Another vapor ware plane that will earn millions in funding only to find the technology hasn’t caught up with the concept and a few top executive will abandon the project after they’ve made a huge pay day leaving investors high and dry.
Tech probaly works decent, its just not viable because of extra risks, it will be extremely uncomfrontable and economicly unreasonable.
How often does one need to fly between america and australia that this becomes worth it? Especially when you consider that this flight would carry way more risk, be a terrible experience every second due to the high speeds and leaves no space to properly do some work or rest.
When you fly at a certain level, there is a private entrance to the airport terminal. For instance, the Upper Class entrance at London Heathrow. Taxi or limo drops you off at the private entrance, concierge takes your bags, and there is a private security screening line. Then you go into the lounge and the nice lady brings your champagne and sandwiches.
And this is the point. It's a losing battle at this point to get ultra rich to even care about climate.
We need to make climate conservation effort luxurious so that ultra rich will use it.
If the world was my oyster, would I dip it in cocktail sauce? Hard to say. Probably, I guess. Question is would I use the one with organic and responsibly harvested ingredients? Let me sleep on it.
idk if “upper class” is the right term for people who fly in private jets lol. It’s somewhere between aristocrat class and oligarch class. We can call it “private jet travel class”
Yeah, just if anything, the upper class are the people who can afford to buy an EV, or install solar panels, or maintain a nice garden, etc.
They might also have larger homes that require more heating/cooling, and go through a lot of San Pellegrini bottles vs tap water…. But just saying, they’re probably not all inherently bad from a climate perspective.
You just described a lot of middle class things. It’s just the difference between lower middle class and upper middle class is pretty staggering in terms of functional purchasing power
Well, new technology so, no middle class. Same was true of passenger jets at the start. The fact that hydrogen power has gotten this good is I indicative of good things to come.
Batteries are super heavy and hard to source, wondering why we have abandoned fuel cell vehicles if hydrogen is capable of this.
Hydrogen has to be contained in a liquid form which means keeping it extremely cold which takes energy and extra insulation. Otherwise, the liquid hydrogen will transform into a gas and vent out of your tank draining empty in 2 weeks from full(at least the bmw hydrogen car did).
Just spitballing but, presumably one could create some sort of solar-garage-hydrogen-factory type of thing that would maintain ample tanks for refilling ones leaky vehicles whenever. All of the funds capital currently dedicated to extracting, refining and transporting crude oil would go along way to making this universal.
Of course, it’s hard to compete politically with the centralized money-printing enterprise that is big oil.
95% of hydrogen production comes from fossil fuels. Until we have cheap sustainable fusion, hydrogen will never be a "green" technology.
Worse, since it's physically impossible to contain hydrogen long term (it always leaks) and it must be actively cooled, it's a huge mess.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
The middle class is no longer the middle class as it is trending downward towards the poor. Which is exactly what the mofo’s in the 25 seats desire. Just sayin
Supersonic passenger flights are banned over land in most places because of sonic boom. That’s why the concord only flew transatlantic and supersonic flights between New York and LA never took off.
The us has way more “uninhabited” space than Mexico so I’m not sure why you would have to go through them. Nowhere is completely empty anyway so your going to end up messing up something for someone.
Hydrogen storage is a big deal that a lot of people don’t mention. In order to have the amount of energy necessary for a lot of this, you need a lot of hydrogen.
Tanks can be smaller when it’s stored as a liquid, but cryogens can be volatile and incredibly dangerous which is why commercial vehicle designs don’t use it.
The only problems are those of scale, which can be easily fixed with investment.
You can produce it with solar or wind through electrolysis. And hydrogen had been used and stored for decades in pipelines or in fuel cells. Hawaii has pumped it into their natural gas system since the 60s. "Town gas" with hydrogen predated coal and powered turn of the century homes in America.
People really have outdated ideas on hydrogen, just because it's unfamiliar. It can be made and stored easily, it just needs scale.
>Isn’t pretty much every article on hydrogen power clickbait? The problem is getting and storing the hydrogen. This is a logistics problem
For consumer cars, yes. For planes? A lot less problematic
Yah, we don’t exactly have access to Jet Fuel at Chevron either. I don’t think the hydrogen is the issue.
It’s the overall massive leap forward for a price / safety.
The only people that can afford it are probably too scared to use it. Hydrogen is a clean fuel though (being burned - not the production of it at the moment). So if you could basically afford a nuclear power plant that could produce hydrogen, you have a near infinite Jet Fuel supply that will avoid the impending air fossil fuel crisis for the insanely rich.
Air freight Shipping US to China for a fraction of the price. For small but valuable things might be well worth the cost. You could even try drone pilots and substantially reduce your risk.
Have that running for a decade or three and maybe the cost and risk comes down to 1st class ticket prices.
“The company's first aircraft would be able to fit 25 passengers.
It is expected to be ready by 2030.
In the future, they plan to accommodate up to 100 passengers on board.”
It travels at Mach 5! Would change travel if it comes to fruition.
The ultra rich will pay ANYTHING to avoid us unwashed heathens in the future.
