China Plans 600 MPH Train To Rival Elon Musk's Hyperloop (shanghaiist.com) 159
In addition to relaunching the world's fastest bullet train, China is working on developing technology similar to Elon Musk's Hyperloop, which will allow passengers to travel at speeds up to 4,000 km/h (~2,500 mph). The first stage of the company's plan, however, will be to create a network of these "flying trains" operating at 1,000 km/h (~600 mph). Shanghaiist reports: Earlier today, the China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC), one of the nation's major space contractors, announced that it had begun research and development into a new, futuristic type of transport which would operate via supersonic "near ground flight." The system would presumably be similar to that of the Hyperloop, proposed earlier this decade by Elon Musk, in which capsules would fly at ultrafast speeds down reduced-pressure tubes, dramatically reducing travel times. Of course, the CASIC isn't looking to reach speeds of 4,000 km/h right away. The first stage of the company's plan will be to create an intercity network of these "flying trains" operating at 1,000 km/h. In the second phase, this network would be extended and the max speed of the pods increased to 2,000 km/h. Finally, in the third stage, the speed would be boosted all the way up to 4,000 km/h -- five times the speed of civil aviation aircraft today.
Good but... (Score:5, Funny)
An hour after exiting the train, you'll want to ride it again.
This is a dick-size contest (Score:3, Interesting)
Just spend the money on regular trains/trams. No ego contests comparable to having the tallest building. Overly fast trains are too easy to sabotage anyhow. Would you rather be in a train crashing at 600mph or 60mph?
Re: (Score:2)
Would you rather be in a train crashing at 600mph or 60mph?
In a train crash at 60mph, you'll die slowly cause by your injuries before rescuers will be able to reach you.
In a train crash at 600mph . . . you'll die before you even have enough time to realize that a crash had even occurred.
I'll take the "quick & instance" death, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Your nuts. A train going 60mph (I'm assuming it's not going through some tube) that crashes is going to be survivable for nearly everyone on board. A train going 600mph through a tube (partial vacuum no less) that crashes (and I assume that means some sort of derailment) is going to be a disaster.
Re: (Score:2)
A plane CAN go, but generally the route is so tight is might as well be on rails.
And a semi can only follow the road, and can't stop if a bridge is out. A train can't stop if there is a loose rail. Straw men can't stop burning if they catch on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
60mph, and stops in every podunk town along the track.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take the "quick & instance" death, please.
As long as it's instanced I'm cool. I'll just start over after the timer lockout.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having trouble finding other sources that actually have a decent presentation of stats that I had seen in the past, but here is one:
https://journalistsresource.or... [journalistsresource.org]
Don't take this as a slight against rail or other mass transit services; they're more than competitive with air (especially when taking costs into account), with respect to safety, and seem to have the potential to achieve parity. Di
Re: (Score:2)
In aviation, the saying is that the chances of survival or inversely proportional to the angle of impact.
A train derailment results in cars sliding across the ground and (relatively) slowly piling up. The train and ground are basically parallel.
The head on collision is a perpendicular impact for the lead cars, but much more like a derailment for the following.
All of the hyper loop concepts deal with a car protected by a tube. There isn't much to impact.
Re:This is a dick-size contest (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong comparison.
I'd rather be in a train going 500MPH than on an airplane going the same speed.
At least until/unless the TSA ruins that, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the TSA part, I'd definitely rather be on a plane going 500mph than anything else. There's so little to run into up there. That said, the lines, tsa, taxiing, landing, taxiing, etc... I'll take the train, but that's only because people ruined a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd definitely rather be on a plane going 500mph than anything else. There's so little to run into up there.
There's even less to run into in a low-pressure, sealed tube. Not even much air. I suppose there are other trains running through the same tube, but tube traffic control is much simpler than air traffic control .
Re: (Score:2)
It won't be that hard to build in sweeping curves that account for expansion. Other than that, ever flown through turbulence, which often is invisible? At least the train engineers will be well accustomed to where the bumps are.
Re: (Score:2)
English isn't everyone's first language. But when it is, I prefer Dos Equis.
Re: (Score:2)
Wheeled trains can already reach those speeds, the problem is noise. Current high speed trains in Japan run under their rated maximum to keep noise down, especially when leaving tunnels where the air pressure creates a boom.
Japan has been trying various things to deal with the problem, and is going to have its ultra high speed maglev line 90% tunnel with very long braking areas to dissipate the pressure wave.
