I’ve done a few cross country moves where I would only try to time out a stop for all three reasons at a time: restroom, refuel, meal. I was doing pretty great with only one stop every 4-5 hours or so, 14 hours of driving per day.

As an EV owner (and a parent who now usually has kids in the car), I go at a much more leisurely pace and don’t need to do that kind of road trip anymore. But I totally get why it’s the default for a lot of people trying to get from one place to another

For major highway corridors, we need to have chargers that are less than a 5 minute detour from the highway, at least one every 50 miles.

Otherwise someone with 250 miles of range, who prefers 50 miles of buffer (in case a charger has a long line or is broken) might need to stop every 150 miles. That’s a break a little bit too frequently.

Isn’t the stereotype that in Europe, 100 miles is a long distance, but in the United States, 100 years is a long time?

Yeah, I’m not an aerospace guy, but I’m wondering whether the maturity of the commerical passenger air travel industry has lessons to adopt for the 60 years since the Concorde was designed. The cabin and fuselage were so small that there’s not a lot of room for different seating configurations, the over-land speed restrictions limited its feasible routes.

I’m middle of the road when it comes to optimism about whether commercial supersonic flight will approach business class prices within the next 2 or 3 decades, and whether such a service could one day be environmentally equivalent to the 2026 impact of 2026 commerical air travel.

Yeah, the Concorde was interesting in that its design was optimized for cruising, so that taxiing, takeoff, and reaching cruise altitude/speed took a gargantuan amount of fuel compared to other aircraft and even to its own cruising efficiency.

I can see why someone could look at that and assume that they could do better with modern design principles, including the knowledge that planes need way more passenger seats to improve the per passenger efficiency.

Then again, the company that took the most concrete steps towards developing a supersonic engine pivoted to creating gas turbines for AI data centers (but was just dropped by its major customer on that, so who knows what they do next).

Based on their work on the X-59, I wonder if they just want to collect sensor data on its sonic boom characteristics, and feed that into a model for sonic booms.

They don’t need to be able to build something in order to be able to learn something from that thing in operation.

What’s interesting about supersonic flight is that there’s been some developments on making supersonic flight more fuel efficient.

The F-22’s big strategic advantage is that it can supercruise at Mach 1.5, without afterburners, and although the details are not publicly known, the publicly known facts suggest that it’s about 3x as fuel efficient as the other fighters in the US arsenal.

If they can get supersonic flight to be more fuel efficient, and avoid sonic booms (an active area of research for NASA’s X-59 project), and we develop manufacturing capacity for huge amounts of synthetic sustainable aviation fuel from CO2 and water and green energy, then maybe we’ll be at a place where supersonic commercial flights can be both economically feasible AND environmentally responsible. Probably not in my lifetime, but still something I expect to happen in the next century or so.