4 ms·

I think at this point we have all the technology to replace most air travel with a network of autonomous family-sized aircraft hopping between cities within a f

by mcbits 10y ago

I think at this point we have all the technology to replace most air travel with a network of autonomous family-sized aircraft hopping between cities within a few hundred miles, probably not costing much more than a Greyhound ticket. Then the big security threat shifts from what a hijacker can do with a jet packed full of humans and fuel to what a hacker can do by seizing control of the whole network, but the travel experience itself wouldn't need such invasive screening.

Swizec 10y ago
Errr ... how about no? All my family lives in Europe. I live on the US west coast. "hopping city to city" would turn a 1 day nuissance into an arduous journey. No thanks. I already see my family only once to twice a year. Considering there are multiple flights per day between SFO and Paris and other EU hubs, I think my case is far from being a corner case.
- matthewowen 10y ago
  NB the word "most". By your own admission, you make this journey once or twice a year.
  - Swizec 10y ago
    And if it took any longer, I'd make this journey even less. 302,382 people flew from SFO to Europe in May 2016. That's a lot of people. Almost 5% of the Bay Area population and there are 2 more international airports in the region. [0] [0] http://media.flysfo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/sfo/media/air-traffic/as201605.pdf http://media.flysfo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/sfo/media/air...
    - mcbits 10y ago
      Collectively far more people are flying from San Francisco to Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Portland, and Seattle each month. If they could all show up at the airport 5 minutes early, hop in a tiny drone-jet with 3-4 other passengers and take off, not having to deal with security would be icing on the cake in terms of convenience.
    - matthewowen 10y ago
      I don't think the parent was suggesting that his idea should be the only solution... just that it would be a solution that would work for many use cases (and could exist in combination with larger long haul flights).
jboles 10y ago
Even if you could theoretically reduce airport connection time to zero between flights, a lot of time is spent just getting the aircraft to speed, and slowing down to land (all that gravitational potential energy has to go somewhere, after all). Same principle applies to express trains, and dwell times at stations. The benefit of high speed is lost just decelerating and accelerating from every stop it has to make.
digler999 10y ago
Another tactic that might help would be completely separating checked baggage from passenger flights. I.e. you check your bags the day before and they go on a cargo network. More time for screening, cargo planes are less valuable targets (although they still have been attacked), cargo containers could be armored, and passenger-only planes would be easier to secure since the only way to smuggle something would be on your person or in your body.

by mcbits 10y ago

Swizec 10y ago

Errr ... how about no? All my family lives in Europe. I live on the US west coast. "hopping city to city" would turn a 1 day nuissance into an arduous journey. No thanks. I already see my family only once to twice a year. Considering there are multiple flights per day between SFO and Paris and other EU hubs, I think my case is far from being a corner case.

matthewowen 10y ago
NB the word "most". By your own admission, you make this journey once or twice a year.
- Swizec 10y ago
  And if it took any longer, I'd make this journey even less. 302,382 people flew from SFO to Europe in May 2016. That's a lot of people. Almost 5% of the Bay Area population and there are 2 more international airports in the region. [0] [0] http://media.flysfo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/sfo/media/air-traffic/as201605.pdf http://media.flysfo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/media/sfo/media/air...
  - mcbits 10y ago
    Collectively far more people are flying from San Francisco to Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Portland, and Seattle each month. If they could all show up at the airport 5 minutes early, hop in a tiny drone-jet with 3-4 other passengers and take off, not having to deal with security would be icing on the cake in terms of convenience.
  - matthewowen 10y ago
    I don't think the parent was suggesting that his idea should be the only solution... just that it would be a solution that would work for many use cases (and could exist in combination with larger long haul flights).

jboles 10y ago

Even if you could theoretically reduce airport connection time to zero between flights, a lot of time is spent just getting the aircraft to speed, and slowing down to land (all that gravitational potential energy has to go somewhere, after all). Same principle applies to express trains, and dwell times at stations. The benefit of high speed is lost just decelerating and accelerating from every stop it has to make.

digler999 10y ago

Another tactic that might help would be completely separating checked baggage from passenger flights. I.e. you check your bags the day before and they go on a cargo network. More time for screening, cargo planes are less valuable targets (although they still have been attacked), cargo containers could be armored, and passenger-only planes would be easier to secure since the only way to smuggle something would be on your person or in your body.