Slashdot Mirror


The Race To Create a Hyperloop Heats Up (wsj.com)

An anonymous reader writes: When Elon Musk unveiled his idea for the "Hyperloop" transportation system based on capsules zipping through depressurized tubes, much was made about the enormous technical challenges the system would face in development. However, that didn't stop a number of companies and organizations from starting to work on it. Several companies are pushing the development work hard, and it's shaping up like a race to a workable prototype. University teams are only increasing their efforts as well. "The Illinois team enters the SpaceX contest with a strong competitive edge. This is its fourth Hyperloop design project, the first dating to fall 2013, and the Hyperloop is now a part of the MechSE curriculum. The team has assembled an interdisciplinary network of faculty from aeronautical engineering, thermal dynamics, mechanical engineering, electronic engineering and software, and two of the team members have interned at SpaceX."

31 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. The pod has been pressurized to minimize the G by trout007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The pod has been pressurized to minimize the G forces effects on a passenger."

    Really? How is that little trick performed?

    --
    I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    1. Re:The pod has been pressurized to minimize the G by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Doesn't work that way, same as you can still talk in a supersonic jet. Increasing the pressure enough to have the effect you propose in the pod will just kill the occupants (nitrogen narcosis, and the bends when you reduce the pressure). Reducing the pressure in the tubes, on the other hand (which is right there in the summary) ...

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:The pod has been pressurized to minimize the G by SharpFang · · Score: 2

      I believe this is an extremely roundabout and misguided way of describing the pod maintaining a constant pressure so there's no "ear popping" and other silly effects connected with changes of altitude.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    3. Re:The pod has been pressurized to minimize the G by bennebw · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure the pod is pressurized so they can breathe.

    4. Re:The pod has been pressurized to minimize the G by hey! · · Score: 4, Funny

      "The pod has been pressurized to minimize the G forces effects on a passenger."

      Really? How is that little trick performed?

      Simple: they depolarize the tachyon flow to the defector dish. It's almost like you've never even seen an episode.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  2. An even better design? by goombah99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they should bury it so it can be a straight line tube cutting into the earth's curvature. Then you can just "fall" from Los Angeles to SF with no propulsion needed. The theoretical transit time, ignoring the friction, is 43 minutes. the energy you need to supply is to overcome the friction. Since gravity will be both accelerating this and decelerating this there's no need for a complex propulsion system, decelleration system with energy reclamation. Less to go wrong, and less abrupt acceleration of the passengers, and probably greater safety.
    Of course the hard part of this is you have to tunnel underground to make a straight line cutting in to the earth. Since LA to SF is about 400 miles along the surface and the earth's circumference is about 25000 miles this means arc length is about 0.016 radians. thus 25000/2/pi*(1-cos(0.016/2)) = 0.127 miles.
    so the center of this would be roughly 1/8th of a mile buried or 672 feet at the deepest point (ignoring the mountains). This doesn't seem radically crazy as a depth for boring a hole.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:An even better design? by SharpFang · · Score: 2

      No can do. Lava too shallow.

      10-15km deep will hardly make a difference and we can't really go much deeper without ridiculous amount of work on thermal isolation.

      Plus tectonics will really rain all over the parade unless it's built as a flexible maglev in a way oversized tunnel.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:An even better design? by Scottingham · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then you can just "fall" from Los Angeles to SF with no propulsion needed.

      I've found that if you use the word 'just' when describing anything related to engineering it's WAY more complex than you think it is, and usually impossible.

    3. Re:An even better design? by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Interesting

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      12km, or 40,000ft and they were unable to keep up due to heat melting the drill.

      If you're going to cut into Earth curvature, in a straight line with maximum 10km depth the longest you can go is 714km.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    4. Re:An even better design? by Software · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You're talking about a project that's 10 times longer than the Channel Tunnel, which took 6 years and cost £13 billion in today's dollars. Of course, there's no English Channel overhead, so you can make boreholes overhead and pull out the rock that way instead of hauling it along the length of the tunnel. But on the other hand, you don't have the advantage of being able to choose the tunnels' path to get favorable geology - given the higher speeds, you're pretty much stuck with going through whatever rock is in your way.

      Plus, a straight line tube is not going to accelerate rapidly enough to get you there in 43 minutes. Are you assuming that you're going to be accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2? I think you'd be closer to 0.3 m/s^2.

