Slashdot Mirror
Hyperloop Testing Starts Next Year
neanderslob writes: In 2013, Elon Musk told us about a theoretical transportation system he'd been thinking about for a while. It was called "hyperloop," and it was a tube-based system capable of sending people and things at speeds of up to 800mph. Now, a company called Hyperloop Transportation Technologies plans to start construction on an actual hyperloop next year. The idea is to build it to serve Quay Valley (a proposed 75,000-resident solar power city in Kings County, California). The project will be paid for with $100 million the company expects to raise through a direct public offering in the third quarter of this year. The track itself will be a 5-mile loop and won't reach anywhere close to the 800mph Musk proposed in his white paper — but it's a start.
Meaning the Boeing 747 became extremely popular while the Concord wound up eventually going to the dustbin of history because per passenger-mile, the Boeing 747 was cheaper than the Concord, despite taking much longer to move passengers from New York to London.
And that's the problem I see with the Hyperloop: sure, it may be technically possible to send passengers in a train in a tube with a vacuum at 800 miles per hour from Los Angeles to New York, but at the end of the day, its the cost per passenger mile that matters. And a large airplane traveling along at 500 miles per hour, which doesn't require 3,000 miles of dedicated hardware to travel through, is going to be far cheaper than buying a 3,000 mile strip of land and building a tube. across it.
Actually, it's the Return on investment (ROI) that matter in business. Or in other word, how many time it'll take to make enough profit to cover the cost of the initial investment. And in this case, the US$9.95 billion California High-Speed Rail is a huge example on how much money you can make on transportation.
If we take Elon Musk word, the ROI of the Hyperloop beat the crap out of any High-Speed Train project. But there's another term really important here, something we call Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL). Basically, this level told how much maturity a technology have reach. While HST is really high, Hyperloop on the other hand have a MRL really low. Meaning that nothing is proven about the real ROI of the Hyperloop and a huge R&D cost is needed to raise the MRL.
What I love about this is that they raised a sort of huge "kickstarter" to cover the cost of the R&D and raise the MRL to give us a real idea on the ROI of the Hyperloop. Only then we'll have an idea if Hyperloop will revolutionize the transport industry or not.
Elok
Have we decided whether it will be blue or gold?
Just like North Haverbrook, Ogdenville, and Brockway.
Actually, it's the Return on investment (ROI) that matter in business. Or in other word, how many time it'll take to make enough profit to cover the cost of the initial investment. And in this case, the US$9.95 billion California High-Speed Rail is a huge example on how much money you can make on transportation.
Using the $56 million per km quoted on California High-Speed Rail as the low estimate of how much it would cost to build a hyper loop, the minimum cost across the US would be $56 million per km * 3000 miles * 1.6 km per mile = $270 Billion dollars MINIMUM. That's going to have a hell of a long ROI, and because of that I can't see anyone in their right mind financing such a project in the near future.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Actually, it's the Return on investment (ROI) that matter in business. Or in other word, how many time it'll take to make enough profit to cover the cost of the initial investment. And in this case, the US$9.95 billion California High-Speed Rail is a huge example on how much money you can make on transportation.
Using the $56 million per km quoted on California High-Speed Rail as the low estimate of how much it would cost to build a hyper loop, the minimum cost across the US would be $56 million per km * 3000 miles * 1.6 km per mile = $270 Billion dollars MINIMUM. That's going to have a hell of a long ROI, and because of that I can't see anyone in their right mind financing such a project in the near future.
Did Musk ever propose transcontinental hyperloops? I don't believe he did. As I recall this was always intended as a regional transportation technology, something for distances short enough that air travel is inconvenient because of the airport delays at both ends, but long enough that traditional train travel is too slow.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Well at first, Hyperloop is aimed as a competitor to "regional airlines" and high-speed train. But if the Hyperloop is as cheap than what Elon Musk is thinking (about 1000% cheaper than HST), we can seriously consider coast-to-coast as a possibility.
