The future of ultra-fast passenger travel(spaceambition.substack.com)
spaceambition.substack.com
The future of ultra-fast passenger travel
https://spaceambition.substack.com/p/beyond-the-sound-barrier
110 comments
The sonic boom definitely was a problem when flying over land. But part of the issue behind the regulations were also that the Concorde was a French British collaboration and did not involve US aviation companies. The only airlines that operated the Concorde were British Airways and Air France. The only cities in the US that were reachable by the Concorde were on the east coast and the planes would slow down and come in subsonic. There are a lot of other valid reasons for regulations in the US; but the lack of US suppliers, jobs, etc. didn't make it easier.
Right, because if they flew supersonic anywhere in land they broke Windows.
Youre using reality after the fact to act like the choice wasnt self limiting
Youre using reality after the fact to act like the choice wasnt self limiting
Dude... in the 70ies to 80ies I grew up where they gave a shit about supersonic flights, sometimes even low level. By the military, because COLT WAR!
Sometimes one could read about broken windows indeed, but that depended more on how low they flew (While being supersonic).
Concorde @M2 somewhere between 12 to 16km altitude wouldn't do that.
Sometimes one could read about broken windows indeed, but that depended more on how low they flew (While being supersonic).
Concorde @M2 somewhere between 12 to 16km altitude wouldn't do that.
Concorde certainly did manage to damage buidings, for example by going supersonic while still over land.
Paywalled academic article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000736...
Paywalled academic article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/000736...
Hrrm. Let's see.
The boom levels experienced at these sites caused no greater response than the environment (weather, people, traffic).
At two of the sites no boom damage was observed, however at Castleward house on two occasions a few roof slates were cracked and loosened. No conclusions could be reached as to the cumulative effect on a building of a large number of booms.
Just from the abstract. No mention of altitude, could still have been relatively low, still climbing. Which always could be avoided by climbing slower.
The boom levels experienced at these sites caused no greater response than the environment (weather, people, traffic).
At two of the sites no boom damage was observed, however at Castleward house on two occasions a few roof slates were cracked and loosened. No conclusions could be reached as to the cumulative effect on a building of a large number of booms.
Just from the abstract. No mention of altitude, could still have been relatively low, still climbing. Which always could be avoided by climbing slower.
The problem was it was very expensive.
There should be a name for the principle that one needn't look for more complicated explanations when economic ones suffice.
There should be a name for the principle that one needn't look for more complicated explanations when economic ones suffice.
And it was very expensive because it was a Cold War prestige project. A three-way race between the US, Europe and the Soviet Union. Just like the Apollo program it was forced into existence through force of will, on a tight deadline with limited economic considerations.
If anything it's a miracle how practical the Concorde was and how long it remained in operation
If anything it's a miracle how practical the Concorde was and how long it remained in operation
That was why it was done at all, but not why it was expensive.
At that time, maybe yes. These days, it would fail in many other criteria. Sound pollution is brutal, can't be effectively mitigated and it was all just about rich sparing few hours to get to NY/Paris faster.
Fuck the rich, take normal airliner like everybody else if you are so poor to not have your own jet. We are not bending health standards to whims of few moderately wealthy individuals, sounds like some societal progress there.
A sort of self-regulating issue for a change.
Fuck the rich, take normal airliner like everybody else if you are so poor to not have your own jet. We are not bending health standards to whims of few moderately wealthy individuals, sounds like some societal progress there.
A sort of self-regulating issue for a change.
It was expensive because they only built 14 aircraft (plus 6 prototypes).
And the overflight bans were a large part of the reason for all the sales to fall though. If the development/maintenance costs had been split over hundreds of craft as planned, they would have been much cheaper to both buy and maintain.
There is still the issue of high fuel costs, but fun fact, most of the cancellations came in months before the 1973 oil crisis.
And the overflight bans were a large part of the reason for all the sales to fall though. If the development/maintenance costs had been split over hundreds of craft as planned, they would have been much cheaper to both buy and maintain.
There is still the issue of high fuel costs, but fun fact, most of the cancellations came in months before the 1973 oil crisis.
The most important datum is that Boeing refused to build an SST without large government subsidy. This was evidence they decided there wasn't much of a market. And this decision was taken before the 1973 mideast war that kicked off the oil embargo and energy crisis.
Today, we see similar evidence in that Boom is being forced to develop their own engine because none of the actual engine makers want to make an engine suitable for a SST. I believe there is considerable skepticism that Boom will be able to do this, btw.
It should be noted that even subsonic airliners have gotten a bit slower over time. Fuel economy > travel time for them to some extent, even being subsonic.
