6 ms·

What Will the Federal Government do with Hyperloop?

16 points by joeco 13y ago

acqq 13y ago
Anybody actually tried to imagine himself using it? It's rather claustrophobic experience, suited more to the astronauts than normal people: you can only be in some quite horizontal position, you can't even go to the toilet while you're in the capsule, the luggage capacity seems to be quite limited... It doesn't appear as something everybody would be ready to use? If it could be bigger and more comfortable it seems it would be more usable and with more chance not to fail. Then it would have sense to also be more expensive to make it and maintain it.
- zeteo 13y ago
  Well, the trip is only half an hour. Do people have better comforts on a metro or bus commute?
  - acqq 13y ago
    Yes, people have orders of magnitude better comfort in metros and buses. You can exit the city metro or the city bus every minute. You can sit, stand up and walk in them. The buses for longer distances have the toilets and can stop whenever somebody really needs it. Here you'd be locked in the slanted chair for half an hour where you wouldn't be even able to stand up or stretch the hands! Sounds awful and has real implications on the public acceptance. Especially after the first case of somebody going sick after he enters the tube and having to remain in it the next 29 minutes. Imagine you sitting next to that person. Imagine you being that person. Imagine your kid being that person. Imagine the press ("Mother watched her kid dying for 29 minutes in Hyperloop"). Imagine the reactions. The project would be dead for good after a few such cases. You can't put normal people in the capsules for astronauts and just think "what could possibly go wrong." Health issues and effects are real problems and have to be considered. The public is used to car traffic accidents. It won't be so for the whole new transportation suited only for astronauts. This can be the start of the grand failure.
    - ricardobeat 13y ago
      You're exaggerating. As mentioned in the original thread, if any of those situations happen in a taxiing airplane, or during take-off/landing, it's going to be the same or longer time until you get to the gate. Same goes for an intercity bus, stopping in the middle of nowhere doesn't help with anything. The vehicle carrying version is a tad larger (1.85m height), without adding much to the cost, and would probably be chosen for an actual build. Given the capsule will be coasting for most of the trip, it would be possible to walk around like in an airplane, if it's not doing a sharp turn.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - travisp 13y ago
      >Yes, people have orders of magnitude better comfort in metros and buses. You can exit the city metro or the city bus every minute. You can sit, stand up and walk in them. The buses for longer distances have the toilets and can stop whenever somebody really needs it. This is not universally true. For example, here in New York, the express bus from Staten Island has at least 45 minutes of no stops and has no bathroom (just a regular bus). If you do somehow convince the driver to let you off, good luck finding a bathroom anywhere near the places you'd probably find yourself. Some of the Subway trains (such as the N train between Canal St and Atlantic Ave) run express and is about 10 minutes non-stop (and you're a long trek from a bathroom at either end). Plus, try going to the bathroom in the first or last 30 minutes of a flight. You have a reasonable chance of being arrested.
      - free652 13y ago
        It's totally true about NYC, you picked an extreme case of the SI express bus. And if you're sick the bus driver will drop you off. > (and you're a long trek from a bathroom at either end). And that's total BS. The long trek is less than 5 minutes on either side.
- argumentum 13y ago
  It's harder to imagine riding a horse for hours ..
- angersock 13y ago
  It's aimed at commuter traffic--as somebody who has routinely made a backpack's worth of clothing last a week on trips, I also don't think that the luggage is that much of an issue. The bathroom critique is again silly--it's a thirty minute trip; if you can't hold it that long, you probably need to repeat preschool.
  - acqq 13y ago
    Has it occurred to you that not everybody has perfect health all the time? You can't actually expect that you wouldn't get sick the first minute after you enter the tube. Then imagine yourself having to remain there next 29 minutes and die! This would happen. A lot. Then imagine who'd use that cleverness after the first such case and after every next. I'd rather say "it's aimed at astronauts" than "commuters." Astronauts are thoroughly checked by medical teams and prepared before their trips, would you suggest such checks and preparations every time for everybody entering the tube?
    - cma 13y ago
      He said there could be branch stations, and he also gave the example of someone having an emergency right at takeoff in a normal plane, and it taking just as long to get clearance to land, turn around, land, and taxi to a gate.
      - acqq 13y ago
