If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Business Insider)   "At 14,000 mph, the train would take 21 minutes to go from Los Angeles to New York City." Holy crap guys, check out thi. . . "It would require political agreement and high costs to dig the actual tunnels." NEVER MIND   (businessinsider.com) divider line 120
    More: Interesting, Elon Musk, Los Angeles, electrical conductor, Holy Crap, manifolds, kinetic energy, maximum speed, electromagnetic waves  
•       •       •

5156 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 May 2013 at 12:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-30 10:19:52 PM  
www.pbs.org
 
2013-05-30 10:24:03 PM  
How often do you really need to get from New York to LA? Is it worth all that time, money, energy, and risk for stupid fast transcontinental stuff when we could make much more reasonable, safe, reliable, and useful light rail systems for a fraction of a percent of the cost of this theoretical subway?

Answer: No. I wanna go 14,000 mph. Get diggin!
 
2013-05-30 10:24:05 PM  
And I arrived at the gym 5 minutes early.
 
2013-05-30 10:37:13 PM  
I wouldn't get on anything that goes 14,000 m.p.h. unless it was in outer space.
 
2013-05-30 10:42:09 PM  

Krieghund:


Perfect.
 
2013-05-30 10:42:19 PM  

doglover: How often do you really need to get from New York to LA? Is it worth all that time, money, energy, and risk for stupid fast transcontinental stuff when we could make much more reasonable, safe, reliable, and useful light rail systems for a fraction of a percent of the cost of this theoretical subway?

Answer: No. I wanna go 14,000 mph. Get diggin!


It depends on who
s chasing you.
 
2013-05-30 10:45:23 PM  
Why don't we stick with a mag lev above ground system. Getting from New York to LA in 6 hours on a train is a decent place to start, plus we can get incremental benefits along the way with regional rail systems, instead of having to wait decades for drilling thousands of miles of tunnels.
 
2013-05-30 10:53:46 PM  

nmrsnr: Why don't we stick with a mag lev above ground system. Getting from New York to LA in 6 hours on a train is a decent place to start, plus we can get incremental benefits along the way with regional rail systems, instead of having to wait decades for drilling thousands of miles of tunnels.


Or, y'know, transporters.

www.raybendici.com

/why do only the lame technologies from Star Trek like iPads actually get made IRL?
//oh right, laws of physics etc.
 
2013-05-30 11:01:21 PM  
Why don't we have the VHST?  Salter blamed political issues.


Political issues?  How many gazillion dollars would this thing cost?
 
NFA [TotalFark]
2013-05-30 11:10:35 PM  
I'm not sure why this is necessary.  Is New York city in need of illegal aliens?
 
2013-05-30 11:12:12 PM  
YEEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOWWWWWW!
 
2013-05-30 11:25:40 PM  
That's the dumbest thing that I've ever heard.

/and to put that into perspective I spent all day on FARK and working with the general public.
 
2013-05-30 11:39:22 PM  
How about the TransAtlantic Tunnel?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-31 12:04:32 AM  

KarmicDisaster: How about the TransAtlantic Tunnel?

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x323]


came here to say THIS !!

"he calls is a <idiot name>"
sorry, you dont really get to coin a word for something which has been discussed/invented/predicted ... wtf, a long time ago

/time to get over yourself mister rich guy
 
2013-05-31 12:07:14 AM  

nmrsnr: Why don't we stick with a mag lev above ground system. Getting from New York to LA in 6 hours on a train is a decent place to start, plus we can get incremental benefits along the way with regional rail systems, instead of having to wait decades for drilling thousands of miles of tunnels.


well your solution would be infinitely cheaper, so it has that as a negative.
and we would need little to no technological advances to do it, so that is bad.

dont we already have cheap and easy methods to get from la to nyc?
so method of flying through the air??

:D
 
2013-05-31 12:12:03 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-05-31 12:20:07 AM  

Sgygus: How many gazillion dollars would this thing cost?


