NationStates Jolt Archive

The title is a bit ambiguous, but this is essentially the same as (and was inspired by) the Automobile G or B thread, only applied to Aircraft.

Personally, I believe that they are only necessary for inter-continental or long continental treks, when used for civilian purposes; in addition, Private Jets have no place in society except for certain portions of the Government/Private Sector (Foreign Minister, President, Flight Schools). So, I think airplanes should have a minimum of carrying 15+ persons for all trips, unless you have a permit. Anything but that is rather inefficient.

Although I am usually anti-military, and by extension anti-war, Jets and Bombers are pretty much standard now, and to get rid of them outright would obviously be national/societal suicide. I would limit the production of that, but that has to do more with my beliefs regarding the military-industrial complex than anything else.

EDIT: Shit! That's a dumb title.

Planes are awesome, so yes. There we go.

Personally, I believe that they are only necessary for inter-continental or long continental treks, when used for civilian purposes; in addition, Private Jets have no place in society, they should all be 30+ person aircraft, at least. Anything but that is rather inefficient.

*shrug* I see private jets as being every bit as acceptable as private cars. The 'inefficiency' argument could be applied to private cars, too, in favour of 30+ person buses, trains, trams et cetera.

This particular genie is well and truly out of the bottle.

Solar Airships, baby! (http://nextenergynews.com/news08/next-energy-news7.4.08b.html)

Anyway, it's just like anything else. We can't do it the way we have been, so that's going to mean a combination of reducing our reliance on it and finding other ways to make it work. There are extremes like the solar airships linked above, or Virgin Airlines switching to biofuels, or like the OP suggested transferring a lot of 'local' traffic back to rail. There isn't going to be a magic bullet that solves this just like there isn't going to be one that will solve all the other energy problems. Which is a good thing, because the universal reliance is what's making this current problem so huge.

I'm willing to go with getting rid of anything that flies just because it sounds so whimsical it may just work, though the low budget flights problem does need to be dealt with :)

however your views on the military are far more absurd

Planes are awesome, so yes. There we go.

not as awesome as giant battleships though

*shrug* I see private jets as being every bit as acceptable as private cars. The 'inefficiency' argument could be applied to private cars, too, in favour of 30+ person buses, trains, trams et cetera.

however private jets are hugely more so what with all that flying and coke addicted 12 year old Thai girls >.>

Solar Airships, baby! (http://nextenergynews.com/news08/next-energy-news7.4.08b.html)

I won't be happy until its powered by steam!

Solar Airships, baby! (http://nextenergynews.com/news08/next-energy-news7.4.08b.html)


Daaaaaaammmmmmm!!!!!! I like those! :)

Daaaaaaammmmmmm!!!!!! I like those! :)

They are nifty. I hope they work.

The title is a bit ambiguous, but this is essentially the same as (and was inspired by) the Automobile G or B thread, only applied to Aircraft.

Personally, I believe that they are only necessary for inter-continental or long continental treks, when used for civilian purposes; in addition, Private Jets have no place in society, they should all be 30+ person aircraft, at least. Anything but that is rather inefficient.

Although I am usually anti-military, and by extension anti-war, Jets and Bombers are pretty much standard now, and to get rid of them would be national/societal suicide. I would limit the production of that, but that has to do more with my beliefs regarding the military-industrial complex than anything else.

They are faster, you don't have to worry about constuction, or toll roads, and there's a little thing called the mile high club.

As to the second comment, WTF? That makes about as much sense as gun control.

The title is a bit ambiguous, but this is essentially the same as (and was inspired by) the Automobile G or B thread, only applied to Aircraft.

Personally, I believe that they are only necessary for inter-continental or long continental treks, when used for civilian purposes; in addition, Private Jets have no place in society, they should all be 30+ person aircraft, at least. Anything but that is rather inefficient.

Although I am usually anti-military, and by extension anti-war, Jets and Bombers are pretty much standard now, and to get rid of them would be national/societal suicide. I would limit the production of that, but that has to do more with my beliefs regarding the military-industrial complex than anything else.

EDIT: Shit! That's a dumb title.

just because you don't like something ( probably because you cant afford one) is no reason to ram your views down our throat. you dont like something don't buy it. however let the rest of us buy what ever we want and can afford.

not as awesome as giant battleships though
Aye well those aren't as cool as zepellins. Those are pretty leet. Especially if steam-powered for extra Empahrtabulous times.

They'll have to do until we develop a better trans-continental catapult.

They are faster, you don't have to worry about constuction, or toll roads, and there's a little thing called the mile high club.

As to the second comment, WTF? That makes about as much sense as gun control.
30+ people to a gun! :p

Aye well those aren't as cool as zepellins. Those are pretty leet. Especially if steam-powered for extra Empahrtabulous times.
How about a steam-powered Zeppelin made of Lead? :D

Aye well those aren't as cool as zepellins. Those are pretty leet. Especially if steam-powered for extra Empahrtabulous times.

Definition of Awesome (http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn289/RhynoD2/2w56b8h.gif).

Definition of Awesome (http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn289/RhynoD2/2w56b8h.gif).

*Groans*

*Groans*

I think everyone should have one. I wonder what the mileage is, though.
Trick question. It's powered by how bad-ass you are. The more bad-ass you are, the better your mileage.

As with most things, the solution isn't to simply ban something, but to find a sustainable solution. In the UK, we are such a small country that there shouldn't really be any reason why we need so many short haul flights. If the government invested properly in high speed rail, then people would have a realistic alternative.

But they're not going to, so onto planes we go.

The title is a bit ambiguous, but this is essentially the same as (and was inspired by) the Automobile G or B thread, only applied to Aircraft.

Personally, I believe that they are only necessary for inter-continental or long continental treks, when used for civilian purposes; in addition, Private Jets have no place in society, they should all be 30+ person aircraft, at least. Anything but that is rather inefficient.

