3 ms·

Meh... you know what I want? I want to be able to go to Tokyo and not have the ticket cost multiple fucking days of work. In 2012, four-digit airfares for coach

Meh... you know what I want? I want to be able to go to Tokyo and not have the ticket cost multiple fucking days of work. In 2012, four-digit airfares for coach are fucking inexcusable. We were supposed to be better than that, 20 years ago. And don't get me started on business class: those tickets are more than some people in the world make in a fucking year. I want travel that doesn't belch a bunch of CO2 into the air, leaving our grandchildren with a world where there are palm trees in Winnipeg and a year-round hurricane season. That's what I care about. If this Mach-5 travel costs the same as airfare currently does, and burns a bunch of fucking hydrocarbons to get there, then I'm not impressed. I'm sure the technology is cool, but would someone please solve the real problem? The real problem is that transportation hasn't improved since the 1960s. In the US, we call exorbitantly-priced, 130-mph trains "high speed", we use airplanes for mid-distance travel and it's ass-expensive as it should be because it makes no economic sense, and most of our transportation relies on burning fossil fuels in tin cans that can't be safely operated above about 90 miles per hour. Solve that one, please.

melling 14y ago
What are you talking about? China has almost 5000 miles of high-speed rail that runs over 150mph. Japan is hard at work on replacing their "slow" 186mph trains with 310mph maglev trains. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/20512131 http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/20512131 Tesla is hard at work selling electric cars and making a profit. Google has a self-driving car that works. People are solving problems. Getting hypersonic jets to work would be great. Now the problem of getting people to adopt any of this in the US? Engineers can't solve those problems. Someday the US will finally get a real high-speed train, but it looks like Japan will have maglevs first.
- michaelochurch 14y ago
  My bitching was largely US-centric. I should have clarified that. However, high airfares are a world-scale problem. My malaise is more general. In the 1950s-60s, the economy was growing at 5-6 percent per year because people actually had the vision to invest in basic research and technology. In this day in age, we have a million IUsedThisToilet.com startups built to be acquired, but very little effort going toward real work.
Osmium 14y ago
The last few flights I've taken, 60% of the ticket price has been taxes. I understand the need for taxation, but that seems a little absurd to me. It'd be a really quick way of slashing ticket prices...
c1u 14y ago
Transportation CO2 emissions make up a tiny fraction of total greenhouse gases. Water vapour is by FAR the biggest greenhouse gas. I wonder if a 787 burns more hydrocarbons flying 250 people from NY to LA than 250 cars driving that distance? Roughly ~9000gal (2500mi 787 @ cruise) is 36gal per car. Assuming everyone gets perfect highway mileage even if they're Prius it wont get them the whole way (50MPG*36gal=1800mi). And that's not considering the energy required to build and maintain 250 Prius cars vs. the cost of one 787. The retail cost alone for 250 Prius is nearly $90M. A 787 is more like $250M, but lasts a least 3x longer than a car. Transportation has improved since the 1960 by a HUGE amount. Modern cars, trains, and airplanes are significantly better (safer, cheaper, more efficient) than those in the 1960s. I'm curious how much travelling you did in the 1960s compared to today?
- lauraura 14y ago
  Transportation CO2 emissions make up a tiny fraction of total greenhouse gases. Water vapour is by FAR the biggest greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, but it's a relatively constant contribution; it's not part of anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases (which is usually what people are referring to in this sort of context).
  - c1u 14y ago
    Good point. I'm not trying to start an off-topic climate change debate, just trying to step back and look at the problem a little more broadly, but there's at least one big error in my calcs as has been pointed out.
- drp 14y ago
  250 * 30,000 = 7,500,000
  - c1u 14y ago
    ah! whoops, one too many zeros (I used $35K) :P
cpleppert 14y ago
>> The real problem is that transportation hasn't improved since the 1960s. Yes it has. Guess what? There are a lot more people and they want to travel just like you, basic supply and demand. Planes are far more advanced then they were back then. >>That's what I care about. If this Mach-5 travel costs the same as airfare currently does, and burns a bunch of fucking hydrocarbons to get there, then I'm not impressed. It will cost more and burn even more hydrocarbons(Of course skylon is an unrealistic satellite launch system and this article makes no sense ). Engineering problems are hard, the development work done in the 1960s is child's play to what is being done now. If things suck so much you should be happy that you will change things for everyone and make a bunch of money in the process. >> In the US, we call exorbitantly-priced, 130-mph trains "high speed" They are exorbitantly priced anywhere. We don't get anywhere close to that over an entire distance because existing and even proposed systems (California) won't be fully high speed lines. That isn't a question of technology just simple budget and priorities. No country in the world has replaced mid-distance travel with high speed rail. France is barely finishing out its high speed network that covers a much smaller country than ours.

