4 ms·

I think it is funny to hear the objections of all the armchair scientists and commentators. I'm sure glad we have people like you who can see straight to the pr

I think it is funny to hear the objections of all the armchair scientists and commentators. I'm sure glad we have people like you who can see straight to the problems with the Hyperloop that no one has ever thought of. You're right. Let's just give up on this whole idea :|

nether 11y ago
Most of these guys just read some Rust tutorials though. That has to count for something.
erispoe 11y ago
Solving problems is not ignoring them and wish they go away. One of the biggest problem with transportation infrastructures in the US is the cost of the right-of-way. This is barely touched by Hyperloop (the project doesn't account for these costs) because it focuses on the technical solution, that is actually the easiest part. The PG motto is more relevant than ever: make something people want. In that case, make something that people will want in their backyard. Selling is the hard part.
- simplemath 11y ago
  This is 100% the biggest problem with the concept. Good luck getting a closed tube through a municipality, let alone a major city, let alone across an entire state.
  - sailfast 11y ago
    I'm guessing (hoping?) that these things are going to be a hell of a lot quieter and less pollutant than diesel trains so perhaps it would be something I wouldn't mind living next to or around.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- vidarh 11y ago
  A large part of the reason for how hyperloop is structured the way it is, is exactly because of right of way: The proposal calls for pylons and for the route to largely follow the highways in order to be able to take advantage of existing right of way to minimize those issues as much as possible. It might very well be that they should have spent more effort on that aspect, but they didn't ignore it. And the PG motto is great if you want to make money as fast as possible with as little risk as possible. It's not nearly so great if your goal is to make a major change to society.
  - erispoe 11y ago
    NIMBYs on the San Francisco Peninsula (Palo Alto, Menlo Park...) got their pitchforks out for a High Speed Rail project that would use the existing right-of-way and they managed to downscale the project dramatically. HSR wouldn't disturb them in any way, it would even make things better compared to the existing diesel CalTrain operation. Do you think they will be happier with a series of concrete pylons? Rail viaducts exist, and people are not exactly thrilled to have one in their backyard. Following the highway network is great (and Germany largely does it for HSR) but the highway system is designed with very different constraints. That might be possible in largely desert or rural places without a lot of topography, but highways have curves and slopes incompatible with high speed as soon as you hit a significant topography. The cost of right-of-way skyrockets in urban and dense environments that are exactly the ones you want to serve with HSR/HyperLoop. Both systems are on par in the regard. The mile-long tunnel to bring HSR in the heart of San Francisco is expected to cost several billion dollars. The cost of the technical equipment of that infrastructure for conventional rail is marginal compared to the cost of digging the tunnel itself. Sure we could solve that, with strong eminent domain powers for the state for instance. But I'm not sure anyone wants that, nor that the Supreme Court would let it happen.
kuschku 11y ago
Having a worse throughput than a lame of highway is bad, though. Hyperloop is a low-latency low-capacity transport method. It's not much better at latency/cost than a VacTrain or a regular MagLev, but basically has less than 10% of the capacity. Basically, the Hyperloop will be a transport method used by a bunch of rich people, not by the ten thousands or hundredthousands of people who'd use a HSR or MagLev on the same route.
- dmitriy_ko 11y ago
  This 10% figure seems to originate on this blog post: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19848/musks-hyperloop-math-doesnt-add-up/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19848/musks-hyperlo... The guy makes assumption of single 28 person pod leaving every 30 second to get 3360 passengers/hour throughput. But these parameters are not set in stone. Pods could be joined into platoons that move together to form "trains". With 10 pod platoon you get 33600 passenger/hour -- neary 3x throughput of California High Speed rail when it's built. Pods could also be made wider to accommodate multiple people along cross-section.
  - baq 11y ago
    a wider pod means a wider tube means a lot more money to put down in front.
throwawaymaroon 11y ago
Bemoaning criticism is noxious to me in a way that armchair commentary is not. We're shooting the shit here. No one's saying we should give up.
Avshalom 11y ago
Hyperloop is an armchair scientist's back of the envelope engineering. Every single one of us is exactly as qualified to shit on the Hyperloop as Musk was to suggest it. There is no long history of detailed engineering and feasibility studies by thousands of civil and mechanical engineers. This is the first result of any actual serious thought being given (well actually a bunch of college senior projects) and the winning design already apparently had to cut the speeds by a third (which makes it no faster than a train) and has no space for passengers or cargo. Let me repeat that: the first serious proposal is no faster than a train and can't actually be used for transporting anything. Making it, as a suggestion for high speed transport, completely useless.
- tod222 11y ago
  > Let me repeat that: the first serious proposal is no faster than a train and can't actually be used for transporting anything. Making it, as a suggestion for high speed transport, completely useless. Yes, although this can be handwaved away by saying it's not a full-scale model and the test track is too short for higher speeds. What I find more interesting is that the winning design isn't even true Hyperloop, as the air hockey suspension is replaced by maglev. There's no air intake on the front because magnets are used. The winning design doesn't validate the Hyperloop concept since it replaces a critical element and becomes just a maglev in a tube with a rail. It wouldn't surprise me if the tube disappeared in the next iteration.

