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

401–410 of 983 posts

Re: Hyperloop

#401

Post by rayiner »

melling wrote: post #59
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…

So, we have "light shed" on the current "debacle" and neither system gets built. That's a win? HSR was first commerically available in 1964. Yes, it got really expensive waiting 50 years. I imagine it'll be even more expensive in another 20-30. California is going to get even more crowded.

California will get more crowded, but it will continue to be a disaster of urban planning, limiting the utility of HSR.

It's mind boggling to me that the California HSR isn't being built from DC to Boston instead.

Re: Hyperloop

#402

Post by dnautics »

jfb wrote: post #366
slacka wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“The man who moved a mountain was the one who began carrying away small stones.” -Chinese Proverb I've lived in China for over 3 years, and spend countless hours riding the HSR system. HSR combines the speed of a plane, with the cost and convenience of a regular bus. Traveling through the countryside of China at 380km/h made me feel like I was in the future. Coming home and seeing the the sad state of our infrastruct…

I don't see Hyperloop's constituency; there really aren't that many people who want to commute to work in SF from LA and can pay the roundtrip Hyperloop cost who can't pay the $80 on Southwest from Burbank to SJC. The problem with CAHSR isn't the "HSR" part, it's California's utterly dysfunctional political system, and going faster and putting the track up on pylons isn't going to cut through that morass without a st…

$20/trip amortized cost. So, probably a more correct ticket price is $50-$60.

Re: Hyperloop

#403

Post by ewoodrich »

afriesh123 wrote: post #376
ewoodrich wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was approved by a ballot measure, so in this case it may be the "idiocy" (or will) of the voter. http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition...

BTW - the link disproves your point somewhat - voters approved a $10bn train, which is now expected to cost over 10x that. Brings into question what exactly they approved, or what it means to "approve" if there is no cost control in the approval.

I don't have a point really, I'm just saying this was a publicized ballot measure at the time and not carried out against the voters' will.

And as I said in above comment, the $9.95 billion was for the initial bond issuance. The estimate on the ballot was $40 billion versus the current estimate of between $98.5 billion and $118 billion.

Re: Hyperloop

#404

Post by jfb »

dnautics wrote: post #402
jfb wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see Hyperloop's constituency; there really aren't that many people who want to commute to work in SF from LA and can pay the roundtrip Hyperloop cost who can't pay the $80 on Southwest from Burbank to SJC. The problem with CAHSR isn't the "HSR" part, it's California's utterly dysfunctional political system, and going faster and putting the track up on pylons isn't going to cut through that morass without a st…

$20/trip amortized cost. So, probably a more correct ticket price is $50-$60.

It seems to me that to really force the issue, you'd need to be talking an order of magnitude difference in cost. For $20 r/t, ears would perk up -- even people who aren't making a $1/yr salary could conceivably afford that. But $120?

Re: Hyperloop

#405

Post by theoh »

jcromartie wrote: post #236

Does anybody else wonder how easily the rotor will slot into the stator at 700 MPH? It looks like pretty small tolerances. Maybe guide rails leading up to it?

I'll believe anything now I've seen the videos documenting the Talgo variable-gauge system. Also, the tolerances in terms of distance from track of the Transrapid maglev are pretty good. I wouldn't be surprised if you can fly an air-cushioned vehicle with similar precision.

Re: Hyperloop

#406

Post by djcapelis »

dllthomas wrote: post #171

... could CHSRA just build this? I understand they're in the planning stages, and I don't think it'd be absurd to say "this is a train, just better and cheaper". Edited to add: My question was primarily legal - if someone were to step up and demonstrate this was feasible could it possibly make a difference?

New laws would have to be enacted to amend some of the requirements of the funding sources. Both federal and state. Potentially another ballot measure as well.

But frankly if the project polled well enough, you might be able to make it a reality.

Re: Hyperloop

#407

Post by rayiner »

flomo wrote: post #385
threeseed wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]…

Counterpoint: rail that doesn't run through urban areas is far less useful. There is a reason Amtrak is taking over the northeast corridor: it's tough to beat to convenience of being able to walk from your office in manhattan to your office in DC without ever leaving public transit.

Re: Hyperloop

#408

Post by pedalpete »

ars wrote: post #353

"by placing solar panels on top of the tube, the Hyperloop can generate far in excess of the energy needed to operate." He seems to be planning to build this over farmland? Because farmers aren't going to be happy about someone blocking their light. Light is the limiting factor in plant growth. If he's going to block the light to farms he'll have to pay them for the lost crops, and then he might as well just buy the…

I've driven from LA to SF and back along I-5 a few times, I recall lots of cattle farms, I don't recall ass much agriculture (though their definitely was some).

At the same time, the aquaduct runs along I-5 for a considerable length. I think building along the aquaduct would make a lot of sense. I'm assuming that land is already owned by the gov't, and is already somewhat protected along it's length.

Re: Hyperloop

#409

Post by dnautics »

dragonwriter wrote: post #313
spikels wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed ANY project will require government support. I just don't see many governments supporting competing projects. So if CA HSR gets built competing projects, such as Hyperloop, are unlikely to get the required government support. Make sense?

> I just don't see many governments supporting competing projects. So if CA HSR gets built competing projects, such as Hyperloop, are unlikely to get the required government support. Given how long it takes to build large scale infrastructure, and given that Hyperloop is still at a primitive stage as technology (the fact that the paper just released calls, as a next step, for reduced-scale testing to demonstrate the…

"its true that HSR being built would reduce the problems that provide the incentives to build Hyperloop."

not true at all, since, it would be too expensive to run at volume to help any significant amount of traffic and too expensive for most actual real-world commuters to use (they would just fly at that expense). It would reduce one problem: obtaining a right-of-way, by virtue of making it impossible.

Re: Hyperloop

#410

Post by hyperbovine »

rayiner wrote: post #401
melling wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, we have "light shed" on the current "debacle" and neither system gets built. That's a win? HSR was first commerically available in 1964. Yes, it got really expensive waiting 50 years. I imagine it'll be even more expensive in another 20-30. California is going to get even more crowded.

California will get more crowded, but it will continue to be a disaster of urban planning, limiting the utility of HSR. It's mind boggling to me that the California HSR isn't being built from DC to Boston instead.

Uhm, LA alone has more people than DC and Boston combined. Plus another 9 million living in the Bay Area. This is far and away the most obvious candidate for direct HSR in all of North America.
Post reply on HN