Author Topic: An alternative to Hyperloop.  (Read 2567 times)

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3628
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
An alternative to Hyperloop.
« on: 08/17/2013 06:14 am »

Hyperloop was proposed as an alternative to planes, trains and automobiles (and boats) for travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco, in California, USA. I propose an alternative to Hyperloop avoiding most of its major problems.  In particular, I want to avoid the cramped, even claustrophobic capsule space, the inability to stop along the route, very limited destinations within the target cities, no bathrooms or amenities, limited luggage, the failure coupling of one capsule to others causing the complete system shutdown as well as the uncertainties inherent in the design. The last point means I must choose something with a much more mature design. And that is the (drum-roll) Aeroscraft Model ML866 LTA vehicle. http://aeroscraft.com/
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30764.0
Capable of transporting 66 tons of payload at almost 140 mph, passengers could enter the spacious 25,000 square foot, 3 level flight facilities at almost any regional LA airport. The ML866 would whisk them 350 miles away to San Francisco in just 3 hours, all while they are enjoying the amenities available in the luxurious facilities. Imagine sitting in an easy chair, sipping ice tea while viewing the California coastline slipping by at 140 mph through the panoramic observation windows. Maybe you have joined associates gathered around a coffee table having cocktails while traveling in the lap of luxury. Or maybe the 5 star dining room draws your attention, or perhaps you’d simply relax in your private compartment or work with your laptop and cell phone in an available fully wired mobile office.
Maybe you checked your car with the valet like Load Master/Steward, or maybe you are a student traveling on the cheap and board when your row is called to enjoy the trip in the spacious seats in the economy cabin section. If you checked your car, you left your checked luggage inside it and the automatic cargo handling system of the ML866 parked it aboard. On disembarking the automatic cargo handling system unloads the cars, you present your claim check, claim your keys from the Load Master and drive away.
Why not, it’s almost as fast as the HSR, much quieter, better view, better amenities, flexibility in the destination locality and within the 66 ton payload bay there is easily room for imagination. All that is needed is to get Robert Bigelow on involved to build the onboard facilities. And $125 million for a new ML866.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline meekGee

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14158
  • N. California
  • Liked: 14046
  • Likes Given: 1392
Re: An alternative to Hyperloop.
« Reply #1 on: 08/17/2013 06:59 am »
One problem with a 3 hour one way trip time is that the vehicle's cost is amortized over basically 4 runs per day, (3 hours, + 1 to land, disembark, embark, service, take off).

The other is that it kills the ability to just pop down to LA, have a meeting, and be back in time for dinner.

Plus, it is weather dependent.

It's a great mode of transport if you're going on vacation however.

I think it is a parallel service.  Maybe if HyperLoop can replace commuter air travel on short routes, it will have a chance to capture leisure travel.
ABCD - Always Be Counting Down

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5266
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4992
  • Likes Given: 6459
Re: An alternative to Hyperloop.
« Reply #2 on: 08/17/2013 08:17 am »

