WEBVTT - You Can't Get There From Now 0:00:00.160 --> 0:00:07.240 Brought to you by Toyota. Let's go places. Welcome to 0:00:07.400 --> 0:00:15.720 forward Thinking. Hey there everyone, and welcome to forward Thinking 0:00:15.840 --> 0:00:17.680 me pod guess that looks at the future and says, 0:00:17.720 --> 0:00:19.800 all my bags are packed, I'm ready to go. I'm 0:00:19.840 --> 0:00:24.919 Jonathan Strickland, I'm Lauren, and I'm Joe McCormick. And uh, hey, guys, 0:00:25.239 --> 0:00:27.040 I got a question for both of you. Have you 0:00:27.280 --> 0:00:31.360 ever been on an airplane? Yes? I have also, as 0:00:31.360 --> 0:00:33.400 a matter of fact, in fact, Lauren, you've sat next 0:00:33.400 --> 0:00:35.360 to me on an airplane. So I knew that answer 0:00:35.440 --> 0:00:38.360 already for you. You You did. You're either very forgetful or 0:00:38.400 --> 0:00:41.519 asking a hypothetical question set up a deeper conversation. It 0:00:41.560 --> 0:00:44.560 was a rhetorical device. I admit I am not above 0:00:44.640 --> 0:00:47.040 such things. We wanted to talk about the future of 0:00:47.080 --> 0:00:50.040 air travel in this episode and kind of talk about, 0:00:50.120 --> 0:00:53.800 you know, why is air travel even something that we're 0:00:53.920 --> 0:00:57.160 thinking about? Why, what's important about it? And what are 0:00:57.200 --> 0:01:02.000 the various barriers to making it, you know, more awesome 0:01:03.160 --> 0:01:06.000 more awesome. I might be different than both of you 0:01:06.080 --> 0:01:10.880 and that I straight up hate air travel. I don't 0:01:11.080 --> 0:01:14.720 um I don't hate it so much that I refused 0:01:14.760 --> 0:01:16.839 to get on a plane like some of those people. 0:01:16.959 --> 0:01:20.960 I mean, we know somewhere around here who We've got 0:01:21.000 --> 0:01:22.959 a couple of people who work at hell Stuff Works 0:01:22.959 --> 0:01:27.000 who have phobias that they deal with and no no 0:01:27.080 --> 0:01:32.160 judgment about that. That's very understandable, because I I almost 0:01:32.280 --> 0:01:36.319 share it. I just very much dislike it. I Uh, 0:01:37.319 --> 0:01:40.640 it's kind of like you know, asking me if I 0:01:40.720 --> 0:01:43.560 would ride in the trunk of a car if it 0:01:43.680 --> 0:01:45.880 was my only option to get to where I needed 0:01:45.880 --> 0:01:48.320 to go. I mean, I guess I would do it, 0:01:48.520 --> 0:01:50.440 but you wouldn't be happy, but you really wouldn't be 0:01:50.520 --> 0:01:54.240 excited about. I am fine with air travel. I have 0:01:54.400 --> 0:01:57.600 no problem with it whatsoever. I actually I can find 0:01:57.800 --> 0:02:00.440 flying on an airplane to be relaxing. I can fall 0:02:00.480 --> 0:02:03.360 asleep before we end up taxing to par take off. 0:02:03.480 --> 0:02:08.040 But but on the other hand, on the other hand, 0:02:08.040 --> 0:02:10.519 I hate everything else about it, Like I don't. I 0:02:10.800 --> 0:02:14.600 find actually getting the most stressful thing for me is 0:02:14.680 --> 0:02:16.640 just getting to the point where I'm at my gate. 0:02:17.200 --> 0:02:20.000 That's actually the most stress Well, the security checks these days, 0:02:20.040 --> 0:02:22.280 and the fact that in the Atlanta airport you have 0:02:22.320 --> 0:02:25.239 to travel approximately forty seven miles before you ever get 0:02:25.280 --> 0:02:27.680 to the gate that you need to get to. That 0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:32.160 also helps. Uh So non Euclidean design of airport certainly 0:02:32.160 --> 0:02:35.520 doesn't help. Yeah, though, there's a wonderful comedy factor to 0:02:35.600 --> 0:02:40.480 the narration of the between terminal train. Oh, the plane 0:02:40.480 --> 0:02:42.840 train is what it's called now, and I wish I 0:02:42.880 --> 0:02:45.519 were making that up. There's some there's some great voice 0:02:45.760 --> 0:02:49.120 voice acting actually, but I'll have to play for you, guys. 0:02:49.520 --> 0:02:54.000 My wife found a sound clip of the old plane train, 0:02:54.120 --> 0:02:57.360 which was in the early days of the Atlanta Airport, 0:02:57.600 --> 0:03:01.359 