
Why we're not going to see sub-orbital airliners - robin_reala
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/01/why-were-not-going-to-see-sub-.html
======
cryptoz
The first reason is "because terrorism". It's difficult to keep reading,
because the logic the author follows does not fit with the title or point the
author's trying to make. This is a largely list of reasons why sub-orbital
airliners aren't already common; it's got baseline assumptions that technology
will not rapidly improve, that airports will not innovate, that passenger
demand is static, etc.

I don't understand the conclusion, given the points. It's a very pessimistic
essay about the future, where all air travel is horrible and nobody will want
to fly. I don't buy it.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
There are a lot of basic mistakes.

1\. Concorde was on the verge of being replaced by a more efficient Model B
version, which was quieter and cheaper to run. That was on the drawing board
in the 1970s. Model C, D, E versions would have been cheaper and even more
cost effective.

2\. Concorde was actually killed by anticompetitive US politics. The story is
too complex to detail here, but it's not a mystery in the aerospace biz.

3\. If Stross thinks bizjets kill airliners, what's to stop the development of
a hypersonic bizjet to give buyers the best of all possible worlds, and also
provide the ultimate status symbol for those who care about such things?

4\. Trrrrism? This part can be ignored, because the argument is silly.

5\. Energy cost remains an issue. But if you're in the (literally)
stratospheric biz set, you're not going to care about that.

6\. Telepresence may kill some of the market, because I'm guessing 15 years
from now it's going to be impressively immersive. But for some applications,
including highly secure negotiations and ultra-speedy courier services,
there's still no substitute for being there.

So in fact there's a perfectly viable, if innovative, business case, and the
technology is looking at least potentially feasible.

I wouldn't be surprised to see these services running before 2030.

~~~
cjcartlidge
"Concorde was actually killed by anticompetitive US politics." \--> Any
recommended reading for this?

~~~
jacquesm
It's not exactly a fact. In my view Concorde was killed by a 'perfect storm':
changing market conditions, 9/11, that terrible crash in Paris.

Together those three were what caused the towel to be thrown into the ring.
Every time I visit Paris and I see it impaled on its stand it reminds me of a
butterfly or something trying to escape. Such a sad image.

~~~
masklinn
> It's not exactly a fact.

Yeah, congress only banned SSTs and supersonic civilian flight right as
concorde came online, that can't have had any impact on it.

~~~
NickPollard
Yeah, the lack of supersonic overfly on most countries (not just the USA) was
one of the main factors against Concorde (despite the fact that in many cases
the decibel levels were lower than cotemporaneous aircraft).

It's no coincidence it's main routes (London->JFK, Paris ->JFK) are 90% over
the Ocean.

If you actually managed to get long distance hypersonic routes (such as
London->Sydney, or even London->Beijing, London->Tokyo, etc.) at a significant
time reduction, I can see it working.

------
guelo
9/11 style terrorism was solved by reinforcing the cockpit doors. Everything
else has been police state fear mongering.

~~~
gaius
It was solved as soon as ordinary passengers realized that hijackers didn't
want hostages anymore. The cockpit door thing is security theatre too.

~~~
gizmo686
There was 1 coordinated attack where the hijackers did not want hostages. If I
am a passenger on a hijacked plane, my guess would be that they are in it for
the ransom.

~~~
marssaxman
Then you are the problem. From now on airline passengers must simply assume
that all terrorists are suicide bombers and act accordingly, fighting back
with all available means; thus will we ensure that airline hijackings remain
unviable.

~~~
gizmo686
Having a self destruct feature that automatically engages when an airplane is
hijacked would also make make hijackings unviable.

If you respond as if the hijackers are suicide bombers, when they really only
want a ransom, then you risk some or all of the hostages getting injured or
dyeing, as well as the potential for the plane, which would otherwise have
landed safely, to crash into a populated area as the hijackers are distracted
from piloting the plane, or the passenger may decide to be heroes and take
over (crashing either deliberately or by accident).

------
jblow
You can make a similar list about anything that doesn't exist yet. If it were
easy, it probably would have been done.

Eight years ago, you could have made an equivalent list about electric cars.
Well, we have electric cars now and that situation is looking pretty good.

