New technology can take you around the world in 6 hours
135 replies, posted
I bet there would be passport places or something before geting off/on.?
[QUOTE=mac338;35618801]A) [b]Why is that bad?[/b]
B) We've barely explored 50% of the Earth, almost none of the deep sea or the thickest jungles.
C) Space exists and we're slowly moving in the right direction.
Things are good.[/QUOTE]
It's "bad" that the world grows even smaller because the more we know, the less mystery and awe there is left in this world. We used to be fascinated by the vastness of the oceans and feared falling over the edge. Then we discovered their limits and how the world was round. Would you be able to fantasise about a giant deep-sea creature if we'd mapped all of the oceans and listed every species? Would you find the vast reaches of space intriguing anymore if big bang was definitively proven and we confirmed that somehow, we were alone here, there are no physical parallel big bangs and so on.
With understanding, everything becomes trivial. So yeah, in some way it's saddening that the world became even smaller. When a person can go anywhere in the world this fast and economically, he can taste every culture and see every landscape. The world will grow boring to everyone before they turn 40. Suicide rates will skyrocket and we're doomed to boredom. Pure speculation, but our natural fear of the dark and unknown and fascination thereof is a strong indication that this is true.
I saw a show about something like this a while ago.
They put a hole from england to australia and then you jump down it. It takes ages but you come out the other side eventually, but you shoot up into the air 6 feet or so and then fall back down the hole to England. When I watched it I wondered why you couldn't just grab onto something as you jump out, but apparently you can't do that.
[img]http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/230/819/eeb.jpg[/img]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - Craptasket))[/highlight]
the idea that within my lifetime you could commute across the country, or even the world, in the length of watching a movie is mind blowing
[QUOTE=-Chief-;35622681]This sounds like something that could go horribly awry.[/QUOTE]
So does a big metal box with wheels, traveling at high speeds, filled with explosive liquid, and powered by tiny explosions from said liquid.
Not to be pessimistic but this would only be built if every country (that would be connected to the global network) would say screw you to the airline companies. Said airline companies would throw money at the governments to make this go away forever. This is assuming that people are interested in it to begin with, as it does transport a small amount of people for a very high cost. In addition if it DID get built, some terrorist asshole would blow it up because "hurp durp my god told me so" or because they hate freedom or some other bullshit reason to be a general asshole. But hey, we can dream right?
If there was a single leak in the entire tube system though it would fail. Imagine decelerating from 6500km/h to much, much less simply because of air resistance and the broad side of the capsule. I would be surprised if the capsule didn't cave in on itself or simply break apart.
[QUOTE=Trumple;35622084]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]
One accident out of eighty thousand flights for a relatively new aircraft isn't a bad record at all, especially when you consider that that one accident wasn't caused by an inherent mechanical fault but by a foreign object left by a previous aircraft being sucked into the turbine. Who's really at fault - the Concorde, which actually performed as expected, or the plane that suffered some sort of failure on takeoff and left an object for the well-performing Concorde to ingest? You might as well declare 747s inherently flawed and dangerous because someone bombed one over Scotland.
[QUOTE=AK'z;35622605]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.[/QUOTE]
It went 1,350 MPH, airliners now generally go just 500, minor my ass.
[QUOTE=AK'z;35619656]I'm fairly sure it would be loud as hell in that, so listening to music would be next to impossible.
Any transport where you cannot enjoy music is useless.
[editline]18th April 2012[/editline]
Those are so safe. :downs:[/QUOTE]
the reason the concorde stopped being used was actually because its running costs were higher than the income it made, not because of its safety as the media made it out to be at the time.
I really really hate people going "BUT WHAT IF IT MALFUNCTIONS" we wouldn't even have bicycles if that stopped people from inventing things you idiots
It'd take a century to build the actual tube thing.
[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]
I didn't know Nvidia makes airplanes.
Is there a good safety system though? Going 650 MPH and then having a break problem would be horrifying.
Reminded me of this:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIuy7WGD1z0[/media]
[QUOTE=teh pirate;35626431]One accident out of eighty thousand flights for a relatively new aircraft isn't a bad record at all, especially when you consider that that one accident wasn't caused by an inherent mechanical fault but by a foreign object left by a previous aircraft being sucked into the turbine. Who's really at fault - the Concorde, which actually performed as expected, or the plane that suffered some sort of failure on takeoff and left an object for the well-performing Concorde to ingest? You might as well declare 747s inherently flawed and dangerous because someone bombed one over Scotland.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Trumple] Though, because of the very small number of take-offs, the accident rate doesn't mean much either way...[/quote]
[QUOTE=Trumple;35627857][/QUOTE]
You still acted as if it was a problem with the aircraft. It wasn't.
i wonder how much it would be for a ticket to the other side of the world...
[QUOTE=teh pirate;35627900]You still acted as if it was a problem with the aircraft. It wasn't.[/QUOTE]
You're probably right, though it's debatable. The tyres shredded, and hit the fuel tank. The fuel tank didn't break, the fuel valve did, letting fuel all over some damaged exposed wiring
However, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde#Concorde_Flight_4590_crash]the tyres were commonly found to burst[/url] - it was a flaw in the design. Whether the tyres would have burst had the same thing happened to a 747? I don't know, but 747's don't have as bad history of tyre bursts
"Passangers would not experience any discomfort"
Video at 0:12.
[QUOTE=usaokay;35627963]Will be done after everyone here dies of old age.[/QUOTE]Considering this tech has been proposed since the early 1910s, I wouldn't be surprised that our children's children will never have such a thing.
If its so cheap, why havent we utilized in mass scale?
[QUOTE=Twistshock;35621212]How will they maintain the vacuum though? The shitty demo vid showed is as an open glass tube.[/QUOTE]
Air lock I'd assume.
Looks like it would be pretty fun to ride in.
[QUOTE=GURREN LAGANN;35626669][IMG]http://www.passenlaw.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/chicago-bike-accident-lawyer-300x238.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i41.tinypic.com/oi7l0p.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Bomimo;35623136]It's "bad" that the world grows even smaller because the more we know, the less mystery and awe there is left in this world. We used to be fascinated by the vastness of the oceans and feared falling over the edge. Then we discovered their limits and how the world was round. Would you be able to fantasise about a giant deep-sea creature if we'd mapped all of the oceans and listed every species? Would you find the vast reaches of space intriguing anymore if big bang was definitively proven and we confirmed that somehow, we were alone here, there are no physical parallel big bangs and so on.
With understanding, everything becomes trivial. So yeah, in some way it's saddening that the world became even smaller. When a person can go anywhere in the world this fast and economically, he can taste every culture and see every landscape. The world will grow boring to everyone before they turn 40. Suicide rates will skyrocket and we're doomed to boredom. Pure speculation, but our natural fear of the dark and unknown and fascination thereof is a strong indication that this is true.[/QUOTE]
Lol, with the exception of the deep sea, any semblance of the unexplored unknown died with satellites and airplanes. If anything, this will encourage people to visit other places more since traveling long distance will be a lot more feasible.
[QUOTE=Isuzu;35620245][URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_object_damage]hey you should rate me dumb again maybe that would make you look less like an idiot[/URL][/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Pru11.png[/IMG]
lol
[QUOTE=eternalflamez;35620610]Electric bicycle? [/QUOTE]
we'll call them motorcycles
[QUOTE=wingless;35618717]I'd imagine they would be slightly bigger than that.[/QUOTE]
I'm claustrophobic.
Even planes fucking scare me.
It's just the feeling of not being able to get out :/
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
