What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
45 Comments
- ExSlashdotter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+69"Instead of the usual six hours, it will be at 1100mph."
Nice job with the 'apples-to-oranges' comparison there. - CobaltBlue, on 10/12/2007, -2/+36He didn't even mention that it can do the Kessel run in under 15 parsecs.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21The long part isn't the flight, it's getting through all the security crap...
- playerslight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18That depends on how much money your time is worth. If you have time to surf Digg, the answer is probably "no".
If, on the other hand, your frazzled senior administrative assistant just threw this on your desk in the midst of a pile of other work while you run your Fortune 500 company, the answer might be "yes". - playerslight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12For those who wish to read a little more about it the latest Popular Science had a large write-up about this plane. And it had pretty pictures.
- blake10, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15it's very suspect that a top digg user submits the blog as the source target when there is a CLEAR original story written by wired. VERY suspicious, zaibatsu
- LFAB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13So if the plane is so fast, why did it take 5 months for the story to hit Digg? :P
- DrScott, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It depends, do you think the article is long enough to finish on the shortened flight? I don't want to get stuck with nothing to do.
- bryxal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Ya except everyone wants a 80 core chip. who actually wants to do to Idaho?
- playerslight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8That depends on how fast you can read pictures.
- playerslight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@infimprob:
Assuming they use carbon fiber instead of aluminum, it would probably solve the integrity problems. It may, unfortunately, introduce problems with lightening strikes (due to the much lower conductivity of carbon fiber over aluminum), but that's probably not a major concern.
Here is the link for the Wired article:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71665-0.html
...and the link for the Popular Science article:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/511395ca8c6a0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
The popsci article has 8 CGI pictures and an interesting discussion on how they are actually reducing the sonic boom. - bclark303, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6God... It's gotta be almost, like, half the time it normally takes. Ummm, anyone got a calculator.
- H3LLSL337, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The Wired article was probably already submitted.
- geodescent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Which therefore means he is breaking the rules of Digg and should therefore be perma-banned!
- infimprob, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6@nreynolds
Sir please calm down it's just a figure of speech, an expression if you will - 30ODD6, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Would it be worth the time or money to use it from FL to D.C.?
- infimprob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm still going to talk of things as going the way of the Concorde!
Seriously though let's hope that they solved the structural integrity issue - jgtg32a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@cobaltblue
You fail as a nerd, turn in you badge
Han did it in 12 Parsecs - skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3This is a tough one indeed. The number is over one thousand - that's gotta be too much for a calculator to handle.
- Anth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4To clear that up, you're going from 550mph to 1100mph, so essentially doubling the speed.
- RandomGuySteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My calculator must be broke or something.
It's reading over 9000. - jgtg32a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He did use a short cut past a black hole
Kessel run was 18 Parsecs - Epyn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He didn't say "roughly" doubling the speed, essentially fits the statement well enough not to be cared about.
- CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@nreynolds - I assume that is a lame attempt at humor? Or are you really that stupid?
- JasonPrini, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@cobaltblue I understand your Star Wars humour there, good one, but isn't a parsec a measurement of distance, not time? Something to do with paralax or something? That quote always bothered me...
It's kinda like me saying "I can make it to the store and back in under 800 meters.", Isn't it? - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2jasonprini: "but isn't a parsec a measurement of distance, not time? Something to do with paralax or something? That quote always bothered me...It's kinda like me saying "I can make it to the store and back in under 800 meters.", Isn't it?"
True, but you have to admit it'd be an impressive feat if the store was 500 meters away. Maybe Han knew a shortcut. - jimrooney, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Looks like It'll be ready about the same time as my flying car.
- DrMickhead, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I fly from New York to California and back all the time and I don't think it's taken me six hours ever. A 5:30 trip from NY to CA would be incredibly long, and from CA to NY it usually takes less than 4:30.
Nonetheless, I'd love to be able to do it in half the time... - swordedge, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2too bad I don't have the 80 million projected price to get myself one! And yes, Popular Science. Better picture on the cover.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1She had to buy it from Paul Bremmer.
- giveer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've always wondered what happened to the T.A.V. ---
The T.A.V. (Trans-Atmospheric Vehicle) was a payload ship capable of speeds up to 17,000 miles an hour.