Imagine you are an Elon-Musk-alike who wants to make fast air travel happen.
Then this article isn't a list of why it's impossible, it is a list of
problems you need to solve in order to make it work. I think we have enough
examples in recent years to show that if someone with sufficient inventiveness
attacks the problem hard, many of these kinds of things really are solvable.

~~~
SideburnsOfDoom
But with sub-orbital hypersonic craft, you cannot get around the fact that
they move very fast and thus carry a lot of kinetic energy and can deliver it
before anyone can stop them. That's just how it works. You can't "advance"
past that without a warp drive.

I believe that the phrase is "functionally equivalent to a kinetic impact
weapon".

I think that Mr Stross has relaxed his thinking on sub-orbital hypersonic
craft, i.e. he suggests that they might actually be allowed, but only if they
come down far from a desirable location.

~~~
ctdonath
And that "if" turns into a delay hugely chewing up the benefits of such high
speed.

There was, briefly, a rather grand project implementing a "fast ferry" between
Toronto (Canada) to Rochester (New York). This cut the previously 3-hour drive
around the intervening lake down to about 30-45 minutes, and included the
luxury of enjoying the view/bar/games/social. Price wasn't bad (comparable to
gas cost for the long trip), but certainly not trivial. Anyone coming to
Rochester discovered "they come down far from a desirable location": having no
personal transportation immediately available, it was upwards of an hour to
take a bus from the port to downtown Rochester - turning an ~80% reduction in
travel time to ~40%. The project was scrapped - twice[1] - after enormous
expense.

When throwing lots of money at diminishing returns, encroachments on those
returns are very costly.

[1] - There was huge political capital invested in the ferry's success. Upon
completion, ridership was dismal and the project went bankrupt within a couple
months and the boat went up for auction (few want such a specialized vessel).
City-scale egos intervened and bought the boat back (!) at the auction,
pressed it back into service. The mayor et al were promptly voted out of
office, and the replacement sold the boat and permanently shut the project
down.

------
corford
I used to work for an air charter company so know a bit about biz jets. Stross
is missing an important point: there are only a handful of heavy jets that can
fly non-stop from LHR to SYD. The Global Express (and variants), Dassault's
7X/8X and that's about it. They cost from $50 million up, can seat a maximum
of 8 to 10 people and are impossible to charter "by the seat". They also
require long runways, restricting which airports they can use compared to
smaller biz jets.

If something like the Sabre existed I can guarantee that high net-worth people
in Europe/America with urgent business meetings (or a desire to maximise their
holiday) in Australia would use it even if it meant needing to charter a
helicopter to/from the space port to the centre of the city. Whether or not
there would be enough demand to keep a regularly scheduled service going is
another question. Stross is right when he says it's hard to see how it could
compete with existing air transport options between shorter range locations
(e.g. London - New York).

Sabre (or similar) would have advantages for New York (or London) to Beijing
though, so, who knows, in another 10 or 20 years maybe there will be enough
demand for a few well chosen scheduled routes. In any case, I don't buy the
terrorism angle at all. The problem will be (as is often the case in
commercial aviation) finding and pricing route(s) to produce a viable
passenger yield. Tricky if the only routes that make sense are long-haul ones
with a high density of frequent first class business flyers (that's a pretty
small pool).

------
raverbashing
The article is risible to the point of ridiculousness

You don't need a fighter jet to intercept it from the point it came from. It's
that simple.

"and indeed, active radar can't even track it effectively"

Without providing any reason why, I doubt it. Oh I think it's using "active
radar" as "secondary radar". Also primary radar can detect it. No problem.

And airliners cross the ocean without much radar coverage TODAY, so there's
that as well.

Not to mention it can only fly at high speeds on high altitudes. You CAN'T
come at Mach 5 or whatever and fly it on a building. Your plane will
disintegrate first.

------
rdl
For transpacific flights, first class (or business class, more often) is used
by people who would otherwise be on business jets within the US. TBH, first
class SQ Suites are nicer than any but the best business jets (I've never been
on a really luxury jet like a 777 VIP, but I'd take SQ Suites over the G-II or
Falcons I've been on). You're basically looking at $250k r/t SF-Beijing to
take a Global Express or something. "Normal" business jets won't even get to
Hawaii. I think things are different for transatlantic (esp if you're willing
to stop somewhere like Canada or Ireland).

