AHC: Pan Am Supersonic Transports and Space Clippers

I thought this would be an interesting aerospace, economic, and technological challenge, which is in effect three challenges. The first challenge is to have Pan Am acquire and operate supersonic transports. The second challenge is to have Pan Am operate a commercial space travel service. Bonus if Pan Am has service to the Moon before the year 2000. The third challenge is that Pan Am has to survive to the present day. Bonus points if airline deregulation still occurs.

Build an airplane roughly similar in size to a shuttle orbiter, but with a single rocket engine and a pair of turbofans. Because the rocket equation is a b*tch, that machine will be way too heavy to make it to orbit (9km/s). Top speed would be a mere suborbital flight, 6 km/s.
Now while on top of the suborbital trajectory and safely out of the atmosphere turbulence and heat friction - try in flight refueling through an identical spaceplane (outfitted with a retractable refueling boom)

Suborbital refueling might get mankind an economical SSTO space transportation system to orbit long before Skylon (air liquefaction) VentureStar (impossible mass fraction) or X-30 Orient Express (scramjets)

If Im not mistaken I believe Pan Am had an option on both the Concorde, and the Boeing 2707.

For the first challenge, I'd say there's two options based on supersonic economics. The first is the "big market" case. Here, SSTs are somehow cheap enough to operate and secure overland flights such that they become fairly common. In this case, Pan Am would almost certainly buy some, but getting this case...well, I'm not really sure if it's doable. The other is the "tiny market" case, which is basically like the Concorde of OTL--only a few operators selling mostly as a high-cost status item, but Pan Am happens to be one. Maybe here the 2707 launches with Pan Am as a launch client, and like Concorde did it limps along in service for thirty-odd years before finally the airframes age and there's no interest in a replacement? That, or Pan Am ends up buying a couple Concordes it optioned IOTL, and sees a similar history to British Airways and Air France.

Having Pan Am operate spacecraft is...unlikely, unless they're fully reusable and there's a commercial market for launch of people to orbit in large numbers. Even a best-case in my estimate, though, sees a cost-per-kg of $200 or so, making a ticket cost about $24,000. That's at least achievable for rich tourists and maybe some businesses staffing LEO research outposts (or flying to powersats?) but I don't think the launch market will be large enough to interest a traditional airline--it'll probably be dedicated, much smaller spaceline operators.

I can't really address the third challenge since I don't really understand why Pan Am didn't survive deregulation well enough to try and find a PoD that changes that.

Archibald said:

Suborbital refueling might get mankind an economical SSTO space transportation system to orbit long before Skylon (air liquefaction) VentureStar (impossible mass fraction) or X-30 Orient Express (scramjets)

Click to expand...

Archibald, I think we've been through this based on my analysis for you elsewhere:
1) There's two vehicles, one that makes orbit and one that does, and a complex staging event in the middle with rendezvous and fuel transfer. That's two-stage, not single-stage.
2) A two-stage vehicle using the same level of technology can also be fully-reusable, easier to turn around, and have substantially larger payload.

Maybe if pan am had the concordes delivered but the 2707 was still cancelled
( )
then maybe there wouldn't have been as much resistance in the us for the Concorde?

Also i see pan am Concorde's being operated as BA and air France did with high
prices and luxury services.

Not really sure about space but i know an early link with pan am and space with
the writer of star trek (Gene Roddenberry) being a clipper pilot.

I think Pan am could have survived to today by being given domestic services
earlier.... say the 50's?

Also if they dident buy as many 747's

A modern Pan am would be a nice sight

Archibald said:

Build an airplane roughly similar in size to a shuttle orbiter, but with a single rocket engine and a pair of turbofans. Because the rocket equation is a b*tch, that machine will be way too heavy to make it to orbit (9km/s). Top speed would be a mere suborbital flight, 6 km/s.
Now while on top of the suborbital trajectory and safely out of the atmosphere turbulence and heat friction - try in flight refueling through an identical spaceplane (outfitted with a retractable refueling boom)

Suborbital refueling might get mankind an economical SSTO space transportation system to orbit long before Skylon (air liquefaction) VentureStar (impossible mass fraction) or X-30 Orient Express (scramjets)

Click to expand...

