It’s not socially or economically viable to make tons of advancements in infrastructure just for a new form of transportation. It would cost a heck of a lot of money and time to modify all of our infrastructure just for supersonic travel.
You want to create new forms of travel around our current world, not create a new world around new forms of travel.
3 Likes
What do you guys think?
- The plane will succeed.
- The plane will fail.
0 voters
Eventually technology will advance and most likely we will see supersonic flight. Wehter it’s harmful or not, I think it will succeed because there are people out their willing to make it happen.
1 Like
On the bright side. We maybe able to move to mars faster than we thought!?
I don’t want to tho…
Well, the thing is… if there isn’t much of a demand for it, then it won’t advance very quickly.
I’m not denying that hundreds of years into the future we’ll have and be past supersonic flight, but I don’t think the idea is going to take off heh puns in the modern age.
1 Like
Airlines don’t get as much profit. You can’t just rely on the wealthy people to keep operating a route.
3 Likes
Gulf stream can also extend their G500s and G600s and make them commercial aircraft because they can fly at Mach 0.90 (jk lol)
That’s exactly what airlines do on high yield international routes (ex SFO-SIN), business travelers make up for a vast majority of revenue on those routes because of the high business class fares, and low yield tourists on cheap fares fill in the rest.
Can you provide any evidence of sonic booms doing structural harm that is from the 21st century? Because that study you list as evidence was done in a time where buildings were still somewhat structurally unstable under different conditions. In the 21st century, architecture has become so advanced, we are able to design buildings to withstand even the extremest conditions.
So, if you are able to provide evidence from the last 3 years that says sonic booms from future commercial super-sonic aircraft traveling at cruising altitude are harmful to buildings, I will accept that. But the 1970s?
You haven’t given any evidence to support this.
1 Like
how high up was the plane? From the video, the jet looks to be barely 500 feet up. Because the shockwave of a sonic boom will dissipate if the plane is high enough. I do agree that this is evidence, but can you provide more details on the aircraft?
Supersonic Jets use more fuel (kerosene) per passenger per flight than any other commercial airliners. This means more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are being emmited into the atmosphere, contributing to the climate change (“global warming”) which has catastrophic consequences.
1 Like
More commercial airlines are using clean burning biofuels. Whose to say that super-sonic commercial jets won’t run on the same thing? Here is an article on biofuels in regards to commercial aircraft: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-advanced-biofuels-for-airplanes-ready-for-takeoff/
Yeah no lol Aircraft/humans produce an extremely small percent of the over all Greenhouse gases. It’s not even a full 1%.
You’re changing your argument half way through the arguement.
You said there was no evidence saying that supersonic jets have “harrowing effects on the environment”. I provided a logical evidence of the statement being true (without going into much detail).
Now, I’m not a chemist to tell you if they “could maybe possibly” use less fuel, however the supersonic jets will always require more fuel as they need more fuel in order to break the sound barrier.
Believe it or not, I don’t think humans are sole cause of global warming. I think it’s a natural phenomenon. However, we as humans should try and limit the amount of CO2 we produce, in order to limit the number of “bad” things that can happen - and that 1% could be the starting point.
(The next 1% is putting cow farts (methane) into bags and burning it!)
1 Like
how so?
I’m not saying they will use less fuel. I’m saying super sonic jets can use clean-burning alternative forms of fuel. Did you even read the article I provided?
Completely agree with this I personally also believe the natural theory.
1 Like
Firstly, you added that article after I replied. Don’t play that card, please.
How are you changing your argument? You asked for evidence and I provided - simple. Asking me if they can be reduced, when I haven’t said anything about it, is changing the argument. Doesn’t matter if the use of these fuels is reduced or not - the use of fuels in supersonic aircraft will still be higher than in commercial.
How what can be reduced? Fuel consumption, CO2 emissions, fuel burning? What do you mean by “they”?