First Full-Scale Hyperloop to Launch in California in 2016

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
….and then there were two. The Hyperloop has grown by 200% in a very short time going from zero Hyperloops to two. Elon Musk’s group will be pursuing the construction of a test track to explore the physics side of the Hyperloop in Texas. The other group, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, will be constructing a fully functional five-mile loop in California, capable of 200 MPH speeds to test functionality on actual passengers.

This installation will allow us to demonstrate all systems on a full scale and immediately begin generating revenues for our shareholders through actual operations, CEO Dirk Ahlborn said in a statement.
Click to expand...
 
So far they have a nifty CG photo of what the test track will look like, way to go!
 
To be fair, I would rather have some hi-tech fancy toy like this than a bullet train that will cost more than a plane ticket to SoCal, will take 4 times as long, and the reality is the average speed will probably be not much more than the max speed of existing commuter trains.
 
sfsuphysics said:
To be fair, I would rather have some hi-tech fancy toy like this than a bullet train that will cost more than a plane ticket to SoCal, will take 4 times as long, and the reality is the average speed will probably be not much more than the max speed of existing commuter trains.
Click to expand...

You think that 150 MPH is not that different from 300 MPH?
I am being very generous to the US in that comparison since thats our fastest train, although we hardly have any track (28 Miles total) for it.
 
Every time I hear Elon Musk, I think of a Men's Cologne for a second.
 
sounds like a fast delivery of meat bags. why? cause you'll die.
 
temujin987 said:
like back then when people said it would rip your head off if you went faster than a horse can ride?
Click to expand...

Or when we killed all those test astronauts by strapping them to a gigantic Saturn V rocket and blasting them off at 6,200mph and 5g's.
 
sfsuphysics said:
To be fair, I would rather have some hi-tech fancy toy like this than a bullet train that will cost more than a plane ticket to SoCal, will take 4 times as long, and the reality is the average speed will probably be not much more than the max speed of existing commuter trains.
Click to expand...

Ever take the existing SLOW speed train?
I have (LAX to Seattle). It's an interesting experience and a good view on the initial trip, but it gets really boring on the way back.

A trip from LAX to Seattle takes over 34 hours and usually cost more than a plane ticket.
 
Still seems like a pie in the sky idea to me. If you look the full version for just that one city will cost $7 to $16 BILLION. How can this be feasible?
 
Regardless of all the critics, I just want to see this done. There's various safety issues that would need to be addressed.
 
nutzo said:
Ever take the existing SLOW speed train?
I have (LAX to Seattle). It's an interesting experience and a good view on the initial trip, but it gets really boring on the way back.

A trip from LAX to Seattle takes over 34 hours and usually cost more than a plane ticket.
Click to expand...

Yup, the problem with the train is there's one engine pulling everyone, whereas this puts the engine in the tracks. Assuming they can make the switching system work (could be a maintenance nightmare), this should be massively better than rail. You don't all have to be headed to the same destination, and you don't have to stop the train dozens of times on the way - every line is express :D

I do give them credit for building a full-scale proof-of-concept. Nothing sells your concept like a working system :D
 
Why don't they just rename it to HyperSplat because that's what the fuck whatever is in there is going to end up being.
 
Not sure how fronting your own full-scale working model is a money grab...would love to see this come to fruition.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
You think that 150 MPH is not that different from 300 MPH?
I am being very generous to the US in that comparison since thats our fastest train, although we hardly have any track (28 Miles total) for it.
Click to expand...

I never said that 150MPH is not that different from 300. I'm not sure why you think I did.
 
delahaya said:
Still seems like a pie in the sky idea to me. If you look the full version for just that one city will cost $7 to $16 BILLION. How can this be feasible?
Click to expand...

Lets put that number into proper perspective.