        In the plane people can stand up, help the one being sick ("is there a doctor on the plane? please come to the seat 34E" -- the steward is already there etc) bring him water, take him to the toilet. It's a big space. Nothing like that here -- everybody is trapped in the tube not able to leave the chair. Imagine even worse case: fire in the pod. People burn having to remain unmovable in the seats. Again imagine the public response. Just an impression of having absolutely no chance to do anything at all is enough to scare most normal people forever. It just has to be big enough for people to normally move inside. Everything else is good for SciFi but not for real use. If you don't travel, then imagine your computer being connected to the control of the tube in which you are and where you can't move. Now imagine that you can't kill the program for a half an hour which is effectively killing you. Even if the chances are low for the killing process to activate, would you even want to try such an experience?
- thufry 13y ago
  I wouldn't use it because I would get claustrophobic. But I don't think it's being engineered for claustrophobes -- we'll take the train or drive, and people who are comfortable with Hyperloop will take that. No solution can meet everyone's needs.
  - escoz 13y ago
    Nice of you to recognize the thing is not targeted at absolutely everybody, like absolutely every other method of transportation. People here seem to be forgetting that.
- defen 13y ago
  Solution to the claustrophobia problem: Oculus Rift. Note that I don't have claustrophobia so I don't know if this is a realistic solution; it's just the first thing that popped into my mind.
_delirium 13y ago
This is a pretty thin hook to hang a political rant on. Summary of the article: there is a gasoline tax, and there are aviation taxes. Therefore, taxes will stifle the hyperloop! Government bureaucrats! More likely answer to the headline question: they will do the same thing with the hyperloop as with the maglev (ignore it).
- Anechoic 13y ago
  they will do the same thing with the hyperloop as with the maglev (ignore it). The US government didn't ignore maglev, they did a lot of study (including paying for me and my boss to travel to Germany to perform noise and vibration measurements on the TR08) and offered to help finance starter systems. It didn't go anywhere because it was hella expensive, not because of apathy.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Not a real consumer research site either - operator obviously bought up a defunct brand and relaunched it: http://consumersresearch.org/?p=6 http://consumersresearch.org/?p=6
  - _delirium 13y ago
    Interesting; quite long-lasting zombie. An organization founded in 1929, but which basically died in 1936, and is somehow still being resurrected today! Seems it was the precursor of Consumer Reports, but CR was founded when the majority of the staff left in 1936 and founded a new publication. In the 77 years since, it seems the old organization's main achievement is still... that place everyone left to found Consumer Reports.
anologwintermut 13y ago
The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing. One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't factor that in at all(nor should they). But building it in practice will be an issue. The second part of the hyperloop's cost savings come from it being very light. We could simply build very light rail transport on the same pylons. Replace 1,500 KG of batteries with overhead electric wire and use the excess weight for a motor. So the hyper-loops only real advantage is speed. Which is impressive, except for the fact that it requires you to build a tube with surface variances less than 5mm for several hundred miles, or the air barring will have problems. (or maybe not, perhaps you could have dynamic air barring and high precision topographic maps of the tunnel)
- ricardobeat 13y ago
  But it being very light is a consequence of the design as a whole. Light rail is already as light as it can be given cost/materials. We already have rail transport on pylons, usually an implementation of a monorail[1], but it only solves the right-of-way issue. Everything else (energy consumption, speed, efficiency, passenger flow, safety) is not much different from standard transportation. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorail
  - anologwintermut 13y ago
    I disagree about the weight. If you took the proposed capsule, added wheels, replaced the 1,500kg batteries with a motor and powered the thing from a third rail, you'd get something rather light with enough power to move at i'd guess 200 or 300 mph(think what you could get out of a Tesla if it had extra motors instead of batteries). This and the route would get you most of the cost savings. The speed is the huge benefit, but involves a technical challenge of rather unknown cost: how do you build a tube for hundreds of miles with a down smooth surface at the 5mm level.
pbreit 13y ago
I don't understand the article. Surely a project like this would be public, not private?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

