Before thinking about enhancing tranportation, we should ask ourselves IF we need to travel more.
In the last five years I took 500 flights (all on economy class except for two), and I also took about 100 train rides.
For "short" trips (<600-700 km or 400-500 miles) train might be slightly slower, but there's essentially no dead time and it's cheaper (no rush to the airport, no stupid security checks at the airport, no weather affecting the trip, no big delays, no taxi trip from arriving airport to city center). As a consequence, we should "aggregate" airports and use them only for long range travel, and revert to rail or road for shorter trips. By doing this, we would maximize the frequency and availability of flights from these mega-airports.
Then, by simply providing more leg space, power, and possibly internet connection, we could make flights "suck less".
This is doable now. Any other technology would take decades to develop.
And again, most people don't need to travel NY to Hong Kong in 3 hours. Most people need to travel cheaply, and possibly in a green way.
I rarely travel for business: that one's been sorted by the internet. But I can't go long periods of time without seeing friends and family who are all over the world, and as I'm the one with the freedom I'm the one that travels. As a bonus I get croissants in Paris one day and shrimp in Sydney the next. I don't want to give this up - I want to pay some kind of forward-travel-tax that makes this more sustainable. Speaking of Paris, the Concorde is taunting me sitting at Charles de Gaulle and Orly right now, lifted up as if it's waiting for stronger winds.
Keep in mind, as soon as someone notices enough people are choosing trains instead of air travel, "stupid security checks" will start showing up at train stations as well…
My personal transport-of-choice is a motorcycle. I can get anywhere within ~400km of home in less time by bike than by plane. I reasonably regularly choose to ride Sydney<->Port Macquarie or Sydney<->Canberra for work, mostly because I enjoy the ride, only partly 'cause it takes me less time than cab-to-airport/checkin/fly/cab-at-other-end.
Electric jets combined with beamed power could be huge. Such craft would be unencumbered by fuel tankage, so there would be huge potential for savings. One place to start, strangely enough, would be with electric tankers. By lifting fuel to altitude, individual aircraft fuel needs would be greatly reduced to cover the same distance, meaning structural weight could be saved, resulting in even more efficiency. Networks of power beaming stations to power cross country flights would result in aircraft so light, that parachute landing systems for the whole craft might be feasible. (Some on board battery capacity would always be necessary for emergencies.)
There's a fundamental problem here though in power beaming. A plane such as the 777 has engines which use about 170 megawatts of power. Beaming 170 megawatts continuously to a moving target the size of a plane in a way that does not cause any amount of bleed-over around the plane and also somehow doesn't manage to destroy the plane is, suffice it to say, a bit of a technological challenge.
Even if we were talking about a blended wing plane covered in PV arrays and much lighter than a 777 (due to not needing fuel) and thus requiring less power we're still talking about delivering 10s to 100s of kilowatts per square meter of plane. That compares to 1 kilowatt/m^2 of direct sunlight. That's a hell of a lot of power, and I'm not sure there's a way for that amount of power to be safely and effectively delivered without a considerable risk of destroying or damaging the plane.
Good point. Going further, a big advantage of an electric plane is that it can fly at much higher altitudes since it doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen like normal jets.
At high altitudes, it may be more efficient to beam the power from orbit then from the ground or flying tankers.
EDIT: replaced "the biggest" with "a big", point well taken.
Elon Musk certainly sails close to the wind. In this talk he says that SpaceX would no longer exist if the fourth spaceflight had not succeeded. And during the financial crisis in 2008 Tesla almost went bankrupt. I admire Elon's success, but I couldn't take the risks he takes.
That's why I attempt to mitigate the halo effect by using counterfactuals, historic branch extensions and alterations.
For example:
Steve Jobs, an art school college dropout, doesn't meet Wozniak - Where is he now? Steve Jobs gets himself killed in India. Steve Jobs doesn't get hooked onto computers or doesn't hang out with the right hobbyist crowd at the right time, in the right place, with few other options to pursue.
When you look at history you'll see a bunch of events that could have - and most probably - should have happened and things get a whole lot less certain. Things are only guaranteed to people because they happened - but at the time - not so much.
Once you see the world through this light - it's difficult to make the kind of statements that others make about the past and the future. It also reduces the effect of both the halo and hindsight biases and just generally lets you get a feeling for the anthropic principle and its constant interference with daily life (aka we would not be discussing this had Elon not been a success).
These are called mistakes of omission (could have happened) and not commision (did happen). The deeds of omission far out weight all the deeds of commission.
I like when he talks about why Mars is the best planet to inhabit. 24 1/2 hour rotational cycle, 1/2 the earths gravity, lots of water/ice. Co2 atmosphere (which plants like to consume). Ultimately terraform the planet to make it like earth.... Sign me up!
Does anybody know if Elon has a minor speech impediment; stammer or stutter? I myself stutter and was just curious, as I noticed it watching this video.