It was in development in the early-mid 80's and was fronted by Lockheed and supervised by George Keyworth (former White House Scientific Advisor). It was able to go around the world in under 2 hours and fly coast to coast in 12 minutes. After hundreds of millions and an aimed prototype aimed for 1989, the project was suddenly abandoned. And I've never heard anything else about it since.
(some random page I found on the matter.. http://www.abo.fi/~mlindroo/SpaceLVs/Slides/index.htm ) - playerslight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@vorsicht:
I assume you're talking about the differences between indicated air speed, true air speed, mach numbers, and ground speed, or something like that. It would be most likely that 1100mph indeed refers to ground speed, as an 1100mph indicated air speed would literally burn the aircraft up at 50,000 feet and equate something in the neighbourhood of Mach 4. It should be remembered that airspeed is based on air pressure (i.e. the density of air) and mach numbers are related to temperature. Since air pressure changes drastically as one increases in altitude, and temperature above a certainly altitude changes far less drastically, pilots switch from indicated air speed to Mach to maintain relative speed with regards to other aircraft around them at different altitudes.
Ground speed is also pretty easy to figure out these days, now that virtually all large aircraft possess GPS, inav, or some other system that determines spatial location, direction, and speed. And if the pilot doesn't possess that, they can be given ground speed by a controller and use that to determine wind speed and air speed.
The 1100mph rating almost certainly indicates the ground speed the aircraft would travel through a calm sky; mach 1.6 or 900 knots ground speed or 450 knots IAS at FL500 is certainly less accessible to most readers. - vorsicht, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3At the heights, wind speeds and flight routes for jet aircraft speed relative to the ground becomes a fairly fussy and useless metric. One of the reasons that plane speed is usually % of mach not miles per hour. 550 mph to the ground is not half of 1100 mph to the air. Even mach 1 a different speed depending on the height. Measuring to the ground is fussy because wind speed and flight path make the flight distances variable.
The one of the many major failures of the concord and likely this aircraft is take off and landings are so slow that when not flying at full range it is longer flight time then sub sonic planes. For the case mentioned of FL to DC if even allowed the concord would have taken a bit under 2 hours and a 737 just over 1 hour. This plane I doubt would be much different except that the DC destination would be possible. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Male Republicans bring their rug rats along everywhere and people compliment them for their family values. A female Democrat does the same and she's whoring out her children for publicity. My only question is does the double standard exist because Pelosi is a Democrat or female? Incidentally Pelosi has six grandchildren, which hardly seems noteworthy.
- cjdaniel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1QSST! I can't hear the QSST!
- CircleFusion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Well, I suspect that it wouldn't be exactly half the time. The flight speed would have to ramp up to 1100mph. Thus, at least 20% or so (just guessing) of the flight would be running at similar speeds. It's not like a jet would jump to 1100mph immediately from the runway. Am I wrong about this theory?
- postaldave, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3not big enough for here two million grandchildren she whores out at every stop.
- 7of7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1That's great, but a little like that 80 core chip Intel was talking about. I can't get from Michigan to Idaho in anything less than 10 hours in practice.
- vorsicht, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1It would take longer if posable so no it would not be worth it.
- rowlodge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1this would be perfect for Nancy Pelosi...
- warnergt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6Nancy Pelosi wants one of these with a military crew (at taxpayer expense, of course) to shuttle her between California and DC.
- wa77ss, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3God I hate politics, Nancy Pelosi JUST got her position and she already needs a billion dollar plane.
- Emaze, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6my math may be off, but going from 550 Mph to 1100 Mph would be EXACTLY doubling the speed, not essentially, no?
- wa77ss, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0FL to D.C. is 2 hours at 550MPH, so what does that make the flight at 1100MPH?
- nreynolds, on 10/12/2007, -26/+2#1 mph stands for minutes per hour, not miles per hour, so it just means time is going to go really fast while you're on the plane, the plane itself doesn't move any faster than a normal plane (and thus it's apples and apples).
#2 Why can't we compare apples to oranges, they're both ***** fruit. There, that's a comparison. they both taste good, there's another. Comparing apples to oranges is just part of what makes me an American, and anyone that says differently can go to Canada (I couldn't think of a worse country to be banished to. Sure, Canada's alright, but wouldn't that be humiliating? I mean... Canada?)
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is