Submitted via IRC for Bytram_
Human guinea pigs prepare for the world's longest direct flight: 20 hours
For decades, travelers have endured jet lag as an unavoidable menace on long journeys. Now, as airlines push for record-breaking nonstop flights halfway around the planet, efforts to counter the debilitating symptoms are turning into a billion-dollar industry.
Fresh insight into the physical and emotional toll of ultra-long-haul travel should emerge this weekend when Qantas Airways Ltd. flies direct from New York to Sydney. No airline has ever completed that route without stopping. At nearly 20 hours, it's set to be the world's longest flight, leaving the U.S. on Friday and landing in Australia on Sunday morning, Aussie time.
This will be more than an endurance exercise. Scientists and medical researchers in the cabin will turn Qantas' new Boeing Co. Dreamliner into a high-altitude laboratory. They'll screen the brains of the pilots for alertness while monitoring the food consumption, sleep and activity of the few dozen passengers. The aim is to see how humans hold up to the ordeal.
The proliferation of super-long flights — Singapore Airlines Ltd. resumed nonstop services to New York last year — is partly driven by the development of lighter, more aerodynamic aircraft that can fly farther.
The physical burden on customers is putting a renewed focus on jet lag and creating a supermarket of products and homemade creations to ease the suffering. In that shopping basket: melatonin tablets, Pfizer Inc.'s antianxiety medication Xanax, and Propeaq light-emitting glasses that claim to get the body back on track. And yes, there's an app for that and many other potential remedies.
The potential customer base is staggering. The International Air Transport Assn. expects some 4.6 billion people to take a flight in 2019, a total that will jump to 8.2 billion in 2037.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday October 19 2019, @07:53AM (7 children)
Because we're trying to cut down on flying in order to reduce our carbon emissions? Have they not heard we're past peak conspicuous consumption of fossil fuels? Or are they just predicting that the whole world's population will nearly double in one generation, and rates of use will remain about constant? Which counters a different memo, of course.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @09:45AM (3 children)
Relax... They already figured out a solution to the problem.
All you need to do is eat the bugs.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday October 19 2019, @09:37PM
What better place to do it than a 20 hours long flight?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @11:18PM
Don't knock lizard person cuisine until you've tried it!
Bugs are still too pricey on this planet though.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Sunday October 20 2019, @12:11AM
Are you sure that 20-hours-record figure is right? I've been on Southwest flights with screaming babies and fat sweaty people in the seats next to me that I'm sure went on for days.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @10:58AM (2 children)
Relax FatPhil. While air travel is more intensive carbon emitter, commuting to work in your gas guzzlers remains, by far, the most wasteful and inefficient method of travel. Modern aircraft burn about 2 liters per 100km per passenger (100mpg for the Trump friends)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Long-haul_flights [wikipedia.org]
Replacing our wasteful gas guzzlers with electrical vehicles and using non-CO2 sources for power generation would go much further than anything on flights. Sure, the waste of salesman travelling around the world is definitely not a good thing but the waste of 100s of millions of people travelling 10-50km in their cars every day is a disgrace driving a significant part of global warming. So, one thing at a time. Deal with the low hanging fruits first. Recognize that CO2 is a problem. Replace the waste in stationary energy users and the ground transportation. We can deal with air transport challenges in their due time instead of throwing everything under the bus.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by theluggage on Saturday October 19 2019, @01:37PM (1 child)
Yeah - classic trick to misrepresent statistics of flying - divide by distance and number of seats, and compare with car mpg! Because your plan B for getting from NY to Sidney was to drive...
So, let's see - 10,000 miles from New York to Sidney. at 100mpg, that's 100 gallons. Make that 200 gallons if you want to come back. C.f. American's automotive gas consumption: 656 gal. [fool.com]
So, for Mr Average American, that's 30% added to your annual gas consumption by a single trip Down Under.
Until recently, I was flying London-San Francisco about twice a year, and its a bit of a shock to realise that, over the last 10 years, I've easily burned twice as much fuel flying than I've put into my car (by contriving to live a couple of miles from work I had very low mileage)... and that was barely enough air miles to qualify for "frequent flyer" status. Anyway, flying is a pretty unpleasant experience after the novelty has worn off. Even when, on what was probably my last flight, I treated myself to a business class upgrade, it was still being stuck in a cramped tin can for 10 hours breathing something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike air, but with a seat that lets you lie flat (but then, so does a coffin...)
NB: I think the proposition here is "cut down on long-distance trips", rather than "next time, drive your car to Australia".
