Slashdot Mirror


Hyperloop One Conducts First Full Systems Test But Only Traveled 70MPH (jalopnik.com)

Thelasko shares a report from Jalopnik about Hyperloop One's first full systems Hyperloop test: In the test, Hyperloop says its vehicle traveled the first portion of a track using magnetic levitation in a vacuum environment, and reached 70 mph. It's a significant leap past the company's test a year ago, which sent a sled down a track for a grand total of two seconds. And while that's not the lighting-fast speed that Hyperloop Ones says its futurist transport system could go, the company says this test -- conducted privately on May 12 -- is only Phase 1. Hyperloop One's in the process of the next phase, now aiming for 250 mph. "By achieving full vacuum, we essentially invented our own sky in a tube, as if you're flying at 200,000 feet in the air," said Shervin Pishevar, co-founder and Executive Chairman of Hyperloop One. "For the first time in over 100 years, a new mode of transportation has been introduced. Hyperloop is real, and it's here now."

148 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. It's Here Now by omnichad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This must be one of those new definitions of "here now"

    1. Re:It's Here Now by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Hmm...I"m wondering, even with liberal use of "eminent domain", it seems that digging, or above ground install and connection of this type of thing, would be quite difficult to do nationwide in the US....and that's just the private property and existing city problems. The wildly varied and often difficult terrain across the US would pose a lot of problems putting together a system like this, that requires what I'm guessing is pretty complex and massive equipment to put tube, and keep power and vacuum on such a system.

      While it sounds really cool.....I'm wondering of the practicality of it in becoming anywhere near a mass transit system.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    2. Re:It's Here Now by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Must be a one of those new definitions of "new form of transportation" too. It's not new to take a technology that's existed for 200 years and upsize it.

      It's neither new, nor here now. It's also got all the ugly problems that Trains have such as defined tracks with massive infrastructure costs. The reason cars won over trains is because of this, in comparison to RR tracks Roadways are ridiculously cheap and I have to believe that this hyperloop track will make a regular RR track look cheap. For comparison a high speed rail line from LA to SanFran is projected to cost $42 billion (I suspect the real number is closer to $200 when you factor in all the other costs like moving utilities). Building a road the same distance would cost 1/100th that. I suspect a hyperloop track for the same distance would be 10x as much as the railroad.

    3. Re:It's Here Now by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While it sounds really cool.....I'm wondering of the practicality of it in becoming anywhere near a mass transit system.

      It will never be a mass transit system. If a Hyperloop line is built it will only ever be a novelty attraction, perhaps for tourists going to Las Vegas or some Arab Sheik's toy in the desert. At the speeds they are ultimately aiming for it will need to be built in almost straight lines, so across anything but flat landscapes it will need some spectacular viaducts or tunnels - all costly to build to say nothing of the running costs.

      It could be built. Anything that does not contravine the laws of physics can be built if you throw enough money and ego at it, and Musk has enough of both. But it will not be operated for long once Musk or that Sheik get bored with it.

    4. Re:It's Here Now by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Obligatory xkcd reference: https://xkcd.com/1860/

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:It's Here Now by Kjella · · Score: 1

      For comparison a high speed rail line from LA to SanFran is projected to cost $42 billion (I suspect the real number is closer to $200 when you factor in all the other costs like moving utilities). Building a road the same distance would cost 1/100th that. I suspect a hyperloop track for the same distance would be 10x as much as the railroad.

      Musk claimed $6 billion, though that's obviously a very early estimate and most think that's very optimistic. Though you got to think there's a reason he gave this one up instead of creating a company to do it, I'm sure he'd find the investor money to only take a relatively small risk himself. There are a lot of unknowns and unsolved issues and then a non-trivial construction period before this could possibly go into production.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:It's Here Now by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      He said the reason that he gave it up is that he's running two companies (and had a hand in a third when SolarCity was separate), and he didn't have the time to get involved in a another large-scale company. This isn't hard to believe given the rapid expansion of SpaceX and Tesla. Even Musk only has 24 hours in a day, and even he has to sleep sometimes (though finding out he's taking something like Armodafinil wouldn't surprise me). He's since started two smaller companies (the Boring Company and Neuralink) that have tight focuses and are, by most accounts, being largely handled by other people.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    7. Re:It's Here Now by Dishevel · · Score: 2

      The big problem is when traveling in a near vacuum at 760 Mph and a joint leaks and part of the system gets to normal pressure and a car hits that air at 760 Mph it is going to turn a lot of people into jelly.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    8. Re:It's Here Now by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Science. Hard stuff for many. Impenetrable for you.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:It's Here Now by Enigma2175 · · Score: 1

      The reason cars won over trains is because of this, in comparison to RR tracks Roadways are ridiculously cheap

      Do you have a citation for that? From a quick search, rail costs $1-2 million per mile (source, while a 2 lane road costs $2-3 million per mile in rural areas and $3-5 million per mile in urban areas (source). Certainly doesn't seem "ridiculously cheap" in comparison.

      --

      Enigma

    10. Re:It's Here Now by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      The numbers seem off. The latest high speed line from Paris to Bordeaux cost 8 billions for 300 km. This is in the ballpark of 27 millions per km. Highways cost around 6 millions per km. Of course, both numbers can vary greatly according to the terrain characteristics. But we are certainly not talking about a factor 100 of difference... However, it's true that it's hard to imagine how the hyperloop track could be cheap.

    11. Re: It's Here Now by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The Hyperloop is fucking stupid. Another mega project to make contractors rich.

      I'm on a hyperloop team so I get a kick out of replies like this.

      --
      No sig today...
    12. Re: It's Here Now by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It will never move!
      It will never sail!
      It will never fly!
      It will never break the sound barrier!
      It will never make it to orbit!

      Faggots like you must be exhausted being constantly wrong.. Over, and over, and over, and over, and over.

      Your examples of "It will never .." are all technical attributes. If you actually read my post instead of knee-jerking I actually said "It will never be a mass transit system", which is an economic attribute, and you might also have spotted my words "It could be built". I'll go further and say that a Hyperloop line probably will be built, but only one or two fairly short ones - and soon becoming mere tourists' novelties.

      My point was that it would fail as business proposition, only propped up by Musk's money and that of the fans who invest in him.

      BTW, I don't think you know what a "mass transit system" means. It means something like the New York or London underground systems, or BART, shifting millions of people for short distances. I don't think Musk would want to comapre Hyperloop with any of those anyway.

    13. Re:It's Here Now by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      So far we have rail lines, urban subway lines, power utility lines with towers (above and belowground), state and federal highways, oil and gas pipelines (above and belowground), and water pipelines. It doesn't appear that hard to run transportation lanes of any type.

      Don't know about the USA, but in the UK it took years of public hearing, legal processes, parliamentary debates, safety studies, and economic studies to build about 100 miles of railway from the Channel Tunnel to London. Most of those existing railways and roads you refer to were built at least 100 years ago when you could just drive peasants, rednecks and Red Indians away from the proposed route using men with shotguns.

      And when someone is dead set on not selling or leasing the land the lane is routed around which is not an uncommon practice.

      Not as easy with Hyperloop as with a road or even a conventional railway. Hyperloop will require extremely gentle curvatures if the passengers are not to be subject to intolerably high g forces.

    14. Re:It's Here Now by jandersen · · Score: 1

      This must be one of those new definitions of "here now"

      In the world of quantum mechanics, this makes perfect sense; but on the downside, as soon as you observe it, the wavefunction collapses and the train ends up at a random place and time, which is why we ask our customers to keep their eyes closed while travelling.

    15. Re:It's Here Now by Shoten · · Score: 1

      Hmm...I"m wondering, even with liberal use of "eminent domain", it seems that digging, or above ground install and connection of this type of thing, would be quite difficult to do nationwide in the US....and that's just the private property and existing city problems. The wildly varied and often difficult terrain across the US would pose a lot of problems putting together a system like this, that requires what I'm guessing is pretty complex and massive equipment to put tube, and keep power and vacuum on such a system.

      While it sounds really cool.....I'm wondering of the practicality of it in becoming anywhere near a mass transit system.

