Midairports, Airportships

I advise you to examine
http://bettergodlinessthroughchemistry.blogspot.com and see the portion on the space elevator.

Jets use more fuel during takeoff because they are elevating 13 tons to 30,000 feet.

I have no problem with not allowing anyone outside at 30,000 feet, from tram to shuttle door. The station could easily be interior to the midairport.

Mooring the midairport would be circumstantial. I expect aerodynamics, *sails*, and turbines from solar and wind arrays to right the airportship. Mooring structures would be as normal as the foundation of any other building. Tramlines would be more interesting.

Compartmentalization, internal compressors, and polymer vesting can all but eliminate the threat of sabotage. A normal rifle would not reach that altitude, and the surface can be lightly vested. Netting can prevent anything larger than a bullet from hitting it, including planes. Each area would be escourted by twin jets with homes on the airport.

Scramjets can operate suitably at almost any altitude, certainly 30,000'.

Commercial scrams are worth investing in. They will reduce flight times by about 90% and reduce fuel consumption per km by a similar margin. They also can operate suitably on pure H2, a pollution-free fuel. These numbers are unavoidable.

Combine this with a maglev national freight shipping and mass transit system for the ground and you will reduce America's reliance on fossil fuels by millions of barrels daily and reduce the cost of living by a substantial percent.

==

Transportation Reform 2.0

Diesel/petrol 18-wheeler shipping travels at approximately 70mph and costs nearly 50 cents a mile for shipping a few tons of freight, cost all. It produces considerable pollution tonnage, adding to expense, and requires fuel importation, large scale refineries, fuel competition, and burdens roadways with traffic and localized pollution. This cost is attached to prices for goods.

[Magnetic Levitation] Maglev train systems use electricity which can be domestically produced from non-polluting power sources. Trackliners can be fitted with wind harvesting systems making use of track magnets when a train rushes by.

They do not pollute, experience no friction and can be easily shaped to minimize air drag. A magnetic train can easily haul many tonnes of freight and people safely at very high speeds.

A maglev train can ship cargo at 300mph and turn out likely well under 5 cents a mile for shipping a ton of freight. Japanese examples are low cost to run and very efficient. Building maglev trains will provide a rapid cheap and safe alternative to flight and long distance driving.

For example, I recently went to Ottawa, Canada. It required about 8 hours of driving and two full tanks of gasoline costing perhaps $100. If maglev lines were installed between Boston and Ottawa, sister cities, the trip could have been completed in somewhat over an hour, plus customs, and a one-way fare of $25 per person, half the cost of driving fuel, would have been entirely suitable and more than cover electrical and maintenance expenses. Road traffic would be reduced and the environment would be cleaner.

This is even faster and cheaper than flying from Boston to Ottawa, which would take approximately the same amount of time, but require a ticket costing upwards of $150, the experience of flight, and cost airliners fuel, it's pollution and maintenance, the space of a very large airport, and the risk of air travel.

Maglev seems superior to road travel and flight, as well as cheaper.

==

Since this is a very effective method of regulating interstate commerce, and because of the upcoming fuel shortage due to peak oil, it is the state's duty to install these kind of maglev lines, as well as perfected midairports and stimulate commercial scramjets in order to maintain prosperity and order by and for the people.