Business jets make actual sense when you're doing a multi-stop itinerary, lots
of last-minute changes, and flying into secondary and tertiary airports. They
make a lot less sense for hub to hub intercontinental flights.

You could solve all the security issues of intercepting a supersonic aircraft
by having a failsafe override (optionally self-destruct). No need to build a
Mach 5 interceptor when you can do it at c.

~~~
falcor84
I don't know much about security failsafe overrides, but isn't that a bit like
DRM? Would it be reasonable to expect the failsafe to remain unbroken,
assuming that the adversary has physical access and has had time to plan?

------
CapitalistCartr
Faster flight times are like better fuel mileage. Once you reach a decent
result, it's harder to justify more. With gas mileage, once I get about 35
miles per gallon, the cost of better exceeds any likely benefit. Once we can
travel anywhere in about 24 hours or less, it's hard to justify the cost of
better.

In general, there is an economic optimum for most solutions. It's fuzzy
because factors like comfort come into play. But it's there. It's a company's
job to find it.

~~~
finnh
> Once we can travel anywhere in about 24 hours or less, it's hard to justify
> the cost of better.

Clearly you've never travelled with a two year old =)

There are many cases where travel just isn't worth it, and the limiting factor
is time rather than money.

~~~
VLM
Imagine a lighter than air cruise-ship. That's an interesting idea and
somewhat more realistic from an engineering perspective. There must be some
kind of happy medium of a giant lifting body full of helium that takes 24
hours but is large and luxurious.

The key to all future transport seems to be turning it away from disciplined
travel as the primary activity. Doesn't matter if its bizjets or cruise ships
or trains or my crazy balloon idea.

A cultural moving away from "travel for 4 hours strapped into a seat in a car
or old fashioned airplance" but "hang out at the bar for 8 hours or play video
games or post on facebook for 8 hours, or join the mile high club all night,
oh, and at the same time as traveling from pt A to pt B but its not the
primary activity"

------
ctdonath
Proposing hyper-scale projects can make a small group a tidy profit. Being on
such a huge scale, early proposals & research can take years (not requiring a
large team), and those interested in throwing enormous funds at the actual
implementation think little of the relatively tiny funds (but still large for
those working on it) for preliminary analysis.

We may not see sub-orbital airliners for a long time, but those working on
early analysis now can make a comfortable living on it.

------
lmm
The same lobbying that makes bizjets exempt from the TSA will also mean that
no-one will be bothered about fighter jets being unable to intercept these
things. (Also, fighter jets didn't stop 9/11). Sub-orbital airliners, or at
least sub-orbital exclusive bizjets, will happen for exactly the reason given
towards the end of the article: because they _will_ save rich people's time.

------
Argorak
In the same line of thinking: Plane travel got slower over the past years.

[http://slice.mit.edu/2014/03/19/airtravel/](http://slice.mit.edu/2014/03/19/airtravel/)

~~~
cjcartlidge
Profit, Profit, Profit....

It's sad that the 747-400 which was introduced in 1988 is still the fastest
commercial aircraft currently.

Aviation reminds me of the Formula 1 of the skies in its current rule set!
(All about fuel saving)

~~~
Argorak
I don't see the problem? There's just no one willing to pay the premium to fly
at top speed.

There were faster in that time, but they all went out of business.

~~~
cjcartlidge
No problem just a statement of fact.

Goals in greater efficiently have never been as exciting as goals for greater
speed (with disregard for efficiency).

~~~
Argorak
Ah, okay, excitement, I can agree with.

------
chaostheory
He has good arguments (except for one) but history has mostly shown that it's
not wise to say something can never happen.

Now for what I feel was one of his bad arguments:

"None of today's military aircraft are up to the job of intercepting it, and
indeed, active radar can't even track it effectively—for that, you'd need
something on the order of a cold war ballistic missile warning radar system,
designed to provide advance notice of an ICBM strike."

In one sentence he outlines both the problem and the solution. Doesn't the
west already have missile defense systems?

