Something interesting my friend said: this would make an awfully good roller coaster.
Could that be a path to getting it prototyped, profitably?
Hyperloop
741–750 of 983 posts
Re: Hyperloop
#742The aerodynamic power requirements at 700 mph (1,130 kph) is around only 134 hp (100 kW) with a drag force of only 72 lbf (320 N) Mind blown.
But that's at a pressure of 100Pa (1/1000 atm). How much power does it take to maintain a vacuum of 1/1000atm in a tube hundreds of miles long? It seems this point is skipped over in the whitepaper, so perhaps its negligible. Edit: yes I was referring to the power to sustain a vacuum in a leaky system, of course no power is required to maintain a vacuum in a perfectly sealed system :)
Sections 4.2 and 4.5. It estimates the cost of vacuum pumps for the tube and stations at $260 million. I haven't seen if they've broken out costs to maintain the pumps, but it specifically also mentions compensating for minor leaks with higher pump capacity to be able to continue operating and fixing smaller leaks as part of routine maintenance.
Re: Hyperloop
#743So, a sealed tube from A to Z, passing B through Y. No benefit to B through Y at all. So why do B through Y allow the tube to pass through? When railways happened, B through Y believed they would see economic benefit, and often did. They got a station. Not so here, correct? There for, wouldn't this need a government to force it through? How would that happen in the USA? To me this is where the idea runs in to the buf…
> No benefit to B through Y at all. So why do B through Y allow the tube to pass through? Easy. You pay them.
Easy? Think it through.....
Who? How much? All the same? When?
Then imagine all the people from B to Y who see an opportunity to screw the project for huge amounts of cash. Decades of lawyers arguing in court over every conceivable point, or opportunity.
And that before environmental, and god know what else, groups get involved.
Sorry, no, not easy at all. Not even slightly.
Re: Hyperloop
#744Earlier quoted context omitted.
This system would seem very weak to criminals / terrorists / whatever firing bullets at it. It would be exceptionally difficult to track where the shot/s came from, and it would cause serious pressure problems.
As opposed to aircraft sitting on the tarmac, which are not subject to such problems?
Aircraft sitting on the tarmac doesn't have to take off if it has been shot at. In the process of taking off could be more of a problem, I suppose. On the other hand, at least airports are a relatively small area to keep secure.
Re: Hyperloop
#745Just finished reading the pdf and now I understand why this is by far the most popular HN post for a long time (ever?). I now post my feeble comment to be lost in a sea of enamored nerd buzz. Fucking awesome, Elon.
Can you explain? I'm at job and don't have that many time to read whole PDF.
Re: Hyperloop
#746Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be great, all you need is 1 country somewhere in the world to prove viable and it becomes a much safer political prospect elsewhere. Until a major accident at least like with Fukushima and nuclear.
You mean Chernobyl and nuclear, or Three Mile Island and nuclear? Both of those had already soundly killed the prospect for large-scale nuclear power in the US long before the earthquake in Japan.
I guess so, from what I read it was starting to turn around again with more projects before the earthquake.
Re: Hyperloop
#747Why not build a tube around the span of earth? A joint world project.
Re: Hyperloop
#748Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Among other things, rail is worthless in CA, because you need a car to get anywhere anyway. Which is one reason a not-insignificant part of the HSR plan in California is improving commuter rail and other connecting mass-transit systems that will interface with HSR, to reduce exactly that problem.
LA seems way too big and spread out to make that work.
Break your existing mindset about LA :)
Just metro: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Spring-20...
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County_Metro_Rail
Re: Hyperloop
#749Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that should definitely be 2.10 meters
From the pictures, 1.10m heigth with 1.35m width looks more right; in any case, there's no simple typo: If the feet are correct, (6.11 ft), then it should be 1.86m, not 1.10m (or 2.10m as you suggest.) If the meters are correct (1.10m), it should be 3.61 ft (not 6.11 ft).
Wouldn't they write 6 foot 11 inches as 6.11 (eventhough it's confusing and wrong). Because that would make it 2.10 meters.
Re: Hyperloop
#750"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…
Interesting point that big government provoked the advancement of the hyperloop idea - counterintuitive idea, and clearly yes. but any idea like this will need government cooperation. The real test of big government will be how they respond to the hyperloop. magic response: "of course we may be wrong, we'll look into this immediately." and then they decide to build it. likely answer: praise, perhaps even an evaluatio…
The reason this will never be built is because it's incredibly unproven. At least with HSR the unknowns are sort of understood and the costs can be calculated. Nobody knows what the unknown costs are with Hyperloop.
Not to mention safety. Nobody is going to just trust Musk to say it's safe. There will be a decade of trials to test it before it even gets green light approval for a small practically useable section.