Maybe they don't care so much about the noise in China, perhaps the tracks are further from populate
Re: (Score:2)
I rather suspect that if the train is running in a low-pressure, sealed tunnel, then the noise is a much more manageable problem.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is probably how we will see the technology really build out. High speed trains will be slowly covered in tunnels. Then the operators will start to evacuate the tunnels so they can increase the speed. They'll pressurize the cars for passenger comfort, which will allow a higher level of vacuum. They'll basically sneak up on the hyper loop.
Trains in tunnels safer (Score:2)
Overly fast trains are too easy to sabotage anyhow. Would you rather be in a train crashing at 600mph or 60mph?
These trains are designed to compete with planes, not other trains. However, even then they would be a lot more difficult to sabotage than today's high speed trains which run at 1-200mph, not 60 mph, above ground on open tracks which are accessible by just about anyone at any time. Trains in tunnels are far better protected than other trains and even compared to an aircraft which could be targetted by anti-aircraft missiles as happened in Ukraine a few years ago.
The other advantage is that failures of t
Re: (Score:2)
There is actually great scope for developing trains but it is not in the trains as much as in the tracks and stations. It is really rather embarrassing for that industry, in they have not done much at all in centuries on improving the tracks beyond a dalliance in monorail. Smarter things, like handling train carriages better. Reducing the time a train spends in stations, running more frequent smaller trains, should all carriages be container based, even passenger, should trains even stop at stations or shou
Re: (Score:2)
I like how you think. It addresses some of the worst problems I saw when trying to use the train in the US. The whole train has to stop at every podunk station along the rail.
Instead, passengers getting off at the next station move to the rear car. When near, it disconnects and takes a side track into the station. Another car, loaded and ready, uses it's battery pack to accelerate and catch the main train that never stopped. When it catches up, it connects. People not getting off at the next stop move
Re: (Score:2)
Would you rather be in a train crashing at 600mph or 60mph?
Given the odds of crashing in a train, I'll take the 600mph thanks.
Just spend the money on regular trains/trams. No ego contests comparable to having the tallest building.
Having the tallest building is an ego contest. Having the fastest trains are not. There's an economic benefit to not having people tied up in transit when they could be working or consuming.
Re: (Score:2)
But, with more people, there will be less money and space spent on infrastructure. A train can carry 10x more people if it can travel 10x faster. The other option is to build 10x as many rail lines.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I was thinking. My building is taller than yours, my truck is lifted higher than yours, my train goes a few kph faster than yours, and of course, your subject line.
Besides that, trains present a single point of failure. They follow tracks or rails. For that reason their robustness is absolutely critical. This is why TCP/IP was invented the way it was, to break information into separate routable packets for fault tolerance.
If we have 8,000 commuters stuck on a broken down train, which seems mor
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You blame the free market on American's being lazy?
I blame Americans blaming everyone else but themselves for it. Sadly, that includes your statement as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Ger er done (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference is that China will actually build theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And in the 4th stage... (Score:2)
...it will reach 8000 km/hour.
Re: (Score:2)
...it will reach 8000 km/hour.
Meh. Tell me when it's over 9000 and then I'll be interested (and astounded). ;)
Not Really Musk's Hyperloop any more (Score:2)
From https://arstechnica.com/cars/2... [arstechnica.com]
Musk decided not to pursue the Hyperloop as a business venture, but SpaceX began holding competitions for third-party teams to show off their engineering skills. The competitions have proved hugely popular.
So while Musk may have come up with the original idea* he really isn't doing anything other than holding competitions for things that look and work totally unlike his original concept.
* And even that is debatable for various values of "Train running in a (near) vacuum"
But will people want to ride it? (Score:2, Interesting)
From what I've read, people are rightfully afraid of riding on the bullet train. Do you think they'll want to ride on an even faster and less safe version?
Re: (Score:3)
From what I've read, people are rightfully afraid of riding on the bullet train. Do you think they'll want to ride on an even faster and less safe version?
That's going to depend a whole lot on how many serious accidents the train suffers in its first months/years of use.
I don't think I'd want to be one of the initial passengers, but in a country of 1.3 billion people, there will be plenty of people willing to ride it; and if it works, more people will deem it "safe enough".
