4 ms·

The original Hyperloop paper had a lot of gaps. How does the thing move in low speed until it's fast enough to have aerodynamic lift? Does it use wheels? I don'

The original Hyperloop paper had a lot of gaps. How does the thing move in low speed until it's fast enough to have aerodynamic lift? Does it use wheels? I don't think the paper talked about it. You do need a good business model and a solid technical foundation. Hyperloop needs a lot of technical work still. Arguably this was also true of SpaceX in the early days, but Elon (and the team he assembled) could execute before running out of runway. I still think Hyperloop is worth working on, but it needs a lot of funding. The Boring Company will get to it eventually, because something like Hyperloop is required for the Mars colony.

giraffe_lady 3y ago
What mars colony. We're not even within striking distance of a manned trip. Whatever we do after that is so far out I don't think anyone can responsibly assert what it will require.
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago
  Mars is the least useful planetary body in the Solar System. Anybody that is trying to sell you on Mars colonization is selling you a children's cartoon, not a serious project.
  - k1t 3y ago
    As someone who is not at all well versed in this area - this surprises me. Surely if there is anywhere in our solar system we have a chance of successfully colonizing, Mars is it. It seems like the obvious first step. Where would you recommend?
    - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
      The upper reaches of Venus' atmosphere is the most accessible and Earth-like environment in the Solar System. That would be the obvious first step. And for second steps you'd probably want someplace that is more useful in resources, like some of Jupiter's moons. Mars is probably the last place you'd want to go.
      - zizee 3y ago
        I can only think you are trolling. You think that a floating base in the upper reaches of the Venusian atmosphere is a good first step? No being able to make trips to the surface would limit human involvement to the floating base, so scientific exploration would be very limited. The complexity makes it much more challenging to become self sufficient. How would you propose making a return trip? Or is it a one way mission? As for Jupiter's moons. They are so much further away than Mars, are all much lower in gravity, and much colder temperatures than mars. Our own moon and mars are much better candidates for humans to visit, and attempt permanent bases and perhaps colonies.
      - withinboredom 3y ago
        Wouldn't going to Venus require more delta-v since it is "downhill" and requires spending way more energy to slow down?
      - eesmith 3y ago
        "Most accessible" is still very much a concept than concrete. We don't know how to build a free-floating colony, and Mars has far more water than Venus. Then again, we don't know how to build a colony on Mars any better than we can build a colony on an oil rig platform in the ocean, or build a colony in LEO. Even our colonies on Antarctica - Esperanza Base and Villa Las Estrellas - aren't able to grow their own food. In any case, Mars is a better colonization target than both Mercury and Io. Resource extraction does not require colonization. We have robots.
  - zizee 3y ago
    What is a better candidate for colonization?
    - giraffe_lady 3y ago
      How do you look around at the legacy of colonialism on earth and be like "yes more of that please?" There's an incredible amount of scientific understanding to be achieved over the next few decades using unmanned probes in the solar system including mars. After that we'll see. We are barely capable of manned spaceflight at all, don't even have a proof of concept of a self-contained ecosystem that can be isolated for years at a time. We are simply not politically and scientifically sophisticated enough to attempt this on the scale of decades. Leave it for the future.
      - zizee 3y ago
        > How do you look around at the legacy of colonialism on earth and be like "yes more of that please?" Are you talking about human race, spreading out from our cradle in Africa thousands of years ago? Or more recent colonization? Or more recent examples of one group of people subjugating another pre-existing habitat of a land? Because you know there are not people or animals on Mars right?
    - Qwertious 3y ago
