ET3 is Building a 'Hyperloop' Transport System

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,412
Elon Musk is a dreamer: He dreamed of creating PayPal, he dreamed of SpaceX and he dreamed of Tesla Cars and we all know how those turned out. He has also dreamed of creating a ‘Hyperloop’ tube transport system that can travel between New York and Los Angeles in just 30 minutes. His dream is about to be tested out in principle by a ET3, a Colorado-based consortium that is building a 3-mile long system of vacuum tubes to test out the feasibility of the technology.
 
I saw it on Discovery some time ago (Daily Planet) and it looked very cool. Honestly the biggest hurdle is convincing someone in the government to try something new. I hope they have a successful test when they do test it. They were mentioning places for a test track between two cities and Alberta came up as the two major cities are about 300 km a part and they (gov't) want some form of high speed transportation between them.

Nifty stuff.
 
I hope he can make it work!

Of course, he has got a long road ahead of him. I would imagine a liberal dose of Eminent Domain is required and it would be a huge hurdle to overcome.
 
As great as this sounds there is always that depressing realization that nothing new can be done in the US because of the insane costs from everybody along the way wanting to get their piece of the pie especially when the government gets their fat fingers involved.
 
I thought of this as a kid, but in addition to the individual pods, having a 'ferry' style pod that you pulled your car into and it sealed it and took the whole package.

If this works, it'd be awesome. I am curious as to how much energy is consumed and if it is a viable replacement for other vehicles...
 
This will be a boon for human trafficking. Can't wait to get my hookers in 2min or less.
 
Considering the rising costs of kerosene I'm glad that someone is working on something.
 
I have trouble believing that a mile of sealed, elevated (?), vacuum transport tube would be 1/4 the cost of a mile of asphalt.
 
Wrecked Em said:
I have trouble believing that a mile of sealed, elevated (?), vacuum transport tube would be 1/4 the cost of a mile of asphalt.
Click to expand...
These are the sorts of claims you run into with startup companies that are trying to get funding for their ideas. Until a full-scale, working prototype is built, these early theoretical cost estimates are essentially meaningless.

Travel by vacuum tubes is not a new idea, and has been technologically possible for decades, albeit at such high cost as to keep it from ever being considered seriously.
 
This is the sort of thing we need in the US. We're currently so behind other countries in railway system it's not funny. Shared track between commuter and freight is hardly and ideal situation. It takes roughly 3 days to go from NYC to LA via Amtrak. Even if it were 3 hours from NYC to LA would simply crush the airlines, let alone 30 min.
I think that if the rails were simply competitive with air travel in time and comfort, there'd be a change in the mode of travel for many.
 
how do you reliably keep THOUSANDS of miles of tube in a vacuum state reliably?

4000 miles an hour?

Look... does the average person understand what something as seemingly benign as striking a small piece of stationary gravel at that speed would do to the capsule?

Or if mag power failed or for any reason at all the capsule touched the sides of the tube and generated friction at 4000 mph?

The results would be... worthy of a darwin award. Yes, worse than a plane crash.

Or if you suddenly slammed into even a short stretch of non-vacuum area at 4000 mph? The pressures would fail the mag system, possibly pop the tube, maybe turn everyone inside into a pancake as that many air molecules might as well be a brick wall at that speed.

I know, I know, we wouldn't have the automobile without pioneers who do things that people say are crazy... but some things ARE crazy. Like going 4000 mph at sea level in a sealed tube that depends on remaining in a vacuum for your survival.

When something goes wrong in your car or in an airplane there are countless outcomes that are far short of "fatal". At these speeds, anything that goes even a tiny bit wrong is insta-gib involving millions in repairs and days of cleaning your smeared remains off of several miles of tube.
 
JohnleMVP said:
This system would be interesting even if it was just for freight.
Click to expand...

I would like to temper my skepticism by saying that if we are going to try this idea at all frieght is a wonderful idea to prove this can possibly be safe enough to put people in.

The costs of freight movement coast to coast is monumental. The potential savings for moving goods is worth looking at.
 
The airline lobbyists will never allow this to happen. At least not in the US
 
Advil said:
how do you reliably keep THOUSANDS of miles of tube in a vacuum state reliably?

4000 miles an hour?

Look... does the average person understand what something as seemingly benign as striking a small piece of stationary gravel at that speed would do to the capsule?

Or if mag power failed or for any reason at all the capsule touched the sides of the tube and generated friction at 4000 mph?

The results would be... worthy of a darwin award. Yes, worse than a plane crash.

Or if you suddenly slammed into even a short stretch of non-vacuum area at 4000 mph? The pressures would fail the mag system, possibly pop the tube, maybe turn everyone inside into a pancake as that many air molecules might as well be a brick wall at that speed.