voiced by apparently a Cylon for the original Billstar Galactica 0:03:01.440 --> 0:03:04.120 series that had that kind of robotic voice. May like, 0:03:04.240 --> 0:03:07.120 by your command, we're not moving the concourse. B I 0:03:07.160 --> 0:03:08.839 didn't do the buy your command part, but you get 0:03:08.840 --> 0:03:12.920 my point anyway. You know, there are some problems with 0:03:13.000 --> 0:03:16.560 air travel, even on a perfect flight, right, I mean, 0:03:16.600 --> 0:03:20.919 there's just our biases, but they're sort of actual problems. Yeah. 0:03:20.919 --> 0:03:23.440 We we've gotten to a point where, I mean, it's 0:03:23.520 --> 0:03:26.000 it's kind of it's still amazing to think that we're 0:03:26.000 --> 0:03:31.440 able to travel anywhere in the world with within you know, 0:03:31.520 --> 0:03:33.680 a fraction of the time it would have taken a 0:03:33.800 --> 0:03:37.600 century ago. I mean, obviously that is amazing. Yeah, you can. 0:03:37.680 --> 0:03:39.280 You can get to the opposite side of the globe 0:03:39.360 --> 0:03:43.600 within about twelve hours of travel, which is again like unthinkable. 0:03:43.760 --> 0:03:47.120 I mean earlier generations would have thought this was amazing 0:03:47.120 --> 0:03:50.839 that we can travel from one point to another so 0:03:51.000 --> 0:03:55.520 relatively quickly. But I mean there's still improvements to be had. 0:03:55.560 --> 0:03:58.320 In fact, if you look at some of commercial air flight, 0:03:59.080 --> 0:04:03.520 we're not traveling as quickly as some aircraft used to travel. 0:04:03.680 --> 0:04:05.920 So we want to look at the future of air 0:04:05.960 --> 0:04:08.360 travel and kind of look at it. Well, everything from 0:04:08.400 --> 0:04:10.640 can we get to point A to point B? From 0:04:10.680 --> 0:04:13.839 point A to point B faster? Uh? And how much 0:04:13.840 --> 0:04:17.560 fuel are we using? What is the environmental impact of that? 0:04:17.680 --> 0:04:19.960 Is there any way of making aircraft more efficient so 0:04:20.000 --> 0:04:22.880 that we don't use as much fuel? Obviously, energy is 0:04:22.880 --> 0:04:25.840 always something we're thinking about here on this this podcast, 0:04:25.920 --> 0:04:29.680 right because our needs for energy are just going to 0:04:29.800 --> 0:04:32.200 continue to rise over time, and so we have to 0:04:32.240 --> 0:04:35.640 be smarter about the ways we we end up getting 0:04:35.720 --> 0:04:39.880 at energy. Well, okay, let's start with energy. Um I 0:04:39.920 --> 0:04:50.320 am no physicist sist, but obviously professional that it takes 0:04:50.320 --> 0:04:53.040 a lot more energy to move something through the air 0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:56.080 than to move that same amount of mass just along 0:04:56.120 --> 0:04:59.760 the ground, uh in general. Yeah, yeah, I mean without 0:04:59.800 --> 0:05:04.320 it falling. Yes, although this is part of why airplanes 0:05:04.360 --> 0:05:07.000 are so keen these days on getting as many people 0:05:07.080 --> 0:05:10.840 as is physically possible crammed into a single airplane, because 0:05:10.839 --> 0:05:13.880 it becomes a lot more efficient the more people you're 0:05:13.920 --> 0:05:17.200 conveying from one place to another. From a cost perspective, 0:05:17.279 --> 0:05:19.479 from a you know, you think of it as the 0:05:19.560 --> 0:05:23.800 number of miles per passengers. I mean, you know, if 0:05:23.680 --> 0:05:26.680 if you're if you're thinking about it, a plane might 0:05:26.800 --> 0:05:30.200 burn like a gallon of fuel every second, which is 0:05:30.240 --> 0:05:32.200 a whole bunch of fuel. But if you even that 0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:35.360 out to about five hundred passengers, that that's you know, 0:05:35.440 --> 0:05:37.400 that's really you're you're getting like a hundred miles to 0:05:37.400 --> 0:05:40.279 the gallon, right, Yeah, So it's it's a little different 0:05:40.320 --> 0:05:42.520 from looking at a car. You know, in a car, 0:05:42.640 --> 0:05:45.080 we tend to just think of how far can this 0:05:45.160 --> 0:05:48.000 car go on a full tank