Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Hyperloop Cargo Company Promises Deliveries at 600 MPH (cnn.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the speedy-delivery dept.

Virgin Hyperloop One just announced that they're teaming with the supply-chain firm DP World to build hyperloop-enabled cargo systems.

An anonymous reader quotes CNN: Called DP World Cargospeed, the venture claims it will be able to "deliver freight at the speed of flight and close to the cost of trucking..." So far Virgin Hyperloop One's test capsule has reached speeds of 387 kmph (240 mph), but the company predicts it will send cargo at a top speed of 1,000 kmph (621 mph). In a blog post by Virgin Hyperloop One CEO Rob Lloyd, he calculated a four-day truck journey could be cut to 16 hours. While costs are estimated to run 50% higher than truck transit, Cargospeed believes it can be over five-times cheaper than air freight...

In the announcement, time-sensitive goods such as food and medical supplies were highlighted as items that could benefit from hyperloop's speed. Renders released with the announcement suggest there are plans to integrate drone delivery into the supply chain too.
Virgin Hyperloop One also released a slick video about the venture promising that they're "pushing the boundaries of innovation."

The Washington Post reports that company officials "said they hoped to start construction on a test site in India next year."

173 comments

  1. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question that is never asked: why? Who wants this? What cargo needs to travel that quickly over such a limited distance?

    1. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To even further limit its viability is this requires cargo that is so time critical that you are willing to pay more than truck but not important enough to pay for air freight. seems a rather narrow niche.

    2. Re:Why by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      Actually this makes more sense than people moving to me - cargo is also less attractive to mess up for random idjits.

      It would also take JIT inventory up a notch.

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    3. Re:Why by BeauHD+(4) · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should rethink your theory. Maybe it is not liability but vision for the future. Could Henry Ford seen a Boeing 787? You must build the technology that gets you there and not deny this nearly alien technology.

    4. Re:Why by hey! · · Score: 1

      Who wanted the Internet before it existed? Who wanted New Coke? That pretty much brackets the range of possibilities.

      Manufacturing is certainly a plausible use because one of the well-established ways to improve a manufacturer's profitability is to reduce the amount of capital tied up in materials inventory. That savings is limited by how quickly you can get those materials from your supplier. If getting the stuff you need to fill orders is slow and unreliable, you have no choice but to stock those materials.

      Imagine maybe twenty-five years from now. Your highly automated factory in Louisville gets an order for widgets, so it places an order for sub-widgets to a supplier's automated factory in Grand Rapids, about 400 miles away. An hour or so later the sub-widgets are finished, loaded on an autonomous vehicle for delivery the Grand Rapids hyperloop terminal. Another autonomous vehicle picks them up at the Louisville terminus and delivers them to your loading dock, maybe four hours after you get the order. This enables you to fill the order the next day, but the real advantage of this system isn't speed; it's reduced parts inventory.

      This is certainly a plausible scenario, but it's highly dependent on all the parts working. If you don't have a cheap and reliable way to get widgets to and from the hyperloop, there's not really much point in building one for manufacturing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re: Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ballistically launched drones would be better suited for delivery

    6. Re:Why by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem to offer anything over maglev, while having many disadvantages. Maglev is proven technology, cheaper and can carry a lot more. Speed is about the same.

      --
      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: Why by kenh · · Score: 1

      That savings is limited by how quickly you can get those materials from your supplier. If getting the stuff you need to fill orders is slow and unreliable, you have no choice but to stock those materials.

      Or you could just order your supplies four days earlier and save on shipping charges.

      I'm trying to imagine a scenario where a responsible manufacturing concern would need some necessary component in under 4 hours and would be willing to pay for this hyper loop service.

      Of course, to make such deliveries worthwhile:

      A) your supplier needs to me very close to a hyper loop 'station' - what good is. 4 hour delivery time if it takes 6-8 hours to get the goods to the hyper loop station?

      B) their goods need to be packed in hyper loop friendly containers (like shipping containers) before you even order it - if they wait till you order the goods, that just extends the amount of time between placing an order and having it actually start moving towards it's destination.

      C) your facility that needs the items needs to be very close to the hyper loop station - see A), a long truck drive in the 'last mile' eliminates the benefit of hyper loop shipping speed..

      D) your inability to plan for your needs requires that your suppliers instead stockpile large amounts of their product to feed your just-in-time factory - what good is 4 hour shipping if you have to wait several days for the item to ship?

      I'm at a loss to think of any product that would require such immediate transit, except for transplant organs.

      --
      Ken
    8. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who wants this?

      Everyone, because retail is fucking dying and we need better infrastructure to enable more companies to compete cheaply, rather than just bending over and lubing up for Bezos.

    9. Re: Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've made a false equivalency, predicting the future wasn't the point of anything you mentioned. All of those things initially addressed legitimate needs. Modern Silicon Valley and their ilk rely on a strategy known as 'making shit up to address problems that don't exist' and try to pass it off as innovation. I predict that people will have forgotten all about hyperloops in ten years.

    10. Re: Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're just a poopyhead. When your grandchildren have colonized neutron stars on 3D printed Hyperloops, you'll feel foolish for having doubted Technology!

    11. Re:Why by Alypius · · Score: 1

      You just saw the Sander's "(Federal) Jobs for All" thing, right? So cargo will go from say, Boise to LA. But what's left unsaid is that hundreds of new Federal Drones will now scan the package at LA, which means your package will, sure, get from Boise to LA at 600 mph. After that, though, your package will arrive in 2-3 months, so be sure someone is home to sign for it.

    12. Re: Why by AlanObject · · Score: 2

      I'm at a loss to think of any product that would require such immediate transit, except for transplant organs.

      I also happen to believe the business case is weak for this but I can see there would clearly be more use for it than that.

      * Much of our food travels a long distance before we eat it on slow transport, during which it degrades. You would get better food if most of it could be transported at airline speeds for rail prices.

      * There are a lot of advantages for manufacturing for "Just in Time" delivery practices. In Japan many vendors must commit the specific hour of delivery and if they don't make it there is a penalty. There is a reason for that which would be too much to explain here but rest assured there is a strong commercial incentive. A cheap airline-speed service would save a ton of money in logistics for the vendors.

      * The video -- which I do not find very convincing -- states that what is a novelty today will be expected tomorrow. Already online retailers led by Amazon are pushing for immediate delivery of almost anything. Next Day -> Same Day -> Same Hour. Consumer gratification is the key to their success. And you can do it much better if you have fewer and more remote distribution points as long as you have high-speed cargo between them.

