[HN Gopher] Will we ever fly supersonically over land?
___________________________________________________________________
Will we ever fly supersonically over land?
Author : agronaut
Score : 20 points
Date : 2021-07-03 19:13 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| amelius wrote:
| Maybe _under_ land, through a Hyperloop.
| bluescrn wrote:
| The better question, given Covid and the climate crisis, is 'Will
| we ever fly again? Is the age of affordable air travel over?'
| ghaff wrote:
| Prices are elevated at the moment but people are already back
| to flying in large numbers at least in the US.
| [deleted]
| bluescrn wrote:
| Thinking more about the quarantine and testing costs flying
| internationally at the moment. And a post-Covid world with
| bankrupt airlines and a lot less flight availability. With
| the end of the Covid crisis blending into a more serious
| fight against climate change.
| ghaff wrote:
| International travel seems like more trouble than it's
| worth at the moment barring urgent need. One organization I
| know moved an early fall event from a non-US location to
| the US. Presumably, all going well, they're likely to at
| least get US audience/speakers.
|
| Not clear to me how big an effect climate change will have
| unless fuel taxes are really ramped up--which is of course
| possible.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| > These studies, along with tens of thousands of claims against
| the Air Force for property damage--horses and turkeys had
| supposedly died or gone insane--led the F.A.A. to ban civil
| overland supersonic flight, in 1973.
|
| There was also a political part involved. The Concorde was a
| British-French creation, not a Boeing. Had there been a Boeing
| supersonic passenger plane first there would probably have been
| different FAA rules. Especially because military supersonic
| flight happens every day over US land, was never banned, and
| causes the same boom.
| BenoitP wrote:
| Indeed it was political. IMHO if a US supersonic commercial
| plane comes into service without an Airbus counterpart, it
| won't have access to the European skies. At least not the over
| french territory. The industry is still very salty that the
| Concorde market was taken from under them.
| avereveard wrote:
| not really the same, fighters are quite smaller than airliners.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Military supersonic flight over land in the US only happens
| over unpopulated areas. Ie, parts of Idaho, Nevada desert etc.
| Most supersonic training is conducted over the oceans, eg >15nm
| from the east coast.
| syntheticnature wrote:
| Military supersonic flight over land in the US is supposed to
| only happen over unpopulated areas. Having lived near a
| coastline (~1 mile from the shoreline) along a military
| flight path, I know they occasionally went a little early.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Europe banned continental supersonic flights too which is why
| only the Atlantic route to NYC was an option you couldn't do
| flights eastward.
| xchaotic wrote:
| Solving some societal or civilisational challenge with supersonic
| flight seems very narrow minded now. Yes I would like to fly to
| my work HQ faster but due to pandemic I have not visited in 3
| years now and it's been fine, so a better solution is excellent
| remote work tools such as HQ videoconferencing etc which is such
| an easier problem, yet many people and companies still struggle
| with it. In the overall ROI for things to do, I bet we shouldn't
| be building businesses that REQUIRE supersonic flight to succeed.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| It would be nice if we had publically funded communication etc
| tools. I am not seeing a valid business nodel here that does
| not involve either massive spying, or poor people loosing
| access to rest of society.
| bdamm wrote:
| How does having public funding for communication help? Having
| a zoom equipped laptop available for use in a county building
| isn't much of a stretch. Public funding of communication will
| also guarantee spying.
| sneak wrote:
| Fast transportation, like fast computers, or fast appliances,
| aren't required. They just make life better.
| yellow_lead wrote:
| They will still use an enormous amount of fuel, carry fewer
| passengers, and heavily pollute the environment. I'm not too
| excited about the prospects.
| dawnerd wrote:
| But are they that much worse than private jets and helicopters
| on a per person level?