Keep in mind that China is a really large country, with lots of social displacement -- there are millions of people who feel socially obligated to make 24-hour (or longer) train trips every
Re:But will people want to ride it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Next time, fact check instead of spreading FUD. The bullet train in Japan is extremely safe. Here is the reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Over the Shinkansen's 50-plus year history, carrying over 10 billion passengers, there have been no passenger fatalities due to derailments or collisions,[19] despite frequent earthquakes and typhoons. Injuries and a single fatality have been caused by doors closing on passengers or their belongings; attendants are employed at platforms to prevent such accidents. There have, however, been suicides by passengers jumping both from and in front of moving trains.[20] On 30 June 2015, a passenger committed suicide on board a Shinkansen train by setting himself on fire, killing another passenger and seriously injuring seven other people.[21]
There have been two derailments of Shinkansen trains in passenger service. The first one occurred during the Chetsu earthquake on 23 October 2004. Eight of ten cars of the Toki No. 325 train on the Jetsu Shinkansen derailed near Nagaoka Station in Nagaoka, Niigata. There were no casualties among the 154 passengers.[22]
Another derailment happened on 2 March 2013 on the Akita Shinkansen when the Komachi No. 25 train derailed in blizzard conditions in Daisen, Akita. No passengers were injured.[23]
In the event of an earthquake, an earthquake detection system can bring the train to a stop very quickly. A new anti-derailment device was installed after detailed analysis of the Jetsu derailment.
-snip-
I believe the safety of these trains are in part due to the absolute professionalism of all people involved with its operation.
They are not going to travel at high speed in a blizzard or hurricaine, and not at all if mafiosos put concrete blocks on the tracks. But there is a lot of safety through high tech, redundancy and humans.
I am not sure this level of professionalism is possible in the U.S. or especially China, considering the current state of their trains, unless a totally new kind of cadre is created. The military mindset might be close, though what is really needed is intelligence, professionalism, empathy, and big bucks for the long haul.
The U.S., China and other countries the size of California and up will gain amazing returns from these trains. The only downsides of which I am aware (and they are not downsides to me) are that they drive down the price of air tickets and also get you used to such comfort that you wonder why you stick yourself in a flying can with miniscule leg room.
Re: (Score:2)
China's system is incredibly safe too. It's the largest in the world by a long way, and carries about 1.4 billion passengers a year. So far only one fatal accident, which puts it way ahead of any other mode of transport, even aircraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you rephrase that for people who don't like to lump 1.5 billion people together as if that makes any sense?
Re: (Score:2)
Strict sex roles aren't going to help anything, as opposed to just picking the best human for each job. Discipline can get things done.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read, people are rightfully afraid of riding on the bullet train.
Who the hell is afraid of riding conventional high speed rail? Especially given its excellent safety record.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've read, people are rightfully afraid of riding on the bullet train.Do you think they'll want to ride on an even faster and less safe version?
There's so much in that sentence that is wrong, let's start:
- You read something: Provide citations. Let's see all the people who are "afraid" of train travel on a service that has never in its history never killed a single person.
- Then let us look at the word "rightfully". If it is so rightful then I'm sure you can provide citations of how the train is an accident waiting to happen, and how riding that train will have a higher risk of death than doing the same trip by e.g. car.
- You then made an extrapola
Re: (Score:2)
You would be launched so far into orbit you could see the eclipse from the other side of the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Hells to the yeah. I could have watched the eclipse, caught the train east for an hour, and then watched it again!
So... there's a reason to ride it once every decade or two.
Once in a lifetime opportunity! (Score:5, Insightful)
Strictly enforced by physics
Not speed, but latency (Score:1)
* Ride from your house to a local transit hub in your small electric pod
* Get bundled into a meta-pod and zipped off to your destination transit hub with low delay
* Ride (or walk) a short distance from
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a pod which could be used with both roads and tubes would save a huge amount of interchange time.
Although, it's often not absolute latency that's important, but scheduled latency: If a high-speed metro tube system were to be developed, intermediate stops would be very wasteful, so you'd want to have scheduled trips for each pair of destination stations. So you want all the pods making that exact trip to assemble at given times, but to avoid waiting, you'd be told to leave home at particular times. S
Re: (Score:2)
Especially for short-haul mass transit, there's not much benefit to traveling at 1 billion KPH when you have to wait for 15-30 minutes to catch a train.
Huh? Lots of people use bus and rail services that run quarter to half-hourly services (that's why you have time tables), and depending on your definition of "short-haul" lots of people are happy to wait over an hour to catch a 90 minute flight...
