Live data from Hacker News

Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

techcrunch.com

481–490 of 517 posts

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/private-rail-operators-using-pub... Has a total net of -£225M from Virgin in 2013/4. This shows them as still being net-subsidised: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25757/rail-fin...

Both of those are including the Network Grant; note the ORR document gives Virgin Trains East Coast as paying a net premium in 2016–7 (which I hadn't been able to find figures for before) even including the Network Grant. Note that apportioning the Network Grant based on percentage of track access charges isn't entirely fair: Virgin Trains notably pays above average per km as a result of funding agreements for the WC…

> Both of those are including the Network Grant

The result is that Virgin (as a whole) gets more from UKGOV than it sends back as shown in UKGOV's own figures.

> isn't entirely fair

You want to argue with UKGOV and their own numbers, go ahead, but it doesn't change what they currently are.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#482
post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Branson owns both an airline and a high-speed rail service. I can't speak to the airline but the rail service is universally reknowned in the UK as "piss poor", especially since they get huge government subsidies.

Are you kidding? The Virgin carriages are insanely nicer than all the other ones; they feel like airline cabins, while other carriages feel like buses.

Having used Virgin West Coast many times since they took over, sure, they are better than some. When they're not reeking of urine because the toilets have leaked -again-. Or when the aircon isn't broken. Or when the heating isn't broken. Or when the toilets actually work. Or when you can actually use a carriage because they aren't 200% overbooked due to Virgin's utterly insane customer hostile "peak" restrictions and the ridiculous waste of space by empty first class carriages.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#483
post #96
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me be more precise: not ones that 1) will hold a vacuum and 2) are available in the 3+ meter diameter that the hyperloop requires and 3) provides the smooth inside surface that the hyperloop requires and 4) are economically viable.

This kind of Hyperloop criticism is commonplace, but strikes me as intellectually lazy. Did you read Robotbeat's link? Particularly with respect to to the MNLC Bellows Expansion Joint. > 1) will hold a vacuum Plain wrong. > 2) are available in the 3+ meter diameter that the hyperloop requires This is a simple manufacturing problem, although calling a "problem" seems like an overstatement. Obviously not everything to…

Thank you for posting this. With all kinds of matter-of-fact comments confidently declaring the impossibility of feasible hyperloop implementations, a lot of those arguments turn out to hinge on random, idiosyncratic details that are not at all the dealbreakers they're made out to be.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, the リニア will cut travel time between Tokyo and Nagoya from about 100 minutes to 40 minutes, which is a big difference for people who do business between those two regions.

That's insane. If you didn't have to switch trains for Philly (30th St) to NYC, an avg ride could take a bit than 100 min if there are only around 7 stops the entire way (normal stops would make the ride like 2 hours). Reducing those numbers by more than half would be incredible. Even if this is just a pipe dream and there isn't a direct train between the two cities right now anyway.

I think straight line distance of NYC -> DC is a little further than Tokyo -> Nagoya, but even the current Nozomi Express Shinkansen would be a huge improvement over Amtrak.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#485

Maglev in a tube is a proven technology at full train scale. Here's the Chuo Maglev from the inside.[1] 500KPH in tunnels. They're not pumping down the tunnels, just plowing through on sheer power and money. The Chuo Maglev makes the Hyperloop One look like a toy project. Watch the video. They have a production-quality train, with tourists and whiny kids riding it, going 500km/h. They've hit 603km/h in tests, but don…

Turn radius is mostly a cost question. If you want to get from city A to city B the most direct path has zero turns. It's also got stuff you want to avoid to save money.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#486

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/news/private-rail-operators-using-pub... Has a total net of -£225M from Virgin in 2013/4. This shows them as still being net-subsidised: http://orr.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/25757/rail-fin...

Both of those are including the Network Grant; note the ORR document gives Virgin Trains East Coast as paying a net premium in 2016–7 (which I hadn't been able to find figures for before) even including the Network Grant. Note that apportioning the Network Grant based on percentage of track access charges isn't entirely fair: Virgin Trains notably pays above average per km as a result of funding agreements for the WC…

The problem is it's a separate organization spending the money. So, while you can point to cost aka actual spending it's unclear what the net benefit from that spending is.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment may seem flippant, but honestly it seems like people are more eager to be right than aspirational these days.