    5. Re: An even better design? by goombah99 · · Score: 2

      Oops I did indeed drop a factor of two pi in the arc distance calculation. Correcting that it is more than 5 or so miles at the deepest point.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    6. Re:An even better design? by dotancohen · · Score: 2

      Since LA to SF is about 400 miles along the surface and the earth's circumference is about 25000 miles this means arc length is about 0.016 radians. thus 25000/2/pi*(1-cos(0.016/2)) = 0.127 miles. so the center of this would be roughly 1/8th of a mile buried or 672 feet at the deepest point

      Now imagine a gradient 200 units long, which slopes down for 1/8th of a unit. What rate of acceleration do you imagine a craft sliding with no friction down that gradient will have? And with friction? Now do you see the need for propulsion?

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    7. Re:An even better design? by firewrought · · Score: 2

      Assuming you can do it for an ultra-cheap $60M/mile, that's a total construction cost of $24 billion dollars for just the tunnel itself. That's roughly 5 times the estimated ~$4.85 billion cost for pylons, tunnels, and land rights that you would need for an over-land route. (Musk estimated $7.5 billion for the project as a whole, though commentators say he's being optimistic.)

      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    8. Re:An even better design? by careysub · · Score: 2

      The Gravity Train is a well established idea. The article also explains why no one builds them.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  3. Re:.. pressurized to minimize the G forces effects by Crowd+Computing · · Score: 2

    Since the top speed is barely supersonic, wouldn't the g-forces here be comparable to a commercial jet plane?

  4. Huckleberry Musk by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    boy, painting this fence is really fun.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  5. other enormous challenges not considered. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1. the majority of americans outside a handful of cities still consider public transportation to be a mark of poverty and avoid it at all costs. others cant be bothered to even consider a greyhound to the next state, let alone a train, and once they arrive the local public transit infrastructure based on their destination is either so poor as to be unusable or nonexistent through legislative fiat.

    2. We cant keep up. our bridges, roads, highways and railroads are crumbling further into the dirt each year, and neither body of legislation seems capable of passing meaningful funding. the hyperloop would surely face the same fate as a majority invested government project that eventually turned into public private, then abandoned once the payout wasnt suitable for corporations, and finally maintained at about a quarter of its original capacity.

    3. the initial projection for this works project (and, it would be a works project) is six billion dollars. America cant manage to keep its government running for more than 2 years at a time in this foul year of our lord 2015. It wont fund education, its states wont fund healthcare, and its been cutting federal public transit funding for 35 years. the only way a hyperloop is getting built is if it somehow includes a rider to invade a neighbouring country.

    the only real reason companies even thought of doing work with the hyperloop is to do what companies do: suckle at the taxpayer teat. You start by investing in a renewable effort, secure grants and loans, develop a few proof of concept ideas, sell out to a capital management firm, and then declare bankruptcy.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:other enormous challenges not considered. by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What percentage of Americans consider flying with commercial airlines to be the mark of poverty?

      Hyperloop isn't a replacement for buses or city cars. It's a replacement for airplanes. Supersonic travel with high initial but low unit cost - airplanes are very wasteful because they need to use a lot of energy just to prevent falling. Hyperloop train, once running, keeps running with only minimal friction losses and can recuperate most of energy used on acceleration during braking.

      It actually drives a lot of funds towards science/education. But yeah, the initial investment is huge. I mean, something like, 6% the amount any of the wars USA started!

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:other enormous challenges not considered. by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

      the problem is not that it is seen as a sign of poverty, it's that the trains don't go where people need them to go. most jobs are far from the stations so it doesn't make sense to take the train. instead of sitting in traffic you would have to drive to a park and ride, pay money for parking, take the train and then a bus or whatever to your job instead of simply driving all the way. this is around NYC as well. taking the train into manhattan isn't that big a deal, it's taking the train outside of NYC if you work there that is the problem. a lot of the job parks and malls are miles from the train. and if you don't brown bag lunch then all the lunch places are miles from the job parks so you have to drive to lunch as well if you want trains in the suburbs you have to build free parking lots as well and price the trains to compete with driving and work with employers to build office buildings close to the station.

    3. Re:other enormous challenges not considered. by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      1. the majority of americans outside a handful of cities still consider public transportation to be a mark of poverty and avoid it at all costs. others cant be bothered to even consider a greyhound to the next state, let alone a train, and once they arrive the local public transit infrastructure based on their destination is either so poor as to be unusable or nonexistent through legislative fiat.

