Slashdot Mirror


Hyperloop One Announces Opening of Its First Manufacturing Plant (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Hyperloop One is today announcing the opening of its first manufacturing plant. Called Hyperloop One Metalworks, the 105,000 square-foot building in North Las Vegas will be the new professional home of many of the company's 170 employees, including engineers, machinists and welders. These folks will build and test a number of components for the DevLoop, a full-system prototype of the Hyperloop, set for testing in 2017. The project, if successful, promises a half-hour travel time between Stockholm and Helsinki, which is the equivalent of about 300 miles. The company plans to have a working prototype of the Hyperloop by 2017 thanks to this new plant."Hyperloop One Metalworks is the first Hyperloop manufacturing plant in the world," said co-founder and President of Engineering Josh Giegel in a press release. "The ability to have a world-class machine shop in-house gives us an advantage to build rapidly and develop the Hyperloop in real-time."

128 comments

  1. Translating for the rest of the world by Edis+Krad · · Score: 4, Informative

    300 miles = 482 kilometers.
    Incidentally, 482 km in 30 minutes is about 960 km/h. Not bad!

    1. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. When will Europeans learn to use more than one unit system? Is it that hard for their tiny minds?

    2. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Edis+Krad · · Score: 4, Informative
    3. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which is equivalent to one (1) Stockholm-Helsinki-Distance-Unit. And so we come full circle.

      BTW, it's also 283701 smoots.

    4. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by darthsilun · · Score: 1

      If you're not careful you'll trigger a rant about how we spell Aluminum and how we write our dates backwards.

    5. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No rant necessary; you've just acknowledged you do those things wrong.

      Admitting you're at fault is the first step to fixing the problem.

    6. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know. They're so easily triggered these days..

    7. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the obligatory American translating metric units into obscure imperial units, like in the recent story about record temperatures in the Kuwait?

    8. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Princeofcups · · Score: 0

      If you're not careful you'll trigger a rant about how we spell Aluminum and how we write our dates backwards.

      Aluminum? No such word unless you count published typos.

      Self fulfilling prophesy much?

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    9. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Miamicanes · · Score: 4, Funny

      "International" dates are big-endian.

      British dates are little-endian.

      American dates are VAX-endian.

      Sorry. I've been waiting 20 years for the chance to use "VAX-endian" in a sentence. I couldn't pass it up... :-D

      (for anybody who didn't major in computer science... the way VAX mainframes represented double-precision floating point internally was... er... kind of weird... I think it did something wacky like represent the mantissa as a little-endian bit sequence, followed by a big-endian exponent, so the most significant bits ended up in the middle. Or something like that. I'm not old enough to have had to personally deal with it, but I remember one of my professors mentioning it as a historical footnote during the discussion of big- vs little-endian-ness as an example of how a vendor could completely throw a monkey wrench into the usual dichotomy and make a REAL mess).

    10. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by sexconker · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Unless you're using Kelvin and metric time, you can STFU about metric.

      It's worse for everyday use because shit is based on 10 which doesn't divide as evenly as things like 12, 36, 5280, etc.
      For scientific use, no one with a brain gives a shit. Units are units. Measure and convert as necessary.

      And don't fall for the "significant figures" bullshit, either. Most people get it wrong, including the "authorities" on the matter. The only things you should round due to significant figures are measurements beyond the known precision of the measuring tool. Yet everyone rounds out the results of calculations, and a lot of assclowns do stupid shit like treat gravity as 3.0 X10^1 f/s^2 or convert mm to inches by dividing by 25 despite 25.4 being the exact conversion.

    11. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Metric isn't universal for every field either. Aviation (and other forms of navigation) is typically based on nautical miles. The reason why is because they correspond perfectly to minutes of latitude, and because it's considerably easier when doing time/distance equations (and the 60 base scale we use for time happens to easily calculate into navigational figures as well, which is probably why the Babylonians used it for astronomy.)

    12. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you colonials spelled it 'ax'?

    13. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Archfeld · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I worked on PDP's in my younger days. I haven't thought about that in a long time. Another oddity I deal with but never understood why is the difference between International sports hosting order and the US. In the US it Team A @ Team B, while internationally it is Team A hosting Team B. I have to remind myself of that when I am watching UEFA/BPL/La Liga, vs US football or the MLS.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    14. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The babylonians used and we use 360 degrees and the divisor 60 for one reason:
      By coincident the year is nearly exactly 360 days
      Which means the rise of a star is every day nearly exactly one degree off.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by dbIII · · Score: 1

      and a lot of assclowns do stupid shit like treat gravity as 3.0 X10^1 f/s^2 or convert mm to inches by dividing by 25

      Only in high school and really shitty hobby coding instead of anything in science or industry.

    16. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's worse for everyday use because shit is based on 10 which doesn't divide as evenly as things like 12, 36, 5280, etc.
      This is a ver dumb argument, and wrong btw, a foot is not evenly divideable by 36.
      Secondly: no one cares if a measuring can be diveded evenly (I assume you actually meant: diveded by integer division without leaving a reminder?)
      Thirdly: it helps you absolutely nothing that a foot is 'evenly divedeable' by 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 because 9 feet 1" e.g is undevideable by any of them, so is 9 feet 9" and plenty of others.
      I for my part extremely rarely work with stuff that exactly x (unit)'s long where dividing it up leads to nice rational numbers or natural numbers even. More interestingly: the situation that I have to divide something up like that rarely occures.
      In real life my meassures are odd (and have a decimal point) all the time. So are yours.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    17. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Aluminum? No such word unless you count published typos.

      Are you ignorant or stupid?

    18. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bitch please.

      >It's worse for everyday use because shit is based on 10 which doesn't divide as evenly as things like 12, 36, 5280, etc.

      That's ridiculous. Metric uses a decimal point, not fractions, and is therefore by definition much simpler. When you get into big numbers non-decimal systems suck. That is exemplified by your conversion examples.

      The things you complain about in conversion are due to imperial units. Further, your argument is disingenuous as you start off saying everyday use, then use scientific notation and the definition of gravity as an example. It is accepted world wide that metric is the system of choice for engineering. Any argument otherwise is kinda like climate-denial, as in, 'wow, what an idiot!'

      All metric unit conversions can be done with NO complicated, useless, and perfunctory math. You just move the decimal point. How many inches in 473ft? How many centimetres in 473m?

    19. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You fucking moron.

      How many 'metric degrees' do you think there are in a circle?

      God I miss slashdot.

    20. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Wow amazing advice. Pick what unit you want, convert and divide away however you feel, and don't worry about significant figures.

