Why Fly?

[TheEarCollector]

Flight, both in and out of the atmosphere, seems to be a huge part of scifi... but what is it that makes people so hooked on flight? Is it the fact that we can do it, so we think it is the way of the future?

Sure, it's nice to think about a flying car that you can navigate around and avoid congestion on the ground (if you completely ignore the havoc of no rules in the air) but realistically, our society is moving back towards the ground.

With the introduction of elements like maglev technology, it is going to become a lot more feasible to travel on the ground than it is by air, and it is going to take relatively the same amount of time.

The reason I ask this is, what really made us take to the skies? Was it the Atlantic ocean?

It seems that the flight across the Atlantic, and later the Pacific, were huge parts of flight... Flight gives us freedom, but how much freedom do you need when you are moving from NY to London? A fixed track will get the job done just as well (though, as I mentioned, the ocean would be getting in the way).

It seems that people have always had the urge to move up into the sky though... storeis like that of Icarus, and murals on cave walls, tell us that people thought about flying, so maybe it is just hard wired into our nature?

The reason I ask is because I am workign on a story, and in that story the people stay on the ground... They aren't primitive, but a lot of their technology is going to be based heavily on the use of magnets and electromagnets, so it is understandable how their technology would not necessarily lead them too far off of the ground (which is magnetic...). Do I need to go a step further and have a reason (strong atmospheric winds maybe) why they don't want to fly? Or do you think readers of sci fi will look at these people and say, "Well, they have no real need to fly because all of their goals are accomplished on the ground."?

 

[Ealdric]

Birds

It's simple: birds.

We have seen the apparent ease and freedom with which birds fly, especially the eagles and other soaring birds. We want the same thing.
Faster and easier transportation. The overhead viewpoint, including for military reasons. Even today when we have jumbo jets, people still use or experiment with hang gliders and ultralights, especially the human-powered varieties. Also skydiving, especially with the fancy steerable 'chutes.

Maybe you should not have any birds on your world. That could be a simple evolutionary choice, though you still might need flying insect analogs to handle plant pollenation.

 

[TheEarCollector]

But what happens when it is faster and easier to travel along the ground? We are heading in that direction already...

 

[kater]

I think with your desert culture you have a legitimate reason to not worry about flight. I think flight is due to the vast nature of the oceans and bodies of water - fifty years ago a trip to NZ from the UK took weeks not hours, planes made the world a whole lot smaller and safer to travel. If the various cultures in your desert setting haven't seen large bodies of water then the evolution of your vehicles is entirely in keeping with the nature of the environment. Think Dune to some extent, desert people tend to be very practical in nature and their innovations are in land travel if anything because they aren't just travelling from point A to point B - often they are carrying all their wordly possessions with them. As far as human beings - we will do what is most expedient and cheap for ourselves. If Bullet trains etc reach comparable terms with planes both as regards financial aswell as speed and distances then it could be we end up going that way - there are plenty of people afraid to fly after all

 

[Postaurch]

Some thoughts:

- Air travel generally makes geography and climate irrelevant, except during takeoff/landing.

- Atmospheric travel can attain high speeds at a cost much lower than feasible on the ground. The basic requirements in the air are pressure/temperature control and thrust. On the ground, similarly high speeds have the added complications of friction, tracks/roads/tunnels, and two dimensions (e.g., only a single vehicle on a given path at a given time).

- Travel on a sphere. There is the odd fact that, when travelling on the surface of a sphere, covering an arc that moves away and then toward the equator (for east-west travel) is a shorter distance than travelling on a straight line along the equator. (You can demonstrate this with a basketball and a piece of string). In the air, there are a near-infinite number of paths that can optimize the distance, while establishing any such routes on the ground would be impractical to say the least.

That's all I can think of off hand.

 

[TheEarCollector]

Some thoughts:

- Air travel generally makes geography and climate irrelevant, except during takeoff/landing.

The use of air conditioning makes climate irrelevant, the construction of bridges and tunnels makes geography irrelevant (short of an ocean...)

