3 ms·
If the drawing has the correct scale, it looks like you will have to lie down going through the tube. Futurama-esk.
by treve 8y ago
If the drawing has the correct scale, it looks like you will have to lie down going through the tube. Futurama-esk.
- ceejayoz 8y agoI think that's just a depiction of the three kilometer test track.
- microtherion 8y agoSince both accelerating to 900kmh on such a short track and decelerating will involve multi-g forces, maybe this will be the most comfortable travel position.
- ip26 8y agoI think it's the opposite really, you black out at much lower g forces when accelerating head first compared to face front. Not proof of anything but notice rocket crew always face front.
- microtherion 8y agoInteresting! But presumably in this setup, one would experience both significant acceleration AND deceleration. Is there any static orientation that would minimize problems for both?
- chki 8y agoWell, sideways or rather upright (possibly in a seating position) is probably better but seems not very aerodynamic. I think those are the three possible orientations. But I mean are we seriously considering a transportation system where part of the journey is a black out/red out? The time gain by accelerating with 5g instead of 1g can't be that big (Maybe a few minutes at most?). Edit: I'm not sure if there's an error in my calculations but with 1g acceleration it should take about 25s to get to 900km/h? That seems ok.
- microtherion 8y agoI agree with your calculations, but with an 1g acceleration for 25s, the train will travel a bit more than 3km, and getting to the end of the track (which is 3km according to the article) at close to 900km/h is unlikely to lead to a happy outcome. If my math is right, in order to accelerate to 900km/h and decelerate to a stop again, all on a 3km track, requires acceleration/deceleration of a bit more than 2g.