    21. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      UK here, all distances and speeds in miles and MPH

    22. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That's because in Europe, it's much more viable. And we've already reached the Civ tech of electrified railways, so we're not skipping tech levels. ;)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    23. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans, they're so easily triggered these days...

    24. Re: Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      400!

    25. Re: Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No we have pokémon here now!

    26. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Exactly. As long as the Brits continue to state their body weight in "stones" (whatever TF that is), then shut up about us commonly using non-metric units.

    27. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      All metric unit conversions can be done with NO complicated, useless, and perfunctory math.

      The thing you're missing is that common people almost never do unit conversions?

      Quick, how many inches in a mile? Answer: who cares. Regular people driving to work never need to figure that out. How many inches in 473 feet as in your example? Again, no one cares, they don't need to do that. Go find some housewife who's cooking something and ask her how many cubic inches are in a gallon. Guess what? She doesn't care, she's never needed to do that.

      Easy unit conversions with metric units are really convenient when you're working in science or engineering. If you're an accountant or a manager, you never, ever need to do stuff like that. This is why in America, the scientists and engineers all use metric units at work (unless they work in defense), and switch back to conventional units when they leave the office. There simply isn't any need for it.

    28. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      For the aluminum thing, *you're* doing it wrong. Aluminum was the original word, before some idiots decided to change it for no good reason.

      If you disagree, you're a hypocrite, because all the other old latin element names, and some others, are the same: cuprum, ferrum, aurum, plumbum, argentum, hydragyrum, platinum, molybdenum, etc. In short, if you're not also insisting on calling Pt "platinium", then you're an idiot and a hypocrite.

    29. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a lot of assclowns do stupid shit like treat gravity as 3.0 X10^1 f/s^2 or convert mm to inches by dividing by 25

      Only in high school and really shitty hobby coding instead of anything in science or industry.

      I work in academia at a major institution. I can tell you it's not only high school and it spills over to industry.

    30. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Christ almighty did someone buy this troll account? Usually the angel'o'sphere retard's posts are at least readable.

      It's not a dumb argument, almost all measurements are made to be practical and divisible. Look up acre, for example.
      A foot is not divisible by 36, and I didn't claim it was. A yard is, however. It's also divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18.
      A pound is 16 ounces so you can repeatedly halve it. This is important in common tasks, such as cooking. People didn't have digital scales back in the day. And most in America still don't today because they're not needed. Cups to pints to quarts to gallons follows similar logic. When we do need different things for different tasks we use them. See teaspoons and tablespoons - both the items and the units of measure.

      Many people care if things can be divided evenly. Maybe Europeans don't, I don't know. And if you have to "assume" what someone means when they say "divided evenly" then you're a clown. It literally means to be divided into equal parts. Metric units are less amenable to that. It's 2, 5, 10 all day long.

      For your part you're a clown.

    31. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by sexconker · · Score: 1

      No, I'm advising people to use whatever they want and to IGNORE significant figures unless they know how to use them. Most people don't.
      They should ONLY be used for specific measurements where precision of the measuring device is known, NOT on any calculations or conversions thereupon.

      The way it's taught, the lowest precision measurement is applied to every damned term and every intermediate calculation.

    32. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      300 miles = 482 kilometers. Incidentally, 482 km in 30 minutes is about 960 km/h. Not bad!

      Yes, but how many rods to the hogshead does it get?

    33. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by microbox · · Score: 1

      Hyperloop sounds like snake-oil to me. It will never work with anything remotely like existing technologies. Think about how much heat expansion you'll get on the tubes. That means you'll have to have lots of joints for expansion. Each of these will have to have perfect seals. It will be under 10 tons of pressure per square metre, and any rupture will cause air to rush into the tube at about the speed of sound. Tons of air. Thunderf00t has a takedown video. It is worth watching, just to consider the points he brings up -- although I find he comes across as a bit of an ass.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    34. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does not divide evenly???
      10/2 = 5.00
      10/3 = 3.3333333333
      10/4 = 2.50
      10/5 = 2.00
      10/6 = 1.6666666666
      10/7 = 1.4285714285
      10/8 = 1.25
      10/9 = 1.11

      12/2 = 6.00
      12/3 = 4.00
      12/4 = 3.00
      12/5 = 2.40
      12/6 = 2.00
      12/7 = 1.7142857142
      12/8 = 1.50
      12/9 = 1.3333333333
      12/10 = 1.20
      12/11 = 1.0909090909

      So i would say they have the same type of issues with division, but metric only have one odd number..

      If i need 10 inches of rope, how much is that in foot? 100 inches is 8.33333 feet..
      If i need 1 meter of rope, how much is that in centimeters? well, just add 0 zeroes and there you go.. 100 cm.

      Millimeters, meters, kilometers and so on is all based on the same base making it easy to convert between them..

    35. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And with cooking you have to double things too...
      10/2 = 5, 5/2 = 2.25, 2.25=1.125 .... quite easy and i did it all in my head...
      For doubeling
      1*2 = 2, 2*4 = 8, 8*8 = 36 .. think i see a red thread here..

      So if you take a recipe that says use 3/4 tsp of salt for 1 portion and you want to make 20 portions.... 3/4 teaspoon = 0.25 tablespoon. 0.25*20 = 5 tablespoons....

      With a recipe in metric that says use 3.5ml of salt i easily multiply it by 20 and get 70.. (move comma one step right and double.)

      But ofcoruse you can make it the other way around too.. say you have a recepie for 6 people and you want to make just one portion imperial makes it easy to divide it.. same thing with metric if you have a recipe for 4 and want to make enough for 1.
      On the other hand if you have something measured in cup's and want to know the amount in tablespoons that makes it a bit harder, but still fairly easy since with cooking you don't have to be that exact..

      The thing with metric is that you don't have to do conversions between teaspoons, tablespoons, cups etc.. This makes it easy to make mistakes.. without thinking.. Multiply and convert into the correct measurement 180 teaspoons into cups...

      In metric.. 180ml is 18 centiliters or 0.18 liters.

      and btw, 180 teaspoons is 3.75 cups. (at least according to google.)

    36. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but it's only 5,10323×10^-11 lightyears!

    37. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you are mistaken.

      The fact that 90% of the planet uses the metric system clearly proofs: no one cares about dividing evenly.

      There is no reason they should.

