Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

JetZero

jetzero.aero

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 277 posts

Re: JetZero

#171

Post by gblargg »

lavela wrote: post #161
dash2 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope I'm not overinterpreting, but I get the sense that you think that's morally better than simply avoiding contrails. If so then this is surely a mistake! While an individual who imposes heavy costs on himself to do something socially valuable is certainly demonstrating commitment to the cause, the best solution for society is the one with the lowest costs.

Please explain how more flights with optimal routing are environmentally cheaper than less flights with optimal routing.

Sounds like parent was taking into account all costs, not just certain ones.

Re: JetZero

#172

Post by phonon »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50

What is their engine? An airframe without an engine is, best case, a drone programme.

Pratt & Whitney PW2040 turbofan engine, same as the Boeing 757 and the C-17. They say that the plane itself is so efficient they don't need a cutting edge efficient engine.

Re: JetZero

#173

Post by rafram »

mi_lk wrote: post #126
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #113

Tangentially related Good news: You can avoid about half the greenhouse effects of flight by slightly changing the flight plan to avoid cloud forming regions Bad news: this generally wasn't counted before and when counted roughly doubles the impact so in some senses you're back to where you started. But it's a much lower hanging fruit than anything else and as yet we're not doing it.

how do know if a route would go through cloud forming regions

Google Flights shows a “contrail warming potential” stat on each flight result.

Re: JetZero

#174

Post by dbspin »

johanvts wrote: post #150
orphereus wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that not travelling is the solution. A lot of people cannot avoid flying.

Just stop subsidizing flying, maybe even tax the fuel a fraction of the value it’s destroying and I bet most of flying will suddenly turn out to actually be completely avoidable.

Insane take - this is just ensuring that the only people who get to enjoy travel are the rich. Nothing in our society is improved by taking a privilege that's widely enjoyed and restricting it to the wealthy or very wealthy.

Re: JetZero

#175

Post by bruce511 »

echoangle wrote: post #137
bruce511 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulations require that window shades be up (open) during take off and landing. I was sitting next to a passenger once who was asked by the steward to raise the window shade. While doing it, they asked "why". Answering for the steward I said "it's so Fire and Rescue can see into the plane if we crash". (Which is true, I used to work at airport fire and rescue.) The steward looked at me with a "that's not helpful" lo…

Isn’t it also so you can look out to see if the emergency exits on that side are usable or if there is a fire or excessive debris blocking the exit?

Yes, that's a factor as well. If you're opening a door (or emergency exit) you should look first to see if that side of the plane is on fire.

But obviously you can open it to look, and there's only a small number that would apply to.

So it's a factor, but the primary reason is being able to look in.

Re: JetZero

#176

Post by bruce511 »

ButlerianJihad wrote: post #120
bruce511 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulations require that window shades be up (open) during take off and landing. I was sitting next to a passenger once who was asked by the steward to raise the window shade. While doing it, they asked "why". Answering for the steward I said "it's so Fire and Rescue can see into the plane if we crash". (Which is true, I used to work at airport fire and rescue.) The steward looked at me with a "that's not helpful" lo…

My home airport is Sky Harbor in Phoenix. There has been at least one instance where the flight crew has required all passengers to close all our window shades while the aircraft was not in motion. And they said this was to prevent overheating from sunlight coming inside. And I was rather miffed about missing out on the view outside, because as a technical guy, I totally enjoy seeing all the activity at an airport! H…

While not in motion, or while in flight, it's not really an issue.

Takeoffs and landings are the biggest risk times (and also the best proximity to Fire and Rescue). In hot environments reducing heat load in the plane can definitely improve comfort. Bummer about missing the action though...

Re: JetZero

#177

Post by CalRobert »

jtwaleson wrote: post #159
CalRobert wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many instances there are alternatives. Amsterdam to Berlin is served by good rail (except when DB are crappy) and flight options. NYC to DC or Boston. Maybe, someday, SF to LA, and others.

IMHO you can remove the "good" and "except when". DB is 30% of the time a frustrating experience, which I've noticed makes me want to avoid it, even though I love trains. Trains in the rest of Western Europe are pretty great!

Fair, Deutsche Bahn is awful. Went to Berlin with them last November and instead of getting in at 9:00 PM we got in at 1 AM, which was especially horrible given we had a 6 and 8 year old with us.

Re: JetZero

#178

Post by dr_dshiv »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #113

Tangentially related Good news: You can avoid about half the greenhouse effects of flight by slightly changing the flight plan to avoid cloud forming regions Bad news: this generally wasn't counted before and when counted roughly doubles the impact so in some senses you're back to where you started. But it's a much lower hanging fruit than anything else and as yet we're not doing it.

So, getting better at manipulating clouds will help prevent planetary heating. I assume there is a huge amount of public support for this scientific research?

Re: JetZero

#180

Post by tim333 »

shrubby wrote: post #167
johanvts wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just stop subsidizing flying, maybe even tax the fuel a fraction of the value it’s destroying and I bet most of flying will suddenly turn out to actually be completely avoidable.

Yup. Make the flyers pay the infrastructure costs based on the environmental effects. It's not too complicated.

It is a bit complicated as flying isn't much subsidised in cash terms and if you put large taxes on fuel, flights will divert to nearby countries with less tax.

In the UK there is air passenger duty which is for example £102 per passenger on economy seats to the US. I think they are reluctant to raise it too much incase business shifts elsewhere.

Post reply on HN