Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/space-travelling-passenger-jet-could-make-london-to-new-york-in-two-hours/ar-AAlurf7?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Seems pretty freaking cool. Also since sound can't travel through space (thank you physics classes) there's not going to be any noise pollution concerns while it's up there anyway. I can only imagine the costs for passengers though.

ing clickbait "journalism". Making a pretty CGI picture of a plane is not the same as having a viable concept for a real product.

so 3 hours waiting for the plane, checking in, passing security etc

then a swift wizz into space for a 2 hour trip

and back to earth where they've lost your bag, customs gives you a hard time and you find you've caught some sort of nasty lurgy from all the sick folk stuffed in there with you with no possibility of air exchange with the outside world

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
so 3 hours waiting for the plane, checking in, passing security etc

then a swift wizz into space for a 2 hour trip

and back to earth where they've lost your bag, customs gives you a hard time and you find you've caught some sort of nasty lurgy from all the sick folk stuffed in there with you with no possibility of air exchange with the outside world

No no no no nooo. This is obviously the future now, we have cures for everything and our bags get teleported to the location. Someones being a pessimist

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
so 3 hours waiting for the plane, checking in, passing security etc

then a swift wizz into space for a 2 hour trip

and back to earth where they've lost your bag, customs gives you a hard time and you find you've caught some sort of nasty lurgy from all the sick folk stuffed in there with you with no possibility of air exchange with the outside world

Better than all of that happening but with a 5-6 hour longer flight.


London<->New York in 2 hours is heading into day trip territory.

They're still saying this will happen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL
My Dad was going on about this when he worked at BAE, way back in the 80s. Back when Concorde still flew across the Atlantic.
Once the cost comes down, it might be viable.But while the tech is expensive (not difficult, just expensive), and lots of countries are in financial trouble still after the early Noughties, this is unlikely to happen.

Apart from interesting question which one(this or hyperloop) if either would become feasible first and which is better this would have one advantage I would be happy about:

"A brief trip into space would give passengers a view of the stars and the curvature of the earth and even provide a minute of weightlessness."

Groovy! Would be nice to get good view of stars without(or at least reduced) atmospheric interference and short period of weightlessness could be interesting.

The real question here is why would anyone be in such a hurry to get to Trumpland?

 notprop wrote:
The real question here is why would anyone be in such a hurry to get to Trumpland?

It flies the other way too, quick exit

Man, I used to travel back and forth to London 8-9 times a year for about 15 years. I would have l-o-v-e-d a 2 hour flight.

If Concorde wasn't financially viable, why would this be?

Getting the cost low enough is the trick.
Back then, in the days of corporate excess, it Concorde had a place. For a while.
Now, it is easier to do, but no-one wants to take the leap to make it happen.

 Ketara wrote:
If Concorde wasn't financially viable, why would this be?

Concorde was a gas guzzler and had very low passenger capacity. If they can address those issues, there might be something.

tneva82 wrote:
Apart from interesting question which one(this or hyperloop) if either would become feasible first and which is better this would have one advantage I would be happy about:

"A brief trip into space would give passengers a view of the stars and the curvature of the earth and even provide a minute of weightlessness."

Groovy! Would be nice to get good view of stars without(or at least reduced) atmospheric interference and short period of weightlessness could be interesting.

You know what else gives you a short period of weightlessness? The Vomit Comet.

I do not want to be on a flight with a load of people who have not undergone prep to get used to the feeling of weightlessness.

Won't someone think of the children...er carbon footprint!

tneva82 wrote:
Apart from interesting question which one(this or hyperloop) if either would become feasible first and which is better this would have one advantage I would be happy about:

"A brief trip into space would give passengers a view of the stars and the curvature of the earth and even provide a minute of weightlessness."

Groovy! Would be nice to get good view of stars without(or at least reduced) atmospheric interference and short period of weightlessness could be interesting.

these things have been on and off the cards for many years. I remember as a child having the "Quest"(?) magazine in the 80's and it was being discussed then.

However you aren't ever likely to see the stars very well. Firstly the Earth will be too bright in the day and they are also likely to have to shield the windows in case you caught a glimpse of the sun and blinded yourself (depending on high they actually went). Also there are much better ways. Go to La Palma and stay half way up the volcano (say a 1000m) to get away from the surface turbulence. You'll see the stars very well then (just don't go up to the top without being invited otherwise there will be a few unhappy astronomers!)

If you want a period of weightlessness just do a sky dive, same thing apart from the sensation of rushing air.

Didn't the Concorde's unviability financially come from the fact that a metric button of safety features would have to be installed to ensure a repeat of the 2000 crash didn't happen?

 Skinnereal wrote:
Getting the cost low enough is the trick.
Back then, in the days of corporate excess, it Concorde had a place. For a while.
Now, it is easier to do, but no-one wants to take the leap to make it happen.

