Hyperloop
631–640 of 983 posts
Re: Hyperloop
#632Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not alongside. On top of. And all of it needs to be approved for safety in earthquakes. If you're traveling at 600 mph, you do not want to have that tunnel unexpectedly move even a foot sideways during an earthquake.
Not to be nitpicky but if you haven't driven the I-5 theres substantial room between each direction of the freeway so I don't think it will actually be above traffic if that's your concern.
You still need government permission to use the median like that.
Re: Hyperloop
#633Earlier quoted context omitted.
The choice was fast trains or no trains.
Well, fast trains or no new trains. It is still technically possible to get on BART in San Francisco and get off from a train in Los Angeles. You wouldn't choose to do this -- nobody would choose to do this [1] -- but it is possible. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/magazine/14Train-t.html?pa...
Re: Hyperloop
#634Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among other things, rail is worthless in CA, because you need a car to get anywhere anyway. If you can afford to rent a car at the end of your train ride, you can afford a plane ticket. In my opinion, most likely, the CA rail proposal is just a political folly being undertaken by corruptocrats who have ideas to profit from it. Yes, the rail would be useful for poor people who want to visit family, but that is not a b…
> 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.
Re: Hyperloop
#635Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the 2nd through the 5000th? All the cost skeptics want to roll all the R&D costs into one line. That wouldn't be the case.
The 5000th doesn't help the person who paid for the first one. That would be the State of California in this case. Unless Mr. Musk would be willing to sign a contract for expected-10th-implementation-cost and not a dollar more?
Re: Hyperloop
#636None of this is to say that Hyperloop is a bad idea. The idea sounds very interesting and I'd rather spend sixty billion building a Hyperloop --even if it fails-- than the ridiculous California high speed rail project. Cost is probably off by an order of magnitude, if not more. Why? Unions and other groups. Building anything in this country costs massively more (and takes significantly longer) than one could imagine…
> Cost is probably off by an order of magnitude, if not more. Why? Unions and other groups. Building anything in this country costs massively more (and takes significantly longer) than one could imagine because of our unions are not business symbiotic. The goal of union leadership is to extract as much as they can out of the businesses they infect, even if this means their demise. Musk is in the car industry, one of…
That is irrelevant. He did not go into Tesla honoring the contracts that were put into place by GM, Ford, Chrysler and others. Those companies actually have tens of thousands of very well paid workers sitting around --literally-- all day doing nothing due to union contracts dealing with automation and other issues. He, in other words, did not experience the almost surreal lunacy that the full union experience can be.
I'll give you an example of this. Las Vegas Convention Center. Trade show. Small booth, 20 x 20 ft. I needed the lights on top of my booth turned off so that I could control my own lighting. No problem, we can do it for $360 per light. I asked what was involved. The response was that they'd have to throw a switch. Same thing at the RAI in Amsterdam. Free. Same thing in Munich (forgot the name of the venue), free. Same thing in New York City, $400.
Want another example? Again, Las Vegas Convention Center. I could not hookup my own computers. Somehow, magically, once you enter union-land the engineers who actually design the equipment are suddenly incapable of properly connecting equipment into power outlets. No, union electricians have to wire your booth at a massive fee. If you screw around with them they will literally use mafia techniques and shutdown your booth without so much as a hint in the middle of a show. I've seen it happen.
So, yes, again, just because the science is brilliant it does not mean it can be built. I've made that mistake before. I've dealt with city and state governments. I have sold product to the US government as well. I have equipment in places like the White Sands Missile Test Range and other notable spots. In some cases things flow smoothly. This is ALWAYS --and I do mean ALWAYS- the case when unions are not involved. If unions are involved, watch out! Enter surreal nightmare. The only way to have it not be surreal and not be a nightmare is to have some kind of an in or pay off the right people. What, that doesn't happen in the US? Please.
> Again, Musk is building and selling electric cars in a country that LOVES gas guzzlers. His track record would suggest that he knows what he's doing.
Tesla sells 20K cars per year to folks who can afford an $80,000 car. I love what they are doing. I am waiting for their SUV's and will likely buy two of them. But, please, don't make the comparison you just made. The other car companies are selling nearly A THOUSAND TIMES more cars than Tesla per year.
He does know what he is doing. I did not say he is not. I am simply proposing that the Hyperloop might be brilliant on paper but, barring a political, labor, fiscal, environmental and who-knows-what-else miracle it has zero probability of ever being built beyond, perhaps, a very expensive test setup.
>I don't know why you think that this paper/concept only addresses technological issues, because it is clearly much more broad in scope than that.
I don't think it addresses enough of the real world issues. When everything else is cleared off the table you still have to build it in the real world. And I think that's where the real problems lie, not in the science.
Re: Hyperloop
#637Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds vaguely like maglev a couple of decades ago. It too was a neat idea on paper.
Except test tracks have been built or are being built, and it's sure to become a reality sometime or another.
Re: Hyperloop
#638Earlier quoted context omitted.
California will get more crowded, but it will continue to be a disaster of urban planning, limiting the utility of HSR. It's mind boggling to me that the California HSR isn't being built from DC to Boston instead.
Uhm, LA alone has more people than DC and Boston combined. Plus another 9 million living in the Bay Area. This is far and away the most obvious candidate for direct HSR in all of North America.
Boston (4.5M metro area) New York (8-20M depending on how far you stretch the metro area) Philadelphia (6M metro area) Washington D.C. (5.7M metro area)
Re: Hyperloop
#639Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 5000th doesn't help the person who paid for the first one. That would be the State of California in this case. Unless Mr. Musk would be willing to sign a contract for expected-10th-implementation-cost and not a dollar more?
It's pretty common to amortize R&D costs over future expected sales.
Re: Hyperloop
#640None of this is to say that Hyperloop is a bad idea. The idea sounds very interesting and I'd rather spend sixty billion building a Hyperloop --even if it fails-- than the ridiculous California high speed rail project. Cost is probably off by an order of magnitude, if not more. Why? Unions and other groups. Building anything in this country costs massively more (and takes significantly longer) than one could imagine…
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 eventually threw it away. Every time I saw it I was reminded of the huge chasm between ideas and their realization. Sure, if you knew you could not fail you'd do anything. "What would you do if you were Superman?. Same thing. Things are different in the real world.
So, how would LA/SFO change if we had Star Trek transporters?
Not sure. My guess is, not much. SFO real estate is about living in SFO. Just like Santa Monica real estate is about living there. The same being true about Beverly Hills or Hollywood.
The HUGE problem something like the Hyperloop has to deal with are the stations. You can't declare that you are going to have one every ten miles. The real world doesn't work that way. If I have to drive an hour to get to downtown Los Angeles (a place I personally avoid as much as possible) it is nearly a deal-breaker for me. Not interested. I'd rather get on a plane in Burbank.
The nature of Los Angeles is that the talented people you are referring to don't all live within biking distance of a Hyperloop station. Los Angeles talent is seriously dispersed all over the place. I know people who would be interested in working at SpaceX yet don't pursue it because it would take them two hours to get there in real-world traffic and they can't move because their kids go to good schools where they live.
Ultimately, I think that anyone who wants to work in SFO needs to move there or to a surrounding city.
I insist that cargo is where high speed rail belongs in our country. I don't see it happening for passenger transport.