Hi Guys,

Will commercial flying ever become obsolete? I am talking about this century in particular where most if not all long haul commercial flights are replaced by other modes of transportation such as Hyperloop.

Thanks

Yes. Sooner than people realize.

doge3322 wrote:

Hi Guys,

Will commercial flying ever become obsolete? I am talking about this century in particular where most if not all long haul commercial flights are replaced by other modes of transportation such as Hyperloop.

Thanks

Cannot see this happening for a myriad of reasons when it comes to hyperloop.

You need infrastructure, but also infrastructure that allows for fast turnaround and way greater flexibility that what has been proposed at current which would mean running more parallel lines, thinking about what happens should there be an issue on one line etc.

And who is going to build this infrastructure? I mean, who is going to build these long distance vacuum tubes? And have we even looked at the price per mile?

Far easier to build high speed rail.

doge3322 wrote:

Will commercial flying ever become obsolete?

Not until someone invents teleportation.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Far easier to build high speed rail.

And even THAT is crazily difficult, in some parts of the world.

Trying to build high-speed rail in the USA for example, makes aviation expansion in the UK seem like child's play.

LAX772LR wrote:

doge3322 wrote:

Will commercial flying ever become obsolete?

Not until someone invents teleportation.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Far easier to build high speed rail.

And even THAT is crazily difficult, in some parts of the world.

Trying to build high-speed rail in the USA for example, makes aviation expansion in the UK seem like child's play.

Seconded - hyperloop is impractical for short/medium distance and will never be built transoceanic due to exorbitant cost and risks during construction.

doge3322 wrote:

Hi Guys,

Will commercial flying ever become obsolete? I am talking about this century in particular where most if not all long haul commercial flights are replaced by other modes of transportation such as Hyperloop.
Thanks

Hyperloop only exists in 3D renders, not in reality.

Similar designs to the hyperloop have existed since the 19th Century but a big reason why nothing has progressed is that the keeping any near vacuum, even with modern technology is very difficult, then trying to do that over hundreds of kilometres is just so mind boggling difficult.

I hate when people talk about this as a viable technology when no system exists and even no practical example also exists (A tube a few hundred metres long is not a practical example)

Pcoder wrote:

doge3322 wrote:

Hi Guys,

Will commercial flying ever become obsolete? I am talking about this century in particular where most if not all long haul commercial flights are replaced by other modes of transportation such as Hyperloop.
Thanks

Hyperloop only exists in 3D renders, not in reality.

Similar designs to the hyperloop have existed since the 19th Century but a big reason why nothing has progressed is that the keeping any near vacuum, even with modern technology is very difficult, then trying to do that over hundreds of kilometres is just so mind boggling difficult.

I hate when people talk about this as a viable technology when no system exists and even no practical example also exists (A tube a few hundred metres long is not a practical example)

It's only Musk fanboys who think it has any kind of feasibility.

"ever" as in ever? Of course, I mean the world and the universe will end, and maybe humanity will cease to be before that, no need for commercial air travel then.

"ever" as in within my life time (~50-60 years). I don't think so, and especially not due to Hyperloop which is just a pipe-dream. I could see short and mid-haul flights disappear to near zero though, replaced by networks of self driving vehicles. But even then isolated places would still rely on air travel. I could potentially see stringent environmental regulations end air-travel if no reliable clean energy source for aircraft is found, but honestly I think it'll be found.

LAX772LR wrote:

doge3322 wrote:

Will commercial flying ever become obsolete?

Not until someone invents teleportation.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Far easier to build high speed rail.

And even THAT is crazily difficult, in some parts of the world.

Trying to build high-speed rail in the USA for example, makes aviation expansion in the UK seem like child's play.

Absolutely! Not to mention that commuter rail is not something that is profitable in most parts of the world. China built a MagLev line and even this is losing money each year. Now imagine taking that, putting it in a vacuum chamber and expecting that it will make financial sense.

Hyperport is another senseless idea too.

Only if legacy carriers and airline alliances fold... But thats not gonna happen even this century...

Once an airplane takes off, it can fly everywhere within its range. A hyperloop can only take the routing built.
High speed trains in Europe will make domestic and short haul flights partially obsolete, but can not replace them completely.

Aviation must adopt to the international climate crisis. This requires a fundamental change in technology, but does not require the replacement of aviation.

TheSonntag wrote:

Once an airplane takes off, it can fly everywhere within its range. A hyperloop can only take the routing built.
High speed trains in Europe will make domestic and short haul flights partially obsolete, but can not replace them completely.

Aviation must adopt to the international climate crisis. This requires a fundamental change in technology, but does not require the replacement of aviation.

All that requires is innovative fuels and engines, unlike the crazy infrastructure required for hyperloop. It takes 10 years in any developed world city to add capacity to a highway - no idea why people think hyperloop will suddenly 'happen'.

EightyFour wrote:

"ever" as in ever? Of course, I mean the world and the universe will end, and maybe humanity will cease to be before that, no need for commercial air travel then.

"ever" as in within my life time (~50-60 years). I don't think so, and especially not due to Hyperloop which is just a pipe-dream. I could see short and mid-haul flights disappear to near zero though, replaced by networks of self driving vehicles. But even then isolated places would still rely on air travel. I could potentially see stringent environmental regulations end air-travel if no reliable clean energy source for aircraft is found, but honestly I think it'll be found.

If flying is going to be replaced, it is not going to be by networks of self driving cars. This would be what some automakers may want, but it will not happen.

A 40 minute flight might be a 6 hour journey by car at the very minimum. People that choose to fly do that because of convenience. As for environmental regulations, you do not need to go far, just look at the European auto sector where rules are made in Brussels bot no one will implement because of what they would mean for jobs at home.

Now imagine this for a two or three hour flight, and how many cars you would need to make it viable.

Aaron747 wrote:

Pcoder wrote:

doge3322 wrote:

Hi Guys,

Will commercial flying ever become obsolete? I am talking about this century in particular where most if not all long haul commercial flights are replaced by other modes of transportation such as Hyperloop.
Thanks

Hyperloop only exists in 3D renders, not in reality.

