Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners(antipope.org)
antipope.org
Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/01/why-were-not-going-to-see-sub-.html
77 comments
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.
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.
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?
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?
A few additional points.
1. re: First class dying. The reason is that, aside from some of the really high-end international options on e.g. Emirates, business class has effectively become first class. In general, today's business class accommodations are significantly better than first class in the old days with lie flat seats and personal entertainment systems.
2. Concorde was always pretty much a niche market. Saving a few hours in a comfortable first class seat is not a big win for just about anyone unless you're a high-priced lawyer doing an out and back to London for a day.
1. re: First class dying. The reason is that, aside from some of the really high-end international options on e.g. Emirates, business class has effectively become first class. In general, today's business class accommodations are significantly better than first class in the old days with lie flat seats and personal entertainment systems.
2. Concorde was always pretty much a niche market. Saving a few hours in a comfortable first class seat is not a big win for just about anyone unless you're a high-priced lawyer doing an out and back to London for a day.
"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.
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.
> 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.
Yeah, congress only banned SSTs and supersonic civilian flight right as concorde came online, that can't have had any impact on it.
Yeah, the lack of supersonic overfly on most countries (not just the USA) was one of the main factors against Concorde (despite the fact that in many cases the decibel levels were lower than cotemporaneous aircraft).
It's no coincidence it's main routes (London->JFK, Paris ->JFK) are 90% over the Ocean.
If you actually managed to get long distance hypersonic routes (such as London->Sydney, or even London->Beijing, London->Tokyo, etc.) at a significant time reduction, I can see it working.
It's no coincidence it's main routes (London->JFK, Paris ->JFK) are 90% over the Ocean.
If you actually managed to get long distance hypersonic routes (such as London->Sydney, or even London->Beijing, London->Tokyo, etc.) at a significant time reduction, I can see it working.
Also see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8824444
America has often used sly tactics to crush superior British technology.
America has often used sly tactics to crush superior British technology.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Doesn't take much to put you off an idea, does it? You do realize that quite a bit of the security measures one takes to undergo travel by air is "because terrorism", right? And that's also why they scramble jets at the first sign of oddity? Countries have rules that planes must follow if they want to fly in their airspace, and many of them have consequences if those rules are not followed. I can see that being an inconvenience to some, but c'est la vie.
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
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
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.
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.
Air travel is already terrible. No real improvement in the last 40 years. Flight times have actually increased (to save on fuel), and airlines are playing the trick of "let's make posted flight times longer than needed, so most of our flights we'll land in time".
> the trick of "let's make posted flight times longer than needed, so most of our flights we'll land in time".
I might be alone, but I like that policy.
First off flight times are gate to gate (not airport to airport) so while the flight time is known and quantifiable there are a great many "ground issues" which are not. For example, the gate's motor malfunctions, push-back is delayed (while they "manually" move the gate back), and the aircraft misses its take-off slot.
The nice part about building in 10 minutes extra is that worst case scenario you arrive EARLY and you have to kick around for 10 minutes. Best case, you arrive on the stated time and your expectations are met.
Regardless this seems win/win. They're better meeting or exceeding your expectations more of the time, and the only cost is that you aren't able to min/max your travel quite to the same extent (e.g. build in even shorter transfers between flights).
Currently the minimum authorised transfer window is around 30 minutes for most airlines. While at some airports 30 minutes is fine (Dallas) at others it is terrible (Chicago). Arriving on time in the latter type of airports is a "must" if you want to make your second flight at all.
I might be alone, but I like that policy.
First off flight times are gate to gate (not airport to airport) so while the flight time is known and quantifiable there are a great many "ground issues" which are not. For example, the gate's motor malfunctions, push-back is delayed (while they "manually" move the gate back), and the aircraft misses its take-off slot.
The nice part about building in 10 minutes extra is that worst case scenario you arrive EARLY and you have to kick around for 10 minutes. Best case, you arrive on the stated time and your expectations are met.
Regardless this seems win/win. They're better meeting or exceeding your expectations more of the time, and the only cost is that you aren't able to min/max your travel quite to the same extent (e.g. build in even shorter transfers between flights).
