Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: An interesting response

Expand Messages
  • Doug Pensinger
    ... 10 years? You can get one for $200 now: *http://tinyurl.com/62bmep The way prices for hard drives change, I doubt it will be much more than one. Doug *
    Message 1 of 20 , May 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Dan wrote:

      >
      >
      > My argument is that we shouldn't think of green energy as merely a test of
      > our will. It is also dependant on the lay of the land. Past behavior
      > doesn't guarantee future behavior, but it's much more likely that, in 10
      > years, we will have a 1 terabyte drive for $100 than have a plane that can
      > carry 1500 passengers that flies for the same price (not price per
      > passenger but total price) as a plane that carries 100.
      >

      10 years? You can get one for $200 now: *http://tinyurl.com/62bmep

      The way prices for hard drives change, I doubt it will be much more than
      one.

      Doug
      *
      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • Dan M
      ... First a pedantic point, than a real one. You actually said No current commercial aircraft can do it. The sources I read indicated (I think I quoted one)
      Message 2 of 20 , May 5, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: brin-l-bounces@... [mailto:brin-l-bounces@...] On
        > Behalf Of Charlie Bell
        > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 9:48 AM
        > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
        > Subject: Re: An interesting response
        >
        >
        > On 04/05/2008, at 12:31 AM, dsummersminet@... wrote:
        > >
        > > The second article shows a _demostrated_ range of 13500 for the
        > > 777 , and
        > > the nonstop route would be somewhat shorter than a one stop route.
        >
        > "When loaded with passengers and baggage, the airline will be able to
        > fly 10,900 miles non-stop"
        >
        > Yes, it did 13,500. Unloaded. It'll just be able to do London - Sydney
        > loaded if the shortest possible aircraft route is available, and in
        > the right conditions. Really want to rely on no headwinds to make it
        > across Oz...?
        >
        > The longest scheduled commercial service offered currently is the over
        > 18 hour non-stop from Newark to Singapore.
        >
        > Maybe someone will offer a London-Sydney non-stop in the future, and
        > maybe it'll be a 777 that does it, but currently no plane can do it
        > commercially, as I said.

        First a pedantic point, than a real one. You actually said

        "No current commercial aircraft can do it."

        The sources I read indicated (I think I quoted one) said that Boeing was in
        negotiations for selling a number of 777s configured to make the
        London-Sydney run nonstop, on a regular basis. The return trip, due to
        prevailing head winds, would require a stop. The change to the plane would
        be a seating arrangement change, from 300 seats to 250.

        Clearly, this is not commercial now, or someone would be making money doing
        it. But, a commercial plane is capable of the trip, which is what I
        honestly thought we were discussing....

        The more substantial point involves the maximum speed achieved by piloted
        planes over about the last 60 years.

        1947 312
        1968 925
        1990 1000
        2008 1000

        There is physics behind this, not just a lack of will. _That's_ been my
        point all along.

        Dan M.

        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      • Ronn! Blankenship
        ... There is obviously some additional modifier missing here, since even if the X-15 is disqualified since it used a rocket engine rather than an air-breathing
        Message 3 of 20 , May 5, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          At 05:34 PM Monday 5/5/2008, Dan M wrote:



          >The more substantial point involves the maximum speed achieved by piloted
          >planes over about the last 60 years.
          >
          >1947 312
          >1968 925
          >1990 1000
          >2008 1000



          There is obviously some additional modifier missing here, since even
          if the X-15 is disqualified since it used a rocket engine rather than
          an air-breathing engine, the SR-71 is still considered a jet aircraft
          (even if it uses exotic fuel) and is piloted
          (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldon_W._Joersz>).


          . . . ronn! :)



          _______________________________________________
          http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
        • dsummersminet@comcast.net
          ... From: Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankenship@bellsouth.net Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 19:22:53 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: RE: An interesting response
          Message 4 of 20 , May 5, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Original Message:
            -----------------
            From: Ronn! Blankenship ronn_blankenship@...
            Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 19:22:53 -0500
            To: brin-l@...
            Subject: RE: An interesting response


            At 05:34 PM Monday 5/5/2008, Dan M wrote:



            >The more substantial point involves the maximum speed achieved by piloted
            >planes over about the last 60 years.
            >
            >1947 312
            >1968 925
            >1990 1000
            >2008 1000



            There is obviously some additional modifier missing here, since even
            if the X-15 is disqualified since it used a rocket engine rather than
            an air-breathing engine, the SR-71 is still considered a jet aircraft
            (even if it uses exotic fuel) and is piloted
            (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldon_W._Joersz>).


            Sorry, I was doing meters/second and didn't give units like I meant to.
            1000 comes out to 2236 mph, a bit more than your source which claims 2188.
            Maybe the 2236 wasn't quite official for some reason. But, we basicaly
            agree here. And yes, I didn't consider rocket planes, and didn't consider
            the shuttle, etc.

            Dan M.

            --------------------------------------------------------------------
            mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
            http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange


            _______________________________________________
            http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.