      * Have you seen the scale at which next-day parcel delivery services operate? Fed-Ex, UPS, USPS, DHL all spend fantastic amounts on air cargo operating their own fleets and still use charters and common carriers. (They make money doing it of course so that is why they do.) This proposal if taken at face value would cut their largest cost item to 20% of what it currently is. On this market alone of that is true it makes the business case on a no-brainer basis.

      I could go on but there is clearly more to it than boutique business.

    13. Re: Why by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      When your grandchildren 3D-printtheir children and the printer produces flesh-eating Communists because its firmware got hacked and you get devoured alive while jacked-into VR in your nursing home... something something

    14. Re: Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe for small packages

    15. Re:Why by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Maglev is proven technology

      Hardly. There are only a handful of working Maglev systems, and they are all heavily subsidized and uneconomical. I have taken the Pudong-Shanghai Maglev, and it was a fast and smooth ride, but it was also nearly empty since it is twenty times the cost of the bus, while only shaving 30 minutes off the trip time.

      cheaper

      Total hogwash.

    16. Re: Why by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      * Have you seen the scale at which next-day parcel delivery services operate? Fed-Ex, UPS, USPS, DHL all spend fantastic amounts on air cargo

      Indeed. FedEx had revenues of $60 Billion last year, and has a fleet of 650 aircraft.

      There is enormous demand for fast delivery. Replacing aircraft with a series of tubes could be a big cost saver and a big win for the environment.

    17. Re: Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last mile is always the hang up and where heavy costs are incurred. This is a solution looking for a problem. Typical Silicon Valley hot air and hubris.

    18. Re: Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much of our fruit is shipped in an unripened state and gassed. Greens are grown regionally and shipped under refrigeration. Meat is flash frozen or requires aging which is factored into the supply chain. Don't make up nonsense. I've been in food services for two decades. This isn't 1970, it's 2018. Greens are good for up to two months after harvest when modern cleaning and packing methods are used.

    19. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last thing this will be is "cheap".

    20. Re:Why by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      My guess would be "anything you're already using air freight for, but don't want to pay air freight prices for."

      Which equates to "anything going air freight where this service is available."

      Seems fairly obvious to me.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    21. Re: Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really. Because absolutely nobody would like air freight speed for rail prices. Yeah, I'm sure that absolutely nobody would like to cut their intermodal logistics costs by up to 80% (if this press release is anywhere close to accurate).

      Typical anonymous coward idiocy.

    22. Re:Why by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Why do you think this would be cheaper than air freight?

    23. Re:Why by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      And somehow a hyper-loop over the same distance will be cheaper?

    24. Re: Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it will be cheaper because the fixed infrastructure costs will be higher and the energy costs will be higher and ... I guess it's resistant to loose cattle. No, just like maglev, hyper loop is a solution in search of subsidies.

    25. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think this would be cheaper than air freight?

      I know cool kids don't read the article but do you even read the summary?

      Cargospeed believes it can be over five-times cheaper than air freight...

    26. Re:Why by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation - that a Hyperloop executive believes it will be five times cheaper. No further discussion is needed.

      I assume you were after "Funny" mods.

    27. Re:Why by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking of the new maglev shinkansen. It's reasonably priced, fully expected to be profitable and not going to cost much more than the current ones to ride. They expect it to hit 1000kph in due course too.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    28. Re:Why by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Actually this makes more sense than people moving to me

      It is called an outbreak of common sense. A similar is happening with Boring - initially it was to provide an underground railway* with "sleds" carrying cars lowered from the surface. A moments thought will reveal that the traffic jams at street level to get onto the ride would make it impractical unless it were restricted to a few billionaires like Musk himself. So Musk has now added that it would be for pedestrians and cyclists too - in other words a conventional underground railway.

      * "Subway" in the US I believe.

    29. Re:Why by Teun · · Score: 1

      Energy my boy.
      This Hyperloop thing running in near-vacuum requires a lot less energy than an aircraft.
      And that equates directly to less cost but at least as important indirectly to a much smaller carbon foot print, something that is outside of Trumpworld a BIG thing.

      Also, because the Hyperloop, like a train, does not need to carry its own fuel or power it can easily be powered by alternative sources.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    30. Re:Why by Teun · · Score: 2

      It doesn't take much engineering acumen to understand a Hyperloop requires a lot less energy than a plane.
      Especially the motion itself is near frictionless, making the tube vacuum is a one time investment that only requires maintenance.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    31. Re: Why by Teun · · Score: 1

      Indeed.
      But these measures like refrigeration and conservation all have a price that is influenced by the duration expected.
      When you can make this delivery much faster your associated conservation costs are going down and the quality of the produce goes up.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    32. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the massive amount of energy needed to maintain the vacuum.

    33. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't take much engineering acumen to understand a Hyperloop requires a lot less energy than a plane.

      Especially the motion itself is near frictionless, making the tube vacuum is a one time investment that only requires maintenance.

      It required a hell of a lot more engineering acumen then a stupid retard like you has. It takes a massive amount of energy to maintain the vacuum.

    34. Re:Why by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      All it needs is a dedicated bit of space the size of a highway spanning large amounts of area. At least with aircraft you don't need to build a new road every time you change destinations - just a runway. Even Elon has had to make up some new Tom Swift like concept to push this further (at least they're tubes). Sure, it won't need much energy. Just gobs and gobs of cheap, easy to obtain real estate.

      Right.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    35. Re:Why by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      The exact same question can be said for planes. Aren't boats, trains and cars fast enough for you?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    36. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must explain why incandescent lightbulbs requires so much energy to maintain their vacuum.

    37. Re:Why by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I thought the future would be that your highly automated factory in Louisville could 3D-print all the parts they need?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    38. Re: Why by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Where did you get the 'rail prices'? From the backers of this entertaining notion?

      Every land owner in the country is planning on giving away nice clear parcels for this endeavor? Or are we going to bore holes underground (always an easy thing to do on continental distance scales)? Rip up the rails? The Interstate?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    39. Re:Why by SNRatio · · Score: 1

      You (and Cargospeed) are leaving out capital expenditures, my friend. A US hyperloop network will cost trillions to build. The last time I checked California would be money ahead if it just bought airplane tickets for all the hyperloop passengers for the rest of the century instead of actually building a hyperloop. If cargospeed is forced to pay a significant share of the infrastructure cost then the savings disappear.

    40. Re:Why by SNRatio · · Score: 2

      Maybe the trick is not to extend hyperloop into cities. Locate the terminals in the suburbs or boonies, the way newer airports are. Then buy up all the rail companies so that you have access to all of their existing right of way. Then buy senators/congresscritters/governors so that you can get approval for converting the rail right of way to dual use with hyperloop.

    41. Re:Why by SNRatio · · Score: 1

      Sorry, was thinking of the budget for California's High Speed Rail plan. I'm not sure what the cost for hyperloop would actually be (though it certainly won't be as cheap as Musk claimed)

    42. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that there's no vacuum inside most incandescent bulbs (the gas fill is about 75% of atmospheric pressure), and the bulbs are sealed permanently during manufacture. Permanently sealing a hyperloop system would make it a tad difficult to load and unload cargo.

    43. Re: Why by hey! · · Score: 1

      If you imagine a small shop, sure it's hard to see. But the thing is as businesses get larger the principle of get the customer's money soon and hang on to it as long as possible starts to get pushed to what the layman appears ridiculous lengths. With enough volume, pennies per unit in time value of money add up to significant amounts.

      It's like my old school friend who became an automotive engineer, and was astonished by how engineers sweat bullets over $0.50 on e $30,000 vehicle. If it's an F-150 pickup you're adding up that $0.50 over almost a million units annually.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    44. Re:Why by DamnRogue · · Score: 1

      It takes a massive amount of energy to maintain the vacuum.

      "Nature abhors a Hyperloop." -Aristotle

    45. Re:Why by Teun · · Score: 1

      So you think that tube is seriously leaking?
      I don't like your style of engineering, period.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    46. Re:Why by Teun · · Score: 1

      So you would build a leaking tube?
      Realise this tube is only near-vacuum, that makes a differential pressure of about 1 bar (14.5 psi).
      Around the world there are many thousands of miles of high pressure gas distribution lines with typically a pressure in the area of 60-80 bar (900-1000 psi) and they don't leak.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    47. Re:Why by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It takes a massive amount of energy to maintain vacuum, but a lot less energy and effort to maintain diminished pressure. This is not a vactrain after all.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    48. Re:Why by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

      Wow, I never thought about it that way !
      That was the most important shortcoming I perceived, and I've never realized that we pretty much already had the technology !
      (Hopefully the higher stresses due to moving wagons will be low compared to the additional 59-79 bars of pressure the gas pipelines are used to.)
      P.S.: A *perfect* vacuum would _still_ have a differential pressure of about 1 bar...

    49. Re:Why by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      It doesn't take much engineering acumen to understand a Hyperloop requires a lot less energy than a plane.

      Propulsion energy is only a small part of the cost of most transport systems. The capital required to build Hyperloops, and the cost of maintenance, will be enormous.

    50. Re:Why by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Sorry, was thinking of the budget for California's High Speed Rail plan. I'm not sure what the cost for hyperloop would actually be

      You answered that in your first post - trillions.

    51. Re: Why by kenh · · Score: 1

      Hyperloop transport is not going to be like vacuum tubes - it will resemble train travel - it will be folly to think a chef in Texas can decide to feature Jersey Tomatoes on their dinner menu and be able to order them in the morning and have them for dinner that night, fresh from Jersey.

      To meet a manufacturer's Just In Time needs, their supplier needs to be the warehouse.

      --
      Ken
    52. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Around the world there are many thousands of miles of high pressure gas distribution lines with typically a pressure in the area of 60-80 bar (900-1000 psi) and they don't leak.

      1. Those aren’t vacuum systems retard.
      2. If you weren’t a complete retard you understand something called out gasing.
      3. In order for a Hyperloop to be useful, they need to open it up to atmosphere periodically or else there is no way to load and unload cargo.
      4. No retard I didn’t say they had to vent the entire system.
      5. Venting loadlocks at the ends will introtrpduce new moisture back into the system that has to be continually pumped out.

    53. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I thought the future would be that your highly automated factory in Louisville could 3D-print all the parts they need?

      Somebody's got to ship them all that filament...

    54. Re: Why by hey! · · Score: 1

      Well, that's not the operational profile Musk is pitching. He's pitching greater scheduling flexibility than trains, allowing traffic to be added on a flexible ad hoc basis up to the carrying capacity of the tubes.

      But he hasn't proved he can make the concept physically work yet, much less operate it economically. Assuming that it is physically feasible with near-term technology, economic feasibility depends on it carrying enough traffic to recoup the fabulous investment costs. And to me, that's the biggest uncertainty. If there's not enough traffic, the cost per trip goes way up, which leaves you with a Catch-22.

      The farm-to-table tomato scenario is obviously far-fetched, but a farm to wholesaler scenario might be possible for a system with high use rates. Tomatoes shipped across country can be six weeks old by the time they're put up for sale, which is why they are picked green and artificially "ripened" near the point of sale with ethylene gas.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    55. Re:Why by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      We can just ignore capital costs because they're 'one time'?

      Back to Engineering school for you, you lack acumen. Do you even 'present value'?

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

      They leak. You just don't hear about it unless it burns down a neighborhood or incenerates a train full of vacationing children. (both have happened)

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

      I'm thinking of the new maglev shinkansen.

      Since it isn't working yet, I wouldn't call it "proven technology".

    58. Re:Why by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      And somehow a hyper-loop over the same distance will be cheaper?

      What's your point? That maglev makes sense because there is something else that is even stupider?

    59. Re: Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, the whole idea is doomed to failure. If only they'd consulted you, they could have avoided this disaster.

    60. Re: Why by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      It's doomed, but not a bad idea. All publicity is good.

      Just don't put any money in it.

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

      No need to rip up the interstates, just tunnel beneath them. Or get the railroads involved - they're already in the business and already have miles and miles of fairly straight routes available.

      Of course, this might not be all that feasible with today's tunneling technology. Maybe a new company could find an opportunity here . . .

      [I know - that answer is Boring.]

    62. Re:Why by torkus · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the leaks are fairly small - and a similarly small leak in a hyperloop can pretty easily be pumped out.

      They don't need perfection or a hard vacuum. The point is to greatly reduce air friction, not try to eliminate it entirely. That last percent would cost more than the previous 99%.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    63. Re:Why by torkus · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure it will fit the conventional subway - the hyperloop does better at high speed trips over longer distances. Going 0.5 - 1 miles as is typical for a NYC or London subway stop is not efficient for something like this.

      Putting and airport 20-50 (or more) miles outside a major city is typical but then you have a 1-2 hour commute to where you want to be. A hyperloop could cut that down to 5-10.