Similar designs to the hyperloop have existed since the 19th Century but a big reason why nothing has progressed is that the keeping any near vacuum, even with modern technology is very difficult, then trying to do that over hundreds of kilometres is just so mind boggling difficult.

I hate when people talk about this as a viable technology when no system exists and even no practical example also exists (A tube a few hundred metres long is not a practical example)

It's only Musk fanboys who think it has any kind of feasibility.

which is funny considering that Musk isn´t even involved in any meaningful way, nor is any hyperloop design reminiscent of the Whitepaper.... pure money making scam these days. Just check out HyperloopTTs career section for laughs: "As a contributor you will work 10/hrs a week in exchange for stock options in an area that you are passionate about. ".

LAXLHR wrote:

Yes. Sooner than people realize.

Not ever going to happen. It may get quite a bit more expensive to fly, but family and friends are now frequently scattered across the globe. Heck, Saturday i went for cocktails with a friend and we realized we have met up on three continents to far.
Even with business travel going to zero and everyone only vacationing where they can get to by rail, there would still be commercial flying.

best regards
Thomas

LAX772LR wrote:

Not until someone invents teleportation.

When you start looking at teleportation more closely, I don't beleive this will ever become a realistic option for living beings. Say it was invented tomorrow, the first item to be teleported would be something made of a single material, say a wooden block or a piece of china. Further experimentation would yeild different results, but I doubt it would ever be possible to teleport a living thing sucessfully (ie: alive) through even a short distance. You have a human being made of many different substances, including working organs. How would a beating heart survive intact, and beating, were it to be deconstructed, telported and reconstructed? Or flowing blood? Say, way into the future, these obstacles were somehow overcome, would doctors recommend it? Would people be prepared to risk it? There undoubtedly would be many, many health risks. Obviously things would go wrong too, and even the simplest glitch in the system would have horrific consequences.

But it's great for science fiction.

Braybuddy wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Not until someone invents teleportation.

But it's great for science fiction.

Meh, people said the same thing about flight too, for centuries.

...now, kids do it. And increasingly, so do robots.

What (just 120ish years ago) was considered the holy grail of human mechanical achievement-- is now so expectant and commonplace that many people don't even care about or appreciate it.

Assuming that humans survive into the coming millennia, who knows what/how future technologies will manifest.

I fully second the negative opinions shared here on Hyperloop. Sad fact, that the fanboys refuse to see: the idea behind it is decades old and it never came to fruition for good reasons. A Hyperloop-track will always be much more expensive per mile to build, than a conventional railway line. And you give up the flexibility of a conventional rail system, which can be rode by cargo trains and regional trains along high-speed long distance trains, easily sharing tracks when needed. Interoperability is the keyword. And you also give up the flexibility of aircraft to connect any two given airports anywhere in the world by just pointing the plane's nose on the correct heading.

Hyperloop actually accumulates the disadvantages of different existing transportation modes at a higher price. It is not disruptive enough - unlike the railroad, who replaced stage coaches, actually improving transportation capacity not by percents but by factors. Or the aircraft, removing multiple days of seasickness with a few hours of occasional turbulence events. And there is the general problem of MagLev trains, who need complex and expensive tech in their rail to control the levitation and to power the trains (you literally need an electric motor the size of your distance planned to cover). Probably the whole system built in liquid nitrogen cooled superconductors. And with every mile you ad, you ad more of these prohibitive costs, making MagLevs exponentially uneconomical beyond like 20 or 30 miles - where their actual advance (speed) could kick in.

And this is not witchery like back in the days of the early train, when people argued that passengers will suffocate above 20mph just because they had no clue how a human body and a train worked (beside the fact, that even then horse riders already had achieved 20mph without dying...). But instead we have decades of experiences, proving MagLevs are crap. Especially if you want to put them in an evacuated tube. And if we talk about travel needs will decline due to digitalization - why in gods name and all holy should anyone invest a damn nickel in a entirely new infrastructure with limited use in a dwindling business?

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Absolutely! Not to mention that commuter rail is not something that is profitable in most parts of the world.

You mean like airlines themselves? Because barring massive and nearly cyclical bailouts from their host govt's, plus infrastructure they never pay for, they are on exactly the same page.

LAX772LR wrote:

Meh, people said the same thing about flight too, for centuries.

...now, kids do it. And increasingly, so do robots.

What (just 120ish years ago) was considered the holy grail of human mechanical achievement-- is now so expectant and commonplace that many people don't even care about or appreciate it.
.

And this is the problem with this thread. There is no timestamp finish line placed. Will something replace airlines in 10 years? Obviously not.

Will something replace airlines in 40 - 60 years? 797s will have certainly gone the way of rotary phones by then. The mypoics here poo-pooing on things like Hyperloop are spectacularly failing to grasp just how onerously expensive things like air cargo truly are. Yet, they are the first to point out that there are infrastructure costs involved. As though airports, ATC, Air Forces the world over to train pilots & engineers just... dropped out the sky one day?

The next generation of rail will be ferociously expensive to develop. But only aviation fanboys actually believe that is an obstacle. Govt's will fund that for the same reason they always have. Because having anything less will eventually become a tremendous liability. Once someone has the ability to move virtually limitless KGs across the world at five or more thousand MPH, everyone else will be at a disadvantage. At that point, money is no object.

Simply saying "well, derp, it costs too much" will not be an excuse, as the opportunity cost of not building this is far worse.

Responses like the balance of thread are why I am absolutely certain American will be left behind and in the cold on this one.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Absolutely! Not to mention that commuter rail is not something that is profitable in most parts of the world.

You mean like airlines themselves? Because barring massive and nearly cyclical bailouts from their host govt's, plus infrastructure they never pay for, they are on exactly the same page.

LAX772LR wrote:

Meh, people said the same thing about flight too, for centuries.

...now, kids do it. And increasingly, so do robots.

What (just 120ish years ago) was considered the holy grail of human mechanical achievement-- is now so expectant and commonplace that many people don't even care about or appreciate it.
.

And this is the problem with this thread. There is no timestamp finish line placed. Will something replace airlines in 10 years? Obviously not.

