Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 517 posts

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#151

Post by jfindley »

sschueller wrote: post #3

When are we going to address the elephants in the room? Just the tube alone: - largest pressure vessel in the world. How do you keep it at near vacuum? - Thermal expansion over such a large distance, especially if the top of the tube is warmer than the bottom. - Safety, how does an evacuation look like if the tubes are sealed?. There are many more. Some how I feel like this is a "pipe" dream. Lots of marketing, very…

It's easy to come up with reasons why something won't work.

But, usually, it's more productive to start with the understanding that other people are smart too, and that they may have thought of these problems. In this particular case, I believe that the original white paper addresses these points. I'm not a structural engineer, so I've no idea if their solutions are valid and I'm not saying that it's never okay to criticize, but this reads to me as if you may have fallen into the trap of forgetting that the people who designed this are very smart people, and thus likely thought of the obvious problems.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#152

Post by manigandham »

sigmar wrote: post #142
manigandham wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, we did get rovers to Mars decades ago so I'm sure you know what I mean here, but you seem to be making my point that it's not worth it. Simple isn't the same as easy, but an evacuated train tunnel with air or magnetic tracks does not require new science. The physics are well understood and simple. The hard part is evolving the tech to be reliable and cheap so that people will use it and pay for it - but that does…

>so putting them in a low-pressure tunnel is not a major revolution. >evacuated train tunnel with air or magnetic tracks does not require new science. The hard part is evolving the tech to be reliable and cheap so that people will use it and pay for it - but that doesn't seem to be within economic reach, and that's before factoring in construction and upkeep. You seem to be suggesting that a) we could have done this…

Yes it's possible to build, but no it's not cheap enough to make money on = not worth building.

We can build lots of fantastic things today but they would cost trillions so clearly are not a good idea. You also missed the ending about construction + maintenance, those will be the real costs and aren't likely to become radically cheaper.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#153

Post by waegawegawe »

detritus wrote: post #125
detritus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Branson's missing a d from his almost nominatively-determining name — the guy's got a talent for self publicity over challenging the incumbency, which for the most part he hasn't since launching Virgin Airlines and Megastores, which were both back in the 80s.

Downvotes? Presumably not from Britons or anyone who knows anything about the guys history? So what HAS he done then, other than brand anything he can then offload to third and fourth parties to run the businesses for him? And don't say Virgin Galactic - that's just some clever peripheral branding to encourage the likes of the downvoters here that he is in any way novel or dynamic. He's marketing clever, not strategi…

Well, you're criticizing him for only acquiring things and slapping his brand on them. But the criticism is leveled in the context of him investing in an unproven technology. It seems like your comment would be more apt if he were taking an action that follows the pattern you are criticizing. For example, if he were acquiring a computer company and calling it Virgin Computing or something.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#154

Post by mrguyorama »

nkoren wrote: post #96
lisper wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me be more precise: not ones that 1) will hold a vacuum and 2) are available in the 3+ meter diameter that the hyperloop requires and 3) provides the smooth inside surface that the hyperloop requires and 4) are economically viable.

This kind of Hyperloop criticism is commonplace, but strikes me as intellectually lazy. Did you read Robotbeat's link? Particularly with respect to to the MNLC Bellows Expansion Joint. > 1) will hold a vacuum Plain wrong. > 2) are available in the 3+ meter diameter that the hyperloop requires This is a simple manufacturing problem, although calling a "problem" seems like an overstatement. Obviously not everything to…

HyperLoop does NOT run on an air cushion (remember, the entire tube is supposed to be nearly evacuated!), but instead floats on a maglev track.

He's also missing another requirement: 5) The entire track, including any possible expansion components, valves, inspection hatches, etc etc etc have to be at least mildly tolerant to intentional or accidental damage. Running into a sudden wall of air at 700mph is a good way to destroy any passenger craft in the system.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#155

Post by reacweb »

Pxtl wrote: post #146
Analemma_ wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Musk first said that an LA SF Hyperloop could be built for 1/8th the cost of the equivalent HSR, I chuckled and then waited for the punchline, which still hasn’t arrived. It’s a cool idea and I do want to see more prototypes and feasibility studies, but people need to get off the hype train (no pun intended) and be realistic about the cost.