Today, we see similar evidence in that Boom is being forced to develop their own engine because none of the actual engine makers want to make an engine suitable for a SST. I believe there is considerable skepticism that Boom will be able to do this, btw.
It should be noted that even subsonic airliners have gotten a bit slower over time. Fuel economy > travel time for them to some extent, even being subsonic.
The SST project was basically a government project. They even had both Boeing, Lockheed and North American submitting competing design proposals.
They were also originally targeting the transcontinental market, so it would have exclusively flown over land, so the sonic boom issue was way more devastating.
They actually ran tests, flying supersonic military aircraft over Oklahoma City for months to see how regular supersonic booms would affect the public.
The public outcry was a large part of the reason why congress cancelled the SST project in 1971, long before 1973. They then immediately introduced the supersonic overflight ban to hinder operation of Concorde.
They were also originally targeting the transcontinental market, so it would have exclusively flown over land, so the sonic boom issue was way more devastating.
They actually ran tests, flying supersonic military aircraft over Oklahoma City for months to see how regular supersonic booms would affect the public.
The public outcry was a large part of the reason why congress cancelled the SST project in 1971, long before 1973. They then immediately introduced the supersonic overflight ban to hinder operation of Concorde.
There was also concern that the NOx produced in the stratosphere would affect the ozone layer. This was about the time concern about the ozone layer was ramping up.
That's Occam's razor more or less.
That's why now there is development of very carefully-designed, pointier craft that exploit Mach cutoff so there's almost no boom.
From I understand and based on this [1] what current research can do is e.g ~0.8 bar overpressure instead of ~1.2 bar. That's better sure, but the sonic boom is still in the 80+db range on the ground. I wouldn't call that almost no boom.
[1] https://youtu.be/CM5lbIzH2kc
[1] https://youtu.be/CM5lbIzH2kc
You're splitting hairs unreasonably. The purpose is to avoid 1950's fighter jet-style absurd sonic booms that rattled homes. That goal appears achievable. Whether it makes economic or environmental sense is another discussion.
It failed because US/Boeing coyld not make a competitor to EU's plane, and feared airlines would buy it, so they decided to ban it instead of competition.
The future of ultra-fast passenger travel is Zoom calls.
A supersonic bizjet is a possibility. It's not cost effective, but it's a status symbol.
A supersonic bizjet is a possibility. It's not cost effective, but it's a status symbol.
If I want travel I'd love a mix of night trains and high speed trains, preferably on entirely separate rails and separate from any freight train and/or regional/light trains.
Arguably we already have it already comparably good in the EU, but, rhe capacity and reliability is nowhere near the levels I'd like to see. Trains need to be the no-brainer-mode of transportation if not only for the reason they are the most energy efficient way of moving people in high numbers for reasonable distances.
Arguably we already have it already comparably good in the EU, but, rhe capacity and reliability is nowhere near the levels I'd like to see. Trains need to be the no-brainer-mode of transportation if not only for the reason they are the most energy efficient way of moving people in high numbers for reasonable distances.
if that was only true...my international flight was 4 times cheaper than the train trip airport -hometown
Just give us high speed rail. Who does supersonic travel actually serve?
Most people using these flights would be traveling over oceans that are not serviceable by rail.
My point stands. Who needs to cross oceans so regularly and so fast?
It’s 2025. I want to live in a future where we do cool things like enable the average person to take supersonic transport. Sure, there are some marginal benefits here and there but going faster shouldn’t need any special justification.
It's not cool that extinction rates are at 1000+x their baseline. Tech like this is even more energy intense than regular flying.
I think "some marginal benefits here and there" and it's cool bro are not valid justifications for making this planet a worse place to live for all species.
I think "some marginal benefits here and there" and it's cool bro are not valid justifications for making this planet a worse place to live for all species.
Energy production is quite clean, particularly around nuclear.
We should not be slowing things down.
We should not be slowing things down.
You want to strap a nuclear power plant to a super sonic plane?
The average person will never be able to afford to take SST. The physics make it so. It's also why commercial airliners are getting slightly slower and using engines with higher bypass ratios.
People working for large international companies or having lots of business related interests across continents. There is I think no substitute to physically meeting people at some point ( I’ve experienced this firsthand) so some people travel a lot. They’re expensive people as well, so making trips shorter and less tiring (business trips like these are exhausting ) is a good thing for them.
Yes, tools like zoom alleviate the problem somehow but not completely.
Yes, tools like zoom alleviate the problem somehow but not completely.
Very rich people and C-level execs. Ok, maybe not 'need' but they want to.