of gas? Like that 0:05:48.120 --> 0:05:51.280 tends to be the way we think about mileage, uh 0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:55.240 in in as far as regular car vehicle type stuff goes. 0:05:55.279 --> 0:05:58.279 But if you're talking about aircraft, then we start looking at, well, 0:05:58.320 --> 0:06:01.360 how many people can it carry? For um, it's point 0:06:01.360 --> 0:06:04.360 of origin to its destination and how much fuel is 0:06:04.400 --> 0:06:07.240 it burning, and then you kind of figure out the 0:06:07.279 --> 0:06:10.039 efficiency based on both of those things, not just how 0:06:10.160 --> 0:06:12.120 much fuel did it burn, but how many people was 0:06:12.160 --> 0:06:18.120 it able to carry? Right um And there's there's more complications. Basically, 0:06:18.160 --> 0:06:20.839 all of this is really complicated to discuss because because 0:06:20.880 --> 0:06:24.560 planes don't use the same fuel that cars do, UM 0:06:24.640 --> 0:06:27.760 and so all of the all of the emissions are 0:06:27.760 --> 0:06:29.760 going to be different, and your efficiency is going to 0:06:29.920 --> 0:06:33.560 vary widely based on different aircraft. Also, as it turns out, 0:06:33.600 --> 0:06:38.320 guys um chemical companies aren't really excited about publicizing their 0:06:38.360 --> 0:06:42.280 proprietary formulas. I don't know if you've ever heard about this, 0:06:42.320 --> 0:06:44.400 but they're a little bit secretive about their secret formula. 0:06:44.440 --> 0:06:47.080 I've been familiar with this ever since my first trip 0:06:47.120 --> 0:06:52.080 to KFC, when I discovered that proprietary secrets are something 0:06:52.120 --> 0:06:55.279 they take very seriously. When I sit there and I say, 0:06:55.320 --> 0:06:58.120 I've identified seven out of your eleven secret herbs and spices, 0:06:58.160 --> 0:07:02.279 and then they just from the building masks came out ugly. 0:07:02.480 --> 0:07:05.600 And as it turns out, the people in the aircraft 0:07:05.640 --> 0:07:11.280 industry are almost as intense about it. So yeah, I 0:07:11.280 --> 0:07:15.400 imagine they're not super forthcoming about, say like exactly what 0:07:15.440 --> 0:07:19.120 the fuel efficiency standards of their vehicles are and uh yeah, 0:07:19.240 --> 0:07:21.320 exactly what kind of emissions come out of it as 0:07:21.320 --> 0:07:24.160 a result. Yeah, and you can you can check out 0:07:24.200 --> 0:07:26.640 there's a few governmental websites that will talk a little 0:07:26.680 --> 0:07:32.440 bit about, um, really really basic concepts of of averages 0:07:32.480 --> 0:07:36.440 across standards. So so you know, you can you can 0:07:36.440 --> 0:07:40.360 look it up and say that a jet fuel emits 0:07:40.400 --> 0:07:46.200 some nine point six of carbon dioxide per gallon burned. Um, 0:07:46.360 --> 0:07:49.000 So then you have to extrapolate that by how many 0:07:49.040 --> 0:07:51.800 gallons are burned on a typical flight, and then figure 0:07:51.800 --> 0:07:53.960 out how many flights are there on a typical day. 0:07:54.080 --> 0:07:56.800 And yeah, this gets complicate. And also only that, but 0:07:56.880 --> 0:07:59.720 I mean aircraft can burn different amounts of fuel depending 0:07:59.760 --> 0:08:02.320 upon on how much weight they're carrying. Oh absolutely, and 0:08:02.360 --> 0:08:04.560 how you know how long the distance is, how long 0:08:04.600 --> 0:08:08.559 they spend at an optimum speed versus the takeoff and landing, 0:08:08.600 --> 0:08:11.200 like the weather conditions are like, um, all sorts of 0:08:11.200 --> 0:08:13.920 stuff like that will go into that number. You know, 0:08:14.040 --> 0:08:18.640 on on an average comparison, your your you know, automobile 0:08:18.760 --> 0:08:21.920 is going to emit some eight point nine kilograms of 0:08:22.000 --> 0:08:28.840 carbon dioxide per gallon burned. And yes, but you're also 0:08:28.880 --> 0:08:31.320 not talking about the same kind of gasoline. Jet fuel 0:08:31.600 --> 0:08:35.559 is kerosene based. It's it's kerosene or UM or naphtha 0:08:36.080 --> 0:08:40.000 UM plus some other hydrocarbons purified to remove various contaminants 