      You're missing a piece of the puzzle. As we speak, Musk's tunneling machine...named "Godot," is tunneling in LA. Oh, and the company under which this work is being done? "The Boring Company."

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    16. Re:It's Here Now by r2rknot · · Score: 1

      The sites examples seem to be purposed for building of rail lines to service industrial buildings, delivering raw goods or materials. I'm not as sure those types of rail lines have the same costs as passenger service rail lines.

      --
      "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
    17. Re: It's Here Now by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My major issue with the hyperloop is that it overlaps with planes and trains in all the wrong ways. It requires a fixed path like a train, but that path requires an order magnitude more materials and engineering to construct. Why not just lay rail? It is as fast as a plane, but constrained to its path in the tube. Planes can go to any airport, as needed. And that infrastructure is already built, along with the connection infrastructure to get people to/from the air hub.
       
      It would be far, far cheaper to just lay high speed rail instead of the hyperloop. All the tech is available, well tested, and much closer to mass production. If you can't do HSR/bullet train and turn a profit, I don't see how you do so with the hyperloop. Sure, it's far, far faster, but the design, manufacturing, testing, certification, and implementation cost of what is essentially a giant pipeline with a flying submarine in it vs HSR is so much higher I can't see the ROI making the hyperloop worth it.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    18. Re:It's Here Now by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Sure.
      You design a tube system over terrain exposed to temp differences with a few thousand flexible joints to handle expansion and contraction. Keep the whole thing near a perfect vacuum and send cabs filled with people through it at 760 Mph.
      Engineering. Hard stuff for many. Easy if you do not even think about it.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    19. Re:It's Here Now by Zemran · · Score: 1

      It is also a new definition of new. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    20. Re:It's Here Now by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      It won't be a mass transit system in the sense of an urban subway or the like. But it does have the potential to move a lot of people over large distances and displace a lot of air travel. Airplanes are expensive to build and operate, use a lot of expensive fossil fuel, and cause a lot of environmental damages (even worse that their carbon footprint would indicate because a lot of the fuel is being burned in the upper atmosphere where it's close to the important ozone layer).

    21. Re:It's Here Now by Residentcur · · Score: 1

      I'm a 72 year old professional cynic, and I'm pretty excited about all this.

    22. Re:It's Here Now by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The wildly varied and often difficult terrain across the US would pose a lot of problems putting together a system like this

      You do the same thing in difficult terrain as cart drivers and rail layers have done for millennia : go along a different route.

      To a lesser degree the same applies to dealing with large fault lines. When you can't avoid them, cross at a high angle, with provisions for rapid repair when ground movement does occur. Which is going to be some engineering for a vacuum-tube containing a vehicle several metres in diameter. The sealing doors and control systems are going to be fun engineering too. At hundreds of km/hr, it's not clear which would be worse : running into a steel plate, or running into the pressure wave from a rupture.

      I'm wondering of the practicality of it in becoming anywhere near a mass transit system.

      It's going to run into a squeeze from businesses using VR/ video links as being cheaper and less time consuming than sending people, and holiday makers who find it no more convenient than going by plane. Luggage - searched or in the hold ; weighed nonetheless. Weapons and hazardous goods - no. Identity - verified, repeatedly. Door to door - no ; terminal to terminal.

      About the only workable use case I can see would be for adding capacity between nearby cities : Birmingham- London ; London - Bristol ; Brussels - Antwerp - Amsterdam ; Zurich - Geneva ; Los Angeles and San Francisco are I believe the test case, perhaps Boston - New York would be the second case. Moscow - St Petersburg would be another interesting test case.

      But even so, it's hardly mass transit. The UK examples I mentioned cover about 10% of the population, and for most of them the time for getting to the terminal will be greater than the time in transit between terminals (saying nothing about the check-in, baggage and boarding procedures at the terminal. What the proportion of USian or European or Russian populations are covered by the other lines I suggest, I don't know, but it's not going to be better as a mass transport system.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Serious question by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2

    If there's no air in the tube, how do you breathe? I mean, there is air in the capsule but I assume that is finite. So how do they refresh the air and what do they do if there's a rupture?

    1. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Your question is irrelevant because Hyperloop will never carry human passengers because it's inherently an unsafe and infeasible system.

    2. Re:Serious question by magarity · · Score: 2

      That's why the next phase aims for 250MPH. Gotta get there before your air runs out.

    3. Re:Serious question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Air compresses extremely well and you can rebreathe it several times, especially if you're scrubbing the CO2. Think of the moon landings - it's a solved problem, definitely not impossible. They could replenish the tanks at the start/end of the journey and perhaps even at stops in between. As for a rupture you can use multiple bulkheads to make it less likely, and you run similar risks in planes. And you don't instantly die if exposed to vacuum, it's unpleasant but survivable if you're rescued quickly. Perhaps in an emergency they reintroduce atmosphere to the tube. I believe they're also only reducing the air pressure, rather than trying to achieve full vacuum.

    4. Re:Serious question by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      If there's no air in the tube, how do you breathe? I mean, there is air in the capsule but I assume that is finite. So how do they refresh the air and what do they do if there's a rupture?

      BYOO OHYB

    5. Re:Serious question by DogDude · · Score: 2

      I would imagine they'd have to have compressed air in the capsules.

      In terms of a rupture, all the pod things would just stop, I would assume. That's kinda' the whole premise of the safety of the design... they just roll through the tube when they're not floating through the vacuum.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    6. Re:Serious question by ls671 · · Score: 1

      It seems feasible enough in space, same risk of dying in a vacuum if something goes wrong. Now, think of submarines with orders of magnitude more pressure involved and it also seems feasible.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    7. Re:Serious question by Derekloffin · · Score: 2

      The Plane's engines are used to compress surrounding air outside the plan, but this won't work in the hyperloop as their is simply insufficient air to do this with (not to mention the needs of the engine to do such would be HUGE). As someone else has probably already suggested, they are probably going for more of the small submarine route which is to carry compressed air on the sleds which will be refueled at each end of the run.

    8. Re:Serious question by mrun4982 · · Score: 1

      Pressurized planes have "air cycle machines", commonly referred to as "packs" in the industry, which take in both ram air from the outside and "bleed air" from the engines, mix/compress/etc to both pressurize the cabin and maintain the desired temperature (there is no refrigerant like you'd find in your home or car's a/c). An outflow valve is used to regulate the cabin pressure. See wikipedia if you really want a good explanation of how they work. Unpressurized planes have oxygen tanks and the pilots wear masks.

    9. Re:Serious question by taustin · · Score: 2

      It isn't infeasible because it's unsafe, it's infeasible because it'll cost more than air travel to operate, and more than even the government will spend to build, and take decades of lawsuits to get the rights.

      Nobody wants a giant implosion bomb running anywhere near their property.

    10. Re:Serious question by Strider- · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, modern airliners are moving away from using bleed air for pressurization and the like. The problem with bleed air is that it's hot, dry, and potentially contains atomized lubricants and other things from the engine. (Also why you occasionally get a whiff of jet exhaust as the engines start up). The equipment to process the bleed air into breathable air for the cabin adds significant weight (and thus inefficiency), and the process itself costs engine performance.

      On the Dreamliner, Boeing has switched to using an electrical pressurization system. It's lighter weight than the bleed air systems, easier to maintain, and more efficient. Airbus is likely doing the same thing on their new airliners.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    11. Re:Serious question by MattskEE · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Implosion bomb? What makes you think that a vacuum chamber (~14psi) will implode with bomb-like force in the event of an implosion?

      Humans have built plenty of infrastructure operating at much higher pressure differentials (like water, gas, and oil pipelines) than the paltry pressure of a vacuum.

    12. Re:Serious question by jblues · · Score: 1

      At just under half that altitude humans can survive a normal life-span. La Rinconada, Peru is 16,728ft elevation. A visitor would have to fly in to 10,000 feet (~ cabin pressure) and adjust before ascending.

