NASA unveils weird airplane concepts for 2025

January 17, 2011 By Jeffrey Van Camp

NASA has released renderings of three concept aircraft that could hit the skies in 2025. The goal is to build a plane that is greener and quieter, but still has decent speed, range, and storage capacity.

NASA must have realized that it’s been a while since we had some new pictures of crazy futuristic flying vehicles to look at. The National Aeronautic and Space Administration has released three pictures of concept aircraft that could theoretically hit the skies in 2025. The concepts come from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and The Boeing Company, which were awarded contracts to study and design the future aircraft.

NASA intends for all three of these designs to produce less noise, cleaner exhaust, and consume lower amounts of fuel than modern aircraft. They also have to fly at least 85 percent of the speed of sound, have a range of 7,000 miles, and carry between 50,000 and 100,000 lbs of cargo. Below are the initial designs by each company.

Northrop Grumman

The Boeing Company

Lockheed Martin

All three designs look pretty neat, but NASA hasn’t released any unique information about any of the designs, so we are left to speculate about almost everything, including the odd paint job on the Lockheed Martin design. My personal favorite is the design by The Boeing Company because it looks like it has three almost entirely unnecessary propellers on it.

NASA tends to release batches of pretty pictures and concept designs every so often. Check out this one-man stealth plane or these 10 space projects. And don’t forget: NASA just discovered “alien life” in California as well.

Showing 15 comments

@ironboltbruce at 4:39am 18th January 2011 At Lockheed Martin, we contract with people for profit: http://tinyurl.com/4vc7aez At Lockheed Martin, we count people for profit: http://tinyurl.com/4mm2fxv At Lockheed Martin, we coerce people for profit: http://tinyurl.com/4r7b5km At Lockheed Martin, we control people for profit: http://tinyurl.com/4wdh66z At Lockheed Martin, we kill people for profit: http://tinyurl.com/26guzuh At Lockheed Martin, we never forget what we're working for... http://ironboltbruce.com
archaznable at 5:01pm 17th January 2011 well i think those are nothing new most of the aircraft design were pioneered by Nazi Germany in the 1940's what we want to see is a saucer type aircraft or a floating huge battleship in space. Now that would be cool
o....k at 1:30pm 17th January 2011 o yea and ioman .. THERES ANOTHER ENGINE ON THE OTHER SIDE YOU CANT SEE .. dee de deeee .. its not the engine its the air foil instead of the rudder making for more efficient flight
o...k at 1:28pm 17th January 2011 The NG plane is almost identicle to the plane the guy who won the X prize built and already has in flight to be the first commercial space travel for tourists .. having the actual space "ship" towed up attached to it and launched from a specific alltitude.
ioman at 11:00am 17th January 2011 These all look like failed designs. A stealth-shaped bomber with jets or propellers on top? Gimme a break. Or a jumbo airliner with a single engine? That is not even closely realistic. That engine breaks, then everyone dies. Looks like someone was having fun with the interns at Boeing!!
1. @JeffreyVC at 1:57pm 17th January 2011 Ditto. But you can't fault them for having a good time!
2. cid at 4:01pm 17th January 2011 It's not 'stealth-shaped'. The B2 is a flying wing, not just because of it's stealth characterists (which are enhanced by Radar Absorbant Material - RAM - to make it stealthy) but because it's a highly efficient shape. So in the Boeing design - which they've been working on for at least 5 years - is a combination Flying Wing (highly effiecient) with a Lift Body (also a highly efficient shape, and one that's been in developement since at least the mid-90's by NASA and USAF). Combine those properties properly, and use high effiency engines - placed over the body to reduce noise polution and generate further lift in compansation for their drag - and you have a good contender for this competition.
Mikey at 10:26am 17th January 2011 The NG design looks like the one most likely to snap into two, right at the cockpit! They could at least put a brace between the back ends of the two fuselages to reinforce it.
Jack at 9:56am 17th January 2011 Turboprops, Propellers, and pretty much anything that's not a Turbofan or Jet Engine (or anything without a ducted turbine) produces less thrust than its similarly sized counterpart - therefore needing more of them (2 vs. 3) to produce the same amount of thrust.
Just at 9:49am 17th January 2011 2 of the three look like the planes from Virgin Galactic the WhiteKnightTwo and SpaceShip Two
Tony at 9:44am 17th January 2011 The NG design, with the cockpit separated from the crew / cargo compartments, would seem to solve any hijacking / terrorism problems the other two (which share a common fuselage) fail to address. I'd guess the Boeing design would be the most efficient, since it appears to be a lifting body design, where the shape of the passenger compartment makes lift. The LM design, which is closest to what commercial aircraft are now, would be the easiest to bring online, since its (mostly) conventional design would allow it to use existing terminals without modification.
122 at 9:29am 17th January 2011 The NG plane looks like a HS kid worked on the Model
B. Reese at 8:34am 17th January 2011 >>My personal favorite is the design by The Boeing Company because it looks >> like it has three almost entirely unnecessary propellers on it.That's the turboprop version of Boeing's concept aircraft. If the "unnessary" turboprops are omitted, the aircraft won't having any means of propulsion and flying may become difficult. I agree, though, that Boeing's design has the highest geewhiz factor.
1. I Smith at 10:02am 17th January 2011 I think you'll find those are unducted fan engines. I remember seeing a test plane flying with one of those (paired with a conventional turbofan) back in the '90s.
2. @JeffreyVC at 9:02am 17th January 2011 I think it's the third prop that gets me. Seems like it's in there for fun. But I suppose it is probably needed to propel the plane, or something like that.