Jan 19 2011Future Planes: On The Wings Of Tomorrow


Planes: they go fast, get you from here to there, and I have to get preeeeetty drunk to step foot on one. But hopefully not so drunk I pass out under a row of seats at the gate and wake up outside security. *ahem* I'm looking at you, LAX. Somebody touched my butt, I f***ing know it.

NASA has taken the wraps off three concept designs for quiet, energy efficient aircraft that could potentially be ready to fly as soon as 2025...The designs come from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and The Boeing Company. In the final months of 2010, each of these companies won a contract from NASA to research and test their concepts during 2011.

According to NASA: "[E]ach design has to fly up to 85 percent of the speed of sound; cover a range of approximately 7,000 miles; and carry between 50,000 and 100,000 pounds of payload, either passengers or cargo. For the rest of this year, each team will be exploring, testing, simulating, keeping and discarding innovations and technologies to make their design a winner."

Apparently, NASA is aiming to develop a line of super-planes that larger, faster, quieter, and that burn fuel slower and cleaner than their present counterparts.

No, apparently NASA is GIVING UP ON SPACE. WTF, BROSKI?! You used to be all, "to the moon, Mars, and beyond!", and now you're all, "planes". Shit's weak! Granted not as weak as Northrop Grumman's concept (after the jump), but I can recognize a 5-minute rendering job when I see one. That one was two, tops.

Hit the jump to see Northrop Grumman's and Lockheed Martin's designs.



Our Future Planes? NASA Reveals The Airplanes Of 2025 [huffingtonpost]

Thanks to Keith, who's convinced if he flaps his arms hard enough he'll fly. Not true, Keith. You still have to jump off a building.

Related Stories
Reader Comments



I'm an asshat.

@3 why you making fun of me son

Fuck you NASA. You fucking suck. Planes? Really??? Last I checked, planes were not X-Wings.

And @YEAH (1,2,3, &4) You're a toolbag.

Something about that last one leaves me a little unconvinced. Maybe it's the single engine. The idea of "one engine fails and everybody dies" doesn't sit too well with me.

I made half of those planes out of paper last week.


Someone's going to invent the teleporter soon. Then, none of this will matter.

These designs are weak sauce. Neither one of them look viable, the tail engine looks easy to down, I agree with Mr McFeely. The first one looks like a twelve year old designed it. all I can say now to make up for this is......YEAH!

Wait. So when do tie fighters get invented?

Louis of http://aprettyage.blogspot.com/

I agree with #10; neither one of these three planes looks viable.

I agree with #16.

So how many of you guys are aircraft engineers?


#13 tastes goddamn delicious.

Dammit, too late. #17 is a tard.

I am certain I saw a similar Boeings flying wing concept on Discovery Channel when they and Lockheed were competing for a US Defence contract for a fighter plane. While the prototype succeeded at acheiving the goals US Defence required of it, and it had a nifty way to construct it, it lucked out since US defence felt it didn't look cool enough. Maybe they didn't like something that could confuse people to think they were cylons or something.

Also agrees with #6,10,12...... The 3 aircraft shown here look very unreliable completely unsafe. That single engine commercial airline better have some kind of failsafe in case that "one" engine blows, because if not that aircraft is going with no survivors. But hey this NASA if they can build a space shuttle they can build some damn airplanes which is a disgrace to say.

It's sad, NASA should of stuck with what they did best and that was building rockets and spaceships damn it. We should of been back to the moon by now and hell even built a small base on the moon and also sent the first astronauts to Mars. This is pathetic. Once NASA finishes up with the last space shuttle missions, we'll no longer have a "real" space program. So lets hope NASA finds something constructive to do like build airplanes and forget about space travel. This is stupid.

Well NASA has till 2025 to start getting their aircraft flying. That might be enough to time for NASA engineers to work out the bugs and have aircraft that could potentially be ready to fly as soon as 2025 WHEN WE SHOULD BE GOING TO FUCKING MARS INSTEAD!!!!!

But hey this NASA if they can build a space shuttle they can build some damn airplanes which is a disgrace to say....My boyfriend thinks the same as I do. He is eight years older than me, lol. We met online at euagecupid.c“0m a nice and free place for younger women andolder men, or older women and younger men, to interact with each other. Maybe you wanna check out or tell your friends.

Don't be surprised that NASA deals with aircraft; NASA stands for National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This sort of project is covered by the blanket term "aeronautics" in NASA's acronym.

well none of them don't look like they were an original concept.
and if this is meant for passengers than number 1 would be out, that looks like it would work more as a military fighter jet
number 2 looks to bulky to fly but if it works it would be great for passengers or the military
and number 3 looks to ambitious, it just looks like it wouldn't be able to get off the runway

but i know nothing about how airplanes work so just ignore my comment

Boeing's design is ok, but I bet all the passengers get motion sickness without windows to look out of. On the other hand, perhaps they'll have a bar and arcade inside. Or a casino. A casino would be better.

Northrop Grumman's looks like they just took an unmanned drone and put passenger compartments where the bombs go. Not cool. Plus, there's not enough overhead space. They should stick to designing weapons.

Lockheed Martin's design sucks. This is how I'm pretty sure it went down:

Johnson: Hey isn't that design competition thing deadline coming up?

Dixon: What design thing?

Johnson: You know, the plane thing.

Dixon: Hold on, let me look... Oh *uck, it's tomorrow. What am I going to do?

Johnson: No worries, just draw a plane with a Dyson Fan in the tail or something.

Dixon: Yeah, that'll do. Where do you want to go for lunch today?

I'm selling all my Lockheed Martin stock.

some of these look like good starts.

#1 to me shows the most promise. witht he bulk of the craft being a lifting body it could stand to be the most effecient. the flying wing idea has been around for decades, and was proven to be more effecient way back int he 50's.

#2 could be interesting, but it would mean attempting to balance the load on every flight, which could be problematic. if its overall effeciency is decent enough though, it could be worth it.

#3 is just a refining of current models and ideas. its a TWIN engine (the other one is hidden by the back of the plane) standard style. its likely the one to be adopted, as the industries think that people would be too uneasy about the design others. (its why the yf-22 was chosen over the yf-23)

I agree with #22, NASA should stick to continuing their hoax of space flight and leave really flying to the Germans.

"apparently NASA is GIVING UP ON SPACE"
Thanks, Pres. Obama.

Why does NASA need planes?

So, NASA, what the fuck? National Aeronautic and SPACE Administration... WHERE IS THE SPACE IN THESE DAM PLANES?!?!?!


The admin of geekipality.com

WTF? STOP MAKING BIG SLOW ASS SHITty PLANES!!!!! For god sake make em super sonic! It takes me 18+ hours to get from NY to Mumbai and that is unacceptable. This is 2011 damn it and we shouldn't have to endure these loooooooooong as travel time. Bring back the Concord PLEASE>

@ #28 admin
aer = air
nautike = seamanship/navigation

The Boeing and the Airbus concepts look pretty good. The Northrop design is unimaginative.

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments relevant to the post. Inappropriate or promotional comments may be removed. Email addresses are required to confirm comments but will never be displayed. To create a link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments.