Future History: Airplanes upstaged

[Gamingboy]

Okay, how could, within the next, say, 40 years, could the airline industry no longer be the main mode of long-distance transportation? Keep it realistic here: No teleporters, no "Humans become genetically engineered so that they can fly" and no bending of the time-space continuum. That stuff would be ASB anyway. (And no "We'd run out of oil" stuff, that's too easy)

I'd say it would have to involve extremely fast and extremely cheap magnetically propelled trains. Those aren't too far fetched. I mean, they use similar things in lots of places.

[Mike Stearns]

That was my thinkg as well. Once a maglev train breaks the sound barrier, which I could see withint happening within the next 10 to 20 year, as there are already maglev trains that travel on the cusp of the transsonic zone, its all down hill for the airplane except as a method of traveling overseas.

[Justin Pickard]

Combine that with a number of high-profile aeroplane disasters, as they get too large...

[NapoleonXIV]

A maglev wouldn't even have to be transsonic, really. People didn't run to use the Concorde. Planes got bigger and thus cheaper but 600mph seems fast enough, even for us. I suspect that 300-400 would actually be good enough for most.

[Mike Stearns]

Combine that with a number of high-profile aeroplane disasters, as they get too large...

Yeah like Al Qaeda hijacking a couple Airbus 380s. Actually, in order for maglev trains to really compete with airplane, I think that they would have to go trans-sonic. The ability to break the sound barrier combined with a point to point network rail net work that has minimal curves means that maglev trains could offer very stiff competition to the airlines.

[Imajin]

I wonder if we can find a way to make Airships come back? :D

[Justin Pickard]

I wonder if we can find a way to make Airships come back? :D

For cargo? Easily. For passengers? Trickier.

[Farnham]

Maybe in Europe, but Americans are notorious for preferring cars to public transportation. If maglev trains were made superfast, how much would it cost to build them, or the maglev tracks, or make current railroads compatible to maglevs? Would America be up for another spate of railroad building?

[Gamingboy]

Maybe in Europe, but Americans are notorious for preferring cars to public transportation. If maglev trains were made superfast, how much would it cost to build them, or the maglev tracks, or make current railroads compatible to maglevs? Would America be up for another spate of railroad building?


If it gets us to Disney World from Seattle faster, yes.

[Mike Stearns]

Maybe in Europe, but Americans are notorious for preferring cars to public transportation. If maglev trains were made superfast, how much would it cost to build them, or the maglev tracks, or make current railroads compatible to maglevs? Would America be up for another spate of railroad building?

If Canada and the United States decided to go in on it together and share the cost of building a continental maglev network, it might just happen.

[Cloudy Vortex]

My only fight was a two-hour from D/FW International to Midland/Odessa via Southwestern. I wasn't impressed. Mind you I was only twelve or so, but I don't really think Americans have ever preferred air over asphalt. And we know air is preferred over Amtrak. It isn't a matter of freedom; it's a matter of trust. And Americans trust themselves far more than corperations, and corps far more than government (which is what Amtrak is perceived as). Culture thing ya know. Trains may replace air in future due to fuel costs (sorry, Gamingboy, when dealing with people, the easiest way is often the only way). But supersonic trains are way too dangerous, especially in Amtrak's hands. The image of America's aboveground railways being destruction derbies may take a long time to replace. It won't happen as long as Jay Leno is alive anyway. Whataminute! Isn't Leno an auto nut? Hmm...

[zoomar]

I see two possible general ways this could happen: (1)cultural/environmental and (2) technological. Neither is very likely,

(1) cultural attitudes or environmental pressures. The main fact favoring airline travel today is speed. Something needs to happen which put other values before absolute travel speed - or have factors (increased terrorism more security, crowding and delays in airports, etc) make long distance air travel effectively as time-consuming as trains, autos, or ships, for long travel. The environmental cost of maintaining the airline industry is quite high - depending on what happens with energy costs and upper atmosphere pollution people could turn away from jet planes. Perhaps a change in atitude to a more leisureley culture not needing such rapid travel. Or maybe for a number of factors, air travel gets priced out of the range of middle-income travellers.

