>> 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 li

>> 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.