nether 11y ago

Most of these guys just read some Rust tutorials though. That has to count for something.

erispoe 11y ago

Solving problems is not ignoring them and wish they go away. One of the biggest problem with transportation infrastructures in the US is the cost of the right-of-way. This is barely touched by Hyperloop (the project doesn't account for these costs) because it focuses on the technical solution, that is actually the easiest part. The PG motto is more relevant than ever: make something people want. In that case, make something that people will want in their backyard. Selling is the hard part.

simplemath 11y ago
This is 100% the biggest problem with the concept. Good luck getting a closed tube through a municipality, let alone a major city, let alone across an entire state.
- sailfast 11y ago
  I'm guessing (hoping?) that these things are going to be a hell of a lot quieter and less pollutant than diesel trains so perhaps it would be something I wouldn't mind living next to or around.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
vidarh 11y ago
A large part of the reason for how hyperloop is structured the way it is, is exactly because of right of way: The proposal calls for pylons and for the route to largely follow the highways in order to be able to take advantage of existing right of way to minimize those issues as much as possible. It might very well be that they should have spent more effort on that aspect, but they didn't ignore it. And the PG motto is great if you want to make money as fast as possible with as little risk as possible. It's not nearly so great if your goal is to make a major change to society.
- erispoe 11y ago
  NIMBYs on the San Francisco Peninsula (Palo Alto, Menlo Park...) got their pitchforks out for a High Speed Rail project that would use the existing right-of-way and they managed to downscale the project dramatically. HSR wouldn't disturb them in any way, it would even make things better compared to the existing diesel CalTrain operation. Do you think they will be happier with a series of concrete pylons? Rail viaducts exist, and people are not exactly thrilled to have one in their backyard. Following the highway network is great (and Germany largely does it for HSR) but the highway system is designed with very different constraints. That might be possible in largely desert or rural places without a lot of topography, but highways have curves and slopes incompatible with high speed as soon as you hit a significant topography. The cost of right-of-way skyrockets in urban and dense environments that are exactly the ones you want to serve with HSR/HyperLoop. Both systems are on par in the regard. The mile-long tunnel to bring HSR in the heart of San Francisco is expected to cost several billion dollars. The cost of the technical equipment of that infrastructure for conventional rail is marginal compared to the cost of digging the tunnel itself. Sure we could solve that, with strong eminent domain powers for the state for instance. But I'm not sure anyone wants that, nor that the Supreme Court would let it happen.

kuschku 11y ago

Having a worse throughput than a lame of highway is bad, though. Hyperloop is a low-latency low-capacity transport method. It's not much better at latency/cost than a VacTrain or a regular MagLev, but basically has less than 10% of the capacity. Basically, the Hyperloop will be a transport method used by a bunch of rich people, not by the ten thousands or hundredthousands of people who'd use a HSR or MagLev on the same route.

dmitriy_ko 11y ago
This 10% figure seems to originate on this blog post: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19848/musks-hyperloop-math-doesnt-add-up/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19848/musks-hyperlo... The guy makes assumption of single 28 person pod leaving every 30 second to get 3360 passengers/hour throughput. But these parameters are not set in stone. Pods could be joined into platoons that move together to form "trains". With 10 pod platoon you get 33600 passenger/hour -- neary 3x throughput of California High Speed rail when it's built. Pods could also be made wider to accommodate multiple people along cross-section.
- baq 11y ago
  a wider pod means a wider tube means a lot more money to put down in front.

throwawaymaroon 11y ago

Bemoaning criticism is noxious to me in a way that armchair commentary is not. We're shooting the shit here. No one's saying we should give up.

Avshalom 11y ago

Hyperloop is an armchair scientist's back of the envelope engineering. Every single one of us is exactly as qualified to shit on the Hyperloop as Musk was to suggest it. There is no long history of detailed engineering and feasibility studies by thousands of civil and mechanical engineers. This is the first result of any actual serious thought being given (well actually a bunch of college senior projects) and the winning design already apparently had to cut the speeds by a third (which makes it no faster than a train) and has no space for passengers or cargo. Let me repeat that: the first serious proposal is no faster than a train and can't actually be used for transporting anything. Making it, as a suggestion for high speed transport, completely useless.

tod222 11y ago
> Let me repeat that: the first serious proposal is no faster than a train and can't actually be used for transporting anything. Making it, as a suggestion for high speed transport, completely useless. Yes, although this can be handwaved away by saying it's not a full-scale model and the test track is too short for higher speeds. What I find more interesting is that the winning design isn't even true Hyperloop, as the air hockey suspension is replaced by maglev. There's no air intake on the front because magnets are used. The winning design doesn't validate the Hyperloop concept since it replaces a critical element and becomes just a maglev in a tube with a rail. It wouldn't surprise me if the tube disappeared in the next iteration.