Although I am usually anti-military, and by extension anti-war, Jets and Bombers are pretty much standard now, and to get rid of them would be national/societal suicide. I would limit the production of that, but that has to do more with my beliefs regarding the military-industrial complex than anything else.

EDIT: Shit! That's a dumb title.


Well yeah for long flights, people who get on an airplane when the train takes about the same time are pretty sad (for example ny - dc). However private jets have a place in society for very, very important peoples like head of state/government if they need to be somewhere in a hurry they should be able to scramble an airplane for themself.

We should all walk wherever we're going. It will only take nine months to get from the east to the west coast, so quitcherbitchin.

Well yeah for long flights, people who get on an airplane when the train takes about the same time are pretty sad (for example ny - dc). However private jets have a place in society for very, very important peoples like head of state/government if they need to be somewhere in a hurry they should be able to scramble an airplane for themself.

and rich people wanting to get on vacation in a hurry. and normal people wanting to pay a small aircraft pilot lots of money to avoid airport lines.
Also for those who live in remote areas only reachable by boat planes.
Shoot anyone who can afford one and wants one should have one.

personally, I'd like to see high speed railways to replace intracountry airflights, in today's high techworld, you don't even need to physically in the same location for meetings, so I don't see any real justification for using airplanes over trains, especially if the rails are electric.

personally, I'd like to see high speed railways to replace intracountry airflights, in today's high techworld, you don't even need to physically in the same location for meetings, so I don't see any real justification for using airplanes over trains, especially if the rails are electric.
Because aeroplanes remain much faster, and don't need thousands upon thousands of new lines of rails to be laid to get where they need to go?

Getting a trans-US high-speed railway system would take Super Ages to construct, and you'd have to actually watch the railways to make sure there were no obstacles on the track etc.

Also nobody would use it when a plane trip would doubtless be cheaper and quicker.

We should all walk wherever we're going. It will only take nine months to get from the east to the west coast, so quitcherbitchin.

Why do you hate the enviroment?alists
:p

personally, I'd like to see high speed railways to replace intracountry airflights, in today's high techworld, you don't even need to physically in the same location for meetings, so I don't see any real justification for using airplanes over trains, especially if the rails are electric.

Never going to happen. Your fantasies of an Americaan Nanny-welfare state will never happen. We will not go the way of the UK.

Never going to happen. Your fantasies of an Americaan Nanny-welfare state will never happen. We will not go the way of the UK.

No offense 1010102, but not all railroads are government owned, remember?

But I do agree with you. It'll never happen.

Never going to happen. Your fantasies of an Americaan Nanny-welfare state will never happen. We will not go the way of the UK.

Amen, I don't see us going in that kind of direction...

Now, in my opinion I really like planes and want to become a private pilot, so I am of course against banning airplanes.

No offense 1010102, but not all railroads are government owned, remember?

But I do agree with you. It'll never happen.

Not yet. They own all of the major passenger lines.

Also nobody would use it when a plane trip would doubtless be cheaper and quicker.
That's the thing, champ. It's not always going to be cheaper when rail can move more with less fuel and fuel prices continue to rise.

That's the thing, champ. It's not always going to be cheaper when rail can move more with less fuel and fuel prices continue to rise.

there is more to cost then fuel cost.
Rail has limited scalability. and increase maintenance cost because of the tracks (aircraft companies don't have to re apply the atmosphere every 2 years.)


There is no need to have the goverment mandate railroad tracks. when fuel cost make it more cost effective private companies will lay down railroads, and more efficiently then the goverment can.

Not yet. They own all of the major passenger lines.

actually the track is all owned by private freight companies. all Amtrak owns are the stations and the trains.

Airplanes have there place. They transport people as well as products to where they need to go. Ships could also be used in much the same extent but they are not as fast. Ships are better for carrying stuff which is needed in a while but planes are by far the best for people

Prehaps more rail networks should be established to reduce airplanes. But that takes government planning which is a harder thing to get going then private business. Especially when private business can see a profit.

The tread title is just silly. We need airplanes more then most people will ever know.

That's the thing, champ. It's not always going to be cheaper when rail can move more with less fuel and fuel prices continue to rise.
The issue is not fuel. It's watching all of the lines to make sure they're all fine, plus re-laying them every year or so, plus protecting them from flood damage/fire damage/people.

And even then, with a TGV-speed train, it would take more than ten hours to get across the States. And it would probably cost more than a plane ticket.

rail has that big problem of not being able to travel over the ocean
Ships have that big problem of not being able to travel over land
Airplanes can do both

Rail is more efficent once established but it must be established. And who is going to do that? Most places establishing a rail network falls upon the government. Which means the government will need to see a vote in the policy

Because aeroplanes remain much faster, and don't need thousands upon thousands of new lines of rails to be laid to get where they need to go?

Getting a trans-US high-speed railway system would take Super Ages to construct, and you'd have to actually watch the railways to make sure there were no obstacles on the track etc.


Vacuum tunnels with airtight trains running on magnetic rails. Take out the air friction, and there's no real limit to the speed you can get the train to go.

Vacuum tunnels with airtight trains running on magnetic rails. Take out the air friction, and there's no real limit to the speed you can get the train to go.
... oh of course, because trains with essentially no maximum speed will never cause problems, and creating tens of thousands of miles of vacuumed tubes with maglev is going to be a cheap enterprise.

... oh of course, because trains with essentially no maximum speed will never cause problems, and creating tens of thousands of miles of vacuumed tubes with maglev is going to be a cheap enterprise.

Like aircraft never have problems resulting from neglect, pilot error, pilot abuse, freak accidents or just plain old mechanical failure...

So it's not a cheap enterprise. So what? The space program wasn't cheap either. Or in the vein of transport, neither are mega-freighters, but you don't see corporations squirming at the idea of contracting out the construction of a new one.

