New technology can take you around the world in 6 hours - Polidicks

[QUOTE=latin_geek;35620393]the supersonic plane was taken out of use because people whined about the sonic boom it did when it went supersonic over cities stop threadshitting[/QUOTE] this and because it wasted enormous amounts of fuel and a desaster for the environment. safety issues were completely out of the picture as the only fatal incident the plane had was its very last flight but this being facepunch im not too shocked about uninformed dipshits on here [editline]18th April 2012[/editline] sorry no offense intended

[QUOTE=Isuzu;35620499]this and because it wasted enormous amounts of fuel and a desaster for the environment. safety issues were completely out of the picture as the only fatal incident the plane had was its very last flight but this being facepunch im not too shocked about uninformed dipshits on here [editline]18th April 2012[/editline] sorry no offense intended[/QUOTE] The more flat out unbelievable thing is that people are high fiving themselves as if they knew the plane was shit and that it should never exist because it was such a failure. As if it affected their lives so much.

[QUOTE=Ogris;35620548]The more flat out unbelievable thing is that people are high fiving themselves as if they knew the plane was shit and that it should never exist because it was such a failure. As if it affected their lives so much.[/QUOTE] facepunch

Can't they just make bicycles faster ? I'd love to bicycle to china

[QUOTE=Satansick;35620564]Can't they just make bicycles faster ? I'd love to bicycle to china[/QUOTE] Electric bicycle? But what's the point, if you were to want to bike 5.000KM on a bike, and fast, they'd no longer be bikes. (Unless they find some sort of contraption with 10.000% efficiency)

So how does this machine which travels at the speed of HOLY SHIT stop in time for people to get off at their destination?

[QUOTE=Nemisis116;35620771]So how does this machine which travels at the speed of HOLY SHIT stop in time for people to get off at their destination?[/QUOTE] ha it smashes into a pillow or something? or maybe it just smashes into a concrete wall at the station?? shit man I guess nobody ever thought about it? hmm wtf ohhh [i]maybe it slows down the same way it accelerates, magnetically[/i] jesus christ

[QUOTE=Isuzu;35620864]ha it smashes into a pillow or something? or maybe it just smashes into a concrete wall at the station?? shit man I guess nobody ever thought about it? hmm wtf ohhh [i]maybe it slows down the same way it accelerates, magnetically[/i] jesus christ[/QUOTE] I think he meant the extensive time needed to accelerate so people don't get disturbed by the strong forces.

How will they maintain the vacuum though? The shitty demo vid showed is as an open glass tube.

[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;35618763]Does it go on a form of rail? Because if it doesn't, what happens if it starts spinning?[/QUOTE] It's actually not that difficult to make an object want to stay upright by itself. They could easily just make the bottom heavier than the top and it'd work.

Awesome, but the tubes need to be bigger to hold more than 6 people.

Reminds me of the tubes in Portal 2

This would be so cool I could go clubbing in hong kong lay hung over on a beach in miami and be home for dinner in the UK at 5 one crazy night

What if one of the cars malfunctions and fly's off the track? Oh god that made me cringe.

[QUOTE=Killuah;35621014]I think he meant the extensive time needed to accelerate so people don't get disturbed by the strong forces.[/QUOTE] Three minutes.

[QUOTE=Trumple;35619344]Maybe you missed the whole time when it failed catastrophically and they stopped using them? The video isn't claiming to be the first thing in the world to offer such travel times... [editline]18th April 2012[/editline] You can go as fast as you like and still have 1g The 'g' is acceleration (relative to the Earth's gravitational pull), so my guess is these things accelerate really slowly Did you never wonder why you weren't thrust to the back of a plane/train while it was moving, only on take off? :v:[/QUOTE] One plane crashed in its entire history. It is as safe as the 777 (but with the knowledge that people died in the single hull loss accident for condorde)

what if a hole is on one end and it gets launched :v:

[QUOTE=J!NX;35621868]what if a hole is on one end and it gets launched :v:[/QUOTE] It depressurizes?

[QUOTE=jordguitar;35621818]One plane crashed in its entire history. It is as safe as the 777 (but with the knowledge that people died in the single hull loss accident for condorde)[/QUOTE] This. The biggest reason for their retirement was because it was expensive to run and not enough people used it. But otherwise Concorde is an engineering marvel, it was built in the 60s imagine what they could do today.