Hyperloop was proposed as an alternative to planes, trains and automobiles (and boats) for travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco, in California, USA. I propose an alternative to Hyperloop avoiding most of its major problems.  In particular, I want to avoid the cramped, even claustrophobic capsule space, the inability to stop along the route, very limited destinations within the target cities, no bathrooms or amenities, limited luggage, the failure coupling of one capsule to others causing the complete system shutdown as well as the uncertainties inherent in the design. The last point means I must choose something with a much more mature design. And that is the (drum-roll) Aeroscraft Model ML866 LTA vehicle. http://aeroscraft.com/
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30764.0
Capable of transporting 66 tons of payload at almost 140 mph, passengers could enter the spacious 25,000 square foot, 3 level flight facilities at almost any regional LA airport. The ML866 would whisk them 350 miles away to San Francisco in just 3 hours, all while they are enjoying the amenities available in the luxurious facilities. Imagine sitting in an easy chair, sipping ice tea while viewing the California coastline slipping by at 140 mph through the panoramic observation windows. Maybe you have joined associates gathered around a coffee table having cocktails while traveling in the lap of luxury. Or maybe the 5 star dining room draws your attention, or perhaps you’d simply relax in your private compartment or work with your laptop and cell phone in an available fully wired mobile office.
Maybe you checked your car with the valet like Load Master/Steward, or maybe you are a student traveling on the cheap and board when your row is called to enjoy the trip in the spacious seats in the economy cabin section. If you checked your car, you left your checked luggage inside it and the automatic cargo handling system of the ML866 parked it aboard. On disembarking the automatic cargo handling system unloads the cars, you present your claim check, claim your keys from the Load Master and drive away.
Why not, it’s almost as fast as the HSR, much quieter, better view, better amenities, flexibility in the destination locality and within the 66 ton payload bay there is easily room for imagination. All that is needed is to get Robert Bigelow on involved to build the onboard facilities. And $125 million for a new ML866.

If you're not taking your car, the Aeroscraft doesn't seem to have any advantage over today's jet airliners and the disadvantage of being a lot slower (over three hours versus one hour between SFO and LAX).

So all that's left is to consider the case where you want to take your car along.

To board an airliner, you need to arrive some time before your flight to have time to check in, go through security, and board the aircraft.  Southwest recommends at least 90 minutes before the departure time at SFO any time, and between 90 and 120 minutes at LAX depending on the day.  And Southwest is the most lenient of airlines in my experience -- they'll still check you in 20 minutes before a flight, even though you might not make it.  United recommends 90 minutes for either airport.

Taking your car on board is likely to increase that time significantly.  But lets say it only adds 15 minutes to the process.  And then you need to pick up your car when you land and get it off the plane.  That's going to be another 15 minutes.  So you've added at least 2 hours of time besides the flight time itself.

The Aeros web site claims the cruise speed of the ML866 is 100 knots.  120 knots is the max speed, not cruise, so we have to assume 100 knots from SFO to LAX.  It's just over 300 nautical miles between SFO and LAX, so that's 3 hours of cruise, plus a few minutes at either end to get to the gate.  Call it ten more minutes.

The total time from driving into SFO to driving out of LAX: five hours and ten minutes.

Google maps says the driving time between SFO (San Francisco Internal Airport) and LAX (Los Angeles Internal Airport) is 5 hours and 42 minutes.  And, unless I happen to live right at SFO and be going right to LAX, or have to drive right past both of them, chances are I could save a few minutes driving directly from my home and directly to my destination.  So taking Aeros takes almost exactly the same amount of time as driving.

It's true that rush hour could increase driving times within the SF and LA areas.  But that will also make it harder for me to get to and from the airports.  Along I-5, there is no rush hour, except perhaps weekend traffic Friday evening and Sunday evening.  But if I can avoid a few bad hours, Aeros and driving take the same amount of time.

If the winds are not with Aeros, its times could be much worse.  A 20 knot headwind (not uncommon) doesn't much affect a jet airliner traveling at hundreds of knots, but it increases the time Aeros takes for the journey by 45 minutes.

Now, let's look at costs.  Boeing lists the 737-800 at $90.5 million, though it's an open secret that everyone gets steep discounts.  Let's be conservative and assume $80 million.  It seats 189 as Southwest flies it.  Let's assume the cost of operations is roughly equal for the 737 and the Aeros -- an assumption that errs on the side of the Aeros, given that there are thousands of 737s in service, so parts and service are inexpensive due to economies of scale.  The aeros can carry 66 tons.  The average weight of a car in the US is around 4 tons.  So that's 16 cars it can carry, if it doesn't carry anything else.  To have a passenger compartment, we're probably down to around 12 cars.  Even if we average 2 passengers per car, that's 24 passengers with cars, for higher initial capital costs and comperable or worse operating costs to a Southwest 737 carrying 189.  If I book a month in advance, Southwest will fly me for $59 one way.  Scaling from 189 passengers to 24 gives a ticket cost per passenger (with half a car) of $464.  Or more than $900 for me and the friend I'm traveling with in my one car.  Plus, I have to leave when there's a flight schedule, and I have to book the ticket in advance, unlike driving which I can do whenever I'm good and ready.

