Environmentally Responsible Aviation

NASA X: Environmentally Responsible Aviation
The aircraft of today are quieter, more efficient and stronger than anyone could have imagined even a few short years ago. Future aircraft will continue this trend and become even more efficient and dependable, reaching unimaginable goals that today's aircraft could never reach. But how will they reach these goals and who is doing the important work to change the way we all fly?

[@halnwheels]

I think the main thing about the bypass ratio gearing system is that they are adding a complexity to an engine design that previously was simple and reliable. They have to be very cautious and I am sure they are, but it will be interesting to see what the inspection-tear-down times will be in the beginning.

[@elijahf111]

i like how that nasa composite building making future tech is made of the ultra basic brick and mortar

[@andrewnorgrove6487]

Its called a planetary gear set invented some 200 years ago the only difference being they have incorporated an engine into it using state of the art materials that can take loading

[@michaelcrosby9618]

I have worked with Aerospace most of my life I think this video is fantastic notice " fan " I would love to work with NASA.

[@NASAXrocks]

Thanks Michael. Most everyone we meet would love to work with NASA. We see things we can't always show on television, the best is yet to come.

[@bampamaddog583]

Don't forget to recognize all the research and development machinists, that make the prototypes for the engineers.

[@charlwill]

Buffalo Green is a great aviation color..

[@-Gadget-]

18:57 Bastards...... They removed my Olive :-(

[@beats007]

Thank you for making this video, I get to know so much from it. how can I join your team, I am an undergraduate pursuing BTech in Aerospace Engineering(18-22)?

[@danielmount6928]

COOL MAN!

[@grendelum]

Awesome video... *NASA* doesn’t get anywhere _near_ the credit they deserve !!!

[@NASAXrocks]

Thanks Orion!

[@emmanuelsamaras8974]

Hats off to NASA

[@JimmyDaboul]

Well its been about 5 years. Where are you now in this ERA?

[@NASAXrocks]

ERA continues in a different form. We are working on the next bunch of programs explaining the direction these efficient, composite, unique aircraft are headed. Stay tuned.

[@JimmyDaboul]

NASA X so does the geared turbo fan work independently or is it connected to the engine? I would imagine it being a separate component in order to regulate the intake of air to achieve best performance and fuel conservation.

[@Dude31463]

Jimmy Daboul ... Yeah there's hamsters on a wheel cage running it... HA! Of course it's "connected" to the engine, "turbojet" to be more precise... Driven by the turbine shaft via planetary gear reduction set. This allows the turbine to spin at higher RPM where it's most efficient in extracting energy of hot, expanding combustion gasses while the main propulsion fan spins at lower RPM where It's most efficient in moving huge amounts of air (CFM) and quiet, subsonic operation. 80+% of the thrust is achieved by the main bypass fan in the new "Turbofan" jet engines... That is a very interesting fact that NASA X should be exploring in earnest with electric jet propulsion in partnership with GE... which stands for "General Electric" NOT "General Exhaust"!!!

[@logancarter8323]

At 4:26 what is behind that Boeing that it’s is pulling along with it ?

[@OleDiaBole]

Turbo props had very smal reduction gears with even greater input-output speed ratio since 50s. Does anyone know what is so challenging with reduction gear for jet engine?

[@paulogden7417]

much higher power and a very long life needed compared to turboprop engines

[@Phos9]

Boris Bojanic looks to me like the nature of a prop engine gives a better power to reduction gear size ratio. Or to put it less garbled, the gearing can be allowed more room relative to the size of the engine. Looks like on the geared engine the planetary gear set needs to fit within the core. On a turboprop, it’s in front of it.

[@Dude31463]

Boris Bojanic ... I would guess that the use of a planetary gear reduction was not implemented until they started splitting the compressor and turbine stages along with the introduction of the bypass fan... All which call for different operational RPM ranges.

[@mslc22]

How composite aircraft handles lightning strike? Anyone knows?

[@shopdog831]

20% reduction in fuel is huge

[@carlbole2142]

so wheres the cover photo?

[@gman21266]

NASA should get in touch with me.

[@ludwigharisuo6261]

"Unknown to most of the public". Well, either NASA doesn't talk about it or they go big! When I mean big I mean: Full HD production, 3D animations, hard to shoot scenes, creative script etc. Basicaly NASA X in a nutshell. Go big, or go home.

[@jordanmarkis]

Which a budget like they have, money doesn't matter

[@scprivat9519]

With a budget like that? It is smaller than you think. 0.4% of the regular Budget (without the shadow budget)

[@EL4Mdesu]

US DoD's budget?