~~~
CanSpice
Sure, it does. But what happens when it goes wrong and the anti-missile
missiles are launched against a sub-orbital passenger jet whose transponder
has gone wonky?

~~~
chaostheory
People will die. Just like when more people died when cars didn't have safety
belts and windshield wipers. Things will go wrong. We will fix them
(eventually).

When people list problems, I see temporary obstacles. Even mountains can be
overcome: [http://www.odditycentral.com/news/dashrath-manjhi-the-man-
wh...](http://www.odditycentral.com/news/dashrath-manjhi-the-man-who-moved-a-
mountain.html)

------
rationalthug
The author's terrorism concerns are way overblown and the reasoning supporting
them specious, but there is a more basic issue with hypersonic point-to-point
transportation systems outside of the additional arguments related to current
air travel, at least for vehicles designed to go suborbital/exoatmospheric:

Once we are talking about traveling to a destination and not simply going
"straight" up and down, the costs, maintenance issues, safety requirements,
development time, thermal management, mission management, guidance systems,
etc., get within spitting distance of actually developing an _orbital_
vehicle.

Future technology improvements and cost reductions cannot be ruled out, of
course, but given the basic physics and what we know of the near future of
aerospace technology, it seems a stretch (at least) to expect a profitable,
safe point-to-point suborbital system to be a viable undertaking.

And once we are talking about orbital systems, where the cost and risk/reward
equation at least seem to be more desirable and unrelated to point-to-point
travel, the question of suborbital point-to-point fades into the background.

~~~
bashinator
I don't think Stross is actually saying that such terrorist attacks are
feasible or likely - just that the culture of TSA and the slightest
possibility of such acts will make inevitable the kind of security theater
that's driving the wealthy away from regular first-class.

------
32faction
He makes good points but I've said it before and I'll say it again: sub
orbital flights and non-interplanetary space travel in general is where the
airline industry used to be which is a rough spot with a lot of known and
unknown safety issues and expensive costs with inexpensive alternative but
traditional methods.

Today, I can buy a ticket for about the same price as dinner for two, maybe
three. Back in the day say the 50s and 60s it was only the elite who could
purchase a ticket because the rates were so expensive. Then, bus travel ala
Greyhound was the way to go for long distance travel before commercial
airlines really became more affordable.

ADDENDUM: okay maybe a _really_ nice dinner for two or three.

------
transfire
The primary problem is the cost of energy. Until we innovate away from an
fossil-fuel based economy, then this mode of transportation will be accessible
only to the very wealthy. It will probably require the invention of nuclear
isomer batteries to make it affordable to the masses.

As for sociopolitical factors, well it might not matter at all at the rate
we're going. As soon as a suicide bomber gets hold of a nuke, it's pretty much
all over. From then on martial law will be the rule of the land(s), and no one
will be doing much of anything.

------
numair
I'm guessing the author is employing reverse psychology here? This article
reads like an annoying lost of hyper-cynical arguments against hypersonic
travel that any ambitious person would be eager to prove wrong. Sort of like
the "we will never have small touchscreen-based mobile devices with the
computing power of a desktop computer" argument I used to hear from extremely
smart and experienced telecom execs around the time of the first iPhone
rumors.

------
marze
The potential for terrorism is a problem that is easily solvable, especially
when compared with the challenge of building a sub-orbital aircraft (which
basically accelerates to almost orbital velocity before reentering as if from
orbit).

But the author's points about competition from subsonic high-end flights, as
well as the potential for high fidelity video conference systems of the future
to compete, are more compelling.

------
alkonaut
So if security is as paranoid as it is today and the best fuel we can use to
kick a plane half way into space is something similar to today's jet fuels
_then_ it won't happen? Basically "because 9/11 and concorde". Not sure what
timescale the author considers and I agree it's unlikely within a few decades,
but who knows what happens in 100 years?

------
DaniFong
These cost assumptions are where the analysis falls down. Try to calculate
what the cost of suborbital rocketry should be. There's a good case it should
be even cheaper than today's jumbo jets.

------
antoniuschan99
I agree. There are talks of a private supersonic aircraft. So logically sub
orbital private fleet will exist.

The rest always gets the bad end of the stick. But it will happen in a few
generations. That and Mars.

------
sbate1987
I am reading Saturn's Children.. It makes so much more sense now that I know
he is British.

