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

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

#11

Post by CapitalistCartr » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:01 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.

I do wish you were right, but I have had the joy of travel with small children. Grandchildren, too.

As for the limiting factor being time, rather than money, Stross's article gives good examples of there not being enough people willing to pay the exorbitant costs.

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

#12

Post by raverbashing » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:01 PM UTC

The article is risible to the point of ridiculousness

You don't need a fighter jet to intercept it from the point it came from. It's that simple.

"and indeed, active radar can't even track it effectively"

Without providing any reason why, I doubt it. Oh I think it's using "active radar" as "secondary radar". Also primary radar can detect it. No problem.

And airliners cross the ocean without much radar coverage TODAY, so there's that as well.

Not to mention it can only fly at high speeds on high altitudes. You CAN'T come at Mach 5 or whatever and fly it on a building. Your plane will disintegrate first.

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

#13

Post by transfire » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:03 PM UTC

The primary problem is the cost of energy. Until we innovate away from an fossil-fuel based economy, then this mode of transportation will be accessible only to the very wealthy. It will probably require the invention of nuclear isomer batteries to make it affordable to the masses.

As for sociopolitical factors, well it might not matter at all at the rate we're going. As soon as a suicide bomber gets hold of a nuke, it's pretty much all over. From then on martial law will be the rule of the land(s), and no one will be doing much of anything.

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

#14

Post by khuey » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:10 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.

And what the article points out (once you get through the OMG 911!!! crap) is that that's a very small target market. And scheduled commercial air travel generally doesn't serve tiny markets well because the demand is highly variable.

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

#15

Post by Argorak » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:11 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…

No, the reason is "security considerations" impacting locality. The main point is locality.

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

#16

Post by Argorak » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:13 PM UTC

In the same line of thinking: Plane travel got slower over the past years.

http://slice.mit.edu/2014/03/19/airtravel/

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

#17

Post by DennisP » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:14 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'm having a hard time seeing how suborbitals would be any better for terrorists. It's only going so fast and high when it's in the earlier stages of the flight, and at that point it'll be computer-controlled just like any orbital rocket. Maybe as it comes in to land it'll be controlled by a pilot on board, but by then it's going a lot slower. It also won't have the large tanks full of fuel that made the 9/11 impacts so damaging.

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

#18

Post by marze » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:19 PM UTC

The potential for terrorism is a problem that is easily solvable, especially when compared with the challenge of building a sub-orbital aircraft (which basically accelerates to almost orbital velocity before reentering as if from orbit).

But the author's points about competition from subsonic high-end flights, as well as the potential for high fidelity video conference systems of the future to compete, are more compelling.

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

#19

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:21 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…

There are a lot of basic mistakes.

1. Concorde was on the verge of being replaced by a more efficient Model B version, which was quieter and cheaper to run. That was on the drawing board in the 1970s. Model C, D, E versions would have been cheaper and even more cost effective.

2. Concorde was actually killed by anticompetitive US politics. The story is too complex to detail here, but it's not a mystery in the aerospace biz.

3. If Stross thinks bizjets kill airliners, what's to stop the development of a hypersonic bizjet to give buyers the best of all possible worlds, and also provide the ultimate status symbol for those who care about such things?

4. Trrrrism? This part can be ignored, because the argument is silly.

5. Energy cost remains an issue. But if you're in the (literally) stratospheric biz set, you're not going to care about that.

6. Telepresence may kill some of the market, because I'm guessing 15 years from now it's going to be impressively immersive. But for some applications, including highly secure negotiations and ultra-speedy courier services, there's still no substitute for being there.

So in fact there's a perfectly viable, if innovative, business case, and the technology is looking at least potentially feasible.

I wouldn't be surprised to see these services running before 2030.

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

#20

Post by mpeg » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:23 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #7

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 don't see the need for them regardless, as the their tech improves so will tech all areas. How much business travel is that require such service? Cannot many transactions be done via teleconferencing? Even product demos, physical interactivity requirements and such will be solved for remote customers long before hypersonic passenger planes. Then comes down to the other point, who does most of the traveling anyway?…

Telepresence technology is already pretty good, and I don't think it's going to replace in-person presentations.

I spend most of my time in meetings or calls and there is always a certain awkwardness that comes with not being in the same room, people are a lot less warm and you lose the little interactions that make us relate to each other.

On the other hand, I hate spending weeks in-between airports, and any kind of technology initiatives that improve long-distance travel sound great to me. There's definitely a market for this.