Slashdot Mirror
Plans For London-Paris Electric Flight in 'Next Decade' Unveiled (telegraph.co.uk)
A start-up has unveiled ambitious plans to offer an electric-powered commercial flight between London and Paris in the next ten years. From a report: Wright Electric believes the proposed low-emission electric plane would offer a cheaper alternative to jet fuel for airlines and consumers. However, the start-up's bid to revolutionize short-haul flights relies on the continued advancement of battery technology. The company, who pitched to investors this week, would be forced to switch to a hybrid of aviation fuel and electricity if the advances in battery technology fail to materialise.
You know what will happen... I'd rather fly Apple airlines, only 1 type of drink is offered (Apple juice), 1 movie to watch (Pirates of Silicon Valley) & only 1 phone allowed onbaord (iPhone gold members club)
They would have to have the airplane largely designed and in early initial prototype to have it certified for commercial service in 10 years. This is pure bullshit seeking dumb investor money.
I approve: 'A fool and their money were lucky to get together in the first place.'
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
In my experience, planes fly better than plans, so when they turn their plain plan into a plane, then I'll be pleased, but until then, I'll.... plass.
10 years you say?
Let me consult the chart.
I think for what they'll need the batteries will come out a a really huge factory. A Megafactory if you will.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
May make the sanctimonious eco-liberals happy though.
We'll just 3D print an EM drive in it the plane, right?
Base it out of Reno. On outwards legs it will carry Tesla Battery packs from the Tesla Reno Battery factory. On inwards legs it will use Jet Fuel. So Battery Packs get delivered to where they are needed while doing something usefull
**Life is too short to be serious**
aviation fuel and electricity as the advances in battery technology fail to materialise for 50, Alex.
Bullshit.
They also have plans for antigravity-powered service between New York and Paris in 10 years. If antigravity fails to materialize, they'll use jet fuel.
Short hops on passenger planes might be perfect for batteries now in development. Less noise and less pollution and maybe quite a weight reduction due to not carrying fuel and engines might make quite a difference. I do wonder if a bad landing would be more lethal than in a liquid fueled craft.
The problem with all battery operated vehicles is that as the batteries get depleted, their mass never changes. With Jet fuel, gasoline, etc, as the fuel gets depleted, the mass is reduced, and thus the energy required to move the vehicle is reduced.
I hope you filed a patent on this so you can have a Startup too!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Just launch the aircraft into the upper atmosphere from a railgun catapult built up the side of a mountain. Then it could use electricity generated by the propellers during descent to move the control surfaces.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Likely NSA whistle blower blows lid on intercepts of Trump transition team that had nothing to do with foreigners or Russian investigation.
(https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4662813/whistleblower)
Summary:
-During the open hearing on Monday, he encouraged anyone with relevant information regarding surveillance of President-elect Trump or his transition team to come forward and speak to the House Intelligence Committee.
-Information was legally brought to him by official sources that "thought we should know it", presumably due to his request at the hearing. NSA, CIA, FBI leadership did not know that the information was going to be given to him (looks like a whistleblower).
-He can confirm that on numerous occasions, the US intelligence community incidentally collected intelligence information about US citizens involved in the Trump transition. Details about US persons associated with the incoming administration, with little or no apparent foreign intelligence value, were widely disseminated in Intelligence Community reporting.
-He can confirm that additional names of Trump transition team members were unmasked, similar to how General Flynn's name was unmasked.
-None of the information he was able to see in the dozens of reports was related to Russia or the investigation of Russian activities regarding the Trump team.
-Information was not part of a criminal investigation. It looks like "normal Foreign surveillance" under FISA where there was "incidental collection" that was then widely disseminated with unmasked names, but he still needs to get more information.
-Doesn't know if the information was picked up at Trump Tower, but working to find out details by Friday. Rogers (NSA) appears to be wanting to comply. He's concerned because he doesn't know yet if the FBI will comply. He has called the FBI, no response yet, hoping to talk to Comey later today.
-He has seen intelligence reports that clearly show that the President-elect and his team were monitored and the information disseminated to the IC in a "raw" format.
-Unknown if surveillance was illegal, the main question is why the names were unmasked in reports and widely disseminated throughout the IC.
-Most of the intercepts occurred in November, December, and January. During the transition period. This does not rule out any other periods of surveillance, this is just what he was able to see today.
-It was "a lot of information about the President-elect, his transition team, and what they were doing".
-He is surprised and "alarmed" by the discovery of this information, because it reminds him of when members of Congress were "incidentally" surveilled a year and a half ago. He doesn't understand how the intelligence regarding what President-elect Trump and his transition team were doing had any relation to foreign intelligence activities.
Full press conference https://www.c-span.org/video/?...
Didn't they build the chunnel so electric trains could make that run? Seems silly to try and compete on that particular route.
The whistle blower produced hard evidence that shows Comey or Mike Rogers was lying or completely incompetent in sworn testimony to congress.
Oh don't give flying fuck if it is off topic, Slashdot editors are blocking the story.
I don't know the answer to this, so please be gentle. What about using hydrogen fuel cells for airplanes? The big problem with hydrogen fuel cells is that they require energy to breakdown water and different tubes for refueling. On the upside, it's high density chemical energy and you could safely jettison all of it before a crash which would save lives since (to my knowledge) the majority of fatalities in (survivable) plane crashes are from smoke inhalation from burning jet fuel.
Since power can be derived from Sol and they would be changing equipment anyway, why not use hydrogen fuel cells?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
If this thing ever comes to pass. I hope they break up the battery in smaller sizes and distribute them throughout the plane. I can't imagine the horror of a single huge battery hitting something on a crash landing.
This sounds great although I'm pretty sure my teleport startup will cut into their margins significantly. We will be offering London to Paris trips that are instant and cost only a few dollars.
We're just waiting for the technology to get us across the line but we've done a lot of thinking about the business model and we're pretty confident!
(BBC journalists feel free to call)
of course it " relies on the continued advancement of battery technology."
Please send me money now.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Maybe the plane could be powered by distributed AA-size batteries?
http://www.nbc.com/saturday-ni...
There is already an electric train between Paris and London that takes between 2:16 and 3 hours + 30 min checkin time: The Eurostar through the channel tunnel.
As a rule of thumb, any train journey faster than five hours is faster from city-centre to city-centre than getting on a plane.
That is because there is so much time overhead before and after the actual plane ride - most of all, the journey to and from the airports.
The only benefit for taking this plane would be if you would change to another plane at the airport or if your actual destination is not in the city proper but closer to the airport.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley