The future of ultra-fast passenger travel
Concorde, Safety, and Economics
- Discussion clarifies the Concorde crash was caused by runway debris (FOD), not an explosion, and that such risks are not unique to supersonic aircraft.
- Debate over why Concorde failed: some emphasize economic unviability and tiny fleet size; others highlight Cold War prestige origins and high fuel costs.
- Overland supersonic bans are seen both as a necessary response to noise and as a US-protectionist move against a non‑US program.
Environmental and Other Externalities
- Several commenters fault the article for only lightly touching externalities (CO₂, NOx, water vapor in the stratosphere) and mostly ignoring noise and broader societal costs.
- Some argue that “cool tech” and speed alone are not valid justifications for more energy‑intensive flying in a climate crisis.
Who Is Ultra-Fast Travel For?
- Many see supersonic travel as serving the ultra‑rich, C‑suite executives, celebrities, sports teams, and time‑critical industries (e.g., film production).
- Others challenge the premise: “who really needs this?” and suggest better comfort at current speeds instead.
- A minority wants a future where average people can go supersonic, but others argue physics and economics make that unrealistic.
High-Speed Rail vs Supersonic
- Strong sentiment in favor of high‑speed rail as the better public‑interest investment, especially for tourists and medium distances.
- US rail barriers: entrenched interests, poor infrastructure, and safety issues (e.g., Brightline’s high fatality rate, debated as design vs behavior vs scaremongering).
- Comparisons to Europe/Japan highlight US underperformance; some point out that Brightline isn’t truly “high-speed” by global standards.
Regulation, Noise, and Technology Prospects
- Sonic booms are acknowledged as a serious constraint; new low‑boom designs may reduce but not eliminate ground noise.
- Supersonic over land is seen as politically untenable today, limiting routes mostly to oceans and undercutting the business case.
Industry Incentives and Skepticism
- Entrenched aviation players show limited enthusiasm; engine makers shunning SST engines is cited as a market signal.
- Some compare this to early resistance to EVs or solar, others say that analogy fails because major players have moved on EVs.
Equity, Climate, and Accountability
- Multiple comments frame ultra‑fast travel as another way for the richest to externalize climate damage while being least exposed to its consequences.
- Proposals surface to directly bill high‑emission travelers for climate impacts, including intergenerational liability.
Geopolitics, Peace, and Disease
- Advocates claim ultra‑fast travel would improve global understanding, enable rapid organ transport, and reduce war by shrinking distances.
- Skeptics counter with examples: Russia–Europe trade didn’t prevent invasion; close neighbors still wage war; Gaza–Tel Aviv distance is tiny.
- Faster travel is also linked to quicker disease spread; others argue that rapid spread in low‑risk groups can sometimes lower long‑term harm, though this is presented as a contested, specialist view.
Alternative Futures: Comfort, Airships, and Zoom
- A contrasting vision favors ultra‑comfortable, slower, sustainable travel: luxury trains, night trains, even airships or self‑driving motorhomes.
- Airships are seen as intriguing but niche; modern examples exist but remain tiny.
- Many argue “the real future of ultra‑fast travel is Zoom”: remote meetings substituting for most high‑stakes business trips.
- Several point out that airport overhead (security, early arrival) dominates total trip time, so shaving cruise time has limited real‑world benefit.