7 ms·

None of this is to say that Hyperloop is a bad idea. The idea sounds very interesting and I'd rather spend sixty billion building a Hyperloop --even if it fail

None of this is to say that Hyperloop is a bad idea. The idea sounds very interesting and I'd rather spend sixty billion building a Hyperloop --even if it fails-- than the ridiculous California high speed rail project. Cost is probably off by an order of magnitude, if not more. Why? Unions and other groups. Building anything in this country costs massively more (and takes significantly longer) than one could imagine because of our unions are not business symbiotic. The goal of union leadership is to extract as much as they can out of the businesses they infect, even if this means their demise. A lot of the unions that would be part of such a project have some of the laziest and most problematic people working for them. If you come from the Silicon Valley tech world my words make no sense to you. In fact, you might think I am nuts. All I have to say is: Do a good size trade show exhibit at a few of the unionized convention centers in the US and then see what you think about US unions. Then repeat that experience at various locations in Europe and Japan and see the difference. I have done just that. US labor unions are destroying our country from the inside out. How many significant new civil engineering projects in the US can you name over the last, say, fifty years. Right. Hyperloop cost would be way more than this paper seems to predict. The political factor is grossly underestimated. Our reality is that we live at a time of political deadlock. Nobody can or wants to make a decision and the decisions we do make tend to be suboptimal, sometimes grotesquely so: example, California high speed rail. Finally, it addresses the wrong market. I am not sure why people insist on applying trains to transporting people in the US. Sorry to resort to reality folks: If you build it they will NOT come. We do not have that culture and you will not inspire it simply by building trains. You'd have to forcefully push people in that direction through legislation that would make it too expensive to not use rail. In other words you'd have to declare war against other methods of transportation through punitive actions. The right place for high speed rail in the US is cargo, not passenger rail. If we could evolve our cargo rail systems to move at 300 km/hr rather than 50 the consequences would provide economic benefits and development beyond a century. The final point is related to politics. We have a decision making system that allows anyone to vote. And, while this is commendable, it does create horrible problems. Imagine allowing a random group of, say, ten people deciding whether or not your child should have surgery. I'd be surprised if anyone thought this to be a good idea. No, most people would rather have a group of experts in the field, more than likely MD's in this case, vote for such a decision. The ridiculous California high speed rail project is a result of hordes of low-information, mathematically challenged, technologically ignorant and financially ignorant voters being led by the nose by unions, media and political forces. How do you move forward when people like that can vote on these issues and their vote has equal value to that of an expert in the relevant fields: a PhD in Physics, an engineer, a financial expert, etc. Regrettably this is not a technological problem. It is far more complex than that.

w1ntermute 13y ago
> Cost is probably off by an order of magnitude, if not more. Why? Unions and other groups. Building anything in this country costs massively more (and takes significantly longer) than one could imagine because of our unions are not business symbiotic. The goal of union leadership is to extract as much as they can out of the businesses they infect, even if this means their demise. Musk is in the car industry, one of the hardest hurt by unions and their ilk, so I would find it hard to believe that he didn't take that into account. > Finally, it addresses the wrong market. I am not sure why people insist on applying trains to transporting people in the US. Sorry to resort to reality folks: If you build it they will NOT come. We do not have that culture and you will not inspire it simply by building trains. Again, Musk is building and selling electric cars in a country that LOVES gas guzzlers. His track record would suggest that he knows what he's doing. > Regrettably this is not a technological problem. It is far more complex than that. I don't know why you think that this paper/concept only addresses technological issues, because it is clearly much more broad in scope than that.
- robomartin 13y ago
  > Musk is in the car industry, one of the hardest hurt by unions and their ilk, so I would find it hard to believe that he didn't take that into account. That is irrelevant. He did not go into Tesla honoring the contracts that were put into place by GM, Ford, Chrysler and others. Those companies actually have tens of thousands of very well paid workers sitting around --literally-- all day doing nothing due to union contracts dealing with automation and other issues. He, in other words, did not experience the almost surreal lunacy that the full union experience can be. I'll give you an example of this. Las Vegas Convention Center. Trade show. Small booth, 20 x 20 ft. I needed the lights on top of my booth turned off so that I could control my own lighting. No problem, we can do it for $360 per light. I asked what was involved. The response was that they'd have to throw a switch. Same thing at the RAI in Amsterdam. Free. Same thing in Munich (forgot the name of the venue), free. Same thing in New York City, $400. Want another example? Again, Las Vegas Convention Center. I could not hookup my own computers. Somehow, magically, once you enter union-land the engineers who actually design the equipment are suddenly incapable of properly connecting equipment into power outlets. No, union electricians have to wire your booth at a massive fee. If you screw around with them they will literally use mafia techniques and shutdown your booth without so much as a hint in the middle of a show. I've seen it happen. So, yes, again, just because the science is brilliant it does not mean it can be built. I've made that mistake before. I've dealt with city and state governments. I have sold product to the US government as well. I have equipment in places like the White Sands Missile Test Range and other notable spots. In some cases things flow smoothly. This is ALWAYS --and I do mean ALWAYS- the case when unions are not involved. If unions are involved, watch out! Enter surreal nightmare. The only way to have it not be surreal and not be a nightmare is to have some kind of an in or pay off the right people. What, that doesn't happen in the US? Please. > Again, Musk is building and selling electric cars in a country that LOVES gas guzzlers. His track record would suggest that he knows what he's doing. Tesla sells 20K cars per year to folks who can afford an $80,000 car. I love what they are doing. I am waiting for their SUV's and will likely buy two of them. But, please, don't make the comparison you just made. The other car companies are selling nearly A THOUSAND TIMES more cars than Tesla per year. He does know what he is doing. I did not say he is not. I am simply proposing that the Hyperloop might be brilliant on paper but, barring a political, labor, fiscal, environmental and who-knows-what-else miracle it has zero probability of ever being built beyond, perhaps, a very expensive test setup. >I don't know why you think that this paper/concept only addresses technological issues, because it is clearly much more broad in scope than that. I don't think it addresses enough of the real world issues. When everything else is cleared off the table you still have to build it in the real world. And I think that's where the real problems lie, not in the science.

