New York To LA In 45 Minutes?

Submitted by: ElectricEye 4 years ago in Misc

ET3 Worldwide tube transportation project. This, looks amazing.
There are 26 comments:
Male 3,231
I love ass-bags unconditionally.
0
Reply
Male 2,850
This is a dream of the future from the previous age. Telecommunications (primarily, the internet) reduced much of the need for high-speed travel.

I suspect what need that does remain is unlikely to be large enough to fund such an expensive venture.
0
Reply
Male 1,569
@fancythat: yes you can, but it will slow the train down by about 20 MpH (per queen)
0
Reply
Male 1,949
Sure, but can you fit a fat Mississippi queen in it?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]I love the ass-bags talking about "if this thing crashes." Ever been on an airplane? [/quote]

Ever been on a maglev train travelling at 6500 Km/h inside a narrow tunnel?

Comparing two very different situations is rarely a good argument.
0
Reply
Male 1,071
I love the ass-bags talking about "if this thing crashes." Ever been on an airplane?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Constant acceleration of 1G is not uncomfortable. It`s literally the same as you pop your seat down to 45 degree angle.[/quote]

Bugger, I was wrong. I was adding 1g to the 1g from gravity and therefore thinking about a force that is actually 2g. Which, as you point out, is wrong.

Although...wouldn`t you need to be flat on your back to get 1g acting from your front to your back, not at 45 degrees?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
For comparison, below is a video of a 700 mph collision between a light rocket sled and a car against a wall. Note that this is *far* less force than one of these trains crashing would be - the velocity is 6 times less and the mass is much less. 0.5mv^2, so this crash would have 1/36th of the force even if the masses where the same and they aren`t - the backstop in this video moved a lot more than an underground tunnel would do and the sled is probably much lighter than a train capsule. I`d be surprised if the force in this collision is as much as 1% of the force of one of these capsules crashing.

Mythbusters crash a car
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Okay, if when this thing crashes, we would all die, as opposed to being gravely injured and disabled, then, okay. Otherwise, pass.[/quote]

If you crash a vehicle that`s essential a train carriage into anything solid with an impact speed of 6500 Km/h, you`d need a lot of careful DNA analysis to seperate the bits of whoever was inside because all the passengers are going to be smashed to paste and mixed together into a very small space.

0
Reply
Male 10,338
Bugatti Veyron from 0 to 100 km/h in 2.4 s, has g force = 1.18 g

Bugatti Veyron from 100 to 0 km/h in 2.3 s, has g force = 1.3 g, with an additional 0.6 g support by the rear spoiler.

So, a sporty car (the sportiest) comes nowhere close to 4g.

I got those figures from Bugatti,
and from this website which was quite informative. It also says Top Fuel drag racing world record of 4.4 s over 1/4 mile, g force = 4.2 g
0
Reply
Male 1,421
"Also, the figures for their pie in the sky seem quite wrong. A sporty road car can`t accelerate at 4g. Not even close. An F1 car can accelerate at ~1.5g and they`re pretty extreme. You`d need a top fuel dragster to get 4g acceleration. On top of that, a sustained acceleration of 1g is uncomfortable and 3 minutes of it would be necessary to reach 6500Km/h. "

I`m betting it`s the braking, ie deceleration not acceleration. F1 canadian GP starts in few hours, in the hairpin brake they are doing over 5G. So does a normal car, deceleration is ~1g easily.

Constant acceleration of 1G is not uncomfortable. It`s literally the same as you pop your seat down to 45 degree angle.
0
Reply
Male 488
So you take a tube thousands of miles long, and somehow suck all the air out of it without it collapsing. Yeh, that sounds feasible.
0
Reply
Male 5,872
Early trials took place in 1864, Crystal Palace pneumatic railway:

0
Reply
Female 2,691
Okay, if when this thing crashes, we would all die, as opposed to being gravely injured and disabled, then, okay. Otherwise, pass.
0
Reply
Male 1,059
Of course this would work! I saw it on Futurama! And at my local bank (on a much smaller scale).
0
Reply
Male 2,158
and it sucks the lint right out of your navel at the same time.
0
Reply
Female 6,381
Unfeasible schemes like this pop up fairly regularly. Thanks for the reality check, Angilion.
0
Reply
Male 904
Wow! A fully CGI presentation with no explanation of technical or financial considerations?!? Seems legit.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Is this even remotely possible with current technology? Merely making a vacuum thousands of miles long under oceans seems a little ambitious.

Also, the figures for their pie in the sky seem quite wrong. A sporty road car can`t accelerate at 4g. Not even close. An F1 car can accelerate at ~1.5g and they`re pretty extreme. You`d need a top fuel dragster to get 4g acceleration. On top of that, a sustained acceleration of 1g is uncomfortable and 3 minutes of it would be necessary to reach 6500Km/h.

Any flaw would of course result in catastrophic destruction not just of the capsules but of the tubes.

I think it`s not even close to being viable any time soon. It`s efficient in theory, sure, but so is teleportation.
0
Reply
Male 7,774
Governments: "Cheaper to run means less profits means less cuts for us. Application denied!"
0
Reply
Male 1,421
Never gonna happen, it`s too efficient.
0
Reply
Male 955
coming in the year 2237
0
Reply
Male 1,071
That would change everything.
0
Reply
Male 2,591
It`ll never happen.
0
Reply
2,889
sounds cool for the shipping industry. screw 3-5 days, i want 3-5 hours.
0
Reply
Male 2,729
Link: New York To LA In 45 Minutes? [Rate Link] - ET3 Worldwide tube transportation project. This, looks amazing.
0
Reply