291–300 of 308 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A modern ship can make the same number of trips and not be dependent on weather at all.
... with unsustainable CO2 emissions. We need to be ramping down fossils use rapidly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could in theory but I'm dubious governments will be willing to shape their customs enforcement to accommodate this company. Best case I think they might be able to do a drop off at a place for customs inspections and pick them up again with a different craft once cleared.
Is that really so different from how customs officers go on board trains now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The cargo capacity of the airship shown appears to be four 20-foot containers, or 4 TEU. Either that's a smaller airship than his articles describe, or it's just artist's discretion. They always talk about 500 ton cargo ships - as in "delivering 500 tons of cargo", not "500 ton total mass". And 500 tons of cargo are at minimum 25 TEU. If they are competing with 747 freighters, those containers will almost always be…
> Either that's a smaller airship than his articles describe, or it's just artist's discretion. They always talk about 500 ton cargo ships - as in "delivering 500 tons of cargo". From their images, the airship is about 30 containers long. That's only 600 feet, shorter than the Macon or the Hindenburg. Useful lift of the Hindenburg was 232,000 kg.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A modern ship can make the same number of trips and not be dependent on weather at all.
... with unsustainable CO2 emissions. We need to be ramping down fossils use rapidly.
At least the ships release other chemicals in their emissions that decrease solar warming.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. If you put it above ground, you are a few short bullets from killing everyone in the loop. Hitting a wall of air in a vacuum at hundreds of miles per hour is going to be like hitting a brick wall. Ask any reentering spacecraft. The same problem exists underground, the weakest points being the stations themselves which can be bombed. A failure in the system itself (even just a power outage or malfunctioning equi…
> The same problem exists underground, the weakest points being the stations themselves which can be bombed. Few if any modes of transportation are safe when bombs come into play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. If you put it above ground, you are a few short bullets from killing everyone in the loop. Hitting a wall of air in a vacuum at hundreds of miles per hour is going to be like hitting a brick wall. Ask any reentering spacecraft. The same problem exists underground, the weakest points being the stations themselves which can be bombed. A failure in the system itself (even just a power outage or malfunctioning equi…
> So, sure, it is possible to create it, but it is impossible to make any sort of safety guarantees. Right, because cars and planes and trains and boats and bicycles and footpaths and airships all famously have 100% perfect safety track records, right?
There are no mitigations and the only option is death. Maybe you can repressurize the tubes ... assuming there is power to do so ... to evacuate people. This is the main issue, there is no air outside your vehicle. If a window breaks (see: airplanes where this happens every so often) everyone inside is dead. No discussions, no second chances.
That's the problem. The main problem and you can't engineer around it. There are no emergency procedures because if you have an emergency, you are dead; and there will be emergencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. If you put it above ground, you are a few short bullets from killing everyone in the loop. Hitting a wall of air in a vacuum at hundreds of miles per hour is going to be like hitting a brick wall. Ask any reentering spacecraft. The same problem exists underground, the weakest points being the stations themselves which can be bombed. A failure in the system itself (even just a power outage or malfunctioning equi…
Huh? In what world is a hyperloop going maybe 700mph comparable to a spacecraft reentering from orbit at 17,000mph? Also, maybe there's something I'm missing but spacecraft can and do renter from orbit intact, thus proving that this problem is solvable even when the forces at play are orders of magnitude greater. Apply your safety argument to passenger airliners or even ordinary trains and you'll see that they are al…
In that case, the air can just "go around" the space craft. Try pushing down a syringe with the end capped. Bet you can't do it. Now imagine that at 700 mph; you will get a lot of heat and destruction. No heat shielding will save you.
> Apply your safety argument to passenger airliners or even ordinary trains and you'll see that they are also "impossible to make safety guarantees" for.
See sibling comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, sure, it is possible to create it, but it is impossible to make any sort of safety guarantees. Right, because cars and planes and trains and boats and bicycles and footpaths and airships all famously have 100% perfect safety track records, right?
They have mitigations. If a plane breaks down, it can glide. If a regular vehicle breaks down, it can be moved off. If a train breaks down, people can just get off the train. On a hyperloop, where are they going to go when surrounded by a vacuum? What about whatever is behind them also waiting? There are no mitigations and the only option is death. Maybe you can repressurize the tubes ... assuming there is power to d…
Equally, if the train stopped in an emergency, the valves around it could fail safe to open and let the atmosphere back in. The train has to be pressurised anyway so a small delay there isn’t unreasonable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have mitigations. If a plane breaks down, it can glide. If a regular vehicle breaks down, it can be moved off. If a train breaks down, people can just get off the train. On a hyperloop, where are they going to go when surrounded by a vacuum? What about whatever is behind them also waiting? There are no mitigations and the only option is death. Maybe you can repressurize the tubes ... assuming there is power to d…
There are mitigations though. Assuming you have sensors in every segment, you could detect the vacuum ahead deteriorating and brake. Equally, if the train stopped in an emergency, the valves around it could fail safe to open and let the atmosphere back in. The train has to be pressurised anyway so a small delay there isn’t unreasonable
Killing everyone in the train because someone gets in a fight and fires a gun is pretty much a non-starter. That's the real problem you got to solve. It's not like a plane where someone can fire a gun in nearly any direction without consequence to the plane, firing a gun in literally any direction on a hyperloop would mean certain death for everyone on board.
It's in a vacuum, it's not like you can drop oxygen masks. In a vacuum, your blood boils and your eyeballs are sucked out. It's a pretty shitty way to go, but you'll lose consciousness before the worst of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are mitigations though. Assuming you have sensors in every segment, you could detect the vacuum ahead deteriorating and brake. Equally, if the train stopped in an emergency, the valves around it could fail safe to open and let the atmosphere back in. The train has to be pressurised anyway so a small delay there isn’t unreasonable
Sure. I'll play. I assume those sensors are always powered and never malfunction and so, now the train is stopped in a vacuum. What now? How do we get the people out, and all the trains behind them now also stopping. If the tracks are below ground, where is the nearest valve that can open? Given some parameters to chatgpt, because I can't be bothered to do the math myself, it takes ~5 minutes to fill a 500m section w…
And presuming that whole wagon doesn't burst because a couple of bullet holes, is it unrealistic for onboard pressurized tanks to keep up with escaping air while outside is getting pressurized?
Do you mind sharing the parameters you fed GPT?