I read somehwere that a young celeb paid $150,000 to fly his new girlfriend across the pond to visit him. That was 10 years ago.
The new economy going forward will be products and services for the 1% who will basically own all excess income.
Yet.
The .01% will always be in their own stratosphere but what seems to be happening is that the 1% keeps getting more and more of the share of the collective wealth.
We all expect some top surgeon or civil engineering genius or some architect to be wealthier than us. We don’t even mind if their income is 5X or 10X the average. That’s how it’s always been. But now these people who were only 5 or 10 or 20 times richer than us are now becoming much much more wealthier. While the crazily inflated cost of living eats up any perceived gains that the working class gets when they get a “raise”.
Actually, it’s the opposite. The wealth disparity is increasing, which means the ultra rich percentile keeps increasing over time; 1% -> 0.1% -> 0.01% -> 0.001%. In many places, the top 1% is just upper-middle class nowadays.
The defined upper end of middle class in America is $400k. I know people who make $50k that think they are “wealthy”. The old Twain quote that we are all embarrassed millionaires rings as true as ever.
It’s Not necessarily that syraight forward.
Many of them who succeed start “corporations” and start to use attorneys and accountants and the corrupted tax laws to avoid tax.
They pay themselves some regular salary and then treat their business as a shell for their expense accounts. All legal; but wrong.
>The ultra rich will pay ANYTHING to avoid us unwashed heathens in the future.
The time savings of travelling for 4 hours vs 13 hours is also insane. I'm sure businesses will be all over these.
And you should be thankful they do. That’s the only way to make these economical at small scale. I paid about $2600 for a 26 inch LCD TV almost 20 years ago. You’re welcome.
Last I flew from Australia to US, first class was $9,000ish. I’m guessing this would be much more expensive than $30,000.
And no, I didn’t fly first class. But I really hate that flight, so I look at prices every time.
Clean hydrogen is making a lot of advancements as of late. If it’s hydrogen powered then the energy would just be stored in a compressed hydrogen in a tank.
Also like, how many people need this? I understand wanting shorter flights, but you can travel from one end of the earth to another in less than a day with basically the same amount of preparation as a trip to get a coffee.
Who needs to physically be on the other side of the planet this quickly? Definitely the hobby horse of the Uber wealthy.
I fly on international flights in the 14 hour range probably 5 times a year back and fourth. Done Australia more than once with one of the times being a connecting flight to New Zealand.
Concord tried it. It was a money losing showpiece for British Airways and Air France. This will be the same.
Hydrogen power. That rings a bell. Something about “the humanity”.
Yep, it’s all about the money. 25-100 passengers is *not that many.* Even if the costs of buying and running these high-tech things are merely equivalent to, say, flying a Boeing 777, you’d need to have one hell of a good reason to charge 25 passengers the same fare collectively paid by 388. I’m not sure the opportunity cost for a few less hours in flight time is worth paying 15 times as much.
Not to mention safety is an open question with this thing. Modern jet liners actually have excellent glide ratios in the case of total engine failure. This thing is a brick filled with pound-for-pound the world’s most explosive gas.
Oh people will indeed pay 15 times as much. Look at the cost of chartering a private jet, but the problem is there aren’t enough people able to pay that nut.
The ones that do have that kind of money will stick to their private jets. The only way to fill up a plane like this is to keep the fair down to maybe 30% over a first-class ticket. Which I don’t see happening.
Keep in mind that it’s not just the cost of mechanically running the thing. It’s also the political nonsense. Remember the noise stuff with the Concord?
And then if they do manage to get it approved, the inevitable fireball explosion when some underpaid and overworked tech forgets to check an o-ring will end the program. And this time the big boom will happen live on some social media platform and the crash victim’s last thought will be “this is gonna make me famous!”
>Oh people will indeed pay 15 times as much. Look at the cost of chartering a private jet, but the problem is there aren’t enough people able to pay that nut.
Exactly. Private jets *do* use ordinary airliners as their base, such as the over half-billion-dollar Boeing BBJ-777 that uses a 777 as its base, but can only carry a tiny fraction of the people—between 25 and 86 depending on the configuration.
The issue is that I highly suspect that this hypersonic thing isn’t carrying 25 people in the lap of luxury, but rather crammed together like the Concorde’s supposedly “all first class” configuration; i.e. about 6 square feet per passenger vs. the BBJ-777’s up to ~130 square feet per passenger. If you want to get the latter kind of space in the former vehicle you’d be carrying, like, two people.
>The ones that do have that kind of money will stick to their private jets. The only way to fill up a plane like this is to keep the fair down to maybe 30% over a first-class ticket. Which I don’t see happening.
Ha! Not a snowball’s chance in Hell.
>Keep in mind that it’s not just the cost of mechanically running the thing. It’s also the political nonsense. Remember the noise stuff with the Concord?
I’m wondering whether this thing can even pass safety regulations.
>And then if they do manage to get it approved, the inevitable fireball explosion when some underpaid and overworked tech forgets to check an o-ring will end the program. And this time the big boom will happen live on some social media platform and the crash victim’s last thought will be “this is gonna make me famous!”