      See teaspoons and tablespoons - both the items and the units of measure.
      And, what is the point? Both vary greatly in size, it is unclear how high the salt/sugar etc. is piled in the spoon, it is only somewhat "equalized" when you measure liquids, and as a cook you are supposed to use your own judgement if you consider the spoon in your hand a big one or a small one and decide if the recipe says: 3 - 4 spoons if you rather use only 3 or go for 4. Or you use your experience, considering that you usually use either the same spoon over a long time, or at some point find one which suits you.

      almost all measurements are made to be practical and divisible
      No they are not. They are random results of habits or natural phenomena.

      To comfortably work with your "favoured" unit system, you would need a different number system, which does not exist anymore. (Hint: read about old celtic number systems, babylonians, or the maya systems. And frankly I hope you are not a programmer, you would be really pissed if you had to work on a machine with 24 bits double words and 33 bits address bus.)

      I suggest to fuck sake read something about the matter instead of insulting fellow slash-dotters.

      With your argumentation your are shooting yourself into the foot. A yard is not dividable by 36. The next smaller unit is feet, not inches. With your argument I can tell you 150cm are perfectly dividable by 30, 50, 3 etc. However strictly speaking the next smaller unit is dm. Or I could tell you: 1000 is perfectly dividable by 8, yielding 125. Hence everyone know that 100 / 8 is 12.5, wow ... that is not even dividable but every school kid can divide 100 by 8 without thinking. It is even super simple dividable by 16 ... because that is just half of 12.5 :D 6.25 ... and so on. If you missed that particular "subsection" of the small/great multiplication "matrix" ... you still can catch up.

      No one cares if a measure is easy divided without rest into an odd or even number. People have arbitrary sizes. And no one is going to divide the size of people.

      Sexconquer can be dived evenly by 3 into angel'o'sphere's ... makes no sense at all.

      70Fahrenheit can be perfectly easy divided into ... what ever. And Celsius can't ... wow, how stupid is that?

      My car is not 4 meters long, to be dived by 4 into perfectly 100cm long 1m pieces. My car unfortunately is 4019mm long. Not dividable by anything reasonable. And it would not be dividable by anything reasonable if it was 4 yards, 2 feet, 2 inches and 3''' ... and no one cares. We only care if the parking slot is bigger!

      Why the funk is your bank account filled with the metric system? Makes no SENSE! Why don't you demand a (5,280/1,760)-3-12 system? And ... what would you pick for the 3rd position? Feet or Yards? Well, s e talk about money, perhaps "bushels" would be the best "unit" for the third position from the right? Why does your Dollar is divided into 100 cents and no longer in 8 shillings to 12 pence each? Oh, my bad ... that was the evil empire and not the glorious gods own country.

      Or as we at it, why don't we write numbers "right"? Instead of:
      ___10 - ten
      _1010 - thousand and ten

      We should write it as it is correct in our writing system:
      01 - ten
      0101 - thousand and ten
      ------
      0201 - thousand and twenty

      You see, how neatly without effort the numbers are aligned to the left and can easily be added?

      Do you even know why we write numbers in the wrong order?

      Ah, if you want to know why a foot is 12 inch, and can't be bothered to read wikipedia ... a foot originally was literally the size of the foot o

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    38. Re: Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnesium. Chromium. Uranium. Plutonium. Neptunium....

    39. Re: Translating for the rest of the world by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People in the construction industry regularly use materials that are 4' wide and appreciate that 4' is evenly divisible by 12", 16" and 24" when they are building support structure to hang materials like sheathing on...

    40. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      By coincident the year is nearly exactly 360 days
      Which means the rise of a star is every day nearly exactly one degree off.

      No, that's not why. The Babylonian number system was base 60 as opposed to our base 10 system. The fact that there are 365 days in a year is coincidental. The number 360 would be represented as the number 60 if done in their base unit and converted to our numeric symbols. This means that you can divide by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60 without the need for representing as fractions, decimals, etc, which is very convenient. Just how convenient? Well, take for example the fact that we have pi up to several million digits at this point and we still can't accurately model a circle of infinite size no matter how many digits we solve pi to...in other words, it's an irrational number if your numeral system is base 10.

      However in Babylonian math, pi is simply the number 3. That's it. No 3.14159blahblahblah. Just fucking 3. Much easier to calculate equations involving circles, isn't it? That's the whole point.

    41. Re: Translating for the rest of the world by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Your point?

      Some elements end in -um, some in -ium. If you complain about aluminum, then you're a hypocrite for also not complaining about all the others. Americans aren't complaining about all the elements ending in -ium; we have no problem understanding that some are one way and some another, it's only a bunch of dickheads who seem to think they should all end in -ium and complain about this even though a bunch of them don't, and haven't for millenia.

    42. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      "How many 'metric degrees' do you think there are in a circle?"

      Did you really want to ask that? The answer of course is :- 2 x pie, or 6.283185..etc. The specific SI unit is the radian, a full circle = 2 x pie radians..
      Of course 360 degrees is also an acceptable SI unit, so its a bit of a redundant question. :)

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    43. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't recommend trying to build anything that involves circles using that notation. Not unless you allow an extra 0.141 'overlap' on each axial piece.
      BTW the numbering system should not affect the value of pie. There basically is no (sane) way to make pie rational.

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    44. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      No, that's not why. The Babylonian number system was base 60 as opposed to our base 10 system.

      Sigh ...

      and the Babylonian number system is based on 60, because of:
      By coincident the year is nearly exactly 360 days
      Can't be so hard to grasp.

      However in Babylonian math, pi is simply the number 3.
      That is wrong.
      It is still 3.1495...blah

      To have "3" as the value of PI your number system would need to have instead of a 1 a special "1" that is PI/3.

      That's the whole point.
      Seems you missed the whole point and you are bad at math (or history, or both)

      The value of PI used by the Babylonians btw. is 25/8=3.125.

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

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    45. Re:Translating for the rest of the world by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ah, forgot to mention:
      The american Wikipedia article is misleading with its "true place positional value" statement and the reference to sedecimal.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Every "place" actually was written in a decimal system :D or at least in a from decimal derived system.

      E.g. 360 is 6 times 60 + 00
      In pseudo Babylonian that would be 0-6-00 (dashes used to separate the places).

      So what is a more interesting number? 51 perhaps, or 52. We would write that obviously like this: 0-5-1. In Babylonian script it would be 0-0-51. But how did they actually write the 51?

      Actually they had only two "signs" for digits, lets use k (for ten) and y (for 1). So 51 is written kkkkk y. 52 would be kkkkk yy and 59 would be kkkkk yyyyyyyyy

      So at every position of a sedecimal "digit", they used a ten based 2 digit system to write the number. So in their brain they where calculating likely in a decimal system.