[@NASAXrocks]

Thanks for the comment. We work hard on the program!

[@proximo1033]

4 years, and where are these new airplanes?

[@bampamaddog583]

You need metal for high temperature engine hardware. Composites are only good for the body, and structure. The engine is and components are machined.

[@mrcaz9164]

The problem I see with open rotors.... the birds. They would have every tree hugging loony in the world at an uproar for the birds.

[@8platypus]

Why not make a three stage bypass fan! put it behind the first big bypass fan and let it spin counter clockwise duct fan for extra horse power. its the only stage fan that isn't in a series. 23:47. That would be like another 20% reduction in fuel especially if you increase the gear ratio in a stair step method of the bypass fans.

[@alastermyst]

I'm well aware that a lot of technology that private businesses profit from come originally from the government. What I don't understand is exactly how the relationship works. Meaning it seems like taxpayer money is largely used to develop new technology and then once developed private businesses profit off of it. I don't know if that is right or not but at least to me it seems like the gov should be owning those patents and getting royalties at least but that doesn't seem to be what is happening.

[@dontsubscribeme9547]

4:48 why TF airlines do not determine the ticket prices based on the weight of the passenger .. .. 😛😛

[@dinobot_maximize]

why is pollution during take off and landing important to minimize? arent the engines burning fuel during their whole flight. ;-]

[@rowanp8740]

Not an expert, but: When up to speed jet engines are more efficient. It takes more fuel to get moving and stop (reverse thrust?) than it does to stay at optimum speed.

[@ErikB605]

Jet Engines are much more efficent at higher speeds.

[@user-mb8yd7iy8d]

สวัสดีครับ Nasa

[@fadlya.rahman4113]

As I understand it, in turbofan engine, the fan has it's own turbine. This is basically turboprop with fan cowling. Rather than using gear, why not just use a variable pitch turbine or variable pitch vane instead.

[@Oinikis]

It's been a long time but let me offer you an answer. Essentially, kinetic energy, which you require to move the air is proportional to square of the velocity, while thrust is proportional to velocity on the first degree. Also you have to take into account the massflow which is proportional to velocity. From this you can tell that if the fan moves twice as fast, the velocity doubles and the massflow doubles, thus you get 4 times the thrust (massflow x velocity), while energy required is 8 times as large (kinetic energy/time, or (v^2)*massflow/2). Simple classical mechanics.

[@counterfit5]

That's probably more complex and harder to maintain than a gearbox

[@MrJdsenior]

counterfit....Hardly, and MUCH, MUCH lighter, like probably a factor of about 10, I would guess offhand.

[@MrJdsenior]

fadly...good question. I'm not a mechanical engineer (electrical, though, with a pretty solid mechanical schooling core), and I think at least the first order reasons are two fold. One, there are many many many blades (hundreds to maybe thousands on a really complex highly staged engine) you would have to change pitch on, which would require linkaging that would be heavy, draggy, and would, I expect, cause major performance losses. Two, the forces/stresses on a turbofan engine, from the heat, rotational g, and thrust (compressive and thrusting) environments are ferocious, and that is a gross understatement. Also, as I understand it (maybe wrongly) the vanes are designed to the nth degree for efficiency, and might as such, not be amenable to operating over any kind of significant pitch range without alteration that would cause them to be less effective at all positions. If there are turbofan engineers reading this,, I'm sure they could tell you more and better, but off the cuff, hope this helps. In other words, it's really really hard to get the stationary vane to work well in it's required operation, even going to advanced materials, a moving vane complicates the issue at least ten fold.

[@sirnewton6874]

Check out Raptor Experimental Aircraft.

[@Digitalphantom01]

and why we don't properly fund NASA makes no sense

[@kapanjieck5903]

Ask the government

[@CuongNguyen-le5ic]

Because we continue to have ANTI-science people at the top of US Science Committee.

[@LouSaydus]

because going to space isnt important /s

[@richystar2001]

I wish I could allocate where 50% of my federal taxes go...because I would put it towards areospace development.

[@cornenothome4191]

What makes no sense to me is why all that energy, money and materials aren't used to make our planet better instead of trying to get somewhere.

[@henrymolina208]

Watching it in 2019

[@anthonybarlow5955]

Your from the future

[@khadijagwen]

Airplanes look old fashioned. I want something new looking.

[@Omnihil777]

Very good NASA PROP-a-ganda ...if you excuse the pun...*hihi* nah, very informative, thank you.