0:08:40.160 --> 0:08:42.600 up to an including like water. As it turns out, 0:08:42.600 --> 0:08:45.160 crystals device are really bad if they get into your 0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:48.559 jet engine. UM and plus a few additives to prevent 0:08:48.559 --> 0:08:52.000 stuff like a corrosion and static build up UM. You know, 0:08:52.040 --> 0:08:54.800 as opposed to to to auto gas or mo gas, 0:08:54.840 --> 0:08:58.480 which is the kind of aviation term for automobile fuel, 0:08:58.520 --> 0:09:02.599 which is patrol neum gasoline modified with some ethanol to 0:09:02.640 --> 0:09:05.720 burn cleaner, had to increase the octane and and another 0:09:05.720 --> 0:09:08.240 couple of additives to prevent a couple of things. Okay, 0:09:08.240 --> 0:09:10.280 but jet fuel emissions, we're not just talking about like 0:09:10.320 --> 0:09:14.800 a carbon problem right there. There's some other contaminants, right Yeah, 0:09:14.840 --> 0:09:17.640 there's a bunch of stuff like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen 0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:21.200 oxides that wind up in jet fuel emissions. And a 0:09:21.240 --> 0:09:24.800 study out of m I T just recently found that 0:09:25.720 --> 0:09:28.240 it's it's it's pretty toxic stuff. They were looking at 0:09:28.320 --> 0:09:32.360 flight paths and wetter weather patterns and um premature deaths 0:09:32.400 --> 0:09:35.760 in various areas that have roots in air pollution. You know, 0:09:35.800 --> 0:09:39.440 you're you're talking about deaths you know, with with cardiovascular 0:09:39.559 --> 0:09:44.600 respiratory problems, lung cancer, stuff like that, and jet plane 0:09:44.640 --> 0:09:50.280 emissions can kill about ten thousand people every year. Wow. Wow, 0:09:50.320 --> 0:09:54.240 according to according to m I. T Um, Yeah, just 0:09:54.280 --> 0:09:57.400 looking at at the way that these these areas of 0:09:57.520 --> 0:10:01.199 increased risk of death from car de vascular from air 0:10:01.240 --> 0:10:05.959 pollution related causes are turning up ten thousand deaths per 0:10:06.040 --> 0:10:10.720 year in areas that receive a high concentration of jet 0:10:10.720 --> 0:10:15.000 fuel emission. And yeah, well okay, okay, for for for 0:10:15.040 --> 0:10:17.480 the record, ships are a lot worse and can cause 0:10:17.520 --> 0:10:21.080 as many as sixty people to die every year. And 0:10:21.200 --> 0:10:22.960 I did not find a number on cars, so that 0:10:23.040 --> 0:10:27.160 is completely unhelpful. But that's a lot. And some of 0:10:27.200 --> 0:10:30.199 this might be impacted by something as simple as regulatory 0:10:30.240 --> 0:10:35.480 measures like filtering out sulfur, which could cost as little 0:10:35.520 --> 0:10:38.560 as five cents a gallon according to some researchers. Yeah, 0:10:39.120 --> 0:10:42.440 keeping in mind that these these aircraft have hundreds of 0:10:42.440 --> 0:10:45.520 gallons of gas. But still, yes, when you compare that 0:10:45.559 --> 0:10:48.640 to deaths. It's still cheap. Yeah, if you could, if 0:10:48.640 --> 0:10:51.199 you could save people from from dying from the inhalation 0:10:51.240 --> 0:10:55.480 of particulates and the development of these deadly diseases, then yeah, 0:10:55.520 --> 0:10:56.880 And you brought up something else I just want to 0:10:56.880 --> 0:10:59.600 address really quickly before we move on, which is that 0:10:59.840 --> 0:11:03.800 the idea that there are other vehicles that also create 0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:08.480 harmful emissions that can contribute to health hazards and even 0:11:08.520 --> 0:11:12.480 contribute to someone dying earlier than what they normally would have. 0:11:12.960 --> 0:11:15.160 We totally understand that, we do understand there are other 0:11:15.240 --> 0:11:18.720 vehicles that do this, but that you can't. You can't 0:11:18.720 --> 0:11:21.360 say because these other things do this, then this isn't 0:11:21.360 --> 0:11:23.240 a problem. Clearly, it's a problem that we need to 0:11:23.280 --> 0:11:27.679 look at across multiple types of vehicles. So, um, we're 