Even with the decline of business travel, there's plenty of people traveling constantly who would pay absurd amounts of money to arrive faster. Celebrities, sports teams, entertainers, the ultra-wealthy, etc. Less flight time allows them to get more rest and spend extra time preparing for the events they're traveling to.
One of the issues with supersonic jets (certainly the Concorde), is that their takeoff speeds, and required runway lengths are much higher due to different aerodynamics, about 1.5x of what's needed for a 737.
This means these VIPs might not be able to land where they want.
Another issue is that these planes fly higher and take longer to reach travel speed, which eats into the the travel time benefits for shorter flights.
This means these VIPs might not be able to land where they want.
Another issue is that these planes fly higher and take longer to reach travel speed, which eats into the the travel time benefits for shorter flights.
Another approach would be more comfortable travel at today’s speeds (or even slower). Imagine boarding a plane with a luxury hotel like experience. A buffet breakfast, some work/reading in a nice library, followed by some treadmill / stationary bike time, then a shower, lunch, a massage in the spa. Dinner later before a classical concert and finally heading to sleep in a comfy bed. Then wake up and disembark at your destination.
The target audience for this wants to get into, and usually return from, their destination as quickly as possible. The trip is a means to an end. It's not unlike opting to take rideshare when your bus or train is slow.
I can absolutely see tech salespeople using this mode of travel for critical meetings. Fly out at 0600 ET from JFK, arrive into LHR at 0900 ET/1400 GMT for a 1500 GMT meeting, do dinner and such, then fly out at 0900 GMT the next day to arrive at 1200 GMT/0700 ET for a full business day. Minimal jet lag.
What you're describing is high-end private air travel (for the rich and not time sensitive) and cruises (for people looking for a vacation in a box).
I can absolutely see tech salespeople using this mode of travel for critical meetings. Fly out at 0600 ET from JFK, arrive into LHR at 0900 ET/1400 GMT for a 1500 GMT meeting, do dinner and such, then fly out at 0900 GMT the next day to arrive at 1200 GMT/0700 ET for a full business day. Minimal jet lag.
What you're describing is high-end private air travel (for the rich and not time sensitive) and cruises (for people looking for a vacation in a box).
Another thing might be crucial equipment. One of my friends works in the film industry, and they told me the insane dance every that goes on every set. A-lister actors, directors, and insanely expensive equipment is flown in from all around the world, and they literally often have hours of having everything in the same place, during which window they have to record the scenes, then everyone flies off to somewhere else, and the meter is ticking to the tune of god know how many thousands of dollars per hour. No mistakes or delays are possible.
He once told me of a story when some exotic piece of equipment broke, and there was NO replacement on in Europe. After a mad scrable, they did find something and they had to fly in that special camera rig thing on a private jet.
He once told me of a story when some exotic piece of equipment broke, and there was NO replacement on in Europe. After a mad scrable, they did find something and they had to fly in that special camera rig thing on a private jet.
Many of the people I mentioned already travel in luxurious conditions, and the economics for luxury aviation are well-explored. It misses the fundamental issue here though. Time spent traveling is time that isn't spent setting up for an event or meeting with fans/media/business interests. You can't solve that with classical music.
It's two different problems. Yes, if you absolutely positively have to be in London in four hours to Sign The Big Contract, you'll pay whatever the Concorde replacement charges and put up with whatever experience it offers.
But there's a huge market in conventional tourists that have more flexibility and could choose from more options.
A typical tourist-class trip is going to be one day of "Travel Misery Time" followed by "Actual Vacation" followed by another full day of "Travel Misery Time".
Yeah, theoretically it might be less than a full day door-to-door, but if you're not an experienced traveler with expert experience in managing timing, baggage rules, TSA procedures du jour, and navigating the facilities, you're probably writing off the whole day of arrival and departure. Nibbling away a couple hours in the metal death cylinder doesn't solve that.
What if we said "we can swap one day of Travel Misery Time for two days of Resort on Wheels Time?" You might get fewer days at the destination, but an overall more enjoyable trip. Rail can offer that. Even today's Amtrak long-hauls offer a comfortable sleeper room, real food, and actual scenery, and no airport suffering, and there's no reason future offerings couldn't introduce other amenities (i. e. a spa car, or scheduled entertainment).
But there's a huge market in conventional tourists that have more flexibility and could choose from more options.
A typical tourist-class trip is going to be one day of "Travel Misery Time" followed by "Actual Vacation" followed by another full day of "Travel Misery Time".
