5 ms·

That fact that you think air travel fails to qualify as fast or easy shows how spoiled we are and is kind of humorous.

jarek 17y ago
No, I think it does qualify as fast, at least as far as actual travel is concerned (let's not go into on the ground procedures right now). I meant that high speed rail and ships would soon be created and improved if we really didn't have the airspace anymore.
- gaius 17y ago
  I don't think you realize just how fast planes are compared to ships. A decent speed for a ship is 20kts. An airliner routinely makes 500kts. Hours become days and days become weeks. Everyone's world becomes a lot smaller unless you want to spend your entire vacation traveling.
  - jarek 17y ago
    I actually do realize that. (Nitpick: the 747-400, "among the fastest airliners in service", has a cruise speed of 913 km/h or 493 knots, so I'd dispute the "routinely" -- but your point definitely stands.) That's why I made it a point to include the "created and improved". Right now, it's much easier to barrel through low-resistance air. A ship twice or three times as fast as your average passenger ship will still be an inferior choice to an airplane on most (probably not all, but definitely most) routes. There is therefore little incentive to try to improve ships. In most cases, it's just not going to pay. The situation is similar for rail travel on longer routes: there's little money in making the Trans-Siberian go faster. If we can no longer barrel through air, whether worldwide or on a selection of routes (European airports to Keflavík, for instance), suddenly making the ship or the train go twice as fast is much, much more appealing. Return on investment is much better, so investment is going to pick up. The current airplane speeds actually help this argument. Once people are used to trips taking days, not weeks, convincing them to pay premium for something that feeds the speed addiction is easier. I don't know what the technology will be, or how far it will go. It's very likely that it won't go as fast as airplanes. But already, with the limited reward, we have passengers ships that go over 40 knots (HSC Manannan). If I had to guess, catamarans, hovercraft-like, and ekranoplan-like technologies might play a role, but I really don't know where we'll end up. It will undoubtedly be difficult, but engineers don't roll over just because water is more viscous. Similarly, conventional high-speed rail exceeded 300 knots in test runs. There's probably room to go up, but little reward for investment because right now you still have to compete with 400-500 knot airplanes. Once you don't, and people are willing to pay for any extra speed... who knows what will happen. (Can you tell I'm an idealistic engineering student?)
    - gaius 17y ago
      Boeing is quoting speed through the air there. With a tailwind ground speed will be higher - and airlines plot their courses to take advantage of it wherever possible (e.g. the jetstream). That's why I say "routinely". One of the reasons the Dutch are so eager to fly again is they are the world centre of the flower business - but only if they have air freight.
      - jarek 17y ago
        Fair enough.

jarek 17y ago

No, I think it does qualify as fast, at least as far as actual travel is concerned (let's not go into on the ground procedures right now). I meant that high speed rail and ships would soon be created and improved if we really didn't have the airspace anymore.

gaius 17y ago
I don't think you realize just how fast planes are compared to ships. A decent speed for a ship is 20kts. An airliner routinely makes 500kts. Hours become days and days become weeks. Everyone's world becomes a lot smaller unless you want to spend your entire vacation traveling.
- jarek 17y ago
  I actually do realize that. (Nitpick: the 747-400, "among the fastest airliners in service", has a cruise speed of 913 km/h or 493 knots, so I'd dispute the "routinely" -- but your point definitely stands.) That's why I made it a point to include the "created and improved". Right now, it's much easier to barrel through low-resistance air. A ship twice or three times as fast as your average passenger ship will still be an inferior choice to an airplane on most (probably not all, but definitely most) routes. There is therefore little incentive to try to improve ships. In most cases, it's just not going to pay. The situation is similar for rail travel on longer routes: there's little money in making the Trans-Siberian go faster. If we can no longer barrel through air, whether worldwide or on a selection of routes (European airports to Keflavík, for instance), suddenly making the ship or the train go twice as fast is much, much more appealing. Return on investment is much better, so investment is going to pick up. The current airplane speeds actually help this argument. Once people are used to trips taking days, not weeks, convincing them to pay premium for something that feeds the speed addiction is easier. I don't know what the technology will be, or how far it will go. It's very likely that it won't go as fast as airplanes. But already, with the limited reward, we have passengers ships that go over 40 knots (HSC Manannan). If I had to guess, catamarans, hovercraft-like, and ekranoplan-like technologies might play a role, but I really don't know where we'll end up. It will undoubtedly be difficult, but engineers don't roll over just because water is more viscous. Similarly, conventional high-speed rail exceeded 300 knots in test runs. There's probably room to go up, but little reward for investment because right now you still have to compete with 400-500 knot airplanes. Once you don't, and people are willing to pay for any extra speed... who knows what will happen. (Can you tell I'm an idealistic engineering student?)
  - gaius 17y ago
    Boeing is quoting speed through the air there. With a tailwind ground speed will be higher - and airlines plot their courses to take advantage of it wherever possible (e.g. the jetstream). That's why I say "routinely". One of the reasons the Dutch are so eager to fly again is they are the world centre of the flower business - but only if they have air freight.
    - jarek 17y ago
      Fair enough.