Even those bridges over water will be easier than for a road. Two tubes is narrower and less weight than a 4 lane paved road on steel or concrete box sections. And the dynamic loading would be far more predictable too.
I've no idea on the numbers what go between those cities, but the fact that it provides a service for the nation's top politicians will no doubt free up permissions and grants.
You need to read the Hyperloop proposal, because what I've told is pretty much the plan for the SF to LA hyperloop. Most of it follows the interstate, much of it on pylons.
Whilst it's an early document, and not definitive, the authors will have looked at this a bit more than you have.
It depends. As I said the preferred route for above ground hyperloop is running alongside highways. The pylons then are constructed on land owned by a transport authority, who will in pretty much all cases be glad of the reduction in cars on the highway, and happy to be paid. Permission is easy.
And in all cases you heen to balance the ease of getting permission with the cost of construction. A hyperloop that's mostly above aground will be far cheaper to construct.
Who ever said that the hyperloop will be a tunnel from start to finish? Hyperloop works just as well above ground on concrete pylons. Going alongside highways, through farmland and even going over existing roads is perfectly possible with an elevated hyperloop.
At the end of the day hyperloop can't have any steep gradients or changes of direction. It'll be tunnels when passing through hills or mountains, and above ground when they land is low lying.
Similar to railways in that it's mixed above ground and tunnels. Only more so because changes of direction need to be minimised much more.
Not so much that. I think it's more that he's seen Hyperloop One use the name Hyperloop for a different system. Hyperloop One are doing mag-lev in a near vacuum. Musk's Hyperloop idea was air-bearings (like an air hockey table) in a low pressure tube, with the pod collecting rarefied air in a fan at the front and pushing it through holes in the bottom of the capsule.
Thing is they only get multiple runways when the slots on the existing runway has already been full for years. So the sharing of a bottleneck resource is still the same.
It will never be the same as hyperloop which idoesn't have to share anything between tubes.
Airplanes to all destinations all queue to use a (usually) single fixed resource of the runway. They have to book slots.
With hyperloop there is no such bottleneck. Each tube is separate. They can literally go as soon as pod is full, or after the first passenger on the pod has waited a certain time. No slots.
Plenty of ways of making sure bolts don't come undone. And I would have thought the only bolts on the inside would be below the level of the capsule in the track. And how would that fly up? It's a near vacuum, not anti-gravity. So that doesn't sound like an issue.
Rifle? Probably only one of those huge ones with an armour piercing round. And then what? The size of the hole is tiny compared to the volume of the tube. The pressure would only change slowly. And slow pressure changes are easy to cope with. Slow the capsule down to say 50mph if a significant pressure change is detected. Or to stationary if something even more serious is detected.
And remember, not every single conceivable accident needs to be entirely eliminated. There is no transport system that is 100% safe. There are rail crashes and airplane crashes from time to time.
Being the newest system, Hyperloop probably needs to be safer than rail. But it doesn't need to be 100%.
That's what was being said about autonomous cars 5 years ago.
Reality is that governments are falling over themselves to legalise autonomous cars. And insurance companies actually give a discount for drivers with Tesla Autopilot.
If Thunderrf00t had been around at the beginning of the 20th century, he would have been one of the ones telling everyone that man cannot build a flying machine. And he'd be using math with errors in units to try and prove it.
In what way is this a more serious issue than with passenger aircraft? If you have propulsion failure on an aircraft, you have to hope that there's a suitable airport within the range the plane can glide. Exit the vehicle and you fall to your death.
The hyperloop capsule has it's own air supply. So you can sit there quite a long time with no issue. Meanwhile, the tube can be taken from a vacuum to normal atmospheric conditions.
One of the convenient aspects is that when the tube springs a leak, the best place to patch it from is the outside. (Provided it's not a buried tube.) And the pressure helps the patch seal.
Which means for small leaks, there's not even any need to suspend the service whilst repairs are going on.
Short of the tube being destroyed, what are they going to collide with? And if the tube itself is destroyed they're going to be affected by the air pressure long before hitting anything solid.
So that's the main area for testing I should think. What if they lose vacuum when a capsule is going at X mph?
Slashdot Mirror
Even those bridges over water will be easier than for a road. Two tubes is narrower and less weight than a 4 lane paved road on steel or concrete box sections. And the dynamic loading would be far more predictable too.
I've no idea on the numbers what go between those cities, but the fact that it provides a service for the nation's top politicians will no doubt free up permissions and grants.
You need to read the Hyperloop proposal, because what I've told is pretty much the plan for the SF to LA hyperloop. Most of it follows the interstate, much of it on pylons.
Whilst it's an early document, and not definitive, the authors will have looked at this a bit more than you have.
