3 ms·
You're making assumptions here. As far as I know there is no requirement that hyperloop has to be above ground. While I imagine it would reduce cost to build
by mcny 3y ago
You're making assumptions here.
As far as I know there is no requirement
that hyperloop has to be above ground.
While I imagine it would reduce cost to build one at ground level,
I think it makes sense to go underground or high up on pillars at least where it intersects roads, rivers, or things like that.
Also there's boring company that seems to fit perfectly with hyperloop.
- theptip 3y agoThe original designs had the hyperloop above ground. The later ”loop” (no hyper, drive a car onto a skate that then shunts around under the city) were underground; there might have been an early iteration of that urban design that contemplated vacuum though. Of course you _can_ go underground but that doesn’t make sense economically for long-range (nobody is digging a tunnel SF-LA). And the hyper bit (vacuum pump and acceleration at each stop) makes less sense for short-range transport in urban environments.
- notahacker 3y ago> You're making assumptions here. As far as I know there is no requirement that hyperloop has to be above ground. I don't think reading a proposal to build a tube on pylons which it stated would mostly be located on highway medians to [theoretically] be cheaper than an intercity rail line and concluding it isn't intended to generate demand for a later startup developing tools to drill through rock is making a particularly wild assumption, especially not compared with taking the opposite position...
- kolinko 3y agoDid you read the original proposal?