Will something replace airlines in 40 - 60 years? 797s will have certainly gone the way of rotary phones by then. The mypoics here poo-pooing on things like Hyperloop are spectacularly failing to grasp just how onerously expensive things like air cargo truly are. Yet, they are the first to point out that there are infrastructure costs involved. As though airports, ATC, Air Forces the world over to train pilots & engineers just... dropped out the sky one day?

The next generation of rail will be ferociously expensive to develop. But only aviation fanboys actually believe that is an obstacle. Govt's will fund that for the same reason they always have. Because having anything less will eventually become a tremendous liability. Once someone has the ability to move virtually limitless KGs across the world at five or more thousand MPH, everyone else will be at a disadvantage. At that point, money is no object.

Simply saying "well, derp, it costs too much" will not be an excuse, as the opportunity cost of not building this is far worse.

Responses like the balance of thread are why I am absolutely certain American will be left behind and in the cold on this one.

Many good points. But as the infrastructure (airports, ATC etc) is already there. Wouldn't it be more economically viable to put the money into non fossil fuel solutions for airplanes instead. At least for medium- and long haul routes.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Will something replace airlines in 10 years? Obviously not. Will something replace airlines in 40 - 60 years? 797s will have certainly gone the way of rotary phones by then.

Sure, this is a pessimists view; but we may see the first 797 at line introduction in 4 decades, after years of delays and cost overruns...

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

The mypoics here poo-pooing on things like Hyperloop are spectacularly failing to grasp just how onerously expensive things like air cargo truly are. Yet, they are the first to point out that there are infrastructure costs involved. As though airports, ATC, Air Forces the world over to train pilots & engineers just... dropped out the sky one day?

The next generation of rail will be ferociously expensive to develop. But only aviation fanboys actually believe that is an obstacle. Govt's will fund that for the same reason they always have. Because having anything less will eventually become a tremendous liability. Once someone has the ability to move virtually limitless KGs across the world at five or more thousand MPH, everyone else will be at a disadvantage. At that point, money is no object.

I oppose this statement: at some point, money will definitively be an object. To make such lines viable, you need a certain demand (this applies to every kind of transportation, especially mass transportation). And at the expected costs of such a system, the needed demand to make this system a useful form of transportation is so high, that you will barely find more than maybe a dozen city pairs where it could work out. Worldwide! Unfortunately, most of those cities with such demand are too close together to justify thousands of mph, not even counting-in energy consumption and acceleration forces. These factors will create some isolated lines instead of a network and will send down this technology the same drain, all isolated, incompatible rail technologies went. Be it Transrapid ("in deep freeze" as per Siemens Transportation, read dead), the french "Aerotrain" (dead for decades) or countless trials of monorail systems (most live a sad life as amusement park rides, not actual transportation). Heck, even the "only" 600 km/h fast Japanese MagLev will be remarkable useless outside super traffic-heavy routes like Tokyo-Osaka.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Simply saying "well, derp, it costs too much" will not be an excuse, as the opportunity cost of not building this is far worse.

It's not the cost itself, it's the cost per potential passenger. On shorter, high demand lines, conventional trains are much more cost effective. And much more flexible on top of that. So go figure what the beancounters will prefer. On longer distances where the speed advantage really kicks in, demand per city pair becomes simply too low to justify the infrastructure, so aircraft are more suitable for that job. Yes, air transport is expensive too, but at least airways don't produce costs for the time you don't use it. Conventional trains and aircraft are already working in overlapping areas today, while MagLev's (tubed or not) have only a small "habitation zone" in between and it is more than questionable if it is worth the money and time we need to throw on them. If you want to go thousands of MPH and travel from London to Sydney in under two hours, you will need to take a ride on SpaceX's Starship. Same frame conditions, still the better and way cheaper solution than building a manned railgun. That's not myopia but rather focusing on the crucials.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Absolutely! Not to mention that commuter rail is not something that is profitable in most parts of the world.

You mean like airlines themselves? Because barring massive and nearly cyclical bailouts from their host govt's, plus infrastructure they never pay for, they are on exactly the same page.

LAX772LR wrote:

Meh, people said the same thing about flight too, for centuries.

...now, kids do it. And increasingly, so do robots.

What (just 120ish years ago) was considered the holy grail of human mechanical achievement-- is now so expectant and commonplace that many people don't even care about or appreciate it.
.

And this is the problem with this thread. There is no timestamp finish line placed. Will something replace airlines in 10 years? Obviously not.

Will something replace airlines in 40 - 60 years? 797s will have certainly gone the way of rotary phones by then. The mypoics here poo-pooing on things like Hyperloop are spectacularly failing to grasp just how onerously expensive things like air cargo truly are. Yet, they are the first to point out that there are infrastructure costs involved. As though airports, ATC, Air Forces the world over to train pilots & engineers just... dropped out the sky one day?

The next generation of rail will be ferociously expensive to develop. But only aviation fanboys actually believe that is an obstacle. Govt's will fund that for the same reason they always have. Because having anything less will eventually become a tremendous liability. Once someone has the ability to move virtually limitless KGs across the world at five or more thousand MPH, everyone else will be at a disadvantage. At that point, money is no object.

Simply saying "well, derp, it costs too much" will not be an excuse, as the opportunity cost of not building this is far worse.

Responses like the balance of thread are why I am absolutely certain American will be left behind and in the cold on this one.

OK, just one practical question...if I may: what do you propose to do about, I dunno, the mid-Atlantic ridge?



Based on this NatGeo bathymetry depiction, any risk manager can foresee all kinds of potential construction and operational issues. Or do you plan to avoid the seismic/rift valley stuff and run from the eastern US north to Baffin Island, and connect all the continental shelves from Greenland to North Sea?

Pretty confident airlines will continue to be the best solution for the next 40 years. Maybe they will burn e- fuels manufactured by a sustainable process.

It is just daunting to move millions of people such large distances every day using any other configuration. Airlines already have a correct solution.

Aaron747 wrote:

OK, just one practical question...if I may: what do you propose to do about, I dunno, the mid-Atlantic ridge?



Based on this NatGeo bathymetry depiction, any risk manager can foresee all kinds of potential construction and operational issues. Or do you plan to avoid the seismic/rift valley stuff and run from the eastern US north to Baffin Island, and connect all the continental shelves from Greenland to North Sea?

