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

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

#21

Post by jblow » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:27 PM UTC

You can make a similar list about anything that doesn't exist yet. If it were easy, it probably would have been done.

Eight years ago, you could have made an equivalent list about electric cars. Well, we have electric cars now and that situation is looking pretty good.

Imagine you are an Elon-Musk-alike who wants to make fast air travel happen. Then this article isn't a list of why it's impossible, it is a list of problems you need to solve in order to make it work. I think we have enough examples in recent years to show that if someone with sufficient inventiveness attacks the problem hard, many of these kinds of things really are solvable.

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

#22

Post by guelo » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

9/11 style terrorism was solved by reinforcing the cockpit doors. Everything else has been police state fear mongering.

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

#23

Post by antoniuschan99 » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

I agree. There are talks of a private supersonic aircraft. So logically sub orbital private fleet will exist.

The rest always gets the bad end of the stick. But it will happen in a few generations. That and Mars.

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

#24

Post by SideburnsOfDoom » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:35 PM UTC

jblow wrote: post #21

You can make a similar list about anything that doesn't exist yet. If it were easy, it probably would have been done. Eight years ago, you could have made an equivalent list about electric cars. Well, we have electric cars now and that situation is looking pretty good. Imagine you are an Elon-Musk-alike who wants to make fast air travel happen. Then this article isn't a list of why it's impossible, it is a list of pr…

But with sub-orbital hypersonic craft, you cannot get around the fact that they move very fast and thus carry a lot of kinetic energy and can deliver it before anyone can stop them. That's just how it works. You can't "advance" past that without a warp drive.

I believe that the phrase is "functionally equivalent to a kinetic impact weapon".

I think that Mr Stross has relaxed his thinking on sub-orbital hypersonic craft, i.e. he suggests that they might actually be allowed, but only if they come down far from a desirable location.

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

#25

Post by jblow » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

SideburnsOfDoom wrote: post #24

jblow wrote: post #21

You can make a similar list about anything that doesn't exist yet. If it were easy, it probably would have been done. Eight years ago, you could have made an equivalent list about electric cars. Well, we have electric cars now and that situation is looking pretty good. Imagine you are an Elon-Musk-alike who wants to make fast air travel happen. Then this article isn't a list of why it's impossible, it is a list of pr…

But with sub-orbital hypersonic craft, you cannot get around the fact that they move very fast and thus carry a lot of kinetic energy and can deliver it before anyone can stop them. That's just how it works. You can't "advance" past that without a warp drive. I believe that the phrase is "functionally equivalent to a kinetic impact weapon". I think that Mr Stross has relaxed his thinking on sub-orbital hypersonic cra…

Like I said, that is a problem. So start thinking about how to solve it ....

Like, the plane is always landed from the ground, not the air. That idea introduces new problems, but you can start thinking about those too. Come on, people.

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

#26

Post by cjcartlidge » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:39 PM UTC

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)

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

#27

Post by nine_k » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:39 PM UTC

khuey wrote: post #14

lxmorj wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Busy routes, like NYC - London - Tokyo, will likely have enough traffic for a couple flights daily. The jet probably would not have to be as large as a Concorde was to be profitable.

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

#28

Post by Argorak » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:41 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)

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.

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

#29

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:45 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)

[deleted]

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

#30

Post by cjcartlidge » Mon, Jan 05, 2015, 5:46 PM UTC

Argorak wrote: post #28

cjcartlidge wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

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).