- Atmospheric travel can attain high speeds at a cost much lower than feasible on the ground. The basic requirements in the air are pressure/temperature control and thrust. On the ground, similarly high speeds have the added complications of friction, tracks/roads/tunnels, and two dimensions (e.g., only a single vehicle on a given path at a given time).

That is the point I was making with maglev, going between 50 and 70 mph slower on the ground, at a much lower cost, would kind of people people right back on the ground. That means that with technology you could eventually surpass the need for air travel. Planes deal with just as much friction as maglev trains, but have to worry about lift as an added issue as well.

- Travel on a sphere. There is the odd fact that, when travelling on the surface of a sphere, covering an arc that moves away and then toward the equator (for east-west travel) is a shorter distance than travelling on a straight line along the equator. (You can demonstrate this with a basketball and a piece of string). In the air, there are a near-infinite number of paths that can optimize the distance, while establishing any such routes on the ground would be impractical to say the least.

It would be impractical to have a road arc? I don't see why... what makes a straight road so clever? It has actually been proven that the curves of the autobahn, originally designed for asthetics, are easier on the brain (less mind numbing) and help keep the driver more alert.

That's all I can think of off hand.

There are plenty of reasons you stated, but none of them address the original post. Given technology that is superior in ground travel, what is the human obsession with air travel? It wasn't cheaper when we started, it STILL isn't cheaper (takes a lot less time though), and if you remove government subsidies it becomes nearly unfeasible.

 

[Great Zamfir]

Given superior technology on the ground, there would of course by definition be no reason for air transport.But there could still be recreational flight, just as in our world. I suppose the existence of hang gliders and sailplanes woudn't hurt your story?
The reason that people are "obsessed" with flight lies in the combination of 3-dimensional freedom, escaping from the ground, with the restriction and challenges that lie in keeping your craft up. I doubt jetpacks that can move in any direction at will would inspire as much as gliders or birds.
I think the fascination with flight should not be exaggerated. Motorized flying is pretty expensive , but hang gliding and soaring are not too expensive, and there are only a few people doing it. I'm sure there are a lot more people who play golf or collect electric trains or surf. Now you can argue that humans also have a fascination for balls and moving vehicles and waves, and that's true, but just as human fascination with waves doesn't stop you from imagining a desert planet, fascination with flight shouldn't stop you from imagining a flightless world.

Now, for the "superior technology". I am a student aerospace engineering, so I think it's my duty to defend air transport. Therefore, a few points:
1. low air density at higher altitudes. This reduces parasite drag. Unless you want to build vacuum tunnels for you trains, they will have higher parasite drag than aircraft at the same speed.
2. Speed of sound: Supersonic ground transport is even harder than supersonic flight. Once again, you need vacuum tunnels to have trains go faster than aircraft.
3. Shortest route: There's only one shortest route between two points ( also on a sphere). If you have only a few destinations, you can build almost straight roads or tracks between them, but for larger numbers this means an enormous amount of track.
4. Weight: during cruise, only say 25% of drag is caused by lift. That's 25% of a lot of drag, but it is less then the penalty you would get by going fast at sea level air density. However, aircraft are so expensive because they are light, to keep this drag so low. Reliability is also a cost driver.
For low-weight, fast transport, such as planetwide transport of people, air transport is really hard to beat.


Now, if you really want to make flying unattractive, you should propose a planet with low air density ( and pressure, that's the same), say equal to our stratosphere. That way aircraft would have enormous trouble getting airborne
(since they need the thick air to be able to fly slow), while their benefit of lower air resistance has become less important. Relatively short distances and heavy cargo would help to finish flying, economically speaking, and without an economic reason to develop flying, the recreational aspect would probably stay primitive (the low air density is especially bad for slow-flying aircraft).

I hope this helps.

