Air travel as containerized freight.
Still an improvement over going through TSA...
To: null and void
Man, can you imagine how much sitting would be involved?
It’s an interesting concept though.
2 posted on
06/12/2013 11:30:47 AM PDT by
DoughtyOne
(Give me your tired, your hungry..., wait, we've got them. They're our citizens... What about them?)
To: null and void
No more ‘running through airports’...jumping waiting area seats and stuff?
4 posted on
06/12/2013 11:40:36 AM PDT by
onedoug
To: null and void
5 posted on
06/12/2013 11:40:54 AM PDT by
Average Al
( Our founder fathers never knew we could fail due to a Techtatorship.)
To: null and void
This would be cargo only. It is too expensive to make all those modules passenger aircraft certified and pre-flight verified. But as a cargo concept it has merit. Handling/transfer time is the big savings; loose the exotic fuel concept.
8 posted on
06/12/2013 11:45:23 AM PDT by
Revolutionary
("Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition!")
To: null and void
It may have 1/2 the engines, but it has over 2X the drag.
Dumb concept designed to separate governments from their (other peoples) money.
An A320 only uses 2 engines at Take off and climb (10 minutes out of a 2 hour flight). After the first 10 minutes, it could fly on one engine. This thing looks like it needs all three engines just to stay in the air.
4X the frontal area has 4X the drag of a conventional plane.
9 posted on
06/12/2013 11:45:51 AM PDT by
UNGN
(I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
To: null and void
IMO, Containerized freight works well for rail and ship because of the relative lack of weight restrictions. With containers, you always have a higher weight of the vehicle relative to the weight of the freight. Even with trucks, the weight of an empty conainer, plus the weight of the trailer that carries the container, is several thousand pounds more than the weight of an empty semi trailer alone.
With airplanes, weight is even more of a problem.
To: null and void
Makes good sense for freight if you can move the same container between ship/truck/aircraft, but I see no advantage for human transport over simply taking a conventional means of travel to the airport, unless the humans in question are captives....
11 posted on
06/12/2013 11:52:39 AM PDT by
Trod Upon
(Every penny given to film and TV media companies goes right into enemy coffers. Starve them out!)
To: null and void
12 posted on
06/12/2013 11:58:56 AM PDT by
Yosemitest
(It's Simple ! Fight, ... or Die !)
To: null and void
Fine for Europe. Not so much here.
17 posted on
06/12/2013 12:13:11 PM PDT by
steve8714
(Any homosexual man can marry any woman he wants. Just like the President.)
To: null and void
Yeah, worked pretty well that time.
/sarc
18 posted on
06/12/2013 12:15:40 PM PDT by
wastedyears
(I'm a gamer not because I choose to have no life, but because I choose to have many.)
To: null and void
I’m thinking 4 hours in a cramped uncomfortable airplane seat instead of 90 minutes and getting to be “loaded” by airport baggage handlers. Seems even more de-humanizing than the TSA.
The NappyOne
22 posted on
06/12/2013 1:16:46 PM PDT by
NappyOne
To: null and void
Interesting concept. I hope they’re not ignoring airworthiness in favor of this idea. I don’t know that I’d be getting into one confidently any time in the next decade.
27 posted on
06/12/2013 3:39:48 PM PDT by
OldNewYork
(Biden '13. Impeach now.)
To: null and void
When and if a group of scientists develop a matter transporter (like those in “Star Trek”), it will revolutionize transportation in unfathomable ways — for both good and evil. The TSA will become as useless as buggy whip manufacturers, and that's why they will be tapped to run the transporters.
To: null and void
30 posted on
08/06/2013 5:50:11 PM PDT by
hattend
(Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