      Have you ever taken a Greyhound, or even investigated a ride on one? They're ridiculously impractical; that's why no one uses them except poor ex-cons. The only reason anyone uses Greyhound is because they have some kind of problem (like lack of proper ID) which prevents them from taking a plane, or they're so broke that the meager savings over airfare is worth it to them. Greyhound isn't all that cheap, and worse, it takes forever to get there because they take horribly meandering routes on backroads through every little village they can. It's an awful way of traveling, so only people on the fringes of society bother with it. No one in their right mind wants to spend 24 hours on a bus when they can do the same trip in 3 hours on a plane. And all that is overlooking the kind of company you'll have on the bus....

      And local public transit infrastructure sucks mainly because of the laws of physics, and the lack of high density in most American cities. Public transit works pretty decently in very dense places like Manhattan, but other places just don't have the density necessary,

      If you want people to use public transit, you need to make public transit systems that actually work well and perform well. The only way you're going to get that is with high-speed, fully-automated PRT (personal rapid transit). Go read about SkyTran. Nothing else will work: light rail and other trains cost an absolute fortune to build and interfere with all the roads, and they only go in a line; buses are too slow and stop too much; and everything goes according to a pre-set schedule so you end up wasting a lot of time waiting on the next ride instead of moving. SkyTran fixes all those problems. The Wikipedia page explains it all.

    4. Re:other enormous challenges not considered. by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      And yet there are transportation modes that continue working fantastically, because the advantages far outweigh the costs and horseshit. People don't have issues with air travel, even though the experience is as close to public transit as you can get - you go to a big government paid-for terminal called an 'airport' where you get in a big metal tube filled with strangers, where you then sit for a non-trivial amount of time until it gets to another government paid-for terminal. Then you pack up your shit and leave.

      The only difference between air travel and public transit is that the airplane is owned and operated by a private entity, and that airplanes get you where you're going way faster than just about any other viable alternative.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  6. Musk's idea?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Larry Niven's book World Out of Time has a "hyperloop" system in it. And I can't help but think other SF writers may have come up with something similar before that.

    The notion that Musk came up with this 'idea' is ludicrous.

    1. Re:Musk's idea?! by Rei · · Score: 2

      What's ludicrous is that you're commenting about the topic without even realizing what Hyperloop is.

      Sci-Fi (Niven, Heinlein, Clarke, Bradbury, and countless others) love vactrains. Hyperloop is not a vactrain. It wouldn't even work in a vacuum. It's an extreme version of a ground-effect aircraft - at pressures as if it were at extreme altitudes, and very small ground effect clearances. Unlike with a vactrain, the tube does not hold a hard vacuum - while pressure is greatly reduced, it still has more than enough air to pose resistance to the vehicle (this is necessary for the capsules to gain lift). To avoid the wind resistance, the capsules use battery-powered compressors to shunt it to behind them (and assist the lifting surfaces). The compressors however do not provide propulsion - that's done by magnetic accelerator segments. To get rid of the heat from the compressors, the capsules contain onboard water supplies into which they dump the heat; the water gets swapped out and the batteries recharged before a given capsule relaunches. The use of air for lift enables the vehicle to avoid all of the costs associated with maglev (at low speeds, such as at stations and during emergencies, they settle down onto wheels).

      Show me a single sci-fi novel you've read that's proposed such a system.

      --
      I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
  7. I wonder if it can aid in space launches. by SharpFang · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Imagine a section of tube going splitting away from the main network. It has an airlock shortly after the split, then gently curves up a tunnel through a mountain, and exits at a rather steep angle upwards. Then there's a quick-acting airlock at the opening.

    A special train is loaded - a rocket adapted to travel through these tubes. It speeds up to the regular Mach 1 in the "civilian" section of the tunnel, then goes down the branch and gains another 2-3 Mach. The airlock at the end opens right before the rocket reaches it, then the hyperloop propulsion module drops on a parachute while the rocket ignites its engines. We've just shaved off first 1.5km/s out of the required 9 or so needed to reach orbit - and with the tyranny of rocket equation, that's quite a bit of savings!

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:I wonder if it can aid in space launches. by frnic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thew airlock would need to be long enough so that the pressure could be normalized before the outer door is opened, while the rocket is traveling at Mach 3. Probably in the neighborhood of a mile or two if you pressurized the airlock in one second.