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @11:27PM
This is plan A for me. Spent most of last week removing all the eels from my hovercraft.
(Score: 2) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Saturday October 19 2019, @09:04AM
The haves are not concerned by tiredness, jet lag veinous thrombosis in their private lounge or fully-reclining seats. The have-nots who get packed in flying busses in economy class do. The human guinea pigs belong solely to the latter group.
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Saturday October 19 2019, @09:26AM (3 children)
There is marketing and there is technology.
Traditionally, aeroplanes have had metal construction, which was prone to corrosion and not able to support large windows.
The Dreamliner is apparently carbon fibre construction, eliminating both those problems and permitting much larger windows.
Hence, currently when you flight the air pressure is reduced to (I believe it is 11-12 PSI which is approx 6-8000ft equiv) as the frame cannot take pressur equalization.
Also, as corrosion is a problem, the air is kept at very low humidity making everyone a high-altitude climber!
Forget further - if there were less general physical extertion with a more efficient aircraft , perhaps flying might be cool again...
My $0.02
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @09:53AM (1 child)
Perhaps flying could be 'cool' again if they stopped groping people at the airport
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @11:15AM
Seems to mostly apply to Trumpland
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 20 2019, @02:20PM
> ... air is kept at very low humidity
Here's a new product idea -- personal air humidifiers for long flights. If battery powered, it would have to be pretty efficient, maybe the "mist" type, boiling the water takes too much energy. Simplest version might use a bubbler as used in the O2 line when a hospital patient is given supplemental oxygen through a nasal cannula?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday October 19 2019, @01:01PM (2 children)
I would still rather make that kind of a journey in zeppelin where you have a cabin and can walk around, sit at the picture windows, and enjoy a meal while watching the world slide by below. In fact if I had billions of dollars I'd have a sky cruiser built and never touch the ground again.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Saturday October 19 2019, @09:12PM (1 child)
While the rest of us dig zenite?
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 21 2019, @11:20AM
Get your own zeppelin, hippie. ;-)
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday October 19 2019, @01:30PM
I have actually flown on Qantas from Los Angeles to Sydney and back, on a 747, once, decades ago. Was supposed to be an 18 hour flight with a short stop in Tahiti in the middle of the night. But it was actually 20 hours. It was fun at first, but after the 12 hour mark it gets bad. At first, the sun's position did not seem too out of whack. We were crossing into earlier and earlier time zones, but Tahiti being south of the direct line from L. A. to Sydney, we were also moving quickly from summer in the northern hemisphere to winter in the southern, and so sunset was not too off. In those days, planes didn't have the range to fly that nonstop, but damn was that disappointing to be on the fabled island paradise of Tahiti, and you can't check it out, you're there for only 1 hour at night.
After Tahiti though, having to keep going slowly became torture. The sun is all wrong; day has swapped places with night. We got an extra stop. We're in the middle of the ocean, and suddenly the plane makes a turn to the left. Soon after, the pilot came on to explain that thanks to headwinds, they weren't sure of having enough fuel to reach Sydney, so they were making an emergency stop in New Zealand to refuel. That added two hours to the flight. Arrived in Sydney wanting very badly to sleep in the middle of the day. Jet lag was just something you dealt with on your own, no pills or procedures or anything. After a few days, you adjusted and were okay.
(Score: 2) by corey on Saturday October 19 2019, @08:27PM (2 children)
I wish they would have some designated flights where they utilise specially fitted out aircraft with 4 or 5 rows at the back replaced with a Perspex partition separating it from the rest of the cabin. That segregated area would be for babies and toddlers, with some toys, books, etc and padded walls. Would need to mandate some sort of harness for safety too. I'd say tied to some rails which you can move along on. And a parent of course. Parents would pay extra for the privilege of utilising it and de-energising their kids. I would.
Flights just don't cater for the little ones at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 19 2019, @09:33PM (1 child)
As the father of a 1 year old that's been on a few flights, that doesn't sound too appealing. The international germs on those communal toys sounds like a guaranteed bad week. Also, any sort of mobile harness like that would likely be a strangulation hazard. It would be nice to have a baby friendly lounge, though. Somewhere to take your kid when they are throwing a fit and the seat belt sign is off.
(Score: 2) by corey on Monday October 21 2019, @08:23PM
You must have put you're baby into child care yet. Once you do, they will be sick for 6 months, non stop it seems. Then they build up an immunity. It's good for them but not for you, the parent. There's even this thing called "foot and mouth" which was unknown to me until child care. Good times.