Interesting Op-ed

Everskyward

Everskyward

Experimenter
Joined
Mar 19, 2005
Messages
33,454
Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Who do you think wrote this and when?

For me, aviation has value only to the extent that it contributes to the quality of the human life it serves. Research in fields of supersonic flight is, obviously, of great importance and should continue, but my personal conclusion is that the regular operation of SSTs in their present state of development will be disadvantageous both to aviation and to the peoples of the world. I believe we should prohibit their scheduled operation on or above United States territory as long as their effect on our overall environment remains unsatisfactory.
Click to expand...
Answer is here.
 
> For me, aviation has value only to the extent that it contributes to the
> quality of the human life it serves

There are pilots who fly for the love of flying

There are pilots who fly for transportation.

Which type of flying serves the human life better?
 
Bob Noel said:
> For me, aviation has value only to the extent that it contributes to the
> quality of the human life it serves

There are pilots who fly for the love of flying

There are pilots who fly for transportation.

Which type of flying serves the human life better?
Click to expand...
That's not what the article addressed, but I would say the answer to that question is that there is no "better" just "different".
 
Everskyward said:
That's not what the article addressed, but I would say the answer to that question is that there is no "better" just "different".
Click to expand...

Also determines whether you measure usage in cost per mile or cost per hour.
 
Everskyward said:
That's not what the article addressed, but I would say the answer to that question is that there is no "better" just "different".
Click to expand...

I know what the article was about. I thought the quoted text
showed a profound lack of appreciation for the wonder of flight.
What would life be like without dreams?
 
Bob Noel said:
I know what the article was about. I thought the quoted text
showed a profound lack of appreciation for the wonder of flight.
What would life be like without dreams?
Click to expand...
But how much government support should be given to dreams without taking into consideration the economic and environmental impact?
 
The one who loves every minute of it, or the one who's sick of mowing and maintaining the sumbitch?

dmccormack said:
Drifting into SZ, I'm sure...

(Ask this question to the guy who owns a private grass strip)
Click to expand...
 
dmccormack said:
Drifting into SZ, I'm sure...
Click to expand...
People can restrict their answers to aviation examples. :rofl:

But that is how I interpret the subject of the op-ed. I don't think it has anything to do with personal aviation although the quote may rub some pilots the wrong way. What's interesting to me is that the author ended up being fairly correct. Where is the SST now? Are England and France much further ahead of us because they developed it? Obviously there are uses for supersonic flight, in the military for example, but was the time right back then for supersonic passenger airliners?
 
Everskyward said:
People can restrict their answers to aviation examples. :rofl:

But that is how I interpret the subject of the op-ed. I don't think it has anything to do with personal aviation although the quote may rub some pilots the wrong way. What's interesting to me is that the author ended up being fairly correct. Where is the SST now? Are England and France much further ahead of us because they developed it? Obviously there are uses for supersonic flight, in the military for example, but was the time right back then for supersonic passenger airliners?
Click to expand...
I think the current status of the Concord shows whether or not his point was a valid one.
 
Myself, I think we are discussing an antiquated idea that has no practical future. Our real future in rapid transportation was demonstrated by Kirk and Scotty back in the early 1970s. People and things will be disassembled down to the atomic level, then transported through air and space much like radio waves, to be re-assembled at a distant location.

Think of the amazing new business opportunities in areas such as smuggling and such.

Of course the early years of this technology will probably not be without problems, as demonstrated in the old Ski Fi movie, "The Fly".

:)

John
 
Everskyward said:
People can restrict their answers to aviation examples. :rofl:

But that is how I interpret the subject of the op-ed. I don't think it has anything to do with personal aviation although the quote may rub some pilots the wrong way. What's interesting to me is that the author ended up being fairly correct. Where is the SST now? Are England and France much further ahead of us because they developed it? Obviously there are uses for supersonic flight, in the military for example, but was the time right back then for supersonic passenger airliners?
Click to expand...


The arguments against the SST could have been made (and mostly were
made) on the economic and environmental impact (yes, I do believe
that the noise of a sonic boom could have adverse environmental impact).
What I object to is the apparent claim that the value of aviation is
only about economics and such. Perhaps I misread the writer's intent.
However, his point would have been made had he not included "For
me, aviation has value only to the extent that it contributes to the
quality of the human life it serves."
 
Bob Noel said:
What I object to is the apparent claim that the value of aviation is
only about economics and such. Perhaps I misread the writer's intent.
However, his point would have been made had he not included "For
me, aviation has value only to the extent that it contributes to the
quality of the human life it serves."
Click to expand...

Exactly -- many things in life have great worth with little apparent "economic value."
 
I wonder if the SSTs were really before their time. Lighter and stronger materials are available now, and advances have been made in jet propulsion. I wonder if such a craft could e built today minus the efficiency and noise problems of its predecessors.
 
Bob Noel said:
The arguments against the SST could have been made (and mostly were
made) on the economic and environmental impact (yes, I do believe
that the noise of a sonic boom could have adverse environmental impact).
What I object to is the apparent claim that the value of aviation is
only about economics and such. Perhaps I misread the writer's intent.
However, his point would have been made had he not included "For
me, aviation has value only to the extent that it contributes to the
quality of the human life it serves."
Click to expand...
At the time he wrote it, he was simply an airline guy espousing a view that would serve his airline's interest.
 
steingar said:
I wonder if the SSTs were really before their time. Lighter and stronger materials are available now, and advances have been made in jet propulsion. I wonder if such a craft could e built today minus the efficiency and noise problems of its predecessors.
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about the technology to comment but I don't think they've found a way to silence sonic booms. I also don't think the economic conditions are right. There would need to be enough people willing to pay a big premium to make an airline viable. Then you would still have the same problems of traveling on a scheduled airline such as security and congestion at airports. The actual flight time would be shorter but you would need to travel on the airline's schedule and start and arrive at one of a select few major airports.
 
John Baker said:
Myself, I think we are discussing an antiquated idea that has no practical future. Our real future in rapid transportation was demonstrated by Kirk and Scotty back in the early 1970s. People and things will be disassembled down to the atomic level, then transported through air and space much like radio waves, to be re-assembled at a distant location.

Think of the amazing new business opportunities in areas such as smuggling and such.

Of course the early years of this technology will probably not be without problems, as demonstrated in the old Ski Fi movie, "The Fly".

:)

John
Click to expand...

FWIW
The transporter was not part of the original plan for the show, but when they were about to start shooting, the set(s) for the shuttle weren't ready, so they came up with the transporter as a quick way to start filming. (IIRC from reading W. Shatner's book)
 
Everskyward said:
I don't know enough about the technology to comment but I don't think they've found a way to silence sonic booms. I also don't think the economic conditions are right. There would need to be enough people willing to pay a big premium to make an airline viable. Then you would still have the same problems of traveling on a scheduled airline such as security and congestion at airports. The actual flight time would be shorter but you would need to travel on the airline's schedule and start and arrive at one of a select few major airports.
Click to expand...
The nature of the shock wave can be "tailored" through the design of the aircraft, raising the possiblity that the sonic boom might be made into more of a sonic whoosh than a boom. We used to love it when I was a kid growing up near Wright Patterson AFB before sonic booms were "banned" and the research planes would rattle the windows.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
FWIW
The transporter was not part of the original plan for the show, but when they were about to start shooting, the set(s) for the shuttle weren't ready, so they came up with the transporter as a quick way to start filming. (IIRC from reading W. Shatner's book)
Click to expand...

And my wife has been after me for 40 years to build one. :D
 
steingar said:
I wonder if the SSTs were really before their time. Lighter and stronger materials are available now, and advances have been made in jet propulsion. I wonder if such a craft could e built today minus the efficiency and noise problems of its predecessors.
Click to expand...

Well, there's a couple of companies that think so - Not an SST, but a supersonic bizjet.