Well, after checking the payments of the aircraft indurstry, the organisation of private jet owners and the international airline association on my personal accounts, I have to say, there is a right for the people to own their own jet. To encourage that, I have decieded, to reduce the buerocratic necessities to use an aircraft.
By the way, who will voluntere to fly me to my vacation site next week?


Alien, dictator of Koruptistan

Vacuum tunnels with airtight trains running on magnetic rails. Take out the air friction, and there's no real limit to the speed you can get the train to go.

Or we could just make UFOs powered with imagination.

Or we could just make UFOs powered with imagination.

What can you conceive more silly and extravagant than to suppose a man racking his brains, and studying night and day how to fly?

— William Law, 'A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life XI,' 1728.

You would make a ship sail against the winds and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck...I have no time for such nonsense.

— Napoleon, commenting on Fulton's Steamship.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.

— Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1895.

Maglevs are a working technology. Vacuum tunnels are a question of engineering, not experimental technologies. Putting the two together doesn't involve any great technological leap. I would be wary of making predictions of what is and isn't possible, especially when it involves already existing technologies.

Like aircraft never have problems resulting from neglect, pilot error, pilot abuse, freak accidents or just plain old mechanical failure...
This is why we check them before every flight, as well as recalling and fixing models after most kinds of fatal accident, as well as ensuring pilots get enough rest, and cancelling or delaying flights when there is poor weather...
So it's not a cheap enterprise. So what?
So the costs outweigh the gains massively.
The space program wasn't cheap either.
Quite. Thank you national pride for billions of dollars of wasted cash.
Or in the vein of transport, neither are mega-freighters, but you don't see corporations squirming at the idea of contracting out the construction of a new one.
Examples of purchases by corporations of so-called 'mega-freighters', please.
Maglevs are a working technology.
Vaguely.
Vacuum tunnels are a question of engineering, not experimental technologies. Putting the two together doesn't involve any great technological leap. I would be wary of making predictions of what is and isn't possible, especially when it involves already existing technologies.
And I would be vary wary of overextending the current limits of futuristic technology. Maglev trains in a vacuum is not going to happen any time soon, especially not on a cross-US level.

That you'd need to lay about 12,000 miles of maglev to go coast to coast with a mere 2 tracks each way, and keep the entire bloody thing in a vacuum so that the trains didn't melt, in addition to powering the entire affair (and keep in mind that these lines have to make no holes in the walls, or ceiling, or even floor which are not filled over to keep a vacuum), as well as buying large enough trains to make it worth it, in addition to making stations which would have the trains in a vacuum, but which also let people get in and out safely without pressure-based medical conditions.

And that's without considering the fact that accidents could be absolutely horrendous, what with either keeping a vacuum going for the other 3 trains, and killing everyone inside the single train which was screwed, or having the other 3 trains melt completely due to the sudden friction increase by filling the tubes with air (which would need to be an on/off process which was absolutely a 1 or 0 situation).

Or the inevitable costs in maintaining the lines, and making sure they aren't being worn down, or blown up by baddies, etc. etc.

Why not just take the plane, for chrissakes?

This is why we check them before every flight, as well as recalling and fixing models after most kinds of fatal accident, as well as ensuring pilots get enough rest, and cancelling or delaying flights when there is poor weather...

And somehow, you think maglev technology when applied commercially will have no safety limits and inspections? A very poor argument.


So the costs outweigh the gains massively.


Any emergent enterprise will always be astronomically more expensive in the beginning than 50 years or so down the line. You're not paying $500,000 for a computer with a processing speed of 385hz these days are you?


Quite. Thank you national pride for billions of dollars of wasted cash.


The space program created a huge number of divergent technologies that have more than paid for itself. Microcomputers, lasers, microwaves, hermetic sealing and many more were birthed by that program. This is an undeniable fact.


Examples of purchases by corporations of so-called 'mega-freighters', please.


The Emma Mærsk, owned by Mærsk Line, Xin Los Angeles, owned by CSCL, NYK Vega, owned by Nippon Yusen Kaisha, MSC Pamela, owned by the Mediterranean Shipping Company, Hannover Bridge, owned by Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha, Ltd. These are all container ships. Oil tankers go to a different category, but in some cases, have an even bigger cargo capacity and associated cost.

Did you really think these super heavy freight ships sprang forth from the ether, complete with crew and ownership? Someone must contract their construction, and only these kinds of corporations have the financial clout and need to buy them.


Vaguely.


Not in Japan, or China. Most definitely not EMS and EDS technology, which have been patented for what, 20 years?


And I would be vary wary of overextending the current limits of futuristic technology. Maglev trains in a vacuum is not going to happen any time soon, especially not on a cross-US level.

Because investors are easily scared of risk, which means transport firms are leery of investing in anything new until it becomes proven, which means it won't be because nobody is willing to try it.


That you'd need to lay about 12,000 miles of maglev to go coast to coast with a mere 2 tracks each way, and keep the entire bloody thing in a vacuum so that the trains didn't melt,


Trains don't melt that easily, even in the event of sudden air friction. Furthermore, the sudden friction will slow it down. A train designed for vacuum tunnel travel need not be aerodynamic and can be no more than a simple flat topped cylinder, providing a large surface area for air friction and as a natural brake.


in addition to powering the entire affair


Direct electrical energy conversion into kinetic via magnetic acceleration is actually quite more efficient than say, chemical to thermal to kinetic as is done by diesel and coal trains. Less transition steps to lose energy in.