      --
      If it acquires resources on instantiation like a duck, then its a shared_ptr<Duck>
    13. Re: Serious question by gumpish · · Score: 2

      In many cases shinkansen travel is more expensive than domestic Japanese flight to the same destinations with longer travel time, but it's still very popular. You don't have to buy tickets in advance, there's no security screening, it's very quiet and comfortable... etc.

    14. Re:Serious question by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Exactly - no big deal for anyone nearby. Plus it's a container never designed to withstand vacuum in the first place. The structural demands to withstand vacuum (inwards pressure) are almost need an entirely different than those to withstand an outward pressure.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re: Serious question by bestweasel · · Score: 1

      Side effects may include poisoning the crew.

    16. Re:Serious question by taustin · · Score: 2

      A) PSI means "per square inch." A tube big enough to put a train inside has a lot of square inches.

      B), and more important, it doesn't matter if it really is dangerous to the average nimrod, it sounds scary, and there are those with a vested financial interest in spreading hysteria about it. Hence, the decades of lawsuits. (And given that most judges are nimrods, too, as are most jurors, it's not at all a given that the lawsuits will fail.)

    17. Re:Serious question by Eloking · · Score: 1

      If there's no air in the tube, how do you breathe? I mean, there is air in the capsule but I assume that is finite. So how do they refresh the air and what do they do if there's a rupture?

      Yeah....not like airplane doesn't have those problem...or does they?

      --
      Elok
    18. Re:Serious question by willy_me · · Score: 1

      Should one of the passenger modules spring a leak, one just has to vent the tube. Air would rush in and the passenger module could slowly traverse to the next exit point. Then the vacuum would have to be reestablished and everything would be back to normal. This would require pressure sensors within the passenger modules and a method of communicating to the tube that a leak is detected. As long as the passenger modules are tested for leaks before being placed within the main tube, any leaks that develop would be small at first so there would be plenty of time to react and safely handle the problem.

    19. Re:Serious question by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      "They does". That is why air is bled from the jet engine compressor to the cabin.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    20. Re:Serious question by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Modern airliners are moving away from bleed air? Seriously? 787 is the only one that uses bleedless engines. Airbus insists that bleed air makes more sense, all the new and upcoming passenger airplanes from UAC, Comac, Embraer and Bombardier will have bleed air and even Boeing will use bleed air on the upcoming 777X. The bleedless 787 was a one-time detour.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    21. Re:Serious question by jandersen · · Score: 2

      If there's no air in the tube, how do you breathe? I mean, there is air in the capsule but I assume that is finite. So how do they refresh the air and what do they do if there's a rupture?

      It is a valid question, but I think that problem is a minor one and we have already solved it for passenger airplanes that fly at altitudes where humans can't breathe. The more serious risk in this system stems from the need to maintain a vacuum at all times - if there were a catastrophic failure of vacuum when the train travels at a very high speed, then it would be like slamming into a wall.

    22. Re:Serious question by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1
      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    23. Re:Serious question by Frederic54 · · Score: 2

      250MPH? so still slower than last century TGVs that are everywhere in Europe?

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    24. Re:Serious question by kristianbrigman · · Score: 1

      I think you just explained why Hyperloop exists :) it may be a decent transportation system for Earth, it would be a great one for the Moon or Mars where the native atmosphere is lower anyways..

    25. Re:Serious question by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      If there's no air in the tube, how do you breathe? I mean, there is air in the capsule but I assume that is finite. So how do they refresh the air and what do they do if there's a rupture?

      It is a valid question, but I think that problem is a minor one and we have already solved it for passenger airplanes that fly at altitudes where humans can't breathe. The more serious risk in this system stems from the need to maintain a vacuum at all times - if there were a catastrophic failure of vacuum when the train travels at a very high speed, then it would be like slamming into a wall.

      I don't even think that catastrophic failure will be the big deal. It will be designed and tested to be safer than driving on the highway where catastrophic crashes happen all the time. I'm sure that various failure modes are taken into account and there are methods of both slowing down the capsule as well as repressurizing the tube if need be. Most likely the capsule will break, have air masks like planes, and connect to the next emergency exit gate to lrease passangers, and if things are really bad, they'll just normalize pressure in the tube. They'll make sure that such cases are very rare for the main problem with such a vacuum chamber which is how to get it that evacuated and keep it like that. Last time I checked it was still in the range of mechanical pumps but it will still take time to get down to that desired level. I'll bet that the capsules will just travel slower if the air pressure is higher and be scheduled to be run at a slower than max speed at desired vacuum. There will be a certain amount of slack can be handled and anything but a massive failure will just be worked around, and a massive failure will be something that happens less often than a train wreck.

    26. Re:Serious question by MattskEE · · Score: 1

      "you fucking monkey" First off, LOL at this!

      Second, while I'm an EE I do deal with vacuum systems in my day job, I do respect them and understand that there are risks, and in any system where energy is stored. I also understand that a tanker which isn't designed to hold that pressure is totally different from a system designed to do a job. There are big vacuum systems all over the world, and big pressurized systems all over the world.

      My point is twofold:
      1) A vacuum with a ~14psi pressure differential is less dangerous than an equivalent pressurized system with a much larger pressure difference.
      2) Although hyperloop would be the largest such vacuum system in the world, the design of systems designed to hold vacuum or positive pressure is very well understood and thus it can be undertaken safely.

    27. Re:Serious question by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      According to Wiki, the scheduled TGV trains regularly push 200 mph, with actual start-to-end averages of under 175.
      But 250 mph isn't the end goal, it is only step 2.

  3. They Better Have Realistic VR figured out by al0ha · · Score: 1

    That ride is going so suck without a realistic VR experience to make it seem a bit more earthly. Speeding through a shiny lit tunnel? Not for me.

    --
    Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    1. Re:They Better Have Realistic VR figured out by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

      > Speeding through a shiny lit tunnel?

      I doubt they'll bother to light the tunnel in production unless its out of service for repair. Why waste the power?

    2. Re:They Better Have Realistic VR figured out by starless · · Score: 1

      That ride is going so suck without a realistic VR experience to make it seem a bit more earthly. Speeding through a shiny lit tunnel? Not for me.

      Would it really seem that different from being in an airplane with the window shades drawn??

    3. Re:They Better Have Realistic VR figured out by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      The tunnel won't be lit, and there won't be windows in the pod either. It'll have "in-flight" entertainment, just like airlines (which are also pretty boring for 90% of the flight).

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  4. For the first time in over 100 years... Segway!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about the Segway? That massively changed how people take tours of downtown areas.

  5. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by ledow · · Score: 2

    Vacuum rarely kills people. I mean, it'll fucking hurt, but you don't go pop like in a Bond movie or something.

    And if it is closed system, you would be able to detect loss of vacuum quite quickly, I imagine, and do something about it (e.g. open a bunch of small emergency valves to flood the tube with natural air quite quickly, also slowly the train in the process).

    That said, it's still a stupid idea that nobody really wants or needs.

  6. How do you breathe on a plane? by Brannon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Quick, let's ground all aircraft before everyone dies.

    1. Re:How do you breathe on a plane? by Derekloffin · · Score: 2

      The airplane method of generating breathable atmosphere in the cabin wouldn't work in the hyperloop. The sled neither have the jet engine needed for the compression, nor even the surround air volume to compress. The hyperloop is in a near total vacuum meaning there is no where near sufficient air in the tube to compress to a breathable level. That said, they could carry compressed air in tanks on the sled and refuel them at each end. Small submarines do this method, so no reason they can't do the same here. Only issue is how much compressed air would be needed.

    2. Re:How do you breathe on a plane? by Derekloffin · · Score: 1

      No because it is in a near vacuum. They are aiming for .1% air pressure of sea level which means you need about huge amount of volume of space to get breathable air, not to mention having to cycle the air in the tunnel as well to keep it at safe oxygen and CO2 levels. It makes no sense to do this when you could just carry the air with you.

    3. Re:How do you breathe on a plane? by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Exactly - one of the issues they had to solve was that the passage of the pod compresses the air ahead of it *too much*, like a piston. So pods use front fans to push the air ahead of it under the pod, compressed enough to keep it off the floor of the tube.