To save money we could just put it directly in the San Andreas fault.
 
2013-05-31 12:33:15 AM  
You'd peak at 14,000mph at 1.3G which is about as much as anyone wants to take for any length of time. And you'd be under that that acceleration the whole way- hit max speed at halfway point, then you'd have to spin all the seats around and it'd be 1.3G decel to LA.

And I'd hate to think what would happen if a seal blew and air got in and aerodynamics came into play at 14,000 mph. Perfect if you'd ever dreamed of spreading yourself over two states.
 
2013-05-31 12:33:20 AM  
Meh.

Call me when it's 90 minutes from New York to Paris, and everyone gets Spandex jackets
 
2013-05-31 12:44:02 AM  

Voiceofreason01: That's the dumbest thing that I've ever heard.

/and to put that into perspective I spent all day on FARK and working with the general public.


Jesus. Any time in the politics tab?
 
2013-05-31 12:51:56 AM  
Considering that L.A. is 2,800mi (give or take a couple) from N.Y, N.Y, wouldn't it only require 7000mph to make it there in aprox. 30 min?
 
2013-05-31 12:53:32 AM  
14,000mph?!

I think I'd be more comfortable traveling NYC - LA via trebuchet (your body would probably arrive in about the same condition)
 
2013-05-31 01:05:09 AM  

Alphakronik: Considering that L.A. is 2,800mi (give or take a couple) from N.Y, N.Y, wouldn't it only require 7000mph to make it there in aprox. 30 min?


A constant 1G acceleration/deceleration to/from 14,000 mph would average out to 7000 mph.
 
2013-05-31 01:05:49 AM  

doglover: How often do you really need to get from New York to LA? Is it worth all that time, money, energy, and risk for stupid fast transcontinental stuff when we could make much more reasonable, safe, reliable, and useful light rail systems for a fraction of a percent of the cost of this theoretical subway?

Answer: No. I wanna go 14,000 mph. Get diggin!


We have much better communication technology now. It's not necessary anymore. This is as quaint as the Concorde.

On the other hand you'd be in orbit around the Earth, inside the Earth. (more or less, too damn late to think about numbers)
 
2013-05-31 01:06:43 AM  
The new derogatory term will be fly over ride under states.
 
2013-05-31 01:12:14 AM  
I'd be happy just to see Amtrak get the proper funding it needs, period. If you have the time and the extra cash, riding Amtrak anywhere is a great trip. I rode it cross country, and since you can jump off and on at different cities, there can be a lot of exploring. I got to see Washington DC and Chicago that way. And riding the train through the Rockies was fun. It's sad to see the government continually underfund Amtrak and seem driven to eventually kill the service or privatize it.
 
2013-05-31 01:13:10 AM  

Alphakronik: Considering that L.A. is 2,800mi (give or take a couple) from N.Y, N.Y, wouldn't it only require 7000mph to make it there in aprox. 30 min?


You need to account for acceleration and deceleration.  In order to have an average speed of 7000 MPH, the system would need to sustain speeds much higher.  You can't go from 0-7000MPH in a healthy, commuter-safe manner, without taking a while.  Also, once you hit the East Coast, you'd be on the shiatty Acela rail system and average 80 MPH.

Someone crunch the math in vossiewulf's post. 1.3g seems reasonable.
 
2013-05-31 01:15:46 AM  
Sounds great until maintenance slips the slightest bit, a little bit of the wall crumbles in Kansas, and the train derails at 14,000 mph.
 
2013-05-31 01:17:12 AM  
Shame these guys won't share the toys your tax dollars bought.

www.thetruthseeker.co.uk

And that's from the early 80's. Supposedly they have tunnel borers that just melt the rock now, leaving a cool black glass surface on the wall. An absolute must for the modern deep underground base.
 
2013-05-31 01:20:02 AM  
My main goal in life is to work on this project.
 