      Similarly, medium size cities in an area could now share a single, larger airport and have more flights for people. It would change the models...because you could have more people and cities within 20-30 minutes of an airport than an airport could handle.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    64. Re:Why by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Leaks come in all sizes. Lunatics regularly shoot pipelines with rifles. In Nigeria they drill holes into them and scoop up gasoline with buckets then run, the slow ones get incinerated. People are generally assholes.

      The last % is impossible without a diffusion pump.

      If they ever build one, most of the air 'leaks' will come from airlocking to let people and cargo in/out. Important details like tube switching and loading/unloading haven't been worked out, just hand waved away.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    65. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would take a .50 cal or bigger to put a hole in a hyperloop tube. Not out of the question, but most rural lunatics don't carry those around.

    66. Re:Why by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Tungsten carbide core bullets exist. Pipelines are punctured, somewhat regularly. Also: expansion joints?

      There would be a strong economic incentive to make those tubes as thin as possible. If one is ever actually built (not some stubby test run), expect thinner tube walls, perhaps some sort of concrete with steel liner. They will have all sorts of chances to optimize the economics, over proposed thousands of miles, you'd have different designs, pylon, tunnel, berm. Each optimized for 'cheap but good'. They will likely all have some sort of vulnerability, even the tunnels will need pump stations.

      But 'assholes' won't be the main problem. They haven't even discovered the practical issues yet. Anybody built a switch that works? Anybody have a design? Station design? How about a switch that works at speed?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    67. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Tungsten carbide core bullets exist. Pipelines are punctured, somewhat regularly.

      Pipelines are thinner than a 1-inch steel hyperloop tube.

      This has been posted before, but see how it takes high-caliber armor-piercing rounds to penetrate that kind of plating. And it won't do it with one shot:

      Guns vs 1in Thick Steel Armor

    68. Re:Why by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I've ridden it, it works great. 600kph, no problem. It's as ultra smooth as the wheeled ones.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    69. Re: Why by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Just don't put any money in it.

      I recommend it to "a select few" of people I know. Mostly people I really don't want to know any longer.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    70. Re: Why by kenh · · Score: 1

      He's pitching trains without engineers, as small as a single car/container - got it. But loads less than a single container will wait until there is a container full of cargo for that destination, delaying delivery. If course, he could implement a system that resembles truck traffic with smaller loads being aggregated at distribution centers, but that will require touching the loads several times before it arrives at it's destination.

      What he is proposing is a system that is as geographically limited as current trains, but managed the way modern truck freight is routed/scheduled, except the trucks will follow their assigned routes at 400 MPH.

      --
      Ken
    71. Re:Why by Teun · · Score: 1

      Switches for high speed are going to be a challenge, at low speed near a terminal they should be easy to negotiate.
      Yes a concrete shell with a relatively thin inner (steel) tube would be the most likely solution, only the inner tube needs to be perfectly straight.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    72. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we all know that airplanes, cargo terminals, and airport runways are capital-free and maintenance-free.

  2. Cargo is patient by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Cargo generally doesn't mind sitting on a truck an extra day. It rarely complains at all. There are some exceptions, but are there enough to make it worth building a Hyperloop?

    1. Re:Cargo is patient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "A" hyperloop, lol. You really don't see it coming do you? You should see by now that hyperloop-type transportation is going to become a major standard. There's a massive R/D and infrastructure investment up front, but you drive on interstate highways because Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander and not the penny-dick doubt chislers of 2018 slashdot, pardon my invading France. The technology is obviously viable and totally worth building, whether it's Elon Musk stumbling through it or some other group. You should hope it's Musk and not Xi-Pooh. Hyperloops are going to be the superhighways of the future, they are the most efficient way to move cargo we have invented collectively as humankind.
      I'm not a Musk fanboy by any means, I invented hyperloop in high school as far as I'm concerned. It's just a logical idea that it took a brash billionaire to build and prove conceptually valid. It could have been any of them.

    2. Re:Cargo is patient by Kohath · · Score: 1

      I think they will be awesome. I don’t think they will be competitive for cargo. By the time Hyperloop is done it will have to compete with robot trucks. Robot trucks don’t have to stop for the driver to rest, and with self driving cars highway speeds can go up. And trucks actually go to the cargo's destination, not the hyperloop cargo terminal.

    3. Re:Cargo is patient by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      On the flip side, there's only so much you can do to increase highway speeds. At some point, you hit the limits of what is safe and feasible, even with self-driving tech. I'm not sure where that limit is, but I'm pretty sure it is nowhere near 600 MPH. I don't think you could physically move a tractor trailer on the surface of the earth at 600 MPH. The wind resistance would rip the sides of the trailer right off. And even if you could, the cost per mile would be enormous.

      So it's really a question of having another tier that strikes a balance between time in transit versus cost while being cheaper than air travel (which, if rising fuel prices have anything to say about it, is likely to be a low bar in the future).

      I suspect that the most likely shipping scheme in the distant future will involve using self-driving trucks to take the packages to a transit hub, followed by moving them by hyperloop to another hub, followed by distributing the packages via self-driving trucks to their final destinations—unless, of course, we manage to perfect antigravity technology, in which case ballistic delivery will be a viable option. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re:Cargo is patient by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      This isn't about trucks. This is about replacing Union Pacific and the like.

      This is the modernization of intercity rail cargo transport, which hasn't appreciably changed since they stopped shoveling coal into a boiler.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Cargo is patient by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      There's a massive R/D and infrastructure investment up front, but you drive on interstate highways because Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander and not the penny-dick doubt chislers of 2018 slashdot, pardon my invading France.

      The difference is that Hyperloop is actually a good idea, while the interstate highway system was a shit one. It was created as a handout to big auto and big oil. The claim was that it was for military purposes, but rail can move military hardware faster and cheaper.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:Cargo is patient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow you are a massive retard.

    7. Re:Cargo is patient by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Wow you are a massive retard.

      You are a tiny coward. Come at me, bro. I'm not even mad.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:Cargo is patient by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      If Hyperloop transportation is likely to be higher in cost than trucks, how does it expect to compete with rail? Rail is probably the most efficient, cheapest, form of freight transportation in the US today. While your statement that intercity rail cargo transport hasn't changed much since steam is stupid and false, it is true that developments in that area are slowing, largely because the system is already close to optimal.