Even absent the mid-Atlantic ridge, there would be the challenge of maintaining a metal tube at near-vacuum at an average depth of ~3,000 m -- which translates to a pressure of 100 atmospheres. In the event of a vehicle/electrical failure, how do you keep the occupants warm enough to survive for long enough to mount a rescue from a couple thousand miles away?

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

The next generation of rail will be ferociously expensive to develop. But only aviation fanboys actually believe that is an obstacle. Govt's will fund that for the same reason they always have. Because having anything less will eventually become a tremendous liability. Once someone has the ability to , everyone else will be at a disadvantage. At that point, money is no object.

Simply saying "well, derp, it costs too much" will not be an excuse, as the opportunity cost of not building this is far worse.

Responses like the balance of thread are why I am absolutely certain American will be left behind and in the cold on this one.

While governments certainly have the ability to print money to fund boondoggles like this, they do run the risk of eroding public confidence in their fiat currency. And nothing you have stated wishes into being a technology which can "move virtually limitless KGs across the world at five or more thousand MPH." There are still limitations of physics, geography, politics, economics, etc.

Nice troll thread. HSR cheaper? LOL

jeffrey0032j wrote:

DL717 wrote:

Nice troll thread. HSR cheaper? LOL

Pure HSR is expensive, however, if one were to follow the Europeans by building main (normal rail) lines with higher speed limits, using high speed conventional electric locomotives, it can be a viable business as the European rail companies have shown.

Ignores the size of Europe relative to the US and scope of such a system.

LAX772LR wrote:

Meh, people said the same thing about flight too, for centuries.

...now, kids do it. And increasingly, so do robots.

What (just 120ish years ago) was considered the holy grail of human mechanical achievement-- is now so expectant and commonplace that many people don't even care about or appreciate it.

Assuming that humans survive into the coming millennia, who knows what/how future technologies will manifest.

Yeah, I can see people queueing up to be teleported to the other side of the world after the first person to do so ends up as a pile of sludge on the other end. Anything invasive with your body does not come without risk, do you really think the possibility of dismantling, transporting and reassembling billions of atoms correctly is even remotely possible, or in any way desirable? And, of course, how do you transport memory? Will you arrive at your destination with no knowlege of who you are or why you're there?

The travel insurance companies would just love this! While the travelling may be instantaneous, how much will the premium for teleportation be? And how would you be fixed for normal health cover?

Not going to happen for humans, ever.

Braybuddy wrote:

do you really think the possibility of dismantling, transporting and reassembling billions of atoms correctly is even remotely possible,

I don't know, and --this may come as a shock-- neither do you. At all.

By what laughable arrogance do you believe that you, whoever you are, have the wherewithal to predict the end capability of what human technology can/will/could feasibly accomplish, centuries and millennia into the future? You don't.

So what's with the declarative proclamations.

Braybuddy wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Meh, people said the same thing about flight too, for centuries.

...now, kids do it. And increasingly, so do robots.

What (just 120ish years ago) was considered the holy grail of human mechanical achievement-- is now so expectant and commonplace that many people don't even care about or appreciate it.

Assuming that humans survive into the coming millennia, who knows what/how future technologies will manifest.

Yeah, I can see people queueing up to be teleported to the other side of the world after the first person to do so ends up as a pile of sludge on the other end. Anything invasive with your body does not come without risk, do you really think the possibility of dismantling, transporting and reassembling billions of atoms correctly is even remotely possible, or in any way desirable? And, of course, how do you transport memory? Will you arrive at your destination with no knowlege of who you are or why you're there?

The travel insurance companies would just love this! While the travelling may be instantaneous, how much will the premium for teleportation be? And how would you be fixed for normal health cover?

Not going to happen for humans, ever.

Are you a time traveler?

doge3322 wrote:

Hi Guys,

Will commercial flying ever become obsolete? I am talking about this century in particular where most if not all long haul commercial flights are replaced by other modes of transportation such as Hyperloop.

Thanks

At best, within the next century, the only thing in commercial air travel I see becoming obsolete is short haul/domestic air travel. That's the only thing that can feasibly be replaced by more high speed rail or hypoerloop concepts. International long haul trans-oceanic travel will still need commercial aircraft options, at least until human society manages to crumble apart, which we seem to be on pace for. That wouldn't be air travel going obsolete, but humanity itself just crumbling apart under our own stupidity.

That relies on a broad definition of air travel though. If you don't consider things like trans-atmospheric or ballistic intercontinental travel as commercial flying, then maybe yes, but we aren't really close to any of that yet.

At the moment, I'm more concerned about humanity holding it together to make it to the next century.

The equation isn't that difficult. You can make carbon free (or let's say very low carbon) jet fuel from renewable electricity. The problem is cost. Scale helps a lot there, so at first it would probably be something like 10 times the price of fossil jet fuel. High, but would it kill commercial aviation ? Not entirely. And the idea is to blend the two at first, so you can scale up over some years. Some estimates put the possible cost once scaled up at around 2-3 times fossil sourced jet fuel. Commercial aviation can definitely work with that.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

You mean like airlines themselves? Because barring massive and nearly cyclical bailouts from their host govt's, plus infrastructure they never pay for, they are on exactly the same page.

Airlines have had huge bailouts in 2001 and in the present COVID environment. Things like commuter rail are getting bailed out year after year because there are routes where there isn't enough traffic and no option to down gauge.
Those routes are a money pit and the solution is to build another form of infrastructure, that will be more costly to build, more costly to operate, and that is actually unproven.

Politicians like wasting money, but even they have not been that stupid when it comes to solutions like monorail or tubed rail solutions.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

And this is the problem with this thread. There is no timestamp finish line placed. Will something replace airlines in 10 years? Obviously not.

Will something replace airlines in 40 - 60 years? 797s will have certainly gone the way of rotary phones by then. The mypoics here poo-pooing on things like Hyperloop are spectacularly failing to grasp just how onerously expensive things like air cargo truly are. Yet, they are the first to point out that there are infrastructure costs involved. As though airports, ATC, Air Forces the world over to train pilots & engineers just... dropped out the sky one day?