2013-05-31 01:26:24 AM  

J. Frank Parnell: Shame these guys won't share the toys your tax dollars bought.

[www.thetruthseeker.co.uk image 605x349]

And that's from the early 80's. Supposedly they have tunnel borers that just melt the rock now, leaving a cool black glass surface on the wall. An absolute must for the modern deep underground base.


www.noisetosignal.org
 
2013-05-31 01:28:56 AM  

Hollie Maea: My main goal in life is to work on this project.


1.bp.blogspot.com
Good luck, we're all counting on you,
 
2013-05-31 01:29:23 AM  
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-31 01:29:54 AM  

TheSwizz: Hollie Maea: My main goal in life is to work on this project.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x500]
Good luck, we're all counting on you,


I guess I had that coming.  Love you guys!
 
2013-05-31 01:46:59 AM  
Going like Mach 20 (will go into Orbiter to check) underground?  Wouldn't the hypersonic shockwave cause a 5.0 in Nebraska every time it ran?
 
2013-05-31 01:49:47 AM  
That's just a bit "out there" considering we don't even have decent *19th* century rail service, and the state-of-the-mid-20th century California HSR project is suffering from political NIMBYism and routing (SF to Sacramento via empty parkland south of San Jose), engineering headaches (mostly due to the geometry on the approach to the San Francisco terminal that dictates a narrower radius curve than the highest-speed HSR cars will allow) and funding headaches.

I'm not the guy who says "not while we have bigger priorities" because a lot of this good stuff CAN be done simultaneously (1% for NASA, just put off one F-35 for an extra month), but wow this is up there with a space elevator. Awesome, interesting, maybe possible at the far end of our imagination if you squint, and not really worth spending any more thought on.

Heck, an evacuated 3000 mile tube? You'd need automatic doors at every station, and do we even do *that* with our subways? (Without even the pressure differential...) We could, but we don't. Subways are nothing but horizontal elevators, but we still employ 'train operators' the same way we used to employ 'elevator operators' in the early 20th century.
 
2013-05-31 01:50:03 AM  

bluorangefyre: Going like Mach 20 (will go into Orbiter to check) underground?  Wouldn't the hypersonic shockwave cause a 5.0 in Nebraska every time it ran?




Presumably the tube would be under a pretty strong vacuum.
 
2013-05-31 01:50:23 AM  

bluorangefyre: Going like Mach 20 (will go into Orbiter to check) underground?  Wouldn't the hypersonic shockwave cause a 5.0 in Nebraska every time it ran?


Even if it didn't, then it would still probably shake the tunnel apart.
 
2013-05-31 01:51:18 AM  

StopLurkListen: That's just a bit "out there" considering we don't even have decent *19th* century rail service, and the state-of-the-mid-20th century California HSR project is suffering from political NIMBYism and routing (SF to Sacramento via empty parkland south of San Jose), engineering headaches (mostly due to the geometry on the approach to the San Francisco terminal that dictates a narrower radius curve than the highest-speed HSR cars will allow) and funding headaches.

I'm not the guy who says "not while we have bigger priorities" because a lot of this good stuff CAN be done simultaneously (1% for NASA, just put off one F-35 for an extra month), but wow this is up there with a space elevator. Awesome, interesting, maybe possible at the far end of our imagination if you squint, and not really worth spending any more thought on.

Heck, an evacuated 3000 mile tube? You'd need automatic doors at every station, and do we even do *that* with our subways? (Without even the pressure differential...) We could, but we don't. Subways are nothing but horizontal elevators, but we still employ 'train operators' the same way we used to employ 'elevator operators' in the early 20th century.




This guy's other idea is to terraform Mars. This is way easier.
 
2013-05-31 01:55:00 AM  
catacombs.space1999.net
 
2013-05-31 01:55:17 AM  

Hollie Maea: StopLurkListen: That's just a bit "out there" considering we don't even have decent *19th* century rail service, and the state-of-the-mid-20th century California HSR project is suffering from political NIMBYism and routing (SF to Sacramento via empty parkland south of San Jose), engineering headaches (mostly due to the geometry on the approach to the San Francisco terminal that dictates a narrower radius curve than the highest-speed HSR cars will allow) and funding headaches.