      The moon. It's closer, it has pre-made internal cavities, it's far easier to evacuate if something goes wrong (a catapult and a few days travel vs a rocket and months of travel). Also, we can actually get there. This Mars colony is in the realm of fantasy, when we don't have a means of getting astronauts there without dying of cosmic-ray cancer on the way. In contrast we've put a man on the moon. Multiple men. We know we can do it, which decreases the necessary scope dramatically. I don't see a good reason to set up a colony in the first place, but the least-bad option is very clearly the moon.
      - zizee 3y ago
        You'll be pleased to know there are plans underway to setup a permanent moon base. I agree the moon has a lot going for it, but I think you have your finger on the scales when comparing the two. > a catapult and a few days travel We don't have catapult technology that would work on the moon without solving significant technological challenges. I don't think engineering challenges should hold us back (it's half the fun of these missions), but you cannot use "we don't have the tech" as an argument against mars, and handwave it away for the moon. > The moon. It's closer, it has pre-made internal cavities, Mars has lavatubes as well. > we don't have a means of getting astronauts there without dying of cosmic-ray cancer on the way People will not die of cancer of cancer in the way. It is likely there is an increased risk to developing cancer, it's not crazy. Some estimates put it at a 20% increase. Hardly a death sentence your post makes it out to be. > Also, we can actually get there. Energetically, Mars is not that much further away from us than the moon. It has a thin atmosphere that allows for aerobreaking, and is a useful resource once landed. > In contrast we've put a man on the moon. We've put a lot of robots on Mars as well. We've actually got more recent experience landing things on Mars than on the moon, especially large things. No one is talking about landing humans on Mars without first refining a lot of technology, without being able to reliably land craft with literally tonnes of equipment. Personally, I'm excited about both prospects, and I'm excited that SpaceX is finally developing the reusable heavy lift capability that we should have had years ago, but for whatever reason people stopped persuing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_lava_tube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_lava_tube https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18417/how-big-is-the-risk-potential-damage-from-radiation-on-a-mars-trip https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18417/how-big-is-t...
1920musicman 3y ago
> The Boring Company will get to it eventually, because something like Hyperloop is required for the Mars colony What does The Boring Company have to do with Hyperloop? I am not an expert, but seems like building a Maglev track on Mars with its low-pressure atmosphere would be far easier than on Earth. Taking into consideration how far we are from the first manned flight to Mars, this sounds more like wishful thinking than a serious proposition.
- diebeforei485 3y ago
  Boring Company lists Hyperloop as one of their projects (not related to Hyperloop One) - https://www.boringcompany.com/projects https://www.boringcompany.com/projects
stephen_g 3y ago
It's not worth working on - the problems with it are insurmountable at any reasonable cost and verifying that could have been worked out just with engineering analysis and simulations... It's a fun, futuristic idea, but just falls down when you start to think about the problems. Sure, they could be solved if we were willing to spend hundreds of times as much per kilometer as we do for high-speed rail (which is already really expensive), but that's not practical in the real world.
- diebeforei485 3y ago
  In countries with functioning permitting systems, HSR planning and construction works well. Famously, SNCF said Morocco is less dysfunctional than California. In the USA, with NEPA - and especially California which also has CEQA - the permitting for any kind of project is super expensive. A lot of design decisions in the Hyperloop paper are for avoiding CEQA constraints.
roughly 3y ago
> The original Hyperloop paper had a lot of gaps. That's because it wasn't intended to be a solution, it was intended to kill the high speed rail in California. https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1167410460125097990 https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1167410460125097990
Moldoteck 3y ago
Why required for mars colony? What is wrong with an air isolated train and just rails? Much cheaper to build

