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

441–450 of 983 posts

Re: Hyperloop

#441

Post by escoz »

MBCook wrote: post #274
venomsnake wrote: post #40

(Figure 1). The only system that comes close to matching the low energy requirements of Hyperloop is the fully electric Tesla Model S. Shameless plug of the day :) So far it does not break too much of the laws of physics and is indeed workable.

I also enjoyed that the vehicle carrying option could hold larger vehicles "like the Tesla Model X".

Not only that, but they would also use a lot of technology that Tesla/SpaceX now has a lot of experience in: battery, eletric engines and turbines, the metal for the ski pads, etc. There's a reason why he is making the plan completely free: he has a lot to benefit if this ever really happens.

I would love to see this happen though, and to see Elon become a trillionaire.

Re: Hyperloop

#442

Post by spikels »

dragonwriter wrote: post #361
dudus wrote: post #333

In Brazil the building of a new high speed train between São Paulo and Rio was just delayed for the third for for lack of interested companies to build the system. The estimated cost is at US$ 17B. There are not earthquakes in Brazil and the length should be around 500km. It seems like a better candidate than SF-LA. just saying,

California is more able to attract interested private operators because the availability of potential passengers with money to spend on fares is substantially greater.

Not sure why you think there would be more passengers on LA-SF versus SaoPaolo-Rio: Greater populations, shorter distances and lower costs ($17 vs 68 billion). Brazilians may be poorer today but they are catching up fast.

Sure there will be private contractors but is there really any private interest in building and/or operating high speed rail in CA? Perhaps Hyperloop will change things but so far it has been government led and financed.

Re: Hyperloop

#443

Post by ars »

pedalpete wrote: post #408
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.

I couldn't find the aquaduct on google maps, but I do see lots of "brown" land, so I guess it's not as heavily farmed as I thought. Not enough water presumably?

Re: Hyperloop

#444

Post by wpietri »

DannyBee wrote: post #384
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.

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…

The reason San Francisco built 269 units in 2011 was not bureaucracy, but that we were at the tail end of a real estate crash. More than 4000 units were started in 2012, and a further 30,000 have been approved. Source: http://www.spur.org/publications/library/article/san-francis...

Re: Hyperloop

#445

Post by escoz »

dudus wrote: post #333

In Brazil the building of a new high speed train between São Paulo and Rio was just delayed for the third for for lack of interested companies to build the system. The estimated cost is at US$ 17B. There are not earthquakes in Brazil and the length should be around 500km. It seems like a better candidate than SF-LA. just saying,

lots and lots of hills and farms between SP/RJ , while in California most of the highway already in place is mostly a straight flat line.

Re: Hyperloop

#446

Post by ngoldbaum »

clebio wrote: post #84

> 4.5.6. Human Related Incidents Hyperloop would feature the same high level of security used at airports. However, the regular departure of Hyperloop capsules would result in a steadier and faster flow of passengers through security screening compared to airports. Ugh. That only seems feasible if back-scatter scanners are the only option (but would you still have to take your belt off and put all metal in a little b…

The TSA phased out all the X-ray backscatter machines due to radiation concerns. All the scanners at airports use millimeter wave radar now. Still the same privacy concerns, but no ionizing radiation and thus no possible health concerns.

Re: Hyperloop

#447

Post by LekkoscPiwa »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #320
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…

For the same reason that Musk needed a huge, free government loan to get Tesla off the ground: without the government, he'd be less rich.

Or maybe - just maybe - without the Government he would have to spend more time and effort to persuade private investors and companies to help him. I think by choosing the Government he choose the path of the least resistance. I don't blame him, just saying, that for the rich getting the money from the Government might be much easier than getting it from the markets. Which would be just another example of why the Government should stay away from the economy.

Re: Hyperloop

#448

Post by dragonwriter »

qohen wrote: post #417
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no. You just made that up. HSR is intended to meet a future need for transportation. The equivalent air transportation infrastructure to meet the same need is believed to cost at least $500bn, according to the environmental impact report. That's making the generous assumptions that this level of air travel is even possible without serious air traffic congestion problems, and the aviation fuel costs do not rise…

The main cost of CAHSR will be the opportunity cost of not having built it. I wonder: this is from an LA Weekly article from 2011 -- I remember it being an eye-opener when I read it back then [1]: The authority had projected that 41 million people annually would ride the train between Anaheim and San Francisco, for example. But currently only 12 million customers fly nonstop on the extremely busy air route between Lo…

> The article goes on to say that Acela gets 3 million riders in the very dense east coast NY/Washington corridor but in less-dense California they were projecting a ridership around 10x of Acela's (!).

And...so? California has dense areas in the north and south and a big (relatively) empty gap between them. California HSR is designed to connect those dense areas. The overall density of the state (or the corridor) is pretty much a side issue.

Re: Hyperloop

#449

Post by ibudiallo »

tinco wrote: post #438
ibudiallo wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill gates can reach for his wallet and fund this. He won't even notice it. Someone get me his phone number right this moment.

Bill Gates has more important things to spend his money on than moving rich americans from somewhere in America to somewhere else in America.

I live in los angeles and the proposed price is cheaper than taking a cab from the LAX to my place (4 miles). So no, this is not to help rich americans.

Re: Hyperloop

#450

Post by QuantumGood »

Most fascinating likely medium-term event: The hyperloop will be built outside the US, most likely in China, after changes and development that help China claim it as primarily Chinese in design.
Post reply on HN