Can someone explain to me what the point of the hyperloop is??? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-36307781 I mean, haven't we already got a 'tube' like thing that can take people from one place to another, that goes at hundreds of miles an hour? And THEY can go to LOTS of places, not just to and from the two places this thing does... so what's the point?
That mentions the questions about the costs and the worry about that aspect seems reasonable to me. You normally have to multiply these things by 2 to 3 times and, as far as I can see, it STILL only goes between a very few of points, as much as anything because of the speed. I can see the point of a slower and thus more versatile system that could allow different destinations but that's not what's being discussed AFAIK. It's an interesting idea but seems very restrictive as it's presently being discussed. Apart from anything do people NEED to get between those specific destinations in only 30 minutes? I mean, I can see they might like to but that's another matter.
40%. I'm thinking the people who got 90-100% cheated, there are more of them than the next two categories put together. Also got 40% on the one below that was supposedly harder.
It would save a hell of a lot of time. Flying takes three times that long, not including boarding/security etc. Plus as is evident on the chart, flying is the least efficient energy-wise.
It only makes sense in places like LA-SF where gazillions of people travel back and forth every day. NY-DC would be another good one. I've already been in favor of the high speed rail in California, but if this worked it would be even better.
Hmm... s'pose. I can see this sort of technology being used with more stops and, generally, slower speeds, (so you'd have a spiders web kind of arrangement with 'cars/carriages' controlled by computer, presumably), travelling on some stretches at high speed and, on other ones, slower. That would make sense. IOW I can see the point of the technology. I just can't see the point of it if it ONLY goes from 'A to 'B'. Apart from anything how many people will want to go to precisely those places... not many I'm thinking... so they will have to have link-ups at both ends anyway. I'm wondering if that's actually part of the thinking anyway? Y'know, it's a proof of concept kinda deal.
Well, how many people want to go precisely from San Francisco to LA's airport or vice versa? According to Wikipedia (citing Bureau of Transportation), there were 3,660,000 passengers from Sep 2014-Aug 2015. So yeah, quite a few. And yes, linkups on each end of course, from rental cars to BART to shuttle services.
Yes, but that's extrapolating from our current technology, obviously... this whole point of this is, it's a different technology. What I'm saying is that, as I understand the it, the carriages can change direction through different branches, as shown on the page you linked to... It's also mentioned here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop#Notional_routes Several proposed branches were also shown in the design document, including Sacramento, Anaheim, San Diego, and Las Vegas.[2] If that's the case then, as shown there, it should be possible for different carriages of 28 people to go to different destinations in much the same way as trains presently do. The thing is, that multiplies the effective use of the technology markedly. if it's simply supplementing aircraft it's usefulness is reduced and, from what I can see, in a way that's unnecessary. As I say, maybe they ARE thinking along these lines anyway.
Scientists in Canada have built something remarkable... astounding... incredible... they just don't seem to be entirely sure what it is. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/22/age-of-quantum-computing-d-wave
Is that any less true than it is for high speed rail? And this would also depend on what happens with the price of air travel in coming years.
Well, that's an interesting point. With that many passengers you'd have to pay about $166 per trip just to cover the financing charge, (based on about 6% p/a return), plus another, say, 4% p/a if it's amortised over 25 years. That's assuming his $6Bn figure is accurate which seems unlikely, tbh. Even if it is, his $20 per trip is a complete non-starter. $20 per trip with 28 people in a carriage means each carriage gives $560 per trip... that probably barely even covers the staff's wages for cleaning, security, etc. and other direct costs. Even if the $20 covered, say, half the direct costs, (it wouldn't!), you'd only get $10 per trip. You'd still have to multiply the number of people travelling on it by about 25-30 just to cover the rest of the finance charges, i.e. about 90 million passengers p/a or a quarter of a million people per day between just those two destinations. If you could add a lot more destinations and branches, of course, those figures alter considerably but then, you'd need more investment, staff, etc. Just looking at it in practical terms I'd suggest you'd have to charge about $200 per trip for the line as described and that would mean your losses, (because you'd still be losing money), would be manageable in the short term, whilst you add more stops and branches.