Re: Not speed, but latency (Score:2)
Happy as in they'd rather spend a couple of hours waiting at the airport and a couple of hours in a cramped economy class seat rather than spend 8 hours driving.
I really don't think you need to have instantly accessible personal pods to make a successful mass transit system, I think being faster, affordable and predictable is enough.
Should Work (Score:1)
This should be as successful as their Road Straddling Bus" [cnn.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: One failed project doesn't mean every project from the same country won't work. We know this by looking at failures in every country which still produces things of worth. I know it's all fun and cheeky to make a joke like that, but it doesn't really reflect too well on your logical prowess.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint: This isn't a serious story. Your inability to comprehend that a Chinese company's bid for state funding on a project to one-up the Americans that isn't credible doesn't reflect very well on your logical prowess.
yeah, ..... (Score:2)
Of course, right now, he is outdoing ALL OF THE WORLD, on Solar, EVs, Space, and heading towards hyper loop combined with underground tunneling.
So, I am quite sure that China will outdo him.
LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
So, I am quite sure that China will outdo him.
It doesn't matter whether China outdoes him or not --- Musk's goal was never to be the One Guy Who Did Everything All By Himself. If China can move hyperloop-style technology forward, great -- and if they can't, well, their failure didn't cost Musk anything, either, and it might provide others with some insight on how not to do it.
So given that China is now (to some extent) working on a hyperloop project on their own dime, whereas without Musk's promotion/evangelizing they wouldn't be, Musk has already suc
You mean the Hyperloop that does not exist? (Score:3)
China Plans 600 MPH Train To Rival Elon Musk's Hyperloop
You mean the Hyperloop that does not exist?
And will never exist. Sorry, but expecting to maintain near vacuum in 350 miles of 3-meter diameter tubing is not going to happen. Temperature induced contraction and expansion, earthquakes, vandalism, and sabotage. There're your problems.
And when it does fail, what happens? The entire system goes down as it loses vacuum. Assuming you could get someone to whatever remote location is required in a timely manner to repair the fault, how long will it take to put the whole system under vacuum again? All 350 miles of it? Assuming you weren't pulped when your carriage travelling at 1200kph suddenly went from operating in a vacuum to operating at standard PSI.
Re: (Score:2)
Because no one would dare drive on a strip of concrete that stretched all the way across the Mississippi River or the San Francisco Bay. What would you do with the temperature changes? Take out one support, and the whole thing comes crashing down. And how would anyone get up there to replace those cables if one broke?
Re: (Score:2)
If you put a small vacuum machine (powered by covering the tube with solar panels, which also power your propulsion) on every 10' of track, I imagine they could probably get most of the vacuum restored within 10-30 minutes. And you probably don't even need a perfect vacuum. Just cutting the air in the tube by 80-90% would be enough to severely reduce air resistance without putting too much pressure on the tube.
Let me guess (Score:2)
Political prisoners get the first ride
Hope they have the terrorists under control (Score:2)
/ sad but true
Re: (Score:3)
The entire train is encased in a vacuum tight tube mostly underground. You'd need to wear a space suit, have access to an air lock, and disrupt the magnetic field of the 'track' that the train hovers above.
Not saying it's impossible but it would be much easier to put a bomb in some luggage and send it on its way.
There will certainly be non-terror disasters along the way to 2000mph in the form of learning opportunities, much like air disasters are learning opportunities for safer aircraft.
Transportation has
Blaine is a pain. (Score:2)
Blaine is a pain. ...and that's the truth.
This is why... (Score:5, Insightful)
... I've been saying that Hyperloop is either a huge scam, or something else I'm still having a hard time to imagine.
Let's be clear here: The current company that has the most advanced Hyperloop version (Hyperloop One) which is obviously still in very early prototype stages basically stole maglev propulsion system and slapped it into some poorly designed vacuum tunnel to see if it could make whatever Musk scribbled in some napkin. In fact, the first public test Hyperloop One made was just a maglev propulsion system similar to that employed in several other countries that are currently already running actual train test lines (like Japan), or have actual completed train lines (like China and South Korea).
Almost everything one could point out as Hyperloop prototypes being "successful" can be single handedly attributed to maglev tech. There hasn't been a single significant technological contribution that I know of so far coming from Hyperloop companies, and I still didn't hear a proper explanation on how the heck these companies are planning to build entire tunnels over large stretches of land that would make it any more feasible or more economical over regular train tracks or maglev train tracks.