Yeah, theoretically it might be less than a full day door-to-door, but if you're not an experienced traveler with expert experience in managing timing, baggage rules, TSA procedures du jour, and navigating the facilities, you're probably writing off the whole day of arrival and departure. Nibbling away a couple hours in the metal death cylinder doesn't solve that.
What if we said "we can swap one day of Travel Misery Time for two days of Resort on Wheels Time?" You might get fewer days at the destination, but an overall more enjoyable trip. Rail can offer that. Even today's Amtrak long-hauls offer a comfortable sleeper room, real food, and actual scenery, and no airport suffering, and there's no reason future offerings couldn't introduce other amenities (i. e. a spa car, or scheduled entertainment).
Two days on a train sounds miserable regardless of amenities.
At human levels of expense, I think it's not. I traveled Amtrak sleeper on a 24-hour ride. There was no shower, so I couldn't have gone 48 hours, but otherwise it was end-to-end way more pleasant than any international flight I've ever taken.
That already exists to an extent with private suites on certain Emirates long haul flights. It is extraordinarily expensive, more than regular first class.
We had the perfect machine for this. The SS United States.
I would hazard to say very many people, me included.
They could be: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_floating_tunnel
Which btw. could enable a whole bunch of other nice to have things, out there, on the high seas. Global HVDC grid. Communication lines. Pipelines of all sorts. Fish farms. Floating towns at the nodes...Resorts...Casinos...Stock Exchanges...Navy/Coast Guard/SAR bases, research hubs...
Just need to grow that stuff responsible and sustainable. Dunno. Genetically modified 'Turbo Coral', or some 'shrooms' doing in-situ utilization of microplastics? Imagine the possibilities...(Hyping the loop here, harr harr!)
Which btw. could enable a whole bunch of other nice to have things, out there, on the high seas. Global HVDC grid. Communication lines. Pipelines of all sorts. Fish farms. Floating towns at the nodes...Resorts...Casinos...Stock Exchanges...Navy/Coast Guard/SAR bases, research hubs...
Just need to grow that stuff responsible and sustainable. Dunno. Genetically modified 'Turbo Coral', or some 'shrooms' doing in-situ utilization of microplastics? Imagine the possibilities...(Hyping the loop here, harr harr!)
Are they?
Sure trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic travel are big routes but there’s also a huge amount of traffic that goes Europe, Asia, Australia / New Zealand
Sure trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic travel are big routes but there’s also a huge amount of traffic that goes Europe, Asia, Australia / New Zealand
Well, build me a sub-oceanic trans-continental Hyperloop!
That would be great if it could actually get built in the USA. Too many entrenched interests who want it to fail and/or want to skim off the project.
There's high speed rail in Florida that works.
Brightline is mostly 110mph with a few 125mph sections. Standard intercity speeds in Europe, the tier below TGV style high speed rail.
That’s indeed not high speed - high speed ( tgv) is closer to 200mph.
Aside from the people it's killed: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article310829260.html
(I love high-speed rail; I enjoy it in Europe. I think Brightline's implementation may need some work before it's scaled up.)
(I love high-speed rail; I enjoy it in Europe. I think Brightline's implementation may need some work before it's scaled up.)
From what I've seen the majority of the deaths are either a. intentional or b. really not the trains fault. That's not to say it isn't horrible that it happens, but IMO the solution is train safety awareness (don't stop on a railway crossing!!!), and if anything building more high speed rail in the US will improve public awareness of how to be safe around trains.
This is ultimately scaremongering. First off, safety was supposed to be addressed by government funds which it sounds like only recently were approved; there’s nothing fundamentally unsafe about rail when you actually build it properly. But even if this were the baseline figure, do we really need to compare the death rate of our highway system?
> But even if this were the baseline figure, do we really need to compare the death rate of our highway system?
Wouldn't comparing it with other high speed rail be a better approach?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Safety_record
Wouldn't comparing it with other high speed rail be a better approach?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Safety_record
> averaging one death every 13 days of service.
Holy Shit. That's beyond just terrible.
Holy Shit. That's beyond just terrible.
Thinking about that more, it's like a "real" version of truck-kun: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck-kun
Depends on your definition of "high speed", considering how slow it is.
Companies that don’t want to invest in new infrastructure.
That’ll always be the blocker with rail. Moving humans, even a lot of them, by rail isn’t cost effective by most company’s definition outside luxury pricing.
Rail wins when you need to move goods in bulk though.
Annoys the hell out of me. I much prefer train travel, even if it’s slower. But in the States, Amtrak is passable at best depending on the particular line. European rail was a lot more pleasant. Neither comes close to Japan though. Their high speed rail is a reason I’d consider living there long term.