      I believe pods are sealed with their own air supply, but some could potentially be diverted from the front fans if needed.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    4. Re:How do you breathe on a plane? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      No because it is in a near vacuum. They are aiming for .1% air pressure of sea level which means you need about huge amount of volume of space to get breathable air, not to mention having to cycle the air in the tunnel as well to keep it at safe oxygen and CO2 levels. It makes no sense to do this when you could just carry the air with you.

      And apparently that's still enough to cause potential sonic shockwaves and require a larger tunnel than previously thought. It's also a lot easier to keep a low pressure atmosphere over a near vacuum, as there should be semi-frequent openings of the tunnel system to atmosphere at destinations. While I imagine a lock system would be in place, it is safer to assume some leakage. It's a cool idea, but will it actually work on a commercial scale?

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  7. Re:Cost of keeping the vacuum? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    About the same as it costs to maintain the welds on pipelines. Not much, they don't generally 'just fail'. Assuming they were good to start, X-rays tell you that.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  8. Questions by labnet · · Score: 1

    How the pods transition from vacuum to normal air?
    If a pod breaks down how is it retrieved?.. eg. Are there access hatches?, Does that mean big valves every km or so for isolation? How long does each section take to air up & re vacuum?

    To be honest, I can't see this economically working for people. Can you imagine being in a coffin in a steel vacuum tube with no inertial reference. Someone breaks down, which then means hundreds of pods have to stop until the problem is fixed.

    This might work for freight... but given energy is likely to get cheaper, I don't see the economic advantage vs planes/trains.

    --
    46137
    1. Re:Questions by Derekloffin · · Score: 1

      For the transition I would assume they are planning that normally they would use an airlock, either an airlock that completely encapsulates the pod, or one that connects to the pod. As to your other questions, who knows. Lots and lots of issues with this hyperloop design right now.

    2. Re:Questions by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine being in a coffin in a steel vacuum tube with no inertial reference.

      You'll be hurling through the loop.

    3. Re:Questions by dak664 · · Score: 1

      ... but given energy is likely to get cheaper, I don't see the economic advantage vs planes/trains.

      Cheaper in what sense? Soylent Green cheapness?

  9. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    One fails and kills everyone in a hard vacuum...

    Hyperloop brings one of the key dangers of high altitude flight down to earth.....and below.

  10. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by skids · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obviously this is just a scheme to trick investors into building a giant cannon from which to launch sharks... with lasers.

  11. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by Derekloffin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You're right... you'd have about 15 seconds of useful consciousness and death in a minute or two, and you're not going to get rescued in that minute or two, sorry. But don't worry, this isn't a very likely scenario. Far more likely is the vacuum of the tube being compromised, in which case the on rush of air will hit you at approximately mach 1 and you'll likely be dead instantly as it is basically like getting hit by a bomb's shock wave. Worse case you survive long enough to realize you're now the bullet in a very large gun that is capped at either end... and then you die on impact.

  12. This is not a new idea by Topwiz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the 1973 Gene Roddenberry movie 'Genesis II' they have an underground transportation system very much like the hyperloop. This is also the movie where Mariette Hartley famously has two belly buttons. When she appeared on Star Trek the censors wouldn't allow her to show a belly button so Gene decided to give her two as a middle finger to the earlier censors.

    1. Re:This is not a new idea by HyperQuantum · · Score: 1

      Gene decided to give (..) a middle finger

      Did he get his phone call?

      --
      I am not really here right now.
  13. Re:Cost of keeping the vacuum? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    About the same as it costs to maintain the welds on pipelines. Not much, they don't generally 'just fail'. Assuming they were good to start, X-rays tell you that.

    But pipelines are easy to segment with valves so you can work on a single section. So unless the hyper loop has an equivalent system they are going to be trying to pump the entire pipeline down at one time - and that ain't going to work well.

    So thats a lot more equipment than just a big pipe.

    And I know that pipes don't generally "just fail", but on the other hand these hyper loop pipes better have the ability to be cut open very easily in order to facilitate the egress of people trapped inside their tin can when *that* fails. (and yes .. they will break down from time to time unless they are massively over engineered).

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  14. Seismic activity... by sgage · · Score: 1

    One of the routes that ol' Elon has mentioned repeatedly in his promotion of this thing is Bay Area to LA. Assuming you could even build the tunnel, what about the seismic activity of this region? Seems crazy to go undergound in CA.

    I will make a prediction, of which I am very sure: I will never get into one of these contraptions. I'm just not in that much of a hurry ;-)

    1. Re:Seismic activity... by bws111 · · Score: 1

      He doesn't propose putting (most of) it underground. He proposes putting it on pylons along a highway.

  15. Scramjet by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If the atmosphere in the tube is the same as at 200,000 feet, that is enough air to operate a scramjet which is an air-breathing supersonic combustion engine. Although it may seem backwards to do this, it may be an option assuming the vehicle can go fast enough for the engine's operational constraints. The evacuated tube should also be of interest to NASA as an alternate means of testing scramjet technology.

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  16. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

    Except it's not a hard vacuum. It's somewhat thinner than the air outside an airliner, but we know how to deal with that.

    --
    Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
  17. Re:For the first time in over 100 years... Segway! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Funny

    What about the Segway? That massively changed how people take tours of downtown areas.

    It also allowed employment of 500-lb men as mall cops.

  18. Re:bends by Strider- · · Score: 1

    Actually it could. It's one of the things that Astronauts need to deal with as part of the preparation for a spacewalk. The ISS operates using an earth-normal gas mix and pressure (1 bar, 20% O2, 80% nitrogen). When they're spacewalking, the spacesuit is only pressurized to 1/3 bar (5psi), and runs on 100% O2. That pressure change definitely has the possibility of causing "The Bends" in the astronauts if they were to do it too quickly.

    Instead, they go through a whole protocol prior to the spacewalk of exercising vigorously while breathing pure O2 and/or camping out in the airlock (also breathing pure O2) in order to shed the nitrogen that's otherwise saturated within their systems.

    If the pod were to rupture, the most likely scenario would be to have the capsule come to a stop rapidly, slam bulkheads on either side of it, and vent the section of tube to the atmosphere.

    --
    ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
  19. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

    They mention that it's the equivalent pressure to 200,000 feet up, which is .022 kPa. Surface pressure is 101.33 kPa, about 4600 times greater.

    It's not hard vacuum, but it's not far from it for practical purposes.

    --
    You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  20. Re:how are transitions to non evacuated areas hand by petermgreen · · Score: 1

    From the diagrams I have seen the idea is that the sealed train is docked and the passengers and cargo are wheeled out the end.

    --
    note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  21. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by Kjella · · Score: 2

    You're right... you'd have about 15 seconds of useful consciousness and death in a minute or two, and you're not going to get rescued in that minute or two, sorry.

    Considering that you should have air for the entire journey in tanks I imagine you'd have oxygen masks dropping down like in airplanes, that should buy a little more time unless the cabin is cracked wide open. And I don't think emergency pressurization is such a big deal, more on that below.

    But don't worry, this isn't a very likely scenario. Far more likely is the vacuum of the tube being compromised, in which case the on rush of air will hit you at approximately mach 1 and you'll likely be dead instantly as it is basically like getting hit by a bomb's shock wave. Worse case you survive long enough to realize you're now the bullet in a very large gun that is capped at either end... and then you die on impact.

    There's a reason most bombs are surrounded by shrapnel, yes air has a weight of 101 kPa = 101 kN/m^2 = 10300 kg/m^2 at 1G. But it's also just air, it'll quickly rush around any obstacle and create a pressure on the other side. I saw the supposed "scientist" that "proved" this was impossible and it was a joke that wouldn't even pass for Mythbuster science. He literally made it like a bullet in a gun barrel.

    The only thing you'd have to do to totally change the outcome of that experiment is to not let the pod fill the whole tube. There's no reason for that and that air rushing past would then have to accelerate many tons of train in the brief period there's a significant pressure differential. After that it'll just become air resistance helping the pod stop. Seriously, I laughed so hard at this "proof"...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  22. This will go precisely nowhere by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    it's too expensive. If I could afford it I'd just fly a plane. If I can't afford it then I can't afford it. The only thing this might do is soak up millions (billions?) of taxpayer dollars and maybe some gullible investors.