      Realistically, this is intended to compete with air freight - similar speeds, much cheaper costs. But air freight is still a niche market, and building out a network that can compete with the already entrenched, and not going away, network of air terminals, is going to be phenomenally expensive and time consuming.

      This is yet another attempt to find a use for a technology, because people became excited about it and then realized that it can't do what they wanted it to do, but want it to exist anyway.

      It's dumb, let it die.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    9. Re:Cargo is patient by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      They're both shitty ideas! And I refuse to believe, given the massive "mistakes" in Musk's original white paper (proposed loop costing a fraction of what it was likely to cost, serving only two of the four CAHSR cities, having barely a quarter of the capacity, and that's if run at an unrealistically high efficiency), that the Hyperloop isn't really about being a hand out to big auto too, namely a way to sink CAHSR with vaporware.

      I'd also mention the IHS wasn't just about the things you mentioned, but also about encouraging suburbanization. And that had as much to do with racism as it did "Big Auto".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:Cargo is patient by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I'm not a Musk fanboy by any means, I invented hyperloop in high school as far as I'm concerned.

      I too invented many forms of fantastic transportation as a kid, and continue to do so as an adult. Luckily for the world, I'm not stupid enough to pretend I think they'd all work, and I'm not the sort of person that, if a civil engineer or transit expert with decades of experience addressed fundamental issues with my "invention", would call that person an idiot because he's right and I don't have an answer for him.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    11. Re:Cargo is patient by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Actually the Interstate did enforce even more segregation and (surprise) affected poorer communities more than richer ones. That wasn't the plan, that was an unintended consequence of doing an enormous project.

      The major force behind the Interstate was Russia (or some other generic boogyman). This was a system that allowed the Army to move lots and lots of stuff to the West Coast when it was invaded. Or fell into the Pacific. Or godzilla.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Cargo is patient by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      I think the energy equation will actually play out in favor of Hyperloop. On the road, you've got to constantly add energy to overcome friction of the tires and air resistance, plus you have to carry additional weight in fuel or batteries. In the Hyperloop, you've got minimal air resistance, and keeping the capsule elevated. You do have to use power to get up to speed, but you will reclaim the energy when you slow down. All in all, the net energy use should be close to even with a huge time advantage to the Hyperloop. It doesn't even take into account that the Hyperloop will have reduced weather and other delays, and if successful, they'll probably be able to build vertical to expand capacity as needed with no further land use issues once they clear the initial hurdles.

    13. Re:Cargo is patient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the energy equation will actually play out in favor of Hyperloop. On the road, you've got to constantly add energy to overcome friction of the tires and air resistance, plus you have to carry additional weight in fuel or batteries. In the Hyperloop, you've got minimal air resistance, and keeping the capsule elevated.

      A quick glance and hyperloop does use maglev, so its main advantage is air resistance leading to high speeds efficiently.

      A standard train is already pretty efficient, and you could upgrade to maglev. It looks like the Japanese Shinkansen already runs up to 186mi/hr and they are working on maglev.

      I'd like to see the numbers. Does the building of all this structure to keep the train in vacuum really work out when you run the numbers? Standard cargo can usually just move slower, and the air resistant problem partly goes away. To be accurate the numbers need to be over the lifetime of the equipment.

      Maybe the system would be better numbers wise if you went smaller. A 2-3 ft tube could still carry a massive amount of cargo, if you staged it right.

    14. Re:Cargo is patient by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

      Hyperloop doesn't compete so much with road (or even airplanes, who can fly over seas and mountains), but with train.

  3. Lousy muzzle velocity but by bobstreo · · Score: 1

    if I can deliver 200 lbs of lead at that speed, it would be ok.

    1. Re:Lousy muzzle velocity but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You there, what were you jacking off about? Guns? Why guns? Why are you softly moaning to yourself about guns HERE though? What? This is your cover, you're compensating for something? I'm ruining it? Oh.

    2. Re:Lousy muzzle velocity but by Alypius · · Score: 1

      You're the one who started talking about guns. Shall we discern your peculiar tastes from a random shitpost on a non-firearms site? No? Oh.

    3. Re:Lousy muzzle velocity but by edittard · · Score: 1

      You're the one who started talking about guns.

      No he isn't. Learn to read. Protip: sometimes the subject line is informative.

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  4. makes sense by Jodka · · Score: 0

    That works around two of the show-stopper bugs intrinsic to Hyperloop.

    First, it's a barf train. Providing no external visual reference frame in combination with acceleration is the perfect recipe for inducing nausea. Barfing is also a chain reaction between passengers. To transport humans the pods would need to be equipped with vomit bilge pumps.

    Second, the unmitigated potential for absolute legality. The shockwave from a tube rupture would obliterate all capsules en-route, killing all passengers aboard.

    There is also the problem that nobody knows how to make an vacuum-sealed expansion joint the diameter of the Hyperloop tube, which is required for above-ground tubes. However, it should work for subterranean tunnels which don't have the problem with expanding with air temperature increases and warming from sunlight.

     

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:makes sense by Jodka · · Score: 1

      Second, the unmitigated potential for absolute lethality.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    2. Re:makes sense by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Providing no external visual reference frame in combination with acceleration is the perfect recipe for inducing nausea.

      It would be very easy to display a visual acceleration reference on screens that look like windows, if needed.

    3. Re:makes sense by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Absolute legality would swiftly follow absolute lethality.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Expansion joints aren't needed - just let the thermal expansion and contraction built up lengthwise elastic strain. Stresses are only about 10% of yield, and tube is very nearly straight (20km radius bends or more to keep turning g forces down).

      But if you need an expansion joint then metal bellows are very well known and easily scalable tech, used in most vacuum systems.

      VR can be used for preventing nausea - easy to predict the path and show it to the passengers, like a roller-coaster ride

    5. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you need an expansion joint then metal bellows are very well known and extremely expensive.

      Fixed that for you. $1000 for a 3/4” ID bellows.

    6. Re:makes sense by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Everything is expensive if you have no need to build it in quantities. Economies of scale are your friend.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can buy 1m internal diameter bellows joints with 100mm axial compliance for $1000 in China. I've used a lot of Chinese sourced vacuum fittings, they work fine. One of those every 50-100m would be sufficient for any thermal expansion/contraction, and would around 1% to overall cost.

    8. Re:makes sense by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      You know that subways exist, right? They manage to accelerate without having to mop out gallons of vomit after each trip. External visual references, or "windows with lights in the tube" are solved problems. Even the Gemini capsule had windows while being exposed to much harsher conditions - why couldn't this? Plus, the need probably isn't as dire as you think it is - thousands of people are in middle seats on wide-body airliners every day, nowhere near windows, looking straight ahead and don't turn into gurgling vomit fountains.