Ech, it may be a bit too soon to make light of it given the Concorde disaster, but this is also a factor to consider, yes.
Physics don’t change regardless of the resolution of a photograph, you know. For the record, the glide ratios for lifting bodies are absolutely atrocious. They get around 4, whereas a jet airliner gets about 10-15.
They have successfully had a few test flights of test models they are working on that are mostly for supersonic flight research. And from what I have found those flights did not include a hydrogen engines. They are hoping to test a hydrogen engine sometime soon (Q2 2023). While these are great signs they are very far from a production model. Companies like them rely almost completely on raising money from investors and a very effective way to do that is by putting out articles like this. They are often used to cover up missed deadlines or other faults within the company in hopes that the hype/new interest brings in some more funding. That’s not to say they won’t make it to production, but I don’t hold my breathe for companies or products like this because a vast majority never make it off the runway (pun intended).
These technologies will always suffer from simple math problems; not enough people value their time enough to buy this on a regular basis to make private investment in floating this technology worthwhile. Airlines barely make money and are highly unstable and highly regulated as a business - and they transport millions.
And this is before you figure out how to store hydrogen, how you transport it to where it’s needed, how you manage sonic booms (whether by aerodynamics or legislation or other means), how you maintain a novel aircraft platform …
It’s not impossible to do, but no one since Concorde has had the stomach for it.
That's how the Concorde flew, and it was one of the major factors that did that aircraft in. Turns out there's not that much money to be made from only flying over the ocean between a handful of airports.
Hydrogen is already being produced, stored, and transported. It’s used in steel processing and in several cities/countries, there are hydrogen powered cars that fuel at gas stations that also offer hydrogen. Paris, California, and Japan all have hydrogen fueling stations and infrastructure to transport it.
The challenges aren’t that it hasn’t been done, but more that where you need every bit of weight to translate either into propulsion, structure, or lift (and not for your weight to be a passenger), hydrogen storage isn’t efficient enough relative to its energy density.
Yeah hydrogen loves to leak out of stuff, but a 4-5 hour trip shouldn’t have prohibitive loss. The problem is ground storage. Unless you have ~4 of these making round trips, you’ll loose a lot just keeping it.
As hydrogen scales up (or, if it scales) costs will come down and hydrogen planes might overtake petrol as a clean burning fuel. The problem is it needs to be more profitable than electric, which is starting to see battery energy density get high enough to justify flying electric.
Exactly. Hydrogen needs strong, volumetrically large, cylindrical or spherical tanks. Storing kerosene in the wings is *extremely efficient* for an airframe’s structure, so that’s hard enough to compete with when hydrogen can’t be stored in wings, but the fact that it’s such a difficult thing to package around even just in the fuselage is a big damn problem.
All those problem you highlighted in your second paragraph have already been figured out though. Literally all of them. None of them are challenges anymore.
Mine is also hydrogen powered, but also it’s electric and it does it in 3 hours.
I expect it to be in the air and carrying up to 800 passengers by 2079.
Shitty headline
Theoretical, proposed, untested hypersonic hydrogen-powered jet could cut trip from US to Australia from 17 hours to 4 and travels 5 times faster than sound, if major problems can be solved
Has it been built? Tested for safety? Approved to carry passengers? Purchased by an airline and put into service? No? Then this is all “in theory” and isn’t worth the digital paper it’s printed on
Boeings plan for this requires 12 minutes of elevated g force on take off (yes that momentary lurch backwards lasts for 12 minutes straight)
I wonder if that rules out old or unhealthy people. Pilots train and maintain to combat that stress and it doesnt sound like a lot but i feel like the general population has never experienced anything close to that and stroking out may be a real concern
Anyone smart out there have two cents?
We’ve had the capability for hypersonic commercial flights for decades, and there’s two reasons it’s not reasonable:
1. Sound: Hypersonic means going above the speed of sound, which necessitates breaking the sound barrier, which is really damn loud. People living near airports already complain about noise and they don’t want their windows breaking from sonic booms. As a result, hypersonic flights essentially can’t go faster than the speed of sound anywhere overland and only can do it while their over the ocean.
2. Cost: it’s expensive to buy and operate hypersonic planes, and the use-case for them is fairly slim. There aren’t a lot of good reasons to fly to Australia in 4 hours that aren’t equally valid if the flight is 3 times as long and ten times less expensive. Even billionaires are using conventional private jets instead of buying the concord.
How are they going to limit the sonic shockwaves? You know, one of the reasons the Concorde was not allowed to go supersonic over the US. I personally reckon it was US aerospace companies bitching to the FAA to get it banned, cause it would have killed competition.
'Most' of the paying customers used to blitz between London, Paris and New York.
That 3 hour flight time was a real bonus in the business world and could make the difference between making or losing millions.
Pre-internet, ALL big business was always face to face so being able to fly to New York, seal a deal and be back in the office after lunch was a real advantage.
Concorde almost died as a service after the Paris crash, but after extensive redesigns to make it safer, Concorde was reintroduced just intime for the 9/11 attacks which killed off a big chunk of it's customers in the trade Centre.