There's actually a similar project discussed since quite some time in Switzerland, called Swissmetro. It would connect the bigger cities with a metro that can go as fast as 500km/h. [url]http://swissmetro.ch/en[/url] Quite interesting really.

[QUOTE=Isuzu;35620499]this and because it wasted enormous amounts of fuel and a desaster for the environment. safety issues were completely out of the picture as the only fatal incident the plane had was its very last flight but this being facepunch im not too shocked about uninformed dipshits on here [editline]18th April 2012[/editline] sorry no offense intended[/QUOTE] Haha I don't think I've seen a worse hypocrite on here in a long while, this is amusing First off, the fatal incident was far from the last. After the crash, the planes were grounded temporarily pending investigation. The service resumed shortly after. In fact, I saw the (one of the?) final Concorde flight as it flew over my house into London Heathrow (I can tell you it wasn't on fire) As for having a good safety record, bar one crash...most jets had flown many many more cycles than the Concorde by the time the crash happened. Concorde had only flown 80,000 take off's, giving it a very poor accident rate. Though, because of the very small number of take-offs, the accident rate doesn't mean much either way... Talk about uninformed dipshits

[QUOTE=Corey_Faure;35618743]New? I saw this in the Polar Express years ago. :v:[/QUOTE] What about Seaquest DSV? It was in that to.

[QUOTE=AK'z;35620227][img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/ba/Air_France_Flight_4590.jpg[/img] MMMM that's one safe aircraft. :downs:[/QUOTE] You do realize every new technology developed always has setbacks and failures? Thing's have to be tested first and accidents will happen. Or you could live in fear and use the same shit forever and be stagnant.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35622258]You do realize every new technology developed always has setbacks and failures? Thing's have to be tested first and accidents will happen. Or you could live in fear and use the same shit forever and be stagnant.[/QUOTE] Dude, they put so much effort into that aircraft and it delivered crap results. On top of the fact that nobody was interested in taking a concorde due to costs, it was a LOT more expensive to run than the normal aircrafts. If it was the next big thing, I don't think such a catastrophic accident would have happened, people can't even explain what happened too.

[QUOTE=AK'z;35622463]If it was the next big thing, I don't think such a catastrophic accident would have happened, people can't even explain what happened too.[/QUOTE] Yeah mistakes never happen in the industrial world

[QUOTE=AK'z;35622463]Dude, they put so much effort into that aircraft and it delivered crap results. On top of the fact that nobody was interested in taking a concorde due to costs, it was a LOT more expensive to run than the normal aircrafts. If it was the next big thing, I don't think such a catastrophic accident would have happened, people can't even explain what happened too.[/QUOTE] $3,000 a ticket...

[QUOTE=AK'z;35622463]Dude, they put so much effort into that aircraft and it delivered crap results. On top of the fact that nobody was interested in taking a concorde due to costs, it was a LOT more expensive to run than the normal aircrafts. If it was the next big thing, I don't think such a catastrophic accident would have happened, people can't even explain what happened too.[/QUOTE] Everything is expensive when first developed, the first cars were for rich people, look at how it is today. It's called advancement.

[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;35622552]Everything is expensive when first developed, the first cars were for rich people, look at how it is today. It's called advancement.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. Bugatti Veyron wasn't aimed at being the next big thing in driver's cars, it is still respectable because its goal was purely for performance. Concorde was only meant to be a "slight" step up in aircraft performance and no major advancement at all.

The idea is good but I think the video maker does not know what he's talking about. You can build a fucking vacuum tube and magnetic levitation tracks at a tenth of the cost of a high speed railway system? Yeah, sure. He threw all the numbers out of his ass. 168kg shell could not handle full vacuum, not to mention even the tiniest impact at mach 6 no matter what material it's made from. And 6 person shells are just impractical. [QUOTE=Within;35619856]The gravitation toward the center of the Earth near the core is so strong you'd need one hell of a vacuum cleaner to pull something out from there. The initial momentum would get pretty far (as in nowhere nearly enough) but eventually you'd be stuck in Earth's core forever. [/QUOTE] No actually the gravitation due to earths mass in the mass center is zero. It's as strong in all directions so they cancel out.

This sounds like something that could go horribly awry.