What's new
By:

NYC to LA in 45 minutes

The Big Apple to teh Bay Area in less than an hour?

Thats retardedly fast.



posted from my htc one using tapaBONGO
 
How reliable is this transport? Wouldn't any tiny malfunction at any point of the tube render the vacuum useless? How would you even go about finding a flaw in a 3,000 mile long tube?
 
This bold claim from the folks at ET3 says the technology could be available within the next decade
Click to expand...

They better make one from Edmonton to SLC.
 
They should just load people into a railgun and launch them.
 
Stoked said:
They should just load people into a railgun and launch them.
Click to expand...

That's what this is. You would need a conductive container, as people's skin is a **** conductor, and you don't want them to arrive as a lump of coal. So this is the closest you'll get to railgun transportation.

Oh, and it's not happening. I literally remember this very project being discussed when I was about 10 years old. I used to fantasize about travelling across the world in a couple of hours for next to nothing. But the costs are just astronomical, specially when existing infrastructure can get you from SF to NY in about 5 hours.
 
Siro said:
That's what this is. You would need a conductive container, as people's skin is a **** conductor, and you don't want them to arrive as a lump of coal. So this is the closest you'll get to railgun transportation.

Oh, and it's not happening. I literally remember this very project being discussed when I was about 10 years old. I used to fantasize about travelling across the world in a couple of hours for next to nothing. But the costs are just astronomical, specially when existing infrastructure can get you from SF to NY in about 5 hours.
Click to expand...

Just curious though in regards to cost. Didn't Pres. Obama announce a $1-2 trillion dollar high speed nationwide rail system back in 2009? The report of this tube system says it would cost 1/10 or maybe 1/4 of that (sorry I can't remember which number). Wouldn't this be a better alternative?
 
scootsy said:
Just curious though in regards to cost. Didn't Pres. Obama announce a $1-2 trillion dollar high speed nationwide rail system back in 2009? The report of this tube system says it would cost 1/10 or maybe 1/4 of that (sorry I can't remember which number). Wouldn't this be a better alternative?
Click to expand...

I don't see the costs being discussed in the article, but I only took a quick look and I may have missed it. Regardless of what they SAY, it is a tunnel across the continent! The current undergoing expansion of the NYC subway system costs 10s of billions, and it's what? 1/10000th of the length of the tunnel in this proposal? Not to mention that it's somehow airless and perfectly sealed from the outside. The cost of implementing this beautiful fantasy would probably be the most expensive project in a very long time. And it connects only 2 cities.

And I'm sure Obama talked about a national high-speed rail, just as he keeps talking about giving every school considerable wireless broadband capabilities. But talk is cheap. And if they do end up creating that national transit system, it'll serve a plethora of cities, and the construction costs will be spread over a couple of decades.
 
Siro said:
I don't see the costs being discussed in the article, but I only took a quick look and I may have missed it. Regardless of what they SAY, it is a tunnel across the continent! The current undergoing expansion of the NYC subway system costs 10s of billions, and it's what? 1/10000th of the length of the tunnel in this proposal? Not to mention that it's somehow airless and perfectly sealed from the outside. The cost of implementing this beautiful fantasy would probably be the most expensive project in a very long time. And it connects only 2 cities.

And I'm sure Obama talked about a national high-speed rail, just as he keeps talking about giving every school considerable wireless broadband capabilities. But talk is cheap. And if they do end up creating that national transit system, it'll serve a plethora of cities, and the construction costs will be spread over a couple of decades.
Click to expand...

That's certainly true about servicing more people and spreading out the costs. But I think I also read that the tubes could be built alongside interstate highways, not necessarily underground. And also that the would work even better underwater, meaning maybe something like LA to China or Hawaii could have some benefit. Donno. You're smarter than me, so I'll just trust you.
 
scootsy said:
That's certainly true about servicing more people and spreading out the costs. But I think I also read that the tubes could be built alongside interstate highways, not necessarily underground. And also that the would work even better underwater, meaning maybe something like LA to China or Hawaii could have some benefit. Donno. You're smarter than me, so I'll just trust you.
Click to expand...

I think it would be amazing! And I'm about the biggest techno-optimist you'll find. But I also try to be an objective realist, and I honestly don't see how a neutered government that has to justify every last penny will manage to raise the GDP chunk required to undertake so ambitious a project. If not the government, then who? Private sector? Nobody can afford that! And even if they did, what private company accepts a project that will take years, maybe decades, to pay off construction costs.

So from your mouth to god's ears (is that the expression?). My heart says YES. But my brain won't let me have any fun. :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top