      Constant/repetitive cycling of the pressure would certainly be very stressful to the structure.

    2. Re:I wonder if it can aid in space launches. by careysub · · Score: 2

      We've just shaved off first 1.5km/s out of the required 9 or so needed to reach orbit - and with the tyranny of rocket equation, that's quite a bit of savings!

      No you haven't. The Earth's surface is not in a vacuum. The initial launch of a rocket is just spent climbing out of the atmosphere . The Space Shuttle traveled at a constant, subsonic velocity (slower than a commercial airplane) until it reached 10 km, above most of the atmosphere, before it started to accelerate and acquire its actual launch velocity.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:I wonder if it can aid in space launches. by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      You plan to have a capsule emerge from a near vacuum at several times the speed of sound straight into atmospheric pressures? That's going to be like hitting a brick wall. "Opening an airlock" will send in a shockwave down the tube to meet the capsule. And then to boot, its lift surfaces, designed for providing lift in a near-vacuum, are suddenly going to be facing huge amounts of air.

      It's actually better to have hypersonic (relative to atmospheric air) projectiles moving through vacuums or near vacuums literally break through whatever "airlock" is sealing off the end (this is done in several types of hypersonic guns) - it's better to hit a literal (as thin as possible) wall than to hit the shock of air flooding into a near vacuum.

      There is no such thing as a "hyperloop propulsion module". Hyperloop capsules are not self-propelled.

      Note that you can't reach "mach anything" greater than 1 in such a tube relative to the internal gases. But you can increase the speed of sound several times over by using sparse hydrogen and/or very hot gases in the tube instead of sparse atmospheric air.

      --
      I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
  8. Literally by bravecanadian · · Score: 4, Funny

    a pipe dream..

  9. Re:To demonstrate the technology, transport cargo by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    I'm probably being Toronto, Canada

    Can I be Peculiar, Missouri?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  10. Re:.. pressurized to minimize the G forces effects by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The author doesn't know what G-forces are, that's all. They were trying to say that the person isn't exposed to a vacuum.

    --
    I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
  11. Re:Yeah, not gonna happen by nukenerd · · Score: 2

    "One thousand(sic) of atmospheric pressure" is not "pretty much as good as a "vacuum". Hard vacuums operate at around a trillionth of atmospheric pressure. At a thousandth of atmospheric pressure, even if you weren't in a tube you'd face relevant wind resistance at those sorts of speeds.

    My original and subsequent comments have not been about the propulsion, suspension or air resistance; they have been about the cost and challenge of building the tube. No, I have not read the concept design document (we are not the design committee here), but I have got the point that it is in a tube kept at a near vacuum.

    From the structural point of view it does not matter whether the internal absolute pressure (I'm trying hard to avoid the word "vacuum" as it seems to give issues) is a millibar, microbar, 10 millibars, 100 millibars or even a perfect vacuum - the structural design of that tube will be the same.

    No it will not be as simple or cheap as an oil pipeline.

    Oil pipelines have internal pressure (ie above atmospheric) which makes them structurally simpler because the pipe walls are in tension - which most structural material is very efficient at holding. OTOH, the Hyperloop tube walls will be in compression so there is the additional failure mode of wall buckling to consider - unstable implosion of the pipe in other words. With a tube 4m diameter (I got that from Wikipedia too) this is likely to be the dominant structural consideration. To avoid implosion buckling, steel walls will need to be either uneconomically thick, or will need to be copiously re-inforced with circumferential flanges and longitudinal ribs - unlike oil pipelines. One solution would be to make the tube of concrete which is far cheaper than steel, so the walls could be thick and hence more stable against implosion buckling - but then there would be far more self-weight to consider, negating the "advantage" of light pods/capsules/cars/whatever-they-are-called.

    A further difference from oil pipelines is that the latter can make relatively abrupt changes of direction. Eg, to cross a small valley, the oil pipes can simply dive down into it and rise up the far side, on relatively low and normally-spaced pedestals all the way. The Hyperloop could not do this - it would need a high viaduct like any conventional railway - in fact it would be far fussier than a conventional railway to keep the lateral and vertical accelerations within passenger tolerance at its high speed. Maybe the landscape is featureless where the Hyperloop is going (I don't know); otherwise some very serious civil engineering is going to be required on its route.