Currently the minimum authorised transfer window is around 30 minutes for most airlines. While at some airports 30 minutes is fine (Dallas) at others it is terrible (Chicago). Arriving on time in the latter type of airports is a "must" if you want to make your second flight at all.
I read between the lines and since Mr Stross is lurking here from time could probably confirm or refute me, but I read it - "Not due to real concern, but to comply with the security theater that we put post 9/11 and to calm down the "TV pundit" crazies"
No, the reason is "security considerations" impacting locality. The main point is locality.
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.
> 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.
Are you sure about that? Landing from orbit consists mostly of deceleration. If you manage to skip that, it's as dangerous as a meteorite. Fuel tanks are not needed when you have sheer kinetic energy.
Are you sure about that? Landing from orbit consists mostly of deceleration. If you manage to skip that, it's as dangerous as a meteorite. Fuel tanks are not needed when you have sheer kinetic energy.
Deceleration is going to happen regardless since you're coming down from much thinner air. The plane would most likely rip apart long before hitting said target, Mach 5 at Sea level does not do good things to airframes.
So all possible descent speeds are either
1) slow enough to be relatively safe
or
2) fast enough to cause disintegration of a craft designed for atmosphere re-entry.
I have no aerospace knowledge, so in the absence of anyone doing the maths, I'm going to go with "maybe so, maybe not".
1) slow enough to be relatively safe
or
2) fast enough to cause disintegration of a craft designed for atmosphere re-entry.
I have no aerospace knowledge, so in the absence of anyone doing the maths, I'm going to go with "maybe so, maybe not".
Let's hope that there always remains a manual override option, since a suborbital could become an incredibly potent cyberterrorism vector.
9/11 style terrorism was solved by reinforcing the cockpit doors. Everything else has been police state fear mongering.
It was solved as soon as ordinary passengers realized that hijackers didn't want hostages anymore. The cockpit door thing is security theatre too.
There was 1 coordinated attack where the hijackers did not want hostages. If I am a passenger on a hijacked plane, my guess would be that they are in it for the ransom.
Then you are the problem. From now on airline passengers must simply assume that all terrorists are suicide bombers and act accordingly, fighting back with all available means; thus will we ensure that airline hijackings remain unviable.
Having a self destruct feature that automatically engages when an airplane is hijacked would also make make hijackings unviable.
If you respond as if the hijackers are suicide bombers, when they really only want a ransom, then you risk some or all of the hostages getting injured or dyeing, as well as the potential for the plane, which would otherwise have landed safely, to crash into a populated area as the hijackers are distracted from piloting the plane, or the passenger may decide to be heroes and take over (crashing either deliberately or by accident).
If you respond as if the hijackers are suicide bombers, when they really only want a ransom, then you risk some or all of the hostages getting injured or dyeing, as well as the potential for the plane, which would otherwise have landed safely, to crash into a populated area as the hijackers are distracted from piloting the plane, or the passenger may decide to be heroes and take over (crashing either deliberately or by accident).
This. It saddens me that 10+ years later the theatre is still running in every-single-airport around the world (admittedly in varying degree).
http://www.terminalcornucopia.com/
http://www.terminalcornucopia.com/
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.
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.
Reminded of the Hamming quote:
If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work. It's perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem' must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn't work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It's not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important. When I say that most scientists don't work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist, so far as I can make out, spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn't believe that they will lead to important problems.
If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely you'll do important work. It's perfectly obvious. Great scientists have thought through, in a careful way, a number of important problems in their field, and they keep an eye on wondering how to attack them. Let me warn you, `important problem' must be phrased carefully. The three outstanding problems in physics, in a certain sense, were never worked on while I was at Bell Labs. By important I mean guaranteed a Nobel Prize and any sum of money you want to mention. We didn't work on (1) time travel, (2) teleportation, and (3) antigravity. They are not important problems because we do not have an attack. It's not the consequence that makes a problem important, it is that you have a reasonable attack. That is what makes a problem important. When I say that most scientists don't work on important problems, I mean it in that sense. The average scientist, so far as I can make out, spends almost all his time working on problems which he believes will not be important and he also doesn't believe that they will lead to important problems.