That’ll always be the blocker with rail. Moving humans, even a lot of them, by rail isn’t cost effective by most company’s definition outside luxury pricing.
Rail wins when you need to move goods in bulk though.
Annoys the hell out of me. I much prefer train travel, even if it’s slower. But in the States, Amtrak is passable at best depending on the particular line. European rail was a lot more pleasant. Neither comes close to Japan though. Their high speed rail is a reason I’d consider living there long term.
Some of us would like to visit other continents. A world that grows ever smaller is one where war becomes ever unthinkable.
Yeah, this is why neighboring countries never go to war.
If anything, being able to just fly over the ugly parts and arrive directly at your plastic wrapped all inclusive resort is a good way to increase the social divide and drive us closer to a war.
If anything, being able to just fly over the ugly parts and arrive directly at your plastic wrapped all inclusive resort is a good way to increase the social divide and drive us closer to a war.
Neighboring countries that trade and are in each other's supply chains + economic zones don't go to war.
See: the US' painful and bizarre attempts at butchering its relationship with Canada. The integration of the two economies means that such ham fisted manoeuvres take money out of people's pockets pretty fast.
In a pre-mass travel world, I can see someone like a certain leader attempting to annex Canada. Now? It's unthinkable. Just saying it causes billions in damage.
See: the US' painful and bizarre attempts at butchering its relationship with Canada. The integration of the two economies means that such ham fisted manoeuvres take money out of people's pockets pretty fast.
In a pre-mass travel world, I can see someone like a certain leader attempting to annex Canada. Now? It's unthinkable. Just saying it causes billions in damage.
This works as long as the leaders strongly favour economic prosperity of their countries. Russia invaded Ukraine, despite that the countries traded a lot, and their supply chains were cross-linked.
You can visit other continents already? If they aren't connected by land, we have aeroplanes - and if you don't like flying, you can go by boat.
A 6000 km long undersea tunnel with a 600 km/h avg speed train traversing it would be pretty futuristic alright :)
You'd think so, but Europe grew ever smaller, with open borders, low-cost flights, single market, until at some point it didn't any more, and that process is since 2016 reversing.
I don't know. At some point in the not so distant past the west had hundreds of flights to Moscow and St. Petersburg and bought hundreds of millions worth of goods from Russia every day.
Didn't stop them from getting into a war
Didn't stop them from getting into a war
That sounds like a false choice. In order to avoid war, people need to burn enormous amounts of fossil fuels so they can personally visit the country?
If shorter distances were correlated with more peace there wouldn't be a genocide in Gaza, since the distance from Gaza to Tel Aviv is only about 70 km. More travel may have other advantages, but peace doesn't seem to be one of them.
Fabulous, even more means for the ultra rich to consume and generate greenhouse gases while the quality of life for the 99% stagnates.
Make a list of people flying in these things and attribute the consequences of climate change to their heads. Then you have them pay the bill for their lifetime, potential inheritances pay after.
Not to put a too fine point on it, but climate change is an existencial global, international and inter-generational problem. It is about time we hold those accountable who contribute to it overly much, without loopholes.
If this comes across overly vindictive, consider that the rich will be the people who are least likely to be unable to avoid the consequences of global warming.
Not to put a too fine point on it, but climate change is an existencial global, international and inter-generational problem. It is about time we hold those accountable who contribute to it overly much, without loopholes.
If this comes across overly vindictive, consider that the rich will be the people who are least likely to be unable to avoid the consequences of global warming.
If they use Starship, though, it would reduce the number of ultra rich out there as their wealth gets divided through rapid unscheduled inheritance.
A whole section on economics, efficiency and speed without any mention of externalities.
“More fuel per seat‑km means higher CO₂ if sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is scarce. Supersonic NOₓ and water vapour are emitted directly into the lower stratosphere, affecting ozone and radiative forcing . Methalox rockets also inject large quantities of H₂O and NOₓ at >30 km.”
Fair enough, I was literally searching for the word.
I assumed the history of noise externalities from supersonic aircraft might merit a broader discussion of externalities.
It’s great that they are talking about air pollution, but I’d still argue that there are many other externalities to supersonic air travel, (and sub sonic air travel, and ground transport, etc)
I just think we’d get saner transport policy and better innovation if we talked about them, and how to balance the benefits for people inside the vehicle for the costs to those outside the vehicle.
I assumed the history of noise externalities from supersonic aircraft might merit a broader discussion of externalities.