      360 in decimal translates to:
      yyyyyy -(nothing here) -

      and e.g. 412 (360 + 52) translates to
      yyyyyy - kkkkk yy

      and 714 (11*60+54) translates to
      k y - kkkkk yyyy

      Perhaps you find it interesting to read a bit about it :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. This could change everything... by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ....just like the Segway did.

    1. Re:This could change everything... by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      ....just like the Segway did.

      It's going to carry mall cops to Cinnabon at 960 km/hr? Saul is not going to like this.

    2. Re:This could change everything... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      ....just like the Segway did.

      Except you could actually build the Segway, and they did. And no, it's didn't change everything, it barely changed anything.

      This hyperloop bullshit is technologically impossible to construct and maintain, let alone protect against the simplest of threats or malfunctions.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    3. Re:This could change everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we have 3D printers and we are now in the post-manufacturing anti-Luddite future?

    4. Re:This could change everything... by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I'm curious how much it will change given it seems like such a ripe terrorism target. I mean think about it, it's a really big evacuated tube that houses an object that moves very fast. I can't help but wonder what kind of hell a well timed explosion could cause.

    5. Re:This could change everything... by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      This hyperloop bullshit is technologically impossible to construct and maintain, let alone protect against the simplest of threats or malfunctions.

      Exactly what they said in 1900 about the airplane...

    6. Re:This could change everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet in a few years a pair of bike mechanics put a home-made engine on a kite and flew.

      Do you think the Hyperloop could be built by two technicians and bailing wire in a few years?

    7. Re:This could change everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing impossible about HyperLoop. It's just impractical, completely unnecessary and solves no problem (other than the problem of "what do I do with all this money I want to throw away").

      Stockholm to Helsinki in 30 minutes? OK. But we can already do that. It's called airplanes. More importantly, your multi-billion euro hyperloop will ONLY take you from Stockholm to Helsinki, while existing airplanes can take you to any of the hundreds of existing airports in the world.

    8. Re:This could change everything... by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      There's nothing impossible about HyperLoop. It's just impractical, completely unnecessary and solves no problem

      You forgot "expensive". The hyperloop is going to need some massive civil engineering unless it can be built on an almost flat and empty plain. That is because changes in direction (in either the lateral or vertical planes) will need to be very gradual to avoid large g-forces on the passengers. So think in terms of a lot of tunnelling, viaducts, and property demolition (no-one will want to live under this thing). Some people would have us believe that it will cost no more than a large oil pipe line - that's just, er .. Hype.

      Stockholm to Helsinki in 30 minutes? OK. But we can already do that. It's called airplanes.

      Having said the above, railways (and the Hyperloop is one, albeit with funny rails) have an efficiency advantage over planes for a heavy traffic route. Whether Stockholm-Helsinki is heavily trafficked, and whether the Hyperloop can ever be enginered to carry more than a minority of premium passengers, I do not know.

    9. Re:This could change everything... by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      Exactly what they said in 1900 about the airplane...

      A few well-known people at the time scoffed, but the majority of technical people at the time realized it was indeed possible.

      One cool thing about airplanes is that, unlike the hyperbullshitloop, when one of them has a failure, it doesn't kill everyone else in every other plane flying that route.

      The temperature-contraction of the tube issues alone make this unworkable, but don't let physics get in the way of your fantasy. Producing a high vacuum environment in that size of a vessel is also wildly impractical, and I speak as someone who worked with high vacuum extensively for over a decade early in my career.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    10. Re:This could change everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hyperloop does not use a high-vacuum environment, it's actually around 1 millibar of pressure. Sure it's a lot lower than the 1000 millibar we have at sea-level, but it's not too crazy..

      The pressure-vessel skin of ISS is ~3,175mm, and that's in a place that have quite a bit lower than 1 millibar pressure so keeping it, with enough air-pumps to allow for small leaks, should not be too hard.

      If vacuum is lost in the tubes it does not fail instantly... air starts escaping causing each capsule to slowly slow down by more and more air-resistance as air enters the tunnel.... Sure it may be a quite quick stop, but still...
      As soon as you start getting some air in the tube it will act as a air-break for all moving vessels.. Sure one capsule could be run into from behind, but that could be managed as we do with trains today.
      Another way could be to have equalizing pipes on the outside of the tube that are longer than one capsule to allow air moving past capsules allowing for a leak to affect the whole loop instead of just the ones closest to it.

      As for

      The temperature-contraction of the tube

      i have no idea, but is this not just an issue when having large amounts of gas expanding while here you have a fast-moving object that would heat at the front and cool at the back? The air around the capsule should be quite minimal but would that still cause such a big issue?
      Or are you maybe talking about ambient temperature that goes up and down during the year contracting/expanding the tube? Say inner diameter of 3 meters for the tube and 2mm clearance (worst case during the coldest temperature). How much would that expand if the temperature went up 20 degrees if it was built in:
      - Aluminium 2cm
      - Steel 2cm
      - Concrete with some type of smooth thin (0.5mm plastic?) inner lining.
      - Acrylic glass (5cm thick?)

      Please educate me what the main issues would be...

    11. Re:This could change everything... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we have a big flat ocean between Stockholm and Helsinki.. Submerge it 50 meters below the surface...

      Changes in direction is probably more restricted due to the small distance between the capsule to the inner surface of the tube.. If too sharp turn it would get stuck.
      If something large would be built it could also be managed by having hub's (like airports) where you have 10-15 switches when traveling between Stockholm and Barcelona...
      For cost.. airports do cost money too, and airplanes too... quite a bit actually...
      The main benefit of this would be low-cost per trip, but it would have a very high investment cost..
      It's similar to that of subway's vs bus'es.

  3. What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:What a coincidence! by Fwipp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What a trash video. He basically says "um have they considered that you'll be going fast and that crashing is bad?"

      He's not even consistent - he claims in one breath that any crash would breach the outer walls and that repressurization would be catastrophically fast, and in the next that humans couldn't possibly survive until the tube repressurized and would die nearly instantly from being exposed to vacuum.

      He also doesn't really know how anything works and throws in meaningless stats constantly. Like when he compares the mass of the air in the tube about 20 minutes in - irrelevant to anything. It's like saying the water pressure in my shower is somehow increased by the mile of plumbing between me and the water tower.

    2. Re:What a coincidence! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of a "fluid hammer"? The mass of the hammer matters there.

    3. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmm he probably has a great deal more knowledge on how that works than you. Note that catastrophic re-pressurization of the tube and depressurization of a capsule are actually two distinctly different events.

    4. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh look everyone! It's a moron who doesn't know anything! Fwipp, you need to get past 2nd grade before you get on the internet.

