5 ms·

"The engineering has never been a problem, vacuum-tube trains are an idea that's been around for centuries. [1] Removing friction and air resistance is a simple

by jahnu 9y ago

"The engineering has never been a problem, vacuum-tube trains are an idea that's been around for centuries. [1] Removing friction and air resistance is a simple physics problem" "simple" Getting to Mars is a simple delta-v engineering problem. Nuclear fusion is a simple magnetic field engineering problem. Self driving cars are a simple programming problem. Don't ever change, Hacker News.

manigandham 9y ago
Ok, we did get rovers to Mars decades ago so I'm sure you know what I mean here, but you seem to be making my point that it's not worth it. Simple isn't the same as easy, but an evacuated train tunnel with air or magnetic tracks does not require new science. The physics are well understood and simple. The hard part is evolving the tech to be reliable and cheap so that people will use it and pay for it - but that doesn't seem to be within economic reach, and that's before factoring in construction and upkeep.
- sigmar 9y ago
  >so putting them in a low-pressure tunnel is not a major revolution. >evacuated train tunnel with air or magnetic tracks does not require new science. The hard part is evolving the tech to be reliable and cheap so that people will use it and pay for it - but that doesn't seem to be within economic reach, and that's before factoring in construction and upkeep. You seem to be suggesting that a) we could have done this before because the tech has always been there. b) we can't do this now because the tech is not reliable or cheap. I'm not sure how you can rectify these two arguments since this tech is more reliable and cheaper now than it ever has been.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    Yes it's possible to build, but no it's not cheap enough to make money on = not worth building. We can build lots of fantastic things today but they would cost trillions so clearly are not a good idea. You also missed the ending about construction + maintenance, those will be the real costs and aren't likely to become radically cheaper.
    - sigmar 9y ago
      To the generations that traveled the world on boats, constructing flying machines that move faster (and required more tech/maintenance) also probably seemed like an unknown of whether it would be prohibitively expensive or not. I'm grateful that they didn't wait long to explore the possibility, which is what Virgin is doing here.
      - manigandham 9y ago
        Maybe I'm communicating poorly here but the tech is not the problem. We don't need to invent anything new, we know how to do it. It does need to get cheaper but the construction and maintenance costs are gigantic and that hasn't changed for any big project over the last century. Jetliners are complex machines but it's the entire infrastructure of airports and traffic control that actually make it possible, which is only viable because people choose to pay for it. Massive infrastructure does not build or take care of itself, and if it did, that would be a far bigger revolution than just building a train.
- rz2k 9y ago
  I had the same reaction to the comment though I don't think I disagree with you. I think it was referring to engineering as simple rather than just calling the science and even a proof of concept as being relatively simple. Reducing the amount of steel used in a bridge or a building is part of engineering. The Concorde wasn’t just a failure to understand what level of demand the world economy could support, it was that they didn’t solve the problems necessary to make it viable at scale. In that way it was not a complete product, it was a proof of concept. Or, another example, it is not market dynamics alone that have changed the economics of what’s feasible with transistors. It is engineering that has made them viable at a massive scale.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    In the end it's all the same. New science, tech, or strategies, it all takes investment which requires a return of some sort so it's hard to imagine any business take this on considering the alternatives that already exist (and are continuing to get better). Maybe governments can invest in this for public good but that seems unlikely politically. For example, nuclear is a great power source and we can definitely invest much more but suddenly solar and wind have beaten the economic curve through constant evolution and are better candidates to explore today.
throwaway231231 9y ago
Thank you. It's always easy till you start doing it.

by jahnu 9y ago

manigandham 9y ago

Ok, we did get rovers to Mars decades ago so I'm sure you know what I mean here, but you seem to be making my point that it's not worth it. Simple isn't the same as easy, but an evacuated train tunnel with air or magnetic tracks does not require new science. The physics are well understood and simple. The hard part is evolving the tech to be reliable and cheap so that people will use it and pay for it - but that doesn't seem to be within economic reach, and that's before factoring in construction and upkeep.

sigmar 9y ago
>so putting them in a low-pressure tunnel is not a major revolution. >evacuated train tunnel with air or magnetic tracks does not require new science. The hard part is evolving the tech to be reliable and cheap so that people will use it and pay for it - but that doesn't seem to be within economic reach, and that's before factoring in construction and upkeep. You seem to be suggesting that a) we could have done this before because the tech has always been there. b) we can't do this now because the tech is not reliable or cheap. I'm not sure how you can rectify these two arguments since this tech is more reliable and cheaper now than it ever has been.
- manigandham 9y ago
  Yes it's possible to build, but no it's not cheap enough to make money on = not worth building. We can build lots of fantastic things today but they would cost trillions so clearly are not a good idea. You also missed the ending about construction + maintenance, those will be the real costs and aren't likely to become radically cheaper.
  - sigmar 9y ago
    To the generations that traveled the world on boats, constructing flying machines that move faster (and required more tech/maintenance) also probably seemed like an unknown of whether it would be prohibitively expensive or not. I'm grateful that they didn't wait long to explore the possibility, which is what Virgin is doing here.
    - manigandham 9y ago
      Maybe I'm communicating poorly here but the tech is not the problem. We don't need to invent anything new, we know how to do it. It does need to get cheaper but the construction and maintenance costs are gigantic and that hasn't changed for any big project over the last century. Jetliners are complex machines but it's the entire infrastructure of airports and traffic control that actually make it possible, which is only viable because people choose to pay for it. Massive infrastructure does not build or take care of itself, and if it did, that would be a far bigger revolution than just building a train.
rz2k 9y ago
I had the same reaction to the comment though I don't think I disagree with you. I think it was referring to engineering as simple rather than just calling the science and even a proof of concept as being relatively simple. Reducing the amount of steel used in a bridge or a building is part of engineering. The Concorde wasn’t just a failure to understand what level of demand the world economy could support, it was that they didn’t solve the problems necessary to make it viable at scale. In that way it was not a complete product, it was a proof of concept. Or, another example, it is not market dynamics alone that have changed the economics of what’s feasible with transistors. It is engineering that has made them viable at a massive scale.
- manigandham 9y ago
  In the end it's all the same. New science, tech, or strategies, it all takes investment which requires a return of some sort so it's hard to imagine any business take this on considering the alternatives that already exist (and are continuing to get better). Maybe governments can invest in this for public good but that seems unlikely politically. For example, nuclear is a great power source and we can definitely invest much more but suddenly solar and wind have beaten the economic curve through constant evolution and are better candidates to explore today.

throwaway231231 9y ago

Thank you. It's always easy till you start doing it.