I suppose if you have those three, then a warp engine would be straightforward.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I used to work for an air charter company so know a bit about biz jets. Stross is missing an important point: there are only a handful of heavy jets that can fly non-stop from LHR to SYD. The Global Express (and variants), Dassault's 7X/8X and that's about it. They cost from $50 million up, can seat a maximum of 8 to 10 people and are impossible to charter "by the seat". They also require long runways, restricting which airports they can use compared to smaller biz jets.
If something like the Sabre existed I can guarantee that high net-worth people in Europe/America with urgent business meetings (or a desire to maximise their holiday) in Australia would use it even if it meant needing to charter a helicopter to/from the space port to the centre of the city. Whether or not there would be enough demand to keep a regularly scheduled service going is another question. Stross is right when he says it's hard to see how it could compete with existing air transport options between shorter range locations (e.g. London - New York).
Sabre (or similar) would have advantages for New York (or London) to Beijing though, so, who knows, in another 10 or 20 years maybe there will be enough demand for a few well chosen scheduled routes. In any case, I don't buy the terrorism angle at all. The problem will be (as is often the case in commercial aviation) finding and pricing route(s) to produce a viable passenger yield. Tricky if the only routes that make sense are long-haul ones with a high density of frequent first class business flyers (that's a pretty small pool).
If something like the Sabre existed I can guarantee that high net-worth people in Europe/America with urgent business meetings (or a desire to maximise their holiday) in Australia would use it even if it meant needing to charter a helicopter to/from the space port to the centre of the city. Whether or not there would be enough demand to keep a regularly scheduled service going is another question. Stross is right when he says it's hard to see how it could compete with existing air transport options between shorter range locations (e.g. London - New York).
Sabre (or similar) would have advantages for New York (or London) to Beijing though, so, who knows, in another 10 or 20 years maybe there will be enough demand for a few well chosen scheduled routes. In any case, I don't buy the terrorism angle at all. The problem will be (as is often the case in commercial aviation) finding and pricing route(s) to produce a viable passenger yield. Tricky if the only routes that make sense are long-haul ones with a high density of frequent first class business flyers (that's a pretty small pool).
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.
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.
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 something. "Normal" business jets won't even get to Hawaii. I think things are different for transatlantic (esp if you're willing to stop somewhere like Canada or Ireland).
Business jets make actual sense when you're doing a multi-stop itinerary, lots of last-minute changes, and flying into secondary and tertiary airports. They make a lot less sense for hub to hub intercontinental flights.
You could solve all the security issues of intercepting a supersonic aircraft by having a failsafe override (optionally self-destruct). No need to build a Mach 5 interceptor when you can do it at c.
Business jets make actual sense when you're doing a multi-stop itinerary, lots of last-minute changes, and flying into secondary and tertiary airports. They make a lot less sense for hub to hub intercontinental flights.
You could solve all the security issues of intercepting a supersonic aircraft by having a failsafe override (optionally self-destruct). No need to build a Mach 5 interceptor when you can do it at c.
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?
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 play. But it's there. It's a company's job to find it.
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.
> 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.
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.
Imagine a lighter than air cruise-ship. That's an interesting idea and somewhat more realistic from an engineering perspective. There must be some kind of happy medium of a giant lifting body full of helium that takes 24 hours but is large and luxurious.
The key to all future transport seems to be turning it away from disciplined travel as the primary activity. Doesn't matter if its bizjets or cruise ships or trains or my crazy balloon idea.
A cultural moving away from "travel for 4 hours strapped into a seat in a car or old fashioned airplance" but "hang out at the bar for 8 hours or play video games or post on facebook for 8 hours, or join the mile high club all night, oh, and at the same time as traveling from pt A to pt B but its not the primary activity"
The key to all future transport seems to be turning it away from disciplined travel as the primary activity. Doesn't matter if its bizjets or cruise ships or trains or my crazy balloon idea.
A cultural moving away from "travel for 4 hours strapped into a seat in a car or old fashioned airplance" but "hang out at the bar for 8 hours or play video games or post on facebook for 8 hours, or join the mile high club all night, oh, and at the same time as traveling from pt A to pt B but its not the primary activity"
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.