I'm not saying the hyperloop is a good or bad idea, but any suggestion that it would be cheaper than the equivalent HSR seems utterly insane. How could it possibly be cheaper? You have the same ROW requirements, exponentially more expensive track, and the overhead of the fact that it's brand new technology. The fact that the vehicle itself might be cheaper than an HSR train after the tech scales up is almost an after…

The track should be cheaper because hyperloop has (almost) no impact on existing infrastructures. Expropriation costs for train are huge.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#156

Post by ant6n »

Pxtl wrote: post #139
idlewords wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We can barely build a high-speed rail line effectively...' There is no high-speed rail line in the United States. The nearest thing to high-speed rail is the Acela Express, which hits 240kph on 40km of track. But this is weaksauce by modern standards.

And honestly, if you want to solve the USA's environmental problems, 200kph commuter rail would probably be a better investment than HSR or Hyperloops.

Definitely agree that more, better transit would have a much bigger impact.

But I'd say the problem of commuter rail is frequency, coverage station locations, acceleration, level boarding, dwell times etc etc. Given that line speed is dictated by acceleration and dwell times, top speed is really far down the list of priorities.

Also, top speed of commuter rail is already up to 200km/h (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALP-45DP).

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#157

Post by mrguyorama »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #35
lisper wrote: post #10

All of the Hyperloop development efforts are ignoring the elephant in the room: thermal expansion. If you do the math, the ends of a viable hyperloop track will have to move hundreds of meters [1]. No one has yet advanced even a viable idea for how to deal with that, let alone an actual design. Until that happens, the Hyperloop is vaporware. [1] It's a trivial calculation. The thermal expansion coefficient of steel i…

Musk has addressed this: Similarly, the proposal briefly discusses thermal expansion: as the steel of the tubes heats in the hot California sun, the metal expands. That expansion needs somewhere to go. In high-speed railways, rails are allowed to overlap at the ends, but that’s not possible in the Hyperloop, and so Musk has a different solution: “Specially designed slip joints at stations will be able to take any tub…

Does he not realize that you can't just take up all the slack at the ends? That would mean the pylons nearest the station would be pushed over around 300 feet. How would the hyperloop stay elevated without pylons?

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#158

Post by dom96 »

detritus wrote: post #102
biznickman wrote: post #94

The viability of Hyperloop One should not be the focus in the context of this article. That's not what this is about at all. It's that Hyperloop One needed Richard Branson on board because Elon Musk is creating his own competitor now. This is an incredibly smart move to ensure the survivability of the business from a publicity perspective. Branson has a history of doing things that people thought impossible or just a…

Branson's missing a d from his almost nominatively-determining name — the guy's got a talent for self publicity over challenging the incumbency, which for the most part he hasn't since launching Virgin Airlines and Megastores, which were both back in the 80s.

I don't know much about that, but ever since the 'Traingate'[1] spectacle I've lost all respect for Branson.

1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47fqjA8CwGE

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#159

Post by loceng »

kumarski wrote: post #8

Something I wrote a while ago.... w/ back of the napkin calculations....... Why I wouldn’t invest a money into Hyperloop - Stabilizing a single fault line risk pylon is more than $250K. - How many million are needed for vacuum pumps to evacuate 100+ million cubic feet of of pipe to 100 Pa? - Hot air discharge needs to go somewhere. For every 1 bar pressure, you need ~200 to ~400 cubic meters of volume which is larger…

People often, rightfully so, confuse the misappropriated name of Hyperloop One with Elon's Hyperloop idea, his of which I believe does have sound economics and certainly its pro list outweighs Hyperloop One's technology.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#160

Post by adventured »

detritus wrote: post #125
detritus wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Branson's missing a d from his almost nominatively-determining name — the guy's got a talent for self publicity over challenging the incumbency, which for the most part he hasn't since launching Virgin Airlines and Megastores, which were both back in the 80s.

Downvotes? Presumably not from Britons or anyone who knows anything about the guys history? So what HAS he done then, other than brand anything he can then offload to third and fourth parties to run the businesses for him? And don't say Virgin Galactic - that's just some clever peripheral branding to encourage the likes of the downvoters here that he is in any way novel or dynamic. He's marketing clever, not strategi…

He's worth $5 billion. He's a high-school drop-out dyslexic that started from nothing. He built a successful airline and record label, along with countless successful branded companies whose success partially rides on the vast effort he has put into building his own well-known brand - a substantial feat unto itself.

Yes, golly gee, what HAS he done.

Post reply on HN