3 ms·

>> "ET3 has already built mock-ups and prototypes and is planning a 3-mile test run by the end of 2013." Every time I've heard Musk talk about this I thought i

>> "ET3 has already built mock-ups and prototypes and is planning a 3-mile test run by the end of 2013." Every time I've heard Musk talk about this I thought it was something that we wouldn't see for another 10-20 years. A test this year would be fantastic. Of course with regulation/law no matter how quickly they build it we might not see it in use by the general public for a long time. As we don't know many details I can't be sure but could this be Musk's answer to long-distance green travel? He already has the solar panel company (providing green energy to buildings etc.), Tesla (green cars), ET3 (green airplane replacements). I'm not sure if this was his aim but owning each of those markets would be pretty amazing. Edit: It might take some convincing to get people to use this though. My first thought when it said it could travel at 4000MPH was "if anything goes wrong with this I'm dead". A lot of effort/cost will need to be put into maintaining the system as at that speed even a minor flaw will most likely cause fatalities.

andrewingram 13y ago
In fairness, if something goes wrong at 100MPH you're probably dead too, so beyond that point the difference isn't that important.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  I understand that but most people don't think that logically :)
  - andrewingram 13y ago
    Yeah, I suspect that's going to be the problem.
DoubleMalt 13y ago
"If anything goes wrong with this I'm dead" does not deter people from driving 100 mph on free ways and boarding planes.
- lsiebert 13y ago
  Cars can drive around obstacles. Planes don't have set paths. But if some terrorist asshole blows up the tube, your are screwed. Heck even if it's just punctured, the compression wave of air pushing into the evacuated tube might be enough to kill you, no crash needed. That said, it would be awesome for nonvolatile freight.
  - y4mi 13y ago
    a 20 seconds full stop (as mentioned on their website) combined with compartments in the tubes which automatically close if the vacuum is breached would reduce that risk.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  Both those things offer a chance of survival (just look at the number of uninjured survivors in the SFO crash a few days ago). And in a car you also have control of the speed. At 4000MPH I don't think there is any possibility of survival and the kind of mistake needed to cause an accident at those speeds is probably very small. It may not sound completely rational but I think it's something that a lot of people will think about.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    Counterpoint: many people will find going 4000mph unbelievably cool (just as with planes, I suppose).
    - schnaars 13y ago
      Just as in fighter jets, wouldn't 4000 MPH put a tremendous strain on the body?
      - jonathlee 13y ago
        It's not the speed that puts strain on the body, it's the _change_ in speed (i.e. acceleration). You are currently going ~67062 MPH around the sun and probably didn't notice. If you suddenly slowed down to 4000 MPH around the sun, you would definitely notice that. ;-). (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=356 http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=356)
dirktheman 13y ago
When the first cars came out in early 20th century people thought exactly the same thing. The mindblowing speed of 20 mph was far too dangerous for common man!

andrewingram 13y ago

In fairness, if something goes wrong at 100MPH you're probably dead too, so beyond that point the difference isn't that important.

k-mcgrady 13y ago
I understand that but most people don't think that logically :)
- andrewingram 13y ago
  Yeah, I suspect that's going to be the problem.

DoubleMalt 13y ago

"If anything goes wrong with this I'm dead" does not deter people from driving 100 mph on free ways and boarding planes.

lsiebert 13y ago
Cars can drive around obstacles. Planes don't have set paths. But if some terrorist asshole blows up the tube, your are screwed. Heck even if it's just punctured, the compression wave of air pushing into the evacuated tube might be enough to kill you, no crash needed. That said, it would be awesome for nonvolatile freight.
- y4mi 13y ago
  a 20 seconds full stop (as mentioned on their website) combined with compartments in the tubes which automatically close if the vacuum is breached would reduce that risk.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
Both those things offer a chance of survival (just look at the number of uninjured survivors in the SFO crash a few days ago). And in a car you also have control of the speed. At 4000MPH I don't think there is any possibility of survival and the kind of mistake needed to cause an accident at those speeds is probably very small. It may not sound completely rational but I think it's something that a lot of people will think about.
- lukifer 13y ago
  Counterpoint: many people will find going 4000mph unbelievably cool (just as with planes, I suppose).
  - schnaars 13y ago
    Just as in fighter jets, wouldn't 4000 MPH put a tremendous strain on the body?
    - jonathlee 13y ago
      It's not the speed that puts strain on the body, it's the _change_ in speed (i.e. acceleration). You are currently going ~67062 MPH around the sun and probably didn't notice. If you suddenly slowed down to 4000 MPH around the sun, you would definitely notice that. ;-). (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=356 http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=356)

dirktheman 13y ago

When the first cars came out in early 20th century people thought exactly the same thing. The mindblowing speed of 20 mph was far too dangerous for common man!