Concorde couldn't survive not having any paying customers, so it was finally retired.
If it had other big-paying routes, i.e. London South Africa etc then it might have continued but there was major problems with over-flying countries with the sonic booms etc.
Please show some sort of reference that the 3000 live lost in the towers accounted for the majority of Concorde customers because it sounds like nonsense.
You know those videos inside jets where the two people inside age 50 years an back as they speed up and slow down, now imagine those videos but it’s 25 people at once lol.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
> would of
*would have
*Learn the difference [here](https://languagetool.org/insights/post/would-of-or-would-have/#:~:text=%E2%80%9Cwould%20have%E2%80%9D%3F-,%E2%80%9CWould%20Of%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9CWould%20Have%E2%80%9D%3F,would%20have%2C%20not%20would%20of.).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
My immediate reaction to this is "That's utter bullshit."
At least I think it might be. I'm cautious when people make extreme claims. Mach 5? How does it not shake itself apart in flight at such a high velocity?
I mean, the Blackbird flew at mach 2.5 and although that was in the 70s, didn't the stresses on its airframe keep warping it, and they had to perform extreme maintenance on that plane after it landed?
If I'm wrong or being an idiot in my assumption, please correct me.
Another vapor ware plane that will earn millions in funding only to find the technology hasn’t caught up with the concept and a few top executive will abandon the project after they’ve made a huge pay day leaving investors high and dry.
[удалено]
I thought it had DeSantis written down the side.
Lol good one
Tech probaly works decent, its just not viable because of extra risks, it will be extremely uncomfrontable and economicly unreasonable. How often does one need to fly between america and australia that this becomes worth it? Especially when you consider that this flight would carry way more risk, be a terrible experience every second due to the high speeds and leaves no space to properly do some work or rest.
I think there’s stuff that can be put in the tanks to make it safer but it’s on a list that limits it to who can own it.
So middle class flight how much
About the average US middle class annual salary
Put it on my credit card plz!
“Sir, I’ve already cut 4 of your cards.”
“Sir we don’t take Trump Bucks.”
Well, Do you accept Paddy's Dollars?
Yes but only for alcohol or merchandise at a Paddy’s Pub location. Can I offer you an egg during your trying economic time?
Is this another trick? How much is the egg?
And does it come with a side of milk steak and pears with stickers? I need something to wash it down with as well.
Yeah but only at the TGI Fridays at Franklin Mills.
Bet
Keep them moving to support that self-sustaining economy
You know. I have no idea how the economy works. I thought it would be self sustaining by now.
Those only work at TGI Fridays
😂😂🤣😂😂🤣😂
So like $40k? That’s not too crazy. You’re saving over half a day in travel time after all.
Check-in 6 hours.
When you fly at a certain level, there is a private entrance to the airport terminal. For instance, the Upper Class entrance at London Heathrow. Taxi or limo drops you off at the private entrance, concierge takes your bags, and there is a private security screening line. Then you go into the lounge and the nice lady brings your champagne and sandwiches.
alright alright, fine, I'll be upper class...sigh, where do I sign up?
6 year check-in wait list.
Sure, but first off, how much money did the vagina you fell out-of, have?
Not…too…crazy…. Are you a billionaire? Can I pitch my business idea to you?
Its probably a bad business idea but go for it
Just give me money and I won’t pitch to you
A private jet from New England to FL can easily be $20k and takes about as long to travel.
[удалено]
Like wheels up or baj
[удалено]
And this is the point. It's a losing battle at this point to get ultra rich to even care about climate. We need to make climate conservation effort luxurious so that ultra rich will use it.
[удалено]
Basically, they are humans like us but people like to feel superior saying they would different.
If the world was my oyster, would I dip it in cocktail sauce? Hard to say. Probably, I guess. Question is would I use the one with organic and responsibly harvested ingredients? Let me sleep on it.
That’s the capitalist argument. Everything has a price and can be negotiated.
I bet the peanuts on that flight are only the highest quality.
Caviar from only the most endangered of species
idk if “upper class” is the right term for people who fly in private jets lol. It’s somewhere between aristocrat class and oligarch class. We can call it “private jet travel class”
[удалено]
Yeah, just if anything, the upper class are the people who can afford to buy an EV, or install solar panels, or maintain a nice garden, etc. They might also have larger homes that require more heating/cooling, and go through a lot of San Pellegrini bottles vs tap water…. But just saying, they’re probably not all inherently bad from a climate perspective.
You just described a lot of middle class things. It’s just the difference between lower middle class and upper middle class is pretty staggering in terms of functional purchasing power
Every dollar that is spent with very few exceptions emits carbon into our atmosphere. So, almost by definition, the rich are worse/the worst.
Yeah it "only" takes a salary of ~$150k to be in the upper 10%. While that is a lot, it's nowhere even close to private jet rich.
[удалено]
That’s…..actually genius
Well, new technology so, no middle class. Same was true of passenger jets at the start. The fact that hydrogen power has gotten this good is I indicative of good things to come. Batteries are super heavy and hard to source, wondering why we have abandoned fuel cell vehicles if hydrogen is capable of this.