To make a bullet train from LA to San Francisco: $98.5 billion

With the way the area is from LA to SF, you are looking at 30 million per mile (that is their low end of the estimate spectrum). That is $10 billion from LA to SF (354 miles apart). This does not even include the cost of bridges along the way or buying out people to move. Easily another $1 billion. The maintenance of the roads/re-pavement every decade -- I will exclude this.

How does the $16 billion (upper part of the range) sound now for underground supersonic tube? You don't have to clear out miles & miles of everything along the way if it runs underground - no bridges to build. Along the way, you can set stations to get off at. It is definitely 100% feasible.
 
blade12 said:
Lets put that number into proper perspective.

To make a bullet train from LA to San Francisco: $98.5 billion

With the way the area is from LA to SF, you are looking at 30 million per mile (that is their low end of the estimate spectrum). That is $10 billion from LA to SF (354 miles apart). This does not even include the cost of bridges along the way or buying out people to move. Easily another $1 billion. The maintenance of the roads/re-pavement every decade -- I will exclude this.

How does the $16 billion (upper part of the range) sound now for underground supersonic tube? You don't have to clear out miles & miles of everything along the way if it runs underground - no bridges to build. Along the way, you can set stations to get off at. It is definitely 100% feasible.
Click to expand...
Not that I'm disagreeing with your points, but where do you get the figures that anything underground would cost barely a bit more than above ground.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Not that I'm disagreeing with your points, but where do you get the figures that anything underground would cost barely a bit more than above ground.
Click to expand...

You make sensible point. How much would it change. Hard to say without more details and where they get the estimate range.

You can do it above ground too. This does not seem to take up much room like bullet train and large high speed highway. Would be a lot of twists and turns unless if you began moving people to get almost a straight line shoot from LA to sf. too many turns would be a nightmare to maintain
 
The first Elmo Monk's World Spruce Goose, a hotly anticipated pointless failure, catching on fire and exploding in a town near you starting 2016!
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
The first Elmo Monk's World Spruce Goose, a hotly anticipated pointless failure, catching on fire and exploding in a town near you starting 2016!
Click to expand...

I think you're mixing up your analogies...Spruce Goose never exploded (and never really flew), the Hindenburg exploded and killed many huge manatees.
 
Spidey329 said:
Or when we killed all those test astronauts by strapping them to a gigantic Saturn V rocket and blasting them off at 6,200mph and 5g's.
Click to expand...

If a test pilot is able and willing to fly experimental aircraft for the advancement of science, who are you to impede their free will? Come on now, do you think the feasibility testing is going to be performed by 200 completely oblivious civilian commuters?
 
SRTie4k said:
I think you're mixing up your analogies...Spruce Goose never exploded (and never really flew), the Hindenburg exploded and killed many huge manatees.
Click to expand...

Meh, I was in the same century.

oh-the-huge-manatee_1338542678_epiclolcom.jpg
 
blade12 said:
You make sensible point. How much would it change. Hard to say without more details and where they get the estimate range.
Click to expand...
Underground would most likely cost significantly more. Just look at the cost for the Chunnel from Europe to the UK, cost of going through mountains, the Big Dig in Boston!
 
sfsuphysics said:
Underground would most likely cost significantly more. Just look at the cost for the Chunnel from Europe to the UK, cost of going through mountains, the Big Dig in Boston!
Click to expand...

Further going underground in a region known for powerful earthquakes fairly often screams terrible idea...financial considerations aside.
 
Skripka said:
Further going underground in a region known for powerful earthquakes fairly often screams terrible idea...financial considerations aside.
Click to expand...

Agreed its really expensive to go underground. Wow is it better suspending it above ground with earthquakes? Given the speeds involved you are probally toast if you have an earthquake anyway you do it.
 
smangular said:
Agreed its really expensive to go underground. Wow is it better suspending it above ground with earthquakes? Given the speeds involved you are probally toast if you have an earthquake anyway you do it.
Click to expand...

Think it would be fine; there is some pretty damn good engineering out there to handle earthquakes now. Look at Tokyo and the massive earthquakes they've had; those high rises are all still standing. The tube itself I would imagine would be (relatively) light; if the foundations/supports are flexible enough to allow tube movement without compromising the integrity of the tube, could see it being manageable.