w1ntermute 13y ago

> Cost is probably off by an order of magnitude, if not more. Why? Unions and other groups. Building anything in this country costs massively more (and takes significantly longer) than one could imagine because of our unions are not business symbiotic. The goal of union leadership is to extract as much as they can out of the businesses they infect, even if this means their demise. Musk is in the car industry, one of the hardest hurt by unions and their ilk, so I would find it hard to believe that he didn't take that into account. > Finally, it addresses the wrong market. I am not sure why people insist on applying trains to transporting people in the US. Sorry to resort to reality folks: If you build it they will NOT come. We do not have that culture and you will not inspire it simply by building trains. Again, Musk is building and selling electric cars in a country that LOVES gas guzzlers. His track record would suggest that he knows what he's doing. > Regrettably this is not a technological problem. It is far more complex than that. I don't know why you think that this paper/concept only addresses technological issues, because it is clearly much more broad in scope than that.

robomartin 13y ago
> Musk is in the car industry, one of the hardest hurt by unions and their ilk, so I would find it hard to believe that he didn't take that into account. That is irrelevant. He did not go into Tesla honoring the contracts that were put into place by GM, Ford, Chrysler and others. Those companies actually have tens of thousands of very well paid workers sitting around --literally-- all day doing nothing due to union contracts dealing with automation and other issues. He, in other words, did not experience the almost surreal lunacy that the full union experience can be. I'll give you an example of this. Las Vegas Convention Center. Trade show. Small booth, 20 x 20 ft. I needed the lights on top of my booth turned off so that I could control my own lighting. No problem, we can do it for $360 per light. I asked what was involved. The response was that they'd have to throw a switch. Same thing at the RAI in Amsterdam. Free. Same thing in Munich (forgot the name of the venue), free. Same thing in New York City, $400. Want another example? Again, Las Vegas Convention Center. I could not hookup my own computers. Somehow, magically, once you enter union-land the engineers who actually design the equipment are suddenly incapable of properly connecting equipment into power outlets. No, union electricians have to wire your booth at a massive fee. If you screw around with them they will literally use mafia techniques and shutdown your booth without so much as a hint in the middle of a show. I've seen it happen. So, yes, again, just because the science is brilliant it does not mean it can be built. I've made that mistake before. I've dealt with city and state governments. I have sold product to the US government as well. I have equipment in places like the White Sands Missile Test Range and other notable spots. In some cases things flow smoothly. This is ALWAYS --and I do mean ALWAYS- the case when unions are not involved. If unions are involved, watch out! Enter surreal nightmare. The only way to have it not be surreal and not be a nightmare is to have some kind of an in or pay off the right people. What, that doesn't happen in the US? Please. > Again, Musk is building and selling electric cars in a country that LOVES gas guzzlers. His track record would suggest that he knows what he's doing. Tesla sells 20K cars per year to folks who can afford an $80,000 car. I love what they are doing. I am waiting for their SUV's and will likely buy two of them. But, please, don't make the comparison you just made. The other car companies are selling nearly A THOUSAND TIMES more cars than Tesla per year. He does know what he is doing. I did not say he is not. I am simply proposing that the Hyperloop might be brilliant on paper but, barring a political, labor, fiscal, environmental and who-knows-what-else miracle it has zero probability of ever being built beyond, perhaps, a very expensive test setup. >I don't know why you think that this paper/concept only addresses technological issues, because it is clearly much more broad in scope than that. I don't think it addresses enough of the real world issues. When everything else is cleared off the table you still have to build it in the real world. And I think that's where the real problems lie, not in the science.