UraniumBlazer

Whose cost would be energy and light wear and tear on the railgun. Which won't be much at all.

(I thought by "travel", u meant having to use spaceships to transport material which would be significantly more expensive).

I'm not rlly that aware of how boring works, so I'll take ur word for it there I suppose.

Any moon mining is going to be expensive because it's the moon. That kind of travel is going to be expensive.

For this tho, u don't have to "travel" anywhere. U just build a one time installation on the moon, which would be expensive. Once it's built, u just launch stuff from the moon using a railgun like system with enough velocity to deorbit it, use the earth's atmosphere to slow down enough that the material doesn't vaporize on a crash landing in a designated location. This would most likely be how we would get our material in the future.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think I explained my position very clearly whenever I disagreed with you.

I did "look into stuff" as you asked. Perhaps I didn't look into the resources that you were talking about. Maybe you should've linked those sources in your post instead of saying "go look it up".

I do listen to what other people have to say. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it always, no? Whenever I disagree, I always explain my underlying motivation.

I really cannot see how I was arguing in bad faith anywhere above.

Don’t parrot what idiots like Musk say.

Aren't you parroting what others say too though? You haven't provided a single PHYSICAL problem. You are just telling me, "it doesn't work that way", without giving a single thesis statement.

And if people tell you there’s huge physics issues, think about that instead of waving it away and say “it’s just engineering”.

I have. I'm not saying that we will have anti gravity spaceships. The physics for anti-gravity simply doesn't exist. I am talking about a vacuum tube. That is the biggest holdup. We have already built small vacuum chambers. The physics is there. HOW is this a PHYSICAL problem?

Give me one single reason as to why the laws of physics prevent hyperloops.

The hyperloop is a dumb project today. Think about it this way: U live in Siberia in the 1600s. U just discovered oil (and also processes to refine it). You most likely would make heating oil from it to keep you warm. But then if I told you that you could also use 1000 times the amount you use in a month to go to America in just a few hours, you would probably call me a dumbass. Would you be right then? Yes. Would you be right now? No.

I don’t think AR/VR will play a big role, I was talking about the acceptance and incorporation of digital systems in our every day lives.

I mean... AR/VR is a step forward in audio/visual IO systems. You technically don't NEED an HD monitor and a good camera to have a video call. But it definitely makes things easier, no? AR/VR right now sucks. Although it doesn't mean that it has to suck 100 years in the future.

Plus there’s already plenty of resources online that go into great detail about all the things that are totally impossible.

None of them talking about the physical impossibility of it. All issues of the hyperloop are economical ones. My premise removes these issues.

as you even start to contemplate this you run into huge issues.

Them being economical issues. NOT physical ones.

They still need fuel, they still produce nuclear waste

Sourcing fuel is incredibly easy if we have a mature nuclear fusion energy supply ecosystem. Most likely, nuclear fuel would be deuterium and tritium. Sourcing deuterium is very very easy. For tritium, you would just need breeding blankets at reactor walls. I don't see how this tech won't be mature a 100-150 years from now. As for nuclear waste, the fusion processes produce negligible waste. It's the breeding blankets that could be the source of waste. They too won't produce waste that would have to sit for more than a 100 years without being recycled/repurposed/disposed off.

the unwarranted fear people have towards nuclear fission

The politics around this is changing slowly. I don't think it would be that many decades before people start liking nuclear fission again.

Agreed. The Concorde wasn't sustainable.

In my premise, energy is abundant. Resources are abundant.

Also, my comment about speed being good was more from a civilisational perspective. Going from running to horses to rail to the plane (for long distances of course) had incredible advantages for humans. My point was that the Hyperloop would be a natural extension to this whenever the resources and necessary tech become available.

Sure, u won't need to mine the moon to do this. But resources would be incredibly cheap WHEN we start mining the moon.

I disagree with the energy part though. I'm pretty sure we would need A LOT of energy to dig continent spanning tunnels. How many drills would we run out of? How much energy would be required to recycle these drills?

The point is, the resources required for Hyperloop construction would be cheaper when we uk... Increase their supply (by nuclear fusion or lunar mining). It would thus be kinda economical then, no?

Terrain won't be a problem because the entire system would be underground in my assumption.

As for the speeds, take s=ut+(1/2 at^2). Take an acceleration of 10m/s. Put in 20min in t. That would be the halfway distance. After that, a deceleration of 10m/s would cover an exact same distance in the exact same time. Sooo the furthest distances can still be covered in less than 40min.

Did u even read the fkin post? Just typical Reddit hive mind mentality smh.

Of course we must build HSR now. That's what I said above. This post is a HYPOTHETICAL. There is an assumption that energy is abundant due to mature nuclear fusion tech. There is also an assumption that lunar mining is a thing. The premise is set a 100 years in the future.

When did I mention building Hyperloops NOW?

Eh we're talking about the future. We might have nuclear fusion engines for all we know. But sure, planes could run on hydrogen in theory. Sooo making them green in a hundred years? Sounds kinda possible, no?

Expensive TODAY. But when we have nuclear fusion and lunar resources? Not really, no?

This would essentially be a trains vs planes debate of the future. Hypersonic planes or mach speed maglev trains in a vacuum?