>>13007449No, airplanes can go a lot further with efficiency--but the issue is not there. Plane designs haven't changed in decades, and 737 Max8 shows the other problem with "efficiency" design updates. Boeing basically cut corners so that they could mount the newer and heavier, though more efficient engines, onto the same plane in order to pass through certification under the same label instead of having to create a new plane line; which needed a new plane.
If Musk was leading the charge here, he would have had his team design a new plane frame for the engines instead of cutting corners. It may have potentially cost more, but its the right decision to make; because then 380 people across 2 different flights wouldn't have died as a result. Loss of human life to new technology is always inevitable, we're not perfect creatures and there's too many variables to reasonably account for. What you shouldn't do is fuck with nature to make a dollar faster--and that's what Boeing did and all those people NEEDLESSLY died.
You can make all kinds of arguments of about training this software shit code that, but at the end of the day, they're just that; excuses. The fundamental problem always remained that the engines are bigger and heavier than what the original frame can handle. People died and then the plane was grounded anyway. They had to fix all that shit anyway. ULTIMATELY PROVING THAT THE DECISION WAS FUCKING WRONG ALL ALONG.
But, with regards to peak efficiency, no. Planes can get a lot bigger, potentially carry way more people. They can travel faster (bring back the Concord with modern tech for hypersonic flight). They fly higher, closer to the sun. There's a crazy amount of surface area on them that you can add photovoltaic layers to generate energy and then use that to power common systems that aren't directly tied to flight controls. If LiON batteries are an issue, you can use Iron-Nickel in its place, etc.
Also, rail and subway transport needs 10x improv too.