I know, I know, we wouldn't have the automobile without pioneers who do things that people say are crazy... but some things ARE crazy. Like going 4000 mph at sea level in a sealed tube that depends on remaining in a vacuum for your survival.

When something goes wrong in your car or in an airplane there are countless outcomes that are far short of "fatal". At these speeds, anything that goes even a tiny bit wrong is insta-gib involving millions in repairs and days of cleaning your smeared remains off of several miles of tube.
Click to expand...
This was prettymuch my thought. Being the bullet on a 2000 mile long railgun where any flaw could turn into a catastrophic event not just for the car but the surrounding buildings doesn't seem like anything to rush into.
 
Hope this test works out.

The US REALLY needs some kind of new high speed transport system in place. Airplanes are huge hassle to use these days, so many delays, switching planes, etc.

Hell even if this doesn't work out why can we not have a good high-speed train running across the country? Something like they have throughout many European countries like France, that runs over 200+ mph.

I'd sure as hell prefer to take that over an airplane, even if it's not as fast it'd be a lot more comfortable.
 
Stiler said:
Hope this test works out.

The US REALLY needs some kind of new high speed transport system in place. Airplanes are huge hassle to use these days, so many delays, switching planes, etc.

Hell even if this doesn't work out why can we not have a good high-speed train running across the country? Something like they have throughout many European countries like France, that runs over 200+ mph.

I'd sure as hell prefer to take that over an airplane, even if it's not as fast it'd be a lot more comfortable.
Click to expand...
You're assuming they wouldn't pack you in like the airlines or scheduling and lay overs and all that fun stuff wouldn't happen if rail became popular.
 
I had physics in school once and though I didn't really get it completely, I think this is insane. Why make a tube like that when you can just suck up the air from in front of a plane so it go through a complete vacuum while it flies instead of trying to keep it inside a chamber or something? It doesn't even need a huge long tube.
 
Ummm here are problems I can see.

1. It will be for the ultra rich or high end business travellers only. Sure the trip is 2 hours to go to London or what have you. but the starting point and ending point are fixed locations. Also the "Vacuum Tube." Is for 1 car at a time. This means that whatever you define the car as only what.. 6 people and luggage can travel using it at any point in time. Then there is the return trip with 6 more.. and so on.

They will have the costs so high as to naturally limit the number of travelers at any given point in time to accommodate who can fit on the Tube. Soon giant tubes with giant canisters that can house dozens of people will be made but they will be slower... Then I see us being twice as fast as the fastest Jet but costing 4 to 5 times as much. This is due to the one in a tube at a time problem.
 
Vacuum isn't the propulsion. The propulsion is magnetic like a rail gun. The Vacuum is for anti-friction or you would never achieve the 4000 mph without overcoming huge air resistence, especially in a closed volume. The air drag in open air is a lot less than the air drag against a static wall inches away from you at those speeds.
 
mynamehere said:
This is the sort of thing we need in the US. We're currently so behind other countries in railway system it's not funny. Shared track between commuter and freight is hardly and ideal situation. It takes roughly 3 days to go from NYC to LA via Amtrak. Even if it were 3 hours from NYC to LA would simply crush the airlines, let alone 30 min.
I think that if the rails were simply competitive with air travel in time and comfort, there'd be a change in the mode of travel for many.
Click to expand...

And LA to Seattle takes 2 days. I could actually drive there faster, even if I stopped and spent 12 hours at a hotel.

In California we are wasting Billions to build a highspeed train that will not even be a high speed train because much of it will run on existing tracks, and most likely will never end up getting built. But at least all the politcially connected consultants & appointies will have great paychecks for several years :(

I'd much rather see the money go to something like this.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
I had physics in school once and though I didn't really get it completely, I think this is insane. Why make a tube like that when you can just suck up the air from in front of a plane so it go through a complete vacuum while it flies instead of trying to keep it inside a chamber or something? It doesn't even need a huge long tube.
Click to expand...

Because the air is what gives the plane lift.

No air, no lift.

There are quite a few things that could reduce drag on the parts of the plane that would in turn reduce fuel usage and possibly increase speed at the same time.

I have often wondered why in the world they don't implement some of these things that have been proven to reduce drag on cars.

Maybe it isn't worth it or doesn't really reduce drag that much at cruising altitudes.

But from my totally unqaulified view, you could even improve lift by reducing air pressure/drag on the top of the wings.
 
armandh01 said:
I saw it on Discovery some time ago (Daily Planet) and it looked very cool. Honestly the biggest hurdle is convincing someone in the government to try something new. I hope they have a successful test when they do test it. They were mentioning places for a test track between two cities and Alberta came up as the two major cities are about 300 km a part and they (gov't) want some form of high speed transportation between them.

Nifty stuff.
Click to expand...

