Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners • Hacker News Board

Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

#41

Post by VLM » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 6:12 PM UTC

finnh wrote: post #8

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #3

Faster flight times are like better fuel mileage. Once you reach a decent result, it's harder to justify more. With gas mileage, once I get about 35 miles per gallon, the cost of better exceeds any likely benefit. Once we can travel anywhere in about 24 hours or less, it's hard to justify the cost of better. In general, there is an economic optimum for most solutions. It's fuzzy because factors like comfort come into…

> Once we can travel anywhere in about 24 hours or less, it's hard to justify the cost of better. Clearly you've never travelled with a two year old =) There are many cases where travel just isn't worth it, and the limiting factor is time rather than money.

Imagine a lighter than air cruise-ship. That's an interesting idea and somewhat more realistic from an engineering perspective. There must be some kind of happy medium of a giant lifting body full of helium that takes 24 hours but is large and luxurious.

The key to all future transport seems to be turning it away from disciplined travel as the primary activity. Doesn't matter if its bizjets or cruise ships or trains or my crazy balloon idea.

A cultural moving away from "travel for 4 hours strapped into a seat in a car or old fashioned airplance" but "hang out at the bar for 8 hours or play video games or post on facebook for 8 hours, or join the mile high club all night, oh, and at the same time as traveling from pt A to pt B but its not the primary activity"

Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

#42

Post by venomsnake » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 6:17 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #4

The first reason is "because terrorism". It's difficult to keep reading, because the logic the author follows does not fit with the title or point the author's trying to make. This is a largely list of reasons why sub-orbital airliners aren't already common; it's got baseline assumptions that technology will not rapidly improve, that airports will not innovate, that passenger demand is static, etc. I don't understand…

I read between the lines and since Mr Stross is lurking here from time could probably confirm or refute me, but I read it - "Not due to real concern, but to comply with the security theater that we put post 9/11 and to calm down the "TV pundit" crazies"

Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

#43

Post by chaostheory » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 6:22 PM UTC

He has good arguments (except for one) but history has mostly shown that it's not wise to say something can never happen.

Now for what I feel was one of his bad arguments:

"None of today's military aircraft are up to the job of intercepting it, and indeed, active radar can't even track it effectively—for that, you'd need something on the order of a cold war ballistic missile warning radar system, designed to provide advance notice of an ICBM strike."

In one sentence he outlines both the problem and the solution. Doesn't the west already have missile defense systems?

Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

#44

Post by Argorak » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 6:22 PM UTC

cjcartlidge wrote: post #30

Argorak wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see the problem? There's just no one willing to pay the premium to fly at top speed. There were faster in that time, but they all went out of business.

No problem just a statement of fact. Goals in greater efficiently have never been as exciting as goals for greater speed (with disregard for efficiency).

Ah, okay, excitement, I can agree with.

Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

#45

Post by fennecfoxen » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 6:23 PM UTC

cjcartlidge wrote: post #26

Argorak wrote: post #16

In the same line of thinking: Plane travel got slower over the past years. http://slice.mit.edu/2014/03/19/airtravel/

Profit, Profit, Profit.... It's sad that the 747-400 which was introduced in 1988 is still the fastest commercial aircraft currently. Aviation reminds me of the Formula 1 of the skies in its current rule set! (All about fuel saving)

And yet air travel is cheaper and more accessible to more people than ever. A faster plane doesn't do you much good if you can't afford the ticket.

Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

#46

Post by CanSpice » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 6:24 PM UTC

chaostheory wrote: post #43

He has good arguments (except for one) but history has mostly shown that it's not wise to say something can never happen. Now for what I feel was one of his bad arguments: "None of today's military aircraft are up to the job of intercepting it, and indeed, active radar can't even track it effectively—for that, you'd need something on the order of a cold war ballistic missile warning radar system, designed to provide…

Sure, it does. But what happens when it goes wrong and the anti-missile missiles are launched against a sub-orbital passenger jet whose transponder has gone wonky?

Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

#47

Post by VLM » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

lxmorj wrote: post #10

CapitalistCartr wrote: post #3

Faster flight times are like better fuel mileage. Once you reach a decent result, it's harder to justify more. With gas mileage, once I get about 35 miles per gallon, the cost of better exceeds any likely benefit. Once we can travel anywhere in about 24 hours or less, it's hard to justify the cost of better. In general, there is an economic optimum for most solutions. It's fuzzy because factors like comfort come into…

London -> Sydney takes 22 hours and requires at least one stop. Sub-ortibals will take ~3 hours, saving what amounts to an entire waking day. For an executive making just $10M per year, that's $27k worth of time. Add the cost of First Class or private flight, and the total value of a sub-orbital flight will easily be worth $40k for a larger-than-you-think-it-is subset of the population.

