4 ms·

I am no expert on such things, but it seems to me that Dr. Drang has a very basic misunderstanding or lack of imagination. He seems to assume that Musk intended

by wissler 13y ago

I am no expert on such things, but it seems to me that Dr. Drang has a very basic misunderstanding or lack of imagination. He seems to assume that Musk intended for each section of tube to physically be touching, when instead Musk intended to leave gaps between, to account for the expansion.

lutusp 13y ago
> He seems to assume that Musk intended for each section of tube to physically be touching, when instead Musk intended to leave gaps between, to account for the expansion. Because the tube must be maintained at a near-vacuum, it can't be "gaps" -- it would have to be expanding slip joints, maybe like those on the Space Shuttle solid-rocket boosters. So, expanding joints in a tube that, by being evacuated, must bear a constant load of 14.7 PSI and remain airtight? > ... it seems to me that Dr. Drang has a very basic misunderstanding or lack of imagination. Perhaps, but on present evidence he's not the only one lacking imagination.
- wissler 13y ago
  Because the tube must be maintained at a near-vacuum, it can't be "gaps" -- it would have to be expanding slip joints Well you're doing to me what the Dr. is doing to Musk. Obviously they'd have to be airtight, but there would indeed be gaps between the sections. Jesus.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Obviously they'd have to be airtight, but there would indeed be gaps between the sections. I objected because you used the term "gaps". They cannot be gaps, they have to be overlapping airtight section joints. There were no gaps between the sections of the Space Shuttle solid-rocket boosters either, except just once, and we all remember that day. To understand the problem with your description, just repeat to yourself, "airtight gaps", until the contradiction occurs to you.
    - wissler 13y ago
      Your trifling quibbles don't matter. It doesn't matter what you call it or how you implement it, my original point stands. The Dr. is suffering from a lack of imagination.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > Your trifling quibbles don't matter ... Trifling quibbles? It was "airtight gaps" that brought Challenger down and killed seven astronauts. If you intend to argue using words, at least learn their meanings.
        wissler 13y ago
        You're the one who can't use words properly. A "gap" is a generic term, an "airtight gap" is a type of "gap." You're quibbling about words, you're on the wrong side of the quibble, and on top of all that, you're not even dealing with the main point I brought up. Please tell me you're not a programmer.
rossjudson 13y ago
No. It specifically states that the pipe is not constrained to the pylons longitudinally (along the pipe direction). It slides. It's only fixed laterally and vertically, and has dampers in those movement directions. Think of it this way -- if the pipe bent easily, you could rotate the entire hyperloop on top of the pylons, sliding it along the top.

by wissler 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> He seems to assume that Musk intended for each section of tube to physically be touching, when instead Musk intended to leave gaps between, to account for the expansion. Because the tube must be maintained at a near-vacuum, it can't be "gaps" -- it would have to be expanding slip joints, maybe like those on the Space Shuttle solid-rocket boosters. So, expanding joints in a tube that, by being evacuated, must bear a constant load of 14.7 PSI and remain airtight? > ... it seems to me that Dr. Drang has a very basic misunderstanding or lack of imagination. Perhaps, but on present evidence he's not the only one lacking imagination.

wissler 13y ago
Because the tube must be maintained at a near-vacuum, it can't be "gaps" -- it would have to be expanding slip joints Well you're doing to me what the Dr. is doing to Musk. Obviously they'd have to be airtight, but there would indeed be gaps between the sections. Jesus.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > Obviously they'd have to be airtight, but there would indeed be gaps between the sections. I objected because you used the term "gaps". They cannot be gaps, they have to be overlapping airtight section joints. There were no gaps between the sections of the Space Shuttle solid-rocket boosters either, except just once, and we all remember that day. To understand the problem with your description, just repeat to yourself, "airtight gaps", until the contradiction occurs to you.
  - wissler 13y ago
    Your trifling quibbles don't matter. It doesn't matter what you call it or how you implement it, my original point stands. The Dr. is suffering from a lack of imagination.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Your trifling quibbles don't matter ... Trifling quibbles? It was "airtight gaps" that brought Challenger down and killed seven astronauts. If you intend to argue using words, at least learn their meanings.
      - wissler 13y ago
        You're the one who can't use words properly. A "gap" is a generic term, an "airtight gap" is a type of "gap." You're quibbling about words, you're on the wrong side of the quibble, and on top of all that, you're not even dealing with the main point I brought up. Please tell me you're not a programmer.

rossjudson 13y ago

No. It specifically states that the pipe is not constrained to the pylons longitudinally (along the pipe direction). It slides. It's only fixed laterally and vertically, and has dampers in those movement directions. Think of it this way -- if the pipe bent easily, you could rotate the entire hyperloop on top of the pylons, sliding it along the top.