Futuristic High-Speed Tube Travel Could Take You From New York to Los Angeles in 45 Minutes

[phantom power]

I'm a bit surprised Daryl didn't credit Larry Niven, who is the first author I'm aware of to use the evacuated-tube concept for high speed ground travel.

Either way, I've always wondered how one makes such a big-ass evacuated tube economically.

Traveling across the country or the world via any modern mode of transportation is a time-consuming affair. It can also be really annoying with the long lines, crying babies, armrest hogs, cramped space, etc. Would it not be the most awesome invention ever if some new type of transportation could cut that travel time significantly?

Get ready, because it may only be a few years from becoming a reality. A company called ET3 has plans in the works for the Evacuated Tube Transport, a high-speed transportation tube that uses magnetic levitation. The ETT can travel at speeds of up to 4,000 miles per hour, and each tube seats a maximum of six people and comes with a baggage compartment. How does it go so fast? It's airless and frictionless and could have you from New York to Los Angeles in 45 minutes, as opposed to the nearly five hours a direct flight would take. It could even have you depart from New York and be in Beijing in two hours.

The tubes would be set up like freeways to prevent crowding and traffic congestion problems. Plus, ET3 claims that passengers need not worry about feeling discomfort while traveling at such high speeds. The high velocity at which the tubes move is equal to 1G of force at top speed, which is similar to the force felt by someone traveling in a car on the freeway.

Daryl Oster, the founder and CEO of ET3, says that he got the idea for the tube transport system when he visited China back in the 1980s.
When and if the tubes make their debut in the next decade, they will initially be used to transport cargo, not people.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/futuristic-high-speed-tube-travel-could-york-los-171007828.html

[PoliticAverse]

1. Ha! The Internet tubes are still faster... n/t

[House of Roberts]

2. If I don't work on it, I don't ride in it.

I'll stick to my own cars.

[OnlinePoker]

3. New York, 1870

Interestingly, I just Googled evacuated tube trains and from one link found that a system of pneumatic subways was tried in New York in 1870.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/it-runs-in-tubes-the-first-high-speed-rail-circa-1870/5491?tag=content;siu-container

[htuttle]

4. That could be terrifying

[TlalocW]

6. Oh, man, bite my shiny, metal ass

Great minds think alike though.

TlalocW

[TlalocW]

5. They'll be handy for getting around New New York

But I don't think intercontinental travel is feasible. We'll still have our spaceships for that.



TlalocW

[gristy]

7. This is hilarious

The high velocity at which the tubes move is equal to 1G of force at top speed, which is similar to the force felt by someone traveling in a car on the freeway.

It's also similar to the force I'm feeling sitting in my chair right now!

[mindwalker_i]

8. The TSA will screen people for Taco Bell

Make sure you don't bring a burrito of mass destruction onboard.

[cprise]

9. Ray Bradbury commercial

[Socialistlemur]

10. There's a misconception at acceleration versus speed

The travelers will experience one g when the capsule is traveling at constant speed. Anything at constant speed on earth experiences about one g. But to accelerate to several thousand km per hour they'll have to impose some force and this will push the passengers back. The same effect will take place when decelerating. This is an old concept, it requires the pipe be kept completely evacuated, and the capsules have to carry their own air supply. Switching the capsules will be a neat trick, and if the system fails and a capsule hits the wall the passengers may turn into human jelly.

[caraher]

11. I've thought about this basic idea a lot lately

but I'm less interested in shooting people at bullet speeds (and faster) than the general question of whether getting the air out of the way can make high-speed (more like hundreds of MPH) travel more energy efficient. In other words, what costs more energy: moving the air out of the way with the nose of the vehicle, or keeping a tube evacuated?

That whole thing about "producing 1 G at top speed" is sheer gibberish, however. I'd flunk the reporter who wrote that out of intro physics in a heartbeat. Are they merely observing that gravity still acts when you're traveling at a constant speed? Duh! But actually, I think they're simply confused: ET3 simply assumed they would limit all accelerations to 1G for the purpose of making back-of-the-envelope estimates of things like travel times.

They do their energy calculations assuming their tubes are pretty much permanently evacuated, with little leakage:

It will take about 5 gallons of gasoline equivalent worth of electrical energy to evacuate a mile. It will take a few days before the water dries out, and the materials stop out gassing.

Their FAQ is full of a lot of statements about "powerful" competing interests such as the high-speed rail cabal we all fear so much (?!)

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. And that FAQ talks about a design speed of 600 km/h (375 mph)

Where the '4000 mph' Yahoo talks about comes from, I don't know.

[caraher]

13. That's also somewhere in their web site

They expect to work their way up to really long-distance tubes and they do mention the 45 minute intercontinental trip as a long-term goal.