It’s great that they are talking about air pollution, but I’d still argue that there are many other externalities to supersonic air travel, (and sub sonic air travel, and ground transport, etc)
I just think we’d get saner transport policy and better innovation if we talked about them, and how to balance the benefits for people inside the vehicle for the costs to those outside the vehicle.
Isn't most the time consumption in the airport anyway? Like people supposed to be ther 2-3 hours ahead. If you could get 10m before the flight to the airport that would save so much more time.
[deleted]
While the engineering and innovation surrounding fast travel is interesting and compelling, I think that ultra-comfortable but slow-and-sustainable travel is more likely to win the day.
The airship enthusiasts keep saying that, but nobody is flying luxury lighter than air yachts.
My head goes to really kickass trains. Imagine a train roughly twice as wide as today's trains, where you can kinda bring your own small-house-size-module and travel about the world at 15-30mph.
If this is too far a reach, then maybe self-driving motorhomes will fill a similar desire. I can definitely imagine a very lightweight motorhome - less like a bus, more like an overbuilt enormous e-bike - being viable, maybe even by solar power (say, 2 days to charge for every day on the road, something like that).
I mostly live in a school bus, but too much of my time is spent driving, and those driving times are mostly a) on highways, and b) at speeds which represent a constant threat to everything around me.
I'd love to have an autopilot to take us on country roads at much slower speeds.
If this is too far a reach, then maybe self-driving motorhomes will fill a similar desire. I can definitely imagine a very lightweight motorhome - less like a bus, more like an overbuilt enormous e-bike - being viable, maybe even by solar power (say, 2 days to charge for every day on the road, something like that).
I mostly live in a school bus, but too much of my time is spent driving, and those driving times are mostly a) on highways, and b) at speeds which represent a constant threat to everything around me.
I'd love to have an autopilot to take us on country roads at much slower speeds.
There's reasons for that. One of them being that literally no one even builds airships anymore. Blimps don't count. Another reason is helium being very expensive and the irrational fear of using hydrogen as a lifting gas.
Twelve Zeppelin NT ships were built. Some are used for tourism, some for advertising, and one was used for prospecting with a gravity meter. It's still a tiny niche.
ultra-fast passenger travel is clearly a first-world problem. it doesn't take much to see that this first-world is shrinking rapidly.
Charm of Concorde sort of noise dived when it exploded.
What's "noise dived"? I presume you mean "nose dived".
But it did not explode, it crashed. The cause of the accident was FOD (Foreign Object Damage). Debris on the runway, a 17"x1" strip of titanium, caused damage to the tire which caused additional damage and ultimately the crash.
Perhaps less dramatically, but that's not a unique-to-Concorde kind of accident. FOD is taken seriously in the aviation industry.
But it did not explode, it crashed. The cause of the accident was FOD (Foreign Object Damage). Debris on the runway, a 17"x1" strip of titanium, caused damage to the tire which caused additional damage and ultimately the crash.
Perhaps less dramatically, but that's not a unique-to-Concorde kind of accident. FOD is taken seriously in the aviation industry.
If Boeing was held to the same standard they would have stopped making airplanes a half a dozen plane crashes ago.
It’s kind of interesting the way the entrenched players really aren’t interested in this technology so much.
Can't go supersonic over inhabited land in this day and age. So all it does is shave some time off on ocean crossing. Like flying the 3000km from East Canada to West Ireland in 1.5 instead of 3 hours.
At extremely increased cost. It's a hard sell in an industry that's competing for price efficiency.
At extremely increased cost. It's a hard sell in an industry that's competing for price efficiency.
Interesting like how entrenched auto makers are not interested in EVs, and entrenched power companies are not interested in solar , and entrenched health insurers are not interested in making healthcare more efficient?
Follow the money. Always.
Follow the money. Always.
Yea that is why every "entrenched auto maker" has an EV. Maybe you need to get off your social media and use your brain a little more.
Toyota?
Most of the big OEMs have one or two EVs and less less in a quarter than Tesla do in a day. (F150 lightning, Silverado, mustang mach e, muscle cars)
Most of the big OEMs have one or two EVs and less less in a quarter than Tesla do in a day. (F150 lightning, Silverado, mustang mach e, muscle cars)
F150 lightning sales are about double compared to Cybertruck.
Sure. Cyber truck is a massive failure.
F150 Lightning sales are pathetic.
F150 Lightning sales are pathetic.
I believe United Airlines invested in Boom.
Makes the mistake of to some extent conflating propellant and fuel. Liquid oxygen is very cheap, much cheaper than hydrocarbon fuels per unit mass, a fact not in evidence in the article.