16 points by joeco 13y ago

acqq 13y ago

Anybody actually tried to imagine himself using it? It's rather claustrophobic experience, suited more to the astronauts than normal people: you can only be in some quite horizontal position, you can't even go to the toilet while you're in the capsule, the luggage capacity seems to be quite limited... It doesn't appear as something everybody would be ready to use? If it could be bigger and more comfortable it seems it would be more usable and with more chance not to fail. Then it would have sense to also be more expensive to make it and maintain it.

zeteo 13y ago
Well, the trip is only half an hour. Do people have better comforts on a metro or bus commute?
- acqq 13y ago
  Yes, people have orders of magnitude better comfort in metros and buses. You can exit the city metro or the city bus every minute. You can sit, stand up and walk in them. The buses for longer distances have the toilets and can stop whenever somebody really needs it. Here you'd be locked in the slanted chair for half an hour where you wouldn't be even able to stand up or stretch the hands! Sounds awful and has real implications on the public acceptance. Especially after the first case of somebody going sick after he enters the tube and having to remain in it the next 29 minutes. Imagine you sitting next to that person. Imagine you being that person. Imagine your kid being that person. Imagine the press ("Mother watched her kid dying for 29 minutes in Hyperloop"). Imagine the reactions. The project would be dead for good after a few such cases. You can't put normal people in the capsules for astronauts and just think "what could possibly go wrong." Health issues and effects are real problems and have to be considered. The public is used to car traffic accidents. It won't be so for the whole new transportation suited only for astronauts. This can be the start of the grand failure.
  - ricardobeat 13y ago
    You're exaggerating. As mentioned in the original thread, if any of those situations happen in a taxiing airplane, or during take-off/landing, it's going to be the same or longer time until you get to the gate. Same goes for an intercity bus, stopping in the middle of nowhere doesn't help with anything. The vehicle carrying version is a tad larger (1.85m height), without adding much to the cost, and would probably be chosen for an actual build. Given the capsule will be coasting for most of the trip, it would be possible to walk around like in an airplane, if it's not doing a sharp turn.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - travisp 13y ago
    >Yes, people have orders of magnitude better comfort in metros and buses. You can exit the city metro or the city bus every minute. You can sit, stand up and walk in them. The buses for longer distances have the toilets and can stop whenever somebody really needs it. This is not universally true. For example, here in New York, the express bus from Staten Island has at least 45 minutes of no stops and has no bathroom (just a regular bus). If you do somehow convince the driver to let you off, good luck finding a bathroom anywhere near the places you'd probably find yourself. Some of the Subway trains (such as the N train between Canal St and Atlantic Ave) run express and is about 10 minutes non-stop (and you're a long trek from a bathroom at either end). Plus, try going to the bathroom in the first or last 30 minutes of a flight. You have a reasonable chance of being arrested.
    - free652 13y ago
      It's totally true about NYC, you picked an extreme case of the SI express bus. And if you're sick the bus driver will drop you off. > (and you're a long trek from a bathroom at either end). And that's total BS. The long trek is less than 5 minutes on either side.
argumentum 13y ago
It's harder to imagine riding a horse for hours ..
angersock 13y ago
It's aimed at commuter traffic--as somebody who has routinely made a backpack's worth of clothing last a week on trips, I also don't think that the luggage is that much of an issue. The bathroom critique is again silly--it's a thirty minute trip; if you can't hold it that long, you probably need to repeat preschool.
- acqq 13y ago
  Has it occurred to you that not everybody has perfect health all the time? You can't actually expect that you wouldn't get sick the first minute after you enter the tube. Then imagine yourself having to remain there next 29 minutes and die! This would happen. A lot. Then imagine who'd use that cleverness after the first such case and after every next. I'd rather say "it's aimed at astronauts" than "commuters." Astronauts are thoroughly checked by medical teams and prepared before their trips, would you suggest such checks and preparations every time for everybody entering the tube?
  - cma 13y ago
    He said there could be branch stations, and he also gave the example of someone having an emergency right at takeoff in a normal plane, and it taking just as long to get clearance to land, turn around, land, and taxi to a gate.
    - acqq 13y ago
      In the plane people can stand up, help the one being sick ("is there a doctor on the plane? please come to the seat 34E" -- the steward is already there etc) bring him water, take him to the toilet. It's a big space. Nothing like that here -- everybody is trapped in the tube not able to leave the chair. Imagine even worse case: fire in the pod. People burn having to remain unmovable in the seats. Again imagine the public response. Just an impression of having absolutely no chance to do anything at all is enough to scare most normal people forever. It just has to be big enough for people to normally move inside. Everything else is good for SciFi but not for real use. If you don't travel, then imagine your computer being connected to the control of the tube in which you are and where you can't move. Now imagine that you can't kill the program for a half an hour which is effectively killing you. Even if the chances are low for the killing process to activate, would you even want to try such an experience?
thufry 13y ago
I wouldn't use it because I would get claustrophobic. But I don't think it's being engineered for claustrophobes -- we'll take the train or drive, and people who are comfortable with Hyperloop will take that. No solution can meet everyone's needs.
- escoz 13y ago
  Nice of you to recognize the thing is not targeted at absolutely everybody, like absolutely every other method of transportation. People here seem to be forgetting that.
defen 13y ago
Solution to the claustrophobia problem: Oculus Rift. Note that I don't have claustrophobia so I don't know if this is a realistic solution; it's just the first thing that popped into my mind.

