What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Elon Musk's Hyperloop - SF to LA in 30 mins (1 Viewer)

Doctor Detroit said:
This system is like the tube you use at the drive through bank teller. Now imagine you are the three $100 bills...

Seems like this would super easy to derail, and an easy terrorist target. If it derails everyone is essentially porridge.
Click to expand...
Just like an airplane.

Trains, buses, cars etc kill thousands every year

If this can be done at a 10th of the cost of the "High Speed Train", then people would be foolish not to at least investigate further.

Wouldn't need staff on board, just at either end, so labor costs would be lower

Fuel wouldn't be a problem if it is solar powered or even mainly solar powered.

The only question in my mind is whether someone can actually build one of these, probably in a much shorter area to test out the feasibility first eg try a 100 mile trip first and iron out any kinks.

Could be a white elephant, but most new ideas tend to get laughed out of town at first.

The Springfield monorail sequence is the first thing I though of too, but this yahoo article discusses the whys and hows well

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/elon-musk-tesla-boring-compared-hyperloop-build-now-145517257.html

When I got home last night, I read every page of Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk's 57-page plan for the Hyperloop.

My conclusion: It's a great idea, and we should start working on it today.

Why?

Because most of the initial objections to the plan are lame. They could have been--and no doubt were--said for all major transportation systems.

To wit:

  • "The $6 billion cost estimate is not realistic." Yes, the Hyperloop will probably cost many times as much as Musk says it will. If so, it will still be relatively cheap. The new "high speed" train California wants to build is supposed to cost about $70 billion, and that estimate is no doubt absurdly low, too.
  • "Some of the technologies have not yet been fully worked out." Of course they haven't. You could say the same for any ambitious technology project. That's not a reason not to start trying to work them out.
  • "There will be challenges acquiring the necessary land and permits." Of course there will be challenges--these and other ones. Just as there were challenges acquiring the necessary land for our Interstate and other road systems, train systems, airports, telecommunications and electricity infrastructure, and other projects. If a necessary prerequisite for any project is that there not be any "challenges," nothing would ever get built.
  • "It might not be completely safe--California is an earthquake zone." Of course it won't be completely safe. No mode of transportation is completely safe. Tens of thousands of people die in car accidents every year. Planes crash. Boats sink. Buses tumble off mountain roads. People will almost certainly die on the Hyperloop. But that means it will be just like every other transportation system.
  • "There will be political opposition." Of course there will be political opposition. There is political opposition to everything. But sometimes, miraculously, stuff actually gets done.
  • "It will probably cost a lot more than $20 to ride." Yes, it probably will cost more than $20. But driving, flying, or taking the train between L.A. and San Francisco will also cost you a lot more than $20. And those things take a heck of a lot longer. And unlike most of those methods of transportation, the Hyperloop will have very low operational costs (most of the cost is in the infrastructure). And that means that "peak" pricing could be much higher, while off-peak is a steal.
  • "It will be a terrorist target, and it will be easier to blow up than planes." Almost certainly true! Terrorists will no doubt try to smuggle bombs aboard Hyperloop capsules and blow them up while they're whooshing along at 760mph. Other terrorists will try to blow up Hyperloop pipes in the hope that a few capsules will go flying out at 760mph. And, someday, some terrorist will probably successfully disable the Hyperloop. But the same can be said for terrorists and planes, trains, buses, boats, and cars. And people still ride in those things.
  • "It might not be viable, so it might be a waste of money." Of course it might not be viable and might therefore be a waste of money. We might get to the prototype phase and then discover that the costs are actually prohibitive or one of the key technologies actually can't be developed. We might discover that people might not care enough about getting from San Francisco to L.A. in 35 minutes to allow the Hyperloop to charge enough to operate profitably. (If this happened, then the Hyperloop really would be like other transportation systems--Amtrak, for example). But all projects might not work. All projects might be a waste of money. That's why investing is risky. Again, if a requirement of any project be that it has to work, nothing would ever get done.
In short, all of those objections are the same sort of objections that you hear any time you suggest doing anything. None of them are obviously a good reason not to start work on the Hyperloop.

At the same time, there are many excellent reasons to start work immediately:

  • The Hyperloop would be the first truly revolutionary new transportation system in half a century.
  • The Hyperloop could radically change the time and cost equation for travel and transport between nearby cities.
  • Hyperloop technology, once perfected, could be sold and deployed worldwide.
  • The Hyperloop would create lots of jobs, from technology to manufacturing to construction to operation.
  • The Hyperloop would deploy some of the hoarded capital that is currently rotting away in corporate bank accounts, thus recirculating it into the economy.
  • The Hyperloop is an exciting, inspiring project that would command the attention of the world for years. Don't underestimate the impact of this. People get excited about things that are cool, especially as they become reality.
Is the Hyperloop actually technically feasible and would it work the way Elon Musk says it will work?

