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

Hyperloop One to shut down

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 490 posts

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#21

Post by aidenn0 »

tunesmith wrote: post #5
aidenn0 wrote: post #2

This is a weird case of Musk being right, in a way. Before the hyperloop paper he was asked about "maglev in an evacuated tube" and he said the economics of that didn't make sense. The hyperloop paper proposed an air-bearing for levitation rather than magnetics, and presumably that doesn't work either; I'm not a mech-e, but I'd imagine the tolerances for an air-bearing are too tight for a tube that is attached to (mo…

I'm out of the (hyper)loop... what was he saying did make economic sense then?

It was supposed to be an air-bearing; there would be some sort of fan that would take air from the front of the car, and move it to the back of the car, diverting some fraction to the bottom of the car for it to slide over (think like an air-hockey table).

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#22

Post by talldatethrow »

stuaxo wrote: post #6

It served its purpose of diverting attention (and so funding) from high speed rail, which is a threat to his business of selling cars. https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1571628269555826688?lan...

I'm from Europe originally, and visit often. And now in California.

You could make Highspeed rail FREE and I'm not sure I would take it. I might. Maybe.

As soon as it costs what gas costs to get to LA from SF ($100 round trip max, so usually $50-33 a person), there is NOOOO way I am ever taking it. Heck, I still need a way to get around once I get there.. so how would the train ever really work for anyone? Now I'm renting a car or taking Uber? Why wouldn't I just take my own car I like. And take more items without lugging them on a train. Without traveling to the train. Without paying parking at the station. Who is this train for?

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#23

Post by darksaints »

aidenn0 wrote: post #2

This is a weird case of Musk being right, in a way. Before the hyperloop paper he was asked about "maglev in an evacuated tube" and he said the economics of that didn't make sense. The hyperloop paper proposed an air-bearing for levitation rather than magnetics, and presumably that doesn't work either; I'm not a mech-e, but I'd imagine the tolerances for an air-bearing are too tight for a tube that is attached to (mo…

How is this an example of him being right? He neither proved that his idea worked, nor did he prove that maglev didn't work.

Obviously he has gotten some things right, which is a good thing. But Musk has an extraordinary track record of being wrong about a lot of things. That, by itself, is not a problem - you lose, you learn, you fix, you win. The problem is that Musk aggressively attacks public policy with his aggressive wrongness:

- Don't invest in surface public transit, we're so close to full self-driving cars and then traffic will be solved! - Don't invest in subway systems, we're gonna build better tunnels for self driving cars! - Don't invest in high speed rail, we could build a hyperloop for much lower cost and it would be 3x faster! - Don't dive in there to save those kids dying in the flooded tunnel, that's dangerous! Trust me, I'm gonna build a submarine that can get them out!

As far as I'm concerned, Musk can be wrong all he wants, but stop fucking with the world's decisions if you're gonna insist on being wrong all the time.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#24

Post by corethree »

talldatethrow wrote: post #22
stuaxo wrote: post #6

It served its purpose of diverting attention (and so funding) from high speed rail, which is a threat to his business of selling cars. https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1571628269555826688?lan...

I'm from Europe originally, and visit often. And now in California. You could make Highspeed rail FREE and I'm not sure I would take it. I might. Maybe. As soon as it costs what gas costs to get to LA from SF ($100 round trip max, so usually $50-33 a person), there is NOOOO way I am ever taking it. Heck, I still need a way to get around once I get there.. so how would the train ever really work for anyone? Now I'm re…

Why would you not take it when it's free? Makes zero sense.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#25

Post by negrit »

paulddraper wrote: post #14
stuaxo wrote: post #6

It served its purpose of diverting attention (and so funding) from high speed rail, which is a threat to his business of selling cars. https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1571628269555826688?lan...

The biggest threat to CA high speed trail is CA high speed rail

CA isn't the only state investing in high speed rail. Elon musk lied to many people in many states with his Hyperloop project.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#26

Post by hnbad »

thechao wrote: post #12

There is a world where we dig tunnels under federal highways, and stick freight trucks down there. They'd run on a monorail, at 120+ mph. Surface vehicles would be dramatically limited in terms of height, width, and length. Maybe people buses could go down there? In my imagination these tunnels are, like, 200' down. Like mole people.

If the US rail network wasn't in such a state of disrepair and freight trains weren't miles long to cut labor costs, you wouldn't even need to dig tunnels for them. That also saves the cost of digging those tunnels and actually making them safe (i.e. having service tunnels, ventilation, fire escapes, fire suppression systems, etc etc). And of course with tunnels you'd want rail anyway because you don't want to be stuck trying to extinguish a battery fire in a tunnel 200' under the city.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#27

Post by cowthulhu »

thechao wrote: post #12

There is a world where we dig tunnels under federal highways, and stick freight trucks down there. They'd run on a monorail, at 120+ mph. Surface vehicles would be dramatically limited in terms of height, width, and length. Maybe people buses could go down there? In my imagination these tunnels are, like, 200' down. Like mole people.

I feel like trains are similar in a lot of ways, and many orders of magnitude cheaper. That’s definitely cool to think about though!

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#28

Post by ghaff »

KerrAvon wrote: post #13

There is technology for fast rapid mass transit: high-speed rail. Technology was never the issue here. Political will to fund, approve right-of-way, and build it was always the problem, and Musk never even tried to address that part.

In a country with long distances, a well-developed interstate highway system, and a well-developed air transport system. There is a decent rail system in the Northeast and between some other city pairs. But there isn't and shouldn't be the political will to develop rail transport options that don't outcompete those other options especially with electric/autonomous driving becoming an increasing option over the coming decades.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#29

Post by talldatethrow »

corethree wrote: post #24
talldatethrow wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm from Europe originally, and visit often. And now in California. You could make Highspeed rail FREE and I'm not sure I would take it. I might. Maybe. As soon as it costs what gas costs to get to LA from SF ($100 round trip max, so usually $50-33 a person), there is NOOOO way I am ever taking it. Heck, I still need a way to get around once I get there.. so how would the train ever really work for anyone? Now I'm re…

Why would you not take it when it's free? Makes zero sense.

Because it's a way worse experience than taking my own car. Maybe if they paid me I'd take it. If they paid enough.

Re: Hyperloop One to shut down

#30

Post by resolutebat »

hnbad wrote: post #26
thechao wrote: post #12

There is a world where we dig tunnels under federal highways, and stick freight trucks down there. They'd run on a monorail, at 120+ mph. Surface vehicles would be dramatically limited in terms of height, width, and length. Maybe people buses could go down there? In my imagination these tunnels are, like, 200' down. Like mole people.

If the US rail network wasn't in such a state of disrepair and freight trains weren't miles long to cut labor costs, you wouldn't even need to dig tunnels for them. That also saves the cost of digging those tunnels and actually making them safe (i.e. having service tunnels, ventilation, fire escapes, fire suppression systems, etc etc). And of course with tunnels you'd want rail anyway because you don't want to be stu…

The US freight rail network is in excellent shape. It's the passenger network that's in shambles.
Post reply on HN