Don't worry, this thing will be really cheap. In fact they'll pay you to travel on it, the greatest luxury imaginable. Because hey, if you're going to count "I drew a pretty picture" as a legitimate business plan and engineering work worthy of a news article then why not make all the promises?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Apart from interesting question which one(this or hyperloop) if either would become feasible first and which is better this would have one advantage I would be happy about:

"A brief trip into space would give passengers a view of the stars and the curvature of the earth and even provide a minute of weightlessness."

Groovy! Would be nice to get good view of stars without(or at least reduced) atmospheric interference and short period of weightlessness could be interesting.

You know what else gives you a short period of weightlessness? The Vomit Comet.

I do not want to be on a flight with a load of people who have not undergone prep to get used to the feeling of weightlessness.

To be fair, the vomit comit goes up and down a dozen times inbetween as well. Its like super seasickness. Not saying there wont be puke but id wager itd be far less

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Apart from interesting question which one(this or hyperloop) if either would become feasible first and which is better this would have one advantage I would be happy about:

"A brief trip into space would give passengers a view of the stars and the curvature of the earth and even provide a minute of weightlessness."

Groovy! Would be nice to get good view of stars without(or at least reduced) atmospheric interference and short period of weightlessness could be interesting.

You know what else gives you a short period of weightlessness? The Vomit Comet.

I do not want to be on a flight with a load of people who have not undergone prep to get used to the feeling of weightlessness.

Just one problem with vomit comet. It's hell of an expensive way to test it out. Not only ticket itself cost thousands of dollars I would also need to pay flight to USA(where I have no intention whatsoever going) and all I would get out of is is brief moment of weightlessness. Pretty sure vomit comit returns where it lift off...

At least with this I would actually get from place A to place B thus saving price of having then go to place B separately. Plus being used to transport people from place A to place B makes sense it would get more users as it's not just for fun but for getting between 2 places so plane ticket itself should be(eventually) cheaper. Economics of scale and all that.

It's like paying lots of money just to get to airplane to see what it's like in airplane that then returns back where it started. Wasted money. But plane that goes to another country meanwhile serves another purpose besides just experiencing plane flight.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Didn't the Concorde's unviability financially come from the fact that a metric button of safety features would have to be installed to ensure a repeat of the 2000 crash didn't happen?

Kind of, it had a low passenger count and drank fuel like I do alcohol. On top of that, it couldn't actually go supersonic over the mainland because the sonic boom used to break things.

And then it blew up, and people were sceptical about its viability. But it wasn't doing brilliantly before that happened.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Didn't the Concorde's unviability financially come from the fact that a metric button of safety features would have to be installed to ensure a repeat of the 2000 crash didn't happen?

It also did not help that the US threw their toys out of the pram when they did not have one and heavily restricted where it could fly.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Didn't the Concorde's unviability financially come from the fact that a metric button of safety features would have to be installed to ensure a repeat of the 2000 crash didn't happen?

It also did not help that the US threw their toys out of the pram when they did not have one and heavily restricted where it could fly.

Please list the countries were supersonic passenger flight is permitted over land. I would especially be interested in the UK and Euro countries.

There were a couple of Air Force jets scrambled over the UK a year or two ago, and they had to wait for special clearance to go supersonic.
So, not here, much.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

You know what else gives you a short period of weightlessness? The Vomit Comet.

I do not want to be on a flight with a load of people who have not undergone prep to get used to the feeling of weightlessness.

Excellent point!

I may be the most handsome man ever, but I'm pretty sure I'd lose my lunch in zero gravity.

However, I'd do it with style and grace!

I would not want to be on a 747 sized space craft full of puking mother fethers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Didn't the Concorde's unviability financially come from the fact that a metric button of safety features would have to be installed to ensure a repeat of the 2000 crash didn't happen?

It also did not help that the US threw their toys out of the pram when they did not have one and heavily restricted where it could fly.

Most countries don't allow it over populated areas. Something about not wanting to break people's windows and gak. That, and scaring old people, small children, and large pygmies.

 Whirlwind wrote:
However you aren't ever likely to see the stars very well. Firstly the Earth will be too bright in the day and they are also likely to have to shield the windows in case you caught a glimpse of the sun and blinded yourself (depending on high they actually went).

Sun issue can be solved. Apart from possibility of them developing shield that protects from blindness without interfering with stars(no such thing now I think but who knows what technology provides in future) there's simple solution. Don't have open window _where sun is_. I mean it's not like sun is going to jump out from unexpected direction...

Have open windows only on one side for example. Either by having open window seats be more expensive or depending on how long they are there they could have one half open, then close those windows, flip plane over and open windows from there.