melling 14y ago

What are you talking about? China has almost 5000 miles of high-speed rail that runs over 150mph. Japan is hard at work on replacing their "slow" 186mph trains with 310mph maglev trains. http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/20512131 http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/20512131 Tesla is hard at work selling electric cars and making a profit. Google has a self-driving car that works. People are solving problems. Getting hypersonic jets to work would be great. Now the problem of getting people to adopt any of this in the US? Engineers can't solve those problems. Someday the US will finally get a real high-speed train, but it looks like Japan will have maglevs first.

michaelochurch 14y ago
My bitching was largely US-centric. I should have clarified that. However, high airfares are a world-scale problem. My malaise is more general. In the 1950s-60s, the economy was growing at 5-6 percent per year because people actually had the vision to invest in basic research and technology. In this day in age, we have a million IUsedThisToilet.com startups built to be acquired, but very little effort going toward real work.

Osmium 14y ago

The last few flights I've taken, 60% of the ticket price has been taxes. I understand the need for taxation, but that seems a little absurd to me. It'd be a really quick way of slashing ticket prices...

c1u 14y ago

Transportation CO2 emissions make up a tiny fraction of total greenhouse gases. Water vapour is by FAR the biggest greenhouse gas. I wonder if a 787 burns more hydrocarbons flying 250 people from NY to LA than 250 cars driving that distance? Roughly ~9000gal (2500mi 787 @ cruise) is 36gal per car. Assuming everyone gets perfect highway mileage even if they're Prius it wont get them the whole way (50MPG*36gal=1800mi). And that's not considering the energy required to build and maintain 250 Prius cars vs. the cost of one 787. The retail cost alone for 250 Prius is nearly $90M. A 787 is more like $250M, but lasts a least 3x longer than a car. Transportation has improved since the 1960 by a HUGE amount. Modern cars, trains, and airplanes are significantly better (safer, cheaper, more efficient) than those in the 1960s. I'm curious how much travelling you did in the 1960s compared to today?

lauraura 14y ago
Transportation CO2 emissions make up a tiny fraction of total greenhouse gases. Water vapour is by FAR the biggest greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, but it's a relatively constant contribution; it's not part of anthropogenic contributions to greenhouse gases (which is usually what people are referring to in this sort of context).
- c1u 14y ago
  Good point. I'm not trying to start an off-topic climate change debate, just trying to step back and look at the problem a little more broadly, but there's at least one big error in my calcs as has been pointed out.
drp 14y ago
250 * 30,000 = 7,500,000
- c1u 14y ago
  ah! whoops, one too many zeros (I used $35K) :P

cpleppert 14y ago

>> The real problem is that transportation hasn't improved since the 1960s. Yes it has. Guess what? There are a lot more people and they want to travel just like you, basic supply and demand. Planes are far more advanced then they were back then. >>That's what I care about. If this Mach-5 travel costs the same as airfare currently does, and burns a bunch of fucking hydrocarbons to get there, then I'm not impressed. It will cost more and burn even more hydrocarbons(Of course skylon is an unrealistic satellite launch system and this article makes no sense ). Engineering problems are hard, the development work done in the 1960s is child's play to what is being done now. If things suck so much you should be happy that you will change things for everyone and make a bunch of money in the process. >> In the US, we call exorbitantly-priced, 130-mph trains "high speed" They are exorbitantly priced anywhere. We don't get anywhere close to that over an entire distance because existing and even proposed systems (California) won't be fully high speed lines. That isn't a question of technology just simple budget and priorities. No country in the world has replaced mid-distance travel with high speed rail. France is barely finishing out its high speed network that covers a much smaller country than ours.