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| All overland passenger transport should be rail. Over the
| oceans I suppose we should strive for ships and dirigibles.
|
| That said, I find it hard to believe that plane travel can be
| eradicated for e.g. diplomacy. And frankly, if frequent
| contract between the powerful different countries is needed to
| avoid e.g. world wars, it's is worth it.
|
| In the short term, any carbon we can capture needs to go in
| back in ground and stay there. But once we have good good
| greenhouse gas levels, much of carbon capture tech can be
| reused to make biofuels. I guess we can reward ourselves with
| lots of supersonic air travel then.
| [deleted]
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Air travel has a big PR problem, because somehow a lot of
| people think it's the absolute worst for the environment.
| While on many routes a car is worse in terms of CO2 emission
| per trip than a small to mid sized airliner if there are less
| than 3 people in the car. Similar for your suggestion that we
| should take ships over the ocean, because cruise ships are
| much more polluting per passenger mile than modern airliners.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| We coupd sctuallu fly even more efficiently, but slower,
| with turboprops
| eitland wrote:
| ... and fast fashion is probably worse than both if what I
| read is correct.
|
| FTR: Years go by between everytime I travel by plane so I
| don't feel I have anything to defend, I just think it is
| good to keep the big picture in mind.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| Agree, and the airlines absolutely need to keep working
| to become more climate friendly just like we need to make
| road travel better.
|
| But climate-shaming specifically air travel while at the
| same time driving a non-electric car or using air
| conditioning without having solar panels is very
| hypocritical because both of those and many other things
| are a far bigger part of the total emissions.
| tffgg wrote:
| People insulting others as hypocritical for critizing
| something needs to stop.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| It's not an insult. What you call criticising, climate
| shaming someone over one activity while engaging in other
| more polluting activities, is the exact definition of the
| word hypocrisy:
|
| > Hypocrisy is the practice of engaging in the same
| behavior or activity for which one criticizes another
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| > While on many routes a car is worse than a small to mid
| sized airliner if there are less than 3 people in the car.
|
| I never said cars. Cars are terrible. I would not
| complained if passenger-only cars were banned everywhere.
|
| > Similar for your suggestion that we should take ships
| over the ocean, because cruise ships are much more
| polluting per passenger mile than modern airliners.
|
| There are alternatives like wind power + giant batteries.
| The fact that weight doesn't matter for ships so much
| (container ships are more efficient than rail, scaling up
| is equivalent to shrinking the viscosity of water) opens a
| lot of doors.
| beerandt wrote:
| Air travel is generally more energy efficient than
| trains, beyond a 300-400 mile range, depending on what
| you're traveling over/through.
|
| Track and right-of-way is a scarce resource with large
| amounts of embedded energy. The sky, not so much.
| _Microft wrote:
| Air travel is not a problem because the emissions per
| kilometer are that bad but because one can easily travel
| one or two orders of magnitude farther than one usually
| would.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| Exactly. It's not like if you couldn't fly from Los
| Angeles to New York once a month - you would just drive
| by yourself - and produce the same amount of carbon.
|
| You wouldn't produce any carbon, because you'd likely
| never make the trip!
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Yes, this is why dealing with air is so tricky in
| economic terms, because "uninducing demand" does have
| more intrinsic downsides. Car -> rail is a mere political
| problem, once you get there it "unlocks" more travel so
| it is clearly economically good.
|
| I guess thank god for 9/11 boosting security theater.
| Don't like all the other patriot act garbage, but the
| degree to which air travel is so awful really helps here.
| jacobolus wrote:
| After 9/11 air travel plateaued for 3-4 years, then
| afterward rebounded to the original trend line (i.e.
| massively expanded, and continues to expand).
|
| It doesn't seem that all of the unpleasant security
| theater is enough to significantly deter people from
| flying.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| No one its own, but I think it would make a difference
| had we avoid hsr alternative.
| agent327 wrote:
| So your preferred solution is to restrict the allowed
| travel radius of people, a bit like with medieval serfs?
| void_mint wrote:
| Nobody in this thread has suggested that.
| the8472 wrote:
| Restrictions may not be needed. Remove subsidies and
| price in externalties.
| tshaddox wrote:
| True, but when you start comparing denominators in
| absolute terms you would also conclude that not traveling
| at all is the far superior choice. And also, that
| anything emitter (say, a gas grill) that's unrelated to
| travel has infinite emissions per kilometer.
| 7952 wrote:
| And if we use your co2 per mile approach we can all
| conclude that a rocket is the way to travel.
|
| People judge these things in terms of how much co2 is
| emitted by industry, companies, individuals etc. The
| particular mechanism of emissions is not that relevant.