(2) Technological. While advanced highspeed fixed rail systems might take away some short-medium range travel from the airlines in places like Europe and Asia where the infrastructure is already there, this is unlikely te be widely adopted in more sparsely occupied places like the USA and Canada, where the only real alternative to airplanes for medium-long travel is usually the car. Perhaps reconstructing main interstate highways as very high-speed corridors with both maglev trains and "intelligent" systems providing computerized control for private autos so drivers can sit back and relax/sleep until they need to leave the highway. Unless airlines are just plain banned, however, I don't see any technology which can replace them in the next 50 years at least for interconinental travel (as much as I'd love to see ocean liners and ZEPPELINS :D carrying millions between NY and Europe again) it just ain't gonna happen unless something in group (1) happens first.

[jolo]

I once heard about low-pressure tunnels for maglevs. The trains could go much faster than the speed of sound in those, without disturbing the surrounding area. Such a tunnel might be feasible to connect coastal cities.

Also, a rocket would not be considered an airplane and might make very high speeds possible.

It may be possible to combine both technologies - like accelerating on a magnetic ramp until 900 km/h or so are reached to avoid having to take so much fuel on the trip.

I also heard that in the US, flying your own plane is becoming pretty popular. If very many people had their own plane, the airline industry would probably suffer, while the airplane industry would be pretty happy (except airbus and boeing).

[Johnestauffer]

It is fascinating that in this era of super-communications so much emphasis is placed on face to face encounters.
Many multi-site discussions can be held thru teleconferencings.
There is always a need to 'press the flesh' but why go to all the trouble when som many alternatives for business related communications exist.
If you are on vacation, you want to get to your destination was rapidly as possible - you have to go the enjoy, at least today.
Travel by air is generally from large, reasonably well maintained facilities with easy access to transportation. Bus & train travel using older, sometimes very delapidated structures that a often located in the 'bad side' of town. It is just not a pleasent experience to travel by bus - trains are somewhat better.
Maglev trains don't seem to play out as well in the US. We are talking about significant distances. It would require a lot of major construction just to link the primary population centers - the cost of which would probably be passed on the the travelor.

[zoomar]

I also heard that in the US, flying your own plane is becoming pretty popular. If very many people had their own plane, the airline industry would probably suffer, while the airplane industry would be pretty happy (except airbus and boeing).

Actually, it is a lot less common now than 15-20 years ago. Due to the cost of liability insurance, private aircraft - even "preowned" ones have pretty much been priced out of reach of all but the most wealthy people. Also, costs of plane rentals, fuel, insurance, and service have skyrocketed so much that a lot of people who take flying lessons to get a license cannot get in enough hours to keep it valid. Finally, big airports consider general aviation about as welcome as terrorists - speaking of which there are now a lot more controls on where and when you can fly, which makes filing flight plans a real pain. Arguably, private aviation is on the way out - not in - in the USA.

Unless I lived in a small rural town with a municipal airport and only travelled to small rural towns with municipal airports, I would never choose to fly a private aircraft on business trips or vacations.

[Farnham]

Meanwhile, the "flying cars, air cars, skycars" etc. constantly featured in Popular Mechanics seem to be the car of the future, and probably always will be.

[rewster]

Bah, maglev trains. So predictible. How about something exciting like fusion-powered cannons that shoot your personal capsule as a projectile at near light speeds into a waiting magnetic dampening field at the other end?
As the space-time continuum and teleporting have been banned, I can't think of anything much other than apparating, floo powder, and broomsticks.

I feel like this thread was tailor made for me to say "why yes, maglev trains are about the only way this very specific criteria could be met." Which means the thread was kinda pointless.(just saying...)