(and keep in mind that these lines have to make no holes in the walls, or ceiling, or even floor which are not filled over to keep a vacuum),


This is an engineering concern, of which is not impossible, unless one has a dunderhead of an engineer or budget cutter more interested in crippling the venture before it even begins than in making it profitable.


as well as buying large enough trains to make it worth it,


This is nothing more than a quibble. A DC-10 has a far smaller price tag than a B-747, but you don't see airlines hemming and hawing at purchasing the much bigger brother.


in addition to making stations which would have the trains in a vacuum, but which also let people get in and out safely without pressure-based medical conditions.

Aircraft are pressurized, and create negligible, if any, medical conditions, when traveling to altitudes beyond the average human capacity to survive in. Submarines are pressurized, and can go to depths that would crush humans. Not only that, but are capable of being docked to while in those depths by other purpose built submersible craft.

Vacuum is the least worrisome of the atmospheric imbalance issues. You only have to preserve normal air pressure against the impulse to expand outwards.

The engineering concerns here are negligible at best.


And that's without considering the fact that accidents could be absolutely horrendous

No more so than your average train accident. In fact, the likelihood of accidents, and severe damage, are even less likely than a conventional train. When was the last time you heard of a subway train derailing?


what with either keeping a vacuum going for the other 3 trains, and killing everyone inside the single train which was screwed,

If you have 4 tracks, why are you putting them in the same tunnel? Subways very rarely, if ever have tracks that occupy the same tunnel.


or having the other 3 trains melt completely due to the sudden friction increase by filling the tubes with air (which would need to be an on/off process which was absolutely a 1 or 0 situation).


This is a non-argument. I have addressed it above. But if you are that worried, I imagine that in the case of tunnel breach, one safety precaution would be the installation of airlocks at each station tunnel and at certain points along the track.


Or the inevitable costs in maintaining the lines, and making sure they aren't being worn down, or blown up by baddies, etc. etc.


This is no more serious than applying the same argument to aircraft, highways, normal train lines, or even subways.


Why not just take the plane, for chrissakes?

Because jet aircraft are the least energy efficient of the existing mass transport systems. Furthermore, in atmospheric conditions alone, it is possible for maglev trains to achieve speeds comparable to aircraft.

Your argument structure is really not all that different than the naysayers who believed human flight was impossible. Highlight difficulties, and then assume those difficulties are insurmountable, no matter what.

Like aircraft never have problems resulting from neglect, pilot error, pilot abuse, freak accidents or just plain old mechanical failure...

So it's not a cheap enterprise. So what? The space program wasn't cheap either. Or in the vein of transport, neither are mega-freighters, but you don't see corporations squirming at the idea of contracting out the construction of a new one.

yes and how many millions of people have we sent to space. there is a difference between a 1.2 mile maglift/ vacum tube track(not even there yet) used for testing purposes by a few researchers and the millions who need to fly every year.
when 1 million people travel to space yearly tickets will be much more affordable.
right now the cheapest way to travel is by air, unless you have the goverment build and maintain the track.

I always dig when people who would usually be all gung ho about their country's ability to innovate and be a technology leader, when faced with a chance to do just that start whining, "It's too haaaaaarrrrrdddd!"

Solar Airships, baby! (http://nextenergynews.com/news08/next-energy-news7.4.08b.html)

Virgin Airlines switching to biofuels,

The Turtle airship sounds like a great concept if it works out. Switching to fuel made from food is not a very acceptable answer. The Air Force has flown a B-52 and one or two other aircraft on a 50/50 mix of a liquid fuel made from coal and jet fuel.

How about a steam-powered Zeppelin made of Lead? :D

So you want a Lead Zeppelin? Here

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/zeppelinLL1209_468x331.jpg

I always dig when people who would usually be all gung ho about their country's ability to innovate and be a technology leader, when faced with a chance to do just that start whining, "It's too haaaaaarrrrrdddd!"

it is more like we know it just cant turn a profit. now as technology advances it very well can be the solution. but building the network right now would be a waste of time and money as advancements may well require the removal and relaying of what we could build today.

it is more like we know it just cant turn a profit. now as technology advances it very well can be the solution. but building the network right now would be a waste of time and money as advancements may well require the removal and relaying of what we could build today.

Just like that professor who laughed at his student that said he wanted to start a package shipping company...

Just like that professor who laughed at his student that said he wanted to start a package shipping company...

right now you run the trains at max capacity they wont make up the construction cost during the life time of the track.
the technology is too new. wasting goverment money on systems that will have to be up rooted and rebuilt in 10-20 years to accommodate higher speed more cost effective systems is silly.


But by all means prove me wrong. YOU go build and run a Maglev train for profit. isn't that what the student did to his professor in regards to UPS?
Stop bitching about how we wont build such a system. Because I do not want to, and I do not want my money wasted on such an enterprise.

That's the thing, champ. It's not always going to be cheaper when rail can move more with less fuel and fuel prices continue to rise.

Ok, lets look at a business person or government worker in Boston who has to have a meeting in Washington DC on a Monday morning and report back to his boss on Tuesday.

United Airlines round trip ticket $316.00. Departs Boston about 8 AM Monday. Arrives in Washington abut 1 hour and 45 minutes later. Fly back to Boston the next day about the same time. Might be able to fly back Monday afternoon after the meeting and be home for supper. (prices and flight times from Travelosity)

AMTRAK round trip ticket is $388.00. Good deal because it takes you from downtown to downtown so you save on cab fair or parking fees. Travel time from Boston to Washington is 6 hours and 32 minutes. Whoops! That could knock out the meeting on Monday. If we have to meet on Tuesday afternoon, you would have to have the meeting on Tuesday.

Stop bitching about how we wont build such a system.
You're the one bitching that we won't. I'm saying eventually, we'll have no choice.
Ok, lets look at a business person or government worker in Boston who has to have a meeting in Washington DC on a Monday morning and report back to his boss on Tuesday.