I'm not the guy who says "not while we have bigger priorities" because a lot of this good stuff CAN be done simultaneously (1% for NASA, just put off one F-35 for an extra month), but wow this is up there with a space elevator. Awesome, interesting, maybe possible at the far end of our imagination if you squint, and not really worth spending any more thought on.

Heck, an evacuated 3000 mile tube? You'd need automatic doors at every station, and do we even do *that* with our subways? (Without even the pressure differential...) We could, but we don't. Subways are nothing but horizontal elevators, but we still employ 'train operators' the same way we used to employ 'elevator operators' in the early 20th century.


This guy's other idea is to terraform Mars. This is way easier.


Big ideas are great. I'd hate to live in a world where everyone was always happy with the way things are. And sometimes the crazy idea surprises everyone by working.
 
2013-05-31 02:09:18 AM  

foo monkey: Someone crunch the math in vossiewulf's post. 1.3g seems reasonable.


a = constant acceleration
d = distance to point of maximum velocity (i.e. half the trip distance)
t = time to maximum velocity (10.5 minutes = .175 hours)
v = maximum velocity (14,000 mph)

at^2/2 = d
at = v

d/v^2 = (at^2/2)/(at)^2 = 1/2a
a = v^2/2d

For the path indicated in the link, via Chicago and Amarillo, it comes to

14,000^2/(2*1271) = 77,104 miles/hour^2 = 9.57 m/s^2 = 0.98g

When you curve the path at Chicago and Amarillo, you'd probably want to rotate the train so the floor is tilted wrt the ground, so the acceleration of the train combined with the centrifugal acceleration from the turn combined to push you "down".  Depending on what an acceptable curvature of the track would be, you may want to slow down some.  A turning radius of 25 miles gives a centrifugal acceleration (force pushing you against the side of the train) of 1g, so 1.4g against the floor if the train was tilted 45 degrees away from the ground.
 
2013-05-31 02:12:38 AM  

dookdookdook: A turning radius of 25 miles gives a centrifugal acceleration of 1g at 14,000 mph


ftfm
 
2013-05-31 02:16:45 AM  
www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk

Thunderbird 2 standing by.
 
2013-05-31 02:29:20 AM  

dookdookdook: 14,000^2/(2*1271) = 77,104 miles/hour^2 = 9.57 m/s^2 = 0.98g


You're assuming an instantaneous transition from acceleration to deceleration, I assumed a one minute transition. As I said, you'd have to have time to flip the seats the other direction, you can't have the passengers under 1+G against their seatbelts.

/yes this is absurdly hypothetical but it's SCIENCE
 
2013-05-31 02:42:23 AM  
How about we get the highspeed rail working first? is that too much to ask for a bullet train across the USA?
 
2013-05-31 02:46:39 AM  

vossiewulf: You're assuming an instantaneous transition from acceleration to deceleration, I assumed a one minute transition. As I said, you'd have to have time to flip the seats the other direction, you can't have the passengers under 1+G against their seatbelts.


Yeah, good point.  That still only gets it up to 1.07g though.
 
2013-05-31 03:05:42 AM  
Remember this?

i42.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-31 03:23:24 AM  

SpinStopper: Remember this?

[i42.tinypic.com image 800x597]


Nope. Ever seen this?

yoko.tsuno.free.fr
 
2013-05-31 03:26:15 AM  

doglover: How often do you really need to get from New York to LA? Is it worth all that time, money, energy, and risk for stupid fast transcontinental stuff when we could make much more reasonable, safe, reliable, and useful light rail systems for a fraction of a percent of the cost of this theoretical subway?

Answer: No. I wanna go 14,000 mph. Get diggin!


I just want to piss in 10 states at once. WHY CANT I HAVE MY DREAM
 
Displayed 50 of 120 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report