The next generation of rail will be ferociously expensive to develop. But only aviation fanboys actually believe that is an obstacle. Govt's will fund that for the same reason they always have. Because having anything less will eventually become a tremendous liability. Once someone has the ability to move virtually limitless KGs across the world at five or more thousand MPH, everyone else will be at a disadvantage. At that point, money is no object.

Simply saying "well, derp, it costs too much" will not be an excuse, as the opportunity cost of not building this is far worse.

Responses like the balance of thread are why I am absolutely certain American will be left behind and in the cold on this one.

You need to build something that has the ability to scale and something that meets the demands of the consumer.

How are you going to build something that can travel that fast, and where are you going to build it? What is the fail safe when something goes wrong?

Aviation and shipping are here because they meet what the market currently demands. Anything that is time sensitive or perishable goes via air freight and people pay a premium to get these on time. Anything that is not time sensitive like clothing or some electronics will go via ship and eventually via rail or trucks, whichever makes sense for the end consumer.

From my point of view it is very complicated for this to happen since these flights are one of the most demanded among upper middle class people.

emilun wrote:

Wouldn't it be more economically viable to put the money into non fossil fuel solutions for airplanes instead. At least for medium- and long haul routes.

Why do you have to do only one thing? This is not an either/or, to be clear.

Though, commercial aviation has reached the upper limits of available efficiency. It is logical to see that the remaining leaps will be in the short-haul sectors, where battery advancements are more practical and likely. But that still only leaves an aviation sector complementary —not competitive— with a globalized Loop/HSR.

LucaDiMontanari wrote:

Sure, this is a pessimists view; but we may see the first 797 at line introduction in 4 decades, after years of delays and cost overruns...

Not out of the question...

LucaDiMontanari wrote:

I oppose this statement: at some point, money will definitively be an object. To make such lines viable, you need a certain demand (this applies to every kind of transportation, especially mass transportation). And at the expected costs of such a system, the needed demand to make this system a useful form of transportation is so high, that you will barely find more than maybe a dozen city pairs where it could work out. Worldwide! ... ... Be it Transrapid ("in deep freeze" as per Siemens Transportation, read dead), the french "Aerotrain" (dead for decades) or countless trials of monorail systems (most live a sad life as amusement park rides, not actual transportation). Heck, even the "only" 600 km/h fast Japanese MagLev will be remarkable useless outside super traffic-heavy routes like Tokyo-Osaka.

Makes the assumption that high cost is actually a deterrent at all.

The high cost involved discourages one-offs in the fashion you have mentioned. But it does virtually nothing to stop a much larger, fully integrated platform. This has actually been done before —the US' Interstate Highway System— and is now in-work now with China's BRI. Though the costs of these are not similar to a global Hyperloop Network, they are completely analogous, and more so still given the effort and timescales involved.

A freeway going from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City makes no sense if it is not connected to the same network as one from Boston to Bangor. These would be expensive duff projects on their own, but part of a much broader network, they are indispensable.

Though it is trying —awkwardly— commercial aviation resembles the former, as even with alliances, it is a largely fragmented and localized business. You simply would not build a Loop/HSR network that way.

LucaDiMontanari wrote:

Unfortunately, most of those cities with such demand are too close together to justify thousands of mph, not even counting-in energy consumption and acceleration forces. These factors will create some isolated lines instead of a network and will send down this technology the same drain, all isolated, incompatible rail technologies went.

Thousands of MPH/KPH refers to capability. If the city pair is too short, like most methods of transportation not involving orbital mechanics, you would have the ability to adjust speed accordingly.

Why do you believe that will lead to fragmentation? It certainly does nothing to favor that. I referred to it above, and we can get into it if you like, but developing a Loop/HSR would almost certainly be along the lines of what the BRI is. Not a single item, but several.

Commercial aviation is vulnerable to not being part of that future because the only efficiencies left to be gained involve slowing down. This is fine for the time being. But it will not be long before that eventually becomes a competitive and logistical disadvantage.

LucaDiMontanari wrote:

It's not the cost itself, it's the cost per potential passenger. On shorter, high demand lines, conventional trains are much more cost effective. And much more flexible on top of that. So go figure what the beancounters will prefer. On longer distances where the speed advantage really kicks in, demand per city pair becomes simply too low to justify the infrastructure, so aircraft are more suitable for that job.

Again, we make the assumption that PAX are the only part of this. A Loop/HSR would be as disruptive to current shipping methods over land and sea as it would be for aviation. In this moment, freight rail makes more money than passenger rail and aviation combined. At least initially, adding PAX to a Loop/HSR network would be complementary, but not essential to its existence. However, from the consumer end of it, it would not be long before the value of this outstrips what airlines are willing or able to offer.

Locally, there is nothing barring conventional rail from remaining a huge part of this, no. Shorter range aviation may even remain a part of that, although it is doubtful it would maintain the enplanement numbers of today in such a world.

LucaDiMontanari wrote:

Yes, air transport is expensive too, but at least airways don't produce costs for the time you don't use it. Conventional trains and aircraft are already working in overlapping areas today, while MagLev's (tubed or not) have only a small "habitation zone" in between and it is more than questionable if it is worth the money and time we need to throw on them. If you want to go thousands of MPH and travel from London to Sydney in under two hours, you will need to take a ride on SpaceX's Starship. Same frame conditions, still the better and way cheaper solution than building a manned railgun. That's not myopia but rather focusing on the crucials.

No. Aviation absolutely produces tons of cost when not in use. The fact that airlines and PAX do not pay for a sizable portion does not mean it is not there. For the costs they do pay, no, it would in no way be competitive with a Loop/HSR network, were one to suddenly appear. Maintenance, Labor & Fuel costs are fairly staggering per mile given the relatively low volume of freight shipped and PAX moved.

The cost objections to Loop/HSR come from infrastructure development. That is very real. But a per mile operational cost does not favor traditional airlines.

In any case, the myopia comes from people's not understanding that developing a Loop/HSR network is a much more of a royal marriage than a one night stand. This would be a project spanning the better part of a century —at a minimum— from start to finish, and is closer in scale and scope to things like Sky Elevators and Orbital Rings than whatever the next Boeing offering is.

Which is why when the question "Will Commercial Aviation Ever Become Obsolete," the answer is an enthusiastic yes. And likely sooner than we think.

