Of course, which I pointed out in my initial post. However, the actual routes being proposed are primarily in subterranean tunnels, not tubes. The leakage will be minimal except at endpoints (it's rather difficult for air molecules to migrate through several meters of solid rock), and in any case, the system hardly needs a perfect vacuum, nor anything close to it.I do not see maintaining the vacuum on these tubes as being a trivial matter. There will be leaks.
Actually, such systems were proposed at least as early as the 1940s. The basic concept isn't patentable, but there are already many dozens of patents in force for refinements of that concept.The Sci-Fi TV Series Babylon 5 portrayed this concept as a travel mechanism for Mars. Therefore, it is not patentable. I would not be surprised if that is where Musk got the idea.
A 747 burns 125,000 lbs of fuel per five-hour flight. Some high-traffic air traffic routes handle 30,000+ flights per year. One single hyperloop link can replace all those flights, with a net savings of several hundred million pounds of fuel.Well then, there won't be "the massive savings over air travel", that you claim will happen either..
Wow, you really dug deep in your black little heart for that straw man bunch of garbage, didn't ya?In any case, I'm sure if in 1905 that I would have told you that, in just a few short decades, the nation would be covered with two million miles of paved roads for horseless carriages, you'd have scoffed at that also.
Spare me! First, you choose the largest measurement quantity you could find to measure fuel consumption. And then pull "30,000 flights replaced", out of your a**A 747 burns 125,000 lbs of fuel per five-hour flight. Some high-traffic air traffic routes handle 30,000+ flights per year. One single hyperloop link can replace all those flights, with a net savings of several hundred million pounds of fuel.
And destroys the environment while your at it. Those earth movers, front end loaders, and boring machines, won't run on your hot airAnd yes, purchasing right-of-way for tunnels is ungodly expensive. But it doesn't consume resources; it merely moves pieces of the pie around.
Actually, I could have quoted a higher figure using the A-380, or one of the larger cargo jets, such as the An-120 or C-5 Galaxy (valid, since many Hyperloop proposals include cargo as well). What's your point? Even using the burn rate of a L-1011, the fuel savings are astronomical.First, you choose the largest measurement quantity you could find to measure fuel consumption. And then pull "30,000 flights replaced", out of your a**
See above. Even with individual cars, its feasible -- and of course on a high-traffic route, they can always link up multiple cars.At six passengers per car, they have another name for that pastime. It's called, "bumper cars".
You've convinced me! We should instantly ban all trucks, autos, and airplanes, and return to the horse and buggy era.BTW, did you know that they have been/ resumed using draft horses for logging operations?
Right OK. So now every country in the world is going to build hyper loops, And I suppose you'll be telling me next, we're going to run them across the pacific ocean. How else are you going to justify quoting statistics world wide?Actually, I could have quoted a higher figure using the A-380, or one of the larger cargo jets, such as the An-120 or C-5 Galaxy (valid, since many Hyperloop proposals include cargo as well). What's your point? Even using the burn rate of a L-1011, the fuel savings are astronomical.
As for the 30,000 flights figure, that's a bit low, actually. Melbourne-Sydney runs 55,000 flights a year, Seoul-Jeju runs 65,000/year, and even LA-San Francisco is 35,000/year. One single Hyperloop installation can easily replace those levels of traffic. Even assuming individual 6-man cars, they can move 4.5 million people by running just one car every 45 seconds. As I know from personal experience, that's slower than even the Moscow subway, and it operates multi-car trains carrying 150+ each run, using just 1960s-era technology.
You've convinced me. I'll even build you a hyper loop for a penny a day, doubled every day until it's finished. Now, let me see if I can arrange a government grant to get started.See above. Even with individual cars, its feasible -- and of course on a high-traffic route, they can always link up multiple cars.
How about if you save some of that spit and snot, you might need it to wash down your next meal.You've convinced me! We should instantly ban all trucks, autos, and airplanes, and return to the horse and buggy era.
You do realize that neither Melbourne to Sydney, nor Seoul to Jeju crosses the Pacific? No need to tunnel underneath it.I suppose you'll be telling me next, we're going to run them across the pacific ocean. How else are you going to justify quoting statistics world wide?