That being said, one major issue I could see is the availability of emergency exits; if it shuts down during a quake, how the hell do you get out?
 
nutzo said:
Ever take the existing SLOW speed train?
I have (LAX to Seattle). It's an interesting experience and a good view on the initial trip, but it gets really boring on the way back.

A trip from LAX to Seattle takes over 34 hours and usually cost more than a plane ticket.
Click to expand...

I have done the S.F. to Seattle trip a couple of times, and it is quite enjoyable, but definitely a lot more expensive than a plane ticket. I think my "base ticket" was $250 and the "room" was like $800. It was a great experience, eating and drinking wine in the canopy car while getting work down via the WiFi in a comfy chair looking out over some great scenery. It was definitely a nice change from my usual commute between the two cities, but it usually only costs me $48-60 to fly between Seattle and I fly enough that I am usually bumped to domestic first every 3rd flight or so.

If the hyperloop can improve on the comfort of making short trips like SFO-LAX or SFO-SEA, and match current standard ticket prices ($160-250), I would take it a heartbeat over flying.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Underground would most likely cost significantly more. Just look at the cost for the Chunnel from Europe to the UK, cost of going through mountains, the Big Dig in Boston!
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking that far underground. Canal under English channel also runs under an entire sea, which makes it much tougher to build & no room for error during the digging. Remember it is also a huge tunnel for entire trains - cost 12 billion euros (13.5 billion US dollars). Hyperloop would be much thinner, smaller dimensions, and less complex engineering-wise than English Canal.

You might get a few small rivers between LA to SF but for the most part, it is not too bad geographically.

I don't understand why they're targeting for LA to SF though in an earthquake region. Do it somewhere else like Chicago or NYC or even Houston/Dallas.

TwistedAegis said:
That being said, one major issue I could see is the availability of emergency exits; if it shuts down during a quake, how the hell do you get out?
Click to expand...

I reckon they would put plenty of backup generators.
 
smangular said:
Agreed its really expensive to go underground. Wow is it better suspending it above ground with earthquakes? Given the speeds involved you are probally toast if you have an earthquake anyway you do it.
Click to expand...

Getting a quick death is merciful...as opposed to having a cave-in during an earthquake and sealing you in to asphyxiate slowly.
 
blade12 said:
I don't understand why they're targeting for LA to SF though in an earthquake region. Do it somewhere else like Chicago or NYC or even Houston/Dallas.
Click to expand...

Political will? In Texas, public transit is akin to communism, so pretty clear there. But agreed that this makes a huge amount of sense into NYC where there is already a large population density and riders of trains.

blade12 said:
I reckon they would put plenty of backup generators.
Click to expand...

Wasn't so much the power generation piece, but what about building exits into these pressurized tubes? It isn't like a train or subway where you can get out and walk along the tracks to a designated exit; would you crack open the riding capsule and crawl your way through the tube to the nearest emergency exit?

Putting an exit on each sealed tube would seem to add a huge amount of stress to a highly pressurized system, not to mention the security issue.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Wasn't so much the power generation piece, but what about building exits into these pressurized tubes? It isn't like a train or subway where you can get out and walk along the tracks to a designated exit; would you crack open the riding capsule and crawl your way through the tube to the nearest emergency exit?

Putting an exit on each sealed tube would seem to add a huge amount of stress to a highly pressurized system, not to mention the security issue.
Click to expand...

True, but what if you put on-board generator or even an emergency battery (weighing ~50 pounds) directly onto the capsule? If anything happens, an engineer can manually control the capsule from some central office using WiFi or satellite GPS to the nearest exit.

You don't need exits in every tube. It could be every 10 tubes or so (depending on how big each tube is). I would estimate an emergency exit every mile perhaps.

Trust me, this is a minor issue that we already have the technology to solve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top