71–80 of 220 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your preferred solution is to restrict the allowed travel radius of people, a bit like with medieval serfs?
What a rhetoric device. Is your preferred solution to let people die in droves to a mass extinction ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Military supersonic flight over land in the US is supposed to only happen over unpopulated areas. Having lived near a coastline (~1 mile from the shoreline) along a military flight path, I know they occasionally went a little early.
How loud was it and how often did you experience it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Europe banned supersonic commercial flights over the continent 2 years before the US did. Whilst this was political to some extent the politics were very much local, as in people don’t want to hear booms.
They will still use an enormous amount of fuel, carry fewer passengers, and heavily pollute the environment. I'm not too excited about the prospects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your preferred solution is to restrict the allowed travel radius of people, a bit like with medieval serfs?
What a rhetoric device. Is your preferred solution to let people die in droves to a mass extinction ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But are they that much worse than private jets and helicopters on a per person level?
Flying, in-general, is inefficient unless it's a large, lifting body in ground effect.
And that's not taking into account the cost of the road networks we build and maintain to allow high volumes of vehicular traffic.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
not really the same, fighters are quite smaller than airliners.
Less than you might think. Wingspan Concord 25.6m vs F-22 13.56m. Maximum takeoff weight Concord 185,000kg vs F-22 60,000kg. Expanding that to all supersonic military aircraft and the Rockwell B-1 Lancer has a higher maximum takeoff weight than the concord. It’s a loud and heavy beast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Military supersonic flight over land in the US only happens over unpopulated areas. Ie, parts of Idaho, Nevada desert etc. Most supersonic training is conducted over the oceans, eg >15nm from the east coast.
Military supersonic flight over land in the US is supposed to only happen over unpopulated areas. Having lived near a coastline (~1 mile from the shoreline) along a military flight path, I know they occasionally went a little early.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flying, in-general, is inefficient unless it's a large, lifting body in ground effect.
Flying on a full or almost-full plane is more carbon efficient than driving solo. And that's not taking into account the cost of the road networks we build and maintain to allow high volumes of vehicular traffic. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/09/evolving-climate-...
Well, why would you? Then you'd have to take into account the airports and the transportation networks to get to them...