Talk about mpg's....

Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships.....

60 FEET per gallon..... LOL

Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, ito ROI.... as in.... NEVER....
lol
--
EA

"Existential Angst" > wrote in message ...
> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships.....
>
> 60 FEET per gallon..... LOL
>
> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, ito ROI.... as in.... NEVER.... lol
> --
> EA
>
I saw that show. I wondered if that figure was purely the propulsion mpg
or was it also loaded with all the other onboard energy usage?

Anybody know how many gallons (or equivalent) per inch the shuttle uses
getting into orbit?
Art

On 6/17/2013 6:37 PM, Artemus wrote:
> "Existential > wrote in message ...
>> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships.....
>>
>> 60 FEET per gallon..... LOL
>>
>> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, ito ROI.... as in.... NEVER.... lol
>> --
>> EA
>>
> I saw that show. I wondered if that figure was purely the propulsion mpg
> or was it also loaded with all the other onboard energy usage?
>
> Anybody know how many gallons (or equivalent) per inch the shuttle uses
> getting into orbit?
> Art
>
>

The first hundred miles are expensive.
The next million or so are cheap!

aOn 2013-06-17, Existential Angst > wrote:
> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships.....
>
> 60 FEET per gallon..... LOL
>
> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, ito ROI.... as in.... NEVER....
> lol

And it is carrying how many people? 2,000?

That's 120,000 feet per gallon per person. Or 22 miles per gallon.

i

Ignoramus20642 wrote:
> aOn 2013-06-17, Existential > wrote:
>> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships.....
>>
>> 60 FEET per gallon..... LOL
>>
>> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, ito ROI.... as in.... NEVER....
>> lol
>
> And it is carrying how many people? 2,000?
>
> That's 120,000 feet per gallon per person. Or 22 miles per gallon.
>
> i

you have solved the fuel crisis!
GW

Geoff Welsh > wrote:
>Ignoramus20642 wrote:
>> aOn 2013-06-17, Existential > wrote:
>>> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships.....
>>>
>>> 60 FEET per gallon..... LOL
>>>
>>> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, ito ROI.... as in.... NEVER....
>>> lol
>>
>> And it is carrying how many people? 2,000?
>>
>> That's 120,000 feet per gallon per person. Or 22 miles per gallon.
>>
>> i
>
>you have solved the fuel crisis!

Public transit, indeed, is a big part of the solution.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article >,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Geoff Welsh > wrote:
> >Ignoramus20642 wrote:
> >> aOn 2013-06-17, Existential > wrote:
> >>> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships.....
> >>>
> >>> 60 FEET per gallon..... LOL
> >>>
> >>> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, ito ROI.... as in.... NEVER....
> >>> lol
> >>
> >> And it is carrying how many people? 2,000?
> >>
> >> That's 120,000 feet per gallon per person. Or 22 miles per gallon.
> >>
> >> i
> >
> >you have solved the fuel crisis!
>
> Public transit, indeed, is a big part of the solution.
> --scott

No, it isn't, as it doesn't serve individual trips, schedules or
destinations off the beaten path. Public transit is a creation of those
who have neither imagination, personal lives, nor interest in anything
but mundane subjects.

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>you have solved the fuel crisis!
>
> Public transit, indeed, is a big part of the solution.
> --scott

It's a solution only if you are willing to live packed tightly
together. It isn't economically viable in the suburbs unless it
reduces traffic congestion in a nearby city.
jsw

On 17 Jun 2013 22:44:24 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Geoff Welsh > wrote:
>>Ignoramus20642 wrote:
>>> aOn 2013-06-17, Existential > wrote:
>>>> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships.....
>>>>
>>>> 60 FEET per gallon..... LOL
>>>>
>>>> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, ito ROI.... as in.... NEVER....
>>>> lol
>>>
>>> And it is carrying how many people? 2,000?
>>>
>>> That's 120,000 feet per gallon per person. Or 22 miles per gallon.
>>>
>>> i
>>
>>you have solved the fuel crisis!
>
>Public transit, indeed, is a big part of the solution.
>--scott


How do you figure? there are literally dozens of cars you can buy
that get way more than 22 mpg. Generally speaking, public transit if
more expensive per mile then personal transportation. And that's with
the GOAL of public transit to be as inexpensive as possible. Most
people don't buy their car with the GOAL being to get the absolute
lowest cost per mile. If they did, personal transport would
completely eclipse public in terms of efficiency - of course it
already is better even without the singular focus on operating cost.
The only reason anyone "votes" for public transit is because they get
most of the cost paid by "other people". When they have to pay the
full freight themselves they won't pay for it.

On Jun 18, 9:38*am, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2013 22:44:24 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Geoff Welsh > wrote:
> >>Ignoramus20642 wrote:
> >>> aOn 2013-06-17, Existential > *wrote:
> >>>> Ahm watchin some sci channel ditty in the background, on cruise ships.....
>
> >>>> 60 FEET per gallon..... * LOL
>
> >>>> Almost reminds me Kidding's bloatVolt, *ito ROI.... * as in.... *NEVER....
> >>>> lol
>
> >>> And it is carrying how many people? 2,000?
>
> >>> That's 120,000 feet per gallon per person. Or 22 miles per gallon.
>
> >>> i
>
> >>you have solved the fuel crisis!
>
> >Public transit, indeed, is a big part of the solution.
> >--scott
>
> How do you figure? *there are literally dozens of cars you can buy
> that get way more than 22 mpg. *Generally speaking, public transit if
> more expensive per mile then personal transportation. *And that's with
> the GOAL of public transit to be as inexpensive as possible. *Most
> people don't buy their car with the GOAL being to get the absolute
> lowest cost per mile. *If they did, personal transport would
> completely eclipse public in terms of efficiency - of course it
> already is better even without the singular focus on operating cost.
> The only reason anyone "votes" for public transit is because they get
> most of the cost paid by "other people". *When they have to pay the
> full freight themselves they won't pay for it.

I live an hour away from Spokane, WA. There has been an on going
proposal there for years to build a rail
public transportation system. Just one single line, no side
extensions. I just can't see what you gain that way
over buses. More expense up front for the land/track/construction
plus when done it is fixed forever, no
changing destinations without rebuild, etc.

At least with buses, routes can be redone in an instant as
demographics change.

Harry K