    5. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of a "fluid hammer"? The mass of the hammer matters there.

      Only for incompressible fluids. Not air.

    6. Re: What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are so dumb!!!

    7. Re:What a coincidence! by guruevi · · Score: 2, Informative

      A crash or compromise of the internal vehicle would expose the occupants to the vacuum, a crash or compromise of the outer shell would cause a rush of atmospheric air at the speed of sound to hit the vehicle. That is to say given you can even plausibly get a vacuum that large. It hasn't been done before and requires a lot of engineering including vacuum seals that don't even exist yet. The current design as marketed doesn't even account for the steel tubes expanding and contracting.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    8. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      including vacuum seals that don't even exist yet.

      I've worked on vacuum vessels that sealed a door large enough to drive a car through, yet pumped down to the ultrahigh vacuum regime. The leak rates of those seals is low enough that you could have thousands of them and still be able to pump down to a vacuum good enough to remove air friction, as that is orders of magnitude higher pressure than UHV work. For things that aren't going to open and close on a regular basis, you can just weld things together, which gives a very good seal with well established recipes/methods. Consider also that UHV systems typically have to be baked to 200 C, and some not too uncommon systems are designed to hand temps ranging from 4 K to 800 C with thermal cycling, and that there are established designs for flexible components meeting these conditions.

      There is no issue with nonexistance of technology to make vacuum systems that large for what is a rather crappy vacuum and gentle mechanical constraints by relative comparison. Economically doing so such that you can make money from transportation might be another story though...

    9. Re:What a coincidence! by FoodOverdose · · Score: 2

      I think you should see another educating video about effects of near vacuum on thin metal shells

    10. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much of a vacuum do you think this is pulling? Its intended to be very slight to help reduce atmospheric drag, and the pumping will be done at regular (close) intervals down the track, not one giant pump for the entire track.

      I would imagine this thing will have less vacuum than a straw when you are drinking, and no one worries about a straw explosively decompressing.

    11. Re:What a coincidence! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      According to the Hyperloop people, the vacuum will be complete. Equivalent to the vacuum in outer space. If it were just a very light vacuum, it'd be cheaper to just not have the tubes and run a regular maglev.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    12. Re:What a coincidence! by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      And if you watched the Mythbusters episode where they tried to crush a railcar with a vacuum, you'd see that it was actually pretty difficult for a normal rail car and required them to drop a large block of concrete on the "thin metal shell" to dent it enough to collapse it.

      So all that your video demonstrated was a vessel designed for atmospheric (or higher) pressure isn't suitable for a hard vacuum. Shocking. I guess Hyperloop won't be able to build their track out of old discarded damaged railcar tankers.

    13. Re:What a coincidence! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Citation needed. Everything I've read states that it'll be a mild vacuum. There's no such thing as a "complete vacuum" on earth.

    14. Re:What a coincidence! by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Citation needed. Everything I've read states that it'll be a mild vacuum. There's no such thing as a "complete vacuum" on earth.

      Not in space either.

    15. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For things that aren't going to open and close on a regular basis, you can just weld things together

      You either are incompetent, or just plain lying. Try to weld structures that have uneven expanding due to heat and contraction (specially steel!) and see what happens.

    16. Re:What a coincidence! by guruevi · · Score: 1

      The Hyperloop resembles a vactrain system but operates at approximately one millibar (100 Pa) of pressure. That is stratosphere-level vacuum where jet engines no longer work.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    17. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a rather mild vacuum. A simple mechanical pump gets you down to about 1 Pa on even a relatively large vacuum chamber, with crappy rubber o-rings. The threshold for "high vaccuum" is often around 0.1 Pa, and ultra high vacuum, commonly used in a lot of physics experiments and easily obtainable with off the shelf pumps, is below 0.1 micropascals. The UHV threshold is still orders of magnitude above what you would find on the surface of the moon, and several orders of magnitude of what you would find between the planets, which is rather difficult to reproduce in the lab.

    18. Re:What a coincidence! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of guides (e.g. top google result) on welding specific for vacuum chamber design. Just look up any basic UHV brochure from a major supplier, like MDC or Lesker, and it will discuss using welds on systems that are bakeable to 200 C. And their websites have specialty guides to dealing with cryogenic and higher temperature setups. Baking is typically very uneven since a lot of places just slap on heater straps and insulation wherever convenient, which is why you see extra effort spent on joining metal parts to ceramic and glass parts. But that is a solved problem, and vacuum viewports take up a lot less volume than they used to, as the no longer have long flexible intermediate sections. It is simple and straightforward problem, to the point I've seen a vapor deposition system, which needed to handle a mix of externally heated and cooled 800 C and 77 K parts, used as an example project for an mechanical design course for undergrad physics students.

      But if we take your word for it... that means the ready to weld half nipples by vacuum suppliers are just scams for incompetent buyers?

  4. Bigger headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We actually have an honest-to-god manufacturing facility built in the United States and it's within spitting distance of the Gigafactory. Nevada's kickbacks must be premium.

  5. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Might as well open a manufacturing plant for perpetual motion machines. Its so ludicrous on so many levels with anyone with a basic knowledge of science.

  6. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by Princeofcups · · Score: 1

    The whole "Hyperloop" thing is a ridiculous joke that will never, EVER be built.

    Such statements are usually wrong. It will be build some time in the future, on some planet where the environment is so bad that air travel is an even worse option. It's basically another example a solution looking for a problem.

    --
    The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
  7. Re:It's too bad by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Thunderf00t debunks!

  8. Production facility without a product? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeeze Louise
    Hyperloop One does hyperbole in their press release.

    They got a big building to work in. Good for them. It might have been a production facility for a previous occupant but it is not a Hyperloop One production facility. Instead it is an engineering design shop. You need a product and production to turn a building into a production facility.

    Exaggeration in technology development press releases turns me off entirely. I understand the PR benefit in doing this, but if "engineering development shop" becomes "first production facility" what other stuff is being similarly inflated? Schedule? funding? market analysis?

    If you have early stage cool stuff that shows promise with a good potential market, and a pretty good chance for adequate funding you have no need to exaggerate.

    So why the attempt at deception?

  9. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    It is the cost thing the media parrots that drives me nuts. I just saw on the local news there will be a San Antonio/Austin loop built in the next 20 years or so that will cost 10 bucks to ride, runs every 10 minutes, 24 hours a day. Heck a bus ride across town almost costs that much and those are not running 24 hours a day or every 10 minutes in most cases. Maybe I'll announce my new magic anti-grav sphere tech that runs on air and can transport you anywhere in 30 minutes or less.