    I'm not opposed to public transit. I think it's ridiculous that I'm probably going to rent a car in my home city, drive down to where my kid goes to college and then drive back instead of taking a bloody train like a civilized nation. But Hyperloop is not how you do it. Worse, the huge waste of money will be used for generations as an example of why public transit doesn't work. Fuck Hyperloop.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This will go precisely nowhere by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      it's too expensive.

      How do you know this? I don't see any estimates of cost in the article. They aren't anywhere near a production model, so how is it that you know it is too expensive?

    2. Re:This will go precisely nowhere by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Because it's going to be more expensive than standard high-speed trains (rails are cheaper than tubes, existing tech is cheaper than new tech, no pressurization is cheaper than pressure systems that keep people alive.) And high-speed trains are already cost prohibitive.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    3. Re:This will go precisely nowhere by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      You are making a lot of assumptions, for example that the highest costs for building are the costs of materials and equipment. And the GP was referring to the cost of a ticket, which is partially affected by the cost of building, but there are many other factors.

    4. Re:This will go precisely nowhere by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You are making a lot of assumptions, for example that the highest costs for building are the costs of materials and equipment.

      I never assumed that was the highest cost. I assume that it's cheaper to build two rails than a tube that includes maglev and must be pressurized. But the biggest cost is actually a push -- land and rights of way. I assume that Musk's Boring company is designed to try to make that come out in the hyperloop's favor, but that seems like it's always a push as a train can go anywhere a hyperloop can. Not only that, because of g forces from turning, a train can go places a hyperloop cannot.

      And the GP was referring to the cost of a ticket,

      He talks about the cost of a ticket, and then later that it will soak up billions. Those are obvious R&D / construction costs. I have no idea which he thinks is too expensive, but my guess was both.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    5. Re:This will go precisely nowhere by Rutulian · · Score: 1

      Maybe. It depends on the grade of the track and the tolerances involved. One of the design features of the hyperloop is to not be carrying around heavy cars pulled by large locomotives. The individual pods are much smaller and lighter. Also, the hyperloop one uses a track, but the original hyperloop proposal did not.

      But the biggest cost is actually a push -- land and rights of way.

      Correct. And this is why the original hyperloop proposal was made to fit in already existing rights of way, following interstate roads.

      He talks about the cost of a ticket, and then later that it will soak up billions.

      Yeah.... Billions is clearly hyperbole. Millions is in the range of what you would expect for an infrastructure project. How much do you think it costs to build a new bridge, or another lane on the highway? Who pays for it is a valid question, but I think there is room for both some taxpayer contribution and some private investment. Amtrak blows because it is both expensive AND it is slow and unreliable. If hyperloop succeeds in its goals, it could conceivably pay for itself eventually.

      I have no idea which he thinks is too expensive, but my guess was both.

      OP complains about needing to drive, but thinks it is too expensive to invest in new infrastructure. Can't have it both ways. Also, gas isn't free.

    6. Re:This will go precisely nowhere by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      This is the sort of the argument I keep making in California: The state government keeps throwing lots of money at high speed rail, when the current low speed rail is already owned by freight companies and only has one set of rails.
      For a fraction of cost of high speed, you could buy the rails and put a second set next to it, making it bidirectional. But that's not "cool".

  23. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by Baloroth · · Score: 1

    Far more likely is the vacuum of the tube being compromised, in which case the on rush of air will hit you at approximately mach 1 and you'll likely be dead instantly as it is basically like getting hit by a bomb's shock wave. Worse case you survive long enough to realize you're now the bullet in a very large gun that is capped at either end... and then you die on impact.

    No, it won't hit you, it'll hit the train. Which, like any large aerodynamic object traveling at faster than the speed of sound, will very impressively... slow gradually to a stop with the passengers barely even noticing. And you're still going to be traveling down the tunnel even if the vacuum is compromised, so the only thing you're going to be hitting as a bullet is more air. All that really happens if the vacuum fails is you go from a Hyperloop capable of traveling with minimal energy loss, to a regular train capable of traveling like any other train on the planet.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  24. Re:Cost of keeping the vacuum? by Baloroth · · Score: 1

    You don't need to cut into the tube, all you need to do is have access points every so often, and if there's a failure that requires passengers to be rescued, just re-pressurize that section of the tube (any practical design will certainly have sections with some kind of lock that can be opened and closed for repair or in case of vacuum failure in a section).

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  25. Re:Cost of keeping the vacuum? by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    How much time did you spend thinking about these potential failure points?

    Not long because my job requires me to think about man rated safety systems and what I thought up is obvious but not mentioned by the Hyped loop people.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  26. Re:For the first time in over 100 years... Segway! by swell · · Score: 1

    My Segway unicycle is an urban assault vehicle. When I lose control at 12MPH, it careens through crowds like bowling pins. LOOK OUT PEOPLE! Most city folk just take it in stride along with the sirens, helicopters and homeless. Chaos is a way of life in a proper city. As it should be.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
  27. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 1
    It's not the vacuum itself that you have to worry about. It's when the Hyperloop implodes due to a leak in the vacuum tube, which is inevitable, especially when you look at how they're claiming to build it.

    https://youtu.be/Z48pSwiDLIM

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
  28. I love amateur physicists on Hyperloop threads by Brannon · · Score: 2

    always so convinced that they've found the fundamental flaw that all those smart people actually working on the technology have completely missed.

  29. More amateur physics! Yeah! by Brannon · · Score: 2

    So part of the tube is at near vacuum and part of it is at 1 atm? That's a neat trick, how do you plan to keep the air to stay put so you can create that perfect "air wall"? I'm no big city lawyer, but it seems to me that any leak or rupture would cause a gradual increase in air pressure over a long segment of the tube. The train would encounter this and start gradually slowing down. Also, the pod would be aerodynamic, I'm not sure what makes you think it would be flattened by an increase in external air pressure. Are planes flattened when they descend?

    1. Re:More amateur physics! Yeah! by DrXym · · Score: 1

      If there were a catastrophic failure of pressure between those two pods then the one in front is going to accelerate and one behind is going to decelerate. Hitting this wall at such speed might well cause the pod to slow so rapidly that it causes injuries. It's hard to say without modelling it. I doubt a smaller pressurization would do any harm.

    2. Re:More amateur physics! Yeah! by Hodr · · Score: 2

      Catastrophic failure is typically bad for any transport moving at speed.

      Did that tree just fall on the train tracks.....oops.
      Did a sinkhole just open up in the freeway.....oops.
      Did we just hit a flock of seagulls.....And I ran, I ran so far away...Err, I mean crashed and died.

    3. Re:More amateur physics! Yeah! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      True, but with a traditional railroad a break in the tracks will kill one train-ful of people, not everyone traveling along the entire track system. A large-ish break in the tube would cause a shockwave to travel through the tube (an "air wall", in your vernacular) until it hits every vehicle. There are ways to mitigate this - for instance, you can have vents all along the tube that could actuate ahead of the shockwave. A smart system could gradually open the vents furthest from the break and more immediately open the vents closer to the break. The vehicles could emergency brake or even accelerate in the direction of the shock wave to reduce the impact. The system could be designed to "waste" space in the tube for air bypass so that the shockwave could partially bypass the passenger car.

      In any case, this opens up another challenge - does the entire system really become unusable if any one part is damaged?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    4. Re:More amateur physics! Yeah! by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      That pressure is going to move as a fairly thick wave. When the vehicle hits it at 760Mph, the resulting massive increase in drag will cause at the same time a massive deceleration. The car may not be flat, but the people will slam into shit so hard that they no longer have bones.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    5. Re:More amateur physics! Yeah! by Zemran · · Score: 1

      It cannot be aerodynamic in a tube. Aerodynamic is about pushing the air out of the way easily but in a tube there is nowhere to push the air to. The train would not gradually slow down. It would hit a wall.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    6. Re:More amateur physics! Yeah! by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      The process of air going into a vacuum causes the air to spread out and separate by velocity. The further you go down the tube from a hole, the more gradual and broad the wave of incoming air gets.

