When the future was fast

"Just Jeepin'" (macintux) 02/03/2020 at 13:20 • Filed to: Planelopnik

6

28

Interesting look at the airports built (or rebuilt) when it was expected that the Concorde and kin would take over the world.

I didn’t realize how close the Everglades came to being one large asphalt slab (minor exaggeration for effect).

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

promoted by the color red > Just Jeepin' 02/03/2020 at 13:28

6

And to think, it’s the workhorse 747 that outlived the SST, the Concorde, and Pan-Am itself.

N747PA was crashed, repaired, scrapped, and partially rebuilt into an abandoned restaurant before being scrapped for good in 2010: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2010-dec-13-la-fg-korea-plane-demolition-20101213-story.html

ranwhenparked > Just Jeepin' 02/03/2020 at 13:30

2

Howard Hughes proposed building a dedicated supersonic airport in the desert outside Las Vegas, where he felt the mountains would minimize the sonic boom effects, and then linking it to Los Angeles and Las Vegas with high speed train lines. He wanted to build it, and then trade it for McCarran International, which he would convert to a private airport exclusively for Hughes Air West.

The state and county never took him up on the offer, for obvious reasons, and he soon lost interest.

Chariotoflove > Just Jeepin' 02/03/2020 at 13:32

4

Cool post, fun read.

It’s funny how optimistic futurists usually project into the future that society will use the most advanced tech available. The reality seems to be that instead we end up using the best tech that is good enough.

I would like to think that  SSTs will come back when costs come way down, and price with them. But physics and technology being what they are, I don’t see that any time soon.

ranwhenparked > Chariotoflove 02/03/2020 at 13:41

10

Yeah, I wonder how many people in 1969 would have expected that the most common jet airliner in the world in 2020 would be a model that first flew in 1967.

SBA Thanks You For All The Fish > Just Jeepin' 02/03/2020 at 13:43

4

Another irony? All the flaming hoops, billions in “expansion and facilities improvements” and higher airport authority fees-and-taxes to finance getting all the worlds’ big airports ready for the A-380.

The A-380 is a dead program and the carriers are giving it up.  Wish all the airports could “bill back” Airbus for the waste of taxpayer money...

Ash78, voting early and often > Just Jeepin' 02/03/2020 at 14:06

3

They failed to take into account that people would reject rising costs, instead demanding airfares remain stable and that they be allowed to wear pajamas and slippers on planes.

Well that, plus communication improvements. And that hardly anyone really needs to go from NYC-London in 3 hours when 7 hours is just fine (for a small fraction of the price). Or they already have access to a business jet.

Ash78, voting early and often > Chariotoflove 02/03/2020 at 14:09

5

Exactly, it’s all cost/benefit. That’s part of why you hear so much disruption talk these days. Something has to be wildly different to replace the status quo. And when you’re talking about moving physical objects through the atmosphere, you’re always limited by physics.

People often forget how small the Concorde was. People would probably bitch about having half the comfort at 5x the price, then go right back to widebodies. Or fractionally own a business jet...

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

Ash78, voting early and often > ranwhenparked 02/03/2020 at 14:10

4

Yeah, but at least the C-130 and B-52 are long gone!

Wait, what?

someassemblyrequired > Just Jeepin' 02/03/2020 at 14:15

1

It is one large conctrete slab - one runway was built and is still operational - airport also has the super awesome IATA code TNT:

user314 > Just Jeepin' 02/03/2020 at 14:15

4

Aborted history:

ranwhenparked > Ash78, voting early and often 02/03/2020 at 14:15

4

And the Russians have long since replaced Soyuz

Future next gen S2000 owner > Ash78, voting early and often 02/03/2020 at 14:17

1

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

WRXforScience > Just Jeepin' 02/03/2020 at 14:32

0

SpaceX has proposed using their Starship as a point-to-point suborbital transport. It’d be able to carry about 100 people anywhere in the world in 45min or less for the same or less than the comparable business class flight.

LA to Sydney in under an hour or New York to Hong Kong and back fast enough that you could make a lunch meeting and be home in time for dinner.

jimz > Just Jeepin' 02/03/2020 at 14:37

2

Chariotoflove > Ash78, voting early and often 02/03/2020 at 14:38

3

People don’t even really care about comfort, as it turns out. I remember the regulated airline industry from my childhood, when you could expect a hot meal in coach if the flight was around lunch or dinner time, and overall a much more service-oriented mindset.

Turns out that people are willing to put with up with almost no service and fly in military cargo hold like conditions if it will shave a few bucks off their flight and get them there just fast enough. The market has spoken, and it has turned modern airliners into bus lines in the air.

Ash78, voting early and often > Chariotoflove 02/03/2020 at 14:50

1

It’s really sad, IMO. My late grandfather was an attorney and pilot/ aviation fanatic. His last full-time professional job was in the 70s trying to negotiate to KEEP regulations in place. He (and many others) viewed airline travel as like a public utility, so they believed that keeping service in smaller markets would shrink the world and lead to better peace, prosperity, and communication. This was obvious before the internet, but the idea was sound enough. But that was during economic turmoil and the outset of the free-market Reagan era, so we all decided to let the free market take over.