It's not about being right, it's about pure attitude - "why this can't work" vs. "let's talk how can we make this work".

I don't think people are actually that defeatist. If it came to a difficult situation in their own lives, I bet they'd rise to the occasion, but they'd rather see others fail than succeed greater than they did.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's right to use figures that can change to disprove an Elon Musk concept. If you did that back in the day, you would say there's no way Tesla could work because the cost of batteries is prohibitive and the supply too limited.

Yes, but we could see that batteries needed to get X better in order for us to achieve Y results in the future. But how much better do vacuum chamber technologies have to get before you can make the biggest one ever built, that also has a high-speed capsule traveling through it, that is also impervious to armor piercing bullets? Furthermore, imagine if every airplane had to fly the exactly same path, and if any failu…

I don't know the answers to these questions, but what I do know is:

1. Elon Musk has thought about them more than we have.

2. If his initial concept turns out to be incorrect in some way, he will change it until it is workable.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#489
post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lateral acceleration is much more annoying to deal with than longitudinal or vertical, even if it's constant. Perhaps they could tilt in bends to convert some of that lateral to vertical?

Yes, and with no windows, there's zero correlation between acceleration and visual cues. That's a perfect recipe for motion sickness.

Our local trains have cars that can lean a bit on their own. Bank the track a bit, lean the car as needed, the humans on board don't recognize a turn unless they're watching intently out the window.

Re: Hyperloop One Becomes ‘Virgin Hyperloop One’

#490
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of Hyperloop criticism is commonplace, but strikes me as intellectually lazy. Did you read Robotbeat's link? Particularly with respect to to the MNLC Bellows Expansion Joint. > 1) will hold a vacuum Plain wrong. > 2) are available in the 3+ meter diameter that the hyperloop requires This is a simple manufacturing problem, although calling a "problem" seems like an overstatement. Obviously not everything to…

RE 4, there are also two "kinds" of economical viability: the fundamental one, derived straight from physical limits, and the usual "market couldn't be bothered with it" one. Knowing Musk's companies, he cares only about the former, and is willing to push through the latter. Thanks to that, fully electric cars with reasonable range are now not only a possibility, but a desirable product every other car company wants…

Just so. In the 1990s I was part of a group called the Space Access Society, which was a bunch of cranky but idealistic rocket scientists (and enthusiastic amateurs; John Carmack was a constant presence with his Armadillo Aerospace) trying to foster cheap access to space by any means possible.

These efforts were regarded with huge levels of skepticism / disinterest / dismissal from NASA and the mainstream aerospace industry, which consistently confused the second kind of viability with the first. When these people couldn't raise and/or manage the funds to actually implement their ideas, this was regarded by many as proof of the physical impossibility of cheap access to space. Most of the industry regarded them as crackpots.

Then Elon Musk came along and proved the crackpots right and the industry wrong. He could do this because physics was on the side of the crackpots and always had been, even if the market was not. That's a necessary but not sufficient condition; what he also needed -- and just barely had -- was the financial resources and organisational capacity to go up against the market and win.

There are aerospace forums[1] where one can still find smatterings of the old guard insisting that Elon Musk is just a smoke-and-mirrors phenomena; that spaceflight will always be intrinsically expensive because physics (in a hand-wavey, strictly no-calculations kind of way) says it must be so; that the only reason his rockets are cheap is because he's underpaying his workforce and working them to death; that it's impossible to re-use a rocket -- seriously, they're still saying this, even after it's been done three times already; that the Shuttle proved that reusability can never lower the cost of spaceflight, etc. etc. etc.

Some of these people have PhDs in aerospace engineering; some of them have worked on the space shuttle. No matter: they're in the throes of a cargo cult, and they're wrong. Physics are right.

Do the numbers. Engineering is done with numbers. Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.[2]

1: forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php

2: http://spacecraft.ssl.umd.edu/akins_laws.html

Post reply on HN