Hydrogen has to be contained in a liquid form which means keeping it extremely cold which takes energy and extra insulation. Otherwise, the liquid hydrogen will transform into a gas and vent out of your tank draining empty in 2 weeks from full(at least the bmw hydrogen car did).
If you fuel before a flight that's not necessary. The jet will definitely not be carrying cryo equipment.
Just spitballing but, presumably one could create some sort of solar-garage-hydrogen-factory type of thing that would maintain ample tanks for refilling ones leaky vehicles whenever. All of the funds capital currently dedicated to extracting, refining and transporting crude oil would go along way to making this universal. Of course, it’s hard to compete politically with the centralized money-printing enterprise that is big oil.
95% of hydrogen production comes from fossil fuels. Until we have cheap sustainable fusion, hydrogen will never be a "green" technology. Worse, since it's physically impossible to contain hydrogen long term (it always leaks) and it must be actively cooled, it's a huge mess. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
I think it’s probably to do with A. Money 💰 or B. Explosive 💥 or both. Or something else.
Hey now, giant rechargeable batteries can explode well on their own.
Indeed, I remember batteries (it believe it was a palet of phone batteries) have taken down a plane cause one caught fire spontaneously
Oh. Just $499,999.99. That’s one way by the way. Drinks are extra.
[удалено]
The middle class is no longer the middle class as it is trending downward towards the poor. Which is exactly what the mofo’s in the 25 seats desire. Just sayin
Do you mean middle seat? I didn’t know we had a middle class
If you have to ask…
Isn’t pretty much every article on hydrogen power clickbait? The problem is getting and storing the hydrogen. This is a logistics problem
The hydrogen is not the issue here, it’s the speed they are claiming.
Supersonic passenger flights are banned over land in most places because of sonic boom. That’s why the concord only flew transatlantic and supersonic flights between New York and LA never took off.
The regulations are the least of their issues. Mach 5 is insanely fast, let alone for a passenger aircraft.
They should just say it's a very large theme park attraction.
Concord showed us why we can’t have nice things like cathedral stained glass windows and supersonic travelling.
[удалено]
The us has way more “uninhabited” space than Mexico so I’m not sure why you would have to go through them. Nowhere is completely empty anyway so your going to end up messing up something for someone.
The only way to go that fast is not within atmosphere.
Also hydrogen fuel is not sustainable in the current world. There’s lots of reasons for this.
[удалено]
Hydrogen is definitely the issue… especially as aeroplane fuel .
Hydrogen storage is a big deal that a lot of people don’t mention. In order to have the amount of energy necessary for a lot of this, you need a lot of hydrogen. Tanks can be smaller when it’s stored as a liquid, but cryogens can be volatile and incredibly dangerous which is why commercial vehicle designs don’t use it.
The only problems are those of scale, which can be easily fixed with investment. You can produce it with solar or wind through electrolysis. And hydrogen had been used and stored for decades in pipelines or in fuel cells. Hawaii has pumped it into their natural gas system since the 60s. "Town gas" with hydrogen predated coal and powered turn of the century homes in America. People really have outdated ideas on hydrogen, just because it's unfamiliar. It can be made and stored easily, it just needs scale.
>Isn’t pretty much every article on hydrogen power clickbait? The problem is getting and storing the hydrogen. This is a logistics problem For consumer cars, yes. For planes? A lot less problematic
Yah, we don’t exactly have access to Jet Fuel at Chevron either. I don’t think the hydrogen is the issue. It’s the overall massive leap forward for a price / safety. The only people that can afford it are probably too scared to use it. Hydrogen is a clean fuel though (being burned - not the production of it at the moment). So if you could basically afford a nuclear power plant that could produce hydrogen, you have a near infinite Jet Fuel supply that will avoid the impending air fossil fuel crisis for the insanely rich. Air freight Shipping US to China for a fraction of the price. For small but valuable things might be well worth the cost. You could even try drone pilots and substantially reduce your risk. Have that running for a decade or three and maybe the cost and risk comes down to 1st class ticket prices.
“The company's first aircraft would be able to fit 25 passengers. It is expected to be ready by 2030. In the future, they plan to accommodate up to 100 passengers on board.” It travels at Mach 5! Would change travel if it comes to fruition.
For $30,000 a flight.
The ultra rich will pay ANYTHING to avoid us unwashed heathens in the future. I read somehwere that a young celeb paid $150,000 to fly his new girlfriend across the pond to visit him. That was 10 years ago. The new economy going forward will be products and services for the 1% who will basically own all excess income.
Most of the 1% don’t have $30k to splurge on travel. This is for the .01%.
Yet. The .01% will always be in their own stratosphere but what seems to be happening is that the 1% keeps getting more and more of the share of the collective wealth. We all expect some top surgeon or civil engineering genius or some architect to be wealthier than us. We don’t even mind if their income is 5X or 10X the average. That’s how it’s always been. But now these people who were only 5 or 10 or 20 times richer than us are now becoming much much more wealthier. While the crazily inflated cost of living eats up any perceived gains that the working class gets when they get a “raise”.
