People shooting down tubes. Sounds like Musk just stile the idea from futurama.
alpha design reveal for a "fifth mode" of public transport designed by elon musk (spacex guy) in just over an hour. he isn't going to build it right away but will open source the design if anyone else wants to.
People shooting down tubes. Sounds like Musk just stile the idea from futurama.
IF the tech works fine - and i don't see why it wouldn't it's a simple Concept. whether or not it will work would depend on construction, hell with the proper guidance system/interlocks you could use the same tubes for multiple stops/branches
say terminous in manchester nh. tube to boston (follows rte 93) at boston there is a branch that continues to new york (think railroad switch type thing) or stops in boston, at ny a switch for etc...
The idea probably works, but I'm skeptical on it being inexpensive enough to be feasible.
What if some asshole pops it with a hunting rifle from 300 yards?
Are they going to have wide load tubes for the south?
The propulsion system seems cool and all (combination of a turbofan + linear motors), but I'd definitely be worried about emergency braking, which isn't really described in their document. They plan to have emergency mechanical brakes, but if you're traveling at 760 mph and a pod gets stuck for whatever reason (even though they say it's "highly unlikely"), I want to know how you plan on stopping the pods behind it.
You can read their paper on the hyperloop here: http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/def...loop-alpha.pdf
Depending on the air pressure inside the tube + the clearance between the capsule and the tube I wonder how much air pressure would build up if a high speed capsule were to approach a stopped capsule.
Either way I don't see how braking would be a big problem here.
wouldn't that cause the tube to explode?
Elon already has ideas to stop it from overheating. Not to mention, there was an idea similar to this that would go from New York to Los Angeles in 40(!) minutes. It would travel at 2000MPH. Unbelievable.
I feel like the price tag is a bit over ambitious. Here's to hoping it actually ends up being as financially viable as he makes it out to be.
The tube is under a near vacuum to reduce drag, so I would think that the deceleration from the column of air between pods is minimal.
are these loop tunnels above ground or underground? we can't even get oil pipelines built through texas, hard to see how you could ever, ever, ever build a giant pipeline from LA to SF or NYC. If its underground, that seems to open an even gianter can of worms.
They are above ground.
I'm all for this if its cheaper than an airplane ticket and I don't have to get to the Hyperloop Station 3 hours before launch.
Also if we get one before Shelbyville.
I read the thing, but I'm a EE not a MechE, so most of the numbers are beyond my understanding of feasibility. I think the real lowballing in the numbers is from his estimates for costs ($6 billion vs the ~$68 billion for the current proposed CA high speed rail) which doesn't include all the R&D and bureaucracy involved in getting a project like this off the ground.
However, fuck the cost. If this is a viable technology and reasonable cost to implement, it would usher in a new era of regional travel.
Also, the supersonic passenger jet needs to happen. This example is a small jet, but could prove the tech and help it make its way to the masses.
It seems like innovation in transportation is way behind the tech curve.
if this is going to be built above ground i assume it will be housed in a tube made with a concrete housing or it will be all concrete? i cant imagine they will try to build it out of some shitty plexiglass.
It's mostly elevated on concrete pylons (to reduce footprint).
What's an analogous transportation invention based on how revolutionary it is? Commercial flight?
Is this technology ready for production, would it survive the Shark Tank?
However, it adds additional features that make it more enticing. It takes plane speeds with no ascent/descent penalty, departure schedule on par with city rail, sustainable power (essentially a transportation first) and rolls them all together. If tickets are around $100 or less round trip, it would make short-hop plane flights between adjacent metros obsolete.
If it works, I would put it on par with an aerospace company coming up with a boomless supersonic passenger jet that is as fuel efficient (or better) than current planes. Which I don't think is possible with current tech (mainly the fuel efficiency part).
the cost for making this thing "safe" from accidents and malicious attacks will probably negate any benefits it gets from being cheaper to build. i would still like to see this built though. i want my futurama tube!
The basic premise works, but he cost estimate for this is so unbelievably comical it hurts. Off by a factor of 10 at least. Maybe more.
I haven't read very deeply into this, but how are they going to handle friction on the tube?
Rocketing by super fast? are they going to burn wheels? don't (small scale ones like at the bank) squeak by on rubber? i can't imagine that would work on a large scale.
I'm also suspicious that solar would be able to power the thing.
I support new modes of transport tho if they aren't powered with pixie dust.
'Air bearings'. They have a jet engine up front to compress air which is then forced downwards though skis which levitates the pod over the tube.
The magnets accelerate/decelerate the pod.
Like others I'm still extremely skeptical of the cost and the ability to maintain the air bearings.
Color me shocked if that ever gets built AND actual people actually use it. I mean who does not want to be shot down a concrete tube while laying in a metal coffin?
Real question is, can I get internets while in the concrete scream tube?
Not sure where people are getting that the tube is concrete. It's supposed to be steel so that you could build the tube in sections off-site and weld it together for the partial-vacuum. Am I the only one who read the white paper?
The hyperbole about safety I've seen is asinine. The question is, is it more or equally safe as current forms of travel. I've seen countless idiots act like if it isn't 100% guaranteed safe then it's not worth even considering...what planet do these people live on?
