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

Hyperloop speculation – launch assist for electric aircraft

electrictakeoff.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–46 of 46 posts

Re: Hyperloop speculation – launch assist for electric aircraft

#41

Post by Nogwater »

ronaldx wrote: post #13
Aqueous wrote: post #4

Elon Musk said it was nearly impossible to get injured in his system. Which means that any aircraft travel is out, because all it takes is an engine failure to kill everyone on board. The safety reason is a big reason why I'm going with the underground tubes between LA and SF.

Flight is still the safest form of transport (per passenger mile, it's hardly even close) e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/736582.stm Engine failure doesn't kill people, because you can typically glide to a landing. Speculatively, if you got your glide ratio perfect and launched high enough, you might not need an engine to get between LA and SF.

That would be one hell of a glide ratio. A little research on Wikipedia tells me that modern sailplanes get a glide ratio of something like 50:1. It's roughly 350 miles from LA to SF, so you're looking at launching from about 37,000 ft. This sounds doable, but I don't know if it really works like that. Can they keep the same glide ratio at that altitude? What about weather conditions? What about Elon's claim of 30 minutes for the trip?

Re: Hyperloop speculation – launch assist for electric aircraft

#42

Post by khafra »

batemanesque wrote: post #22

why is everyone taking this thing so seriously? correct me if I'm wrong but it seems so vague as to not deserve the current hype, regardless of who Musk is

It's a lot more fun to imagine it won't be a massive, Segway-level disappointment; plus he has a history of making big promises and delivering. Also, I think humanity is just ready for teleportation technology, now.

Re: Hyperloop speculation – launch assist for electric aircraft

#43

Post by kineticfocus »

lke wrote: post #32
zokiboy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop

So Musk himself decribed it as a "cross between a Concorde and a railgun and an air hockey table". So why do people keep talking about tubes ? Wouldn't a Ground Effect Vehicule ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_vehicle ) fit the descripton better ? Edit : thought a self powered super-sonic GEV would be hard to pull of.

one of the more appropriate links...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rotrain

Re: Hyperloop speculation – launch assist for electric aircraft

#44

Post by eyesee »

thomasjoulin wrote: post #5
Aqueous wrote: post #4

Elon Musk said it was nearly impossible to get injured in his system. Which means that any aircraft travel is out, because all it takes is an engine failure to kill everyone on board. The safety reason is a big reason why I'm going with the underground tubes between LA and SF.

I don't think it can be underground, since Musk said it would cost $6 billion to build. Also, the plan is to build something similar for east-west coast travel, and underground would be even less possible.

I do wonder if there's something specific about LA to SF that enables the low low cost Elon's suggesting. Like the fact that they share a coastline with the Pacific Ocean.

The $6 billion cost seems too good to be true for any transportation system that would require significant land acquisition. California is set to spend some $60 billion on a train between these cities, and most of that cost is for right-of-way.

Re: Hyperloop speculation – launch assist for electric aircraft

#45

Post by Aqueous »

ronaldx wrote: post #13
Aqueous wrote: post #4

Elon Musk said it was nearly impossible to get injured in his system. Which means that any aircraft travel is out, because all it takes is an engine failure to kill everyone on board. The safety reason is a big reason why I'm going with the underground tubes between LA and SF.

Flight is still the safest form of transport (per passenger mile, it's hardly even close) e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/736582.stm Engine failure doesn't kill people, because you can typically glide to a landing. Speculatively, if you got your glide ratio perfect and launched high enough, you might not need an engine to get between LA and SF.

Anything looks good next to cars :-)

But yeah, flight is comparatively one of the safest ways to travel. But, in principle, it is still quite risky. A lot has to go right for an aircraft to successfully take off, fly, and land. Air speed must be maintained, the engines must remain mechanically sound, landing gear must be operating correctly, hydraulics on the wing and tail flaps must be operating, the pilot must be competent and alert. Countless systems must be working correctly. Any one of these things going wrong can result in mass casualties. Statistically our standards of operation are so high that flight is effectively safer than the automobile or trains or even lightning, as the article points out. But 1 in 12 million is still far from the effective 100% safety that Musk is promising for hyperloop.

Re: Hyperloop speculation – launch assist for electric aircraft

#46

Post by TsiCClawOfLight »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #40
TsiCClawOfLight wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has something similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid The Asian maglevs are german engineering.

Not like Asia is awash in maglevs, I think the shanghai airport link is the only commercial one.

I think Japan is working on one, but I might be mistaken. But yes, the Shanghai one is german. :)
Post reply on HN