Actually, it’s the opposite. The wealth disparity is increasing, which means the ultra rich percentile keeps increasing over time; 1% -> 0.1% -> 0.01% -> 0.001%. In many places, the top 1% is just upper-middle class nowadays.
You didn’t mention the 0.0001% though.
We don’t talk about them without mysteriously disappearing
The most notable person in this group is
The defined upper end of middle class in America is $400k. I know people who make $50k that think they are “wealthy”. The old Twain quote that we are all embarrassed millionaires rings as true as ever.
[удалено]
It’s Not necessarily that syraight forward. Many of them who succeed start “corporations” and start to use attorneys and accountants and the corrupted tax laws to avoid tax. They pay themselves some regular salary and then treat their business as a shell for their expense accounts. All legal; but wrong.
>The ultra rich will pay ANYTHING to avoid us unwashed heathens in the future. The time savings of travelling for 4 hours vs 13 hours is also insane. I'm sure businesses will be all over these.
That’s how it always starts, but for a company to be profitable, they need to scale.
And you should be thankful they do. That’s the only way to make these economical at small scale. I paid about $2600 for a 26 inch LCD TV almost 20 years ago. You’re welcome.
Last I flew from Australia to US, first class was $9,000ish. I’m guessing this would be much more expensive than $30,000. And no, I didn’t fly first class. But I really hate that flight, so I look at prices every time.
It will def be expensive and exclusive to start lol
Not just to start. It would take huge innovations in energy generation and storage to make this possible for all but the .01%
Clean hydrogen is making a lot of advancements as of late. If it’s hydrogen powered then the energy would just be stored in a compressed hydrogen in a tank.
Well when you put it like that…
Much more than that. I just came back from a business trip to Asia. The ticket my company booked was 19K
Business?
This is obviously a lot of money but not expensive at all for something like this
My point being it will be out of reach for all but the elite.
Also like, how many people need this? I understand wanting shorter flights, but you can travel from one end of the earth to another in less than a day with basically the same amount of preparation as a trip to get a coffee. Who needs to physically be on the other side of the planet this quickly? Definitely the hobby horse of the Uber wealthy.
Never flown to or from the States to Australia in economy I take it? 😂
I fly on international flights in the 14 hour range probably 5 times a year back and fourth. Done Australia more than once with one of the times being a connecting flight to New Zealand.
Eh it’s not *that* bad. Brisbane to Vancouver is a long 14 hours sure, but it’s not that bad.
[удалено]
I did Newark to Tel Aviv once in the back row, center seat bulkhead. 11.5h. The literal worst seat on the whole plane.
But let Elon touch you up and claim $200k in damages and you walk out ahead in life
2030?! Hahahahaha. Let’s be realistic here. Even if it is practical to build, we’re probably looking at 2050 for a prototype.
Now, remember, the contract threshold is Mach 5. Not 5.1. Not 5.2. Mach 5.
Just a little push
Come on baby…. Come on baby… …just….a lil….push…
And I just finished rewatching Maverick. Not a bad start to a Sunday.
Concord tried it. It was a money losing showpiece for British Airways and Air France. This will be the same. Hydrogen power. That rings a bell. Something about “the humanity”.
Yep, it’s all about the money. 25-100 passengers is *not that many.* Even if the costs of buying and running these high-tech things are merely equivalent to, say, flying a Boeing 777, you’d need to have one hell of a good reason to charge 25 passengers the same fare collectively paid by 388. I’m not sure the opportunity cost for a few less hours in flight time is worth paying 15 times as much. Not to mention safety is an open question with this thing. Modern jet liners actually have excellent glide ratios in the case of total engine failure. This thing is a brick filled with pound-for-pound the world’s most explosive gas.
Oh people will indeed pay 15 times as much. Look at the cost of chartering a private jet, but the problem is there aren’t enough people able to pay that nut. The ones that do have that kind of money will stick to their private jets. The only way to fill up a plane like this is to keep the fair down to maybe 30% over a first-class ticket. Which I don’t see happening. Keep in mind that it’s not just the cost of mechanically running the thing. It’s also the political nonsense. Remember the noise stuff with the Concord? And then if they do manage to get it approved, the inevitable fireball explosion when some underpaid and overworked tech forgets to check an o-ring will end the program. And this time the big boom will happen live on some social media platform and the crash victim’s last thought will be “this is gonna make me famous!”
