ET3 is Building a 'Hyperloop' Transport System

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.
Click to expand...
-I would much rather be in a transporter lol

Also why invest in this technology when we already have fast aircraft like the transcontinental condors they retired....I dont understand why we cannot build faster airplanes like that when they were what almost 20yrs old and still were running fine?
 
It will never work. There are too many thugs and vandals in the US now and this system is vulnerable to such.
 
Rather than building an expensive-to-maintain vacuum system on the ground, why not take advantage of space? Build a ground-based launch system to cut down on the rocket fuel needed, point it in the right direction, and give it a good ol' ballistic trajectory.

I wonder how the fuel costs would compare...
 
ServerKing said:
-I would much rather be in a transporter lol

Also why invest in this technology when we already have fast aircraft like the transcontinental condors they retired....I dont understand why we cannot build faster airplanes like that when they were what almost 20yrs old and still were running fine?
Click to expand...

I assume you are speaking of the British Airways Concorde, which flew from 1976 to 2003. It was a fine aircraft, but it hasn't been replaced yet for valid technical and economic reasons. The Concorde only carried around 100 passengers vs the 747's 400+, used more fuel, and was generally not allowed to fly at supersonic speed over land due to noise issues. There are companies trying to solve these issues, but the technologies are not yet ready for prime time and I would not expect to see a new supersonic passenger plane for at least the next 10 years.

As it stands, aside from ET3 and similar projects that currently consist only of seemingly outlandish claims by backers who are seeking funding for their project, the current feasible transportation options on the table remain the automobile, standard / high-speed rail, and subsonic flight.
 
ServerKing said:
-I would much rather be in a transporter lol

Also why invest in this technology when we already have fast aircraft like the transcontinental condors they retired....I dont understand why we cannot build faster airplanes like that when they were what almost 20yrs old and still were running fine?
Click to expand...

We should just be pumping all this kinda money into ion engines. Get those things up to snuff and we'll be good.
 
We should simply be building more traditional rail systems. Cheaper than trucks, and a decades old system that we know and understand. There's a reason that most other developed countries have decent rail systems. We are one of the few that have a pathetic rail system.

Hell, even a bullet train setup would be cost effective, and pretty fast.
 
chockomonkey said:
We should just be pumping all this kinda money into ion engines. Get those things up to snuff and we'll be good.
Click to expand...

I can agree here. And with a little bit of sarcasm also.

It's going to take a LOT to get ion tech ready for mass use, but it's a dang sight more practical than this system is.

It really would make more sense to develop low orbital mass transport than to do the tubes.

The low orbit system could move 200+ people like an airline does now, and send them TO their destination. Not just where the tube goes.
 
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...

You might as well tell fish to stop swimming in water and swim through air instead because water isn't that important to get from A to B.
 
Well they tried the vacuum trains 170 years ago in Ireland and Britain, where the air pressure behind the train and the vacuum in front created the propulsion, but that wouldn't work in a system with capsules, and a pure vacuum would be too unsafe, so I guess there has to be air.

A train system like the French TGV would put NYC just 15 hours from L.A., but this will never happen in the U.S. because of the cost of land. The train system should have been developed 150 years ago and the land bought by the government. It's just too expensive to start now. The only possibility remaining for development in the U.S. is underground, and that depends if a cheap tunnel digger can be designed, and if the government makes a law to appropriate the land underground public usage for free (eminent domain), which shouldn't be a problem for most of the country since farmers don't cultivate underground (yet).
 
DigitalGriffin said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you make a right angle turn, you'll need half the state fo Nebraska to do it.
 
Alai said:
You might as well tell fish to stop swimming in water and swim through air instead because water isn't that important to get from A to B.
Click to expand...

That's a sorta silly comparison. Fish aren't made by people so we can't change how they work. Air slows stuff down and if we could get rid of all the air, we'd fix that problem.
 
Of course Gene Roddenberry used high speed tube travel back in the 70's as elements of a couple of his failed TV pilots (Genesis II, Planet Earth) ... it is an interesting idea but not very practical for mass transit probably

gr70s_gen2_6.jpg
 
spugnor said:
We should simply be building more traditional rail systems. Cheaper than trucks, and a decades old system that we know and understand. There's a reason that most other developed countries have decent rail systems. We are one of the few that have a pathetic rail system.

Hell, even a bullet train setup would be cost effective, and pretty fast.
Click to expand...

You're right that there's a reason other developed countries have more extensive rail systems, but it's not what you think. The US has a much more distributed population, and so rail systems would provide far less utility than they do in, say, Europe. Because of the distributed nature of our population, it's also a whole lot more expensive to connect cities. No to mention the whole environmental impact of running a whole new network of tracks throughout the country, so you don't have freight and passenger trains sharing tracks.

Even in more densely-populated areas, rail doesn't seem to work for the US. California is a poster child for the folly of high-speed rail. They're pursuing a high-speed link between LA and SF which will cost over $100 billion. There are already a number of airlines shuttling between the two cities. Once the rail system is in operation, the ticket prices will actually be more expensive than an equivalent airline ticket, despite being subsidized. And the rail trip will take longer.

When I lived in Russia, I loved travelling by train--it's quiet, it's smooth, it's very comfortable if you have a sleeper cabin. If we had faster/cheaper rail service here in the US, I'd probably use it with my family. But truth be told, it's still cheaper and faster for our family of 7 to pile in the van and drive from to Chicago to Orlando, than it is to ride a train.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top