Rusted Sky

I've always thought that the thing that Amtrak could offer, if they only would, that the airlines can't would be to, for a fee competitive with car rentals, allow passengers to take their vehicles with them. That way, they could pack the car, put it on the train, and just take a carryon onto the train themselves. Offer "inflight" movies (hey, they do them on busses these days) and promote the advantages of seeing the U.S. from the ground, and people might actually start taking the train. Especially if they don't have to go through so much Homeland Security kuso as they do to fly...

My, that would do wonders for Amtrak's energy-consumed-per-passenger-mile figures.

Travel via rail for cargo is wonderful.

Being treated as cargo, less so.

If the passenger rail of the 1950's were here, I would consider it. But that era is doornail dead in the US. I heard about it from my brother and sister and parents when they went coast to coast via rail and it does sound enchanting.

Slow and steady shipment of goods that is energy efficient will always have a place in the economy. That is one of the reasons I think JP Aerospace has a good idea with their work. Not everything needs to get to orbit rocket fast from the ground... and I can think of a lot of things that could just as easily take more time, at lower g and still get there just the same.

Seek and ye shall find, John. Heard about this a long time back - I was surprised to find it was still running.

Amtrak - Routes - South - AutoTrain

Of course, there's only the one route...

AJacksonian -

We took Amtrak down to New Orleans a couple of times. It was a nice trip - but it's certainly not a fast one. Eating in the dining car was fun - but these days it sure seems suited to a much slower-paced lifestyle.

J.

AJacksonian:

I looked up JP Aerospace and I also like the idea, but I have looked up some tech reviews and it looks like they need to come up with a power source better than solar; apparently the amount of thrust they would be able to get from ion engines using available solar power is insufficient to overcome air friction to make the furschlugginer thing move at all, much less accelerate, and that's not taking night time into effect. On the other hand, the Russians have designed and deployed lightweight nuclear reactors into spacecraft.... That, and getting the FAA to rethink using hydrogen for their airship (it ain't a gonna burn at that altitude, and the Hindenburg didn't burn because if the hydrogen in it, which was the reason for the restriction in the first place), which would make it a LOT cheaper to operate and give a bit of increased lift besides, might make it work. I hope so; I really like the concept.

John - It is a lovely concept, indeed! I've done my bit to try and get them hooked up with Moog as they are the thruster folks for this sort of long-range deal. You don't need lots of thrust, just low power and continuous to counter the atmosphere and just rely on Newton. Slow, steady and small wins that race... and that is the Moog business.

It is, basically, a problem in mechanics, not physics... and that high up, is it really an 'air ship'? I think, at some point, looking at the actual, legal definition of 'air space' defining the top of a Nation needs to be done... but that niche for the Best Western folks would be an ideal match with a rapid ship for getting occupants up and down, then sustain them with slow, steady re-supplies via JP. Why have we been dinking around with *rockets* for so long?

Ajacksonian...

Why have we been dinking around with rockets? They're fast, they're phallic, and they're noisy. Airships are more mammary than phallic, slow, and quiet.

Re power needed for the thrusters - solar's a tad diffuse. It seems to me a Bussard fusion reactor would do the job nicely there...

J.