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

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

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 78 posts

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

#51

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

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 did read this, and the article is nothing of the sort.

He assumes that technologically it will be practical, perhaps to a point that it's comparable to existing prices for high-end seats on a plane.

Even so, he points out that the security risks mean that it will never happen from existing airports, and that any time saved on suborbital flight will be used up taking the train back to the major city.

He gives a real-world example of the Concorde intercontinental routes being ditched... they didn't make enough money.

Rich people who can afford this want to go to LA and New York and Paris. Not New Mexico, rural Maine, and Scotland.

> It's a very pessimistic essay about the future, where all air travel is horrible and nobody will want to fly. I don't buy it.

Have you flown recently?

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

#52

Post by masklinn »

jacquesm wrote: post #34
cjcartlidge wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Concorde was actually killed by anticompetitive US politics." --> Any recommended reading for this?

It's not exactly a fact. In my view Concorde was killed by a 'perfect storm': changing market conditions, 9/11, that terrible crash in Paris. Together those three were what caused the towel to be thrown into the ring. Every time I visit Paris and I see it impaled on its stand it reminds me of a butterfly or something trying to escape. Such a sad image.

> It's not exactly a fact.

Yeah, congress only banned SSTs and supersonic civilian flight right as concorde came online, that can't have had any impact on it.

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

#53

Post by notahacker »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #19
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 aerospa…

Concorde sold just 14 aircraft out of a production run of 20 with governments underwriting both the massive development losses and subsidising the two airlines that actually bought it. There's a good reason later models never made it off the drawing board.

To put things into perspective, Bombardier have 243 net orders for the CSeries (an aircraft comparable in size if not capability) before the aircraft has been certified for commercial use. And the programme - involving comparatively simple technological innovation - isn't considered particularly commercially successful.

Yes, the US government's decision to limit its ability to operate in US airspace didn't help Concorde. And neither did the equivalent Soviet airliner spectacularly exploding at an air show. Or rising fuel costs. But what reason does any madman with enough billions to get a hypothetical hypersonic aircraft built and certified for commercial operations have to think that the same won't happen again?

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

#54

Post by falcor84 »

DennisP wrote: post #17
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…

Let's hope that there always remains a manual override option, since a suborbital could become an incredibly potent cyberterrorism vector.

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

#55

Post by chaostheory »

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 will die. Just like when more people died when cars didn't have safety belts and windshield wipers. Things will go wrong. We will fix them (eventually).

When people list problems, I see temporary obstacles. Even mountains can be overcome: http://www.odditycentral.com/news/dashrath-manjhi-the-man-wh...

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

#56

Post by falcor84 »

rdl wrote: post #33

For transpacific flights, first class (or business class, more often) is used by people who would otherwise be on business jets within the US. TBH, first class SQ Suites are nicer than any but the best business jets (I've never been on a really luxury jet like a 777 VIP, but I'd take SQ Suites over the G-II or Falcons I've been on). You're basically looking at $250k r/t SF-Beijing to take a Global Express or somethin…

I don't know much about security failsafe overrides, but isn't that a bit like DRM? Would it be reasonable to expect the failsafe to remain unbroken, assuming that the adversary has physical access and has had time to plan?

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

#57

Post by alkonaut »

So if security is as paranoid as it is today and the best fuel we can use to kick a plane half way into space is something similar to today's jet fuels then it won't happen? Basically "because 9/11 and concorde". Not sure what timescale the author considers and I agree it's unlikely within a few decades, but who knows what happens in 100 years?

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

#58

Post by alistairSH »

jacquesm wrote: post #34
cjcartlidge wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Concorde was actually killed by anticompetitive US politics." --> Any recommended reading for this?

It's not exactly a fact. In my view Concorde was killed by a 'perfect storm': changing market conditions, 9/11, that terrible crash in Paris. Together those three were what caused the towel to be thrown into the ring. Every time I visit Paris and I see it impaled on its stand it reminds me of a butterfly or something trying to escape. Such a sad image.

In many ways, the Concorde was "dead" well before 9/11 or the Paris crash. Yes, those killed it for good, but costs, sonic booms (US landings were initially banned, then limited to JFK and Dulles), and politics killed the concept shortly after it was launched.

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

#59

Post by gaius »

masklinn wrote: post #52
jacquesm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not exactly a fact. In my view Concorde was killed by a 'perfect storm': changing market conditions, 9/11, that terrible crash in Paris. Together those three were what caused the towel to be thrown into the ring. Every time I visit Paris and I see it impaled on its stand it reminds me of a butterfly or something trying to escape. Such a sad image.

> It's not exactly a fact. Yeah, congress only banned SSTs and supersonic civilian flight right as concorde came online, that can't have had any impact on it.

Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8824444

America has often used sly tactics to crush superior British technology.

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

#60

Post by ctdonath »

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…

And that "if" turns into a delay hugely chewing up the benefits of such high speed.

There was, briefly, a rather grand project implementing a "fast ferry" between Toronto (Canada) to Rochester (New York). This cut the previously 3-hour drive around the intervening lake down to about 30-45 minutes, and included the luxury of enjoying the view/bar/games/social. Price wasn't bad (comparable to gas cost for the long trip), but certainly not trivial. Anyone coming to Rochester discovered "they come down far from a desirable location": having no personal transportation immediately available, it was upwards of an hour to take a bus from the port to downtown Rochester - turning an ~80% reduction in travel time to ~40%. The project was scrapped - twice[1] - after enormous expense.

When throwing lots of money at diminishing returns, encroachments on those returns are very costly.

[1] - There was huge political capital invested in the ferry's success. Upon completion, ridership was dismal and the project went bankrupt within a couple months and the boat went up for auction (few want such a specialized vessel). City-scale egos intervened and bought the boat back (!) at the auction, pressed it back into service. The mayor et al were promptly voted out of office, and the replacement sold the boat and permanently shut the project down.

Post reply on HN