That seems expensive for routine commercial flight, and risky for a spacecraft.

e of pi said:

For the first challenge, I'd say there's two options based on supersonic economics. The first is the "big market" case. Here, SSTs are somehow cheap enough to operate and secure overland flights such that they become fairly common. In this case, Pan Am would almost certainly buy some, but getting this case...well, I'm not really sure if it's doable. The other is the "tiny market" case, which is basically like the Concorde of OTL--only a few operators selling mostly as a high-cost status item, but Pan Am happens to be one. Maybe here the 2707 launches with Pan Am as a launch client, and like Concorde did it limps along in service for thirty-odd years before finally the airframes age and there's no interest in a replacement? That, or Pan Am ends up buying a couple Concordes it optioned IOTL, and sees a similar history to British Airways and Air France.

Click to expand...

I wonder what kind of critical mass could see a second generation SST built? Of course, this depends on if you consider the Boeing 2707 to be a first or second generation SST. I think one scenario is that large numbers of SSTs are purchased, and oil prices either low or people grow used to the convenience and are willing to pay more. Another scenario could see the aircraft enter service, but they aren't that common. They settle into the Concorde niche, but there are enough operators with enough interest that a second generation design is produced later.

Having Pan Am operate spacecraft is...unlikely, unless they're fully reusable and there's a commercial market for launch of people to orbit in large numbers. Even a best-case in my estimate, though, sees a cost-per-kg of $200 or so, making a ticket cost about $24,000. That's at least achievable for rich tourists and maybe some businesses staffing LEO research outposts (or flying to powersats?) but I don't think the launch market will be large enough to interest a traditional airline--it'll probably be dedicated, much smaller spaceline operators.

Click to expand...

I got that idea from Space Odyssey and Pan Am's sale of tickets to the Moon.

I suppose this is more of a 1960s science fiction style scenario too, since I'm not quite sure what kinds of revenue generating activities people could do in space that an automated system couldn't do at less cost. Is there anything besides tourism in terms of businesses involving people in space?

ImperialPenguin15 said:

Maybe if pan am had the concordes delivered but the 2707 was still cancelled
( )
then maybe there wouldn't have been as much resistance in the us for the Concorde?

Click to expand...

The biggest obstacle was noise pollution. Ironically, however, the Concorde actually was quieter than some other aircraft in service at the time, mostly older ones using turbojets. Breaking the sound barrier over land is an issue that was never quite resolved, but I think it could have been if people were willing to make a compromise. The National Supersonic Transport was designed to break the sound barrier at a high altitude to limit noise, and perhaps something similar could have been done with the Concorde.

Also i see pan am Concorde's being operated as BA and air France did with high
prices and luxury services.

Click to expand...

Routes and pricing were controlled by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States, so Pan Am wouldn't really have the ability to raise prices. It couldn't even lower them without permission. However, if deregulation were to occur, Pan Am and other legacy airlines might be able to secure a niche in the highly profitable business category with SSTs.

Not really sure about space but i know an early link with pan am and space with
the writer of star trek (Gene Roddenberry) being a clipper pilot.

Click to expand...

I actually came up with the idea from Space Odyssey, and Pan Am's sale of tickets for trips to the Moon starting in 1962.

I think Pan am could have survived to today by being given domestic services
earlier.... say the 50's?

Click to expand...

Pan Am did have issues with being an international airline with a weak domestic network. People would often have to fly other airlines to make it to Pan Am hubs.

However, Pan Am had high expectations to uphold, and some of its prestige might be decreased if it operated smaller aircraft with lower levels of in flight service. It might be best to create a subsidiary, although other ways of creating separate identities for the domestic and international brands could be done.