0:11:27.720 --> 0:11:30.440 focusing today on on aircraft because we could go on 0:11:30.600 --> 0:11:33.080 for a very long time about many different kinds of travel, 0:11:33.080 --> 0:11:35.640 and probably will in future episode. Yes, exactly. So I 0:11:35.679 --> 0:11:37.280 just wanted to bring that up so that we don't 0:11:37.320 --> 0:11:40.720 get the people who respond with, well, if vehicles contribute 0:11:40.720 --> 0:11:44.040 to x number and aircraft are only x number, then 0:11:44.040 --> 0:11:46.679 why are you saying let's let's fix you know, just 0:11:46.760 --> 0:11:50.120 the aircraft at the expensive vehicles. That's not what we're saying. Sure. Also, 0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:52.520 air travel is on the rise in the United States. 0:11:52.520 --> 0:11:54.960 It saw a I don't have the number in front 0:11:54.960 --> 0:11:56.959 of me, but I remember seeing like a one point 0:11:56.960 --> 0:12:01.400 three increase from twelve, you know, which which over the 0:12:01.440 --> 0:12:03.680 course of several years worldwide. That was just in the 0:12:03.760 --> 0:12:07.360 US could be pretty significant. And noise pollution is is 0:12:07.400 --> 0:12:10.080 a thing too with aircraft. A couple of studies published 0:12:10.120 --> 0:12:13.800 in the British Medical Journal in October um we are 0:12:13.840 --> 0:12:17.839 recording this podcast in November found that people who lived 0:12:17.880 --> 0:12:20.680 with higher levels of aircraft noise a k a. Closer 0:12:20.679 --> 0:12:25.439 to airports had increased risks of stroke and other cardiovascular diseases. Um. 0:12:25.480 --> 0:12:28.800 And that's after adjustment for stuff like socioeconomic status and 0:12:28.840 --> 0:12:33.360 demographic factors. Air pollution close to closeness to roadways. And 0:12:33.440 --> 0:12:35.240 you know, we we talked a little bit about noise 0:12:35.240 --> 0:12:38.240 pollution in our wind Turbine episode, so if if you 0:12:38.280 --> 0:12:40.360 guys want to go back and listen to that one. 0:12:40.440 --> 0:12:44.280 But basically, noise pollution of any kind can cause stress 0:12:44.280 --> 0:12:48.160 and sleep disturbance through this kind of nasty, self perpetuating 0:12:48.200 --> 0:12:52.160 cycle of what's called annoyance and is actually more serious 0:12:52.160 --> 0:12:54.840 than it sounds when you just say it like I'm annoyed, 0:12:55.280 --> 0:12:57.560 but but it's it can it can lead to chronic stress, 0:12:57.600 --> 0:13:00.400 which is bad. Yeah, yeah, but which we've talked about 0:13:00.400 --> 0:13:04.319 also in previous podcasts about how stress can really impact 0:13:04.720 --> 0:13:08.080 your quality and uh and length of life as it 0:13:08.120 --> 0:13:11.400 turns out. So you know, these are these are all 0:13:11.440 --> 0:13:13.320 things that we could look at to say, well, the 0:13:13.360 --> 0:13:17.000 future of air travel needs to address certain things like 0:13:17.160 --> 0:13:21.480 how efficient the aircraft are, how quickly they travel, how 0:13:21.559 --> 0:13:24.960 much noise they produce, how many types of emissions do 0:13:25.040 --> 0:13:28.080 they emit can we limit that? And and some of 0:13:28.080 --> 0:13:32.880 these questions are really complicated already, And then you complicate 0:13:32.920 --> 0:13:35.199 them more by saying, well, what's the best approach because 0:13:35.240 --> 0:13:40.360 obviously we don't have a magic solution to addressing all 0:13:40.400 --> 0:13:42.520 of these issues at once. Some of them you're going 0:13:42.559 --> 0:13:45.240 to have to weigh against others and decide what's the 0:13:45.240 --> 0:13:48.720 most important. But let's talk about some of the some 0:13:48.840 --> 0:13:53.360 of the proposals we've seen for making aircraft more efficient. Yeah, 0:13:53.440 --> 0:13:57.520 some groups, for example, NASA have started to get heads 0:13:57.520 --> 0:14:01.240 together basically and say, well, let's look at aircraft design 0:14:01.320 --> 0:14:03.280 and see what we can do to actually fix these 0:14:03.320 --> 0:14:06.360 problems instead of just you know, worrying about them. Yeah, 