For the self-described "skeptics," 2 hour travel to anywhere on Earth means that everyone gets to have a donor organ shipped to them within the viability window.
If we could go from SF to Tokyo in 2 hours, it would permanently change geopolitics. Imagine commuting between Shenzhen and SF. One foot in each of the two most innovative cities on Earth.
The smaller our world becomes, the more peaceful it becomes.
If we could go from SF to Tokyo in 2 hours, it would permanently change geopolitics. Imagine commuting between Shenzhen and SF. One foot in each of the two most innovative cities on Earth.
The smaller our world becomes, the more peaceful it becomes.
yeah, but in reality it would mean the rich and powerful can get a donar organ from anywhere in the world. Probably from somewhere whre organs can be cheaply obtained, one way or another and then rushed to the private hospital where Bill Gates is waiting.
> The smaller our world becomes, the more peaceful it becomes.
Is there strong evidence that's true?
Is there strong evidence that's true?
>The smaller our world becomes, the more peaceful it becomes.
and the quicker disease can spread.
and the quicker disease can spread.
It's unlikely that the general speed of spread of a pathogen will cause an increase in adverse outcomes from that pathogen. It's equally possible (though woefully underexamined) that the hastened immunity stemming from more rapid spread will cause a decrease in adverse outcomes.
What causes an increase in adverse outcomes, at least for fast-moving pandemics such as respiratory pandemics, is spread between risk tiers. For example, in the case of a pathogen with a significant age-dependent morbidity/mortality rate, one of the most dire threats is spread within multigenerational households.
Providing resources, opportunities, and guidance to facilitate spread within the low-risk tier while briefly isolating that cohort from the high-risk tier is likely to produce better outcomes.
Stated more tersely: the human proclivity to travel and share immune information with peers is a strength, not a weakness.
What causes an increase in adverse outcomes, at least for fast-moving pandemics such as respiratory pandemics, is spread between risk tiers. For example, in the case of a pathogen with a significant age-dependent morbidity/mortality rate, one of the most dire threats is spread within multigenerational households.
Providing resources, opportunities, and guidance to facilitate spread within the low-risk tier while briefly isolating that cohort from the high-risk tier is likely to produce better outcomes.
Stated more tersely: the human proclivity to travel and share immune information with peers is a strength, not a weakness.
>Stated more tersely: the human proclivity to travel and share immune information with peers is a strength, not a weakness.
hmm, ok, since your profile says you study epidemiology sometimes I guess that's a totally reasonable take I hadn't considered. I was of course going off the stuff that was going around during Covid's height when people would refer to theories that faster and increased international travel would lead to more pandemics, and that Covid worked as predicted by that theory.
hmm, ok, since your profile says you study epidemiology sometimes I guess that's a totally reasonable take I hadn't considered. I was of course going off the stuff that was going around during Covid's height when people would refer to theories that faster and increased international travel would lead to more pandemics, and that Covid worked as predicted by that theory.
> since your profile says you study epidemiology
To be clear: this is totally a hobby for me, although I have made friendly/collaborative inroads with many of the top minds in the field through correspondence going back about 15 years. During the covid19 pandemic, I found myself sitting-in on roundtables and discussions where I was often the only non-MD/MPH on the call.
> I was of course going off the stuff that was going around during Covid's height when people would refer to theories that faster and increased international travel would lead to more pandemics
This has been a topic of scholarly debate and discussion for sometime before covid19; it is a frequent concern regarding several types of pandemic, but especially respiratory pandemics and even more especially hemorrhagic fevers. Food-borne, fomite-borne, and sexually transmitted diseases less so. I think it's fair to say that arboviruses remain an unknown in this regard.
In the case of respiratory pandemics, as best I can tell, the science is very much settling to the conclusion that acute spread through low-risk tiers - which of course is bolstered by international travel - offers some protection against the kinds of pandemics we saw from the emergence of now-endemic H3N2, or the 1918 influenza pandemic, or the 1890's "Russian Flu", which I believe (and I believe most scientists who have studied this believe) was likely the emergence of now-endemic hcov-OC43.
My hope is that one of the key lessons of covid19 is that we need to utilize the population who quickly gain immunity as relief pitchers for the high-risk tier. For example, by the time we closed libraries and schools, there were already millions (perhaps 10 million or more) young and healthy people who had gained immunity from infection without even realizing it. These are the people that can run the libraries and cafeterias and shelters, and perform as substitute teachers and childcare providers, so that we're not turning our nation's poorest children to the streets.