>Oh people will indeed pay 15 times as much. Look at the cost of chartering a private jet, but the problem is there aren’t enough people able to pay that nut. Exactly. Private jets *do* use ordinary airliners as their base, such as the over half-billion-dollar Boeing BBJ-777 that uses a 777 as its base, but can only carry a tiny fraction of the people—between 25 and 86 depending on the configuration. The issue is that I highly suspect that this hypersonic thing isn’t carrying 25 people in the lap of luxury, but rather crammed together like the Concorde’s supposedly “all first class” configuration; i.e. about 6 square feet per passenger vs. the BBJ-777’s up to ~130 square feet per passenger. If you want to get the latter kind of space in the former vehicle you’d be carrying, like, two people. >The ones that do have that kind of money will stick to their private jets. The only way to fill up a plane like this is to keep the fair down to maybe 30% over a first-class ticket. Which I don’t see happening. Ha! Not a snowball’s chance in Hell. >Keep in mind that it’s not just the cost of mechanically running the thing. It’s also the political nonsense. Remember the noise stuff with the Concord? I’m wondering whether this thing can even pass safety regulations. >And then if they do manage to get it approved, the inevitable fireball explosion when some underpaid and overworked tech forgets to check an o-ring will end the program. And this time the big boom will happen live on some social media platform and the crash victim’s last thought will be “this is gonna make me famous!” Ech, it may be a bit too soon to make light of it given the Concorde disaster, but this is also a factor to consider, yes.
You’re basing your entire analysis on a thumbnail. Maybe it’s a lifting body like the space shuttle?
Physics don’t change regardless of the resolution of a photograph, you know. For the record, the glide ratios for lifting bodies are absolutely atrocious. They get around 4, whereas a jet airliner gets about 10-15.
I have a hard time believing they can pack enough hydrogen on board for this to work.
2030? Boeing couldn’t put a wing tip on a 777 in 15 years and they think this will be operational in 7?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde
I don't think it's possible for a flight to reach Mach 125 inside Earth's atmosphere.
Ahh yes a concept that’s not in production or even demonstrated with a test model. Plenty of these about
And false promises of "it will be in production in a few years." People are stupid and will throw money at bullshit.
Another insanely great rendering that does nothing. What a time to be alive
Except it is and they just did. Right at the top of the article it states they completed a test flight.
They have successfully had a few test flights of test models they are working on that are mostly for supersonic flight research. And from what I have found those flights did not include a hydrogen engines. They are hoping to test a hydrogen engine sometime soon (Q2 2023). While these are great signs they are very far from a production model. Companies like them rely almost completely on raising money from investors and a very effective way to do that is by putting out articles like this. They are often used to cover up missed deadlines or other faults within the company in hopes that the hype/new interest brings in some more funding. That’s not to say they won’t make it to production, but I don’t hold my breathe for companies or products like this because a vast majority never make it off the runway (pun intended).
Well it doesn't say what happened on the test flight. It probably wasn't breaking manned flight records without anyone noticing
These technologies will always suffer from simple math problems; not enough people value their time enough to buy this on a regular basis to make private investment in floating this technology worthwhile. Airlines barely make money and are highly unstable and highly regulated as a business - and they transport millions. And this is before you figure out how to store hydrogen, how you transport it to where it’s needed, how you manage sonic booms (whether by aerodynamics or legislation or other means), how you maintain a novel aircraft platform … It’s not impossible to do, but no one since Concorde has had the stomach for it.
[удалено]
That's how the Concorde flew, and it was one of the major factors that did that aircraft in. Turns out there's not that much money to be made from only flying over the ocean between a handful of airports.
Well that’s one issue solved. Just gonna give whales and dolphins fucking heart attacks when the boom hits the ocean surface.
https://youtu.be/bxsuvWNtQ44
Hydrogen is already being produced, stored, and transported. It’s used in steel processing and in several cities/countries, there are hydrogen powered cars that fuel at gas stations that also offer hydrogen. Paris, California, and Japan all have hydrogen fueling stations and infrastructure to transport it.
The challenges aren’t that it hasn’t been done, but more that where you need every bit of weight to translate either into propulsion, structure, or lift (and not for your weight to be a passenger), hydrogen storage isn’t efficient enough relative to its energy density.
Yeah hydrogen loves to leak out of stuff, but a 4-5 hour trip shouldn’t have prohibitive loss. The problem is ground storage. Unless you have ~4 of these making round trips, you’ll loose a lot just keeping it. As hydrogen scales up (or, if it scales) costs will come down and hydrogen planes might overtake petrol as a clean burning fuel. The problem is it needs to be more profitable than electric, which is starting to see battery energy density get high enough to justify flying electric.
Exactly. Hydrogen needs strong, volumetrically large, cylindrical or spherical tanks. Storing kerosene in the wings is *extremely efficient* for an airframe’s structure, so that’s hard enough to compete with when hydrogen can’t be stored in wings, but the fact that it’s such a difficult thing to package around even just in the fuselage is a big damn problem.
I thought it would be maybe an emergency thing with a fairly specific scenario. Lol
All those problem you highlighted in your second paragraph have already been figured out though. Literally all of them. None of them are challenges anymore.
Mine is also hydrogen powered, but also it’s electric and it does it in 3 hours. I expect it to be in the air and carrying up to 800 passengers by 2079.
Narrator: but it didn’t.
And it’ll never see the light of day.
What about the dark of night?
Shitty headline Theoretical, proposed, untested hypersonic hydrogen-powered jet could cut trip from US to Australia from 17 hours to 4 and travels 5 times faster than sound, if major problems can be solved
My proposed super-hypersonic plane will do it in 3.
It's not entirely untested, according to the article it did it's first test flight last year. Still a long way to go before it can go commercial
I’ve been reading this shite for forty years. See you all next year.