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.
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.
"larger-than-you-think-it-is subset of the population."
There were about 18000 returns filed with the IRS above that AGI in 2010 according to some google searches.
Honestly I don't think there's enough people in the world at that income level to develop and sell.
Its also based heavily on the cultural assumption that nothing can be accomplished while traveling. Its not like they're being sedated and put into restraints for all 22 hours of that flight.
Its fairly telling about the mentality of the board in general that the only use "we" can discuss for a "magic people mover" is a plaything for the ultra-rich. Because god only knows, they don't have enough favorable treatment over us mere proles, and they don't have enough other playthings to toy with. Kind of like the military industrial complex sycophants can't think of any reason for a vehicle to exist other than to drop a bomb from it or mount a gun on it. Some slightly more socially acceptable ideas for a passenger suborbital would be "extreme medivac" where no matter where you are on the planet if you get horrifically sick you're at the CDC isolation ward in 3 hours, "instant medical supply delivery" when you really really need a donor organ across the planet in 3 hours, and "extreme blue collar" like ship both a special factory floor machine tool part and a technician from the plant to install it because many factory floors cost far more than $40K/day if they're shut down.
There were about 18000 returns filed with the IRS above that AGI in 2010 according to some google searches.
Honestly I don't think there's enough people in the world at that income level to develop and sell.
Its also based heavily on the cultural assumption that nothing can be accomplished while traveling. Its not like they're being sedated and put into restraints for all 22 hours of that flight.
Its fairly telling about the mentality of the board in general that the only use "we" can discuss for a "magic people mover" is a plaything for the ultra-rich. Because god only knows, they don't have enough favorable treatment over us mere proles, and they don't have enough other playthings to toy with. Kind of like the military industrial complex sycophants can't think of any reason for a vehicle to exist other than to drop a bomb from it or mount a gun on it. Some slightly more socially acceptable ideas for a passenger suborbital would be "extreme medivac" where no matter where you are on the planet if you get horrifically sick you're at the CDC isolation ward in 3 hours, "instant medical supply delivery" when you really really need a donor organ across the planet in 3 hours, and "extreme blue collar" like ship both a special factory floor machine tool part and a technician from the plant to install it because many factory floors cost far more than $40K/day if they're shut down.
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.
If it's a couple of flights daily then you're waiting up to 12 hours to get on one, and suddenly the time saving doesn't look so spectacular.
Getting the size right is a problem I'm glad I don't have, but best not to make it too small or have too few flights bearing in mind your dollar development costs will be measured in 10s of billions.
Getting the size right is a problem I'm glad I don't have, but best not to make it too small or have too few flights bearing in mind your dollar development costs will be measured in 10s of billions.
Proposing hyper-scale projects can make a small group a tidy profit. Being on such a huge scale, early proposals & research can take years (not requiring a large team), and those interested in throwing enormous funds at the actual implementation think little of the relatively tiny funds (but still large for those working on it) for preliminary analysis.
We may not see sub-orbital airliners for a long time, but those working on early analysis now can make a comfortable living on it.
We may not see sub-orbital airliners for a long time, but those working on early analysis now can make a comfortable living on it.
The 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.
In the same line of thinking: Plane travel got slower over the past years.
http://slice.mit.edu/2014/03/19/airtravel/
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)
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)
As someone who travels for a living, the speed of the plane isn't that big of a deal. It's the fact that to get from North America to just about anywhere Africa, I have to detour through Europe, which is a complete waste of my time. I would much rather have better routes than faster planes. (For example, I could get to West Africa in ~12 hours from the east coast of the U.S. if the routes existed. That's a nice overnight flight, landing in the afternoon. I wouldn't have to waste a full day stuck in a plane, no new technology required.)
And yet air travel is cheaper and more accessible to more people than ever. A faster plane doesn't do you much good if you can't afford the ticket.
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.
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).
Goals in greater efficiently have never been as exciting as goals for greater speed (with disregard for efficiency).
Ah, okay, excitement, I can agree with.
