Comments on: SFO to JFK in less than an hour? It could happen

By: Barb Darrow

Barb Darrow — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:50:00 +0000

all excellent points. right now it takes less time to take the train from boston to nyc when you factor in airport security etc etc….

total travel time is probably a more useful metric than air time.

By: cyclobob

cyclobob — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 11:01:28 +0000

Hey how about this as an idea for faster travel? You rock up at the airport, leave all your bags at check in, change into a sleeper suit, get put into a deep sleep and then are wheeled through a body scanner and stacked into tubes on the plane. Then we would have no issues about security, upgrades, no complaints about AA in flight service and food, no stress as even if there was an air accident you would no nothing about it and you would be woken up at the destination fully rested. It’s the future of air travel…. Not.

By: Tom Wray

Tom Wray — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 03:24:26 +0000

I’m not 100% sure of this, but I believe that if the supersonic portion of the flight were confined to very high altitudes, the effect of the sonic boom will be reduced due to the low density of air molecules.

By: Daryl Oster

Daryl Oster — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 00:28:20 +0000

“Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies” (ET3)tm will reach the same speed using a small fraction of the energy (and without the sonic boom issue).

By: GeorgeM

GeorgeM — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 23:39:02 +0000

With less than a hour in the air at top speed what would be the elapsed time from the Transamerica Building to the Empire State Building?
This will include:
Travel time to and from airports
Time between ground transport vheicles and airplane
Times waiting for airplane to take off and land as well as time waiting to leave aircraft

Finally, what would be the fractional reduction in total travel time?

By: bo

bo — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:14:06 +0000

Nope. we won’t be able to get from LAX to SFO in an hour (because it takes AT LEAST that long to get through TSA security.) TSA security will get proportionately slower, in relation to the speed of flight. (That should become some sort of principle or law of science?)
The LAX to SFO flight is a similar distance as TPA to Havana, Cuba. NASA and the DoD (our government) can experiment with the future of flight. But, they can’t befriend one of our closest neighboring countries.
Heck, Russia has been cruising a nuclear sub in the Gulf of Mexico for a full month (undetected.) So, they don’t need missiles in Cuba anymore. Isn’t it time to stop punishing a people/culture, for the errors of their political leaders? Or, maybe it’s time to start holding OUR country’s leaders more-accountable for their own errors?…

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 20:04:59 +0000

Sigh. The X-51 is not paving the way for hypersonic travel. It is paving the way for Prompt Global Strike, the ability to put a non-nuclear warhead anywhere in the world in 60 mins.

By: Mcbeese

Mcbeese — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:47:34 +0000

I’m sure it would be a good thing for the atmosphere, right?

By: Barb Darrow

Barb Darrow — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:44:32 +0000

Thanks for your comment. Agreed that this is very speculative at this point. Still i think there’s a lot of interest in faster, faster flight…be interesting to follow this.

By: Barb Darrow

Barb Darrow — Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:43:39 +0000

Yup i remember all the hue and cry over concord. I still wish i’d taken it…I remember seeing one take off in london…amazing.