[NapoleonXIV]

One other major problem here is the completion of NASA's "highway in the sky". (http://sats.larc.nasa.gov/main.html)
This will enable MUCH more traffic from smaller airports by smaller planes, as well as making it less vulnerable to terrorism and easier to use by personal aircraft. Hence it will be much more convenient, and convenience is really what transport is all about.

The idea that we won't accept hi-speed trains is rather Amero-centric, yes? As any fan of anime knows they are widely used in Japan and France. Danger really doesn't defer people from things or otherwise natural gas would never have gained any acceptance at all. The most hazardous method of travel mile for mile by far is widely recognized as being by automobile, yet it's also by far the most used, because it is the least trouble.

[Nik]

When British Rail was fragmented, some useful facilities fell down the cracks...

One such was the Road-Rail system. Like the Channel Tunnel, you drove to rail-head, drove your car ( or car & trailer ;-) onto ro-ro wagon, took your reserved seat in a comfortable coach, and smiled as you passed the many miles of standing traffic fuming on the motorways...

Okay, it was a niche service, and needed advanced booking, but that advanced booking got discounted seat-tickets...

If the alternative is beset by road-repairs & crashes, tolls, exorbitantly taxed fuel, fraught over-night stops and the infamous 'motorway menus', not to mention an un-remitting chorus of, 'Are We Nearly There, Yet ?', I know which I'd prefer...

Another option is to travel 'air-weight' and hire a car on arrival.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Try to imagine any of the following environmental conditions arising, and you are already a few steps toward creating anATL without planes:

A) Due to magnetic polar shift, the planet develops up to eight variable poles, effectively destablizing the electromagnetic shield of the planet. While this creates nifty aurora borealises across the planet, it also increases the chances for cancer world wide and creates severe turbulence for most jetliners, making many transatlantic flights very uncomfortable and navigation without GPS difficult....

B) Due to the melting of the polar ice caps, the Atlantic Current slows down, creating the initial conditions for a global-superstorm. Some models (e.g. The Day After Tomorrow ) have the storm causing a massive ice-age, others like Art Bell (e.g. The Coming Global Superstorm ) predict a catastrophic hurricane that sweeps across the Nothern or Southern Hemisphere for long periods of time, making air travel severely dangerous...

C)Another concern, emerging viruses and drug-resistant viruses make travel extremely expensive. With diseases spreading from the Southern Hemisphere due to the greenhouse effect, and due to greenhouse climate refugees many governments severely limit international travel citing health concerns (e.g. China-avian bird flu, Great Britain-mad cow disease)...

[zoomar]

[QUOTE=NapoleonXIV] The idea that we won't accept hi-speed trains is rather Amero-centric, yes? As any fan of anime knows they are widely used in Japan and France. QUOTE]

In the US, I don't believe the issue is "acceptance" as much as feasibility. We have 50 years of very expensive committment to interstate/national highways and airports that link together virtually all population centers, as well as the technology supporting private autos and commercial airlines. Probably 80% of Americans under 40 have never even been on train in the US, excpt commuter ones. Except in a few very densly occupied parts of the country passenger rail doesn't exist. Not only do trains not exist, but there are no fuctioning stations or maintenance facilities. To change over (presmably using interstate highway corridors, not the old and obsolete raillines which would have to be replaced anyway) would take some kind of critical emergency, not just a change in attitude.

Speaking of attitudes, I have this other observation. The original post referred to "long-distance" travel. I believe there is a big disconnect between Europeans/US urbanites and rural/suburban Americans about what "long distance" means. As someone in that second group, I tend to consider anyplace that I can drive to at 70-80 mph in less than a full day (10-12) hours a "short or medum distance' trip. I tend to reserve the term "long distance" for intercontinental trips or long, 2-3 day cross country travel. Most Europeans I know would consider a 7-8 hour drive a long-distance trip.

[Gamingboy]

B) Due to the melting of the polar ice caps, the Atlantic Current slows down, creating the initial conditions for a global-superstorm. Some models (e.g. The Day After Tomorrow ) have the storm causing a massive ice-age, others like Art Bell (e.g. The Coming Global Superstorm ) predict a catastrophic hurricane that sweeps across the Nothern or Southern Hemisphere for long periods of time, making air travel severely dangerous...