United Airlines round trip ticket $316.00. Departs Boston about 8 AM Monday. Arrives in Washington abut 1 hour and 45 minutes later. Fly back to Boston the next day about the same time. Might be able to fly back Monday afternoon after the meeting and be home for supper. (prices and flight times from Travelosity)

AMTRAK round trip ticket is $388.00. Good deal because it takes you from downtown to downtown so you save on cab fair or parking fees. Travel time from Boston to Washington is 6 hours and 32 minutes. Whoops! That could knock out the meeting on Monday. If we have to meet on Tuesday afternoon, you would have to have the meeting on Tuesday.
Things are as they always were and always will be.

the technology is too new. wasting goverment money on systems that will have to be up rooted and rebuilt in 10-20 years to accommodate higher speed more cost effective systems is silly.

So you want to do nothing with new technology that MIGHT, be replaced by newer technology in the future. - Alexander, quit playing with that contraption. It might be replaced by a cell phone in the future. Damn, you know no one is going to invest in a contraption that's going to be replaced. :eek:

You're the one bitching that we won't. I'm saying eventually, we'll have no choice.

Things are as they always were and always will be.

We need to get the business person off the train or plane and into video conferencing. In my job, we do a lot of telephone conferencing. It saves a lot of time and money.

Never going to happen. Your fantasies of an Americaan Nanny-welfare state will never happen. We will not go the way of the UK.

WTF?

How on earth does this have to do with turning America into a nanny-state? Nothing, that's what. Don't shoot down ides unless you're going to giving a valid objections to the idea.

Because aeroplanes remain much faster, and don't need thousands upon thousands of new lines of rails to be laid to get where they need to go?

True, but major changes in infrastructure will have to occur soon, even to major highways across the united states, if you ever want to stop using Oil, and switch to hydrogen, alternate fuels etc.

As for speed, I understand trains don't go nearly as fast, but as I said above, the use of Tele-presence technology should allow people to make face to face meetings, which would shave off the need for business travel, which leaves just pleasure travel and cargo freight. I fail to see why, for a pleasure trip, you'd need to 'get there' super fast, and a good lot of Freight is already moved by rail within nations; increasing the number of rails would decrease the need for trucking.


Getting a trans-US high-speed railway system would take Super Ages to construct, and you'd have to actually watch the railways to make sure there were no obstacles on the track etc.

:) No disagreement here.You could probably build some sort of remote sensing technology to help check the rails from afar.

Also nobody would use it when a plane trip would doubtless be cheaper and quicker.
But planes aren't getting cheaper, and a high speed electric train would probably be cheaper.

I fail to see why, for a pleasure trip, you'd need to 'get there' super fast,

You live on the East Coast and grandma lives Colorado. You have one week vacation. :( You live in Maine and you want to take your kids to Disney world. You have one week vacation. :( So, you are going to drive? :eek:

You live on the East Coast and grandma lives Colorado. You have one week vacation. :( You live in Maine and you want to take your kids to Disney world. You have one week vacation. :( So, you are going to drive? :eek:

But you see, this is the problem with the modern western society: there is a difference between 'want' and 'need'; You don't need to go to Disney land, you could go somewhere locally for vacation.

So you want to do nothing with new technology that MIGHT, be replaced by newer technology in the future. - Alexander, quit playing with that contraption. It might be replaced by a cell phone in the future. Damn, you know no one is going to invest in a contraption that's going to be replaced. :eek:

right now the technology isn't standardized.
will it be the Japaneses system?
the German one (in use in China)
or the new American one called smart train dumb track(most cost effective but lots of issues).

right now to rush in and build a system is sort of like buying a 50 billion dollar beta max in the 80's or and HD DVD player last year.
Actually it is even worse because current technology doesn't let you run the system as a profit. so if you build it now you will go bankrupt trying to pay off your debt when you try and compete against the guy who builds a a competing system that is actually profitable 10 years after you.

WTF?

How on earth does this have to do with turning America into a nanny-state? Nothing, that's what. Don't shoot down ides unless you're going to giving a valid objections to the idea.

I was talking about almost everything else you've posted, not this thread.

But you see, this is the problem with the modern western society: there is a difference between 'want' and 'need'; You don't need to go to Disney land, you could go somewhere locally for vacation.

But you may NEED to visit grandma.

right now the technology isn't standardized.
will it be the Japaneses system?
the German one (in use in China)
or the new American one called smart train dumb track(most cost effective but lots of issues).

Will it be eight track or cassette? - no let's wait for CD
Will it be VHS or BETA? - no let's wait for DVD.

If we never had any of the above we wouldn't have the technology we have now. One technilogical advance leads to another. If you never have the former you can never have the latter.

Will it be eight track or cassette? - no let's wait for CD
Will it be VHS or BETA? - no let's wait for DVD.
investing 50 billion dollars in something when there is a different current technology that may become standard is dumb. VHS did not become dominate because of Beta Max and neither did cassette become dominate because of 8 track.

the vast majority of people who bought beta max wished they had waited 1 year to see which format would become common place. kinda sucks to spend 300 dollars on something made worthless because it no longer has tapes made for it.

now imagine spending 50 billion dollars on mag lev and it being worthless because another system won out and there will no longer be parts made for your mag lev system.

If we never had any of the above we wouldn't have the technology we have now. One technilogical advance leads to another. If you never have the former you can never have the latter.

all current systems are being researched and exist as research tracks. there is no need to build a trans city system that will run at a loss and will take time and money away from research. (who do you think is going to build it? the researchers who have better things to do like research). And may very well turn out to be out paced by other technology.

yes and how many millions of people have we sent to space. there is a difference between a 1.2 mile maglift/ vacum tube track(not even there yet) used for testing purposes by a few researchers and the millions who need to fly every year.
when 1 million people travel to space yearly tickets will be much more affordable.
right now the cheapest way to travel is by air, unless you have the goverment build and maintain the track.