      I have to plead ignorance on the exact makeup of this "front" of air. Whether it is a "shockwave" or simply a tremendously rapid change in pressure, a lot of engineering needs to go into planning for this failure mode. It will require valves such as you describe, which will add non-trivially to the cost of the system. Remember that most detractors aren't claiming that the hyperloop is "impossible" - they are claiming that it is not economically viable. The huge vacuum system is just going to be a major engineering nightmare with costs which reflect that. This thing is competing against air travel, where the "tube" is free.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:More amateur physics! Yeah! by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      [...] but in a tube there is nowhere to push the air to.

      There is clearance on all sides (including top and bottom) of the capsule (this is not a variation on pneumatic tubes, which would seal against the tube). Why couldn't it push the air out of the way?

    8. Re:More amateur physics! Yeah! by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Air does compress but only so much. There is a very good reason why you cannot push all the air out of the way.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    9. Re:More amateur physics! Yeah! by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Air does compress but only so much. There is a very good reason why you cannot push all the air out of the way.

      Air not only compresses, it compresses a lot - and you can make the tube large l reason' that you cannot push all the air out of the way? Airliners do it all the time. And that's not to mention wind tunnels.

  30. Cool prediction, Bro. by Brannon · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'll put that one right next to: 1. Electric cars will never happen 2. Self driving cars will never happen 3. Solar power will never happen 4. SpaceX will never happen

  31. Why a vacuum? by AlanObject · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be a lot easier and more energy efficient to simply circulate the in-system air at the speed you want the pods to go rather than pumping it all out and having to deal with all the related failure conditions?

    1. Re:Why a vacuum? by mr.mctibbs · · Score: 1

      Why would it be more efficient to move air constantly (circulation) than to move it once (vacuum)?

    2. Re:Why a vacuum? by AlanObject · · Score: 1

      Presumably the air mass has inertia such that keeping it moving does not take the same amount of energy that getting it started. An aquarium in a torus does this to simulate ocean currents. The energy would be parasitic drag which could be managed.

      Much of the remarks about the engineering infeasibility of the concept center around the problems associated with maintaining a vacuum in a vessel a thousand KM long. I see no convincing answers except not to do that in the first place.

    3. Re:Why a vacuum? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      Go back to high school.

  32. A quick reference for posterity by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 2

    I have zero interest in participating in certain type of discussion with certain type of people (with certain type of knowledge, expectations, attitude, etc.), but I haven't been able to refrain myself from writing something about this new dishonest PR attempt (one quick joke-for-me-but-kind-of-serious-for-some-people: "We are at 77 and want to reach 255, how should we proceed?" - "Scale it up! Do I have to do all the thinking here or what?". If you don’t get it and/or think that it makes sense, please try to avoid dealing with me).

    Below these lines, I am writing what I expect this whole Hyperloop thing to be now and in the near/far future. I invite any person to quote me on any part of this post at any point. Note that I haven't performed a proper analysis of this whole situation and that delivering long-term guesses under these conditions isn't precisely my style, but I do feel like making an exception here.

    What you will never see:
    - Crazily-high speeds as advertised. Current high-speed trains can be considered as way above the maximum speed that any system on these lines will ever reach.
    - A vacuum-based system on the lines of the one being proposed for big enough sizes and long enough stretches. With big enough, I mean something suitable for comfortable transportation of people (i.e., train-like size); and, with long enough stretches, I mean anything over 200 km even under ideal conditions (e.g., desert) and much less in more difficult scenarios (e.g., mountains).
    - Commercial trips even of much more restricted versions (as described below) transporting people, animals or any other delicate/dangerous/similar stuff.

    Honestly, I don't think that any version of this approach will ever become a commercial reality; but with enough money, contacts and persistence (not precisely of the good kind, understood as motivated by common sense, being the objectively best approach and cheaper/safer/more reliable than other alternatives), a much more restricted version might become a reality at some point.

    That quite-unlikely-to-happen highly restricted version would be defined by the following points:
    - Its operating conditions would be much more limited than the ones being currently advertised: much slower speeds (as said, speed of current trains represents an unreachable upper threshold), much smaller sizes (anything bigger than 1 metre seems already too much), much shorter distances (anything over 100 km seems already too much), etc.
    - It would be focused on the transportation of not-living, resisting, not-dangerous substances/goods. Or, even more likely, it would be some kind of toy or commodity for either rich people or companies eminently using that system as some kind of promotion.
    - Minimising its (huge) construction/risk costs would be a top priority and, consequently, the orography/climate would be extremely relevant. It would most likely run though dessert/plain areas with a quite stable/moderate weather.
    - An approach on these lines is extremely unlikely to ever become profitable. The limited number of income-generation alternatives associated with this system would probably never be in a position to return the required investments (compensating the huge building/maintenance costs, much higher than the ones needed by other transportation systems which usually have an important governmental support).

    --
    Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    1. Re:A quick reference for posterity by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      But a lot of what people complain about around here are problems that have been already solved in industry

      As said, I am not interested in starting a discussion about all this (already did in the recent past and didn't like the outputs) but what you are saying isn't right. You cannot defend that something has been solved when you are currently working on the first version ever! Nobody has ever created anything not even close to what is being proposed here.

      Extrapolating conclusions from other situations (even similar enough; not the case here) isn't a realistic attitude. You cannot take what works at 5 and assume that at 10 you would just need to double everything. This isn't how the world (of engineering) works. The size (and distance) matters a lot and increases the complexity/requirements/risks a lot.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
    2. Re:A quick reference for posterity by CustomSolvers2 · · Score: 1

      PS: my comment is mostly focused on vacuum and associated issues (e.g., stress due to pressure variations), but it applies to everything else. For example, you are talking about "thermal expansion and mechanical effects" or "trains pushing on the tube", expressions which mean nothing without the right context (= a system as the one being proposed with those dimensions and operative conditions).

      You are blindly extrapolating from not-even-similar situations, by also forgetting about additional effects deriving from the accumulation of all these issues. Going from 5 to 10 rarely requires just doubling everything; but going from two different scenarios with 5 to one scenario including both 5s is also very likely to provoke an uncontrollable increase of complexity.

      --
      Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
  33. Re:For the first time in over 100 years... Segway! by houghi · · Score: 1

    They should make that in a movie or 2.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  34. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by DrXym · · Score: 1
    Cylinders would spread the load around their circumference, the way Magdeburg hemispheres work. The issue I guess is what happens if something smacks into the cylinder, e.g. a crane. Could the cylinder take the strain even with some deformation? And even if it could, there could be pods whizzing through the tube at 400mph and you don't want things protruding inwards...

    Any hyperloop system would need to have a lot of sensors watching for shock and pressure events and pods capable of hitting the brakes to avoid collisions at high speeds.

  35. Re:Cost of keeping the vacuum? by stdarg · · Score: 1

    but not mentioned by the Hyped loop people

    It's understandable that they're not talking about catastrophic failures in public, especially before they are even ready to test them outside of a simulation. To assume that means they haven't had internal discussions about these issues is a bit naive.

    You know it's like, the last car commercial I saw did not devote 5 minutes to "okay we're introducing the new 2018 xyz! but before we look at the cool new features, let's think about what happens if you're trapped inside our car and it catches on fire? and what happens if your kids are strapped into car seats in the back and you fall into a river and your windows were down? and what happens if there's a tornado and projectiles break through the windshield and into your spouse's head?" etc

    Should be pretty obvious why.

  36. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by ledow · · Score: 1

    Oh, ffs, people what kind of idiots are you.

    Going from, say, zero atmospheres of pressure to one atmosphere of pressure, is no different from going from two to one.

    One atmosphere = 14.7 psi. That's not even a fucking half-flat car tyre. A bicycle road tyre can have 10 times that. Are cyclists blown into oblivion when their tyre pops? No.

