Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
antipope.org
Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
1–10 of 78 posts
Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
#2I am reading Saturn's Children.. It makes so much more sense now that I know he is British.
Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
#3Faster 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 play. But it's there. It's a company's job to find it.
Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
#4The 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 the conclusion, given the points. 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.
Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
#5The 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 disagree with your take. It says people will either take semi private jets or pay for more room on jumbo jets before they spend money going faster. It's posited that the private jet people derive greater convenience than they would get from going suborbital.
The thing with rockets and jets and the like is that they aren't going to rapidly improve, they are fundamentally limited by chemistry and simple hydrocarbons are incredibly energy dense.
Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
#6The same lobbying that makes bizjets exempt from the TSA will also mean that no-one will be bothered about fighter jets being unable to intercept these things. (Also, fighter jets didn't stop 9/11). Sub-orbital airliners, or at least sub-orbital exclusive bizjets, will happen for exactly the reason given towards the end of the article: because they will save rich people's time.
Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
#7The 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? Those with the money and the time to do so. Hence why I would scoff as much at the LA to SF bullet trains as at hypersonic passenger planes. Neither will be cheap enough for the average person to just hop on and the average person probably doesn't have all that free time not already assigned out to use them. Getting somewhere faster is meaningless when you don't have the time to be there.
As for the terrorism angle, until you remove the ability to pilot the vehicle on board it always a possibility, more hollywood than fact though
Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
#8Faster 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.
Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
#9The 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…
That was my reaction as well. I was all set up for a scientific objection, and then... 9/11! He does make an economic point about costs, but that's hardly definitive. Just because it will be hugely expensive to travel from London to Sydney in 3 hours doesn't mean nobody will want to travel from London to Sydney in 3 hours. It was hugely expensive to cross the Atlantic or Pacific by air back when that mode of travel began to supplant the ocean liner, and yet, here we are.
Re: Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
#10Faster 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.