Granted, prices have come way down, but I’m not sure this is what we all had in mind....the market has spoken.

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > WRXforScience 02/03/2020 at 15:28

0

That sounds horrifically inconvenient, inefficient, wasteful, and uncomfortable.

WRXforScience > TheTurbochargedSquirrel 02/03/2020 at 15:54

1

Beats a 20+ hr plane ride. The g-load isn’t particularly high and you’d get a few minutes of weightlessness mid-flight which would be cool. I’d do it just for the experience. Fuel efficiency is better than a plane since most of the time you’re ballistic (basically coasting) with the rocket and there is far less air to move through.

As a bonus, their working on a system to make the rocket fuel onsite from carbon dioxide pulled from the air (they want to use similar systems to refuel on Mars).

Chariotoflove > Ash78, voting early and often 02/03/2020 at 16:19

1

A lot of what was lost is sad, I’ll agree, but I also look and see that the lower prices have allowed more people to fly. That shrinks the world for a larger percentage of people across income levels, and that’s a good thing.

There are some of us who, when we were younger, grabbed the cheapest flight we could possibly find that still included a pressurized cabin, but are now in a position to pay a little bit more for comfort yet  can’t justify business/first class. I remember when you could get seats built around a table so you could face each other . That kind of seating was perfect for a family with little kids . That didn’t survive deregulation.

Ash78, voting early and often > Chariotoflove 02/03/2020 at 16:24

3

All I ask of airlines today — on the whole — is that the price search services quote us a “standard” rate including a checked bag and a seat assignment (if that’s the brand’s historical norm) as a bare minimum. Then they can tempt us to opt out of things later. I just think it’s really disingenuous that everything has to be an upsell. That leaves a bad taste in everyone’s mouth and, IMO, there’s no way it’s helping with repeat business. Southwest is generally doing it right, but even they could let us opt out of checking 2 bags per person....a family of four rarely has a need to check 8 bags.

Oh, yeah...we’ve done it. But only because we could.

Chariotoflove > Ash78, voting early and often 02/03/2020 at 16:27

1

That’s the thing. They make you feel like you’re going into a used car stealership and you can expect them to screw you if you let them. I don’t need that kind of stress level when I’m trying to buy a simple plane ticket.

user314 > WRXforScience 02/03/2020 at 16:52

1

Elon says lots of things, some of which actually come true. I’ll believe it when I see it. 

TheTurbochargedSquirrel > WRXforScience 02/03/2020 at 16:52

1

It’s not a crazy peak g-load but it’s quite the violent vibration for the entire time the engines are running.

And I have a very hard time believing that a rocket launch could possibly be more fuel efficient than a flight. Just look at the difference in the volume of fuel burned. Yes a rocket would coast for the majority of the distance but it requires a fuckoff amount of fuel to get to the speed and altitude required to cover that distance.

Then there’s the need to rebuild a rocket engine after each flight which means that each craft does one flight and then goes down for months. Flight prep also takes weeks to complete and requires massive teams. The logistical overhead is several orders of magnitude larger than a jet.

There’s no way you could ever make a rocket ever economical for transcontinental transport  in any form, let alone appealing compared to a jet.

Highlander-Datsuns are Forever > WRXforScience 02/03/2020 at 17:15

1

But when am I going to be able to get up and pee?

WRXforScience > TheTurbochargedSquirrel 02/03/2020 at 17:59

0

The raptor engines used in S tarship do not need to be rebuilt after each flight and are designed (yet to be tested and proven) to last for hundreds of flights before needing to be rebuilt.

The 100 people was for trips to the Moon or Mars, the point to point trips could be outfitted to carry almost 1000 people. The major cost is fuel and the rocket fuel is actually cheaper than jet fuel.

Acceleration is 2-3g’s for 2-3min on launch and higher but shorter g’s for landing (not counting the aerobraking phase which is close to a freefall). Basically you have a rollercoaster launch (actually tame for most rollercoasters) and a landing that isn’t much more violent than planes are today (similar to takeoff in a jet but with a short but hard ‘braking’ just before touchdown).

I wouldn’t be surprised to see commercial point to point flights before the end of the decade.

WRXforScience > Highlander-Datsuns are Forever 02/03/2020 at 18:01

1

You can’t, you’re strapped in for the duration. If you need to pee, you have to use your ‘astronaut pants’. Also, no in-flight meals or entertainment.

WRXforScience > user314 02/03/2020 at 18:04

1

He gets shit done, just not on the original timescales. About the only thing he hasn’t really delivered on was the Boring Project, but the original intent of H yperloop was to let other people build it after he did the engineering (that’s why it was opensource).

At this point, I don’t think it’s prudent to bet against the guy (allowing for 2-3x the initial time frame ).

wafflesnfalafel > Ash78, voting early and often 02/03/2020 at 22:27

0

yeah - I was able to walk through the one retired to the Museum of Flight in Seattle. It reminded me of a tight MD-80 on the inside, but with tiny leather seats.  Kind of the Lambo Countach of aircraft.