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

Hyperloop

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 983 posts

Re: Hyperloop

#221

Post by pradocchia »

dkulchenko wrote: post #57

That capsule ( http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2013-08-12/0812_Hyperloop_605.jpg ) looks like a claustrophobic's nightmare. Otherwise very, very cool.

There is in fact a proposed passenger plus vehicle capsule:

The passenger plus vehicle version of the Hyperloop will depart as often as the passenger only version, but will accommodate 3 vehicles in addition to the passengers. [p12]

The passenger plus vehicle version of the Hyperloop capsule has an increased frontal area of 43 ft2 (4.0 m2 ), not including any propulsion or suspension components. This accounts for enough width to fit a vehicle as large as the Tesla Model X. [p15]

Tubes would be bigger, and the system would cost more.

Re: Hyperloop

#222

Post by jcromartie »

dictum wrote: post #99

I'm impressed, but I'm afraid Hyperloop's operation is modeled after airplanes, while the actual use of the system would be closer to a city bus. >All capsules would have direct radio contact with station operators in case of emergencies, allowing passengers to report any incident, to request help and to receive assistance. In addition, all capsules would be fitted with first aid equipment >Typical times between an e…

> What happens if a suicide bomber boards the Hyperloop?

What's the point? Bombing this system would be unspectacular, and thus probably unlikely. Terrorists are in it for the spectacle.

Re: Hyperloop

#223

Post by hristov »

pjungwir wrote: post #47

The key advantages of a tube vs. a railway track are that it can be built above the ground on pylons and it can be built in prefabricated sections that are dropped in place and joined with an orbital seam welder. Did anyone else read this and imagine laser beams fired by satellites?

I do not get this part. These are not advantages of tube v railway track, because a railway track can also be built above ground and can also be build from prefabbed sections. In fact I would think that building a railway track would be much cheaper than building an airtight tube.

Re: Hyperloop

#224

Post by Anechoic »

goodcanadian wrote: post #188

I am intrigued, but not overwhelmed. Many of his reasons why his hyperloop is superior to high speed rail are not specific to the hyperloop. For example, you can put railway tracks up on pylons, too, with very little impact on the ground. It is common to do this in urban areas, but it is rarely done in rural areas because it is flat out cheaper to put it on the ground. I don't believe that an experimental tube is goi…

I don't believe that an experimental tube is going to be somehow magically cheaper and easier to route and build than train tracks.

Do you really think the special interests that are making HSR so difficult and expensive would say, "Oh, do whatever you like with your tube."?

These are extremely important issues that advocates seem to be glossing over. Putting the guideway on pylons doesn't magically eliminate land issues, you will still have to deal with visual impacts, along with any number of anticipated and unanticipated problems.

Musk should do what the Germans did with the TR0x series of maglev vehicles, build a 10-20 mile test section someplace and demonstrate that is analysis is sound.

(perhaps more in the future--why wouldn't California design with this goal [350 km/h] in mind?)

There are a variety of reasons, but one important reason I have to deal with is that the speed of shear waves through soil is only on the order of a couple of hundred miles per hour. When a train exceeds the shear wave speed, ground-borne vibration waves "build up" in a manner similar to the shock wave created in air when a plane exceeds the speed of sound, causing a ground-borne vibration equivalent of a "sonic boom" that can cause problems for wayside structures. I believe the French have started to experience this with some of their higher-speed TGV experiments and we don't have a good way to handle this yet.

Re: Hyperloop

#225

Post by CamperBob2 »

cma wrote: post #193
aaronmarks wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the report: "...with capsules departing as often as every 30 seconds from each terminal and carrying 28 people each. This gives a total of 7.4 million people each way that can be transported each year on Hyperloop."

Eventually hits up against this problem: http://books.google.com/books?id=DenWKRgqzWMC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA...

Question: if speeding up the ski lift cars makes the lines longer, why wouldn't slowing them down make the lines shorter?

These arguments always seem to presuppose that the status quo is optimal, and ignore the limiting cases.

Re: Hyperloop

#226

Post by jere »

pjungwir wrote: post #47

The key advantages of a tube vs. a railway track are that it can be built above the ground on pylons and it can be built in prefabricated sections that are dropped in place and joined with an orbital seam welder. Did anyone else read this and imagine laser beams fired by satellites?

I immediately imagined drones in FTL. Some shoot lasers, others shoot beams, and a few can repair your own ship while orbiting around it.

Re: Hyperloop

#227

Post by HNaTTY »

featherless wrote: post #77

Thought this was amazing: $20 for a one-way, 35 minute trip from SF to LA.

$20 is the unsubsidized 20-year-amortized cost of building the thing, there would be additional costs to run it, not the least of which being insurance.

Re: Hyperloop

#228

Post by uptown »

Really interesting proposal. How do you maintain the tube when something needs repair? You need to shut the whole system down, don't you?

Re: Hyperloop

#229

Post by jeffasinger »

goodcanadian wrote: post #188

I am intrigued, but not overwhelmed. Many of his reasons why his hyperloop is superior to high speed rail are not specific to the hyperloop. For example, you can put railway tracks up on pylons, too, with very little impact on the ground. It is common to do this in urban areas, but it is rarely done in rural areas because it is flat out cheaper to put it on the ground. I don't believe that an experimental tube is goi…

The tube is not nearly as wide or heavy as a traditional train, so I don't know that it's fair to say that you can just as easily put a train up on pylons as you could this tube.

It's interesting to think about, but also there are probably much higher costs associated with a completely untested system like this than estimated. I wouldn't be surprised if this system, if it actually worked at all, ended up being more expensive than a HSR proposal through California that actually made sense.

Re: Hyperloop

#230

Post by simonw »

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #206
aresant wrote: post #32

"In the case of the Hyperloop, Musk started focusing on public transportation after he grew disenchanted with the plans for California’s high-speed rail system." And who says that big government stifles entrepreneurial innovation? If ALL Musk does with the Hyperloop announcement is shed more light on the potential debacle that is to be our $70b+ high-speed rail in California, we owe him a debt of gratitude. PS - Dire…

but why to ask California State for subsidy? Why not to build it using private funds? I'd imagine that if this is economically sound idea there must be potential investors lining up to have their share in the Project? The estimated cost is $7B. Now, Musk just needs to make a few calls to his friends at Google, Amazon, etc. Can't these guys just form a company together just to build it? Maybe I'm naive... or maybe Mus…

You need government backing to acquire the land.
Post reply on HN