| Air ambulance flights are treated differently to private
| jets carrying bankers.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > While on many routes a car is worse in terms of CO2
| emission per trip than a small to mid sized airliner if
| there are less than 3 people in the car.
|
| Wow. I read that one plane trip can increase your carbon
| footprint by a greater magnitude than all your typical
| actions to reduce it.
|
| Does anyone know where to find some data?
|
| EDIT: Here's some data https://www.bbc.com/news/science-
| environment-49349566
|
| https://theicct.org/blogs/staff/planes-trains-and-
| automobile...
|
| Also, planes have other problems:
|
| * cars can be powered by carbon-free energy. There's not
| much current prospect for planes.
|
| * planes also do great harm from non-CO2 emissions: "The
| climate effect of non-CO2 emissions from aviation is much
| greater than the equivalent from other modes of transport,
| as these non-CO2 greenhouse gases formed at higher
| altitudes persist for longer than at the surface and also
| have a stronger warming potential"
| harimau777 wrote:
| Unless we dramatically increase vacation time or dramatically
| increase rail speeds, that would mean that many people would
| not be able to see their families and friends or travel to
| events.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Well, in a plane trip you have 3 lost hours before it
| starts and after it ends, so a normal train, running at
| 130km/h will be faster than a plane at 850km/h for any trip
| of less than ~460km.
|
| If you make it a fast train, at 350km/h, it will beat the
| plane on any trip up to 1700km.
|
| Most trips are short, so no, most trips can be done by
| train and people still spend less time on them than by
| plane.
| cortesoft wrote:
| I live in Southern California, with family in Kansas,
| Wisconsin, and New York. The closest one is 2500kms away.
| The longest is almost 5000kms A train would take a lot
| longer than a plane.
|
| Even more than just the distance, though, is the fact
| that there would be no practical way to have direct rail
| lines to every major city in the US.
|
| Trains are useful, but there is no way they could replace
| air travel in the US.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| If we had high-speed rail everywhere at 300km/h you can
| cross almost any country overnight, that radius of 3600km
| would give you 80% of all plane travel.
| beerandt wrote:
| At energy and cost levels that exceed airline travel, per
| passenger-mile.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Do you have a citation for that?
|
| Quick Googling doesn't reveal any obvious authoritative
| answers (but a ton of guessing and unsubstantiated
| claims). The most authoritative/unbiased source seems to
| be this Wikipedia article:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transp
| ort
|
| But the head-to-head comparisons are mostly gaps when it
| comes to trains, and the sections on trains and planes
| are in completely different families of units that makes
| comparison extremely non-trivial. :(
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Thank you, and great username for the clarification :).
| neolog wrote:
| Most travel is business. Business events mostly don't
| require travel as we saw this year.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Absolutely not. 300 kph HSR rail exists in developed
| countries.
|
| (2680 miles) / (300 kilometers per hour) = 14.3768064 hours
|
| That's coast to coast in ~ 1/2 day.
|
| Ships and blimps represent a much larger decrease in travel
| time over airplanes than rail. They perhaps pose a to be
| solved, but rail doesn't.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| And you can go ecen faster
|
| >"TGV called V150 holds the record for the highest speed
| on any national rail system - it hit a whopping 357.2 mph
| "
| cortesoft wrote:
| Yeah, but that is only from one part of the coast to one
| part. You would have to have so many lines to connect all
| the cities.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Yes, but even if we double the time estimate, I don't
| think that's prohibitively slow.
|
| Only with the many day duration to traverse oceans eihtou
| planes do I get worried.
| agronaut wrote:
| https://archive.is/Ut9az
| dghughes wrote:
| I hope not mainly because where I live in south-eastern Canada we
| seem to be the tailpipe of North America. All aircraft heading
| east seem to go over my region.
|
| The summer in non-pandemic times) is a constant parade of large
| passenger jets flying over. The jets are high up and in the
| evening you hear the rumble as the aircraft highlighted by the
| sun fly over while the ground is in evening shadows.
|
| Even a dozen US military Osprey aircraft fly over a few weeks
| ago.
|
| I wouldn't want a dozen large supersonic passenger aircraft going
| over all the time.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-03 23:00 UTC)