0:14:06.400 --> 0:14:10.400 didn't they put together a whole like report on outlining 0:14:10.480 --> 0:14:13.440 some some good future guidelines for how to get planes 0:14:13.480 --> 0:14:17.400 to get safer. And in two thousand nine, NASAs Aeronautics 0:14:17.480 --> 0:14:22.200 Research Mission Director, it's Integrated Systems Research Program. Does that 0:14:22.280 --> 0:14:27.720 not have like an acronymic that that has is? See 0:14:27.760 --> 0:14:34.600 that's perfect? The NASA armed is yeah, there we go, alright, alright, 0:14:34.680 --> 0:14:40.920 NASA NASA there they released UM, the Environmentally Responsible Aviation 0:14:41.720 --> 0:14:47.040 Project UM, and this basically it was to challenge people 0:14:47.080 --> 0:14:51.200 to come up with new aircraft configurations that they could 0:14:51.240 --> 0:14:56.880 deploy by UM they've got to and right now on 0:14:56.920 --> 0:15:00.760 their website they've got a list of goal that include 0:15:01.200 --> 0:15:05.760 reducing aircraft drag by eight PERCENTUM, reducing aircraft weight by 0:15:05.920 --> 0:15:11.480 ten percent, reducing specific fuel consumption of aircraft engines by 0:15:11.480 --> 0:15:17.520 fi reducing ox sides of nitrogen emissions by seventy five percent, 0:15:20.040 --> 0:15:24.040 reducing aircraft noise by one eighth compared to current standards. 0:15:24.040 --> 0:15:28.400 And I think those were based on aircraft as they 0:15:28.400 --> 0:15:31.240 were measured in n but that's I think not a 0:15:31.240 --> 0:15:33.160 whole lot different than now, because a lot of the 0:15:33.200 --> 0:15:35.360 aircraft that are in service have been around for a 0:15:35.360 --> 0:15:39.520 long time. Even the ones that have been constructed, you know, 0:15:39.680 --> 0:15:44.920 relatively recently, were in the engineering planning department for years 0:15:45.000 --> 0:15:48.760 before they were ever unveiled to the public. So even 0:15:48.760 --> 0:15:50.200 if you were to say, oh, but the such and 0:15:50.240 --> 0:15:52.760 such plane only came out in two thousand four, so 0:15:52.840 --> 0:15:57.480 clearly it's well, there's chances that planes at least ten 0:15:57.560 --> 0:16:02.080 years of testing exactly. Um. Yeah, And so I wanted 0:16:02.120 --> 0:16:05.600 to talk about a few things ideas I've seen in 0:16:05.680 --> 0:16:10.440 conjunction with the response to this project. Uh. And some 0:16:10.520 --> 0:16:13.880 of some of these are aerodynamic redesigns to the body 0:16:13.920 --> 0:16:16.880 of airplanes, because it turns out this matters a whole lot. 0:16:17.480 --> 0:16:21.280 It's not just your engine, but it's um dealing with 0:16:21.320 --> 0:16:25.680 this thing, the drag coefficient, the resistance that your plane 0:16:25.760 --> 0:16:28.360 is experiencing as it's flying. And I guess you're also 0:16:28.400 --> 0:16:32.720 trying to increase the lift to drag ratio um to 0:16:33.000 --> 0:16:36.160 lower the amount of energy you need and therefore probably 0:16:36.200 --> 0:16:39.480 also the emissions you create when you're flying through the air. 0:16:39.720 --> 0:16:42.000 Your engines don't have to work as hard if the 0:16:42.120 --> 0:16:45.320 drag is lowered yeah. UM. And so one of the 0:16:45.320 --> 0:16:47.680 cool things I saw was the idea of the boxed 0:16:47.760 --> 0:16:50.520 wing or the closed wing system. Have you ever seen this? 0:16:51.120 --> 0:16:52.680 I have not seen pictures of it. I read a 0:16:52.720 --> 0:16:54.920 little bit about it, and it it basically made my 0:16:54.960 --> 0:16:59.120 mind go by the way it's um. On one hand, 0:16:59.120 --> 0:17:03.000 it seems really said bowl. It's so normally imagine a 0:17:03.040 --> 0:17:05.480 plane body like a passenger jett to bowing. You know, 0:17:05.800 --> 0:17:09.720 it's got wings sticking out. Well, Apparently, when a plane 0:17:09.800 --> 0:17:13.119 is flying through the air at its maximum efficiency, you know, 0:17:13.280 --> 0:17:17.360 high speed UM, there is this phenomenon known as wingtip 0:17:17.440 --> 0:17:21.120 vortices UM. So at the ends of the wings there's 0:17:21.160 --> 0:17:25.280 this turbulent spiraling of air