1 million people don't travel to space because there are no laws in place that would protect any industry that goes outside of Earth's atmosphere. When there are solid legal frameworks to protect such investments, you'll see some pretty hefty investments going that way.

investing 50 billion dollars in something when there is a different current technology that may become standard is dumb. VHS did not become dominate because of Beta Max and neither did cassette become dominate because of 8 track.

Didn't stop HD-DVD and Bluray from competing against one another now did it? I've an idea! Lets stop all innovation, don't invest in new technologies, even proven ones, until they become dominant! But oops, nobody is investing in it, so there's no innovation. Hooray! We can all go back to caves and fur because none of this new fangled technology is proven by magic investment that appeared from thin air.

1 million people don't travel to space because there are no laws in place that would protect any industry that goes outside of Earth's atmosphere. When there are solid legal frameworks to protect such investments, you'll see some pretty hefty investments going that way.

Actually 1 million people dont travel to space because of the expense. There have already been space tourists for the price of millions of dollars. Its just expensive as the whole area must be pressurized and supplied with oxygen (much like the vacuum train idea). There is also that problem of what to do when something suddenly goes wrong. You cant parachute away from a space crash. You need oxygen supporting equipment suitable for someone to pick you up. And if you do enter the atmosphere you need alot of protection

Didn't stop HD-DVD and Bluray from competing against one another now did it? I've an idea! Lets stop all innovation, don't invest in new technologies, even proven ones, until they become dominant! But oops, nobody is investing in it, so there's no innovation. Hooray! We can all go back to caves and fur because none of this new fangled technology is proven by magic investment that appeared from thin air.

The companies saw a profit in the technology. They havnt with vacuum trains. This is due to the environmental impact, chance of the vacuum being damage anywhere (all you need is one hoolagan along any of the track and investment currently required. The station may be guarded but the whole track wont be) and it will take time to develop such a system for a cheap price that commuters will pay for

Who knows prehaps in the future everyone will travel around in vacuum trains. Then again they may have decided to invest in instant teleportation or just hook every human up to a computer network like the matrix. The thing is that this is VERY far away. it is too far away for companies to bother to invest in, let alone the government.

1 million people don't travel to space because there are no laws in place that would protect any industry that goes outside of Earth's atmosphere. When there are solid legal frameworks to protect such investments, you'll see some pretty hefty investments going that way.

That's actually a very good reason to go into space. You can do whatever the hell you want to do in space, unless someone wants to spend the money required to launch something to stop you. Generally speaking, space-travel is expensive enough that I doubt anyone would care enough about what you're doing to bother trying to stop you, unless you're creating an orbital weapons platform or something along those lines.

Actually 1 million people dont travel to space because of the expense. There have already been space tourists for the price of millions of dollars. Its just expensive as the whole area must be pressurized and supplied with oxygen (much like the vacuum train idea). There is also that problem of what to do when something suddenly goes wrong. You cant parachute away from a space crash. You need oxygen supporting equipment suitable for someone to pick you up. And if you do enter the atmosphere you need alot of protection

The expense is due to lack of funding into cheaper methods of getting into space. Right now, the only way is by sitting on top of a giant firecracker, the least practical and energy efficient way of getting to space. There are at least a handful of other concepts proposed, none of which are getting the kind of funding and research needed to really take off.

The safety issue is moot. If an aircraft suffers any major failure while in flight, its going to come down hard, and passenger craft don't carry parachutes. There's a risk associated with everything. The question is whether the potential profit is enough to draw them in. Columbus didn't want to discover the oversea route to the Indies just for the heck of it, there was huge piles of money to be made if he could find one.

Space might be just as lucrative, but it won't until there's legal safeguards that will allow that profitability to be maintained.


The companies saw a profit in the technology. They havnt with vacuum trains. This is due to the environmental impact, chance of the vacuum being damage anywhere (all you need is one hoolagan along any of the track and investment currently required. The station may be guarded but the whole track wont be) and it will take time to develop such a system for a cheap price that commuters will pay for

Companies might see profit in the technology, but they may not be willing to risk it right now. Furthermore, current transportation companies may not take too kindly to competitors opening up a fast, cheap mass transit system on their routes. Politics plays as much a role in business investments these days as economics.

And you'll need a much better equipped hooligan than your average thug to damage a vacuum tunnel.


Who knows prehaps in the future everyone will travel around in vacuum trains. Then again they may have decided to invest in instant teleportation or just hook every human up to a computer network like the matrix. The thing is that this is VERY far away. it is too far away for companies to bother to invest in, let alone the government.

It is as far away as reliable mass passenger flight was when the Wright Brothers took off.

I was talking about almost everything else you've posted, not this thread.

Oh good, I was afraid people weren't noticing my ebil plans :rolleyes:

So you want a Lead Zeppelin? Here

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/zeppelinLL1209_468x331.jpg
:p (Evidently, We need FIVE characters from now on.)

The safety issue is moot. If an aircraft suffers any major failure while in flight, its going to come down hard, and passenger craft don't carry parachutes. There's a risk associated with everything. The question is whether the potential profit is enough to draw them in. Columbus didn't want to discover the oversea route to the Indies just for the heck of it, there was huge piles of money to be made if he could find one.

money that covered the cost. which currently doesn't exist with space travel or mag lift trains.

Space might be just as lucrative, but it won't until there's legal safeguards that will allow that profitability to be maintained.

so your saying British colonist came to America to get into a system with an even greater number of laws, with the native all legislatived into not attacking the colonist ?
Sorry if history has any show of it, people migrate to frontiers to avoid not find even more stringent laws.


Companies might see profit in the technology, but they may not be willing to risk it right now. Furthermore, current transportation companies may not take too kindly to competitors opening up a fast, cheap mass transit system on their routes. Politics plays as much a role in business investments these days as economics.

automobile/ aircraft companies are one of the largest investors in alternative means of transportation. because when they do become marketable they stand to make a large profit.

