Better way to travel than the hyperloop?

[NSEP]

Hello bois en babes! The current trending science topic is the hyperloop, wich people think is a cheap and efficient way to travel. But i dont think its better, there are alot of things that are bad about the hyperloop, and i think people are going to learn a lesson someday if they build that thing, like the Hindenburg. Its like shooting a bullet in an expensive gold tube, and then trying to recover that bullet, without a scratch. Impossible. So is there a better way! Oh yeah! It only requires a spaceplane, no super long and hard to make tube. The idea is that the spaceplane goes on a suborbital space to a its destination that is far away. You could travel to the other side of the world in at least an hour. Its cheaper to set up than the hyperloop, and much safer. And its also more of adventure, because you get to feel zero gravity, and you get a very special view from Earth, via your window. And of course, im comparing this to the hyperloop (wich i call the steel tube of death), not to the normal airplanes, wich i think are even safer than the spaceplane idea. What do you think?

[Bill Phil]

Hypersonic airlines...?

[NSEP]

Just now, Bill Phil said:

Hypersonic airlines...?

Or suborbital airlines. It will be travelling through the air for only 20 minutes or so. So not really hypersonic. More suborbital (-; 

[Bill Phil]

5 minutes ago, NSEP said:

Or suborbital airlines. It will be travelling through the air for only 20 minutes or so. So not really hypersonic. More suborbital (-; 

I'm trying to say that hypersonic airlines might be pretty good. 

[NSEP]

4 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

I'm trying to say that hypersonic airlines might be pretty good. 

Yes it could be quick too. But traveling trough the air faster than sound is just not a good idea. I also care about the people, who want to have a comfortable flight. Air turbulance is pretty scary. And a sonic boom is pretty loud from the ground.

[Bill Phil]

7 hours ago, NSEP said:

Yes it could be quick too. But traveling trough the air faster than sound is just not a good idea. I also care about the people, who want to have a comfortable flight. Air turbulance is pretty scary. And a sonic boom is pretty loud from the ground.

It's easier than suborbital jumps, and could be used on a path to suborbital jumps.

You'll have to go faster than sound regardless.

[Dispatcher]

I think the argument for the loop is for boosting a lot of material and cargo to space.  I have my own favorite and its not the loop.  (No, its not the space elevator either.)  Anyway, that said, I do think that space planes are the perfect solution to getting passengers to orbit.

[p1t1o]

I dunno, but the new transport solution just arrived in China really floats my boat, we could super-use it in London, and I bet it would have more of an impact (reducing congestion in cities whilst improving public transport speeds significantly) than a hyperloop (reduced travel times from specific locations).

http://gizmodo.com/china-actually-built-that-crazy-traffic-straddling-bus-1784724612

 

[DDE]

Absolutely anything is better than the Hyperloop. You're really not setting a high bar there.

If I could pick, I'd rather opt for the L-drive. Orbit-capable and requires lasers powerful enough to write on the Moon.

[luizopiloto]

Intercontinental maglevs? no... really... Earth is not that big... A train sliding down a magnetic rail at 800km/h can reach anywhere in less than one day...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wlS3HM1C70

 

Edited August 23, 2016 by luizopiloto

[magnemoe]

The 2g / 0g elevator is my personal one, in an high building you would save time and increase the fun factor of elevator rides by either accelerating with 9.8 m/s or be in freefall. 
 

[magnemoe]

On 3.8.2016 at 1:10 PM, p1t1o said:

I dunno, but the new transport solution just arrived in China really floats my boat, we could super-use it in London, and I bet it would have more of an impact (reducing congestion in cities whilst improving public transport speeds significantly) than a hyperloop (reduced travel times from specific locations).

http://gizmodo.com/china-actually-built-that-crazy-traffic-straddling-bus-1784724612

 

Don't like that idea, yes you save some space but it would be limited too wide avenues with gentle turns because of the large turn radius, you can not use this in normal city streets. At least it look like they dropped the multiple wagons idea who would decrease turn radius to worse than standard railroads. 
You would also need an extra lane for trucks and larger vans or have they using other roads, it would have the same problems as anything tracked in intersections.
I would rather build an elevated rail or subway like they have in Chicago, benefit is that this would work like an normal light train elsewhere and it can be used in normal streets. 