I have no idea. I'm not an engineer.

But so far, I have not heard any engineer say that what Musk describes is impossible. And a lot of what Musk has already accomplished in his lifetime might once have been described as "basically impossible" -- and that hasn't stopped it from happening.

So, come on, entrepreneurs and financiers! Let's make the Hyperloop happen!

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/start-hyperloop-today-2013-8#ixzz2brLqqzOC

And watch the video above to see if Blodget thinks he'll ever get to ride on the Hyperloop.
Click to expand...
 
John Maddens Lunchbox said:
  • "It will be a terrorist target, and it will be easier to blow up than planes." Almost certainly true! Terrorists will no doubt try to smuggle bombs aboard Hyperloop capsules and blow them up while they're whooshing along at 760mph. Other terrorists will try to blow up Hyperloop pipes in the hope that a few capsules will go flying out at 760mph. And, someday, some terrorist will probably successfully disable the Hyperloop. But the same can be said for terrorists and planes, trains, buses, boats, and cars. And people still ride in those things.
Click to expand...
Honestly this is my biggest concern, but if we let this be the reason we don't try then the terrorists have already won.

 
Spanky267 said:
I hope one of the scientists in here can explain how you can travel at 800mph and not break the sound barrier?
Click to expand...
Two factors they mention... the temperature of the air, and that the air is itself moving.

The speed of sound in a gas varies with the temperature of the gas. In air at 32 degrees it's about 740 miles per hour. At 70 degrees it is 770 mph, and at 113 degrees it is 800 mph.

The other thing is that they apparently plan to blow the air through the pipe so it is moving the direction the people are traveling.

As a person standing on the Earth you are moving at over 1000 mph due to the Earth spinning on its axis, well over the sound barrier. You don't break the sound barrier though because the air is also moving at 1000mph in the same direction that you are. It is your motion relative to the air you are traveling in that matters.

So if they make the air in the tube blow at, say, 50 mph, the pod can go 50 mph faster without hitting the sound barrier than an object that was moving through the stationary air outside.

 
squidrope said:
Maurile Tremblay said:
Why Silicon Valley funds Instagrams, not Hyperloops.
Click to expand...
Interesting article.
Click to expand...
Indeed, wish I'd read it the first time through this thread.

While it's still very early, things have shifted track a little, according to this Forbes article. Basically, (1) some pretty serious people have started gathering money for the test track mentioned by cstu a couple of posts above and (2) the focus has now shifted to freight and away from people transportation.

That second point is really interesting. We spend billions and billions on long distance freight hauling in this country so it is a ripe target. The minute a line opens (cost estimates $45.3 million/mile :o ) it becomes a cash cow. Maybe even more importantly, hauling freight negates the safety fears of the general public. A container of lumber or coal doesn't get motionsickness and if it crashes it's just a mess that has to be cleaned up -- nobody dies. This is the same tactic Google is going to use to get driverless car technology accepted by the general public -- the first things we'll see in general use are delivery bots carrying packages from place to place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lot's of  :nerd: 's fighting in the comment section. But I'd happily ride the death tube if I can get to vegas in 30 minutes.

 
Typical haters in the comment section "Nothing special, this tech can been around for decades". 

 
the reason this will never get built is driverless cars will become widespread and someone is going to figure out you can just dedicate a special driving lane for driverless cars which can safely travel at ultra high speed.  they'll get those up to 300 mph and you can travel from san fran to LA in about an hour at a tiny fraction of the cost of your now-useless death tube.

 
Unless the track for them is enclosed, the top speed for driverless cars has been estimated at about 125 mph, IIRC. Above that wind resistance cuts way down on fuel efficiency. Of course, those are solvable problems, too.

The issue I've seen with Hyperloop is that carrying capacity is so low that the ROI isn't enough to cover the initial construction costs. The initial plans for the death tubes are to carry only 28 passengers at a time. How many pods can you launch in a 24 hour cycle? I don't know the answers but this is really fun stuff.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ron Swanson
Requesting the wisdom and creativity of the mighty FFA - Cryptex clues.
Replies
16
Views
488
Dr. Octopus
Dr. Octopus
Joe Bryant
  • Locked
  • Poll
How Long Will Twitter Survive With Musk?
2 3 4
Replies
150
Views
5K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Keerock
Best Coffee Maker - Need to retire our Keurig
2 3
Replies
121
Views
5K
Chaos34
Chaos34

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top