  10. Wherefore art thou Slashdot? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Three different people posting the same Youtube link to the same babbling jackass.

    You people do realize that Elon Musk had actual rocket scientists working on the original Hyperloop paper, right? Whether or not Mr. Musk's own physics degree is worth anything or not, the degrees of his employees definitely are, or SpaceX rockets wouldn't fly. They did modeling of vacuum evacuation of the tube. They did modeling of stresses on a basic pylon, using the same software they use to model the stresses on SpaceX rockets. They did modeling of the capsule. The math and engineering have been vetted pretty seriously. At least, the original version.

    Whether or not Hyperloop One's version has enjoyed the same degree of scrutiny by people who have been demonstrated not to drop a decimal place I don't know, but regardless, you can stop linking to the babbling fool.

    The fundamental flaws of Hyperloop are political, not physical. The link proposed between SF and LA will never be built because it would have followed the highway, which would deny the Right People the opportunity to get rich off of real estate speculation, the way the Not Very High Speed Rail project is allowing.

    1. Re:Wherefore art thou Slashdot? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      More than speculation in real-estate, it would not stop in the middle, further isolating those areas.

    2. Re:Wherefore art thou Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this Stockholm-Helsinki route?
      When that was mentioned on ./ before all the Scandinavians appeared to let us know no one actually wants that.

      It definitely seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

    3. Re:Wherefore art thou Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say the engineering challenges are formidable, but if someone is willing to put up real money to develop the tech further, who are we to yell from the peanut gallery and say it can't work.

      Someone will build a proper test track eventually and it will answer a lot of these questions.

    4. Re:Wherefore art thou Slashdot? by FoodOverdose · · Score: 2

      Elon Musk is entrepreneur in visionary, and his recent statements makes you reconsider adequacy of his vision.

    5. Re:Wherefore art thou Slashdot? by Kiuas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You people do realize that Elon Musk had actual rocket scientists working on the original Hyperloop paper, right? Whether or not Mr. Musk's own physics degree is worth anything or not, the degrees of his employees definitely are, or SpaceX rockets wouldn't fly. They did modeling of vacuum evacuation of the tube. They did modeling of stresses on a basic pylon, using the same software they use to model the stresses on SpaceX rockets. They did modeling of the capsule. The math and engineering have been vetted pretty seriously.

      I think you slightly miss the overall point of the video. The math is one thing, and surely no-one's claiming it's impossible to build a system that works with enough effort, however the real question is whether or not such a system will be worth the advantage, which, as the video explains, will not be much more than an hour cut from the travel time when you take into consideration that the system will likely have to have close to airport-level security anyway.

      The cost calculations they've been showing thus far are vastly understated, they assume no maintenance costs whatsoever, and the costs for the building of the thing are sketchy at best.

      Overall the whole project of HyperLoop One as it's been thus far presented is heavy on hype and light on facts and doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence because of that. For example as mentioned in the video, they currently waive the challenges caused by thermal expansion of by saying they can have a moving tube at the endpoint, that is, that they'll just allow the whole thing to expand few hundred meters and just move the station with it, but it should be obvious that you can't have 600 miles of solid steel tubing without any expansion joints and assume that this thing won't buckle at all and cause issues... I'm no engineer but this still seems very sloppy if they want their project to be taken seriously.

      Simulating these things is one thing since in simulations you can simply assume a working system (ie. a working 600 miles long vacuum-tube), the video is talking about the difficulties of actually building/maintaining such a system using current technology while keeping the costs sensible.

      This is not to say some version of the hyperloop is physically impossible, just that given all the challenges present in actually building and maintaining one, it looks to me at the moment like it's not really worth it.

      As this article well put is:

      The biggest issues are speed and scale. The Hyperloop was pitched as faster and cheaper than alternatives like cars and trains, but even small shifts in those numbers can dramatically change how it stacks up. It's easy to imagine safety concerns limiting Hyperloop speeds to just a fraction of its theoretical top speed or right-of-way issues keeping stations far from urban centers. Would we still be excited about the Hyperloop if a 30-minute trek became a three-hour one? What if it cost $60 billion instead the promised $6 billion? After enough setbacks, it might not be worth developing the technology at all. Those deployment details are life-or-death issues for the Hyperloop, but as long as the tests are focused on small-scale loops, it's not clear we'll ever get answers to them.

      SpaceX's latest round of tests doesn't seem likely to change that. The test track is only 5 miles, nowhere near the distance it would take to reach 700 miles per hour. Another test track built by Hyperloop Test Technologies will have the same problem, aiming at a 200mph top speed. For the same reason, these test tracks can’t address the unique safety issues that come with near-supersonic travel. The result is just a tube-powered version of conventional transportation tech like maglev and rail. That doesn't mean that useful work can't be done on this round of test tracks, but it means the central question of the Hyperloop — whether it

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    6. Re:Wherefore art thou Slashdot? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The physics are sound but the engineering practicalities may not be. For example, the original design requires air to be actively pumped from in front of the vehicle out the back, because even in low pressure the air resistance is problematic. You can't get much lower air resistance without a much more complicated, and thus expensive and failure prone, tube.

      The issue of the pylons subsiding is also rather severe. On Japanese high speed railways they inspect every metre of track every night, and repair it as necessary. Repairing subsided track is relatively quick and easy, you just shove some spacers under it. Fixing a subsiding pylon... It's an engineering challenge that needs a clever solution.

      The economics are also questionable. The capacity is low, even with multiple cars. High speed rail carries hundreds of people and their luggage in comfort, and in Japan it leaves every 15 minutes. The new maglev trains are going to start at 550kph and are expected to reach over 900kph in time, once the company has experience running them and maintaining the track. So actually they are going to run much larger trains at similar speeds to this design on a much cheaper, lower tech track, and presumably with their usual excellent safety record. And they are building it now, with proven technology.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Wherefore art thou Slashdot? by Grishnakh · · Score: 0

      The drooling masses of Luddites on Slashdot are probably still claiming that SpaceX's reusable rockets don't exist, or that all the videos of them landing after a launch are faked.

      But you're probably right about the Hyperloop never coming to California, at least not any time soon. They'll probably build a bunch of them in various other countries on the other side of the planet first, and finally, 50 years later, California will decide it wants one after spending a few trillion on a high-speed rail project that never gets finished.

    8. Re:Wherefore art thou Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fundamental flaws of Hyperloop are political, not physical.

      Economical.

      Hyperloop cost per mile is at least one, possibly two orders of magnitude higher than rail for not even twice the speed.
      If there existed customers willing to pay such a premium Concorde would still be flying. Which it is not.

  11. slashdot needs better trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the Egon oh-so Musky guy?

    All that shows up here are cows and apps.

  12. Notice Elon said "California" High speed rail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice Elon Musk said "California" High speed rail, and not a generic high speed rail line. China could build a high speed rail line cheaper than California can. The US sucks at building infrastructure on a budget.

    I don't know who was foolish enough to invest money in hyperloop. I just hope they don't con the US govt into spending money on it. Germany and Japan spent over 2 decades developing their maglevs.

  13. We spent half a trillion by rsilvergun · · Score: 0

    in America on a fibre roll out that never happened and nobody has the balls to ask for our money back. So you're forgive me if I'm not in even the tinciest bit surprised shit like this can fly. The loans will be private with public guarantees and we'll all eat it like we eat sports Colosseums.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:We spent half a trillion by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      in America on a fibre roll out that never happened and nobody has the balls to ask for our money back. So you're forgive me if I'm not in even the tinciest bit surprised shit like this can fly. The loans will be private with public guarantees and we'll all eat it like we eat sports Colosseums.

      Exactly. They'll spend a shitload of public money and in the end there will be nothing to show for it. Where will the money have gone? To a magical place called "someone else's wallet".

      And whatever was built will be abandoned and left to rot, never having moved a single person from point A to point B.

      As I said before, I'll bet anyone here $10,000 that nothing comes of it and that not a single functioning vehicle or route will exist even after 10 years. Money to be held in escrow by an agreed-upon 3rd party. All of you cheerleaders who are soooooo convinced this will happen, here's your chance to put your money where your mouth is.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  14. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like Mars for example? With colonising Mars being Musks end game this kinda makes sense.

  15. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Such statements aren't usually wrong. Some superfast mass mover will exist on the ground. MagLev, or Hyperloop, or what-have you. Keep in mind, when poeple said, e.g. Da Vinci's ornithopter thing would never fly, they really meant heavier than air flight. And ewhile we got heavier than air flight, and his ornithopter can now be buitl, we primarily use planes or helicopters. The few ornithopters are built as toys. Likewise, while we may eventually be able to build a hyperloop, it seems likely that mag leve will beat it as super-fast people mover.

    The statemnts that are normally wrong are theings where no competitor obviates the need before the technology matures.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  16. Not real news, not an idea, but hey :) by minxyz · · Score: 1

    The fundamental idea was to use air cushion for vactrain, which is well known by now. This is just another instance of that. Real news would be if a new principle were to be announced... but hey, maybe will be one of the first instances of this idea :)

  17. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Sorry, you believe you have superior knowledge.
    But actually it is inferior. For you and the rest of the americans the hyperloop is a new concept.
    Actually it is minimum 45 years old and especially in Switzerland a research project since 40 years.
    The only costly thing is drilling the tunnels. And in the case of the USA, I would not wonder if they just put a pipe overground, which would drasticly reduce the costs, or burry it by digging a trench.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  18. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by istartedi · · Score: 1

    All the problems of deep space travel? I wasn't aware the hyperloop would also contain a particle accelerator that generated powerful cosmic rays, that you'd have to stock it with months of food, that passengers would suffer bone density loss due to lack of gravity, or that highly explosive chemicals would be loaded on board. I'm glad I know that now so that I can stay away from it.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  19. Prison labor involved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was prison labor involved in the battery factory and other things Musk has done in Nevada. That makes it illegal to use derived products in most of the EU with Sweden and Finland at the top of the list of countries that will not tolerate any prison labor.

    1. Re:Prison labor involved? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden [] at the top of the list of countries that will not tolerate any prison labor.

      Yeah, right.

  20. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by Beezlebub33 · · Score: 1

    You have it backwards. It is because it runs every ten minutes that it costs 10 bucks to ride. It's spreading the cost of the system over many uses. A bus ride across town doesn't have the number of users or duty cycle that would allow the cost to go down.

    --
    The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
  21. Yet this is not a real hyperloop by MayeulC · · Score: 1

    If I recall corectly, Hyperloop one is building a Maglev train in a vacuum tube, not a "hovercraft" in a low pressure tube. This company should really be called Maglev one, since it is not in fact constructing hyperloops. Nothing new here. I would be curious to hear about the technology behind Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, it seems to me that it's regular hyperloop tech.

  22. Who's First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, we stick you in this train car kinda thing, then we stick it into a pipe, like a pipeline "pig". Then we fire the car at 600 MPH through the pipe for a few hundred miles and you pop out at the other end. Totally awesome! I know!

    Who's first?

    Up next: Suicide booths.

  23. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    You are assuming that people at 4am will want to travel between austin/sa every 10 minutes. Buses run when they run because demand warrants it, and they run empty a good bit of the time even with that. To give you some idea of how much $ we are talking about, they say it is going to cost 20B, so assume for crazy sake they are correct and not off by the typical 5X. If capital costs 1 dollar per ride, that is 5.5million trips/day for 10 years. Austin/SA only has about 3 million people. So unless everyone (man, woman and child) is taking 2 trips/day for 10 years will they recover capital, assuming zero interest. This is a nerd site, does no one on this site even do a rough back of the envelope calculation for stuff like this.

  24. Re:In America??? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Well their location is one of the worst possible places in America to live. I wouldn't work there just because of where they are.

  25. Wait... by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

    Is this not the same Hyperloop One that is having massive political infighting right now, with lawsuits being slung back and forth and serious management shenanigans?

    I hope the employees of this factory are getting paid very well for the employment uncertainty they're facing.

  26. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    The Hyperloop plans I've seen call for the tube to be elevated on pylons over the ground. It's far cheaper that way, plus you don't have to worry much about seismic problems (you can engineer the pylons and tubes to have a certain amount of flexibility, much like skyscrapers do).

  27. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 0

    Actually it is minimum 45 years old and especially in Switzerland a research project since 40 years.

    And as usual, you are full of shit.

    Show us ONE functioning hyperloop station or route like the one Elon Musk is proposing, just ONE.
    Show us ONE high-vacuum tunnel several meters in diameter that is more than 10 feet long.
    Show us ONE self-contained, vacuum-capable passenger container that has ever been used.

    You can't, because they don't exist and never will.

    Mark my words: The hyperloop, as proposed, is bullshit and will never, ever be built. I'll bet anyone here $10,000 that nothing comes of it and that not a single functioning vehicle or route will exist even after 10 years. Money to be held in escrow by an agreed-upon 3rd party. Put up or shut up.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  28. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    You have it backwards. It is because it runs every ten minutes that it costs 10 bucks to ride.