Elok
I the cost of California High-Speed Rail, it's actually $68.4 billion for a the things as of 2011 estimate
As far as I can make out, the Hyperloop is a High Speed Railway inside a tube that structurally can take a vacuum. Plus things like airlocks to get in and out, and some very clever safety measures to allow people to escape in an emergency.
Yes, that has got to be cheaper than just a High Speed Railway, hasn't it?
It also depends on the cost of the alternatives. The California Highspeed Rail from SF to LA, currently under construction, is projected to cost $500,000 per seat to build. Even if the ticket prices are heavily subsidized (and they will be) they will have to be very high to recover that expense.
The HyperLoop Elon proposed was estimated to cost 1/10th of the LA-SF CHSR project, but it only had 1/10th of the capacity.
Unlike the CHSR project, the proposed HyperLoop project actually only connected the outskirts of LA to the Oakland bay, leaving out the expensive part of going to downtown LA and downtown SF.
The estimated HyperLoop projects assumed they save on expropriations by placing the track elevated over existing highways.
But to travel at 800 mph without making your passengers sick and barfing, the route actually needs curves to be 16 times as smooth as the 200 mph CHSR.
The estimated HyperLoop costs were low by an order of magnitude even when comparing to known costs of elevated track and even of oil pipelines. Let's not even talk about the actual precision needed to make this work at 800 mph.
High speed railway is *phenomenally* expensive. It requires massive earthworks because of the very limited turning radius and limited climb angle of high speed trains. It requires very specialised rails that have to be laid under very high tension and welded so that the result is seamless and can withstand large temperature variations. It's also much more expensive to ballast because normal ballast doesn't cusion things well above certain speeds and turns into nasty pebbles instead of spikey lumps of rock. The result is big and heavy which means it needs its own strip of dedicated land. Finally, the air resistance for high speed rail grows quickly. On the very high speed test trains it gets comparable to aircraft. Despite having a smaller frontal area per passenger mile, the trains go fast in the thick lower atmosphere. The costs of those things add up a lot.
The hyperloop system claims to solve some of them and long, large airtight pipes are also well established technology in the oil industry for pipelines.
Whether or not the hyperloop claims are valid, I don't know, but it's not as wild as it first seems.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"Existing elevated rail" is not a valid comparison. The Hyperloop infrastructure needs to support about 1/10th the weight per meter as traditional rail, therefore it can be done with 1/10th the materials. The proposed Keystone XL pipeline is 36 inches in diameter; the Hyperloop would be about 100 inches, but hollow and empty most of the time. Oil pipelines are full of oil, therefore quite heavy relative to diameter. In practice the total weight per linear meter of oil pipeline vs Hyperloop is about the same; 1 metric ton per meter. Traditional elevated rail is about 10 metric tons per meter.
Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
"The Hyperloop infrastructure needs to support about 1/10th the weight per meter as traditional rail, therefore it can be done with 1/10th the materials." No, doesn't work that way. The supports would need to anchor something that can't even be allowed to move a millimeter lest the passengers be jarred to death.
Vacuum tubes of miles in length, smooth to extremely high tolerances, will be far more expensive than oil pipes.
$500k actually sounds pretty cheap per seat. Even the lowest estimate of use put forward by critics of the project was 23M passengers/year. To pay for construction in the first year each passenger would need to generate $43 in profit over running costs. Realistically they could charge much less and still turn a profit in a reasonable time.
Japan is currently building a maglev high speed "rail" line between Tokyo and Osaka. 86% of it will be tunnels through extremely challenging terrain. Initial speeds will be 550km/h, rising to around 900km/h in time so somewhat similar to the hyperloop proposal.
The cost in very, very high. Far higher than what the US is paying. It's new technology and it's difficult terrain. The pay-back time is going to be long. Decades before it shows a profit. The thing is, Japan Rail is in it for the long haul. That line will be running indefinitely. The current ones started in 1964, more than 50 years ago. The tickets are reasonably priced and the volume of passengers will be high. It's much, much faster than flying and much, much cheaper. The technology itself is valuable, and will be exported to other countries.
Oh, and pollution is much lower and from flying. It's safer too. There really is very little not to like.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC