|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why we need passenger rockets
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
Just two minutes ago I was watching the news. They were talking about new suites/small cabins that will be available for extended trip travelers. The suite comes with a one person bed, computer(e-mail ofcourse), small library, and room service. Costs $5,000 to $9,000 per trip. Why this service? One to increase sales ofcourse but the other reason is that some trips still take 13 hours to fly. This is what business people are willing to pay to arrive well rested and ready to do business. Unfortunately, it can be argued that a fast trip is even *worse* in regards to being "well rested and ready to do business". The faster the trip, the longer it takes to recover from jet lag. So one does not gain as much from quick trips as one might expect. Of course, jet lag wouldn't be an issue for north-south travel but unfortunately the bulk of wealthy humanity is strung out east-west in the northern temperate zone. Jim Davis |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why we need passenger rockets
"Jim Davis" wrote in message . 1.4... Earl Colby Pottinger wrote: Just two minutes ago I was watching the news. They were talking about new suites/small cabins that will be available for extended trip travelers. The suite comes with a one person bed, computer(e-mail ofcourse), small library, and room service. Costs $5,000 to $9,000 per trip. Why this service? One to increase sales ofcourse but the other reason is that some trips still take 13 hours to fly. This is what business people are willing to pay to arrive well rested and ready to do business. Unfortunately, it can be argued that a fast trip is even *worse* in regards to being "well rested and ready to do business". The faster the trip, the longer it takes to recover from jet lag. So one does not gain as much from quick trips as one might expect. There's a point there where some trips become doable as a day trip. Leave your home at 7:00 AM, fly 10 timezones away, have a "dinner" meeting, fly home by 3:00 PM your time. Of course, jet lag wouldn't be an issue for north-south travel but unfortunately the bulk of wealthy humanity is strung out east-west in the northern temperate zone. Jim Davis |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why we need passenger rockets
Jim Davis wrote in message .1.4...
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote: Unfortunately, it can be argued that a fast trip is even *worse* in regards to being "well rested and ready to do business". The faster the trip, the longer it takes to recover from jet lag. So one does not gain as much from quick trips as one might expect. There's a point there where some trips become doable as a day trip. Leave your home at 7:00 AM, fly 10 timezones away, have a "dinner" meeting, fly home by 3:00 PM your time. Definitely. But on the other hand the less time one has to spend at the destination the harder the trip is to justify in the first place. At some point the Law of Diminishing Returns will set in; faster flight times will offer no overall benefit. It has been argued (persuasively if not conclusively in my opinion) that we are already at that point. Any step up in speed will be a huge risk - unless there is another large market like LEO that can be served as well. Unfortunately, the LEO market is currently microscopic compared to terrestrial air travel. Jim Davis If business people weren't willing to pay ten times the going rate to cut the trip from NYC to London in half, why would they pay a lot more to cut it down further? Besides - once again, the time from the airport into town on each side won't be cut by faster travel. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why we need passenger rockets
In article , OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote: On 22 Jul 2003 04:44:05 -0700, (John Ordover) wrote: If business people weren't willing to pay ten times the going rate to cut the trip from NYC to London in half, why would they pay a lot more to cut it down further? Besides - once again, the time from the airport into town on each side won't be cut by faster travel. ...And that, I think, is what will continue to kill passenger rocket travel far more decisively than anything else. If it still takes an hour to get from the office to the spaceport, then the reverse at the destination end, that's two hours still lost and most beancounters will automatically nuke the savings of 3-5 hours transcontinental even if the cost is only double that of a jet airliner. "They can sit and eat peanuts while we count beans, damn executives!" Actually, IMHO what will "continue to kill passenger rocket travel"--not to mention supersonic air travel (farewell Concorde!)--is modern telecommunications. Why travel ten time zones for a meeting when you have the same meeting in the comfort of your office or boardroom using the magic of teleconferencing? -- Stephen Souter http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why we need passenger rockets
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 23:44:29 -0000 (GMT), in a place far, far away,
"Craig Dunsville" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: Passenger rockets would be one hell of a good way to decrease the surplus population, since they would probably be even less stable than the "dependable" Challenger and Columbia. Do you have some basis for that idiotic statement? -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why we need passenger rockets
...And that, I think, is what will continue to kill passenger rocket travel far more decisively than anything else. If it still takes an hour to get from the office to the spaceport, then the reverse at the destination end, that's two hours still lost and most beancounters will automatically nuke the savings of 3-5 hours transcontinental even if the cost is only double that of a jet airliner. "They can sit and eat peanuts while we count beans, damn executives!" Actually, IMHO what will "continue to kill passenger rocket travel"--not to mention supersonic air travel (farewell Concorde!)--is modern telecommunications. Why travel ten time zones for a meeting when you have the same meeting in the comfort of your office or boardroom using the magic of teleconferencing? Why does everyone assume all international travelers are business travelers? There are two primary markets for hypersonic travel 1) Very Wealthy people who need or want to actually travel. NY-Bangkok takes 18 hours plus an hour each way to and from the airport. If they are taking the spaceplane, a 100k for a roundtrip makes the idea of taking a helicopter to the spaceport at $300 each way becomes reasonable. 2) Very Wealthy companies with time sensitive packages. 20k for a 10 pound package of unique bone marrow is quite reasonable when you consider the alternative. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Question on typical numbers for rockets | Del Cotter | Technology | 1 | July 31st 04 10:48 PM |
Same Old Rockets for Bold New Mission ? | BlackWater | Technology | 6 | May 15th 04 03:26 AM |
Pressure fed versus pump fed rockets | Larry Gales | Technology | 16 | November 19th 03 11:18 PM |
Rockets not carrying fuel. | Robert Clark | Technology | 3 | August 7th 03 01:22 PM |
"Why I won't invest in rockets for space tourism ... yet" | RAILROAD SPIKE | Space Station | 0 | July 30th 03 12:06 AM |