that creates drag on the 0:17:25.320 --> 0:17:29.200 airplane as it's moving through UM. Because in general, turbulence 0:17:29.280 --> 0:17:34.560 is bad. And so one idea is that you have 0:17:34.720 --> 0:17:38.000 these things called winglets wingtip devices, and they try to 0:17:38.080 --> 0:17:41.440 cut down on wingtip vortices by you've probably seen something 0:17:41.720 --> 0:17:45.000 like this before. Instead of just the wings ending, they've 0:17:45.040 --> 0:17:49.480 got like a little little thing flips up on the end, 0:17:49.640 --> 0:17:51.879 and so that helps cut down on that sum, but 0:17:51.920 --> 0:17:55.639 it's still there. Well, what if you um sort of 0:17:55.680 --> 0:17:59.679 extend that idea and just keep those winglets coming up 0:17:59.720 --> 0:18:02.480 intil they come all the way around and form a 0:18:02.560 --> 0:18:07.840 closed loop system of wings. Well, apparently Locke and Martin 0:18:08.000 --> 0:18:10.440 offered a design like this in response to the e 0:18:10.600 --> 0:18:15.439 r A program. Yeah. Um, and so it looks I 0:18:15.440 --> 0:18:17.480 don't know how else to describe it. I mean, it 0:18:18.080 --> 0:18:20.760 looks like it's got a boxy wing. Other people throughout 0:18:20.840 --> 0:18:24.600 history have tried to do this with like say, loop wings, 0:18:24.640 --> 0:18:27.080 like ring wings. They come out and they're sort of 0:18:27.119 --> 0:18:30.680 a circle around the plane. Um, this would be one 0:18:30.800 --> 0:18:34.879 that like modern passenger planes, the wings are are built 0:18:34.960 --> 0:18:37.719 right into the fuselage. So, um, it's not like a 0:18:37.720 --> 0:18:41.560 loop around the fuselage. But I don't know if that's 0:18:42.000 --> 0:18:44.800 feasible for any reason or not. All Right, So so 0:18:45.080 --> 0:18:48.159 that's what that's what Lockheed's been working on. What what 0:18:48.240 --> 0:18:51.720 other designs are out there? Um, Well, there's here's one. 0:18:51.760 --> 0:18:55.000 You ever seen a B two bomber. Yeah, yeah, So 0:18:55.160 --> 0:18:58.280 there's this thing about it. It's kind of different than 0:18:58.400 --> 0:19:00.919 the body of most passenger planes, and that most of 0:19:00.920 --> 0:19:03.959 them have this kind of uh, you know, cucumber tube 0:19:04.080 --> 0:19:08.040 in the middle and then wing A B two is 0:19:08.080 --> 0:19:10.399 what's referred to as a flying wing. Yeah, it's a 0:19:10.400 --> 0:19:12.920 flying wing design. So the whole thing is a wing. 0:19:13.880 --> 0:19:16.919 And why does that help. Well, the wings are the 0:19:16.920 --> 0:19:20.159 part of the plane that gives you lift, because a 0:19:20.240 --> 0:19:24.200 plane stays in the air essentially by throwing air down 0:19:24.520 --> 0:19:26.680 off the bottom of it. So is it is it 0:19:26.720 --> 0:19:30.440 moves through the air very quickly. It's um, it's throwing 0:19:30.520 --> 0:19:34.040 air downward, and this lifts the body of the plane up. Now, 0:19:34.160 --> 0:19:37.359 the more flat surface you have along the bottom of 0:19:37.400 --> 0:19:40.400 the plane to to sort of get the oncoming air 0:19:40.440 --> 0:19:43.440 to rush under, the more lift you have. And so 0:19:43.640 --> 0:19:46.840 a flying wing design helps give you a better lift 0:19:46.840 --> 0:19:49.960 to drag ratio. UM. Now, apparently there are a lot 0:19:50.000 --> 0:19:52.520 of difficulties with the design like this, like it might 0:19:52.560 --> 0:19:56.320 be harder to make the plane stable, but of course 0:19:56.359 --> 0:19:58.919 we've got some smart people out there who are aeronautics 0:19:59.000 --> 0:20:02.720 engineers and UM. The thought is if you could create 0:20:02.760 --> 0:20:06.159 a passenger plane that had a fuselage built into the 0:20:06.160 --> 0:20:12.520 wing design instead of separately, that would also help increase efficiency. UM. 0:20:12.560 --> 0:20:14.560 A similar plan to this is a sort of what's 0:20:14.600 --> 0:20:17.920 been called a blended wing design, which is sort of 0:20:17.960 --> 0:20:21.160 like somewhere in the middle between what a modern passenger 0:20:21.200 --> 0:20:24.639 plane looks like today