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

381–390 of 983 posts

Re: Hyperloop

#381

Post by bmiranda »

rinon wrote: post #344
dragonwriter wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but why to ask California State for subsidy? Why not to build it using private funds? Because you can't, in practice, acquire the rights of way necessary to build a substantial railroad/hyperloop/freeway or other major infrastructure project of that type without government (specifically, without use of eminent domain).

But as I recall, the gov't can use eminent domain to give land to a private entity if they're in favor of the idea for the "public good." Or am I way off base here...?

Rinon, you are correct. The Supreme Court (perhaps foolishly) decided that private to private transfer of land is permissible under eminent domain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

Re: Hyperloop

#382

Post by corwinstephen »

greedo wrote: post #214
toble wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one advantage of air travel is it's distracting. Busy flight attendants, announcements from pilots, plane moving to the runway, taking off... so there's less reason to concentrate on the lack of space while stuck in the seat.

I'm sure the seatbacks would all have some net connected display for movies or actual computing.

Are you? I wouldn't rule it out, but personally I think getting an outside signal into a sealed capsule which is moving so rapidly that it must use battery power rather than a physically connected power source seems more than trivial.

Re: Hyperloop

#383

Post by cenhyperion »

abruzzi wrote: post #330
stcredzero wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No different than planes.

Except that planes have (supposedly) trained staff that can go around and make sure everyone is getting oxygen. These pods are automated and would most likely have no staff on board.

Putting on an oxygen mask is not a difficult operation.

Re: Hyperloop

#384

Post by DannyBee »

threeseed wrote: post #202
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…

Can you please clarify why the high speed rail is likely to be a debacle ? It seems pretty clear that California needs it and generally HSR is a pretty sensible infrastructure investment.

The same reason san francisco has built like 100 or 200 new housing units in the past year, and the same reason the california coastal commission was being sued (and found unconstitutional, etc):

California has a very large amount of regulatory burden compared to almost anywhere else in the US. High speed rail there is likely to cost overrun by a massive factor, and under deliver by a massive factor, and both, for no actually good reason, instead, only theoretically good ones.

Re: Hyperloop

#385

Post by flomo »

threeseed wrote: post #202
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…

Can you please clarify why the high speed rail is likely to be a debacle ? It seems pretty clear that California needs it and generally HSR is a pretty sensible infrastructure investment.

> Can you please clarify why the high speed rail is likely to be a debacle ?

I don't believe that high speed rail will necessarily be a debacle.

But the route was largely chosen for political considerations. It was decided downtown San Jose, Fresno, and Bakersfield must have stations. (This requires an additional long tunnel, and urban construction is much more expensive.) The route takes a detour through Palmdale[1], an underdeveloped part of Los Angeles County.

The 'straight shot' route down I-5 that Musk proposes was also considered for HSR, and rejected even though it would have been much cheaper and simpler to construct.

[1] http://www.cahsrblog.com/2013/06/the-truth-about-tejon/

Re: Hyperloop

#386

Post by btilly »

milesskorpen wrote: post #237
LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The proposal calls for the line to built alongside I-5, which requires government involvement.

Not alongside. On top of. And all of it needs to be approved for safety in earthquakes.

If you're traveling at 600 mph, you do not want to have that tunnel unexpectedly move even a foot sideways during an earthquake.

Re: Hyperloop

#387

Post by dragonwriter »

skore wrote: post #351
rthomas6 wrote: post #53

I am skeptical of the proposed cost were someone to actually build this. Sure, the cost of materials, labor, engineering, etc. is probably accurate, but something like this has never been built before. What about the cost of research and testing? Not to mention there doesn't currently exist an industry of contractors to build most of the parts of this system, which is not true in the case of traditional high speed ra…

That may be true, but the only thing you really need is to find a company that is willing to build this while chipping in some of the R&D cost. I don't think such a company would be hard to find because if they get this done, they are now the only vendor of a highly desirable technology. Pretty sure they'll be able to get back that early investment... and then some. (And remember - Musk contrasts $6b to what he estim…

> And remember - Musk contrasts $6b to what he estimates could possibly grow to $100b for the current proposal, so even if they end up needing to double their budget, they'd still be off by an order of magnitude.)

Why should we think that Musk's estimates for a technology which still isn't well defined (read the "Future Work" section at the end of the document) are reliable even to within an order of magnitude, and why should we accept Musk's assumption that the actual cost of the HSRA will be 50% higher than its official estimate?

Re: Hyperloop

#389

Post by jessriedel »

apendleton wrote: post #350
goodcanadian wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elevate rail as easily? The short answer is, "yes." I've ridden on it. The slightly longer answer (as another commenter has pointed out) is that it depends on the weight of the train versus the weight of the hyperloop. I see no fundamental reason to assume that the hyperloop is lighter than the train. It could be so, but then, we could make smaller and lighter trains, too (light rail). Plus you don't get the…

You can't just make lighter trains; heavy rail is heavy because it has high capacity. These vehicles can be much lower-capacity per vehicle because the speed is very high, which means you get equivalent throughput even with much smaller per-vehicle capacity. It's just like how you can get the same amount of water through a high-pressure, low-diameter pipe as through a low-pressure, high-diameter pipe. So yes, you cou…

I would be very surprised if the numbers really work out the way you claim: that the weight for carrying a passanger is similar for trains and a tube, and that the weight advantage of a tube comes essentially from 3x speed allowing for a one third the linear density of passengers. Do you have a cite?

Re: Hyperloop

#390

Post by Someone »

dntrkv wrote: post #334
dkrich wrote: post #231

The main reason why air travel continues to be the most practical, cost-effective means of high-speed transport is that the politics involved in connecting two points with a transit system are enough to make you lose faith in humanity. Take for instance, the DC metro system. There is an expansion underway to extend the system west to Dulles Airport, about 30 miles or so from downtown DC. A huge project, no doubt, but…

I like to think (hope?) that when a world changing idea comes along (and if this does work as described, it definitely is world changing), everyone can work together and implement it in a reasonable time frame. I think one of the reasons many projects take so long to complete, like the California HSR, is because the cost to benefit isn't all that great. It has no advantage over flying and little to no advantage over…

When a world changing idea comes along, there are always parties that stand to lose from it (1). If those parties are good capitalists, they will oppose the change. That is what stops many good ideas in their tracks.

(1) yes, a change could be an absolute net win for everybody, but it cannot be a relative win for everybody. In many cases, people will prefer to have less, as long as 'the others' have even less.

Post reply on HN