The chances of a Global-Superstorm are slightly less then 1%. The Atlantic Current, even if it were to shut down, would not create huge supercells. Instead, it would cause Western Europe to become as cold as Siberia. Which is also very, very bad. But compared to TDAT, it's a cake-walk.

Just wanted to clear that up.

(There's more then that that would happen, but I don't want to ramble)

[Rabbit Scribe]

If all driving was done by networked computers, all of us could zip around on twisty mountain roads at 150 mph with a two-foot following distance, instead of just my dad. Given the "30-40 year" timespan, inexpensive production cars might do 250 or 300 mph. I'd rather take five hours to get to New York and have my car (especially if it safely does sixty or seventy in heavy traffic on 5th Avenue) than fly/ magnetically levitate there in two hours, then hoof it...

[Robbbbb]

If all driving was done by networked computers, all of us could zip around on twisty mountain roads at 150 mph with a two-foot following distance, instead of just my dad.

Thanks for that great visual. :D

[Rabbit Scribe]

You should try the visual from the passenger seat. At least if you're in it, the dog ain't there wagging her tail in his face. I love my dad to death, but I blow $250.00 on a rental car everytime I go out there for a week just to save myself the trauma.

Another computer-driven factor in favor of faster ground traffic over air travel is the expense. There's no way the cost of shipping six adults from Chicago to Pittsburgh in a mini-van will ever approach six airline tickets, even at only a hundred bucks a pop. So, long-distance automated taxi services get started, because at any given time there are six people who want to go from anywhere to anywhere else (give or take an hour or two and a hundred miles one way or the other). Plug your destination into the data base, let it optimize routes based on other travelers for awhile, when you find one you like, commit to it there and then, Expedia-style. If that were to happen today, the Chicago-Pittsburgh trip would cost you $40.00, assuming a 100% profit for the autotaxi. Of course, it would also take seven hours as opposed to one by air, and one of your fellow travellers would inevitably be Dilbert's old cubiclemate, who sure hopes you like baked beans and square-dancing as much as he does. On the other hand, if it only took two or two-and-a-half hours, your savings over the very cheapest airfares would be equivalent to making at least twenty-five bucks an hour, and it's door-to-door to boot.

(edit in the interest of full disclosure) Dad: "I've never even been in an accident in forty years. How many accidents have you caused in fifteen?" Rabbit: "Um... two... but you do follow really close..."

[Mr_ Bondoc]

In terms of highways, there is currently a new independent comic book called The Black Diamond on the Hard Top , which features a world that uses its highways in lieu of airliners in the aftermath of terrorist attacks. It comes complete with Matrix: Reloaded style car-chases and is in stores now...

Check it out at this link:

http://comics.ign.com/articles/608/608255p1.html

Hope you guys like it!!

[MerryPrankster]

How about scramjets or some sort of space-plane? That might work.

[wkwillis]

Flywheels power ducted fan 'flying saucers' at two hundred miles per hour, door to door, for tourism and visiting. Combine that with teleconferencing for business trips and you might be able to kiss goodbye to the airlines.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Considering the growing "cocoon trend" of people worldwide, the following tecnologies could come along and destroy the airline industry:

A) Virtual Reality- During the 1990s, the idea was hyped beyond any tolerable belief, spawning such movies as Lawnmower Man and the under-rated film Strange Days . Unfortunately, tactile sensation is severely limited and was pretty slow (it was during the early days of dial-up). Try to imagine being able to experience all the tactile sensations of being on a vacation with super-models on a tropical island without the problems or guilt.

B) Remote-Access Medicine- Try to imagine a time when your doctor can be in Shaghai while you are in Peoria to perform a life-saving operation. For many doctors, this would allow doctors to have patients worldwide without having to leave the clinic or hospital they are in. Currently there are experiments at Stanford University for the technology...