[deleted]
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 advance notice of an ICBM strike."
In one sentence he outlines both the problem and the solution. Doesn't the west already have missile defense systems?
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 advance notice of an ICBM strike."
In one sentence he outlines both the problem and the solution. Doesn't the west already have missile defense systems?
Does someone else find the interception argument pretty thin? If we are at some point in the future where we have commercial sub orbital flights, then you can bet your pants that military technology is a decade ahead at least. Why would it be intercepted by "today's military aircraft" when we are talking about a point in time that is clearly a few decades from now at least?
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...
When people list problems, I see temporary obstacles. Even mountains can be overcome: http://www.odditycentral.com/news/dashrath-manjhi-the-man-wh...
People die. Pretty much the same as what happens when an anti-aircraft weapon is used against an ordinary aircraft.
The author's terrorism concerns are way overblown and the reasoning supporting them specious, but there is a more basic issue with hypersonic point-to-point transportation systems outside of the additional arguments related to current air travel, at least for vehicles designed to go suborbital/exoatmospheric:
Once we are talking about traveling to a destination and not simply going "straight" up and down, the costs, maintenance issues, safety requirements, development time, thermal management, mission management, guidance systems, etc., get within spitting distance of actually developing an orbital vehicle.
Future technology improvements and cost reductions cannot be ruled out, of course, but given the basic physics and what we know of the near future of aerospace technology, it seems a stretch (at least) to expect a profitable, safe point-to-point suborbital system to be a viable undertaking.
And once we are talking about orbital systems, where the cost and risk/reward equation at least seem to be more desirable and unrelated to point-to-point travel, the question of suborbital point-to-point fades into the background.
Once we are talking about traveling to a destination and not simply going "straight" up and down, the costs, maintenance issues, safety requirements, development time, thermal management, mission management, guidance systems, etc., get within spitting distance of actually developing an orbital vehicle.
Future technology improvements and cost reductions cannot be ruled out, of course, but given the basic physics and what we know of the near future of aerospace technology, it seems a stretch (at least) to expect a profitable, safe point-to-point suborbital system to be a viable undertaking.
And once we are talking about orbital systems, where the cost and risk/reward equation at least seem to be more desirable and unrelated to point-to-point travel, the question of suborbital point-to-point fades into the background.
I don't think Stross is actually saying that such terrorist attacks are feasible or likely - just that the culture of TSA and the slightest possibility of such acts will make inevitable the kind of security theater that's driving the wealthy away from regular first-class.
He makes good points but I've said it before and I'll say it again: sub orbital flights and non-interplanetary space travel in general is where the airline industry used to be which is a rough spot with a lot of known and unknown safety issues and expensive costs with inexpensive alternative but traditional methods.
Today, I can buy a ticket for about the same price as dinner for two, maybe three. Back in the day say the 50s and 60s it was only the elite who could purchase a ticket because the rates were so expensive. Then, bus travel ala Greyhound was the way to go for long distance travel before commercial airlines really became more affordable.
ADDENDUM: okay maybe a really nice dinner for two or three.
Today, I can buy a ticket for about the same price as dinner for two, maybe three. Back in the day say the 50s and 60s it was only the elite who could purchase a ticket because the rates were so expensive. Then, bus travel ala Greyhound was the way to go for long distance travel before commercial airlines really became more affordable.
ADDENDUM: okay maybe a really nice dinner for two or three.
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.
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.
I'm guessing the author is employing reverse psychology here? This article reads like an annoying lost of hyper-cynical arguments against hypersonic travel that any ambitious person would be eager to prove wrong. Sort of like the "we will never have small touchscreen-based mobile devices with the computing power of a desktop computer" argument I used to hear from extremely smart and experienced telecom execs around the time of the first iPhone rumors.
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.
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.
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?
[deleted]
These cost assumptions are where the analysis falls down. Try to calculate what the cost of suborbital rocketry should be. There's a good case it should be even cheaper than today's jumbo jets.
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.
The rest always gets the bad end of the stick. But it will happen in a few generations. That and Mars.
I am reading Saturn's Children.. It makes so much more sense now that I know he is British.
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.