 years ago, and you'll see what I mean.

The poster above who said this would cost $20k a seat is off by at least a factor ten, and that's why this plane will not be in the commercial fleet anytime soon. I used to design airplanes, and I love both flying and going fast, so I hope I'm wrong. But I'm probably not.

barry is right. We will simply have to fly a lot less. But at the same time we will have to keep adopting improved clean flight technology, such as this hydrogen jet engine design.

Interesting discussion - glad someone picked up on NOx and water vapor issue.

Only thing is H2 powered aircraft don't need to be confined to the hypersonic future. In fact airbus and dasa were researching this over 15 years ago. I strongly suggest for some of the posters here to read this easy to understand presentation on the subject:

www.fzt.haw-hamburg.de/pers/ Scholz/dglr/hh/text_2001_12_06_Cryoplane.pdf

Really, with a bit of political will, infra structure investment, and airspace management (to keep the H2 planes below FL300 were the water vapor and NOx problem is less compared to conventional propulsion) we could be flying on H2 in 5 years from now.... with significantly lower impact on the environment all around.

wow. did they not think about the price of Hydrogen when deciding what to make this airplane fly on? The cost of Hydrogen at the moment is HIGHER than gas right now. so how would that benefit the consumers? it doesnt, which will make this airplane a failure, due to its heavy fuel costs. Why didnt they make a battery powered airplane that is powered by solar panels/and or wind power? geez sometimes i think these people have no brains what so ever!

I've always thought that a hydrogen powered jet was a great idea for ecological reasons. Would the Ice/water contrails be a problem? Not unless hundreds of these types of planes were flying regularly.

As for hypersonic passenger planes, well, we've had the capability to make supersonic planes since the '60's, and how far has that gotten?

And that picture! It looks like the Myasishev M-50 Bounder, an old Soviet aircraft (touted as 'nuclear powered' until it was found to be lie.)

Hydrogen powered Jets would be great but won't be around for another 40 years at least. As for Hypersonic Passenger jets, ummm, maybe by 2100? 2200?