[Adamanteus]

Okay, how could, within the next, say, 40 years, could the airline industry no longer be the main mode of long-distance transportation? Keep it realistic here: No teleporters, no "Humans become genetically engineered so that they can fly" and no bending of the time-space continuum. That stuff would be ASB anyway. (And no "We'd run out of oil" stuff, that's too easy)

I'd say it would have to involve extremely fast and extremely cheap magnetically propelled trains. Those aren't too far fetched. I mean, they use similar things in lots of places.

Burt Rutan, working with Virgin Atlantic, builds a fleet of transatmospheric spaceplanes by 2020. The new company is called Virgin Galactic. Initially sold as space tourism, spaceflight becomes popular as a much faster mode of intercontinental travel than airlines. Prices eventually fall to be comparable to airline tickets, and people fly spaceplanes to the exclusion of airplanes. Only a few American, Russian, Canadian and Chinese airlines continue to exist, supplying air travel within their continents. The others are downsized and/or consumed by other airlines.

[Sock Munkey]

Instead of maglev we should use the air-hockey concept like these.

http://aernav.free.fr/English_Index.html

It's far easier to make a compressed air suspended train than a maglev one since the tracks are just steel and concrete like highway overpasses with no complex electronic bugaboo inside.

We have a full handle on compressed-air systems tech with plenty of good off-the-shelf parts available.

Shrouding the props will keep the noise down. It doesn't need to be silent, just quieter than a rail train.

[Cloudy Vortex]

An all steel rollercoaster, complete with screaming kids, would be quieter than a commuter rail. :rolleyes:

Oh, and, uh, bump. :o

[Mr_ Bondoc]

At the end of World War II, there was a project in developmen tfor the creation of personal/portable helicopters. For more information and a cool picture, check out the following link:

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/personalheli/personalheli.htm

If anything, it could add another reason behind the loss of airplane traffic, plus it add an air of the old Golden Age science fiction of the 1920/1930s/1940s.....

[Dave Howery]

the problem with any kind of super dooper train though, is that you have to run tracks everywhere.... the existing rail net certainly isn't big enough to suddenly take over from airline routes. With airplanes, all you need is an airport here, an airport there, and everything in between is irrelevant. With a train, you have to build tracks between them, buy all the land, etc...

[JLCook]

Yeah like Al Qaeda hijacking a couple Airbus 380s. Actually, in order for maglev trains to really compete with airplane, I think that they would have to go trans-sonic. The ability to break the sound barrier combined with a point to point network rail net work that has minimal curves means that maglev trains could offer very stiff competition to the airlines.


Actually, I think that if trains could offer faster access for boarding, and faster egress at the other end, they might be able to really put some hurt on the airplane.

Aircraft are certainly faster---while they are flying, but look at how long in advance of departure you have to be at an airport. Look at where airports are INCONVENIENTLY located, and look at all of the traffic conjestion getting into and out of an airport.

Except for really long hauls, trains are already beating aircraft. Just look at commuter trains. For trips under 300 miles, they can beat the aircraft. If you up the speed from an average of 75-90 mph on regular AMTRACK such that total travel time was UNDER 3 hours, taking the train will work! A "Train" capable of near transsonic speed could make a near 2000 trip in about 3 hours---and deliver passengers, downtown, conveniently, at the other end.

[rewster]

I don't think I'd ride on any trans sonic amtrak train. Scary. Loud. Dangerous. Boo.

Trying to come up with ideas for this thread, I imagined a United States in which rails became much more widespread, cars never invented, and everyone has a personal rail car parked in their driveway (which is a railway). All roads are rails, and I imagined a computerized traffic control system that keeps all the cars relatively equidistant from each other and prevents crashes. Or, you join and disjoin trains going in the same direction as you depending on what you type in as your destination to be more fuel efficient... joining/disjoining also being controlled by the computers. The trains would be of varying speeds depending on distance covered... long distance trains would be "nearly transsonic" of course.
Not sure why this would upstage planes, which would still be necessary for transoceanic flights. Ooh, unless the trains were also hovercraft, and on every beach there is a railhead.