      Why can't the tube have pressure sensors, that when a segment is seen to have higher pressure than it's supposed to, the oncoming vehicle slows down in order to not hit a wall of air and "obliterate" itself? This thing isn't a total vacuum - it's reduced pressure. That kind of basic design would be included in making something "fail-safe".

      The good news is that absolutely nobody working on this is going to read anything you wrote and say "damn, we didn't think of that. Oh well, better give up now instead of trying to create something that could revolutionize high speed travel and logistics."

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    9. Re:makes sense by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Providing no external visual reference frame in combination with acceleration is the perfect recipe for inducing nausea

      Not a problem, provided that the acceleration is smooth and constant.

    10. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sackings are linear. Eventually it reaches saturation.

    11. Re:makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the availability of resources whether economies of scale hold.

    12. Re:makes sense by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      The shockwave from a tube rupture...

      Oh yes, that shockwave propagating through a near vacuum exactly how? You do realize that other than E&M waves, waves need a medium to propagate through.

      If you had said capsules slamming into the wall of air due to a rupture, you might have at least been somewhere in the realm of reality. Even then, however, I'm not sure how realistic that is. Air isn't going to propagate down the tube like a piston. Typical flow patterns in pipes are highest in the middle, dropping off towards zero next to the walls. While some of the capsule might experience a pretty good blast of air, it doesn't seem like something that can't be designed around.

      Everyone thinks this is some dramatic pressure difference, but it's really not. Like the ISS, the pressure differential between the atmospheric pressure side and the low vacuum side is like 15PSI. Go down 50' in water and you have a substantially higher pressure differential.

      We have a pretty firm grasp on fluid dynamics and aerodynamics at this point in time, and a lot of good modeling software. I'm pretty sure that if we can design submarines and spaceships, we can design a pod that can survive a tube rupture.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    13. Re:makes sense by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      14.5 PSI is the change in pressure which each 33 feet (10 m) of depth.

      The tires on most cars have about twice that pressure in them.

  5. released a slick video about the venture by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    I perused the first two or three paragraphs foregoing the instinctive judgement to label this submission as an advertorial.

    Fortuitively, discovering they released a slick video about the venture, my fears were assuaged.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:released a slick video about the venture by charliemerritt03 · · Score: 1

      Press Release.
      Look at phys.org - its about physics in the form of Press Releases.
      This was about blue smoke in the form of a Slash Dot Post,

    2. Re:released a slick video about the venture by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      If your observation is on target, we're doomed, since releasing the blue smoke is typically indicative of the culmination of the afflicted module.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  6. Yay for Pneumatic Tubes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, only this time it's 'pull', not 'push'?

    Can't they just shoot the load in a capsule through a natural gas pipeline?

    1. Re:Yay for Pneumatic Tubes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't they just shoot the load in a capsule through a natural gas pipeline?

      I think that would better be kept, uhhh, private...

    2. Re: Yay for Pneumatic Tubes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I pushed my load thru ur mothers gas pipeline if u know what I mean

  7. hilarious by iggymanz · · Score: 0

    we can deliver from Y to X at 600 MPH!

    I need this package to go from A to B

    Wait, we need to build a hyperloop from A to B

    we can deliver from Y to X, and A to B at 600 MPH!

    I need to send a package from A to X.

    Wait, we need to build a hyperloop from A to X

    1. Re:hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious.

      Much like train networks, they are very funny too.

    2. Re:hilarious by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      I'm not using any parcel service ever again unless they deliver directly from the source to my house with no stops or transfers and have plastic bottles to piss in.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    3. Re:hilarious by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      train networks use trucks. lots and lots of trucks. and we've been building rail for a century and a half. getting coast to coast hyperloop with the hubs like Chicago is going to take just a wee little bit of time......

  8. are the failure modes acceptable? by nimbius · · Score: 1

    normal operational condition: everyone can buy fresh fruit and vegetables delivered at a moments notice

    failure mode: an uncontrolled fruit cart is about to deliver everyone in a 3 mile radius a rudely unannounced, extremely high speed pineapple.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:are the failure modes acceptable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      failure mode: an uncontrolled fruit cart is about to deliver everyone in a 3 mile radius a rudely unannounced, extremely high speed pineapple.

      Pineapple Express?

      You do know that we have metal tubes, flying through the air right now, at 30,000 ft and close to 600 mph? Right? And every once in a while they catastrophically crash?

  9. Lol, there is some truth to that by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > you drive on interstate highways because Eisenhower was Supreme Allied Commander and not the penny-dick doubt chislers

    Well said. :)

    I'm not too sure about hyperlink - it's an interesting idea with a lot of unknowns. Leadership is proven thing, though.

    1. Re:Lol, there is some truth to that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hyperloop is a proven thing. They built one, it's just not the full length because that means buying land which means you are building the damn thing and it's all approved and ready to go. Musk or no Musk.
      The only thing holding it back now is money, which buys land and law both. It doesn't need you to be convinced, it exists and it's all pre-existing tech. Implementations vary. The first won't be the last.

    2. Re:Lol, there is some truth to that by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Hyperloop is a proven thing.

      It won't be proven, as nothing is, until an example is working in service at full speed and with paying payload.

  10. Hyperloop. Darn autocorrect by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That should be "I'm not too sure about hyperloop".
    I think hyperlinks are pretty well proven now. Starting with HyperCard.

  11. Luddites! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are in the game-changed post-manufacturing 3D printing digital car downloading and printed house future!

    You can't deliver things faster than my 3D printer can make them!

    1. Re:Luddites! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Code Complete

  12. Dynamic vs static by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The business case seems overly optimistic. Flexible delivery vs speed. Planes and autos are more dynamic in routing and capacity shifting. Direct high speed transport can be effective like many of Japan and Euros high speed trains, but these share infrastructure with lower speed rail. Hyper loop while offering a higher speed will need to address capacity utilization.

    1. Re:Dynamic vs static by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Direct high speed transport can be effective like many of Japan and Euros high speed trains, but these share infrastructure with lower speed rail.

      No high speed trains don't generally don't share infrastructure, but can when it is advantageous like getting into city centres instead of unloading miles away like airports do. In many cases the high speed routes are entirely new, in other cases there are quadruple (or more) tracks, two for lower speed trains and two for higher speed trains.