If you want to go thousands of MPH and travel from London to Sydney in under two hours, you will need to take a ride on SpaceX's Starship.

I would like to take a ride on that as much as anybody. But it is something of a misconception to suggest that SpaceX will use that for this. Setting aside the horrifying environmental disaster that a daily rocket service would entail, rockets really tend to make terribly inefficient transport. In fact, in this moment, we only use them because they are the only option for lofting things into orbit or beyond.

As for Starship, this is a heavy lift vehicle designed with trans-Martian injections in mind much more than orbital purposes. Suborbital would be right out. Using one for SYD-LHR would be analogous to starting a regional airline composed entirely of 35 year old 747-200s. Only much worse.

Somewhat ironically, one very real probability of viability where Loop/HSR is concerned would be a sister network of Launch Loops. Again, we can cover this more if you like, but this reply is already fairly long.

Aaron747 wrote:

OK, just one practical question...if I may: what do you propose to do about, I dunno, the mid-Atlantic ridge?

I do not know. That would have to be handled by people more familiar with those dynamics. A very well educated guess, however, would tell me that it would not look terribly different to various communications lines already in use along the Atlantic Floor.

Worthy of note is the fact that a Vacuum Loop does not have to be fully rigid through its entire span. Or even mounted below ground. I would guess that as Carbon Nanotubes mature and become a viable method of construction over the next few decades, that will play into it. This and graphene will likely be as much of a game changer here —in doubtlessly in several other infrastructural arenas— as turbine power and pressurization were to aviation.

Aaron747 wrote:

Or do you plan to avoid the seismic/rift valley stuff and run from the eastern US north to Baffin Island, and connect all the continental shelves from Greenland to North Sea?

This is also not a wrong answer. That would likely entail a speed penalty, both for distance and velocity, but would handily outclass LR/ULR flying.

amstone17 wrote:

At best, within the next century, the only thing in commercial air travel I see becoming obsolete is short haul/domestic air travel. That's the only thing that can feasibly be replaced by more high speed rail or hypoerloop concepts.

If anything, it would be the opposite. A short ranged, battery powered AC can still find work in a Loop/HSR dominated world for things like intra-Alaska flying or to locations too remote for even conventional rail or road to justify.

How would a ULR AC compete with something going ten times as fast and carrying 40 times the payload? I ask that because even now, ULR only do well marketed city pairs as it is, and those will likely be connected by other methods over the next century...

amstone17 wrote:

At the moment, I'm more concerned about humanity holding it together to make it to the next century.

People had the same concerns after the Battle of Grunwald. We will still be here.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Politicians like wasting money,

Do you actually know any?

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

Aviation and shipping are here because they meet what the market currently demands. Anything that is time sensitive or perishable goes via air freight and people pay a premium to get these on time. Anything that is not time sensitive like clothing or some electronics will go via ship and eventually via rail or trucks, whichever makes sense for the end consumer.

Currently demands. Not applicable to anything along this timescale.

Building a Loop/HSR does not only address a market concern. It shapes and creates future markets and improves quality of life in ways that will likely be difficult to see for most people today. A person from 1947 had no need for an electrical computer. You, here and now, cannot live without it. But the person from 1947 would have said the same things you are here about that.

LAX772LR wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

do you really think the possibility of dismantling, transporting and reassembling billions of atoms correctly is even remotely possible,

I don't know, and --this may come as a shock-- neither do you. At all.

By what laughable arrogance do you believe that you, whoever you are, have the wherewithal to predict the end capability of what human technology can/will/could feasibly accomplish, centuries and millennia into the future? You don't.

So what's with the declarative proclamations.

I can forgive that. The problem with teleportation is not technical. Although, yes the hell it is.

But the real question we should be asking about that one is "Do we even want that?" There are far more disadvantages to a teleportation capable society than benefits. Even if we could somehow develop that, the lengths we would have to go to keep that out of the wrong hands —which are virtually everyone's— are probably more difficult than developing same.

ScottB wrote:

Even absent the mid-Atlantic ridge, there would be the challenge of maintaining a metal tube at near-vacuum at an average depth of ~3,000 m -- which translates to a pressure of 100 atmospheres. In the event of a vehicle/electrical failure, how do you keep the occupants warm enough to survive for long enough to mount a rescue from a couple thousand miles away?

How do you rescue occupants from Boeing's next design shortcut?

As it pertains here, speaking broadly, I would ask back why is it we are assuming such a tunnel would be a single passage? There is no reason to design such a thing with anything less than ETOPS redundancy standards. Here, that would mean having solid rescue options baked into the overall design, such as multiple passageway tunnels, a redundancy policy of trains/carriages never being further than so far from each other, rigorous fire protection standards and protocols, etc...

Feel free to think of more. But the theme there is that creating a system that is at least safer than commercial aviation is not insurmountable or even difficult. Just costly. And on that note, it is worth remembering that most of the safety advances in aviation came from regulatory agencies forcing airlines and OEMs to stop cutting corners rather than real technical obstacles.

LAX772LR wrote:

Braybuddy wrote:

do you really think the possibility of dismantling, transporting and reassembling billions of atoms correctly is even remotely possible,

I don't know, and --this may come as a shock-- neither do you. At all.

By what laughable arrogance do you believe that you, whoever you are, have the wherewithal to predict the end capability of what human technology can/will/could feasibly accomplish, centuries and millennia into the future? You don't.

So what's with the declarative proclamations.

Relax, that last sentence was just for emphasis. I know things are invented all the time which were previously never thought possible. I'm coming at this from the human angle. There are just too many imponderables (I believe) to ever make human teleportation practical, desirable or realistic, and I'm coming mainly from a health, rather than a technoligcal angle.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/scien ... tation.htm

Aaron747 wrote:

Are you a time traveler?

See above.

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Do you actually know any?

Currently demands. Not applicable to anything along this timescale.

Building a Loop/HSR does not only address a market concern. It shapes and creates future markets and improves quality of life in ways that will likely be difficult to see for most people today. A person from 1947 had no need for an electrical computer. You, here and now, cannot live without it. But the person from 1947 would have said the same things you are here about that.