[@carlosrosero8877]

And here's the problem even more I don't know how long it's going to take but you had to study very carefully to make sure that how to put a type of date model plane or see that how we Act of the wings or the body

[@hellcat1988]

All of these efforts to improve efficiency, and they'll be phased out with electric before they earn their worth.

[@Tuxfanturnip]

Sadly, batteries will never match the energy density of combustion fuel... What we really need are jets that can run on hydrogen or methane, cleaner renewable fuels that we can use far into the future. Much as I love electric transportation, fuel engines have the fundamental advantage that most of their energy is stored in the air. *Maybe* fuel cells will someday match that, but until then...

[@JFrazer4303]

Aeronautical improvements apply even if they're using electricity. Can't just sit on batter and go; need props and wings and everything else.

[@marvinblankinchip2535]

Wood, the natural composite material. We once made state of the art aircraft from this material. Look up the Wright Brothers and Glenn Curtis.

[@epicyclo6323]

Or the Luftwaffe's greatest fear - the plywood Mosquito of WW2.

[@eggaweb]

Take a look at the Dehaviland Mosquito, one of the fastest planes of WWII.

[@MrJdsenior]

True, that! And much later, Howard Hughes and the Spruce Goose, the largest (size and payload) at the time, and in fact, until fairly recently size span wise, I think, designed to transport troops during an obvious run on metal, so another material was needed. Unfortunately, the prototype only flew (hopped) once in test, as the need ended with the wars end, and that was the current phase of the undertaking. Could have been a great solution, were the outcome different (glad it wasn't, for the people losing lives). If you look at the wing struts on the Wright Flyer, it was actually "composited" even further, though not this time in a shared matrix (epoxy, in the case of current cloth composites, unless maybe they were glued?) as they were wrapped in chord to further strengthen them at the highest stress points, to prevent grain separation or green stick type fracturing. You can (could?) see the real Flyer at the Smithsonian, but the mock up at Kitty Hawk you can get really close to, and see the details well. Those guys were very clever and GREAT empiricists, actually did the scientific work (made wind tunnels, etc) to find out the real answers (like high aspect ratio wings are MORE efficient, exactly the opposite of the "rule of thumb" of the time) instead of just ignorant shooting from the hip like Langley, who was supported by the Smithsonian (or vise versa, don't remember, but there was a connection), and basically designed rocks he tossed of girders, L/D of approximately 0, literally went less distance and time than you could have thrown a rock. The CONVERSE of the Wrights.

[@mystrorivers9432]

When it comes to design some of the best were in ww2 but the minds that built the mustangs and etc had some of the most beautiful designs and ideas Incorporated into war planes of that time but the materials wood as you quaintly pointed out was heavy corrosive and would have been problematic add the thrust and heat caused buy the drive system be it jet or propeller. Could and probably would cause stress cracks, heat damage, warpage and fuel consumption. I remember the horror stories told to me by my great uncles and brand father of planes that were ripped to shreds buy not only bullets but birds or vibrations so severe that plans didn't make it to a target before catastrophic failure cost not just equipment but human life. The times your in reference to were not so much the "golden age" but the man kinds first steps into areo space technology.

[@JA238979]

I love aviation, and I dislike unnecessarily expensive things. Fortunately, Boeing is doing very well. I do not know how much money NASA has to pay Russia to put a person into space, to sustain the life of that person, and/or to bring that person back, but it may appear to be inability or incompetence.

[@rb032682]

Smart chicks are hot.

[@Blueseas4Joe]

HMMMMM haven't they been making boats out of something similar to this for about 40 years? They might call this fiberglass years ago. But it is heavier than the metal it replaces.

[@AdamosDad]

This is carbon fiber and much lighter than fiberglass.

[@counterfit5]

Carbon fiber uses carbon strings, not glass. It's much lighter in most applications, and more durable as well

[@wuzihuzi]

Also keep in mind this was in 2013 too

[@rubdulbah3201]

Fiberglass is heavier than some metals per unit volume but is stronger per it's weight and allows for use of less of it than metal to achieve the same strength.

[@pauladams1814]

NASA is the best use of tax payer money ever, massive returns for every dollar spent.

[@RobertSmith-gl5vs]

Paul Adams: the photos in this section show a lot more detail than this one of the Russian Lunar21 probe, in which the shadow side is very black

[@BudahOfBirmingham]

Powered dirigibles? Slow down the pace of life rather than make our transportation faster. Burning stuff is very old hat and backwards thinking. Budah of Birmingham