Will we ever fly supersonically over land? • Hacker News Board

Re: Will we ever fly supersonically over land?

#11

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 8:01 PM UTC

t0mas88 wrote: post #8

Ericson2314 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All overland passenger transport should be rail. Over the oceans I suppose we should strive for ships and dirigibles. That said, I find it hard to believe that plane travel can be eradicated for e.g. diplomacy. And frankly, if frequent contract between the powerful different countries is needed to avoid e.g. world wars, it's is worth it. In the short term, any carbon we can capture needs to go in back in ground and s…

Air travel has a big PR problem, because somehow a lot of people think it's the absolute worst for the environment. While on many routes a car is worse in terms of CO2 emission per trip than a small to mid sized airliner if there are less than 3 people in the car. Similar for your suggestion that we should take ships over the ocean, because cruise ships are much more polluting per passenger mile than modern airliners…

> While on many routes a car is worse than a small to mid sized airliner if there are less than 3 people in the car.

I never said cars. Cars are terrible. I would not complained if passenger-only cars were banned everywhere.

> Similar for your suggestion that we should take ships over the ocean, because cruise ships are much more polluting per passenger mile than modern airliners.

There are alternatives like wind power + giant batteries. The fact that weight doesn't matter for ships so much (container ships are more efficient than rail, scaling up is equivalent to shrinking the viscosity of water) opens a lot of doors.

Re: Will we ever fly supersonically over land?

#12

Post by t0mas88 » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 8:02 PM UTC

> These studies, along with tens of thousands of claims against the Air Force for property damage—horses and turkeys had supposedly died or gone insane—led the F.A.A. to ban civil overland supersonic flight, in 1973.

There was also a political part involved. The Concorde was a British-French creation, not a Boeing. Had there been a Boeing supersonic passenger plane first there would probably have been different FAA rules. Especially because military supersonic flight happens every day over US land, was never banned, and causes the same boom.

Re: Will we ever fly supersonically over land?

#13

Post by xchaotic » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

Solving some societal or civilisational challenge with supersonic flight seems very narrow minded now. Yes I would like to fly to my work HQ faster but due to pandemic I have not visited in 3 years now and it’s been fine, so a better solution is excellent remote work tools such as HQ videoconferencing etc which is such an easier problem, yet many people and companies still struggle with it. In the overall ROI for things to do, I bet we shouldn’t be building businesses that REQUIRE supersonic flight to succeed.

Re: Will we ever fly supersonically over land?

#14

Post by ClumsyPilot » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

harimau777 wrote: post #9

Ericson2314 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All overland passenger transport should be rail. Over the oceans I suppose we should strive for ships and dirigibles. That said, I find it hard to believe that plane travel can be eradicated for e.g. diplomacy. And frankly, if frequent contract between the powerful different countries is needed to avoid e.g. world wars, it's is worth it. In the short term, any carbon we can capture needs to go in back in ground and s…

Unless we dramatically increase vacation time or dramatically increase rail speeds, that would mean that many people would not be able to see their families and friends or travel to events.

If we had high-speed rail everywhere at 300km/h you can cross almost any country overnight, that radius of 3600km would give you 80% of all plane travel.

Re: Will we ever fly supersonically over land?

#15

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 8:04 PM UTC

harimau777 wrote: post #9

Ericson2314 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All overland passenger transport should be rail. Over the oceans I suppose we should strive for ships and dirigibles. That said, I find it hard to believe that plane travel can be eradicated for e.g. diplomacy. And frankly, if frequent contract between the powerful different countries is needed to avoid e.g. world wars, it's is worth it. In the short term, any carbon we can capture needs to go in back in ground and s…

Unless we dramatically increase vacation time or dramatically increase rail speeds, that would mean that many people would not be able to see their families and friends or travel to events.

Absolutely not. 300 kph HSR rail exists in developed countries.

(2680 miles) / (300 kilometers per hour) = 14.3768064 hours

That's coast to coast in ~ 1/2 day.

