Discussion on:

'Bluefield' development: should we put our airports out to sea?

That's an interesting concept. I'm curious what the environmental effects would be-- I don't think it could be benign, since any airport produces air and water pollution, among other impacts.

-Kirsten@Nexyoo
http://www.nexyoo.com

Will they land in the Gulf and then take a train to St. Louis? And
then a bus to their destination?

some interesting ideas...and valid good and bad points are raised. i too would be most concerned about pollution effects on the shore, or in the event of an accident/leak/crash/etc at/near the rigging.

as long as the platform/runways are on a rig and not using land reclamation within the harbours, it sounds like a good and workable idea. the rig can rise and fall with possible changes in sea level too, avoiding some problems with climate change issues. i dont want to see landfill dropped into the oceans the way tokyo or united arab emirates has done in the past to create land.

but now, if we could build high-speed rail lines in underwater tunnels to link to these platforms, we COULD spend that money directly for land-based high speed rail to los angeles, las vegas, phoenix, san francisco for the same or so BBBillions of $$ and then we would eliminate a lot of the flights in the first place and wont need the runways capacity.

and what about the inland cities? if you remember, in the 1920s many of the first air routes were coastal, and using the Pan Am special float planes to land and take off on water. the need to serve inland cities gave way to creating land-based airports and planes with rubber tires on them, resulting in eliminating those pan am flying boats.

I think it is an ill conceived idea. The environment is far more
hostile than land based. Tides, tidal surges, storms and cross winds
would make it difficult to operate anywhere near to 24/7/365. There
is no man made substance that would be able to last in the brine,
and would be a huge maintenance and environmental issue. Better to
invest in making aircraft more environmentally friendly. Summary: As
a retired professional mariner, I think it is a foolish idea being
proposed just to garner other people's money.

the airports could operate 24 h/ day and 7 days a week; unless the sea surges were too large because of storms near the airport or far away. every hurricane in the eastern pacific, and there were 17 this season, would cause large storm surges(making the surfing along the southern CA coast a mecca for the boarders) and stop air traffic. i am not certain but those prone to seasickness might find it uncomfortable most times because of the undulating of the whole platform. i am not sure of the depths 10 miles out to sea, but pray tell how are you going to build these underwater high speed train tunnels, and keep them stationary enough to pass a train through. we know that ships, large ships, break up at sea in large storms with high waves(30 to 70 feet). what will happen to the platform under these conditions, and if the darn thing did break up, what would be the total loss of life, far more than just a jumbo jet plowing into the ground.

a large floating platform in the pacific ocean, misnamed as being peaceful, is not such a good idea.the platform cannot move, nor can it twist or undulate, but that is exactly what it will do when floating on this most unpacific of oceans.

it is great when people go out of bounds to come up with ideas, but whereas it is great to think of all the advantages, try to put a little emphasis on the disadvantages or the problems that might have to be overcome, if possible. apparently, the writers of this column have not

I'm too lazy to reply at length but corrosion is the biggest problem,
wave and storms are easily surmountable by good design.

Sounds like a great idea...but, the ocean is a ready made landing field for SEAPLANES! Remember the four and six propeller driven large seaplanes of years ago? Why not redesign them to current standards? A lot cheaper than billion dollar waterports

I?ve been thinking along these lines of moving airports to sea for a few years. The urban land is so valuable, and the noise pollution and congestion so much, that shifting this all to sea has to be a strong economic case in most big coastal cities. The method I would propose is to float the airports on large sacks of fresh water. Fresh water floats on salt water, with 2.5% of volume above the surface. Polymer bags of fresh water, up to several cubic kilometres in size, could provide a very big stable and safe platform for an airport or other floating island. Large cylindrical fresh water tubes under the ocean could also provide buoyancy for a submarine ocean road or rail line inside the tube.
I?ve developed related ideas further with a proposal for an Algae City in the Gulf of Mexico. See http://www.bautforum.com/attachments/science-technology/11097d1256609680-patent-reverse-global-warming-algae-city-gulf-mexico.jpg

I beleive this was proposed for Chicago in the 60's with Lake Michigan Airport. Environmental concerns, fog, and icing were significant problems.

This is an insane idea. We should be rebuilding our railroads to relieve air traffic considerations. And not necessarily high speed railways, but just comfortable ways to travel. Airport to airport travel is stressful. Rail travel takes you to the center of the city usually. And you don't have to worry about the flight crew falling asleep. Air travel has become a waste of time, and very dangerous.

How about a cheaper, safer alternative: man-made extensions of land out into the water, like the reef runway on Oahu. If done correctly it could also have minimal environmental impact.

As it is, getting in and out of airports is a nightmare. Now to add
the logistics of getting on a ferry to get back to land to get onto a
shuttle to take you to your car??? No doubt, these costs will be
passed on to the traveler or the tax payers at large.

However, this could be a good idea for private jets and air freight.
Those types of travelers and industries have the money and the time to
spend on this type of venture. Moving them out of our current airports
systems would free up more gates for the commercial air liners.

Let's do it!

Most Cargo and privet jets do not use commercial gates. And for moving the cargo airliners out to sea that is a 50
% good and 50% bad idea. While the cargo airliners do have more money for this type of venture, they would again pass on the extra cost to the consumer. Bye Bye $95 Haggar slacks they just went to $195. I like the idea of the commercial airliners out to sea, you land international flights out there and then you have them all out there until security sweeps of luggage and terrorist checks can be done then move them inland and the same with outbound flights the aircraft can be swept passengers screened and luggage searched and passengers could be checked for identity and warrants before the boarding process.For small X-country flights you could use smaller more isolated airports for the task. But again the searches have to be done. So in short isolation of airports is more needed to insure our safety. Do your kiss and fly inside the city at the airport shuttle terminal and then start the searches and screening on the way to the airport.