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

681–690 of 983 posts

Re: Hyperloop

#681

Post by LockeWatts »

mortehu wrote: post #623
apendleton wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is just back-of-the envelope, admittedly. But the three factors that determine how many people you can move past a given point per unit of time are the frequency of the vehicles, the capacity of the vehicles, and the speed of the vehicles, so if you want to match the throughput of the proposed Hyperloop, but with rail traveling at 164mph, you have to either make the vehicles more frequent or higher-capacity,…

> the three factors that determine how many people you can move past a given point per unit of time are the frequency of the vehicles, the capacity of the vehicles, and the speed of the vehicles Why is speed relevant?

Because it's per unit of time. The faster you go, the higher throughput you'll have.

Re: Hyperloop

#682

Post by LockeWatts »

jessriedel wrote: post #399
jim-greer wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On trains the cars have to be connected to each other. The structure has to bear the load of all of them at once. Not the case with hyperloop.

It's totally implausible that that's the primary factor.

Why? You've given no explanation.

Re: Hyperloop

#684

Post by chourobin »

QuantumGood wrote: post #450

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.

at least they can build proof of concept for us

Re: Hyperloop

#685

Post by LockeWatts »

robomartin wrote: post #675
aphelion wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is all rather absurd given that the Western European nations that haven embarked on major infrastructure projects in recent decades tend to have higher rates of unionization as well as stronger labor and environmental regulations than the United States. That Europe has high-speed rail and the United States doesn't can hardly be chalked up to unions.

European unions do not behave as American unions do. They seem to know how to balance their wants with the idea of allowing their host to survive, grow and succeed. American unions tend to extract as much blood as possible out of their hosts. They are really selfish, to the point of causing terminal damage. Look at the cities they've killed off.

Can you take your political opinions and shove them down a dark hole somewhere? Most people are here for a discussion of the technology, not your rhetoric.

Re: Hyperloop

#686

Post by krrrh »

joshAg wrote: post #487
mcintyre1994 wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, fair enough, cheers for pointing that out. I'm in the UK and we're pretty well connected by rail, I wasn't expecting the alternative to be that ridiculous, just normal slower trains.

In the US, rail is optimized for freight, not people.

I don't know why the parent got downcoted. US rail freight is the envy of the world. You didn't get the European passenger rail experience without some trade offs. Here's a briefing on the subject from the Economist.

http://www.economist.com/node/16636101

Re: Hyperloop

#687

Post by throwaway_yy2Di »

jfb wrote: post #499
joshAg wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, rail is optimized for freight, not people.

Inasmuch as it's optimized at all.

"America's freight railways are... universally recognised in the industry as the best in the world":

http://www.economist.com/node/16636101

Re: Hyperloop

#688

Post by thrownaway2424 »

LockeWatts wrote: post #677
thrownaway2424 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. If Tesla failed, the people own a worthless company. If it succeeds, Musk retains his stake in a valuable company. Compare what would have happened if Tesla needed to raise $500m from private investment at the start. Musk would have been diluted up front.

You're still missing the part where it incurred interest, so it wasn't free in the least.

Musk put $40m into Tesla and his stake is worth billions. The people put $465m into Tesla and their stake is worth nothing, after making a paltry $12m in interest. In addition, while Tesla was paying the government 3% on that loan, they were paying Musk 10% on his loans, in effect shoveling government money directly into Musk's account.

This is a classic example of socializing the risk while privatizing the profits. Yes, Musk is a smart guy with plenty of great ideas and good execution. But he's also plenty good at funneling government money to himself.

Re: Hyperloop

#689

Post by thrownaway2424 »

jarek wrote: post #643
Aloisius wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Really? Because it looks like this is an attempt to derail CA HSR using a proposal for an experimental technology that offers a fraction of what CA HSR does, but is potentially faster. CA HSR replaces/upgrades two metropolitan rail systems…

> CA HSR replaces/upgrades two metropolitan rail systems (Caltrain/Metrolink) in addition to connecting SF (as opposed to Oakland!) and LA, requires no R&D, is supposed to handle significantly greater ridership, has detailed cost estimates which include things like take into account electrification costs (because it does get cloudy), support facilities (because there is maintenance of these cars), administrative buil…

To be fair, Oakland is a much more sensible location of the initial terminal for any rail system. It's very well-connected to SF, has a complete lack of powerful, moneyed NIMBYs, and it would be easy to punch the line through to SF once it's proven.

Re: Hyperloop

#690

Post by robomartin »

rwhitman wrote: post #648
enraged_camel wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm with you that Musk seems to have ignored the human factor when estimating the cost or even the feasibility of the project. But think about how many aspects of our lives it would revolutionize. Simple example: can you imagine what would happen to the SF real estate market if it suddenly had to compete with the LA real estate market? If talented people who live in LA could suddenly commute to and from companies in…

I would say any stop in between the two cities would have a large spike in growth, as they suddenly become viable commuter communities, much like how suburban towns on the east coast grew out of proximity to regional rail lines. Suddenly a little rural truck stop town like Lost Hills becomes a viable commuting suburb.

That's probably true. I could see far more impact in places like that, say, Santa Monica or Irvine.
Post reply on HN