Why must government be involved in something like this? It's better to keep them out of it just from a cost reduction standpoint alone.
 
i bet this is all of our dreams to travel in tubes after seeing places where there is tube transport for random small objects.
 
cyclone3d said:
Because the air is what gives the plane lift.

No air, no lift.

There are quite a few things that could reduce drag on the parts of the plane that would in turn reduce fuel usage and possibly increase speed at the same time.

I have often wondered why in the world they don't implement some of these things that have been proven to reduce drag on cars.

Maybe it isn't worth it or doesn't really reduce drag that much at cruising altitudes.

But from my totally unqaulified view, you could even improve lift by reducing air pressure/drag on the top of the wings.
Click to expand...

The NTSB/FAA are the biggest impediments to these things.
 
Someone pitched the idea of placing the tube on the side of a mountain to launch satellites into space. How would one overcome the vacuum to air interface at the end of the tube at high speed?
 
cyclone3d said:
Because the air is what gives the plane lift.

No air, no lift.
Click to expand...

That's stupid! The people who design planes shouldn't make them dependent on the presence of air to work. We already have space planes so obviously air _that_ important. If we have the technology, why are we still using all this old obsolete junk?
 
yomike007 said:
Someone pitched the idea of placing the tube on the side of a mountain to launch satellites into space. How would one overcome the vacuum to air interface at the end of the tube at high speed?
Click to expand...

Multiple chambers that opened and closed with slightly more air pressure than the previous one. Several air lock chambers (miles long, of course). Then, at the exit the altitude is higher so the air pressure is a lot less, anyway.

I'd be happy with 500 MPH lanes, though. Even without vacuum. Just maglift cars.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
That's stupid! The people who design planes shouldn't make them dependent on the presence of air to work. We already have space planes so obviously air _that_ important. If we have the technology, why are we still using all this old obsolete junk?
Click to expand...

Wtf :confused:
 
Methadras said:
The NTSB/FAA are the biggest impediments to these things.
Click to expand...

uh..no

Airline companies. Who's gonna invest in a plane fulla tech that may occasionally kill 100 people because it doesnt have thousands of hours testing and pilots prepared to man them. Look at all the trouble the 787's are going thru. just cuz the batteries aren't old fashoined lead-acid and the much of the plane isn't aluminum.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Sorry, I missed a word. It should read "...air isn't _that_ important..."
Click to expand...

I think he's more confused about the " The people who design planes shouldn't make them dependent on the presence of air to work." comment you made.... it doesn't really make much sense... the very definition of a "plane" is contingent on the usage of air to produce lift using Bernoulli's principle. Its not outdated technology.... there is no way to remove air out of the equation when you expect to be flying through, well air.
 
:rolleyes: I wonder why nobody has released their estimated budget for the 3 mile test tunnel and extrapolated that to a 3,000 mile version. Even if it's a low $3M per mile tunnel (and that's low... in Seattle we're spending quite a bit more on the Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel) can you make this work with a $9T price tag and such limited capacity ? Add to that, the driverless car problem of liability for the rich people who can afford to use this thing.
 
Advil said:
how do you reliably keep THOUSANDS of miles of tube in a vacuum state reliably?

4000 miles an hour?

Look... does the average person understand what something as seemingly benign as striking a small piece of stationary gravel at that speed would do to the capsule?

Or if mag power failed or for any reason at all the capsule touched the sides of the tube and generated friction at 4000 mph?

The results would be... worthy of a darwin award. Yes, worse than a plane crash.

Or if you suddenly slammed into even a short stretch of non-vacuum area at 4000 mph? The pressures would fail the mag system, possibly pop the tube, maybe turn everyone inside into a pancake as that many air molecules might as well be a brick wall at that speed.

I know, I know, we wouldn't have the automobile without pioneers who do things that people say are crazy... but some things ARE crazy. Like going 4000 mph at sea level in a sealed tube that depends on remaining in a vacuum for your survival.

When something goes wrong in your car or in an airplane there are countless outcomes that are far short of "fatal". At these speeds, anything that goes even a tiny bit wrong is insta-gib involving millions in repairs and days of cleaning your smeared remains off of several miles of tube.
Click to expand...


You're forgetting MASSIVE centrifical forces due to very tiny changes in straightness of the tube. Basically you would be plastered to the side of the tube for a tiny curve variation, magnetic gap flux, or tube misalignment.

Centrifical force = (mv*v) / r When v is large, even small changes in r could be devistating.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
That's stupid! The people who design planes shouldn't make them dependent on the presence of air to work. We already have space planes so obviously air _that_ important. If we have the technology, why are we still using all this old obsolete junk?
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about Ramjets at hypersonic velocities....which are very hard to maufacture, and they operate at a much lower air pressure then at sea level. So some sort of reduced pressure vaccum would still be necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top