"larger-than-you-think-it-is subset of the population."

There were about 18000 returns filed with the IRS above that AGI in 2010 according to some google searches.

Honestly I don't think there's enough people in the world at that income level to develop and sell.

Its also based heavily on the cultural assumption that nothing can be accomplished while traveling. Its not like they're being sedated and put into restraints for all 22 hours of that flight.

Its fairly telling about the mentality of the board in general that the only use "we" can discuss for a "magic people mover" is a plaything for the ultra-rich. Because god only knows, they don't have enough favorable treatment over us mere proles, and they don't have enough other playthings to toy with. Kind of like the military industrial complex sycophants can't think of any reason for a vehicle to exist other than to drop a bomb from it or mount a gun on it. Some slightly more socially acceptable ideas for a passenger suborbital would be "extreme medivac" where no matter where you are on the planet if you get horrifically sick you're at the CDC isolation ward in 3 hours, "instant medical supply delivery" when you really really need a donor organ across the planet in 3 hours, and "extreme blue collar" like ship both a special factory floor machine tool part and a technician from the plant to install it because many factory floors cost far more than $40K/day if they're shut down.

Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

#48

Post by Someone1234 » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 6:28 PM UTC

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #39

cryptoz wrote: post #4

The first reason is "because terrorism". It's difficult to keep reading, because the logic the author follows does not fit with the title or point the author's trying to make. This is a largely list of reasons why sub-orbital airliners aren't already common; it's got baseline assumptions that technology will not rapidly improve, that airports will not innovate, that passenger demand is static, etc. I don't understand…

Air travel is already terrible. No real improvement in the last 40 years. Flight times have actually increased (to save on fuel), and airlines are playing the trick of "let's make posted flight times longer than needed, so most of our flights we'll land in time".

> the trick of "let's make posted flight times longer than needed, so most of our flights we'll land in time".

I might be alone, but I like that policy.

First off flight times are gate to gate (not airport to airport) so while the flight time is known and quantifiable there are a great many "ground issues" which are not. For example, the gate's motor malfunctions, push-back is delayed (while they "manually" move the gate back), and the aircraft misses its take-off slot.

The nice part about building in 10 minutes extra is that worst case scenario you arrive EARLY and you have to kick around for 10 minutes. Best case, you arrive on the stated time and your expectations are met.

Regardless this seems win/win. They're better meeting or exceeding your expectations more of the time, and the only cost is that you aren't able to min/max your travel quite to the same extent (e.g. build in even shorter transfers between flights).

Currently the minimum authorised transfer window is around 30 minutes for most airlines. While at some airports 30 minutes is fine (Dallas) at others it is terrible (Chicago). Arriving on time in the latter type of airports is a "must" if you want to make your second flight at all.

Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

#49

Post by xenophonf » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 6:30 PM UTC

cjcartlidge wrote: post #26

Argorak wrote: post #16

In the same line of thinking: Plane travel got slower over the past years. http://slice.mit.edu/2014/03/19/airtravel/

Profit, Profit, Profit.... It's sad that the 747-400 which was introduced in 1988 is still the fastest commercial aircraft currently. Aviation reminds me of the Formula 1 of the skies in its current rule set! (All about fuel saving)

As someone who travels for a living, the speed of the plane isn't that big of a deal. It's the fact that to get from North America to just about anywhere Africa, I have to detour through Europe, which is a complete waste of my time. I would much rather have better routes than faster planes. (For example, I could get to West Africa in ~12 hours from the east coast of the U.S. if the routes existed. That's a nice overnight flight, landing in the afternoon. I wouldn't have to waste a full day stuck in a plane, no new technology required.)

Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners

#50

Post by VBprogrammer » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 6:33 PM UTC

CanSpice wrote: post #46

chaostheory wrote: post #43

He has good arguments (except for one) but history has mostly shown that it's not wise to say something can never happen. Now for what I feel was one of his bad arguments: "None of today's military aircraft are up to the job of intercepting it, and indeed, active radar can't even track it effectively—for that, you'd need something on the order of a cold war ballistic missile warning radar system, designed to provide…

Sure, it does. But what happens when it goes wrong and the anti-missile missiles are launched against a sub-orbital passenger jet whose transponder has gone wonky?

People die. Pretty much the same as what happens when an anti-aircraft weapon is used against an ordinary aircraft.