If you consider that man first achieved powered flight 1903 and only 66 years later, less than the average lifespan of a human, we flew a man to the moon, I’d say that was a pretty good spurt of technological leaps.
I thought you were serious too. Your post has no humor, how would Acsenray know it was intended as humorous?
They weigh hundreds of tons and already go across the US in 5 hours. They’re not microchips.
And 45 years on, we haven’t been back, and all our plans (sometime in the next 15 years) to go back look astoundingly like how we went the first time, but a bit bigger.
It is the same thing. We worked out how to build rockets, and once we had done that there wasn’t a huge amount to do except to improve reliability, work out how to make them a bit cheaper, and try to make money with them rather than just burn money. The fundamentals of physics mean that we need a paradigm change in technology to make another leap. It isn’t clear what that might be - although space elevators are the usual answer one gets.
Simply because not all human endeavour or technology is a fertile ground for such advance. Why aren’t pies exponentially more tasty than they were 20 years ago?
There’s no universal principle of advancement.
Another important factor to consider is not only does it cost ten times as much to go twice as fast, for the vast, vast majority of major airline routes, ~600 MPH is fast enough in terms of the travel time. IOW, the longest possible flight your average passenger can compfortably tolerate is about 8 to 10 hours. Probably +98% of all airline flights fall into this time frame (or shorter). Sure, the Concorde could get you from London or Paris to New York in little over 3 hours, but so what? In terms of traveling that great a distance 7 or 8 hours is still more than tolerable. Still comfortable even.
Because of the intrinsic size of the Earth and the length of time a human can stay comfortably conscious per day (about 15-16 hours) and the enormous penalty of traveling above Mach 1, jet air travel’s speed sweet spot is right where it needs to be. And where it will remain for quite some time.
What Hrhomer said.
I flew to L.A. in 5.5 hours last August. But my total time from my home to my destination was about 9 hours. Even if flight time were reduced, you still to grapple with local traffic, airport parking, security, ticketing, baggage handling, boarding, deplaning, more baggage handling, more local traffic. So time in the air is least of our problems.
Very true. If airports were replaced with instant matter transporters travel would only get marginally less tiresome. Some of this is why high speed trains are gaining headway again. It doesn’t matter that a plane is twice as fast. For many inter-city routes the train wins.
Yes. A new great leap in aircraft capability would require some kind of game-changing technology that drastically alters the underlying limitations that aircraft design is stuck with. For example, if we invented some kind of small, high yield fusion plant you could fit on a plane; suddenly you have much more energy to work with and effectively unlimited fuel, and all sorts of new design possibilities open up. As it is though, there’s only so much energy you can get from jet fuel and only so much fuel you can fit on a plane.
And when you add in the time of getting to the airport, parking, waiting to check in, waiting to go through security, waiting for your flight, waiting on the plane to go to the runway, maybe changing planes in the middle, then waiting for your bags on the other end, getting transport on the other end, you’re looking at a solid two or three or four hours even if the plane flight itself was nearly instantaneous.
So a flight time of London to New York of 4 hours on the Concorde vs 8 hours on a 747 doesn’t really cut the trip time in half, because the real trip time is 4 hours flying + 4 hours of bullshit, vs 8 hours flying + 4 hours of bullshit. How much would you pay to reduce your trip time from 12 hours to 8 hours? And the real world answer is not very much. People are willing to take a few hours longer to save a couple hundred bucks, because for most people their time is not worth hundreds of dollars an hour.
And the ones whose time really is worth hundreds of dollars an hour have a better investment in private planes that let them skip the boarding and unboarding bullshit that eats up hours even if the private planes aren’t any faster than the commercial planes.
Consider the concept of “advancement” as a sigmoid curve. A technology may have a very steep “improvement curve” for a while, but it always flattens out eventually as we reach the physical limits of the technology.
Air travel is reasonably mature now. You missed the “exponential” part of its growth, which I would peg as being between about 1920 and 1960.
sorry: <insert smilie indicating joking>
But, the same argument could be said for cars. After a huge jump from inline motors and carburetors, the technology leveled out but now we have hybrid, electric and fuel injection.
We had electric cars in the 1800’s.
We had fuel injection in the 1920’s.
You do realize that communicating with people through text is not the same as actually speaking with people, right? People not being able to tell when someone was joking was exactly the reason why emoticons were invented. Now, I am not saying that emoticons should be considered mandatory, but it does mean that it’s not reasonable to expect that everyone will always catch on to deadpan sarcasm.
But, despite the hype, there is almost no real advance here. Hybrids are now routinely beaten for fuel economy by conventional engines, and electric vehicles have no proven use case. For the average consumer, the next car they buy will probably be conventional. Even if the new tech cars do prove to have a long term future, we are only talking about the motor. The rest of the car - the vast majority of it - is the same. There is no game changer.
Then, the same could be said for phones. After a huge jump to rotary phones, it leveled out. Then push button phones, which leveled out. Then cell phones, which had maybe 5 to 10 jumps in the past 20 years.
Hell, I have probably one of the most technologically advanced beds (the Tempurpedic) made since the 50’s, and i’m currently a generation or two behind newer, more high tech beds.
I could also say the same for TV’s, radios, eyeglasses, optical disks, etc.
Er. Sorry?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Did I fail to make sense? Do you want me to repeat my post using different words?
Do you want to keep misunderstanding what I say?
:)
:eek:
:rolleyes::mad::p;):(
dubious::smack:
Rotary phones and push button phones is really a question of the exchange technology. And this was a shift from mechanical to electronic. Guess what? Microelectronics again.
As for cell phones - this is all microelectronics.
As I wrote above - it is very hard to find any sort of current advancement that is fast and continuing that isn’t currently tied to microelectronics.
Large and complex devices (like a car) will continue to advance as they pick up advances in all the contributing areas. Cars advance both from the inclusion of advanced electronics, and from the contribution of faster computers in the design process - car manufactures were for years a mainstay of commercial supercomputer sales. But cars benefit from advances in materials, production techniques, all sorts of areas. But these don’t advance at the rate that microelectronics do.