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-1...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  13. "close to the cost" is "50% higher" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did they attend the comcast 'lie-through-your-teeth' seminar last month?

  14. What is KMPH? by Topwiz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I guess CNN has invented a new unit of speed measurement. I'm guessing 'kmph' would be 1000 miles per hour so 378 kmph would actually be 378,000 mph.

    1. Re:What is KMPH? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dear Amercian, thank you for demonstrating to rest of the world how ignorant and yet arrogant Americans could be, even though most of us knew already. Ignorant enough not to figure out what kmph stood for, yet arrogant enough not do any cursory check before posting. Just typing "kmph" in Google will suggest you to search "kph".

      Kilometres per hour, although more frequently abbreviated as kph or km/h, is nothing mysterious to the rest of the world, even when abbreviated as kmph. Any doubt to the what kmph is would vanish after checking the conversion giving in the summary.

      Well, except to Americans, I guess.

    2. Re:What is KMPH? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Kilometres per hour ... is nothing mysterious to the rest of the world, even when abbreviated as kmph.

      As a European former railway engineer well versed in working in kph, someone writing "kmph" is a mystery to me as to why they should be so stupid. I have never seen "kmph" written or spoken before in my life, and the OP was right to poke fun at it.

    3. Re:What is KMPH? by Teun · · Score: 1

      kmph is unusual but not unknown, your reply shows a great deal of ignorance (or backwardness).
      Same is to be said about the moderators, this should at best be rated Funny.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:What is KMPH? by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      It wasn't that I had no idea what the author meant, my post was supposed to be a funny comment on how stupid CNN is. In fact I did google it and came up with two items. It is the stock symbol for a company called KemPharm and the call letters for a TV station in California. Nobody in the US uses KMPH as a unit of measurement and since everyone else is metric, neither do they.

  15. Virgin Double Penetration 600MPH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is my new Baby Metal cover Idol Band

    This is really dumb

  16. It all comes down to one thing by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    Cost per mile. If it work out finanically, maybe it will be tried. If not it will be like high speed rail in California between what, LA and San Fran. How is that project working out?

    Sounds .like one of those great projects that work as .long as you never need to get it running and have not run out of other peoples money.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:It all comes down to one thing by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Cost per mile. If it work out finanically, maybe it will be tried. If not it will be like high speed rail in California between what, LA and San Fran. How is that project working out?

      It's not working out well, ironically, because California respects the law more than other states. In almost any other state, they would have pissed all over everything to make it happen.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:It all comes down to one thing by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      If it is "over five-times cheaper than air freight", that means they pay you.*
      Where do I sign up?

      *One time cheaper is free.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
    3. Re:It all comes down to one thing by Teun · · Score: 1

      That's the difference, a train needs 'right of way', often only achievable via Eminent Domain procedures.
      A Hyperloop will in most places go underground, it does not require any level or otherwise troublesome crossings.
      The NIMBY community can't complain about a new eye or ear sore and the terminals will be much smaller than a typical airfield.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    4. Re:It all comes down to one thing by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      Even the Boring Company's proposed "cheap" tunnels weigh in at $100M/mile - Musk's figures, not the figures of a civil engineer who knows what they're talking about - and that's before you put the sealed tube in (what, you think a cheaply bored tunnel is going to have perfectly smooth walls and be air tight?): the costs of making a fully tunneled transportation system is going to be astronomical.

      In practice, the big ugly tubes will be on the surface. And NIMBYs will raise hell.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    5. Re:It all comes down to one thing by Teun · · Score: 1

      Here in The Netherlands we have a densely populated country, by consequence nearly all new infrastructure will have to go underground.
      Our advantage is the soil is relatively soft, the disadvantage is it will be water logged.
      But as they manage to build metros under cities like Rotterdam and Amsterdam then this small diameter Hyperloop tunnel is a piece of cake. The lack of real estate will be the rule in nearly every city so the Boring Company has a lot of work ahead.

      Back to the original article, when used for freight larger terminals are needed and almost by consequence these will be in the surrounding industrial areas.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    6. Re:It all comes down to one thing by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

      Could also be overground, a few meters in the air...

    7. Re:It all comes down to one thing by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You realize your entire nation could fit into the corner of an average sized American state? You should get out more.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    8. Re:It all comes down to one thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only relevant issue of the Netherlands being smaller then the US is that the economics are different.

      Same area as Virginia, twice the population density, population centers more concentrated. The population density and concentration make the economics of any sort of mass transit work better in the Netherlands than in Virginia.

      The ability of the Hyperloop to compete with other modes of mass transit will be an open question for a while.

      Freight by pneumatic tube has been done before, How pneumatic systems have captivated New York for over 100 years. Sometimes the economics work.

    9. Re:It all comes down to one thing by Teun · · Score: 1

      Because the Amsterdam Airport has reached maximum capacity an overflow airport is being developed about 50kms away.
      With a Hyperloop connection this would become a 10mins away terminal.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  17. At last, the right approach by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Hyperloop is the kind of technology that should be tried out first on cargo. If it proves successful, that will generate interest in using it for passengers.

  18. won't happen. not like this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we will never see dedicated freight-only tubes, at least not here. perhaps in china from inland factory hubs to coastal ports, but in the u.s. freight would piggyback on passenger 'hypertrains' (like some freight and/or mail is hauled now by greyhound, amtrak and the airlines). so the speeds suggested are not realistic, and won't happen.. here. but costs could be even lower than their wishful estimates, if you only consider the *added* cost of adding a freight car to an existing scheduled service.

  19. Solution looking for a problem by khchung · · Score: 1

    A common theme throughout all the Hyperloop news in the recent years, is that Hyperloop is obviously a solution looking for a problem.

    There are high-speed rails running in Europe, Japan, and more recently China. Thousands of miles of it, carrying millions of people around every day. In the past few years, when all you get from Hyperloop is talk of what it "promises", China had built thousands of miles of HSR tracks around the country.

    These real world HSR only need the laying of tracks and overhead power cables. Fresh food and medical supplies simply didn't have enough the volume to support the extra cost to build the airtight enclosure.

    If Hyperloop really made good economic sense, then *somewhere* in the world would have built one already.

    --
    Oliver.
    1. Re:Solution looking for a problem by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but you are overlooking the American mindset that conventional railways cannot go at more than 40mph and the trains are constantly derailing. They don't have a clue. In fact Musk etc studiously avoid the word "railway" and if you want to stir things up, try suggesting that Hyperloop, Boring etc are types of railway.