[kerbiloid]

On 03.08.2016 at 2:10 PM, p1t1o said:

http://gizmodo.com/china-actually-built-that-crazy-traffic-straddling-bus-1784724612

How many such charriots can run along the same street at once?
1-2 per several dozens, otherwise you get a permanently moving tunnel of over-buses, with under-buses moving inside. This would look pretty unstable construction.
And what about turning and maneuvering on crossroads? What if the under-bus wants right, while the over-bus keeps forward.

With such bus on a street, they declare all this street as a tunnel with a height limit.
No truck could drive through this bus even if no tunnels, arcs or wires cross the street at all.

An emergency stop would be enough tricky when the cars are moving one above another.

So, such bus solves nothing but creates problems.

About subj:
Nothing looks better than a piped maglev.
Its capsule moves along a fixed route, with predefined speed, without barriers, crossroads.
Absolutely precise, with no random factors. Also it can't fall. If its engine disengages, the carriage just performs an emergency stop.
Again, just imagine how many kittens could stay alive if replace cars, bikes and trains with pipelines.

Planes/spaceplanes regular flights are too subjected to random irresistible factors.
Their capacity is very limited due to energetical requirements. Very hard to save passengers if a plane gets disabled.

And in most cases there is no need in supersonic speed.
Especially when you have a skype and google earth with augmented reality - to lessen cases when you really need to physically travel somewhere.

Edited August 24, 2016 by kerbiloid

[p1t1o]

 

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Don't like that idea, yes you save some space but it would be limited too wide avenues with gentle turns because of the large turn radius, you can not use this in normal city streets. At least it look like they dropped the multiple wagons idea who would decrease turn radius to worse than standard railroads. 
You would also need an extra lane for trucks and larger vans or have they using other roads, it would have the same problems as anything tracked in intersections.
I would rather build an elevated rail or subway like they have in Chicago, benefit is that this would work like an normal light train elsewhere and it can be used in normal streets. 

 

53 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

How many such charriots can run along the same street at once?
1-2 per several dozens, otherwise you get a permanently moving tunnel of over-buses, with under-buses moving inside. This would look pretty unstable construction.
And what about turning and maneuvering on crossroads? What if the under-bus wants right, while the over-bus keeps forward.

With such bus on a street, they declare all this street as a tunnel with a height limit.
No truck could drive through this bus even if no tunnels, arcs or wires cross the street at all.

An emergency stop would be enough tricky when the cars are moving one above another.

So, such bus solves nothing but creates problems.

Ok, ok I surrender! Yes on closer inspection it doesn't sound so hot, its just that riding buses is infuriating in big cities as they almost always have to travel at the speed of the slowest vehicle - usually a bicycle.

 

 

[cantab]

Yeah...planes. The advantage of planes is that there's so much more flexibility in routes. The cost projected for hyperloop is similar to the cost for two major airports, but then when you get more destinations and more possible routes the cost of hyperlooping them all goes up way faster than the cost of airports. Not to mention the world *already* has loads and loads of airports.

The major drawback to current-day commercial air travel is loads of waiting. Waiting to check in, waiting for security, waiting to get your bags back at the other end. Plus the time taken to get too and from the airport. The last time I flew it was about a two hour flight, but that ballooned to fourteen hours door-to-door. I could have driven instead and it would have been no slower. But that's not inherent in the technology, it's an operational issue. It will also be an issue with hyperlooop. You've still got to get to and from the loop stations. And think about what might happen if someone sets off a bomb in a hyperloop car, and I'd say "airport grade" security would be warranted with all the delays and other negative aspects that entails.

[kerbiloid]

Oil is - planes are. No oil - no planes. A question of time/