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

Hyperloop Alpha [pdf]

spacex.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 202 posts

Re: Hyperloop Alpha [pdf]

#131

Post by ritchiea »

conanbatt wrote: post #93
spikels wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If not using the bathroom for an hour is an issue you should see a doctor. Not only are there good treatments to alleviate this, but it may be an indication of a serious medical problem. Get it fixed then enjoy life including perhaps the Hyperloop.

I agree with the sentiment, but its part of the disadvantages of this transport. You cant travel with babies or little kids in them, and you certainly cant do it sick. However its not such a big flaw, specially to warrant 63billion to alleviate.

There aren't bathrooms on public transportation either and yet many people still take subway and bus rides that are 35 minutes or longer.

Re: Hyperloop Alpha [pdf]

#132

Post by jevinskie »

eco wrote: post #121
tlb wrote: post #39

He doesn't properly address thermal expansion of the entire system. A long straight steel tube from SF to LA will expand a total of 300 meters over a 40C temperature change. Where does it go?

How does rail address this?

The gaps between each section of rail can be quite large.

Re: Hyperloop Alpha [pdf]

#133

Post by jlgreco »

glibgil wrote: post #114
jlgreco wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bar to malice is important to consider. If the bar is "high explosives or shaped charges", then you are probably okay. If the bar is "a redneck who is bored with shooting stop-signs", then that might be a problem.

Bored people don't shoot guns at trains today. Why would they start?

Are you sure? I imagine most trains these days are pretty tolerant of that, it could easily go unnoticed.

Re: Hyperloop Alpha [pdf]

#134

Post by simonebrunozzi »

jlgreco wrote: post #103
conanbatt wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment, but its part of the disadvantages of this transport. You cant travel with babies or little kids in them, and you certainly cant do it sick. However its not such a big flaw, specially to warrant 63billion to alleviate.

I would gleefully slap another $50-100 onto every plane ticket I ever bought to ensure that there was nobody anywhere on the plane under the age of 16. I can't be the only one...

Only 50-100? I would go as far as 200! :)

Re: Hyperloop Alpha [pdf]

#135

Post by prawn »

sylvinus wrote: post #70

IMHO Musk (or anyone who follows up) should drop the "passenger" version and go with the "passenger plus vehicle" version only. Because right now what people and the press are going to focus on is how small the cabins are, why there are no toilets, etc. On the other hand if you can imagine putting a car in there the claustrophobia argument disappears and you can think straight again...

Disagree completely. I'd ditch the vehicle option. If the earliest forecast is for this to be built in seven years, how much will the driving landscape change in that time? Robo-cars even? This is primarily for commuters who can walk/taxi/rent at the destination. Even travellers will do the same.

If you want to take your car, drive it IMO. When you fly, there is no expectation of taking your car along with you and this should be similar - focus on what we will need rather than on what a minority could fancy.

Re: Hyperloop Alpha [pdf]

#136

Post by newbie12 »

jlgreco wrote: post #103
conanbatt wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the sentiment, but its part of the disadvantages of this transport. You cant travel with babies or little kids in them, and you certainly cant do it sick. However its not such a big flaw, specially to warrant 63billion to alleviate.

I would gleefully slap another $50-100 onto every plane ticket I ever bought to ensure that there was nobody anywhere on the plane under the age of 16. I can't be the only one...

I'm sure that kid will feel the same way about paying for your Social Security someday.

Re: Hyperloop Alpha [pdf]

#137

Post by melling »

blackjack48 wrote: post #52

Location is a primary reason why Musk can claim Hyperloop will be cheaper than high speed rail. As the paper correctly points out, right-of-way acquisition is very expensive. Bypassing major population centers is an easy way out of using eminent domain or expensive tunneling to build the system. The HSR project is required by Proposition 1A to pass through several population centers in the state and have a couple doz…

That's correct. California waited almost 50 years to build a high-speed rail, and now the "that stuff only works in Europe" mentality is going to be painful to swallow. When I was a kid in the 1970's, I'd see shows with Californians bragging about how they loved their cars, and mass transit wasn't needed. It's really kind of embarrassing how Americans couldn't plan for the obvious.

Unfortunately, It's not going to get any cheaper, and only becomes more difficult as the state becomes more crowded. If "Governor Moon Beam" had build his trains in the 1970's like he tried, we'd now be planning for a 300mph maglev by 2030, just like Japan.

Re: Hyperloop Alpha [pdf]

#139

Post by simonebrunozzi »

eru wrote: post #127
fludlight wrote: post #115

Cool concept, but a 500 mile bridge? Elevated transportation routes are expensive [1,2,3]. The utopian dreams tend to give way to an ugly reality [4,5]. The $1 billion budget for land and rights of way also seems wildly optimistic for razing a path through multiple heavily populated metropolitan areas with astronomical real estate prices. And let's not underestimate the tenacity and ingenuity of a determined oppositi…

In Singapore all short haul trains (called MRT) are either underground or on Pylons. Seems to work out well enough there.

Yes (I lived in Singapore for 2.5 years) but they go quite slow. Top speed of the most recent, unmanned MRT (yellow line) is about 65 Km/h.

Re: Hyperloop Alpha [pdf]

#140

Post by newbie12 »

tfgg wrote: post #22
zeckalpha wrote: post #2

Nice font. But looks good so far. EDIT: There's a bit of minimally technical details, but this is neither highly polished (public-perception-focused) nor highly technical (engineer-focused). Is it a good balance or would one of the extremes have been better?

I think the occasional mention of safety on high-speed rail is a bit unfair, considering that good systems like the Japanese Shinkansen have never had a fatal accident: "Risk of derailment is also not to be taken lightly, as demonstrated by several recent fatal train accidents."

There were two fatal high speed accidents just this summer in Europe-- the Spanish one killed 80 people.
Post reply on HN