    2. Re:Solution looking for a problem by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If Hyperloop really made good economic sense, then *somewhere* in the world would have built one already.

      What? That's stupid. It could reasonably have only recently come to make good economic sense. You forgot to account for time in your reasoning.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Solution looking for a problem by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

      Why? We've been building gas pipelines for more than a century...

    4. Re:Solution looking for a problem by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

      High-speed railways aren't cheap either. I'm really wondering about the respective costs and advantages here... One thing I see going for (some) Hyperloops is that they probably can be placed high above ground for cheaper than conventional trains - saving on the footprint and especially the need to build tunnels/overpasses needed to accommodate high-speed rail.

    5. Re:Solution looking for a problem by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Pipelines can make abrupt changes of direction to avoid obstacles and hug the ground, and can go up and down steep inclines, so their supports are cheap. Hyperloop, at its speed, will only be able to make very gentle changes of direction. So budget for some long tunnels and spectacular viaducts. The pipeline analogy is BS.

    6. Re:Solution looking for a problem by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      One thing I see going for (some) Hyperloops is that they probably can be placed high above ground for cheaper than conventional trains - saving on the footprint and especially the need to build tunnels/overpasses needed to accommodate high-speed rail.

      Do you seriously think that the Hyperloop can be built over land paying only for the few square feet that its pylon feet actually occupy? I don't know what country you are living in (the desert?) but Hyperloop will need to buy all the area it overhangs and a lot more too. Crops do not grow well in partial shadow (take a look under and around motorway viaducts, they are bare soil shitholes), and as for going over cities there will be a legal fight for every inch of the way.

      As for saving the need to build overpasses, the whole Hyperloop is an overpass unless it is in a tunnel. There will need to be plenty of tunnels in hilly country and some spectacularly high viaducts, all expensive, because Hyperloop can only change direction gradually at the speed it is doing.

    7. Re:Solution looking for a problem by BlueTemplar · · Score: 1

      Yes, but all of these are less problematic compared to the case of high-speed rail.

  20. Elephant Crossing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better build that tube far above and elephant-proof the supports. It would suck to have a near vacuum tube trampled by a group of angry elephants that just have been driven away from the fields by explosions, bright lights and loud sounds.

  21. Confusing terms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know I usually see kph and mph not kmph. Using kmph and mph together suggests to me thousand miles per hour for kmph instead of kilometres per hour. Just my confused thoughts.

    1. Re:Confusing terms... by _merlin · · Score: 1

      I've never seen "kmph" before, but "kph" seems to be an Americanism. Kilometres per hour is abbreviated to "km/h" in countries that use metric units.

    2. Re:Confusing terms... by Teun · · Score: 1

      Also, mixing the Greek k for kilo with American miles is odd, Americans would/should use the Latin m for mille (=1000).

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    3. Re:Confusing terms... by kencurry · · Score: 1

      I've never seen "kmph" before, but "kph" seems to be an Americanism. Kilometres per hour is abbreviated to "km/h" in countries that use metric units.

      Your post made me wonder - how come the "Metricites" never re-defined time in decimal ten units? you would think that minutes, hours, days & so on would drive them nuts.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    4. Re:Confusing terms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post made me wonder - how come the "Metricites" never re-defined time in decimal ten units?

      They did

  22. Virgin by edittard · · Score: 1

    Virgin - because none of their stuff goes all the way.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    1. Re:Virgin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry no. My experience with Virgin is that I go to JFK and my bags go to ????. Well anywhere but JFK. Last time, they went to LAX. Three days later, I picked them up as I was flying home. That was the last time I flew with Virgin.
      With hyperloop, the incorrect delivery opportunities are almost infinite.

  23. Fantasies on top of fantasies... by Chas · · Score: 1

    So we now have a pie in the sky delivery service to go along with the pie in the sky tube train...

    *sigh*

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  24. Like Virgin Galactic, this is more vapourware by bheading · · Score: 1

    Virgin have a long history of announcing big splashy projects that never come to pass. Tom Bower's "Branson : the man behind the mask" reveals a lot of the detail about how they operate.

    The most egregious example is Virgin Galactic. Branson soaked a ton of public money (another common feature of Virgin projects - someone else is always footing the bill, and more often than not they're taxpayers) and has regularly promised that space travel would be open soon to fare-paying passengers, yet has consistently failed to deliver.

    He's made other claims, such as this one about working on an electric car which we can be sure is almost certainly rubbish as Virgin haven't a clue about carmaking or manufacturing in general, much less the capital to even try. Or the claim made about reduced-carbon jet fuel. You'll note a typical pattern - it's claimed to work and pass all the tests, yet mysteriously nobody appears to be buying it, and when you google it the only thing you can find are the usual smattering of breathless press releases.

    The pattern here is familiar. Outside investors have been sucked in and Branson is already claiming that it is in the "early stages of commercialisation". I'll bet a bottle of Virgin premium vodka that within 12 months the press attention here is the last we'll hear of this project, and within 12-18 months it will quietly disappear.

    1. Re:Like Virgin Galactic, this is more vapourware by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      Basically, Branson is just a good salesman.

  25. I've seen this before by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    Comes complete with a bridge in Brooklyn.

  26. Blockchain by aixylinux · · Score: 1

    What this technology is missing is a tie-in to blockchain. If they can find that, it will close the hype loop.

  27. Called DP World by zmirlinazim · · Score: 0

    Called DP World Cargospeed, the venture claims it will be able to “deliver freight at the speed of flight and close to the cost of trucking” So far Virgin Hyperloop One’s test capsule has reached speeds of 387 kmph (240 mph), but the company predicts it will send cargo at a top speed of 1,000 kmph (621 mph). see: https://luckypatcher.pro/ https://kodi.software/ https://showbox.software/

  28. "Deliveries at 600 mph" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some assembly required, I assume.

  29. Dear Bigot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to slashdot. Your bigotry will be greatly appreciated by our retarded progressives. u

  30. liquids by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

    This will be especially good for the bulk transportation of liquids. Simply remove all the air from the "loop" and fill it with a high value liquid like oil.

    --
    Nullius in verba
  31. Autonomous trucking by usacomp2k3 · · Score: 1

    Autonomous trucking with human last-leg is the future for long-haul trucking. Let a truck run highway-only between major points with hand-offs to human drivers for last-mile deliveries. This will be cheaper than current trucking and up to 2x faster due to the now-enforced 10hr driving periods. Once that is in place, I don't see a market for enough volume needing the extra speed to pay for the infrastructure.