giraffe_lady 3y ago

What mars colony. We're not even within striking distance of a manned trip. Whatever we do after that is so far out I don't think anyone can responsibly assert what it will require.

otabdeveloper4 3y ago
Mars is the least useful planetary body in the Solar System. Anybody that is trying to sell you on Mars colonization is selling you a children's cartoon, not a serious project.
- k1t 3y ago
  As someone who is not at all well versed in this area - this surprises me. Surely if there is anywhere in our solar system we have a chance of successfully colonizing, Mars is it. It seems like the obvious first step. Where would you recommend?
  - otabdeveloper4 3y ago
    The upper reaches of Venus' atmosphere is the most accessible and Earth-like environment in the Solar System. That would be the obvious first step. And for second steps you'd probably want someplace that is more useful in resources, like some of Jupiter's moons. Mars is probably the last place you'd want to go.
    - zizee 3y ago
      I can only think you are trolling. You think that a floating base in the upper reaches of the Venusian atmosphere is a good first step? No being able to make trips to the surface would limit human involvement to the floating base, so scientific exploration would be very limited. The complexity makes it much more challenging to become self sufficient. How would you propose making a return trip? Or is it a one way mission? As for Jupiter's moons. They are so much further away than Mars, are all much lower in gravity, and much colder temperatures than mars. Our own moon and mars are much better candidates for humans to visit, and attempt permanent bases and perhaps colonies.
    - withinboredom 3y ago
      Wouldn't going to Venus require more delta-v since it is "downhill" and requires spending way more energy to slow down?
    - eesmith 3y ago
      "Most accessible" is still very much a concept than concrete. We don't know how to build a free-floating colony, and Mars has far more water than Venus. Then again, we don't know how to build a colony on Mars any better than we can build a colony on an oil rig platform in the ocean, or build a colony in LEO. Even our colonies on Antarctica - Esperanza Base and Villa Las Estrellas - aren't able to grow their own food. In any case, Mars is a better colonization target than both Mercury and Io. Resource extraction does not require colonization. We have robots.
- zizee 3y ago
  What is a better candidate for colonization?
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    How do you look around at the legacy of colonialism on earth and be like "yes more of that please?" There's an incredible amount of scientific understanding to be achieved over the next few decades using unmanned probes in the solar system including mars. After that we'll see. We are barely capable of manned spaceflight at all, don't even have a proof of concept of a self-contained ecosystem that can be isolated for years at a time. We are simply not politically and scientifically sophisticated enough to attempt this on the scale of decades. Leave it for the future.
    - zizee 3y ago
      > How do you look around at the legacy of colonialism on earth and be like "yes more of that please?" Are you talking about human race, spreading out from our cradle in Africa thousands of years ago? Or more recent colonization? Or more recent examples of one group of people subjugating another pre-existing habitat of a land? Because you know there are not people or animals on Mars right?
  - Qwertious 3y ago
    The moon. It's closer, it has pre-made internal cavities, it's far easier to evacuate if something goes wrong (a catapult and a few days travel vs a rocket and months of travel). Also, we can actually get there. This Mars colony is in the realm of fantasy, when we don't have a means of getting astronauts there without dying of cosmic-ray cancer on the way. In contrast we've put a man on the moon. Multiple men. We know we can do it, which decreases the necessary scope dramatically. I don't see a good reason to set up a colony in the first place, but the least-bad option is very clearly the moon.
    - zizee 3y ago
      You'll be pleased to know there are plans underway to setup a permanent moon base. I agree the moon has a lot going for it, but I think you have your finger on the scales when comparing the two. > a catapult and a few days travel We don't have catapult technology that would work on the moon without solving significant technological challenges. I don't think engineering challenges should hold us back (it's half the fun of these missions), but you cannot use "we don't have the tech" as an argument against mars, and handwave it away for the moon. > The moon. It's closer, it has pre-made internal cavities, Mars has lavatubes as well. > we don't have a means of getting astronauts there without dying of cosmic-ray cancer on the way People will not die of cancer of cancer in the way. It is likely there is an increased risk to developing cancer, it's not crazy. Some estimates put it at a 20% increase. Hardly a death sentence your post makes it out to be. > Also, we can actually get there. Energetically, Mars is not that much further away from us than the moon. It has a thin atmosphere that allows for aerobreaking, and is a useful resource once landed. > In contrast we've put a man on the moon. We've put a lot of robots on Mars as well. We've actually got more recent experience landing things on Mars than on the moon, especially large things. No one is talking about landing humans on Mars without first refining a lot of technology, without being able to reliably land craft with literally tonnes of equipment. Personally, I'm excited about both prospects, and I'm excited that SpaceX is finally developing the reusable heavy lift capability that we should have had years ago, but for whatever reason people stopped persuing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_lava_tube https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_lava_tube https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18417/how-big-is-the-risk-potential-damage-from-radiation-on-a-mars-trip https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/18417/how-big-is-t...

1920musicman 3y ago

> The Boring Company will get to it eventually, because something like Hyperloop is required for the Mars colony What does The Boring Company have to do with Hyperloop? I am not an expert, but seems like building a Maglev track on Mars with its low-pressure atmosphere would be far easier than on Earth. Taking into consideration how far we are from the first manned flight to Mars, this sounds more like wishful thinking than a serious proposition.

diebeforei485 3y ago
Boring Company lists Hyperloop as one of their projects (not related to Hyperloop One) - https://www.boringcompany.com/projects https://www.boringcompany.com/projects

stephen_g 3y ago

It's not worth working on - the problems with it are insurmountable at any reasonable cost and verifying that could have been worked out just with engineering analysis and simulations... It's a fun, futuristic idea, but just falls down when you start to think about the problems. Sure, they could be solved if we were willing to spend hundreds of times as much per kilometer as we do for high-speed rail (which is already really expensive), but that's not practical in the real world.

diebeforei485 3y ago
In countries with functioning permitting systems, HSR planning and construction works well. Famously, SNCF said Morocco is less dysfunctional than California. In the USA, with NEPA - and especially California which also has CEQA - the permitting for any kind of project is super expensive. A lot of design decisions in the Hyperloop paper are for avoiding CEQA constraints.

roughly 3y ago

> The original Hyperloop paper had a lot of gaps. That's because it wasn't intended to be a solution, it was intended to kill the high speed rail in California. https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1167410460125097990 https://twitter.com/parismarx/status/1167410460125097990

Moldoteck 3y ago

Why required for mars colony? What is wrong with an air isolated train and just rails? Much cheaper to build