The entire idea of Hyperloop puts a whole ton of disadvantages, extra costs, potential problems, among several other things on top of a maglev train to get some theorical speed advantage that's even further into the future and more infeasible than actually making a single working short route from one city to another. It loses flexibility, you need to spend exponentially more (because of the tunnels operating in near vacuum), you are limited to pods of limited sizes, the entire infrastructure becomes far more succeptible to stuff like earthquakes, terrorist attacks, and just plain wear and tear, it'll be mostly point A to B with no stops for efficiency, plus a ton of other stuff to worry about which maglev trains don't have to deal with in their current operational status.
Yet, for some reason (money laundering, Simpsons monorail style scam, major spec stealing of foreign technology, or who knows what), some European countries plus US and UAE are investing on this. It makes no straight faced sense.
And I've been saying this in all my comments on the matter: maglev trains are still evolving, getting faster, more robust and better overall - as shown by this article. People joke about it being China and whatnot, but overall, maglev trains are plenty secure.
Hyperloop might be theoretically faster because it's basically maglev train cars inside a near vacuum tube, but that's only for the theoretical top speeds, which makes investing on it based only on that as much sense as investing on a F1 car prototype for consumers. Just because it theoretically can reach such speeds doesn't mean that it ever will, or even should.
You wanna see how riding a Hyperloop could potentially be in the future? Go to China, Japan, South Korea or some other country with maglev trains, ride one, but keep seated the entire way and close the blinds. At least if we are to take Musk's designs and Hyperloop One designs seriously. Also imagine being cramped in a far tighter space, and paying a whole lot more for the priviledge - because the costs of building the whole thing up will have to come from somewhere.
The more I hear about it, the more it sounds like Concorde elevated to exponential and surreal levels of unfeasibility.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
America can't afford anything of its kind
Sure they can! Once The Wall is built, all those job-stealing Mexicans will be stuck on the other side.
More American Jobs = More American Tax Dollars = Hyperloops to the city edges, monorails between city cores and suburbs, and flying cars for all!
Re: (Score:2)
The wall, if actually work (using geosensors and shit to detect digging), probably will benefit Mexico more than it will america as will put quite a dent on the criminal operations there.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people who will benefit from the wall will be the ones who are paid to build and operate the wall.
Re: (Score:2)
4 km/h is 2.48548 miles per hour.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But 4 Km/hr is about 2,500 mph.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
4Km is the same as 4km.
K or k means kilo, kilo means 1000.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alright, but it still doesn't explain mrsquid0's "4 Kelvin-meter per hour is about 2500 mph" math.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, you're right. That's what happens when I post without the benefit of coffee or other recreational substances. Sorry about the mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
They use a lot of fuel per passenger-mile traveled for mass transit, and because they fly, that fuel has to be carried in some energy-dense form: fossil fuels. This is bad if you're not a Trumper.
The question is whether this Chinese system is more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
So where is the plan to build cost effective vacuum tunnels? Maybe China can do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperloop One is not at all connected with Musk. If anything, they're a competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it won't be cost effective. It's apparently maglev [sina.com.cn]. So unless they have some maglev breakthrough to make it cheaper, their system won't be cheap.
The interesting thing about Hyperloop Alpha wasn't that it was in a tube, it's that it was based around compressors (so the pressure in the tube didn't have to be a hard vacuum, which is expensive) feeding air bearings (so they didn't need to use maglev, which is expensive). But now "Hyperloop" has transformed into a synonym for "any sort of craft moving in
they can cut safety to make it cheaper (Score:2)
they can cut safety to make it cheaper
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting thing about hyperloop was it generated hype from a very old idea that have had a lot of people tinkering with models and designs. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't think anybody have ever contemplated making a high-speed train within tubes with a high vacuum - most designs doesn't use vacuum as such just low pressure. Why? Because it is _good_enough_ given the other limitations on speed (a main one being safety) and being realistic rather than a pipe dream.
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether this Chinese system is more efficient.
Engineering 101: the design that isn't implemented always beats the one that is.
Of course it'll be more efficient. They claim it's efficient because they'll cover the tube w/ solar panels. Okay, well, you can put solar panels along any train track.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you realize that most of that energy spent getting to 30k is recovered when they come back down.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also ten orders of magnitude lower pressure than Hyperloop Alpha.
