Jump to content



Photo

New York to China in two hours

britain air travel virgin galactic transcontinental spaceport rockets sub-orbital

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,632 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 13 July 2014 - 00:07

According to a paper released by British consulting firm Knight Frank, which specializes in trends for “ultra-high net worth individuals,” sub-orbital commuter flights traveling at about 4,000 miles per hour (today's planes go around 500 mph), will be ready for the public by 2020.

 

plane3_635x250_1405098084.jpg

The key is getting companies that are already approved for sub-orbital space travel (like Virgin Galactic) to stop planning trips just straight into the thermosphere and back down, and instead to start traveling around the globe.

Virgin Galactic’s founder Richard Branson has already indicated that he’s looking into this. He imagines a “future version of the current spaceship which will make transcontinental travel clean and fast — London to Sydney in a couple of hours.”

The flights are estimated to cost anywhere between $90,000 and $250,000 a pop making them accessible to only the top 0.01%. Call it billionaire-exclusive technology.

Yahoo Finance tech reporter Aaron Pressman also has some qualms with the technology itself. “These [jets] can only take off and land in very special places like the spaceport that’s in New Mexico,” he says. “That’s not going to help the 0.1% get from New York to London or Australia. So it’s going to take a while before these rockets become more like normal airplanes that can land at normal airports.”

Still, if proper infrastructure is built large-scale sub-orbital operations could becomea  reality and prices could become affordable, says Pressman, but not for a long time. “Maybe our grandchildren will experience it,” he says.

 

source




#2 -T-

-T-

    Trapmaster

  • 2,569 posts
  • Joined: 03-December 01
  • Location: Western Australia & Scotland

Posted 13 July 2014 - 00:42

Oh good, more chances for the 0.01% to waste their gains

#3 dvb2000

dvb2000

    Neowinian

  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 07

Posted 13 July 2014 - 03:47


Yahoo Finance tech reporter Aaron Pressman also has some qualms with the technology itself. “These [jets] can only take off and land in very special places like the spaceport that’s in New Mexico,” he says. “That’s not going to help the 0.1% get from New York to London or Australia. So it’s going to take a while before these rockets become more like normal airplanes that can land at normal airports.”

 

A little lateral thinking will solve that problem. In fact I could never work out why "traditional" airports weren't built a couple of kilometres offshore, and linked to the capital cities like Sydney by an underground tunnel.



#4 blerk

blerk

    Banned User

  • 683 posts
  • Joined: 09-December 10

Posted 13 July 2014 - 04:11

A little lateral thinking will solve that problem. In fact I could never work out why "traditional" airports weren't built a couple of kilometres offshore, and linked to the capital cities like Sydney by an underground tunnel.

It's expensive. 



#5 +_Alexander

_Alexander

    Neowinian

  • 1,137 posts
  • Joined: 21-January 13
  • Location: USA
  • OS: W8.1 u1
  • Phone: Nokia 521

Posted 13 July 2014 - 04:18

Oh good, more chances for the 0.01% to waste their gains

At first.

#6 Boz

Boz

    Neowinian Senior

  • 7,434 posts
  • Joined: 21-October 03

Posted 18 July 2014 - 12:56

Oh good, more chances for the 0.01% to waste their gains

 

They are the ones who will make this possible so you can have it.



#7 Tomo

Tomo

    IT Engineer

  • 854 posts
  • Joined: 17-August 01
  • Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Posted 18 July 2014 - 12:59

Like all new technologies it will be expensive at first, I remember CD writers being a few thousand pounds and then came crashing down over the next few years.



#8 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,321 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 18 July 2014 - 13:03

They are the ones who will make this possible so you can have it.

Not if governments were to invest in it to benefit the majority, rather than being privately funded for the minority.


Like all new technologies it will be expensive at first, I remember CD writers being a few thousand pounds and then came crashing down over the next few years.

I don't remember Concorde flights ever being cheap.



#9 +Nik L

Nik L

    Where's my pants?

  • 34,113 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 03

Posted 18 July 2014 - 13:06

I don't remember Concorde flights ever being cheap.

 

Concorde was never meant to be.  It was a project that was aimed towards the upper classes.  It was never pushed to mass market because the pure fuel costs and maintenance costs involved were astronomical.  It was an icon of 80's excess, akin to a Lambo.



#10 Brian M.

Brian M.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,641 posts
  • Joined: 07-January 05
  • Location: London, UK

Posted 18 July 2014 - 13:08

Concorde was never meant to be.  It was a project that was aimed towards the upper classes.  It was never pushed to mass market because the pure fuel costs and maintenance costs involved were astronomical.  It was an icon of 80's excess, akin to a Lambo.


Wasn't the price of Concorde set at roughly 1.5-2 * a regular first class ticket price?

#11 +Nik L

Nik L

    Where's my pants?

  • 34,113 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 03

Posted 18 July 2014 - 13:30

That's about what it eventually settled at - it launched at about 3 times.  Remember all of Concorde was first class.  Not a big plane at all.

 

Side note: My father designed the ducting for Concorde.



#12 elenarie

elenarie

    Neowinian

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: 23-March 14
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro x64
  • Phone: Lumia 920 Yellow

Posted 18 July 2014 - 13:37

Oh good, more chances for the 0.01% to waste their gains

 

Would prefer if they actually give that to the people that need the $ the most.



#13 +Nik L

Nik L

    Where's my pants?

  • 34,113 posts
  • Joined: 14-January 03

Posted 18 July 2014 - 13:46

Would prefer if they actually give that to the people that need the $ the most.

 

Their money, their decisions.  Sorry, but as someone who has worked hard, inherrited nothing (yet) and reached a level of financial means whereby I have significant disposable - when someone who has not been part of that process tries to self-entitledly dictate how it should be used, it just comes off as wholly irrelevant.

 

I donate to charity (both financially, and with time) but for someone to believe they have any right to feel they have any say in this is ridiculous.



#14 Jason S.

Jason S.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 12,055 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 03
  • Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 18 July 2014 - 14:26

this type of stuff has been talked about for decades. Anyway, as the article says, what good is it if you want to fly to NYC from Hong Kong, but have to land in New Mexico?



#15 OP Hum

Hum

    totally wAcKed

  • 62,632 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 03
  • Location: Odder Space
  • OS: Windows XP, 7

Posted 18 July 2014 - 16:48

There goes my alibi for the NYC bank robbery. :p