4 ms·

Would it be economically feasible to use the hyperloop to transport just goods and not people, similar to a pipeline vs train transport? I always see it referen

Would it be economically feasible to use the hyperloop to transport just goods and not people, similar to a pipeline vs train transport? I always see it referenced in connection to human travel, but it seems like safety is one of the biggest issues.

mr_toad 9y ago
What’s unsafe about it? Seems a lot safer than a plane.
- almostApatriot1 9y ago
  seems like a lot of people think compromising the vacuum could lead to train derailment and very likely the death of everyone on board (they're traveling at 700 mph after all)
  - MPSimmons 9y ago
    It's far less at-risk if it's in a tunnel under the ground.
    - jcranmer 9y ago
      Actually, tunnels are riskier than at-grade. A fire in a tunnel is basically a deathtrap, and can even seriously impact people not inside the tunnel (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Street_Tunnel_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Street_Tunnel_fire for an example of the latter).
      - seventytwo 9y ago
        How would a fire get going in a near-vacuum?
- gghhzzgghhzz 9y ago
  planes are the safest form of transport per passenger mile there is. also if a plane has a failure then unless it is something catastrophic, then for most of the journey you have the whole of the sky to utilise to try and correct / compensate. if hyperloop has a failure then you have a few inches of clearance between you travelling at the speed of a bullet, and a metal tube to correct / compensate.
- icebraining 9y ago
  There's potential issues with earthquakes and terrorism, both of which are less likely to affect planes, since they travel 10k from the ground. (Terrorism still obviously affects airplanes, but with Hyperloop you not only have to secure the stations, but the whole track too).
  - Robotbeat 9y ago
    Hyperloop wouldn't work as an effective weapon like an airliner can, though.
    - ubernostrum 9y ago
      Airliner-as-weapon was the "innovation" of the 9/11 attacks. That's one of the big reasons why the attacks worked, and why they'd never ever work again: previous hijackings were about using the plane + passengers as hostages, in order to achieve some other goal. So airline staff had a "script" of not risking lives to resist a hijack attempt, because hijackers typically didn't want to kill anyone, since killing people on the plane would reduce the number of hostages available to use later as leverage. The plan was to let them get the plane on the ground, then wait for the Delta Force guys to show up and deal with the situation. When that changed in the 9/11 attacks, you suddenly saw people on planes actively resist hijacking even when it risked lives (in fact, that started happening on 9/11, with the United 93 passengers once they found out what had been done with the other hijacked planes). Meanwhile, people remain afraid of mass-casualty incidents, and so they've remained an effective tactic (there have been several subway/train attacks in the post-9/11 era) even if nobody managed to crash the trains into buildings.
      - vidarh 9y ago
        There has been plenty of hijackings since 9/11, and only in a few instances have passengers tried to resist. Maybe things would be different in the US, but I suspect even that would be highly contingent on how the hijackers would act (e.g. whether they'd have the presence of mind to make a big point of stating an intent that'd involve keeping everyone alive). EDIT: It's worth noting that hijackers have overall been far more likely to get killed during a hijacking than passenger - as a passenger, unless you have very specific reasons to believe they're intending to crash the plane, it seems like a much safer bet to keep your head down and wait.
- seventytwo 9y ago
  Air travel is extremely safe, though. In fact, we went all 2017 without any fatalities from air travel.
  - colejohnson66 9y ago
    That’s partially not true. 2017 was the safest year, yes, but there were still fatalities. The first page[0] on Wikipedia’s category for 2017 aviation accidents[1] was a flight where all 8 people died. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Aerogaviota_Antonov_An-26_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Aerogaviota_Antonov_An-26... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_accidents_an...
gghhzzgghhzz 9y ago
but there are no goods that need to be transported between two static points that fast, let alone being valuable enough to warrant billions of dollars in new infrastructure and maintenance

mr_toad 9y ago

What’s unsafe about it? Seems a lot safer than a plane.

almostApatriot1 9y ago
seems like a lot of people think compromising the vacuum could lead to train derailment and very likely the death of everyone on board (they're traveling at 700 mph after all)
- MPSimmons 9y ago
  It's far less at-risk if it's in a tunnel under the ground.
  - jcranmer 9y ago
    Actually, tunnels are riskier than at-grade. A fire in a tunnel is basically a deathtrap, and can even seriously impact people not inside the tunnel (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Street_Tunnel_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Street_Tunnel_fire for an example of the latter).
    - seventytwo 9y ago
      How would a fire get going in a near-vacuum?
gghhzzgghhzz 9y ago
planes are the safest form of transport per passenger mile there is. also if a plane has a failure then unless it is something catastrophic, then for most of the journey you have the whole of the sky to utilise to try and correct / compensate. if hyperloop has a failure then you have a few inches of clearance between you travelling at the speed of a bullet, and a metal tube to correct / compensate.
icebraining 9y ago
There's potential issues with earthquakes and terrorism, both of which are less likely to affect planes, since they travel 10k from the ground. (Terrorism still obviously affects airplanes, but with Hyperloop you not only have to secure the stations, but the whole track too).
- Robotbeat 9y ago
  Hyperloop wouldn't work as an effective weapon like an airliner can, though.
  - ubernostrum 9y ago
    Airliner-as-weapon was the "innovation" of the 9/11 attacks. That's one of the big reasons why the attacks worked, and why they'd never ever work again: previous hijackings were about using the plane + passengers as hostages, in order to achieve some other goal. So airline staff had a "script" of not risking lives to resist a hijack attempt, because hijackers typically didn't want to kill anyone, since killing people on the plane would reduce the number of hostages available to use later as leverage. The plan was to let them get the plane on the ground, then wait for the Delta Force guys to show up and deal with the situation. When that changed in the 9/11 attacks, you suddenly saw people on planes actively resist hijacking even when it risked lives (in fact, that started happening on 9/11, with the United 93 passengers once they found out what had been done with the other hijacked planes). Meanwhile, people remain afraid of mass-casualty incidents, and so they've remained an effective tactic (there have been several subway/train attacks in the post-9/11 era) even if nobody managed to crash the trains into buildings.
    - vidarh 9y ago
      There has been plenty of hijackings since 9/11, and only in a few instances have passengers tried to resist. Maybe things would be different in the US, but I suspect even that would be highly contingent on how the hijackers would act (e.g. whether they'd have the presence of mind to make a big point of stating an intent that'd involve keeping everyone alive). EDIT: It's worth noting that hijackers have overall been far more likely to get killed during a hijacking than passenger - as a passenger, unless you have very specific reasons to believe they're intending to crash the plane, it seems like a much safer bet to keep your head down and wait.
seventytwo 9y ago
Air travel is extremely safe, though. In fact, we went all 2017 without any fatalities from air travel.
- colejohnson66 9y ago
  That’s partially not true. 2017 was the safest year, yes, but there were still fatalities. The first page[0] on Wikipedia’s category for 2017 aviation accidents[1] was a flight where all 8 people died. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Aerogaviota_Antonov_An-26_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Aerogaviota_Antonov_An-26... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Aviation_accidents_an...

gghhzzgghhzz 9y ago

but there are no goods that need to be transported between two static points that fast, let alone being valuable enough to warrant billions of dollars in new infrastructure and maintenance