_delirium 13y ago

This is a pretty thin hook to hang a political rant on. Summary of the article: there is a gasoline tax, and there are aviation taxes. Therefore, taxes will stifle the hyperloop! Government bureaucrats! More likely answer to the headline question: they will do the same thing with the hyperloop as with the maglev (ignore it).

Anechoic 13y ago
they will do the same thing with the hyperloop as with the maglev (ignore it). The US government didn't ignore maglev, they did a lot of study (including paying for me and my boss to travel to Germany to perform noise and vibration measurements on the TR08) and offered to help finance starter systems. It didn't go anywhere because it was hella expensive, not because of apathy.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Not a real consumer research site either - operator obviously bought up a defunct brand and relaunched it: http://consumersresearch.org/?p=6 http://consumersresearch.org/?p=6
- _delirium 13y ago
  Interesting; quite long-lasting zombie. An organization founded in 1929, but which basically died in 1936, and is somehow still being resurrected today! Seems it was the precursor of Consumer Reports, but CR was founded when the majority of the staff left in 1936 and founded a new publication. In the 77 years since, it seems the old organization's main achievement is still... that place everyone left to found Consumer Reports.

anologwintermut 13y ago

The standard answer to articles that ask a question in the title is no. Or in this case nothing. One of the reason's California's proposed high speed railway was so expensive was the politics involved in picking the route. It's also the same problem Amtrak has. The northeast corridor would make money, but the routs going west don't and are kept do to congressional pressure. The hyperloop's cost comparisons don't factor that in at all(nor should they). But building it in practice will be an issue. The second part of the hyperloop's cost savings come from it being very light. We could simply build very light rail transport on the same pylons. Replace 1,500 KG of batteries with overhead electric wire and use the excess weight for a motor. So the hyper-loops only real advantage is speed. Which is impressive, except for the fact that it requires you to build a tube with surface variances less than 5mm for several hundred miles, or the air barring will have problems. (or maybe not, perhaps you could have dynamic air barring and high precision topographic maps of the tunnel)

ricardobeat 13y ago
But it being very light is a consequence of the design as a whole. Light rail is already as light as it can be given cost/materials. We already have rail transport on pylons, usually an implementation of a monorail[1], but it only solves the right-of-way issue. Everything else (energy consumption, speed, efficiency, passenger flow, safety) is not much different from standard transportation. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monorail
- anologwintermut 13y ago
  I disagree about the weight. If you took the proposed capsule, added wheels, replaced the 1,500kg batteries with a motor and powered the thing from a third rail, you'd get something rather light with enough power to move at i'd guess 200 or 300 mph(think what you could get out of a Tesla if it had extra motors instead of batteries). This and the route would get you most of the cost savings. The speed is the huge benefit, but involves a technical challenge of rather unknown cost: how do you build a tube for hundreds of miles with a down smooth surface at the 5mm level.

pbreit 13y ago

I don't understand the article. Surely a project like this would be public, not private?

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]