4 ms·

With the development of space travel / tourism technologies, and the holy grail of Sydney->London in 2 hours continuing to be sought (directly or indirectly) by

With the development of space travel / tourism technologies, and the holy grail of Sydney->London in 2 hours continuing to be sought (directly or indirectly) by Virgin Galactica, Space X etc, there's a good chance Boeing and Airbus will go the way of so many car manufacturers. If they struggle this long to warrant the 787 investment, how hard will it be (and what impact will it have on share prices, noting they currently view most of the 787 investment as sunk cost) to make the next step-change in the industry? Especially if by then there may not be a 30 year window to pay for it. They're not going anywhere soon, so maybe it won't happen until the back end of my life. But I imagine people thinking with nostalgia about companies like Boeing and watching movies on 12 hour flights that were only intermediate legs, in the same way we talk about car brands and childhood experiences - bucket seats, no air-conditioning, driving down the highway towards the beach for summer.

arnold_palmur 11y ago
Except that Boeing is also heavily (and increasingly) involved with commercial space as well, e.g. satellite building, launch vehicles and human spaceflight vehicles.
notahacker 11y ago
The struggle to recoup the investment in comparatively minor innovations in the 787 is a pretty good indication of why 2 hour commercial flights to Sydney are likely to remain a pipe dream.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  Yeah, the thing limiting supersonic/hypersonic/etc. passenger travel is not the technology, it's the economics. There just aren't enough passengers willing to pay the extremely high fares to make fast inter-continental service work. Also the precedent of Concorde is not particularly encouraging: building a supersonic airliner required sacrifices of cabin space and comfort which didn't align well with the preferences of the passengers wealthy enough to afford the fare, so given the choice between paying 5x the subsonic fare for quick but cramped, or 2x-3x for subsonic but luxurious, those passengers chose subsonic. The amount of discomfort that seems inevitable for the sub-orbital trajectories (i.e., you get to know what it feels like to be an astronaut during launch, shaking, g-forces and all) that seem unavoidable for fast halfway-around-the-world-in-a-couple-hours service probably would sink it economically as anything but an occasional jaunt for rich tourists who want to say they rode it.
  - lotharbot 11y ago
    An additional issue with supersonic is it doesn't save you time waiting in line at the airport or driving to and from. So the net comparison isn't 3.5 hours vs 7 hours of flight time (Concorde vs 747, New York to London); it's more like 6.5 hours vs 10 hours of total cab + airport + flight time. Either way, you're probably tired from the trip and won't be particularly productive, so why not pay less money for a more comfortable seat in a bigger, slower jet? (While I never flew Concorde, I did babysit one in a museum. There isn't a single seat that isn't cramped -- even in the cockpit.)

arnold_palmur 11y ago

Except that Boeing is also heavily (and increasingly) involved with commercial space as well, e.g. satellite building, launch vehicles and human spaceflight vehicles.

notahacker 11y ago

The struggle to recoup the investment in comparatively minor innovations in the 787 is a pretty good indication of why 2 hour commercial flights to Sydney are likely to remain a pipe dream.

ubernostrum 11y ago
Yeah, the thing limiting supersonic/hypersonic/etc. passenger travel is not the technology, it's the economics. There just aren't enough passengers willing to pay the extremely high fares to make fast inter-continental service work. Also the precedent of Concorde is not particularly encouraging: building a supersonic airliner required sacrifices of cabin space and comfort which didn't align well with the preferences of the passengers wealthy enough to afford the fare, so given the choice between paying 5x the subsonic fare for quick but cramped, or 2x-3x for subsonic but luxurious, those passengers chose subsonic. The amount of discomfort that seems inevitable for the sub-orbital trajectories (i.e., you get to know what it feels like to be an astronaut during launch, shaking, g-forces and all) that seem unavoidable for fast halfway-around-the-world-in-a-couple-hours service probably would sink it economically as anything but an occasional jaunt for rich tourists who want to say they rode it.
- lotharbot 11y ago
  An additional issue with supersonic is it doesn't save you time waiting in line at the airport or driving to and from. So the net comparison isn't 3.5 hours vs 7 hours of flight time (Concorde vs 747, New York to London); it's more like 6.5 hours vs 10 hours of total cab + airport + flight time. Either way, you're probably tired from the trip and won't be particularly productive, so why not pay less money for a more comfortable seat in a bigger, slower jet? (While I never flew Concorde, I did babysit one in a museum. There isn't a single seat that isn't cramped -- even in the cockpit.)