    It would be comparable to me stabbing your car tire that already looked a little flat and half-deflated. Sure.. PFFSFSFFSFSYSFST. Done. No explosion. No horrendous decompression throwing people around like some poor plane disaster B-movie (which is also all bollocks). You probably wouldn't want your ear right next to it, but it'd be like someone spraying a can of air in your ears (in fact, probably a lot better, if there's anything at all in the way of obstacles, like a fucking metal train surrounding you).

    Never done the air-horn thing to people? Sure, it might burst an eardrum, but it ain't going to kill you before you've had a couple of seconds to get your head together, whether you're going from 14psi to 0psi or vice versa.

    In case you don't know, 14psi isn't a lot. Sure, it SOUNDS a lot. It's a lot if you tried to make it (you'd have to balance 14lbs of equipment on a square inch!). But you're sitting in it now and the difference between 28 and 14 is EXACTLY the same as the difference between 14 and 0.

    And as people have said, EXPLOSIVE compression/decompression is incredibly rare and hard to make happen - in might happen in space, where there's literally nothing but billions of square miles of vacuum and nothing of any pressure but the box you're in, but even a train in a vacuumed tunnel isn't going to suck you out into space (Aliens is also bollocks, by the way - the place would have vented of air in seconds and then no force would be acting on you to push you out unless someone was pushing metric tons of industrial-pressure oxygen into the ship from some humongously high pressure store / fan).

    You'd go "Oh fuck", your eyes would pop, you'd feel it, and - so long as you weren't holding your breath deliberately at the time - that would be it and then you'd have to find yourself some oxygen.

  37. Re:Cost of keeping the vacuum? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Who are you to tell Musk how to spend his money? He can afford to keep a large % in high risk.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  38. This is hilarious, I can't get enough. by Brannon · · Score: 1

    > That pressure is going to move as a fairly thick wave Why? If there's a leak, then the rate the air can enter is limited by size of the hole. The air isn't going to obediently stay in one place so it can pool up and make your massive thick air wall--it's going to *very quickly* diffuse all the way down the tube, leading to a gradual increase in air pressure as the pod travels through. There's just no way that the pod is still moving at 760mph by the time it experiences anything close to 1 atm. And all you have to do to soften the deceleration is make the pod more aero-dynamic and leave sufficient gaps between the pod and the tube for the air to escape around it. Your physics fantasy is based around an absurd set of strawmen, designed specifically to crap on a new technology because you don't like the 'hype' and you think it makes you look smart. It doesn't, it makes you look like a childish luddite.

    1. Re:This is hilarious, I can't get enough. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      A leak with those kinds of pressure differentials is going to go from the tiniest beginnings of a leak to a catastrophic failure of that joint in an exceedingly short period of time. You are going to end up with a full failure of the joint in a second. If you are lucky the nearest car is far enough away that they can seal off the section and get the car approaching that section stopped before it gets there. If a car is in that section the people are just dead. If the car is too close to the section you are looking at some injuries all the way too, "Everyone dead."

      Extreme vacuums do not fail gently.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    2. Re: This is hilarious, I can't get enough. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It's not an extreme vacuum. It's not even a complete vacuum.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    3. Re: This is hilarious, I can't get enough. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Pressure at sea level 59F. 760mm hg
      Pressure at 150,000 ft 1.1 mm hg
      Pressure at 200,000 ft 0.17 mm hg



      Designed to operate at the equivalent of 160,000 ft

      760 mm hg vs about 1. By any book that is a fairly fucking extreme pressure differential.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re: This is hilarious, I can't get enough. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      *sighs*

      I'd suggest you search Rei's username and visit their many citations and links. It'll save us both some time.

      Pardon my skepticism that you're more intelligent than all the people behind this project.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    5. Re: This is hilarious, I can't get enough. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Then go ahead and get a running system using 2400(Low estimate) sliding, expanding vacuum seals and 24000 (Low estimate) connected sections all with a reasonable life expectancy and get it to continue running at a reasonable cost over time.

      You will most likely be replacing 10 of the expansion joints every month and 100 of section joints every month once the system has been run in.

      That is assuming 5 year average life of the expansion joint and 25 years for the regular sections. With 200 foot long sections (I do not think they will be that long and expansion joints every 2000 feet and the system having 2 tubes and only being 400 miles long.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  39. More please. by Brannon · · Score: 1

    > A leak with those kinds of pressure differentials is going to go from the tiniest beginnings of a leak to a catastrophic failure of that joint in an exceedingly short period of time.

    Why? Does the air ignite & explode? Using as much detail as you can, explain to me why a small hole suddenly becomes a big hole--keeping in mind that we're talking about 1 inch steel tubes which can easily handle pressure differentials like this without the hole.

    I know what you're picturing, something like a bullet sized hole which causes a huge blowout with the steel curled back into jagged edges. I know that's what you are picturing because that's how Hollywood does it. But I want you to explain the physics of that--because I find your explanations of physics to be pretty hilarious.

    1. Re:More please. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Failure is not coming from a pinhole. Those expansion joints will not see that type of failure. It will be a stress fracture from constant expansion and contraction of the joint.

      See. These long rigid tubes are going to expand and contract a lot because of temperature changes over the length of the system. You are going to have thousands of joints able to move FEET to accommodate this. They will be under constant stresses. The failure that you will see is a stress fracture. Once this gets large enough to start leaking it is going to grow rapidly. Stress fractures, for the most part have 2 modes. "Nothing to see here unless you look REALLY close" and "Fuck you I have failed."

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    2. Re:More please. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Also maybe a seal failure on the moving part. Also Catastrophic and fast.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    3. Re:More please. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Not diameter. The length of the sections. If you do one expansion joint every 2000ft the steel will expand over 10 inches with just the normal temp differences seen between night and day. That is going to be at 400 miles about 1200 expansion joints for each of the 2 tubes. With the normal stresses of the seal having to deal with the diameter changes it will also have to be able to hold the seal and slide up and down the length constantly, every day, inches.

      Not trivial.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:More please. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      4km is nothing.
      You are talking at least 400 Miles. Minimum number of expansion joints will be 2400.
      There is no way it will be that small. I already in other comments stated that it can be done. What I pointed out is that with conservative estimates on everything. Temp swings, number of expansion joints, life of a joint, and ignoring all other joints and systems the maintenance on a system like this is prohibitive.

      After a few years of running they will be finding and needing to replace a minimum of 40 of these seals a month.

      The truth is that you are going to be looking many more joints than 2400. The average lifetime of these expansion joints is going to be less than 5 years. Then there are going to be the at least 80,000 (200 ft sections) regular connections that must be checked, and replaced at intervals (25 Years you are talking over 250 of these a month being replaced.)

      I am not arguing that there is no way to create a system that can handle large vacuums, as in previous comments I am just pointing out that the system can not be run.

      Be honest. You are not going to run a system that needs 40 expansion joints and 250 section joints replaced every month and run the system with passengers making money. NO FUCKING WAY.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    5. Re:More please. by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Exactly what are you arguing?
      I understand that it technically CAN be done.
      It will not be done though.


      You are not going to have a viable system over 400 miles long with 20 sections a day needing to be isolated, pressurized, dismantled, depressurized and put back into service. These are conservative estimates.


      Again. I am not saying we do not have the tech and knowledge to build a system to those specs, but how is that going to run passenger service on a regular basis for less than the cost of a plane ticket?


      Unless you can get the regular sections to be over 200 ft long and last 50 years on average and get the expansion joints to last 20 years on average or more, it is not a viable transportation system.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  40. Re:First time? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't a vacuum be the opposite of a pressurized system?

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  41. More Power To Him by sycodon · · Score: 1

    I'm rather agnostic on the Hyperloop.

    Being stuck in a tube, underground, in a near vacuum, doesn't really sound all that appealing. But I suppose it's no worse than being stuck in a tube, in a near vacuum, 38k feet above the ground.

    The one thing that I do appreciate about it is that it is a private venture and they are actually DOING something. Too many of these type of projects are done on the government's dime, as a "proof of concept" and go no where. I think more money has been spent studying high speed rail in the U.S. than has been spent on actually implementing it in other countries (ok, exaggeration, you get the point).