1. Do I know any politicians? Personally? No, but I have a relative that is a political science professor who deals with the high and mighty. And yes, politicians love spending money, and wasting it.

2. For something to become mainstream, it needs to meet a market need. It is that simple. When I was a young kid, you needed to go to the library, know how books were arranged in the library, carry a bulky book around. When I got to campus, you needed to go there and needed to get stuff sometimes from three or four different books to actually get the information that you needed.

Today, you can get that information at the touch of a button. You needed to have a secretary, a type writer, and today you can do all of that, have a program proof read and print everything yourself. Even then, it took quite some time before computers were fast enough, storage big enough, or cheap enough for people to go on and afford them and the same was the same for mobile phones. It took time for internet infrastructure to get good enough and for economies of scale to be achieved for it to become this thing that is accessible to huge amounts of people. And even then, you have what is a segmented market where even things like computer chips are low binned and this goes into different pricing points to allow consumers to get a solution that meets their wallet.

When it comes to mass transport solutions, especially that which goes through medium or long haul, the world has told us that what it needs is something cost effective and not something so bleeding edge that no one can explain how a return will ever be made. Concorde went the way of the dodo, airlines told Boeing that they did not need the sonic cruiser, passengers decided that traveling slower, and cheaper was more desirable to traveling faster and transporting goods via ship still desired because of the low cost. Trucking is killing rail systems because it is a last mile solution that is very flexible.

China has a MagLev solution that connects Beijing and Shanghai, and even the most populous nation of Earth cannot make it work between two of its largest cities. What is a tubular solution under vacuum going to achieve that has not been achieved yet? How is this even going to be better that trains that can have stacked cargo at volume going cheaper on longer distances, and why would solutions that would struggle to compete on a financial sense even when connecting huge cities with big money need an even more expensive solution to high speed rail?

Consumers like what makes economic sense first and foremost. These are the people you are going to have to cater to, and having a solution that is flexible enough to meet their needs. If I can have a choice between jets leaving at different times and getting from New York to Los Angeles in four hours, why should I use a train that will make multiple stops, whose increased speed may mean that instead of taking close to three days on that journey, I maybe take a day plus and at what will be a higher cost? As a consumer, I would similarly lose all flexibility because there wont be as many trains going this distance.

This at the end of the day is the dilemma faced by these 'solutions' and why their adoption has been so low or why some of them have not made their way city transit systems. If someone can show how we move more people, have flexibility and compete on price while, I am all for it. Thus far, I see nothing that is competitive enough to get rid of current solutions, not even the re-fried beans equivalent of transport systems that have existed for ages.

Trying to compare transportation to a computer is weird. Transportation is simply moving people and goods from A to B. Computing, well, that fixed a lot of issues for companies in a wide spectrum, students and inter-organization thinking. Machine learning which is an offshoot of this is another great innovation. I mean, today we can draw up building or planes in a digital world, feed data to computers have have the calculate complex statistical data in seconds, or give them data and have real time information. The CPU was an innovation, the jet engine was another.

I'd like to point out that while the great ocean liners of yesteryear have faded into obsolescence, passenger ships and boats still carry countless passengers every day, to say nothing of cruise ships.

I don't forsee a future in which passenger flight is wholly eliminated. But perhaps some of the main-trunk transcontinental and transoceanic routes will be replaced by maglev vactrains or whatever it winds up being.

DocLightning wrote:

I'd like to point out that while the great ocean liners of yesteryear have faded into obsolescence, passenger ships and boats still carry countless passengers every day, to say nothing of cruise ships.

I don't forsee a future in which passenger flight is wholly eliminated. But perhaps some of the main-trunk transcontinental and transoceanic routes will be replaced by maglev vactrains or whatever it winds up being.

California High Speed Rail is going to cost at least 100 billion, it is only 380 miles.

Some would have us believe that MagLev, and or MagLev in a vacuum will be viable, not only on land, but that it is going to be viable to drill below the sea floor, sustain this vacuum, in the case of transatlantic trips, a whole 3,000 miles and some, then go from San Fransisco to Tokyo where you are looking at 5,000 miles.

The beauty of it all is that it does not even take into account the fact that we have a benchmark which was the Channel Tunnel/Eurotunnel that took close to 6 years to build and is only 31.5 miles, and the inflation adjusted cost is $16.5 Billion. No one is telling how this thing is going to be funded or how the technical challenges will be solved, and how long it is going to take to link and two cities where there might be demand for this, be it transcontinental or going through the ocean. This project would be vastly more expensive.

It is just that it will be done, cost, science be damned. If you build, they will come, and such stories.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

I'd like to point out that while the great ocean liners of yesteryear have faded into obsolescence, passenger ships and boats still carry countless passengers every day, to say nothing of cruise ships.

I don't forsee a future in which passenger flight is wholly eliminated. But perhaps some of the main-trunk transcontinental and transoceanic routes will be replaced by maglev vactrains or whatever it winds up being.

California High Speed Rail is going to cost at least 100 billion, it is only 380 miles.

Some would have us believe that MagLev, and or MagLev in a vacuum will be viable, not only on land, but that it is going to be viable to drill below the sea floor, sustain this vacuum, in the case of transatlantic trips, a whole 3,000 miles and some, then go from San Fransisco to Tokyo where you are looking at 5,000 miles.

The beauty of it all is that it does not even take into account the fact that we have a benchmark which was the Channel Tunnel/Eurotunnel that took close to 6 years to build and is only 31.5 miles, and the inflation adjusted cost is $16.5 Billion. No one is telling how this thing is going to be funded or how the technical challenges will be solved, and how long it is going to take to link and two cities where there might be demand for this, be it transcontinental or going through the ocean. This project would be vastly more expensive.

It is just that it will be done, cost, science be damned. If you build, they will come, and such stories.

Not to mention the average depth of the English Channel is just 63 meters. Things get quite a bit more complex in the North Atlantic, where it is 3600 meters - partially quoting Captain Davenport.

Aaron747 wrote:

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

I'd like to point out that while the great ocean liners of yesteryear have faded into obsolescence, passenger ships and boats still carry countless passengers every day, to say nothing of cruise ships.

