Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,136
- Location
- Woking
Well I'm not sure that's true, but the reality is that we went there.
SpaceX - is it a pipe dream?
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Well I'm not sure that's true, but the reality is that we went there.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,340
well you'd need to build the rocket and launch it anyway to convince your own people, then you'd need to figure out how to convince your sworn enemies who are themselves a well established spacefaring superpower that you did it, or get them on board, either way there'd be too many people to try and keep silent.
It's not just him it's many experts in the scientific community, so the question is do I trust the scientific community, or the fact that non-expert companies and government departments are investing money in it, like they invested money in the absurd solar roadways scam and other snake oil schemes.
I've read the comments section and it's a bunch of musk fanboys whining about how he's such a "downer", it's not scientific rebuttals. Youtube comments section is always a joke.
He didn't say supersonic he said transonic, but quibbling over such semantics is a bit like arguing whether the hurricane heading towards your house is category 4 or 5, it doesn't make much of a difference either way.
Thunderfoot is just debunking the hyperloop as it was proposed, which is fair. If changes have been made making it quite a different project, then that would have course require a separate critique.
Last edited:
How often do you think a leak would occur, at least the sort of size that would actually be dangerous?
The use of oil pipelines indicates not very often!
And once when did solar roadways become “snake oil”? Another tech that is slowly making its way along the development path.
The use of oil pipelines indicates not very often!
And once when did solar roadways become “snake oil”? Another tech that is slowly making its way along the development path.
Oil pipelines aren't under a huge vacuum so not really comparable, quite a different set of failure conditions to this.
Saying that, this seems to suggest ruptures are a fairly regular occurrence along such pipelines, notably sometimes caused by thieves/saboteurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents
The problem is no one really knows how often a structural failure would occur, perhaps the biggest concern is the possibility of a terrorist attack leading to catastrophic structural failure. You only need to look at aeroplane disasters to see how even a relatively small hole in a pressurised vessel can subsequently lead to complete structural failure.
Last edited:
thunderf00t always does what he does make sensational videos to earn money, which contains BS.
And nonexpert companies LOL. what utter stupid logic you use there. You put faith in random people on the internet which are shown to be wrong.
It's called science, which is pretty much the opposite of faith.
Advanced use of solar in installations such as "road ways" in principle are one thing - but the main project trying to push it was/is plagued by issues and over promising on things they can't deliver or haven't made breakthroughs in the tech required, etc.
its realy not, your entire logic is utterly missing and non existent.
its new technology, and yet you call it failed because it hasn't been built in two years. This is insane
Then you use thunderfoot as proof it can't be made, and put faith in him, which again is insane, when its so easy to pick apart his videos.
then you sy any other people pulling apart his BS videos are just idiots, yet ofer no evidence why and do not show why they are wrong.
then you say the peopel working on it are non exerts, yet offer no proof of this at all, again this is insane and lacks any sense of logic.
in other words your entire position is untenable and stupid, just like the single video you base your assumptions on.
Most of those incidents are minor lines rather than major ruptured in major pipelines. You’re right though, the biggest issue would be sabotage/criminal damage, but then that’s already a well known issue andcan cause catastrophic accidents on high speed train lines, so no difference to current transportation risks. I’m betting it would be a lot easier to dump a spare piece of rail, or sabotage points on a regular rail system than put a hole in a large metal tube 20 foot in the air.
Just a note on the progress of hyperloop. In the four years since Musk announced it as a concept they have now built a mile long test track and tested multiple types of capsules, hitting around 250mph (track length is the biggest issue). They are also in the process of/about to build a longer test track and already have plans for several much longer test routes. TBH, compared to most tech it’s amazing how fast they have achieved what they have with it.
Last edited:
Some years back, I watched a lot of video and read a lot of material about the subject. The least nonsensical blathering of the conspiracy belief stuff is cherry-picking and sophistry to avoid the overwhelming evidence and to fool people who don't check anything for themselves. The van Allen belts stuff is a prime example of that. They cherry-pick a tiny fragment of a report written by van Allen about how the radiation levels in the belt would be dangerous and build a very superficially plausible-sounding argument based on ignorance of both the van Allen belts and the moon landings. And they fool people who don't bother to check anything. As you know but many people don't, what van Allen actually wrote was essentially "it would be dangerous so we need to take steps to protect the astronauts" and that's what they did. It's stuck in my head because it was the second thing that I looked at and the first one that convinced me that the conspiracy belief promoters are lying. Not just ignorant but lying. The first thing I looked at was the "no stars in the photos" thing, which could be explained by casual ignorance of conditions on the moon (i.e. that the sky on the moon is black during the daytime because of the lack of atmosphere). But the untrue statement about the van Allen belts has to be deliberate - they had to read the text and deliberately take a fragment out that they could misrepresent. So, lying.
Most believers and people who are uncertain either way are so ignorant of the subject that they think there was only one moon landing, but the people actively promoting the belief are, I am sure, liars and not just ignorant.
At a fairly simple level there are a lot of people who understand professionally the different types of radiation - many who've come to an understanding of their own through experimentation, etc. not just what they've read in books. If it was the problem conspiracy theorists think it is it would have been blown wide open long ago.
You'd also have to invent far more advanced computers to do the necessary CGI and then for some reason completely hide their existence rather than exploiting them commercially. There's stuff on the video that couldn't be faked without close to modern CGI and CGI just wasn't a thing in the late 60s and early 70s. Not even close to existing. The pendulum video, for example. Analogue special effects of the 60s and 70s couldn't have faked that. I suppose it might have been theoretically possible to have artists draw it frame by frame. Maybe. But I don't think so.
Going there was definitely easier and cheaper if you had a boatload of experts, a boatload of money and some very skilled highly trained test pilots willing to take the risk. Which they did.
Not that I believe the moon landing was faked as it would take at least as much effort and resources and probably a lot more to do so - I'm not convinced about the impossibility of faking it graphics wise - the benchmark people use for that is like movies, etc. of the day but something like that would potentially have far more resources and less commercial constraints, etc. and I've seen in isolation visual fakery without using modern CGI that is quite astonishing (the problem there again though is that the number of people and effort/resources required to pull that off would be almost impossible to hide/keep secret).
I think you need a new pair of glasses because I haven't said any of that!
The scientific community as a whole has been critical of the hyperloop, the reason I quoted his video is because he sums up the conceptual problems with the design so well.
I don't see anyone picking apart his videos in the comments, all I can see are gems such as "u r stupider than anyone evr first thought about you". Maybe you should provide some quotations?
Instead of making these fanciful assumptions about my beliefs, why don't you actually post some kind of scientific rebuttal against the points raised in the video? You come off as incredibly defensive here.
Honestly it's not that impressive when you consider that huge particle accelerators have been operating for decades and motorbikes are capable of 400mph in a normal atmosphere. It's slow and small scale by comparison.
I'll be impressed if we ever see a track big enough to transport people and we see speeds faster than normal land vehicles.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,381
- Location
- ST4
Why bump a six year old thread?
forums.overclockers.co.uk
** The Official Space Flight Thread - The Space Station and Beyond **
With the Space Shuttle program having ended many people have expressed a desire not to lose touch with missions into space. So here we are with one thread to cover: Missions Technology Research Anything else spaceflight related Now that Juno mission is on the way we can look forward...
forums.overclockers.co.uk
Last edited: