12 responses

  1. Shawn Whitney
    April 26, 2012

    Neat idea and traveling to Beijing in a few hours would be awesome – but the infrastructure investment is massive to get it off the ground. Certainly in N. America, where there isn’t even a single Mavlev train, it seems more than unlikely. China loves high tech investments and is hankering to develop its interior in order to overcome the imbalance between the coastal industrial heartlands and the rest of China – a massive country – make it a possibility. But Oster will need some serious connections in China to get taken seriously. I hope he does – the massive increases in international travel for tourism, business and transport, is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. This could be a cleaner, leaner and greener alternative.

    • why06
      April 26, 2012

      right now america would rather everyone never leave their house let alone the country for fear of terrorism.

      Your right this would take an massive investment across multiple nations, most importantly Europ, US, & China, but at a time like this it is out of the question. a shame though.

  2. arpad
    April 26, 2012

    It’s kind of wild sounding and extraordinary claims do require extraordinary proof. Still, there doesn’t appear to be anything fundamentally unsound about the idea.

    Safety would obviously be a big consideration since these things would be traveling quite a bit faster then a speeding bullet, near the outer bounds of what you can expect from a very high velocity rifle round. Almost anything that might happen would result in a pretty good sized fireball.

  3. melling
    April 26, 2012

    Sounds great. However, wouldn’t it be even better if we could travel from New Jersey or Long Island, say 60 miles, into NYC in 60 minutes? That would require a train to average the incredible speed of 60 mph for one entire hour. The beautiful thing with my idea is that it’s not science fiction and we don’t have to invent anything new.

  4. Ivan Malagurski
    April 26, 2012

    Actually this ideas is quite old…it sounds great though I do not think it is feasible in the near future…

  5. dobermanmacleod
    April 26, 2012

    The main problem would not be as much to build long stretches of tubes, but the logistics of stations. BTW, I suggest building underground to avoid right of way problems on the surface (or even elevated). Building underground is easier than it sounds, because a machine can be constructed to burrow through most Earth. May I further suggest streamlining the manufacture of the tubes with automation and synthetic materal (the volume of tube would be enormous).

Leave a Reply

You must be to post a comment.

Back to top
mobile desktop