A similar phenomenon occurs on college campuses - in the case of pathogens like coronaviruses where college-age people typically seem to be quite low risk, it makes sense to leave residence halls and similar infrastructure in place, to allow this cohort the option of quickly gaining immunity to be available to assist the higher-risk tiers in isolating. Of course this needs to be done with caution and empiricism - the 1918 pandemic reminds us that the age/risk correlation is sometimes inverted, and this can be very confounding to an orderly public health response.
Perhaps most importantly, any plan which delays spread in the low-risk tier, by definition, requires the high-risk tier to isolate commensurate with that delay, and this is a dire situation. Most poor people (who are disproportionately high-risk) simply don't have the means to survive prolonged isolation. Much better is to facilitate spread stratified by risk - ideally a complete spread through the low-risk tier in short order, so that this cohort can safely assist high-risk communities during their isolation.
This basic principle enjoyed what seemed like consensus prior to covid19, and became total hot lava. Hopefully we have returned to sanity and won't make this mistake again.
To be clear: this is totally a hobby for me, although I have made friendly/collaborative inroads with many of the top minds in the field through correspondence going back about 15 years. During the covid19 pandemic, I found myself sitting-in on roundtables and discussions where I was often the only non-MD/MPH on the call.
> I was of course going off the stuff that was going around during Covid's height when people would refer to theories that faster and increased international travel would lead to more pandemics
This has been a topic of scholarly debate and discussion for sometime before covid19; it is a frequent concern regarding several types of pandemic, but especially respiratory pandemics and even more especially hemorrhagic fevers. Food-borne, fomite-borne, and sexually transmitted diseases less so. I think it's fair to say that arboviruses remain an unknown in this regard.
In the case of respiratory pandemics, as best I can tell, the science is very much settling to the conclusion that acute spread through low-risk tiers - which of course is bolstered by international travel - offers some protection against the kinds of pandemics we saw from the emergence of now-endemic H3N2, or the 1918 influenza pandemic, or the 1890's "Russian Flu", which I believe (and I believe most scientists who have studied this believe) was likely the emergence of now-endemic hcov-OC43.
My hope is that one of the key lessons of covid19 is that we need to utilize the population who quickly gain immunity as relief pitchers for the high-risk tier. For example, by the time we closed libraries and schools, there were already millions (perhaps 10 million or more) young and healthy people who had gained immunity from infection without even realizing it. These are the people that can run the libraries and cafeterias and shelters, and perform as substitute teachers and childcare providers, so that we're not turning our nation's poorest children to the streets.
A similar phenomenon occurs on college campuses - in the case of pathogens like coronaviruses where college-age people typically seem to be quite low risk, it makes sense to leave residence halls and similar infrastructure in place, to allow this cohort the option of quickly gaining immunity to be available to assist the higher-risk tiers in isolating. Of course this needs to be done with caution and empiricism - the 1918 pandemic reminds us that the age/risk correlation is sometimes inverted, and this can be very confounding to an orderly public health response.
Perhaps most importantly, any plan which delays spread in the low-risk tier, by definition, requires the high-risk tier to isolate commensurate with that delay, and this is a dire situation. Most poor people (who are disproportionately high-risk) simply don't have the means to survive prolonged isolation. Much better is to facilitate spread stratified by risk - ideally a complete spread through the low-risk tier in short order, so that this cohort can safely assist high-risk communities during their isolation.
This basic principle enjoyed what seemed like consensus prior to covid19, and became total hot lava. Hopefully we have returned to sanity and won't make this mistake again.
> and the quicker disease can spread.
HN has attracted its share of luddites. People who aren't interested in building a better future. But are very interested in tearing it down.
When did HN become a place where dreams of a better future were met with proclamations of disease?
You can make the case for whatever case you are trying to make, without pushing back on this quite specific extremely correct point. When people meet. disease spreads. If it doesn't spread when they breathe on one another, it will spread when they touch. If it doesn't spread when they touch, it will spread when they fuck. If it doesn't spread when they fuck - phew, crikey, this disease is useless indeed, and natural selection will see it off quickly. Meanwhile our protagonists now have flu, norovirus and crabs.
March 2020, approximately
> When did HN become a place where dreams of a better future were met with proclamations of disease?
As there as been a general broadening of discussion as to exactly what "a better future" means and I suppose more specifically to whom.
As there as been a general broadening of discussion as to exactly what "a better future" means and I suppose more specifically to whom.
if you'll look at my profile you will discover that evidently it happened 5 years before you joined.
Hardly fait to blame regulation here, the problem was that it was incredibly loud and unpleasant. You can try to make it sound like government overreach, but it takes some serious mental aerobatics.