Right, because everyone was used to looking out an airplane window at 35,000 feet prior to the advent of jet travel. I'm not really getting your point here. It's different, sure. But that's kind of the point. Cost aside it seems like a great idea, but cost is what's going to make or break it. Not whether or not some people have irrational, unjustifiable fears.
My point is being misunderstood here (I'll take the blame for that). Let me rephrase it differently: I feel this project is interesting from an engineering/technology standpoint, it seems to offer a good service as far as travel time and travel price are concerned (even if there are many question marks when it comes to the total price tag of the project and the volume of passengers it can sustain), but, and this is a big but, I feel it is pants on head retarded as far as user experience is concerned (also my verdict on VR displays for the '90s to Occulus Rift btw).
Last edited by Szlia; 08-14-2013 at 08:46 PM.
The trip between SF and LA is proposed to be 30 minutes. No different than a 30 minute trip on a subway.
If cars were self-driving (especially on highways and other high-traffic roads), traffic could be coordinated with some elegance and you could utilize roads more efficiently. A lot of traffic issues stem from people driving like douchebags, which they are incentivized to do; if you cut lines, you get where you are going faster with no consequence to yourself, but major consequences to traffic flow. Self-driving cars prevent this issue, along with other human-decision problems (road rage, tailgating, speeding, reckless driving, drunk driving, etc).
People are also pretty awful at driving in general and haven't gotten better with the multitude of distractions available in today's cars. Accidents should be nearly eliminated with self-driving cars, rubbernecking would also be eliminated, and you are free to do as you please while the car gets you to your destination.
Some estimates put self-driving cars as little as 10-20 years out. Though planning & coordinating the transition from human-drive to self-drive may be harder than developing the self-drive tech itself.
Self driving cars have to happen before flying cars anyways since average joe can't navigate in 3D without crashing.
who's liable for the inevitable self driving car crash mishap? Car on pedestrian maybe.
Self driving cars sound great and I hope it happens in my lifetime. I always think of Minority Report when I'm thinking of self driving cars...
I keep thinking about the eventual utilization of augmented reality. One aspect of having all kinds of information spliced into your POV though is the potential distraction it can cause. People with cellphones are bad enough, people with google glass must be fucking zombies at times.
Self driving cars will permit people to be totally engrossed in whatever useless digital bullshit they happen to be focusing on while scooting to work. If a person should want to take manual control of the vehicle, then their porn browser app and stock ticker should be automatically forced to turn off and only data pertinent to driving should pop up. (Posted speed limit, road condition, potential hazards and people getting highlighted.)
If we do get to the point where we can basically do all of our work and browsing through these augmented interfaces, maybe, just maybe, the segway will actually have found a purpose if it can automatically navigate people through buildings.
The future will be millions of people being so completely oblivious to their surroundings and totally enraptured by the stream of crap the network feeds them that they will rely entirely on automated navigation systems to get anywhere. This will destroy people's ability to "self navigate" and should the system ever break down, it will leave people completely confused and useless.
I will hopefully be an old crazy mountain man by this point, living in a shack in the woods and sustaining myself with a diet of squirrel soup and berries. So maybe I wont have to deal with any of it.
Last edited by Pancreas; 08-14-2013 at 09:31 PM.
So basically the humans from Wall-E
I mean no one will care what non augmented people think so why bother worrying about what you look like to them. People will still buy exclusive clothes, but they will probably all be essentially identical except for the designer tags embedded in the clothing that lets everyone know you bought the $250 t-shirt endorsed by some shitty musician that can't sing without having their voice processed and remixed, and not the $5 disposable t-shirt from All-mart. Also, having an account with your favorite vendor/ designer will allow you to customize your look and you'll purchase skins that will change the way your shirt or shoes appear. But people will only want something if it is exclusive or hard to obtain, so hand crafted Italian leather shoes and such will still probably be status symbols. Except everything worth having will have an associated tag and page that people can quickly reference to see just how rare and amazing something is.
Not sure if people are going to get fatter or skinnier. Being fat is associated with what is easy (Eat cheap food and don't move...) and thus looked down upon. Being skinny or fit is difficult since no one does manual labor. So people will still chase what is hard to obtain. If becoming fit and healthy becomes really easy through advances in medicine and diet, then the super trendy will wish to be something else. Fat and super healthy or something else that is really weird. Maybe extreme body mods will become more mainstream like tattoos did.
Eh maybe advances in prosthetic and powered limbs will become so advanced that people with money to burn will actually opt to have them installed even if they don't need them. That way you can have legs that can auto walk you to your next destination, or programmable hands that can do extremely deft activities in 1000th's of a second.
Anyways this thread was about some new public transit system. Although for movement of goods... I keep thinking that automated, solar powered, high altitude dirigibles will take over mass shipping of goods. You could build those suckers friggin HUGE, they would avoid adverse weather, never need to sleep and be energy efficient since they are operating above cloud cover 98% of the time. Who knows...
All the cool shit that would enable a WallE like scenario would enable a whole bunch of other cool shit that would counteract the laziness.
