"In the 19th, with trains, they reached 60 mph. In the 20th, with jet aircraft, we could travel at 600 mph. Can we expect 6,000 mph in the 21st?"
The 21st century still has 90 years left in it. We have no idea what technologies will emerge in that time. If a technological Singularity occurs, well...
Yes. If we ever manage to build a space elevator for example, it will open up the entire inner solar system for exploration / colonisation, at which point the people that continent hop today will be able to world (planets and large moons) hop tomorrow, with a corresponding jump in the maximum speed that a person will travel at...
What's really incredible is that the SR-71 was built in the 1960's. I just read Ben Rich's book about his days at the Skunk Works and it was incredible to see what they had to do to build a titanium airplane. Tools would break when attempting to drill through the material. The plan would stretch several inches in length during flight from heat expansion. The cockpit would get so hot that they risked cooking the pilot alive if the air conditioning failed (and don't ever touch the windshield if you want to keep your hands). LA to DC in 62 minutes!
I'd like to think we've got something faster now that's just classified but I suspect we've gone to slower remote drones and satellite data that has less political repercussions.
Totally incorrect synopsis, humanity IS on the quest for speed.
What killed the Concorde was not that humanity was no longer looking for faster ways to communicate, it's that most of their customers died during 911. For the rest of us Twitter / Email, Skype fill the role of quick highly personal information dissemination.
Companies like SpaceX and Virgin who dare to explore the boundaries of human travel will take humanity to ever greater heights. They are picking up the torch where the government left it in 1969. One of those two companies will eventually partner with FedEx to offer New York to Sydney 'yesterday afternoon' service. The companies that can capitalize on that kind of mobility and speed will rocket infront of their competitors.
Not to mention we're throwing much more effort into getting people moving faster, every day, instead of throwing all of our resources getting the ultra-rich faster, sometimes.
Think advances in high speed rail, infrastructure development in mass transit everywhere (except North America, it seems)... Instead of pouring billions into a few showpieces like the Concorde, we're finally working on getting everyone moving faster, more frequently. This is a good thing.
The whole problem is friction. Give me the robots to build an evacuated tunnel from Australia to the US with a maglev train in it and I'll show you what "speed" means.
> There is less air friction if your tunnel is maintained at vacuum.
Indeed there is zero! Realistically speaking of course, a hard vacuum will be difficult. Even a 0.10 atmosphere would be a huge improvement. Or the intriguing possibility of pressurising but with a less dense gas. Helium, for example is about 1/10th the usual mix of gasses on earth. You could put a plastic sleeve over the shinkansen routes, fill it with helium, and see air resistance drop 90%. We might not actually have enough helium for that, though.
I'm just trying to say, there are options, if we truly care about speeding up point to point travel in-atmosphere.
Well, once the thing was built you'd expect that particular task to be quite easy. An airtight tunnel surrounded by kilometres of rock - not much air down there in the first place, and you'd just need some effective airlocks on the ends.
Not to downplay the size of the task, of course; it would be an astonishing feat of engineering and probably quite out of our reach for the foreseeable future, at any kind of reasonable cost anyway. The tectonic boundaries, as you say, would present a particularly challenging aspect of the project. However, theoretically it's probably the most efficient way from A to B on our little blue marble and so no doubt it'll be done eventually.
Ok, it was a snarky reply, but the point was, we don't exactly need robots so much as labor to do anything...
was it downvoted because it was a one liner, or simply crass?
