I've met Daryl Oster, the guy behind ET3, even contributed a few ideas crudely sketched out on a notebook -- stuff I'm sure somebody involved had already considered. Anyway, he seemed nice, smart, legit. I really love the basic idea and goals of ET3. I was a little bit concerned that it wasn't farther along in terms of implementation versus theory. But he did say that he's worked with folks in China and they were generally much more receptive to it there, whereas in the US there's more bureaucracy and legacy inertia. There's right-of-way issues, NIMBY, legal stuff. I think all the edge case scenarios are riskiest -- those need to be addressed in the design, if they can be, things like what happens if a tube is pierced, what happens if a passenger has a crisis and needs to get out of it quickly, etc. But the basic physics of it are pretty attractive because of the efficiencies and economies of scale.
New York to London in an hour - by train
111–120 of 146 posts
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#112I'm absolutely fascinated by the difference in responses I see on HN versus talking to my friends (liberal arts). They were concerned with the future implications for cultural integrity as well as how it would effect labor forces and capitalism as a whole. Any thoughts?
I, for one, think this technology is awesome and think it could follow the progression that the train system went through in the US (transcontinental railroad, expanding, webbing out, lightrail, subways, trams, metros, etc) and see this as a possible next step in the evolution of transportation.
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really shouldn't be that bad. The cost is mainly due to it being in a dense city and having to deal with endless environmental (broad sense) concern. A better comparison is an actual underwater tube: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Tube 3.6 miles cost about $1 billion in 2012 dollars. Closer to $55k/foot. Don't get me wrong. This is still impossibly expensive even at that lower rate: $22 trillion. Even at us…
Of the $80M/mile - $70M is to buy the land and pay off objectors, $9M is security and fencing for the work site and $1M is to build the actual track. The nice thing about a transatlantic tunnel is that crustecaeans can be bought off cheaply
> The nice thing about a transatlantic tunnel is that crustecaeans can be bought off cheaply
The various environmental organizations aren't going to be bought off cheaply.
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
The disadvantage of your solution is the environment impact of such a transportation system. An electricity based solution seems to be much cleaner (especially if we imagine the same kind of traffic as the plane one today).
Couldn't you use electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, and then "burn" that in the rockets to produce water again?
> Couldn't you use electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, and then "burn" that in the rockets to produce water again?
How does the energy/pound and energy/CC compare to decent rocket fuel?
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would love to see how they costed that out. Given that I don't know of a single engineering company that can build straight up light rail track for at $2.5M/mile even if you give them the land for free. Edit: add this update -- Interestingly this link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/843626/posts claims that the ET3 bid was 1.2B$ which is $12.5M/mile which is a lot more credible (still low though since the s…
A large chunk of the costs of projects like this is building the long flat tunnel/level ground over significant distances. The actual costs of building a moderate vacuum is not that significant. Where this project falls down is in the maintenance and safety side of things not the infrastructure to send the first train down the line. Don't forget every 10m adds 1atm water pressure. Building a glass enclosed under sea…
> a glass enclosed under sea walkway 30m down is not that much harder than building one 20m down
It's 50% harder.
What pressure are the passengers exposed to?
I ask because 1 hour @ 4 atmospheres of 80% N2/20% O2 is risking decompression illness. (Yes, 4 - you've got 1 atmosphere at sea level.) You can reduce that risk by increasing the O2 percentage but if you do that too much, you're risking O2 toxicity.
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#116I never have understood people's fears about getting on an airplane... this though I'd be scared to death of. You have any unfortunate shift in the tectonic plates (which happens daily and unpredictably) and you could be dead in an instant.
I gather that the intent is to tether the tunnel. I've seen how cables are run in tectonic-active areas: they are provided a certain elasticity and I imagine it would be similar. Earthquakes don't move much more than a few meters at a time (for a very very large event). How would this be any different than the Chunnel? My own comment on this article: "getting to, from and through airports is very time consuming" I do…
The Chunnel doesn't cross a fault line.
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't you use electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, and then "burn" that in the rockets to produce water again?
> Couldn't you use electricity to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water, and then "burn" that in the rockets to produce water again? How does the energy/pound and energy/CC compare to decent rocket fuel?
Liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen is the most efficient chemical rocket fuel possible. Most famously used by the Space Shuttle Main Engines.
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#118Oh, sweet, a chance to link to xkcd: Researcher Translation again :D http://xkcd.com/678
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#119Oh Dear! Does this mean I can no longer have quality time listening to music, reading, watch birds etc.. during my long distance journeys.
Re: New York to London in an hour - by train
#120Link to the BBC article instead of the blogspam: http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120601-high-speed-pipedrea... Also, easy terrorist target.
Which terrorists are you worried about?
If al Qaeda blows up a pressurised train tunnel, then yes they can kill lots of people, heap a big cash cost on the tunnel operator... but they don't get any impressive pictures to put on TV.
If the IRA/ETA/etc blows up a pressurised train tunnel, they impose a big cash cost on their target, plus cause lots of disruption... but in terms of effort/risk/reward it's probably better for them to blow up conventional rail/road infrastructure in London/Madrid/wherever.