 

[Postaurch]

Now, if you really want to make flying unattractive, you should propose a planet with low air density ( and pressure, that's the same), say equal to our stratosphere. That way aircraft would have enormous trouble getting airborne
(since they need the thick air to be able to fly slow), while their benefit of lower air resistance has become less important. Relatively short distances and heavy cargo would help to finish flying, economically speaking, and without an economic reason to develop flying, the recreational aspect would probably stay primitive (the low air density is especially bad for slow-flying aircraft).

I hope this helps.

So, a resource-rich world, one having, say, high concentrations of diamagnetic materials, but also relatively small (or less dense, etc.). Atmosphere wouldn't be generally breathable, but that would work well with a high-tech capable/low tech available culture.


Cool. Seems like someone could build a story around that....

 

[Postaurch]

Re: Ear collector's comments on my comments

I apparently didn't explain my points too well, as your comments didn't really address them per se, but issues around them.

But, more to the point, What Zamfir said.

 

[Postaurch]

3. Shortest route: There's only one shortest route between two points ( also on a sphere).

There's only one value for the minimum distance, but there are multiple routes on a spherical surface that can approximate that distance.

My main point is that travelling along the "great circle" between two points is less distance that any other route (see this link). Following the "great circle" route in the air is fairly easy, but on the ground would be impracticle as it would mean separate roads for any two given points.

Thus, doing something like crossing the Atlantic in an undersea tube would require a much larger infrastructure than in the air. Multiple routes consolidated to a single tunnel, thus longer distances. More travel on a single route, thus more complicated scheduling management.

As a quick example, read "Around the World in 80 Days". Dated, but the points raised are still true.

 

[Ropie]

Do I need to go a step further and have a reason (strong atmospheric winds maybe) why they don't want to fly? Or do you think readers of sci fi will look at these people and say, "Well, they have no real need to fly because all of their goals are accomplished on the ground."?

As far as I remember, the long journeys in Ursula Le Guin's 'Left Hand of Darkness' are all carried out by land transport. I can't quite recall the reason for this in her story but I'm fairly sure it was just down to a lack of technological development in that area.

The point is that it certainly didn't detract from the story or the plausibility of the society, in fact it had the effect of adding to the excitement. Don't forget that very often it is not what can be acheived that is intersting, but what can't, and the way in which these obstacles are negotiated.

 

[Ealdric]

So, a resource-rich world, one having, say, high concentrations of diamagnetic materials, but also relatively small (or less dense, etc.). Atmosphere wouldn't be generally breathable, but that would work well with a high-tech capable/low tech available culture.


Cool. Seems like someone could build a story around that....

If the inhabitants were natives, they would be adapted to breathe the thinner air, obviously. Colonists could be gene-modified to breathe it. Off-worlders might need masks, which would be a useful identification/control device.

How thin would the air have to be to discourage flight?
Could an Earth-human still breathe at that level?

 

[Ealdric]

Alternative no-fly zone

If your inhabitants are natives, you could have some deity declare the skies off-limits. Even if it was in the ancient past, it could still be a deterrent. This might also work for colonists if they have been there long enough.

 

[kater]

If your inhabitants are natives, you could have some deity declare the skies off-limits. Even if it was in the ancient past, it could still be a deterrent. This might also work for colonists if they have been there long enough.

Clever idea, the skies could be defined as the 'province of the Gods' or something equivalent to heaven once was.

 

[Postaurch]

C.J. Cherryh did something like that in "Downbelow Station".

 

[Oliverez]

For certain things like overnight mail, flight is very important. Militarily, flight is probably the single highest tactical advantage (aside from intel - but they often go hand-in-hand) for any army.

Travel gave us the idea of flight. Two world wars gave us jets. If there is a lot of fighting on your world, chances are someone would have wanted to make a air baloon or something to bomb the heck out of the other guys.

Sidenote: My major qualm with flight in sci-fi is that they tend to have spaceflight physics match atmospheric flight.

 

[emohawk]

Thomas M. Disch wrote an extraordinary book involving humans being able to fly called On Wings of Song. It's out of print presently but is definately worth checking out if you get the opportunity.