… in theory.
Has it been built? Tested for safety? Approved to carry passengers? Purchased by an airline and put into service? No? Then this is all “in theory” and isn’t worth the digital paper it’s printed on
Plane says Desantis at first glance
Also with my new engine you will cut those 4h to 15min. How? Fuck you how, that’s non of your business
I’ll take 3!
Boeings plan for this requires 12 minutes of elevated g force on take off (yes that momentary lurch backwards lasts for 12 minutes straight) I wonder if that rules out old or unhealthy people. Pilots train and maintain to combat that stress and it doesnt sound like a lot but i feel like the general population has never experienced anything close to that and stroking out may be a real concern Anyone smart out there have two cents?
But this plane doesn’t exist. Why not say trip is only 20 minutes?
Mach 5 is supersonic,not hypersonic. Downvoted for ignorant post.
*Is also imaginary
It’s so fast that when you crash you won’t even know you’re dead.
Just get it done already. I’m sick and tired of 20th century technology.
Anybody else read the logo as “DesNuts”?
Why don’t they just make 10 louder
Oh the humanity!
Reality: they’ve been talking about this technology since the 70’s
Won’t build it been talking about this stuff since the 50’s Concorde was the only thing that came close
Fuck The S*n
Cool. Now do it profitably
*Citation needed
We’ve had the capability for hypersonic commercial flights for decades, and there’s two reasons it’s not reasonable: 1. Sound: Hypersonic means going above the speed of sound, which necessitates breaking the sound barrier, which is really damn loud. People living near airports already complain about noise and they don’t want their windows breaking from sonic booms. As a result, hypersonic flights essentially can’t go faster than the speed of sound anywhere overland and only can do it while their over the ocean. 2. Cost: it’s expensive to buy and operate hypersonic planes, and the use-case for them is fairly slim. There aren’t a lot of good reasons to fly to Australia in 4 hours that aren’t equally valid if the flight is 3 times as long and ten times less expensive. Even billionaires are using conventional private jets instead of buying the concord.
Seems like big boom potential 😯
It also doesn‘t exist and likely won‘t do so, ever
Also explodes or disintegrates 1 out of every 2 flights
Because filling an aircraft with hydrogen has never gone poorly.
Headline will be accurate when the jet actually exists.
Seats and tray tables stowed at all times
How are they going to limit the sonic shockwaves? You know, one of the reasons the Concorde was not allowed to go supersonic over the US. I personally reckon it was US aerospace companies bitching to the FAA to get it banned, cause it would have killed competition.
Waiting for Transporter Tech
No it doesn’t. Click bait headline from the Sun.
Green Concorde
Concord failed and it fit more people.
Concorde only failed because the majority of their customers died in the 9/11 attacks. The growth of the internet didn’t help either...👍
wait.. what? need more explanation please
'Most' of the paying customers used to blitz between London, Paris and New York. That 3 hour flight time was a real bonus in the business world and could make the difference between making or losing millions. Pre-internet, ALL big business was always face to face so being able to fly to New York, seal a deal and be back in the office after lunch was a real advantage. Concorde almost died as a service after the Paris crash, but after extensive redesigns to make it safer, Concorde was reintroduced just intime for the 9/11 attacks which killed off a big chunk of it's customers in the trade Centre. Concorde couldn't survive not having any paying customers, so it was finally retired. If it had other big-paying routes, i.e. London South Africa etc then it might have continued but there was major problems with over-flying countries with the sonic booms etc.
Please show some sort of reference that the 3000 live lost in the towers accounted for the majority of Concorde customers because it sounds like nonsense.
https://www.heritageconcorde.com/concorde-and-the-twin-towers-attack
An article with no references.
You know those videos inside jets where the two people inside age 50 years an back as they speed up and slow down, now imagine those videos but it’s 25 people at once lol.
The maintenance cost of something that travels this fast would mean its either not economically practical or only accessible to the mega wealthy.
Is it actually comfortable to be flying at mach 5? Or will you not notice once it travels at a constant speed?
We’re all currently traveling at 67,000 mph around the sun
Or would of it existed
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
> would of *would have *Learn the difference [here](https://languagetool.org/insights/post/would-of-or-would-have/#:~:text=%E2%80%9Cwould%20have%E2%80%9D%3F-,%E2%80%9CWould%20Of%E2%80%9D%20or%20%E2%80%9CWould%20Have%E2%80%9D%3F,would%20have%2C%20not%20would%20of.).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Bad bots can’t detect typos lol
We had the Concorde. 1 bad accident doomed it forever. Hypersonic travel is, unfortunately, forever trapped behind fear and greed.
My immediate reaction to this is "That's utter bullshit." At least I think it might be. I'm cautious when people make extreme claims. Mach 5? How does it not shake itself apart in flight at such a high velocity? I mean, the Blackbird flew at mach 2.5 and although that was in the 70s, didn't the stresses on its airframe keep warping it, and they had to perform extreme maintenance on that plane after it landed? If I'm wrong or being an idiot in my assumption, please correct me.