I don't forsee a future in which passenger flight is wholly eliminated. But perhaps some of the main-trunk transcontinental and transoceanic routes will be replaced by maglev vactrains or whatever it winds up being.

California High Speed Rail is going to cost at least 100 billion, it is only 380 miles.

Some would have us believe that MagLev, and or MagLev in a vacuum will be viable, not only on land, but that it is going to be viable to drill below the sea floor, sustain this vacuum, in the case of transatlantic trips, a whole 3,000 miles and some, then go from San Fransisco to Tokyo where you are looking at 5,000 miles.

The beauty of it all is that it does not even take into account the fact that we have a benchmark which was the Channel Tunnel/Eurotunnel that took close to 6 years to build and is only 31.5 miles, and the inflation adjusted cost is $16.5 Billion. No one is telling how this thing is going to be funded or how the technical challenges will be solved, and how long it is going to take to link and two cities where there might be demand for this, be it transcontinental or going through the ocean. This project would be vastly more expensive.

It is just that it will be done, cost, science be damned. If you build, they will come, and such stories.

Not to mention the average depth of the English Channel is just 63 meters. Things get quite a bit more complex in the North Atlantic, where it is 3600 meters - partially quoting Captain Davenport.

You are talking of a project that would cost trillions to just link London and New York, and looking at more than 60 years of work should someone be crazy enough to try this thing. It would be an entire generation of people born and dead before this thing goes from inception to completion, and some think that it is a great idea, and a solution to a problem that not only works, but is way cheaper.

This is no different to the idea where where rocket would be used to transport people between two cities on earth, until you question what the fuel burn is going to be like, and how are they going to build a rocket that can have sustained use similar to jets. Some of these ideas look and sound great up to the point where people start questioning what the cost is going to be and whether or not it all even makes sense.

I am still waiting to see how it is all going to be built, who is going to be stupid enough to fund this, and how it is going to deal with the question of depth or crossing fault lines. If you question this, you are an aviation fanboy, not that you are actually using some common sense.

Commercial airlines gonna be replaced by a flying taxi service. Bringing you fully automated to other parts of the world in supersonic speed. Later also to other planets. At some point it could be free to use. Then it's not commercial anymore.

Gremlinzzzz wrote:

China has a MagLev solution that connects Beijing and Shanghai, and even the most populous nation of Earth cannot make it work between two of its largest cities.

There isn't a maglev between Beijing and Shanghai. Shanghai does have a 29-km maglev line between its city center and Pudong airport, and Beijing has a 9-km low-speed suburban maglev line. I don't know why they're bothering to use maglev on short commuter lines, but the success or failure of those lines doesn't have anything to do with competition against aviation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_maglev_train
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_S1_(Beijing_Subway)

DarkSnowyNight wrote:

Again, we make the assumption that PAX are the only part of this. A Loop/HSR would be as disruptive to current shipping methods over land and sea as it would be for aviation. In this moment, freight rail makes more money than passenger rail and aviation combined. At least initially, adding PAX to a Loop/HSR network would be complementary, but not essential to its existence. However, from the consumer end of it, it would not be long before the value of this outstrips what airlines are willing or able to offer.

Since your post (most of which I agree with) is too long to quote completely, I'll just clip out this paragraph. Also, air cargo as it currently works today is far from optimal. Speed really is its only advantage, as you wouldn't design a cargo system not to handle standard 20-foot shipping containers otherwise. Depending on the amount of freight volume it could handle, a transpacific or transatlantic train line could devastate the ocean shipping business. It would cut up to weeks off the freight journey even if the trains only went 50 miles an hour (1,200 miles/day without any stops) in a non-vacuum, conventional rail setup. A 200-mph (4,800 miles/day) regular maglev or HSR setup would make any container journey take at most days (no more than week), likely cutting into some of the air cargo market. A vacuum-tube maglev kills air freight for all but maybe the furthest inland and hard-to-reach areas.

Here's a 1-hour television documentary about a transatlantic maglev tunnel, which came out years before the Hyperloop was unveiled. The tunnel would be submerged about 150 feet below the top of the ocean, held down (from floating up) by suspension cables attached to the ocean floor, using techniques originally developed for building offshore oil drilling platforms. The train cars would have less capacity than conventional or HSR trains, since the seats would have to swivel to face different directions during the acceleration and deceleration phases.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWcwG6bunL4

Another thing that I feel is overlooked: If the world ever gets serious about carbon capture to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, we could get inundated with carbon fiber. I haven't done the calculations in awhile, but I think the mass quantity could be expressed as multiples of annual global steel production. Transoceanic vacuum tunnels would be an obvious application for this amount of building material.

GWU team demonstrates highly scalable, low-cost process for making carbon nanotube wools directly from CO2 (Green Car Congress, 7/19/2017)

The resulting CNT wool is of length suitable for weaving into carbon composites and textiles and is highly conductive; the calculated cost to produce the CNTs is approximately $660 per ton, compared to the current $100,000+ per ton price range of CNTs. A paper on the work is published in the journal Materials Today Energy.
...
Whereas our previous molten carbonate synthesized CNTs have nanometer-sized diameter and lengths, this CNT wool reaches diameters over 1 mm and length over 1 mm. Hence, the question arises whether this new CNT wool should be classified as a nanomaterial. The physical properties, such as the unusually high electrical conductivity and Raman spectra of these materials demonstrated in the linked Data in Brief paper are that of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, and are due to the morphology as demonstrated by TEM.
...
The team calculated that an area equal to only 4% of the Sahara Desert would be sufficient to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations back to pre-industrial levels in ten years, and that a wind speed of 1 km per hour would be sufficient to deliver that CO2 to those STEP (solar thermal electrochemical process (STEP) CNT plants (earlier post).

Visual Capitalist put out a cool train graphic today (from Visualizing the Fastest Trains in the World):



So at 374 mph/602 kph, the fastest trains are already comparable with some turboprops. 4 of the 8 trains shown are from the PRC, but the diagram missed another Chinese effort that did 620 kilometers per hour at the beginning of this year. It uses a liquid-nitrogen cooled superconducting track, and they're eventually targeting 800 km/hr, which comes close to narrowbody aircraft speeds: China Is Working On A 500 MPH Maglev Train.