I think that the Concorde will be the only airplane the world ever sees in the faster-than-sound transport role. For ultra-fast transportation in the future, the whole SpaceShipTwo thing looks much better - Get the heck out of the atmosphere entirely, and the speeds go way up - No drag up there!

Of course, some sand-hole in New Mexico would become the next Atlanta... :rofl:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Well, there's a couple of companies that think so - Not an SST, but a supersonic bizjet.

I think that the Concorde will be the only airplane the world ever sees in the faster-than-sound transport role. For ultra-fast transportation in the future, the whole SpaceShipTwo thing looks much better - Get the heck out of the atmosphere entirely, and the speeds go way up - No drag up there!

Of course, some sand-hole in New Mexico would become the next Atlanta... :rofl:
Click to expand...

Negative. SS2 will take a parabolic course out of the atmosphere and back down. What one wants in a transport is something that will skim along at the edge of the atmosphere. A scramjet would fit this role nicely, though the technical challenges needed to hurdle this problem might be too much to make one. Recent tests by NASA have been successful in this regard.
 
steingar said:
Negative. SS2 will take a parabolic course out of the atmosphere and back down. What one wants in a transport is something that will skim along at the edge of the atmosphere. A scramjet would fit this role nicely, though the technical challenges needed to hurdle this problem might be too much to make one. Recent tests by NASA have been successful in this regard.
Click to expand...
I think that the American Uniformed Reconnaissance Orbiting Reserve Authority has something successful in this area, as well. :)
 
steingar said:
Negative. SS2 will take a parabolic course out of the atmosphere and back down.
Click to expand...

Yes, but they will have control over where the other end of said parabola is. ;)

What one wants in a transport is something that will skim along at the edge of the atmosphere. A scramjet would fit this role nicely, though the technical challenges needed to hurdle this problem might be too much to make one. Recent tests by NASA have been successful in this regard.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll ever see anything transport-sized in either Earth-to-Earth space travel or atmosphere-skimmer type travel though, simply because not enough people need to get to the same place at that speed at the same time.

Then again, looking at the progression of air travel over the past 100 years, I could be wrong.
 
Bob Noel said:
What I object to is the apparent claim that the value of aviation is only about economics and such. Perhaps I misread the writer's intent. However, his point would have been made had he not included "For me, aviation has value only to the extent that it contributes to the quality of the human life it serves."
Click to expand...

I'm of the opinion that you may be misreading his intent by imputing a meaning not explicit in that particular quote. There are attributes of aviation beyond "economics and such" that "contribute to the quality of human life."

The quote states a general philosophy which seems to me quite reasonable, and the remainder of the article an application to a specific case: that in no way could a nationally subsidized SST ever provide a direct net quality-of-life benefit to everyone who would be forced to pay into it (or who might suffer from its use.)
 
Jim Logajan said:
I'm of the opinion that you may be misreading his intent by imputing a meaning not explicit in that particular quote. There are attributes of aviation beyond "economics and such" that "contribute to the quality of human life."

The quote states a general philosophy which seems to me quite reasonable, and the remainder of the article an application to a specific case: that in no way could a nationally subsidized SST ever provide a direct net quality-of-life benefit to everyone who would be forced to pay into it (or who might suffer from its use.)
Click to expand...

The quote goes over the top with the word "only" in "aviation has
value only to the extent..."
 
Bob Noel said:
The quote goes over the top with the word "only" in "aviation has
value only to the extent..."
Click to expand...
If you're going to parse words I'll point out that he starts the sentence with, "For me" which makes it clear this is his opinion and not a declaration of fact.
 
steingar said:
I wonder if the SSTs were really before their time. Lighter and stronger materials are available now, and advances have been made in jet propulsion. I wonder if such a craft could e built today minus the efficiency and noise problems of its predecessors.
Click to expand...

It had its shortcomings but it was a great breakthrough for its time. A big step in the evolution of commercial aviation. That is, of course, if the shortcomings are learned from. Sometimes you have to f#&! up to make some progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top