[io9] Real-life Futurama tube-transport will catapult you from New York to Beijing in 2 hours - Page 4

Originally Posted by xeekei 

People, 1 G is the equivalent of zero acceleration/deceleration. They mean that, at top speed you don't feel any different than like standing still.

Originally Posted by andrews2547 

No, because if that was true then going 600mph (the same speed as a Boeing 747) then that would mean there would be 300G (assuming "less than 1G" is 0.5G) The amount of G-force has nothing to do with how fast you're going, it's all about acceleration, deceleration and cornering.

Originally Posted by Warmonger 

Keep in mind G force is not from going high speeds, its from extreme fast acceleration.

Originally Posted by un-nefer 

Saw this on discovery years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EapvQ3ALYJY
Only the first min is on topic - the gravity train stuff after it is wayyyyy ot
EDIT: Just on the possibility side of things, can someone good at maths compute this for me
The distance between New York and Beijing is approx 7,000 miles.
Max speed "tube transport" can travel = 4000mph
Approx weight of "tube transport" = 600kg (assuming similar weight to an F1 carbon fiber race car)
Max positive Gs an average person can withstand* = 3G (28 m/s²) for 10sec.
Max negative Gs an average person can withstand* = 2G (−19 m/s²) for 10sec.
So using those parameters above, and not going above 3G for longer than 10 seconds during acceleration, how long would it take the "tube transport" to accelerate from 0mph to 4000mph?
Also, using those parameters above, and not going below -2G for longer than 10 seconds during deceleration, how long would it take the "tube transport" to decelerate from 4000mph to 0mph?
While it may be theoretically possible for the capsule to reach 4000mph and travel between New York and Beijing in 45min, I am curious as to whther it is possible once you factor in human ability to withstand certain Gs before health risks set in.
If someone good at maths can do the above calculations, it would be good to see just how long it would really take to travel between New York and Beijing and keep the humans inside the "tube transport" alive and unhurt
* some people may be able to withstand upto 5G before losing consciousness or -3G before redout, but that does not make it safe for public use. +/- 2G is about the most an average person can withstand repeatedly.

Originally Posted by coachmark2 

Alright, I've calculated this out.
Assuming that 1G = an acceleration of 9.8m/s/s, then the acceleration phase, if we use 3G's of acceleration, would take approx. 60 seconds and cover 52920 meters as it does so. It's then smooth sailing until the destination, which would require 90 seconds to slow down. The distances and times of the acceleration and deceleration are essentially negligable.
Remember, it's acceleration that is a danger to humans. Velocity is not. You could go 9000 mph in a tube with no problems. It's just getting up to that speed or from that speed to zero in a short amount of time that is a problem....

Originally Posted by Darkpriest667 

cheaper to run and build than high speed rail. its also much more efficient. I think it would be cheaper than flying actually

Originally Posted by guyladouche 

May be the case, except it's far less efficient (as presented) for mass travel. You can pack 800+ people in a trans-oceanic flight, but I wonder how many people you can transport at a time with this tech. If it's only like 10 at a time and you can't multiplex the tube usage very easily then it's not a great choice--if you need to build 80 tubes to match the simultaneous capacity of one plane, then where does the cost fit in?
I'm curious--being 1/10 the cost of trains, does that break down to cost per passenger being less to operate too? Transporting 6-8 people at a time, how many pods can you pack into a tube at a time for a single destination? If it's 1/10 of the total people that can be transported on a high-speed rail, I'm not seeing the benefit.
I think it's an interesting idea, but there seem to still be a lot of physical and/or practical limitations to its use/adoption. Either that, or I'm not quite getting enough info from the video.

Originally Posted by BizzareRide 

G force = sudden death?

Originally Posted by un-nefer 

While it may be theoretically possible for the capsule to reach 4000mph and travel between New York and Beijing in 45min, I am curious as to whther it is possible once you factor in human ability to withstand certain Gs before health risks set in.
If someone good at maths can do the above calculations, it would be good to see just how long it would really take to travel between New York and Beijing and keep the humans inside the "tube transport" alive and unhurt
* some people may be able to withstand upto 5G before losing consciousness or -3G before redout, but that does not make it safe for public use. +/- 2G is about the most an average person can withstand repeatedly.

Originally Posted by xeekei 

People, 1 G is the equivalent of zero acceleration/deceleration. They mean that, at top speed you don't feel any different than like standing still.

Originally Posted by guyladouche 

May be the case, except it's far less efficient (as presented) for mass travel. You can pack 800+ people in a trans-oceanic flight, but I wonder how many people you can transport at a time with this tech.

Originally Posted by guyladouche 

May be the case, except it's far less efficient (as presented) for mass travel. You can pack 800+ people in a trans-oceanic flight, but I wonder how many people you can transport at a time with this tech. If it's only like 10 at a time and you can't multiplex the tube usage very easily then it's not a great choice--if you need to build 80 tubes to match the simultaneous capacity of one plane, then where does the cost fit in?
I'm curious--being 1/10 the cost of trains, does that break down to cost per passenger being less to operate too? Transporting 6-8 people at a time, how many pods can you pack into a tube at a time for a single destination? If it's 1/10 of the total people that can be transported on a high-speed rail, I'm not seeing the benefit.
I think it's an interesting idea, but there seem to still be a lot of physical and/or practical limitations to its use/adoption. Either that, or I'm not quite getting enough info from the video.