Sounds really cool. I had read about this sort of concept. And a less credible idea, but intriguing anyway, drilling straight down through the earth to the other side, and using only gravity to provide the needed acceleration and deceleration.
Comment: 1g refers to acceleration rather than force. It's 9.8 meters/sec/sec, or 32 ft/sec/sec. It should take just over 3 minutes of constant 1g acceleration to reach 4000 mph (=5867 ft/sec), from a standing start.
The force required to achieve that depends on the mass of these capsules.
I would think that any small shift in the soil surrounding these tunnels would, uuh, really spoil your day, if you're a passenger.
i would like to ask:-
"what is the problem in present design so that we can have a capsule that can accomodate just people"
there is vaccum in tunnel we can have even a bigger capsule
plz answer in basic terms as i am just a graduate student
This is obviously completely implausible. London's current Crossrail project is costing £1.5bn for 21km of tunnels. For a 4000 mile trans-Atlantic tunnel, that scales to £460bn ($720bn), and that doesn't even include making the tunnel vacuum sealed and the additional cost of building several kilometres under the sea. Adding the fact that maglev track is $40m/km gives an additional $260bn. This gives a $1tn total budget, which is significantly larger than the entire global air travel industry that it seeks to displace. I call snake oil on this. Also, the ET3 has been around since 2007; why is EETimes only reporting on it now?
Why not use this within cities for high-speed package delivery...like they used to have in Paris 100 years ago? They used pneumatic pressure to zip letters along. This could be used to replace couriers, and it would be a lot safer delivering packages than trying it out on humans. It might even enable a proper e-commerce system...Imagine getting deliveries from amazon in an instant...actually wait--4000 mph is still too slow to cross the continent in less than one hour...
For people, a tube built through the oceans would be the safest solution...earthquake proof and relatively safe from human interference. It could float a few dozen metres below the surface.
OOPS, what if the is a small problem problem while YOU are mid-way under the Atlantic...
perhaps a minor vacume leak, or a power outage at the vaccum source... or an electrial outage on the levatation system...
hum, maybe you also consider the use of a straight shot frictionless "tube flight" system that claims to get you anywhere in the world in 44 minutes ??
from 2-A PRESS, Binghamton, N. Y. Thurs., March 24,1966
Rensselaer —UP)— Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute plans a
$70,000 research facility, Project
Tube Flight, to study the feasibility
of high speed, aboveground
tubes for mass transportation.
The U. S. Commerce Department
granted the contract
for the work.
A full working system up and running within a decade? Right, because the planet has infinite financial resources to fund such an adventure.
"space travel on earth" seems like an appropriate description. All the costs (and more) and all the safety risks of space travel -- just to save a few hours relative to an old-fashioned jet aircraft.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.