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.

(Fox News)   You had me at "suck...&...insert"   (foxnews.com) divider line 21
    More: Interesting, Hyperloop, private spaceflight, ground transportation, Current sea level rise, Concorde, Elon Musk, American Society of Civil Engineers, SpaceX  
•       •       •

3817 clicks; posted to Geek » on 31 Oct 2013 at 1:31 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-31 01:35:25 PM  
Also known as "Friday night at Gere's place."
 
2013-10-31 01:43:36 PM  
It sounds insane: Take an enormous hamster tube, suck most of the air from it, insert a hovercraft full of eels and accelerate it to 800 miles per hour.
 
2013-10-31 01:45:09 PM  
But seriously, we use planes because we want to fast, but they waste a lot of energy just staying airborne.  If we could go the same speed at ground level, then airports would be for international travel only.
 
2013-10-31 02:05:37 PM  
"'We have already virtually tested an initial concept of the Hyperloop," said Sandeep Sovani..."

That settles it - it's certainly feasable.
 
2013-10-31 02:39:54 PM  

acohn: "'We have already virtually tested an initial concept of the Hyperloop," said Sandeep Sovani..."

That settles it - it's certainly feasable.


Hey now, they just need a few 3-D printers and they'll have it up and running in no time.
 
2013-10-31 03:03:07 PM  
"It's similar to what the Concorde did for air transport,"
So it will operate at a loss for a few decades before being shut down?
 
2013-10-31 03:04:24 PM  

acohn: "'We have already virtually tested an initial concept of the Hyperloop," said Sandeep Sovani..."

That settles it - it's certainly feasable.


But how would the teeming masses clinging on to the outside of the craft breath?
 
2013-10-31 03:07:07 PM  
You had me at "suck...&...insert"

What are things subby's mom says multiple times a day?
 
2013-10-31 03:16:39 PM  

bopis: "It's similar to what the Concorde did for air transport,"
So it will operate at a loss for a few decades before being shut down?


Yeah, that comparison made me cringe.  When you're trying to explain how revolutionary your new transportation technology will be, don't say the C-word.
 
2013-10-31 04:26:06 PM  

ikanreed: But seriously, we use planes because we want to fast, but they waste a lot of energy just staying airborne.  If we could go the same speed at ground level, then airports would be for international travel only.


I can't imagine this thing being safe if it has to crisscross the Yellowstone Caldera or various other seismic clusterfarks, like the Dakotas are now that everyone is fracking them to pieces.
 
2013-10-31 04:41:34 PM  

Bennie Crabtree: ikanreed: But seriously, we use planes because we want to fast, but they waste a lot of energy just staying airborne.  If we could go the same speed at ground level, then airports would be for international travel only.

I can't imagine this thing being safe if it has to crisscross the Yellowstone Caldera or various other seismic clusterfarks, like the Dakotas are now that everyone is fracking them to pieces.


Tolerances are not a concept in your vocabulary, are they?

//Engineers gonna engine.
 
2013-10-31 04:42:54 PM  

Stile4aly: bopis: "It's similar to what the Concorde did for air transport,"
So it will operate at a loss for a few decades before being shut down?

Yeah, that comparison made me cringe.  When you're trying to explain how revolutionary your new transportation technology will be, don't say the C-word.


Also, the Concorde wasn't revolutionary, it was based on the Tupolev-144.
media.moddb.com
(ducks) :)  Seriously, though, they were contemporaries and developed independently...

The original SST was the XB-70 Valkyrie (first flight in 1964)

upload.wikimedia.org

Tragically, moments after this photo was taken the XB-70 and the F-104 collided. That was the end of USAF's SST bomber program.

The thing was big. Six engines.

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-31 04:48:58 PM  
Of course now I'm deep into looking up "hypersonic" concepts ... Darn those things are pretty to look at.

www.wired.com

Probably never ever gonna happen, the economics just don't work out unless you're a military and profitability is not your mission.
 
2013-10-31 05:20:25 PM  

StopLurkListen: Of course now I'm deep into looking up "hypersonic" concepts ... Darn those things are pretty to look at.

[www.wired.com image 409x246]

Probably never ever gonna happen, the economics just don't work out unless you're a military and profitability is not your mission.


Hypersonic won't happen commercially, but supersonic could come back if the FAA would allow overland supersonic flight, and if the cockpit could rely on camera input for landing rather than needing a drop-nose for a direct visual.

Quick CSB: I flew the Concorde once as a kid.  Unfortuantely, I had eaten a dodgy tuna sandwich from Heathrow Airport the day before and was sick as a dog.  I took some sort of dissolve-in-the-mouth tablet to settle my stomach, and conked out for the entire flight.
 
2013-10-31 05:34:26 PM  
Will there be a loud bell that goes "DING!" when we get to the end?

/and hopefully the end is screwed on tight so we don't go flying all over when we hit
 
2013-10-31 05:55:13 PM  
You sure subby?  In a Fox News link?
 
2013-10-31 07:43:54 PM  

Stile4aly: supersonic could come back if the FAA would allow overland supersonic flight, and if the cockpit could rely on camera input for landing rather than needing a drop-nose for a direct visual.


Airliners are using auto-land systems more often, and NASA has been doing research into reducing the harmful effects of sonic booms. But that isn't the full reason why concord failed.   It just cost too much to design, build, and operate. As a result there was no market fighting for it.

What an SST really needs is a customer willing to pay the higher fuel bill for faster flight.  Right now its alot cheaper per pound to use busses rather than sports cars. So unless you've got an engine that moves fast AND more efficiently, the airlines willcram us into their 700's like cord wood and pocket the savings.
 
2013-10-31 07:44:56 PM  
"We just need to raise five million dollars and in 5 years we can have a working 1/1,000,000 scale proof of concept built out of Lego."
 
2013-10-31 08:05:39 PM  
Wasn't the original idea just to pump the air through the pod behind it so it wasn't pushing on a continuously increasing pressure? When did we start removing the tube atmosphere?

/also, what if the bloody thing has to stop mid-transport. How will people continue breathing?
 
2013-10-31 08:29:13 PM  

ajgeek: Wasn't the original idea just to pump the air through the pod behind it so it wasn't pushing on a continuously increasing pressure? When did we start removing the tube atmosphere?

/also, what if the bloody thing has to stop mid-transport. How will people continue breathing?


The original concept was to use a fan at the front of the vehicle to suck in air and jet it out the back, while using magnetic accelerators to get it up to speed.
The pressure in the tube could be lowered for higher speeds, but it need not be to dangerous levels.

At full tilt this thing could shoot passengers around at mach2.  But if they can go three hundred miles an hour for almost no fuel costs then I think most people would be happy and it would more than pay for itself.
 
2013-10-31 09:05:28 PM  
"It's similar to what the Concorde did for air transport," she told FoxNews.com.

theurbanoutreach.org
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report