Also if they dident buy as many 747's

A modern Pan am would be a nice sight

Click to expand...

Actually, Pan Am did order too many aircraft because air travel didn't grow as quickly as expected in the 1970s. The oil crisis both harmed economies and increased airline expenses. I think the 1970s is when fuel became an airline's largest cost too, before then it was personnel because fuel was inexpensive.

docfl said:

If Im not mistaken I believe Pan Am had an option on both the Concorde, and the Boeing 2707.

Click to expand...

Those are the ovbvious answers to the SST part of the question, it was US NIMBYism that hampered the adoption of SSTs , then after the 2707 was canned the Not invented here types made life harder still for Concorde ...


Although the US adoption of British dsigns is not unknown in Aerospace ( canberra and harrier ) - but equally UK derivatives of US designs are often later acknowledged as better than originally reported (Spey Phantom) or become the definite article ( the Westland versions of several sikorsky designs )

To get SSTs viable, you need to keep fuel prices down, so no oil crisis of '73, which probably means no Yom Kippur War.

You also need the other problems mentioned (sonic boom, etc) to be dealt with.

The thing that I remember as having killed Boeing's 2707 was the estimated effect on the ozone layer. Of course, I was a young environmentalist at the time, and not worried so much about economics, so it probably didn't play as big a role as my memory says. Still, it WAS a problem, and few seem to mention it.

zippy said:

Those are the ovbvious answers to the SST part of the question, it was US NIMBYism that hampered the adoption of SSTs , then after the 2707 was canned the Not invented here types made life harder still for Concorde ...


Although the US adoption of British dsigns is not unknown in Aerospace ( canberra and harrier ) - but equally UK derivatives of US designs are often later acknowledged as better than originally reported (Spey Phantom) or become the definite article ( the Westland versions of several sikorsky designs )

Click to expand...

Actually, the Concorde that we're familiar with was only intended to be the first few aircraft. There was a Concorde B proposal that would have improved performance in all areas, including deletion of the afterburner. It wouldn't have been that infeasible, Concorde only used the afterburner to quickly pass through the transonic flight regime and reduce fuel consumption. Otherwise, it was entirely capable of supercruise.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

To get SSTs viable, you need to keep fuel prices down, so no oil crisis of '73, which probably means no Yom Kippur War.

You also need the other problems mentioned (sonic boom, etc) to be dealt with.

The thing that I remember as having killed Boeing's 2707 was the estimated effect on the ozone layer. Of course, I was a young environmentalist at the time, and not worried so much about economics, so it probably didn't play as big a role as my memory says. Still, it WAS a problem, and few seem to mention it.

Click to expand...

I've heard about the estimated ozone damage. However, it was mostly noise pollution that made people opposed to Concorde, even though it generated less noise than many aircraft of the time, especially the older turbojet equipped aircraft. Concorde was even more quiet than the Boeing 707 used as Air Force One at the time.

I found an interesting academic article from September 1972 exploring the economics of Concorde. According to the article, Concorde would have expenses 46% higher than those of a Boeing 707 and would require a fare 41% higher than subsonic fares at the time to reach the same operating income per aircraft as a Boeing 707, assuming Concorde had 20% higher productivity. The cost differential between economy and first class service at the time was 55%, and the economist thought that it could secure 20% of the total aviation market under such conditions.

The irony is that the paper argues that Concorde would actually do better under a less regulated marketplace, because airlines will collude to avoid a costly SST race that will reduce their profits. Don't forget that airlines were often regulated on price and scheduling. If an airline can't raise prices or increase frequency, there is less of a competitive advantage. Concorde was marketed as something that would allow a person to go to travel between Europe and North America, do something (business being commonly cited) and return in one day. That's not really an option if the frequencies can't change.

This makes me wonder why no one thought to simply revise the existing regulatory framework to better work with SST technology, creating Super Economy, Super Business, and Super First Class.