Regarding the user experience of being in an aluminum tube being shot around at 700mph, who cares as long as it's for 30m and it has wifi.
I also like the fact that anyone with limited mobility is unable to enter or leave the vehicle by himself or that the 4 people spots have been designed by a peeping-tom fan of upskirt...
You don't. But usually when you need to leave the place you are to go somewhere else quickly, that involves toilets. I believe they have those on planes (though they probably charge you for their usage on low-cost airlines now).
On a side note, remember the question is not "Would I ride the hyperloop?" but "Would people ride the hyperloop?". My assertion is that too many people would not (or cannot) for it to be viable.
How about you pee at the station before launch? jesus christ even my 5 week old baby can hold it for 30 minutes.
The train I take to the airport takes 31 minutes. I sit in one seat and read or play phone games for those 31 minutes. I could get to LA in the same amount of time. And I think many other people in the LA and SF areas would be supportive of this.
You're blowing the 30 min trip out of proportion, Szlia. 30 min is nothing. The proposed seats look quite a bit more comfortable than plane seats. You're drastically underestimating how much people value commute time.
Edit - I almost forgot, I drive to work and dont metro because the metro cars here dont have bathrooms and 45minutes on one is too much. That's why I drive my car, allowing me to piss and shit at moments notice even when I get stuck on the highway in traffic.
Last edited by ZyyzYzzy; 08-15-2013 at 05:22 PM.
They can charge by the pound, as long as I, as a fatass who is paying more, gets more room.
The thing that scares me about that concept drawing is that it looks like emergency exits are non-existent.
That picture looks a lot better than the DC metro system during rush hour.
The problem is not having someone next to you or not, the problem is the confined space, the low ceiling, the lack of windows.
ZyyzYzzy doing work
And Haast with the assist
Actually, on the topic of cramped spaces, has anyone ever seen the original capsules used in early US spaceflight? I was touring a NASA facility and saw a miniature model of one hanging in an exhibit. Then I read the exhibit plaque and realized it wasn't a miniature model, it was the real f'ing capsule. Tiny doesn't begin to describe it. The entire thing is ~11' tall x 6' wide. And those are the outside dimensions. There is a shitload of instrumentation, shielding, life support, etc in there. Meaning there was just enough room to shoehorn an adult in there.. sort of. I think the quote on the plaque from one of the astronauts read "You don't really get into the Mercury capsule, you put it on." Classic.
EDIT: Here's a visual aid.
Last edited by Haast; 08-15-2013 at 09:21 PM.
Yes, there will be people who can't ride the hyperloop because it's too long of a time in an enclosed space. Those people will be a handful out of one hundred. Progress didn't stop before and it's not going to stop now.
I am claustrophobic, but if I was shoved into a cramped space with enough ventilation and a simulated view of the outside world via LCD screens or whatnot, I would be ok. I think.
Let me nuance my point now that its core seems somewhat clearer than at the beginning. I don't think it is a boolean proposition (as in: claustrophobic people don't use it, others use it), every user will weight the discomfort of the service against the benefits of the service (others made that point earlier, but took a rather extreme stance, saying basically that commute time trumps all). I think the discomfort is very high for a big chunk of potential users (and high for many others) and I feel a slower, less energy efficient, but user-friendlier solution should be the target (make it a 45min or 1 hour trip and it's still a commute while the 3h high speed train ride is still a journey).
All that Szlia conversation makes me think about the Louis CK bit on the inventors of commercial flight, "Hey don't invent it, they make you wait for 40 minutes, doesn't seems worth it".
Not everything on the internet is true - Abraham Lincoln
Bottom line is if people can pay $20 for a 30minute 600 mile journey with reasonable safety assurances they will.
And that doesn't even get into the potential future of the technology if the above is the first iteration.
If it was really that fast and efficient then yeah, I can see it. But it does sound half nightmarish in a way. I agree, it would be comforting to know that if you did end up stopped unexpectedly there would be hatches on the car and the tube to get out of it instead of being stuck in it for who knows how long. Other than that I'm sure any of us could handle it for a half hour if it offered the kind of convenient travel times they are talking about. But it is still a little creepy.
EDIT: they target 840 passengers an hour, which is basically nothing as far as commuting numbers are concerned. Between two swiss cities (10 times smaller than Los Angeles and San Francisco) 40 min apart, trains are able to move about 2k people per hour and let me tell you you have to be lucky to be able to sit down during the morning trips).
Last edited by Szlia; 08-16-2013 at 12:20 AM.
I don't think commuting hours would necessarily be more busy. At first at least. Not many people live in SF or LA and commute to the other. If people get used to the 30 min trip and this ends up being successful, I could see that start happening.
For people in LA that live near the hyperloop station it may be quicker to commute to San Francisco than to somewhere 15 miles away from their house on the freeway.
Even if they build the thing cheaply and it does everything as advertised its still going to be just a novelty. Imagine you live in la and get a job in frisco. You cant use the hyperloop to get to work reliably every day. Imagine the waiting list to use the damned thing. Besides once you get to your destination you still gotta take a bus near your place of business.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)