And you'll need a much better equipped hooligan than your average thug to damage a vacuum tunnel.

like the 11/3 rail line attackers in Spain. except I would imagine a vacuum tube terrorist attack would be even more catastrophic.



It is as far away as reliable mass passenger flight was when the Wright Brothers took off.
yes the write brothers didn't depend on goverment funding either.

money that covered the cost. which currently doesn't exist with space travel or mag lift trains.

Oh, it does exist. Orbital industries are one very promising aspect of space travel. There are some very strong alloys you just cannot create in any gravity well.


so your saying British colonist came to America to get into a system with an even greater number of laws, with the native all legislatived into not attacking the colonist ?

Now you're trying to draw parallels between explorers and colonists. Fail.

Let me put this in a way maybe you can understand. If a mining firm found this unclaimed, virgin territory absolutely teeming with ultra rare minerals worth trillions of dollars, do you think they would invest in it if there were no legal safeguards at home that allowed them to reap the benefits of it without said benefits being stripped away by the state who goes "oh, you found it, but we're taking it anyway"?


automobile/ aircraft companies are one of the largest investors in alternative means of transportation. because when they do become marketable they stand to make a large profit.

And none of them will invest in sea travel either, because it's not where they have any experience or desire to compete in. Does that mean sea travel is unprofitable?


like the 11/3 rail line attackers in Spain. except I would imagine a vacuum tube terrorist attack would be even more catastrophic.


Only if whoever built the railway was a dunderhead who took less safety precautions than even that of your standard subway.


yes the write brothers didn't depend on goverment funding either.

The Wright brothers (you can't even spell their names right), may not have depended on government funding, but they didn't make regular transatlantic flights for large volumes of people part of their work either. They only showed that it was possible. Government and private funding capitalized on that discovery.

Maglevs trains are already a reality, and have gone beyond the prototype stage with actual commercial service in several cities. Now it's the turn of the government and private funding, which are already taking place, like it or not, to mass produce it.

Oh, it does exist. Orbital industries are one very promising aspect of space travel. There are some very strong alloys you just cannot create in any gravity well.

Still not financially viable. But if you think it is by all means start your own business

Let me put this in a way maybe you can understand. If a mining firm found this unclaimed, virgin territory absolutely teeming with ultra rare minerals worth trillions of dollars, do you think they would invest in it if there were no legal safeguards at home that allowed them to reap the benefits of it without said benefits being stripped away by the state who goes "oh, you found it, but we're taking it anyway"?


Mining companies would mine unclaimed land if it was truely unclaimed. They would buy the land from an authority. They wouldn’t hesitate. If they fear the state they make a deal with the state to mine on that land. Making deals with the owners of land is part of business. Inventions on the other hand are subject to copyright. They are 2 legally different scenarios

And none of them will invest in sea travel either, because it's not where they have any experience or desire to compete in. Does that mean sea travel is unprofitable?

Other companies do. Different companies do different things. But that doesn’t stop a company from moving to a new area if it is similar to their own or an individual starting a new company

Only if whoever built the railway was a dunderhead who took less safety precautions than even that of your standard subway.

The Spanish subway could be better but its still used by the public. They dont have security on all the tracks either which im sure a car could do a lot of damage to if this was a vacuum tunnel.

The Wright brothers (you can't even spell their names right), may not have depended on government funding, but they didn't make regular transatlantic flights for large volumes of people part of their work either. They only showed that it was possible. Government and private funding capitalized on that discovery.

Maglevs trains are already a reality, and have gone beyond the prototype stage with actual commercial service in several cities. Now it's the turn of the government and private funding, which are already taking place, like it or not, to mass produce it.

Yeah the government needs to free land and give financial assistance but that dosnt stop a person making the proposal and selling the idea on evidence by showing that it can be done on a smaller scale.
They could also speak to a pre-existing rail company and try to establish a demonstration area for it.

They'll have to do until we develop a better trans-continental catapult.

They have the catapult. it works great. They just havnt worked the kinks out of the last 10 feet of the trip yet.

Yootopia, you mentioned something about the cost of making sure trains or rails are not 'blown up by baddies?'

Erm. Well.

http://www.gotwinlakes.com/images/9-11wtc.jpg

*shrug* I see private jets as being every bit as acceptable as private cars. The 'inefficiency' argument could be applied to private cars, too, in favour of 30+ person buses, trains, trams et cetera.

One issue is environment: aircraft fuel should be taxed more, proportionally to the pollution it causes (the release of greenhouse gases at high altitudes is quite detrimental). So you either get hydrogen-powered aircrafts (byproduct: DHMO), or large and very fuel-efficient fossile-fuel aircrafts.

The other issue might be heavy air traffic, expecially in densely inhabited area like Europe, or Japan. I think that, at least in such areas, all flights should abide the rules set for larger aircrafts - traffic control, radio transponders, routes and clearances, and interception for those who don't have or don't follow the flight plan: I don't want another flying hillbilly crashing his Piper into the Pirelli tower - I work there, wtf!

Still not financially viable. But if you think it is by all means start your own business.

Let me know when governments give legal certainties regarding this sort of thing, especially so when Mr Shyster is legally prevented from going "I hereby own the moon even though I have no means of getting there".


Mining companies would mine unclaimed land if it was truely unclaimed. They would buy the land from an authority.

These two statements are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, you acknowledge that they would buy the land from an authority, a state of affairs that does not exist for extra-planetary affairs. How do you say who gets what orbits then? Or flight paths? How about landing rights? What goes where? Do you rent starports? Who do you pay taxes to? Can you be taxed if your factory flies over several different countries in the space of a day?


Making deals with the owners of land is part of business. Inventions on the other hand are subject to copyright. They are 2 legally different scenarios

This statement has no bearing on the example at all.