And no, properly designed vacuum tubes 1) are not particularly prone to accidents (you want to try to make an "accidental" hole in inch-thick steel?), and 2) do not suffer any form of "propagation" from accidents. That's why you hire engineers rather than just random guessing things.
Re: (Score:3)
Firstly, not particularly prone is still miles away from being good enough for a transit system that will be paralyzed by vacuum failure. Secondly, we don't have vacuum tubes of the size and scope proposed by Hyperloop & al in existence, anywhere, let alone above ground or with actual high speed traffic going through them on an hourly basis, so there is in
Re: (Score:2)
Firstly, not particularly prone is still miles away from being good enough for a transit system that will be paralyzed by vacuum failure.
That was understatement, just in case you didn't recognize it.
Secondly, we don't have vacuum tubes of the size and scope proposed by Hyperloop & al in existence, anywhere, let alone above ground or with actual high speed traffic going through them on an hourly basis, so there is in fact no way of knowing the exact failure rate of such tubes. I remind everyone that the test track built by Hyperloop for their pod-design competition earlier this year was less than a mile long and still managed to be the 2nd largest vacuum chamber in existence after NASA's.
Meh. The reason there aren't larger vacuum chambers isn't because vacuum chambers are tricky or don't scale well, it's just because generally there's no need for large vacuum chambers.
Secondly, even if it is true that the failure rate of such tubes is almost nil, that does not account for the fact that it's still possible for anyone with malicious intent to disable the system at any times with ease. As long as it's above ground it won't take much thinking from someone to find a way to puncture the tube, so security-wise it's a nightmare.
It's even easier to attack automobiles on a highway. Talk about a security nightmare... except it turns out not to be that much of a problem.
As for simple punctures, I don't think they'd do much to a hyperloop track. Much like an airplane (though in the opposite d
Re: (Score:2)
The reason there aren't larger vacuum chambers isn't because vacuum chambers are tricky or don't scale well, it's just because generally there's no need for large vacuum chambers.
It occurs to me that we could get SpinalTap on this. They could then have an amp with warm tones that goes up to 10^11.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as it's above ground it won't take much thinking from someone to find a way to puncture the tube, so security-wise it's a nightmare.
Kind of like how I could derail a train today with nothing more that a crowbar? Just go pull some nails in a turn. Or how about welding a piece of the crowbar to a spot on the track?
I could also take down an airplane with a handful of nails. Just toss them out near the end of the runway.
I could take out the substation near your house with a .22 rifle. I actually got off work one night due to that happening.
Building against terrorist attack isn't done anywhere today. Why would we do it for any sort of h
Re: (Score:2)
And these assertions are based on an analysis of the operational performance of the existing 100,000-km human-scale vacuum tube network? It is very difficult to point to the success (or failure) rate of something that doesn't exist yet.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with these things is not the speed : we can get to high speed with mag-lev, it'll obviously be faster with less/no air resistance. The problem is the reliable manufacturing and resilience to accidents of huge vacuum tubes that transport vital cargo like human lives. I think that LHC was the largest, it was far from easy and it's only 27 Km.
The stuff in the LHC goes at 99.999999% the speed of light. Nobody's in that much of a hurry.
Very little, unless they leave the drill.. (Score:2)
No, it would slow down, relatively smoothly.
And that is assuming that the leak wasn't detected nice and early and the system throttled down,because, you know, pressure sensors dont exist.
You do realise that a 'wall of air' is kind of hard to keep in one place, right? it tends to leak in to the low pressure area right next to it.
Of course, blasting or injecting a deformity/object in front of the 'train'? that would be very very bad. Rescue efforts would be very difficult also.
Drilling in to it and leaving th
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, you could have teenagers dropping rocks off of overpasses into heavy traffic.
Not that that has ever happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I wonder if it would be possible to get rid of the stuff that would be doing the melting and slowing down of the capsule... you know, THE FUCKEN AIR which is the whole point of the hyperloop, to operate in a vacuum?!
Re: (Score:2)
Creating a practical ultra-high speed rail system has huge worldwide commercial potential, so if it does work out it will pay off very well for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of all the technical hurdles to vacuum-tube travel, I think CO2 scrubbing [wikipedia.org] is the least of their worries.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The speed limit is because it's not a hard vacuum, it's just low pressure and the cars stay under the speed of sound in it so there is no sonic boom or excessive heating.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)