    Because running something more often costs less? Then why don't operation and maintenance costs go down when you use a car 24/7?
    Your thinking is faulty. See if you can guess where.

    -

    It's spreading the cost of the system over many uses. A bus ride across town doesn't have the number of users or duty cycle that would allow the cost to go down.

    Yeah, and guess what? Neither does the demand for trips from L.A. to San Francisco have the demand or duty cycle to make it cost effective to that level. There's even less demand for longer distance routes than for shorter distance routes. Seriously, give me a fucking break, have any of you people actually thought about this shit?

    Shame on all of you who're accepting this pie-in-the-sky bullshit without the slightest bit of rational examination. For a bunch of geeks/nerds/techies, you all sure are a bunch of gullible fuckers willing to suspend your disbelief at the drop of a hat. Do ANY of you even own a calculator? Have ANY of you run some simple calculations or thought critically about ANY of the claims that are being made?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  29. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    You are assuming that people at 4am will want to travel between austin/sa every 10 minutes. Buses run when they run because demand warrants it, and they run empty a good bit of the time even with that. To give you some idea of how much $ we are talking about, they say it is going to cost 20B, so assume for crazy sake they are correct and not off by the typical 5X. If capital costs 1 dollar per ride, that is 5.5million trips/day for 10 years. Austin/SA only has about 3 million people. So unless everyone (man, woman and child) is taking 2 trips/day for 10 years will they recover capital, assuming zero interest. This is a nerd site, does no one on this site even do a rough back of the envelope calculation for stuff like this.

    Thank you for bringing a bit of sanity into the discussion. Most of the people cheering this nonsense on are dull-witted suckers who are hard of thinking.

      I'll bet anyone here $10,000 that nothing comes of it and that not a single functioning vehicle or route will exist, even after 10 years of "development".

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  30. equivalent ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how the distance between 2 cities is "the equivalent of about 300 miles".
    Why isn't is 'about 300 miles?

  31. Stop arguing about irrelevancies: by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

    I don't know from unobtainium, but doesn't it bother anyone else that the Hyperloop is not really a loop?

    A loop is more like a circle than a line, and if you take it in one direction you'll eventually arrive back at your starting point. Everything I've ever heard about the hyperloop just has it running directly from San Francisco to Los Angeles.

    I mean, I guess you could ride it from Los Angeles to San Francisco and then back, but there's a bunch of roads that do the same thing, and we don't call them loops. They're just, I don't know, duplexed. Like regular roads are.

  32. Have they figured out how........ by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

    Have they figured out how:

    (1) To make a tube that sags just a few millimeters between pylons? Hint: A 1-inch thick steel tube sags several inches between those pylons.

    (2) How to get people into space suits? Even the Air Force doesn't let pilots, even in wartime, sit in a plane at 70,000 feet without a space suit.

    (3) How to get a common-carrier license, for a vehicle and tube without emergency exits?

    Those are all pretty hard show-stoppers, and they seem to be working on everything but.

  33. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Show us ONE high-vacuum tunnel several meters in diameter that is more than 10 feet long.
    Please, stop mixing up units of measurement. Please try wolframalpha and get a clue what 10 feet is in relation to several meters (diameter).

    Show us ONE self-contained, vacuum-capable passenger container that has ever been used.
    That is off topic. Obviously no one has built that yet.

    The hyperloop, as proposed, is bullshit No it is not. It is just a peace of so far imaginary transportation. The technology for it is readily available since decades.
    and will never, ever be built. Probably.

    Put up or shut up.
    Does that mean I have to put $10,000 also into escrow to be in the bet?

    Then: no. I rather put $10,000 into Elons company and either lose it or become a billionaire. Why would I want to win your meager $10,000 when I know that if they build it they will be successful, and that the question if they build it is out of my control?

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  34. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Please, stop mixing up units of measurement. Please try wolframalpha and get a clue what 10 feet is in relation to several meters (diameter).

    In other words, you can't, can you? That's because you're lying, there is no working hyperloop, nor anything like it. And there never will be a working hyoerloop outside of some experimental bullshit designed to suck investors into the scam.

    -

    That is off topic. Obviously no one has built that yet.

    Exactly, and that's why you're full of shit, like always. No one has built one because it's impractical beyond all measure from nearly every angle.

    -

    The technology for it is readily available since decades.

    No, it hasn't. If it has, SHOW US ONE, just one example of this in the real world. As usual, you can't.

    -

    Then: no. I rather put $10,000 into Elons company and either lose it or become a billionaire.

    You'd lose it, but you couldn't raise $10,000 if your life depended on it.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  35. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    That's because you're lying, there is no working hyperloop
    I never said there is one, idiot. The liar is obviously you.

    No, it hasn't. If it has, SHOW US ONE, just one example of this in the real world. As usual, you can't.
    Three universities in Germany have a small scale version, how retarded are you?

    In other words, you can't, can you?
    This was your comment to mixing feet with meters? Well, 10 feet are 3 meters, several meters is certainly below 10 meters. So you want to see a 3 meters long tube with 5 to 10 meters diameter? And you think that is impossible to build? So a tube that has a bigger diameter than the length you demand: makes any sense?

    No, it hasn't. If it has, SHOW US ONE, just one example of this in the real world. As usual, you can't.
    You never saw a spacecraft, a submarine and a mag lev train? In what retarded world do you live?

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/... MagLevs, development started around 1922, working "prototype" in germany since 1971, working large scale demonstration since 1984, first commercial track, about a mile long since 1983 in Berlin.

    Long range tracks in China since end of 2002: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Can't be so hard to google for english versions.

    Putting that into a tube and evacuate it, is as simple as building a submarine. No idea in what stone age idea of how technology and science works you live.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  36. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Three universities in Germany have a small scale version, how retarded are you?

    Then show us a link, angel'o'sphere, show us one of these working prototypes of a vacuum train transport system.

    If you're so sure this is a workable concept, why not bet some money on it? If you can't afford $10,000, let's bet $1,000, or even just 1 dollar.

    Put your money where your mouth is, angel'o'sphere. If you won't, then I think that tells us all we need to know about your belief in this nonsense scheme.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  37. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Vacuum or low pressure air pressure "pneumatic delivery" we have since the 19th century.

    Modern concepts for cargo and passengers are:

    https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/...
    http://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/ein-...
    http://www.trendsderzukunft.de...

    Your google foo must be low on you.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  38. Re:It's a ridiculous JOKE by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    Your google foo must be low on you.

    Your intelligence foo must be low on you.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...