Ships and blimps represent a much larger decrease in travel time over airplanes than rail. They perhaps pose a to be solved, but rail doesn't.

Re: Will we ever fly supersonically over land?

#16

Post by t0mas88 » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 8:06 PM UTC

eitland wrote: post #10

t0mas88 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air travel has a big PR problem, because somehow a lot of people think it's the absolute worst for the environment. While on many routes a car is worse in terms of CO2 emission per trip than a small to mid sized airliner if there are less than 3 people in the car. Similar for your suggestion that we should take ships over the ocean, because cruise ships are much more polluting per passenger mile than modern airliners…

... and fast fashion is probably worse than both if what I read is correct. FTR: Years go by between everytime I travel by plane so I don't feel I have anything to defend, I just think it is good to keep the big picture in mind.

Agree, and the airlines absolutely need to keep working to become more climate friendly just like we need to make road travel better.

But climate-shaming specifically air travel while at the same time driving a non-electric car or using air conditioning without having solar panels is very hypocritical because both of those and many other things are a far bigger part of the total emissions.

Re: Will we ever fly supersonically over land?

#17

Post by Ericson2314 » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 8:07 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #14

harimau777 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless we dramatically increase vacation time or dramatically increase rail speeds, that would mean that many people would not be able to see their families and friends or travel to events.

If we had high-speed rail everywhere at 300km/h you can cross almost any country overnight, that radius of 3600km would give you 80% of all plane travel.

Thank you, and great username for the clarification :).

Re: Will we ever fly supersonically over land?

#18

Post by _Microft » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 8:07 PM UTC

t0mas88 wrote: post #8

Ericson2314 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All overland passenger transport should be rail. Over the oceans I suppose we should strive for ships and dirigibles. That said, I find it hard to believe that plane travel can be eradicated for e.g. diplomacy. And frankly, if frequent contract between the powerful different countries is needed to avoid e.g. world wars, it's is worth it. In the short term, any carbon we can capture needs to go in back in ground and s…

Air travel has a big PR problem, because somehow a lot of people think it's the absolute worst for the environment. While on many routes a car is worse in terms of CO2 emission per trip than a small to mid sized airliner if there are less than 3 people in the car. Similar for your suggestion that we should take ships over the ocean, because cruise ships are much more polluting per passenger mile than modern airliners…

Air travel is not a problem because the emissions per kilometer are that bad but because one can easily travel one or two orders of magnitude farther than one usually would.

Re: Will we ever fly supersonically over land?

#19

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 8:17 PM UTC

_Microft wrote: post #18

t0mas88 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Air travel has a big PR problem, because somehow a lot of people think it's the absolute worst for the environment. While on many routes a car is worse in terms of CO2 emission per trip than a small to mid sized airliner if there are less than 3 people in the car. Similar for your suggestion that we should take ships over the ocean, because cruise ships are much more polluting per passenger mile than modern airliners…

Air travel is not a problem because the emissions per kilometer are that bad but because one can easily travel one or two orders of magnitude farther than one usually would.

Exactly. It's not like if you couldn't fly from Los Angeles to New York once a month - you would just drive by yourself - and produce the same amount of carbon.

You wouldn't produce any carbon, because you'd likely never make the trip!

Re: Will we ever fly supersonically over land?

#20

Post by BenoitP » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 8:18 PM UTC

t0mas88 wrote: post #12

> These studies, along with tens of thousands of claims against the Air Force for property damage—horses and turkeys had supposedly died or gone insane—led the F.A.A. to ban civil overland supersonic flight, in 1973. There was also a political part involved. The Concorde was a British-French creation, not a Boeing. Had there been a Boeing supersonic passenger plane first there would probably have been different FAA r…

Indeed it was political. IMHO if a US supersonic commercial plane comes into service without an Airbus counterpart, it won't have access to the European skies. At least not the over french territory. The industry is still very salty that the Concorde market was taken from under them.