Because you don't want it to feel like a rollercoaster.
It depends. As I said the preferred route for above ground hyperloop is running alongside highways. The pylons then are constructed on land owned by a transport authority, who will in pretty much all cases be glad of the reduction in cars on the highway, and happy to be paid. Permission is easy.
And in all cases you heen to balance the ease of getting permission with the cost of construction. A hyperloop that's mostly above aground will be far cheaper to construct.
Who ever said that the hyperloop will be a tunnel from start to finish? Hyperloop works just as well above ground on concrete pylons. Going alongside highways, through farmland and even going over existing roads is perfectly possible with an elevated hyperloop.
At the end of the day hyperloop can't have any steep gradients or changes of direction. It'll be tunnels when passing through hills or mountains, and above ground when they land is low lying.
Similar to railways in that it's mixed above ground and tunnels. Only more so because changes of direction need to be minimised much more.
There will not be one long tunnel.
Not so much that. I think it's more that he's seen Hyperloop One use the name Hyperloop for a different system. Hyperloop One are doing mag-lev in a near vacuum. Musk's Hyperloop idea was air-bearings (like an air hockey table) in a low pressure tube, with the pod collecting rarefied air in a fan at the front and pushing it through holes in the bottom of the capsule.
I wondered how long it would take someone to come up with some anti-Apple spin to this.
Answer: 9 minutes.
Doubt it. The more complicated you make it, the harder it is to maintain the low pressure.
They're what you put on hubs to make wheels in Britain.
Hence why I said "(usually)".
Thing is they only get multiple runways when the slots on the existing runway has already been full for years. So the sharing of a bottleneck resource is still the same.
It will never be the same as hyperloop which idoesn't have to share anything between tubes.
Airplanes to all destinations all queue to use a (usually) single fixed resource of the runway. They have to book slots.
With hyperloop there is no such bottleneck. Each tube is separate. They can literally go as soon as pod is full, or after the first passenger on the pod has waited a certain time. No slots.
Clearly, Tesla is not typical.
Tesla's main advantage is they have Musk. And none of the other companies do.
Plenty of ways of making sure bolts don't come undone. And I would have thought the only bolts on the inside would be below the level of the capsule in the track. And how would that fly up? It's a near vacuum, not anti-gravity. So that doesn't sound like an issue.
Rifle? Probably only one of those huge ones with an armour piercing round. And then what? The size of the hole is tiny compared to the volume of the tube. The pressure would only change slowly. And slow pressure changes are easy to cope with. Slow the capsule down to say 50mph if a significant pressure change is detected. Or to stationary if something even more serious is detected.
And remember, not every single conceivable accident needs to be entirely eliminated. There is no transport system that is 100% safe. There are rail crashes and airplane crashes from time to time.
Being the newest system, Hyperloop probably needs to be safer than rail. But it doesn't need to be 100%.
Swift:
let nevadaTestTrack = NevadaTestTrack("Hyperloop One")
That's what was being said about autonomous cars 5 years ago.
Reality is that governments are falling over themselves to legalise autonomous cars. And insurance companies actually give a discount for drivers with Tesla Autopilot.
If Thunderrf00t had been around at the beginning of the 20th century, he would have been one of the ones telling everyone that man cannot build a flying machine. And he'd be using math with errors in units to try and prove it.
In what way is this a more serious issue than with passenger aircraft? If you have propulsion failure on an aircraft, you have to hope that there's a suitable airport within the range the plane can glide. Exit the vehicle and you fall to your death.
The hyperloop capsule has it's own air supply. So you can sit there quite a long time with no issue. Meanwhile, the tube can be taken from a vacuum to normal atmospheric conditions.
Far less hazardous than aircraft.
Or maybe they are just allowing tolerance for leaks.
Oval, lozenge, or some other closed shape would be a better test.
As any Hornby or Scalextric fan could tell you.
Other examples are the several Linux based consoles over the years that Slashdot has thought would be successful, that failed with hardly a whimper.
Yeah, and "I don't think anyone was expecting..." is the same reason the Slashdot hive mind is usually wrong.
The rule of thumb is: if it's FOSS/Linux, Slashdot vastly overestimates how successful it will be. If it's not FOSS/Linux, they underestimate it.
Is that anything like Murphy's law?
One of the convenient aspects is that when the tube springs a leak, the best place to patch it from is the outside. (Provided it's not a buried tube.) And the pressure helps the patch seal.
Which means for small leaks, there's not even any need to suspend the service whilst repairs are going on.
Short of the tube being destroyed, what are they going to collide with? And if the tube itself is destroyed they're going to be affected by the air pressure long before hitting anything solid.
So that's the main area for testing I should think. What if they lose vacuum when a capsule is going at X mph?