Wait, let me check Google maps.You do realize that neither Melbourne to Sydney, nor Seoul to Jeju crosses the Pacific? No need to tunnel underneath it.
Well, at least you admit they won't be good for, or replace all current methods of transport.Interestingly (for other readers; I'm sure you won't be piqued) at least one proposed Hyperloop is undersea: a Helsinki-Stockhold route. Of course, the Baltic there is very narrow, and only a few dozen meters deep, a far cry from the Pacific.
Shrug, I'm not the one who thought Melbourne to Sydney ran under the Pacific.Wait, let me check Google maps.
Horses have legs: an advantage over wheels in broken terrain, where there's not enough traffic to justify a road. However, in 25 years or so, when Boston Dynamics' legged bots are larger and cheaper, I'm sure those horses will wind up in the glue factory.They really are using "Heavy Horses", for logging in some places nowadays. I guess there's still some Luddites around who haven't succumbed to your charm.
No, you were quoting, such fantastical numbers, from so many different countries. But, I'm well aware that Melbourne to Sydney. doesn't run across the pacific. It's just that so much of what you post seems like crap to me, that I don't read it very carefully..Shrug, I'm not the one who thought Melbourne to Sydney ran under the Pacific.
One douche went 40 yards at Kitty Hawk, and people reimagined the whole transportation world, did they not?Two douches go a 100 yards or so in this so called hyper loop [and] you have the whole transportation world re-imagined...
A 747 burns 125,000 lbs of fuel per five-hour flight. Some high-traffic air traffic routes handle 30,000+ flights per year. One single hyperloop link can replace all those flights, with a net savings of several hundred million pounds of fuel.
Feel free to correct me, but I believe that was in 1903. And again, if my math is correct, that's 117 years ago..One douche went 40 yards at Kitty Hawk, and people reimagined the whole transportation world, did they not?
Dude, I tried reasoning with the individual you're quoting, to no avail.30,000 flights per year, assuming a year has 365 days (on my planet it does) would mean 82 flights per day. Which means one flight every 17.5 minutes. I'd really be curious which company makes one 5-hour flight every 17.5 minutes. Also, the exact number of 747 airplanes they need to deploy to maintain one 747 flight every 17.5 minutes on a single route.
Secondly, a 5-hour flight is around 4500 km long. How long will it take to make a tunnel of that size (which will become the longest tunnel of all times)? How much would it cost, along with real-estate, cost of boring and all the expensive infrastructure needed to keep the hyperloop operational? Also, how much fossil fuel do you need to bore a tunnel that is 4500 km long?
How many of gargantuan several-thousand-kilometer long tunnels do you need to replace all the airplanes? How about a tunnel from US to Easter Islands? That shouldn't cost much, right?
You do realize that more than one airline can and does fly the same route? On a busy route,, there may be five or more carriers all handling traffic. The traffic corridor data I gave isn't some wild guess; it's based on actual historical data, and not subject to debate.30,000 flights per year, assuming a year has 365 days (on my planet it does) would mean 82 flights per day. Which means one flight every 17.5 minutes. I'd really be curious which company makes one 5-hour flight every 17.5 minutes.
Quite a bit. However, that's a one-time expenditure. Jets burn fuel year after year after year. And, of course, the first hyperloop-style systems will certainly be over routes far shorter than 4500 km.how much fossil fuel do you need to bore a tunnel that is 4500 km long?
It seems vocabulary comprehension is a lost art. Hint: what do you think the word "pelagic" means when I specified non-pelagic routes?How about a tunnel from US to Easter Islands? That shouldn't cost much, right?
Your 'reasoning' involved attempting to convince me that travelling from Sydney to Melbourne required passing underneath the Pacific seafloor. My apologies for remaining unconvinced.Dude, I tried reasoning with the individual you're quoting, to no avail.
No it didn't. What part of, "I don't bother reading thoroughly all of the crap you post", was unclear to you?Your 'reasoning' involved attempting to convince me that travelling from Sydney to Melbourne required passing underneath the Pacific seafloor. My apologies for remaining unconvinced.