[wkwillis]

Room temperature superconductors for maglev. Cheap, fast, quiet. Combine that with no oil from the Arabs because of a cold war with the Ottoman Empire. Maybe there was no WWI and then they spent more money on R+D?

[Paul Spring]

An all steel rollercoaster, complete with screaming kids, would be quieter than a commuter rail. :rolleyes:



A lot depends on what kind of passengers one is riding with. I used to take a commuter train into and out of Boston, about 35 miles each way. The cars were fairly comfortable, the ride was generally smooth and quiet, and the passengers, who were mostly commuting professionals, were relatively quiet apart from a smattering of conversations among small groups and over cell phones, which werent too loud. On the other hand, I knew a couple of co-workers who took another commuter train line which had a different clientele (a lot more students, for one thing), and they sometimes complained about how loud and obnoxious their fellow passengers were. It was kind of luck of the draw.

When my place of work changed and I started commuting all the way by car, I liked the cocoon of privacy and not having to follow as exact a scedule, but I missed being able to close my eyes and just doze off for a little while. I tried that in my car, too, but somehow it didnt work nearly as well as it did on the train. :p

[The Sandman]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned sea travel. In particular, the supercavitation idea. Having submarines capable of reaching aircraft-like speeds, with the advantage of being able to carry far more cargo and/or passengers than an airplane ever could, should affect the current airline monopoly on intercontinental travel.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned sea travel. In particular, the supercavitation idea. Having submarines capable of reaching aircraft-like speeds, with the advantage of being able to carry far more cargo and/or passengers than an airplane ever could, should affect the current airline monopoly on intercontinental travel.

I think you are looking for this. It is currently manufactured by a California firm and is planning to create a personal submarine that can investigate the "giant squid" phenomena... Check it out at:

http://www.bionicdolphin.com/

Hope You Like It!!

[The Sandman]

That does actually sound pretty cool. What I was thinking about, however, was the possibilities of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercavitation

[Ian the Admin]

Future "history" isn't history. Moved to chat.

[Torqumada]

Let me get this right: Some of you guys are suggesting that we take a several thousand ton vehicle full of people and cargo and run it along the ground at speeds faster than the sound barrier? What happens when said object breaks the sound barrier at ground level? When a military jet weighing only tens of thousands of pounds breaks the sound barrier at 30,000 feet buildings can shake. Lower and things can break. Can you imagine the devestation that would cause? In places like the US, Canada or Russia you might have enough open territory that you have enough distance to possibly build such a system, but then you can't build anything within several miles of the track. (10? !5? Don't really know) What happens if that train happens to slow down just a little and then breaks the sound barrier in a tunnel? The resulting pressure wave might crush the train cars like a tin can. This kind of thing wouldn't even be feasible in places like Japan or much of Europe. What about friction? When a plane flys at the speed of sound friction causes heating of the skin of the plane and that is at the more rarified atmosphere of 30,000 feet or so. What happens to the skin of this train traveling at Mach 1+ at sealevel where the air pressure and density is 4 times that at 30,000 feet?

Sorry, but I am going to have to disagree about the feasibility of a transonic maglev train. 400 or 500 mph maybe.

Torqumada

[rewster]

Sadly, I think the most likely scenario for having planes not be used anymore is not because of them being upstaged but rather because they become too dangerous/attractive-to-terrorists/fuel-expensive and alternatives simply become required. Or perhaps the world economy tanks and no one can afford plane tickets.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Believe it or not, there are actually scientists and engineers who are actively working to discover "anti-gravity". Try to imagine the safety of flight, if you could actually repel the pull of gravity. Some of the sites include:

A) http://www.amasci.com/freenrg/antigrav.html

or this Wired magazine article:

B) http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.08/pwr_antigravity.html

If anything, this could add a very strange twist to the ATL.....