Maybe this is a silly question but why doesn't SpaceX or Tesla use some form of crowd-funding scheme for their projects in addition to all their other sources of funding?
I really want both companies to succeed and I'd be happy to contribute to either cause (yes, I see both primarily as a cause and philosophy, not just a company). Judging from response around the internet there are many people like me who are just as excited. I can't buy a Model S car because I don't have that money, but I'd be happy to throw some money at Tesla or SpaceX for a little badge and a warm feeling.
Kickstarter actually demonstrates why this is not the sure-win that it appears to be on the surface. Crowdfunding is a great idea, but it's also very risky from a PR perspective. People--not you, perhaps, but most people--feel that giving money merits an equal-value return. At a step above the pure "I believe in you; take my money", you have the step where people at least want constant, accurate updates all the time. That's a cost that may outweigh the benefit of an extra revenue stream. And above that, people keep wanting more and well... that's a problem.
Note that you will need to provide some identification info (I don't remember what) if you want to upload a long HD video to YouTube. IIRC not needed for 480p.
He sounds quite bright. It seems he (and his people) are actually making a dent and are producing some tangible value. He said he could have gone to work for Wall Street. Does Wall Street actually attract our best and brightest people? I wonder what the world would look like if the best and brightest did not put all their talents into skimming value off the top (on Wall Street) but instead actually produced value.
I'm wondering what's the efficiency (speed) limit on ducted fan relative to altitude for the electric airplane concept. Would like to have some data on it
[+] [-] simonebrunozzi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] marquis|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigiain|13 years ago|reply
My personal transport-of-choice is a motorcycle. I can get anywhere within ~400km of home in less time by bike than by plane. I reasonably regularly choose to ride Sydney<->Port Macquarie or Sydney<->Canberra for work, mostly because I enjoy the ride, only partly 'cause it takes me less time than cab-to-airport/checkin/fly/cab-at-other-end.
[+] [-] jd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hedgehog|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neokoenig|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ahalam|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jv22222|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|13 years ago|reply
Even if we were talking about a blended wing plane covered in PV arrays and much lighter than a 777 (due to not needing fuel) and thus requiring less power we're still talking about delivering 10s to 100s of kilowatts per square meter of plane. That compares to 1 kilowatt/m^2 of direct sunlight. That's a hell of a lot of power, and I'm not sure there's a way for that amount of power to be safely and effectively delivered without a considerable risk of destroying or damaging the plane.
[+] [-] paulsutter|13 years ago|reply
At high altitudes, it may be more efficient to beam the power from orbit then from the ground or flying tankers.
EDIT: replaced "the biggest" with "a big", point well taken.
[+] [-] swalsh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enraged_camel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MarkMc|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] confluence|13 years ago|reply
For example:
Steve Jobs, an art school college dropout, doesn't meet Wozniak - Where is he now? Steve Jobs gets himself killed in India. Steve Jobs doesn't get hooked onto computers or doesn't hang out with the right hobbyist crowd at the right time, in the right place, with few other options to pursue.
When you look at history you'll see a bunch of events that could have - and most probably - should have happened and things get a whole lot less certain. Things are only guaranteed to people because they happened - but at the time - not so much.
Once you see the world through this light - it's difficult to make the kind of statements that others make about the past and the future. It also reduces the effect of both the halo and hindsight biases and just generally lets you get a feeling for the anthropic principle and its constant interference with daily life (aka we would not be discussing this had Elon not been a success).
These are called mistakes of omission (could have happened) and not commision (did happen). The deeds of omission far out weight all the deeds of commission.
[+] [-] andrewtbham|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mburns|13 years ago|reply
No telling what condos at Colony 1 will be going for.
[+] [-] marcoamorales|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beobab|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sbierwagen|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cskau|13 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1HZIQliuoA
[+] [-] nodesocket|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agumonkey|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hvass|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] karpathy|13 years ago|reply
I really want both companies to succeed and I'd be happy to contribute to either cause (yes, I see both primarily as a cause and philosophy, not just a company). Judging from response around the internet there are many people like me who are just as excited. I can't buy a Model S car because I don't have that money, but I'd be happy to throw some money at Tesla or SpaceX for a little badge and a warm feeling.
[+] [-] saraid216|13 years ago|reply
Solvable? Probably. But we haven't solved it yet.
[+] [-] quote|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akie|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pygy_|13 years ago|reply
Note that you will need to provide some identification info (I don't remember what) if you want to upload a long HD video to YouTube. IIRC not needed for 480p.
[+] [-] phpnode|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcdonji|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xoail|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 20100thibault|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] filvdg|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] spitx|13 years ago|reply
Disregard the stream. It was buggy in Chrome and only mildly better in Firefox. (Oxford can't afford a more robust video solution?)
Tackle the MP4 file instead. Only left click open it in place of downloading it.
Quicktime should take care of the rest.