    If he does it using his cash, them more power to him and I wish him success.

    And this "...But Only Traveled 70MPH" Bullshit. That why they fucking call it testing you stupid piece of shit.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:More Power To Him by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

      That why they fucking call it testing you stupid piece of shit.

      Well said.

  42. Re:Cost of keeping the vacuum? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    That's going to be one big, expensive, ball valve.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  43. Re: It's Here Now Until ... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

    You haven't read about rogue reconditioned Roombas turning on their masters?

  44. Space suits? by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I wonder why no-one has mentioned the need for space suits. The military, even in time of war, requires U-2 pilots to wear full space suits. One baseball sized hole in the capsule and everybody is soon dead. It doesn't sound economical or practical to outfit each passenger in a full spacesuit. Also, you wanna wear a spacesuit someone just got out of?

  45. Thanks, I'll let the world know... by Brannon · · Score: 1

    that we need to shut down all gas & oil pipelines immediately, and ground all aircraft. Also we should probably evacuate all tall buildings--you know, since having a lot of connected steel makes you subject to catastrophic stress fractures and there's no possible way to guard against that. One day you will ride in a Hyperloop or something similar. When that happens, I hope you'll have the self-awareness necessary to say, "you know what, it turns out the experts were right and the internet pseudo-technical wannabees were wrong; this thing does work. I guess, in hindsight, I'm basically the guy who said that horseless carriages will never work and man will never go to space".

    1. Re:Thanks, I'll let the world know... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      shut down all gas & oil pipelines immediately, and ground all aircraft. Also we should probably evacuate all tall buildings--you know, since having a lot of connected steel makes you subject to catastrophic stress fractures and there's no possible way to guard against that

      Hmm. Airplanes are smaller, They are checked often and there is a shit ton of data on when they fail. Still. Sometimes they do. When they do, like the plane that landed in Hawaii, with major pressure differentials that failure is really fast.

      The issue with the hyperloop is not a single 200ft long tube that must handle pressure changes over and over again as a routine. The issue is two fold.

      1: 400 - 500 miles of tube and all the connections that must have expansion joints that move with a seal.
      2: The massive pressure differential.


      It of course can be done safely. We can engineer a system to do it. We will not though, because of cost.

      If you could get away with an expansion joint (a really big one) every 2000 ft, (have not done the math, but it will probably have to be less) you are talking at least 1200 of these joints. They are moving every day. Large pieces sliding over each other with large seals to keep the pressure out. Conservatively for steel expansion over 2000ft in length the expansion joint would need to move, if the coldest temp expected is 40f and the hottest is 100f (the range would actually have to be designed higher than this) each joint would have to be able to move a .864 ft or a little over 10 inches of travel.

      Then you have a 13 ft diameter tube that expand and contract a little bit there as well. Pretty insignificant until you realize that what ever seal you use is going to have to keep the seal over that range of diameter. It will experience, when cold, very high stress. So.

      These 1200 (AT LEAST) expansion joints that are expected to move about a foot with seals under high and variable stress while sliding up and down the tube are going to need to be checked often. That is 1200 per tube with you needing one tube for each direction. 2400 Expansion joints.

      These just the special expansion joints. There will be many more, but they will be under much less stress and much less likely to fail.

      So. 5 teams of men, working 50 weeks a year, 5 days a week would need to check 2 joints a day and do nothing but that. They can not depressurize the system to do physical checks, but they can use ultrasound equipment. This is zero checking on any other joints along the system. Those seals under that kind of stress will need to be replaced. This means that they have to depressurize, dismantle, rebuild the joint and pressurize that section for each repair. If a seal like that can stay safe under those conditions, I think we would both be pleasantly surprised if it could be designed to last 5 years.

      Run in the system a few years and you are going to be replacing 40 of these seals and joints a month. So. With zero failures and checking constantly if you only run 12 hours a day and spend the other 12 hours on maintaining the system it would be a major effort to design expansion joints that can average years of life, but with enough money and dedication you can keep a system like that up. I would suggest that you check the joints more often and then check the regular joints once a year. Also 10.3 inches of travel is A LOT. You could do better and reduce stress with 3 or 4 inches. That would mean going from 2400 of these joints to 7000 or 7500. You might want to plan for places that get colder at night than 40f or hotter during summer days than 100f.

      So, 8000 - 9000 of these?

      The science is easy. The implementation of a system like this is more complicated than meets the eye.

      Feel free to attack any of the math you like.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    2. Re:Thanks, I'll let the world know... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You might want to plan for places that get colder at night than 40f or hotter during summer days than 100f.

      Any heat differential you plan for will be due to friction and generated heat. This should be far enough underground to stay at about 60 degrees F year-round.

    3. Re:Thanks, I'll let the world know... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      The plans I saw for the Hyperloop have it above ground. Mainly because digging a tunnel for 400 miles is a bitch.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    4. Re:Thanks, I'll let the world know... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I keep thinking they're having The Boring Company help with laying track - because they keep advertising themselves as perfect for the job.

    5. Re:Thanks, I'll let the world know... by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Yes.
      If they could make boring a 400+ mile long tunnel cost effective, it would reduce the complexity of the problems I laid out by a large chunk.

      Of course minor earthquakes at the wrong place would be unavoidably catastrophic if built underground.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  46. Re:Dumbass by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    Can you imagine being in a coffin in a steel vacuum tube with no inertial reference

    Why yes, I can very clearly imagine this, since I used to be on a submarine in the navy. You're a moron.

    How the pods transition from vacuum to normal air? If a pod breaks down how is it retrieved?.. eg. Are there access hatches?, Does that mean big valves every km or so for isolation? How long does each section take to air up & re vacuum?

    Airlocks
    It has wheels and an electric motor to take it to the next exit point which will be spaced all along the path
    Yes, there will be access hatches
    No dumbass, there will likely be doors near the access points for isolation
    I guess that depends on how large a pump you put in each area, but I bet there will be a lot of large ones

    Do you have any more questions that are easily answered with the slightest bit of thought?

  47. Re:Breathing? by beastofburdon · · Score: 1

    Just wondering, how are you recovering from the lobotomy?

  48. Use for Freight only by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    Then, if it goes WHOOOOSH, you just lose a bunch of shoes, or melons, or whatever.

  49. Improbable Numbers by MercTech · · Score: 1

    Let a physicist debunk...
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk

    --
    NRRPT/RCT
  50. Re:Cost of keeping the vacuum? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    'Economic feasibility' is a decision for the people with the money. What the peanut gallery thinks, doesn't matter.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  51. The deniers are just amazing by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    While they have many objections, their biggest appears to be that of maintaining a partial pressure over say 1000 miles. Yet, they ignore reality. Haldron collider has a 17 mile long tube with a 10^(-13) atm. OTOH, hyperloop will require a pressure of 10^(-4).
    So, IOW, haldron is doing a pressure that is a billion times less dense which requires a GREAT DEAL MORE WORK than hyperloop, and yet, the deniers are running around saying that it can not happen.
    Amazing.

    This reminds of those ppl that ran around screaming that SpaceX would never get their F1 off the ground. Then it because that F9 would never work. Then it was that they could not land a stage. Then it became that SX would never be able to reuse these used stages.
    Now, it is that 28 engines will not work, or that dragon 2 will not work or that hyperloop will not work, etc. etc. etc.
    Basically, most, if not all, of the deniers are non-engineers and really have no grasp of where issues REALLY are. With all of these projects, none of them are out of physical laws, or our engineering capabilities. IOW, we can build a tunnel with a pressure that is 10^(-13) if we want. Likewise, we can build a rocket with over 100 engines. These are NOT physical or engineering issues.
    Where the REAL issue is, ARE THEY ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE?
    In every single case, Musk has done the calculations and shown that they are economically feasible. Otherwise, he does not pursue them.

    And when it comes to issues about physical vs engineering capabilities vs economical, a good one that he is working on, would be electric flight.
    It is PHYSICALLY possible. Our drones indicate that there is no physical issues with that.
    Now, it is down to engineering and economical issues. He and others are working on it, but at this time, it is not known if the engineering is possible for it.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.