Other companies do. Different companies do different things. But that doesn’t stop a company from moving to a new area if it is similar to their own or an individual starting a new company

When Virgin Airlines starts making cars or buying cruise ships, let me know.


The Spanish subway could be better but its still used by the public. They dont have security on all the tracks either which im sure a car could do a lot of damage to if this was a vacuum tunnel.

How?


Yeah the government needs to free land and give financial assistance but that dosnt stop a person making the proposal and selling the idea on evidence by showing that it can be done on a smaller scale.
They could also speak to a pre-existing rail company and try to establish a demonstration area for it.

You have been living on the moon all this time have you? Maglev trains have been established as working systems from as early as the 1980s.

Let me know when governments give legal certainties regarding this sort of thing, especially so when Mr Shyster is legally prevented from going "I hereby own the moon even though I have no means of getting there".
if I live on a moon colony my laser rifle will be my guarantee against that sort of thing



These two statements are mutually exclusive. Furthermore, you acknowledge that they would buy the land from an authority, a state of affairs that does not exist for extra-planetary affairs. How do you say who gets what orbits then? Or flight paths? How about landing rights? What goes where? Do you rent starports? Who do you pay taxes to? Can you be taxed if your factory flies over several different countries in the space of a day?
terrestrial orbits are already pretty much handled. it is a little confusing to me but seems to be based off of first come first serve principle.
1967 Outer Space Treaty, which states that outer space... is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty."
no taxes are paid in space as by the 1967 agreement no one can extend their nations to space. though the US taxes based on citizenship not based on location so other countries could switch to that and still collect payroll taxes.
landing rights ??? same as everywhere else you call ahead. or do you mean emergency landings ? same as every other landing.
To be honest it sounds like if you did the moon landings today you would send an accountant first.
When people go into space they will go to escape all those rules and live in a place they protect themselves. much like the frontier. you however wont need to worry about it people like you just stay home and play it safe.


This statement has no bearing on the example at all.



When Virgin Airlines starts making cars or buying cruise ships, let me know.
[/quote]
http://www.virginholidayscruises.com/
seems they already owns cruise ships.
but how about trains?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains
no cars yet but they do have bikes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Limobike

How?
You have been living on the moon all this time have you? Maglev trains have been established as working systems from as early as the 1980s.

But none have been able to run at profit. the maglev in shanghai could run 24 hours a day at max capacity and still never recoup the cost of construction in their lifetime.

sure. well they have turned cities from defensive fortressess into sitting targets militarily, but as a mechanical transport to explore with, the only problem as with any form of mechanical transportation, other then tearing up the countryside for roads for cars, something planes have much less need of, perhapse least of any mode, vtol capables like hiligoflopters best of all, is this matter of combustion for propulsion.

(i have no problem with the obsolescence of the city as a concept either, though certainly no love for its replacement by car dependent ways of life)

planes CAN run on batteries trickle charged in flight. nasa has some kind of arial drone, there's pictures of it on the net, thats been able to remain aloft for years IN THE ATMOSPHERE, with electrical engines and covered with photocells.

=^^=
.../\...

if I live on a moon colony my laser rifle will be my guarantee against that sort of thing


Until your neighbor brings in his tank and claims the territory as his. Ownership based on firepower won't get any investors at all but the rich nuts who want to start their personal kingdoms, which Earthly nations won't take kindly to.


terrestrial orbits are already pretty much handled. it is a little confusing to me but seems to be based off of first come first serve principle.


Hah, you think that's going to work when they start making orbital industries? What about waste material? You might not think much of a loose bolt or nut, but when its traveling at orbital speeds, it's a lot more lethal than a bullet. It's not going to work without a whole lot more legislation.


1967 Outer Space Treaty, which states that
no taxes are paid in space as by the 1967 agreement no one can extend their nations to space.


Bollocks. The Outer Space Treaty has nothing on taxes. And just because your business isn't earthside, as long as you're in the business of making money on Earth, you'll be using earth cash, and that means taxes. Having an account in the Cayman islands doesn't mean your income won't be taxed if the IRS catches the flow of cash somewhere in the US.


landing rights ??? same as everywhere else you call ahead. or do you mean emergency landings ?

Landing rights with transatmospheric craft is a lot harder than mere atmospheric aircraft. It's fine right now with sporadic launches, but if you try to even approach the volume of traffic we have with normal air flight, you'll need a global entity capable of organizing that traffic.


To be honest it sounds like if you did the moon landings today you would send an accountant first.

That's because aside from governments, the only entities with the resources to go to space is multi-national corporations, not your romanticized "oppressed colonist" who can't even rub a small percentage of the funds needed to build a rocket capable of reaching space, much less going to the moon.


When people go into space they will go to escape all those rules and live in a place they protect themselves.

With what? Catapults and slingshots? The only private people who can afford to go to space are multi billionaires, don't try to pretend otherwise.


much like the frontier. you however wont need to worry about it people like you just stay home and play it safe.

People like me are capable of calculating the cost of investment, and possible returns before investing in such a venture. And it would take people like me to deem whether it's viable for corporations to actually go there, because they are the only ones who can afford to.

People like you would be too busy fantasizing about going to space without realizing just exactly what is required.



http://www.virginholidayscruises.com/
seems they already owns cruise ships.
but how about trains?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Trains
no cars yet but they do have bikes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Limobike
[/quote]

Hooray, so they have.


But none have been able to run at profit. the maglev in shanghai could run 24 hours a day at max capacity and still never recoup the cost of construction in their lifetime.

The Shanghai maglev was built as a showpiece, not a practical profit generating business. Any profitable maglev would involve a long line, multiple stops and above all, strategic placement. The Japanese Shinkansen line for example. Expensive to replace, yes, but at lower speeds, far quieter than a conventional train at equal speeds.