A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach 9? Sure, why not

Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:20AM (#35438416)

I agree our current offset regime is a scam. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to do right, or that doing it right shouldn’t be a precondition to scaling something like supersonic travel. (Would note that linking to Greenpeace seldom strengthens one’s argument.)

> we chose to do it willingly or we'll be forced to do it

These outcomes are distributed differently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by xeyownt on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:34AM (#35438605)

What's the problem with Greenpeace?

Because I'm funding their actions since 20 years now, and I wonder if I should switch to something else, like Exxon maybe.

Or... I should stop giving indirectly any €€€ to Exxon and alike, and give all the gains to Greenpeace instead.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by lm28469 on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:27AM (#35438496)

So your argument is based on a scam program and fuels we don't really have yet

That's not very convincing. In a perfect world with perfect people and infinite money we could indeed do a lot of crazy things, but then again we have to deal with reality

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A passenger aircraft that flies around the world at Mach ... by JumpCrisscross on Tuesday April 04, 2023 @08:28AM (#35438506)

> your argument is based on a scam program and fuels we don't really have yet

Your problem is based on a Mach 9 proposal and technology we don’t really have yet. We’re both necessarily speculating.

[ Parent | on HN ]