Why Mars?

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...


You're doing way too much futzing.

One hour of futzing at the departure end, 30 minutes at the arrival end.
Less for domestic flights or if you don't check luggage.

I just spent about 30 hours flying between major cities on opposite sides
of
the planet, futzing not included. If I could cut that down to 1/10 I'd be
very happy indeed (especially since I'm about to turn around and go back,
and KLM hasn't changed the movies yet).

OK, but let's face it - commercial supersonic or hypersonic
transport probably isn't going to be economically viable for
a long time, and that doesn't begin to consider the other issues
that this sort of travel would bring up (noise, effects on the
atmosphere, etc.). The best solution to getting somewhere
really fast likely involves travel outside the atmosphere, but
even then - how many will be able to use this? And why are
we talking about this as though a revitalized space program
would have a NEGATIVE impact on the future of commercial
aerospace?

Bob M.

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...


You're doing way too much futzing.

One hour of futzing at the departure end, 30 minutes at the arrival end.
Less for domestic flights or if you don't check luggage.

I just spent about 30 hours flying between major cities on opposite sides
of
the planet, futzing not included. If I could cut that down to 1/10 I'd be
very happy indeed (especially since I'm about to turn around and go back,
and KLM hasn't changed the movies yet).

OK, but let's face it - commercial supersonic or hypersonic
transport probably isn't going to be economically viable for
a long time, and that doesn't begin to consider the other issues
that this sort of travel would bring up (noise, effects on the
atmosphere, etc.). The best solution to getting somewhere
really fast likely involves travel outside the atmosphere, but
even then - how many will be able to use this? And why are
we talking about this as though a revitalized space program
would have a NEGATIVE impact on the future of commercial
aerospace?

Bob M.

Bob Myers wrote:
"Miguel Cruz" wrote:
You're doing way too much futzing.

One hour of futzing at the departure end, 30 minutes at the arrival end.
Less for domestic flights or if you don't check luggage.

I just spent about 30 hours flying between major cities on opposite sides
of the planet, futzing not included. If I could cut that down to 1/10 I'd
be very happy indeed (especially since I'm about to turn around and go
back, and KLM hasn't changed the movies yet).

OK, but let's face it - commercial supersonic or hypersonic transport
probably isn't going to be economically viable for a long time, and that
doesn't begin to consider the other issues that this sort of travel would
bring up (noise, effects on the atmosphere, etc.). The best solution to
getting somewhere really fast likely involves travel outside the
atmosphere, but even then - how many will be able to use this? And why
are we talking about this as though a revitalized space program would have
a NEGATIVE impact on the future of commercial

Search me. I don't understand the potential impact of developments in space
travel on commercial air carriers. I just jumped in to point out that
there's usually not much need to spend anywhere near as much time in the
airport as some people d.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Bob Myers wrote:
"Miguel Cruz" wrote:
You're doing way too much futzing.

One hour of futzing at the departure end, 30 minutes at the arrival end.
Less for domestic flights or if you don't check luggage.

I just spent about 30 hours flying between major cities on opposite sides
of the planet, futzing not included. If I could cut that down to 1/10 I'd
be very happy indeed (especially since I'm about to turn around and go
back, and KLM hasn't changed the movies yet).

OK, but let's face it - commercial supersonic or hypersonic transport
probably isn't going to be economically viable for a long time, and that
doesn't begin to consider the other issues that this sort of travel would
bring up (noise, effects on the atmosphere, etc.). The best solution to
getting somewhere really fast likely involves travel outside the
atmosphere, but even then - how many will be able to use this? And why
are we talking about this as though a revitalized space program would have
a NEGATIVE impact on the future of commercial

Search me. I don't understand the potential impact of developments in space
travel on commercial air carriers. I just jumped in to point out that
there's usually not much need to spend anywhere near as much time in the
airport as some people d.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

OK, but let's face it - commercial supersonic or hypersonic transport
probably isn't going to be economically viable for a long time, and that
doesn't begin to consider the other issues that this sort of travel would
bring up (noise, effects on the atmosphere, etc.).

The airline that can do London Sydney or New York Hong Kong in 90 minutes, as
well as New York London in 90 minutes will get some demand. Similarly, London
Singapore, London Tokyo will have markets.

Think of it as a glorified Concorde with range and even better speed. I.E. a
concorde without its drawbacks.

Of course, if it gets to suborbital flight with almost 0 G, In-flight service
might become most interesting since the caviar on your tray would float off,
and the champagne's bubbles no longer rising to the top of your glass.

OK, but let's face it - commercial supersonic or hypersonic transport
probably isn't going to be economically viable for a long time, and that
doesn't begin to consider the other issues that this sort of travel would
bring up (noise, effects on the atmosphere, etc.).

The airline that can do London Sydney or New York Hong Kong in 90 minutes, as
well as New York London in 90 minutes will get some demand. Similarly, London
Singapore, London Tokyo will have markets.

Think of it as a glorified Concorde with range and even better speed. I.E. a
concorde without its drawbacks.

Of course, if it gets to suborbital flight with almost 0 G, In-flight service
might become most interesting since the caviar on your tray would float off,
and the champagne's bubbles no longer rising to the top of your glass.

Scott Lowther wrote:
The last effort to achieve such an aircraft was the Boeing Sonic
Cruiser. Much ballyhooed, and quietly swept under the rug and replaced

Sonic cruiser had only a minimal speed increase, with fuel cost much higher.
Not enough to make a real difference in flight.

If they had come out with a concorde replacement capable of doing New York
Hong Kong, then there would have been some interest for a max of 100 planes
worldwide. (not enough to pay for development).

Similarly, the hypersonic/suborbital plane would be extremely popular on a
small set of long haul routes, but wouldn't require a large number of orders
to fill that niche market.

Scott Lowther wrote:
The last effort to achieve such an aircraft was the Boeing Sonic
Cruiser. Much ballyhooed, and quietly swept under the rug and replaced

Sonic cruiser had only a minimal speed increase, with fuel cost much higher.
Not enough to make a real difference in flight.

If they had come out with a concorde replacement capable of doing New York
Hong Kong, then there would have been some interest for a max of 100 planes
worldwide. (not enough to pay for development).

Similarly, the hypersonic/suborbital plane would be extremely popular on a
small set of long haul routes, but wouldn't require a large number of orders
to fill that niche market.

nobody wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

The last effort to achieve such an aircraft was the Boeing Sonic
Cruiser. Much ballyhooed, and quietly swept under the rug and replaced


Sonic cruiser had only a minimal speed increase, with fuel cost much higher.


And fuel consumption goes up roughly with the square of the increase in
speed.

nobody wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

The last effort to achieve such an aircraft was the Boeing Sonic
Cruiser. Much ballyhooed, and quietly swept under the rug and replaced


Sonic cruiser had only a minimal speed increase, with fuel cost much higher.


And fuel consumption goes up roughly with the square of the increase in
speed.