Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Please enter your email address to have your password reset.
Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.
Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.
You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.
See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.
11/21/09
11/21/09
11/21/09
11/21/09
11/21/09
[adsabs.harvard.edu]
11/21/09
11/21/09
11/21/09
11/21/09
As a side note, this terminal was built with "cranes, electricity, welding, advance metalurgy, and autocad", but without slavery.
11/21/09
11/21/09
11/21/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
A tsunami would more likely destroy a traditional airport, especially a coastal one. At 10 miles out to sea, a "normal" tsunami wouldn't appear any different than a normal wave. the floating tarmac itself would suffer practically no damage at all. A mega-tsunami (like in the movies) would destroy everything either way so your point there is moot
To your second point, carrier landings are so difficult because of how short the landing deck is. A pilot has to land on essentially a floating postage stamp, --in fact landing near one edge of said stamp. This airport will be full-sized with 747-capable runways which are is 17,000+ ft long, almost 30 times longer than a supercarrier's total deck length (about 700ft).
I am also thinking that a full-sized airport has got to weigh many orders of magnitude more than a supercarrier and if it will have 4 stories worth of retail and service space above the water, then dealing with 20 ft-plus storm waves should not be a problem.
I have to agree that getting to and from the airport itself would be an unnecessarily long, expensive, and dangerous process.
It might not practical now but it isn't undo-able or ridiculous. #floatingcaliforniaairport
10/28/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
You know if they build this thing, some guy will eventually put a strike team together to capture it, and take it for an expensive joy ride. #floatingcaliforniaairport
10/27/09
Um have any of you heard of the Osaka airport, so this Mr. Englund didn't come up with this. The Japanese made a massive island to make the Osaka airport, its even a modern marvels episode or something.... #floatingcaliforniaairport
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
... that and a Chargers stadium. #floatingcaliforniaairport
10/27/09
"Meanwhile we've got 3 fucking airports! Airports! FUCKING! Hell yeah!!"
If you can't tell from the "@%*$ing," I'm obviously kidding. : P
-------------------------------
But seriously, how the hell are you going to do an evacuation plan if a tanker crashes into it? (Obviously the space around the airport would be restricted.) Plus, transportation by ferry would be SLOW. Passengers would get pretty pissed off alright.
EDIT: Hoorah, I've done and created another useless tag.
10/27/09
10/27/09
Meanwhile, a tanker hits the airport, and then everyone is still on it. They all die, but on your plus side, it'll become the Atlantis of the West Coast! #floatingcaliforniaairport
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/20/09
10/20/09