Not this again. An inflatable jumbo jet is NOT art. Nor is a waterfall under a bridge, banners draped in a park, slopping gaudy paint on a cruise ship or giant umbrellas on a hillside (which killed someone). Doing something and proclaiming it art...does not make it art.
@DWD: What if I took what you said, made it all sorts of crazy colors and rearranged a few words and had them all coming out of a speech balloon to make it look like a talking marmoset smoking a cigarette while using a toilet made out of bamboo inside of an icy volcano was saying it?
@Kaiser-Machead: Then you'd have my comments in "all sorts of crazy colors and rearranged...all coming out of a speech balloon...like a talking marmoset smoking a cigarette while using a toilet made out of bamboo inside of an icy volcano was saying it."
I wish that time/money was spent on a supersonic aircraft. I'm tired of it taking 9 hours to go from Chicago to Hawai'i. A real "dreamliner" would be much faster.
@OMG! Ponies!: It's also not fuel efficient, since the drag coefficient is squared with respect to air speed. You'd have to pay a lot more for plane tickets if airliners were supersonic.
Yeah, the sad thing is that supersonic flight is basically dead in the water to begin with because it's only permitted over extended areas of ocean. That limiters the versatility of any supersonic passenger aircraft.
In the US supersonic flight is only permitted in a few isolated military training areas.
The concern, of course, is the sonic boom, but the way the law is written ALL supersonic flight is off limits, even if the aircraft can be designed to make the boom extremely soft or almost inaudible. NASA, Lockheed and Gulfstream and others have produced prototype aircraft designs with dramatically reduced sonic booms due to wave shaping or other factors. It does not matter though, it's still not permitted without a change in regulations.
@eddiecoaster: Actually Boeing was working on a near-sonic plane up until Sept 11th hit and fuel prices started to skyrocket. Basically it would have shaved an hour or two off of your flight. But, airlines were far more interested in cost savings, thus the Dreamliner was created.
@nuclearlove: We've invented hardware that is capable of supersonic flight. We haven't invented hardware that is ecologically responsible, fuel efficient, and supersonic for civilian transport craft.
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
Then you'd have my comments in "all sorts of crazy colors and rearranged...all coming out of a speech balloon...like a talking marmoset smoking a cigarette while using a toilet made out of bamboo inside of an icy volcano was saying it."
But, you wouldn't have art.
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
01/19/09
01/14/09
01/14/09
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08
The problem with supersonic flight is that it's noisy. Sonic booms are capable of reaching the ground from high altitudes.
12/11/08
12/11/08
Yeah, the sad thing is that supersonic flight is basically dead in the water to begin with because it's only permitted over extended areas of ocean. That limiters the versatility of any supersonic passenger aircraft.
In the US supersonic flight is only permitted in a few isolated military training areas.
The concern, of course, is the sonic boom, but the way the law is written ALL supersonic flight is off limits, even if the aircraft can be designed to make the boom extremely soft or almost inaudible. NASA, Lockheed and Gulfstream and others have produced prototype aircraft designs with dramatically reduced sonic booms due to wave shaping or other factors. It does not matter though, it's still not permitted without a change in regulations.
12/11/08
12/11/08
12/11/08