Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday November 16 2016, @09:35AM   Printer-friendly
from the is-that-fast-enough-for-you? dept.

One of the odd aspects of modern air travel is that it's not really getting any faster. Ever since British Airways retired its money-losing supersonic Concorde in 2003, airlines have generally stuck to top speeds of around 615 miles per hour. That'll get you from New York to San Francisco in five or six hours, depending on the winds, but you can't find a plane that will get you there significantly sooner.

We've largely learned to tolerate our slow, boring aircraft. But there's a compelling case that we shouldn't — that air travel should actually be much, much quicker.

Right now there are a host of energetic startups and NASA engineers working on sleek new supersonic jets that could fly twice as fast as today's commercial planes, if not faster. These jets would be major upgrades on the noisy, fuel-squandering Concordes of old, and they could be ready within the decade.

When you talk to people working on these super-fast planes, it's hard not to get swept up in the excitement. Take Blake Scholl, the CEO of Boom, a startup that's working with Virgin Galactic to put a new supersonic business jet into service by the early 2020s. He envisions a day when anyone could cross the Pacific or Atlantic in just a few short hours. "It changes how you think about the world," he tells me.

So what say you, Soylentils? Do the political, environmental, technical and economic challenges standing against these efforts outweigh the benefits of supersonic air travel? Should supersonic flights become common or even ubiquitous?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Wednesday November 16 2016, @12:58PM

    by CoolHand (438) on Wednesday November 16 2016, @12:58PM (#427489) Journal

    Even if you could cross the Atlantic instantly, you would still spend 3 hours getting to the airport and two hours at the checkin, then an hour waiting to board.
    On arrival, you spend two hours clearing customs and immigration, and then two hours trying to find your car in the long stay carpark.

    Where I really see it paying off is trans-Pacific flights, not trans-Atlantic flights. When we traveled to Hawaii from the Midwest, that was a very tiring long journey. If the time spent in airplanes (and layovers on the way) could have been significantly reduced, it would have been most welcome. Of course, since we flew our entire extended family there, I doubt if we'd have ponied up the extra cash. But if we'd had the money, it would have been worth it.. hah

    --
    Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2