4 ms·

Without clicking through, I suspect the source (a wealth-worshiping publication) totally elides the economic aspects here. We had commercial supersonic flight i

Without clicking through, I suspect the source (a wealth-worshiping publication) totally elides the economic aspects here. We had commercial supersonic flight in the Concorde, but it just wasn't economically feasible at scale. Turns out, going faster than about 500MPH isn't something most people are willing to pay for. OTOH, (rich) people WILL pay for being more comfortable while it happens, which is the direction commercial aviation has gone for a couple decades now.

rnk 3y ago
Good call on the site. Articles are almost onion level "we drove 8 lambos in one day, here's what we figured out".
alwayslikethis 3y ago
Realistically there are much better ways to speed up the flight experience without actually making planes fly any faster. To name a few: - Accessible, high speed rail connections to the airport - Better throughput with security theater - Faster boarding methods to prioritize speed (back rows first) - Faster luggage claim process and so on. There's a reason why high speed rail is competitive with flights below a fairly long distance. Most people aren't flying this far at current prices, which does not even reflect the full cost of carbon emissions. Flying faster is inevitably less efficient, and when the full cost of energy is reflected on the price tag, this is only going to be less appealing.
- ubermonkey 3y ago
  Sure, but high speed rail from NYT to Tokyo has conceptual problems that I think are unlikely to be solved with airport logistics. :)
- maxxhe 3y ago
  I remember reading this RAND Corp article published maybe 60 years ago about the deep underground highspeed transit system that goes 10K MPH in vacuumed tubes. I guess that was the origin of Musk’s hyperloop but my understanding is such system is actually darkly operational connecting the world for DUMBs?
zamnos 3y ago
The Concorde didn't quite have the range for that, but even if it did, it could never do New York to Tokyo because of the sonic boom that was constantly produced along its route while it was going faster than the speed of sound. The article doesn't mention how these four companies will avoid that issue, but the rules against the Concorde hamstrung its usefulness. That hamstringing meant that the only two airlines flying the Concorde were British Airways (BA) and Air France. After Air France stopped flying theirs, it meant that British Airways was the only carrier flying them, and BA did not want to bear the operational cost of being the only one flying that airframe. If we imagine a different history where there was no sonic boom problem, an American and an Asian carrier could both have picked up the Concorde, and then BA would not have been the only one bearing the cost of operational program, and the Concorde might still be in operation today. A modernized Concorde, using fly-by-wire, and modern electronics and materials would also be cheaper to run. That last detail may be why there's so much interest in super sonic travel again. Because, while quality (aka being comfortable) of the flight, quantity of flight (total time in airplane) is a quality all it's own. New York to Tokyo in 1 hour would be a total game changer and I don't care if there's business-class lie-flat seating. It all depends on the final price though. If it's basically the same price as a current business-class flight (which I'm doubtful it would be), then that's an easy switch. If it costs closer to $10k, then that's going to be a hard sell except for the ultra-wealthy.
- ubermonkey 3y ago
  That's a lot of "ifs", and none of them were very likely, right? The biggest "if" is the sonic boom problem. Postulating a world without booms puts you into science fiction; at that point, you may as well imagine FTL flight. The next idea is the whole NOTION of getting a passenger aircraft to fly at Mach 9 on the regular for something non-billionaires could pay. Serious supersonic airframes have existed for decades, but (a) they're all small; (b) they all require significant maintenance after each effort; and (c) absolutely none of them were capable of Mach 9. Even the Blackbird wasn't nearly that fast. Its record from NY to London (under 2h) was at a speed less than a third of the mach 9 we're talking about here. The Concorde's loaded range was what, about 3500nm? That's not enough to cross the Pacific. You COULD get from LAX to Hawaii, but getting from Hawaii to Tokyo or even Singapore is still a no-go. Passenger supersonic flight of any kind (let alone something 3.5x the speed of the Concorde) is a dead letter unless some serious and groundbreaking advancement in airplane propulsion happens. Nothing we've seen yet in the history of aviation suggests that's possible or practical.

rnk 3y ago

Good call on the site. Articles are almost onion level "we drove 8 lambos in one day, here's what we figured out".

alwayslikethis 3y ago

Realistically there are much better ways to speed up the flight experience without actually making planes fly any faster. To name a few: - Accessible, high speed rail connections to the airport - Better throughput with security theater - Faster boarding methods to prioritize speed (back rows first) - Faster luggage claim process and so on. There's a reason why high speed rail is competitive with flights below a fairly long distance. Most people aren't flying this far at current prices, which does not even reflect the full cost of carbon emissions. Flying faster is inevitably less efficient, and when the full cost of energy is reflected on the price tag, this is only going to be less appealing.

ubermonkey 3y ago
Sure, but high speed rail from NYT to Tokyo has conceptual problems that I think are unlikely to be solved with airport logistics. :)
maxxhe 3y ago
I remember reading this RAND Corp article published maybe 60 years ago about the deep underground highspeed transit system that goes 10K MPH in vacuumed tubes. I guess that was the origin of Musk’s hyperloop but my understanding is such system is actually darkly operational connecting the world for DUMBs?

zamnos 3y ago

The Concorde didn't quite have the range for that, but even if it did, it could never do New York to Tokyo because of the sonic boom that was constantly produced along its route while it was going faster than the speed of sound. The article doesn't mention how these four companies will avoid that issue, but the rules against the Concorde hamstrung its usefulness. That hamstringing meant that the only two airlines flying the Concorde were British Airways (BA) and Air France. After Air France stopped flying theirs, it meant that British Airways was the only carrier flying them, and BA did not want to bear the operational cost of being the only one flying that airframe. If we imagine a different history where there was no sonic boom problem, an American and an Asian carrier could both have picked up the Concorde, and then BA would not have been the only one bearing the cost of operational program, and the Concorde might still be in operation today. A modernized Concorde, using fly-by-wire, and modern electronics and materials would also be cheaper to run. That last detail may be why there's so much interest in super sonic travel again. Because, while quality (aka being comfortable) of the flight, quantity of flight (total time in airplane) is a quality all it's own. New York to Tokyo in 1 hour would be a total game changer and I don't care if there's business-class lie-flat seating. It all depends on the final price though. If it's basically the same price as a current business-class flight (which I'm doubtful it would be), then that's an easy switch. If it costs closer to $10k, then that's going to be a hard sell except for the ultra-wealthy.

ubermonkey 3y ago
That's a lot of "ifs", and none of them were very likely, right? The biggest "if" is the sonic boom problem. Postulating a world without booms puts you into science fiction; at that point, you may as well imagine FTL flight. The next idea is the whole NOTION of getting a passenger aircraft to fly at Mach 9 on the regular for something non-billionaires could pay. Serious supersonic airframes have existed for decades, but (a) they're all small; (b) they all require significant maintenance after each effort; and (c) absolutely none of them were capable of Mach 9. Even the Blackbird wasn't nearly that fast. Its record from NY to London (under 2h) was at a speed less than a third of the mach 9 we're talking about here. The Concorde's loaded range was what, about 3500nm? That's not enough to cross the Pacific. You COULD get from LAX to Hawaii, but getting from Hawaii to Tokyo or even Singapore is still a no-go. Passenger supersonic flight of any kind (let alone something 3.5x the speed of the Concorde) is a dead letter unless some serious and groundbreaking advancement in airplane propulsion happens. Nothing we've seen yet in the history of aviation suggests that's possible or practical.