Lets ignore inflation and say 200 per passanger works, Is it cheaper than flying and/or faster? If we have a Carbon tax it maybe. But then you add maintnence, safety, taxes (all government levels are going to want a taste), ect. It is good to have options, but unless the tax payers are willing to absorve the risk and much of the loses, I don't think this is going to happen. May as well build more NFL stadiums with tax payer money.
I think the problem, perversely, is the speed. It's like flying in a sense because if you go VERY fast you have to spend a certain amount of time speeding up and slowing down. In a plane you have to spend time getting up and down so it comes to the same thing. In that sense, they're comparable. The other thing is they're saying the 840 passengers per hour covers the amount of people that want to travel but that rather ignores the fact that, if it's for commuting people don't generally want to arrive at 3 O'clock in the morning for work. In reality you'd have very large numbers trying to travel at peak times so you'd carry 800+ people for 3-4 hours a day and then probably half that for the other 20 hours. I've just checked the fare for about the same distance in europe, Frankfurt to Berlin, and it's about $100 BUT that's a line that also carries trains to/from multiple destinations AND it stops at multiple destinations OR you have to change trains during the journey. IOW it's vastly more flexible. If they slow it down, add more stops and routes, then it can work. But the idea of paying an enormous price to belt at high speed between just two places seems a bit... well, daft, tbh.
Looks like Europe(aka we, us, not you guys) found a likely inhabitable planet at Proxima Centauri. Take this sid meier! http://www.universetoday.com/130419/eso-announcement-address-reports-proxima-centauri-exoplanet/
Nice internet on one continent. We claim this system in the name of Spai... in the name of Europe. We'll name it "Europe 2"!
SCIENCE! And, ummm, Corporate Interests!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/w...column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news The sugar industry paid scientists in the 1960s to downplay the link between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as the culprit instead, newly released historical documents show. .... The documents show that a trade group called the Sugar Research Foundation, known today as the Sugar Association, paid three Harvard scientists the equivalent of about $50,000 in today’s dollars to publish a 1967 review of sugar, fat and heart research. The studies used in the review were handpicked by the sugar group, and the article, which was published in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, minimized the link between sugar and heart health and cast aspersions on the role of saturated fat. The Harvard scientists and the sugar executives with whom they collaborated are no longer alive. One of the scientists who was paid by the sugar industry was D. Mark Hegsted, who went on to become the head of nutrition at the United States Department of Agriculture, where in 1977 he helped draft the forerunner to the federal government’s dietary guidelines. Another scientist was Fredrick J. Stare, the chairman of Harvard’s nutrition department.." But even though the influence-peddling revealed in the documents dates back nearly 50 years, the revelations are important because the debate about the relative harms of sugar and saturated fat continues today, Dr. Glantz said. For many decades health authorities encouraged Americans to improve their health by reducing their fat intake, which led many people to consume low-fat, high-sugar foods that some experts now blame for fueling the obesity crisis. “It was a very smart thing the sugar industry did because review papers, especially if you get them published in a very prominent journal, tend to shape the overall scientific discussion,” he said. And in shaping that discussion, "fat" became the main culprit in causing heart disease, and the damage done by sugar was concealed. I'm pretty sure I've heard this before, but this is the first I'd heard of actual communications.
Feathered dinosaur tails http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...athereddino&utm_campaign=Content&sf45504119=1
A star is hurtling towards our solar system and could knock millions of asteroids straight towards Earth http://www.businessinsider.com/star-hurting-towards-solar-system-2016-12?r=UK&IR=T First we elect Trump and now this...
This could really screw up world soccer "Gliese 710 will trigger an observable cometary shower with a mean density of approximately ten comets per year, lasting for three to 4 million years," wrote the authors.
On the other hand, at least fans will be able to look up and see something interesting if said world soccer teams are playing for a 0-0 tie