100 Percent ELECTRIC POWERED Ultralight

[Niri Te]

Show me a maglev train that will travel at MACH speeds across the Oceans Clarke. And before you bring up the demise of the Concord, might I remind you that the crash of the Air France Concord, did as much to end that aircraft's life, as anything else. What eventually pulled the plug on the design was that the Britts couldn't make any money on it after the crash, not many among the traveling public trusted the plane. The list of Pilot and tower errors that also DOOMED that plane was as long as my arm. THEN there was the GROSS engineering error of NOT armoring the lower surface of the wings in case of just what happened. It reminds me of company's RACING to get the first of a new design into the sky and taking engineering shortcuts. Remember the British Comet, versus the Boeing 707? The Comet made it into the sky first, and then a design flaw reared it's ugly head, with the deaths of MANY people, spread over several crashes. The 707 is one of the safest jets ever to take to the sky. Boeing took their time, and did it right the FIRST time. The Lockheed SST was a better, faster, more fuel efficient design, but the U.S. congress pulled the funding after the Concorde took to the sky, knowing that the flying public could not make two different designs profitable.It was before it's time, there will be a limited fleet of supersonic transports in the future, Boeing leapfrogged the SST and designed an HST "Spaceplane". The Global economies will HAVE to stabilize FIRST.
Niri Te

[Clarke]

Concord burned more fuel merely taxiing to the runway than a modern transatlantic flight uses. It was a publicity stunt. In contrast, RTSC maglevs burn zero fuel, and use a pitiful amount of power compared to a jet aircraft, even at high speed. (Especially if the electrical grid is now superconducting. ) For safety reasons, I think you'd be limited to just under Mach 1, though.

...Except if you put the train inside a tunnel that has been evacuated of air. (Which or may not be underwater.) As long as your tunnel's long enough, and you don't need to stop, hypersonic is slow. For instance, you could get from Paris to New York inside 3 hours quite easily and comfortably. (Accelerations up/down included.) If you want to be less comfortable, e.g. because it's freight, under 1 hour is possible.

[Niri Te]

AGAIN, I said T-R-A-N-S O-C-E-A-N-I-C. I would just LOVE to see what a tunnel laid across the Pacific from L.A. to Honolulu, to Tokyo would do when one of the many earthquakes in the Pacific rim occurred. In the air you are immune to earthquakes. I think you could build a FLEET of SST's for what the aforementioned tunnel would cost, and, again, how long before a 6-0 Earthquake hit anywhere near the tunnel.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Niri Te

Show me a maglev train that will travel at MACH speeds across the Oceans Clarke.

Perfectly doable, especially if you have low pressure or vacuum in an enclosed tunnel.

Originally Posted by Niri Te

AGAIN, I said T-R-A-N-S O-C-E-A-N-I-C. I would just LOVE to see what a tunnel laid across the Pacific from L.A. to Honolulu, to Tokyo would do when one of the many earthquakes in the Pacific rim occurred. In the air you are immune to earthquakes. I think you could build a FLEET of SST's for what the aforementioned tunnel would cost, and, again, how long before a 6-0 Earthquake hit anywhere near the tunnel.

Perfectly possible to build it on the ocean floor, not that differently to the hundreds of submarine cables around the world, although it would just need better armour as cables are regularly damaged by anchors.

A fleet of SSTs is cheaper, sure, but far less efficient when run for the long term. As it is, a zero-fuel SST is impractical without a completely new type of engine as at mach speeds, the air will destroy propellers.