and that flying wing totally flat 0:20:24.680 --> 0:20:29.080 design where there's sort of a still a separate fuselage, 0:20:29.119 --> 0:20:33.600 but it's more evenly built into the wing. Um So 0:20:33.960 --> 0:20:37.639 those are some new body designs, but also there are 0:20:37.680 --> 0:20:42.280 a lot of things just about the more specific individual 0:20:42.359 --> 0:20:45.920 parts of the plane that can help improve efficiency while 0:20:46.119 --> 0:20:50.159 it's in midflight. For example, one thing is, uh what 0:20:50.200 --> 0:20:54.040 I've read about is called hybrid laminar flow control. So 0:20:54.680 --> 0:20:58.560 when air moves over a plane or where really when 0:20:58.600 --> 0:21:02.440 anything's moving through a fluid, there are two different ways 0:21:02.480 --> 0:21:05.760 that it that the fluid outside like air or liquid 0:21:05.840 --> 0:21:09.360 or whatever, can move over the vehicle, and it can 0:21:09.440 --> 0:21:12.720 move over it in turbulent flow, which usually happens at 0:21:12.800 --> 0:21:15.560 higher speeds, and that means it's it's getting all churned 0:21:15.680 --> 0:21:20.960 up and it's moving in a lateral direction. Um Or 0:21:21.040 --> 0:21:23.640 it can move in lamin or flow, which is sort 0:21:23.640 --> 0:21:28.120 of like smooth parallel motion. And so when you're rushing 0:21:28.160 --> 0:21:31.879 through air, the air that flows over you is going 0:21:31.920 --> 0:21:35.040 to be I guess smooth when you first encounter it, 0:21:35.080 --> 0:21:37.560 but as it moves along the surface at high speeds, 0:21:37.560 --> 0:21:41.119 it's more likely to become turbulent. But um lamin or 0:21:41.119 --> 0:21:44.119 flow control on the outside of a plane is designing 0:21:44.160 --> 0:21:47.560 the surface of the plane to try to reduce this, 0:21:47.720 --> 0:21:50.880 to make the air flow over the plane as smooth 0:21:50.920 --> 0:21:53.719 as possible for as long as possible. And so does 0:21:53.760 --> 0:21:56.240 this have to do with with materials science figuring out 0:21:56.280 --> 0:21:59.240 the best materials to create this laminar flow. It could, 0:21:59.240 --> 0:22:01.280 but it also could just have to do with like 0:22:01.400 --> 0:22:05.160 designing the skin of the airplane, like you could. Apparently 0:22:05.240 --> 0:22:08.200 designing it with holes placed in certain places can allow 0:22:08.280 --> 0:22:11.840 suction of air down through that offset some of this 0:22:12.160 --> 0:22:16.640 like outward spiraling of air that creates the turbulence. And uh, 0:22:16.720 --> 0:22:20.600 in any case that I know this is complicated engineer stuff, 0:22:20.640 --> 0:22:23.280 but basically what it is is it's designing the skin 0:22:23.359 --> 0:22:27.439 of an airplane to make it flow more smoothly. Okay, 0:22:27.480 --> 0:22:29.879 so we've got all these things like that, and these 0:22:30.000 --> 0:22:33.800 redesigns could help increase the efficiency of airplane steering flight. 0:22:34.359 --> 0:22:37.959 Another one might just be like, well, surely you can 0:22:38.000 --> 0:22:40.240 boost your lift to drag ratio if you just make 0:22:40.280 --> 0:22:44.399 bigger wings, right, But there are also some limits on 0:22:44.480 --> 0:22:47.760 that because the bigger your wings are, the stronger you 0:22:47.760 --> 0:22:50.000 have to make them, and then that adds weight. So 0:22:50.359 --> 0:22:55.880 there is some optimal optimalization of of weight to Yeah. 0:22:56.040 --> 0:22:58.159 Well not only that, but I mean there's a practical 0:22:58.680 --> 0:23:01.880 issue too, right, Uh so a problem with a lot 0:23:01.920 --> 0:23:04.320 of these. Actually, I talked to a friend of mine 0:23:04.320 --> 0:23:10.080 who studied aerospace engineering at Georgia Tech, and he I 0:23:10.119 --> 0:23:13.439 was talking to him about this episode, and he pointed 0:23:13.480 --> 0:23:17.440 out something interesting, which is just that it might be 0:23:17.960 --> 0:23:21.840 a problem implementing these designs simply because they might be 0:23:22.000 --> 0:23:27.800 harder to put into operational capacity within existing airports. It 0:23:27.880 --> 0:23:31.639