Now why am I paying much more to fly my car on this route in about the same time it would take me to drive?

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3628
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: An alternative to Hyperloop.
« Reply #3 on: 08/17/2013 09:40 am »
@meekGee

I don't know what the interest rate would be for $125 million secured loan over 20 years, do you? I calculated the payment using 6% interest and got an annual payment of $10,898,070. That would take nearly 400 fares per day paying $80 each, just for the payment. Of course there would be a fare structure but for that number of passengers, most of them would need to be economy class, just to crowd them aboard.

The problem as I see it is that 138 mph is just not quite fast enough for a scheduled carrier, way to expensive as a freight carrier and marginal as a novelty tour carrier. It might work well as a casino plying international waters, say to Hawaii or the South Pacific, there would be two profit centers that way. Hawaii is 2551 miles, for an 18 and a half hour trip. That's one 1-way trip per day. Now you need cabins and the view is boring and you need to collect $30,000 for the payment.

@ChrisWilson68
 
I'm inclined to agree that its not fast enough for a commuter. It does not compete on speed, rather it trades speed for a pleasant travel experience. On the Hyperloop, the only pleasant experience is when the trip is over and you can get out, having saved some time.


You're being a little harsh.

First, it is not serving the international airports, rather a small, regional airport. Smaller airports don't require nearly the wait time that the big, crowded international airports do. They are much easier to drive to, and if you park your car, it is within a short walking distance to the terminal. They are just not crowded, altogether a much more pleasant experience. I even doubt that the Aeroscraft would be allowed in the flight pattern of an international airport. Where I live the advertising blimps moor across the runway from the tower at my local regional airport, which serves civil aviation including single engine private planes, helicopters, including the police helicopters and just a few twin engine business jets. All generally fly in the same speed regime as the Aeroscraft around the airport.

On speed, if you insist on cruising at 100 knots you'll have to give up the head winds. The ship has excess power to be used to overcome headwinds if you insist it can't be used for anything else.

On cars, 4 tons is the weight of a big limo, normal cars weigh under 2 tons, many weigh in at 3000 pounds. (The gross vehicle weight is listed on your driver side door plate, what does yours weigh?)

The concept is an alternative to the miserable conditions of flying or riding the Hyperloop. Get away from the traffic and congestion of the big airports and avoid riding in the cramped space sitting on someone's feet being elbowed by your neighbor with your feet stuck up - huh under the person in front of you. Aeroscraft provides even more space than airlines provide to first class passengers, aisles wide enough to walk in, and areas to congregate that are not even similar to inside airplanes, more like a cruise ship.  We use the huge interior space laid out for comfort and satisfaction of the passengers, choosing to serve airports with convenient access, all to make a pleasantly memorable experience in a reasonable time. If short travel time is the objective then go sit on someone's feet in an airplane or a hyperloop.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: An alternative to Hyperloop.
« Reply #4 on: 08/17/2013 09:47 am »
Here is a wacky idea that perhaps is even more deserving of the term "Hyperloop"..

You have a train moving in a circuit, the train never stops, and it is so long that both ends meet and thus has only the friction of air along the sides. A track runs in parallel for boarding and unboarding.

That is one loop. Because the train connects in a circuit you can nest another train loop inside it. This means you have double the velocity for only double the friction instead of the normal velocity-squared situation. You could also nest a third track inside the second, three times the velocity for only three times the friction and so on.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: An alternative to Hyperloop.
« Reply #5 on: 08/17/2013 01:18 pm »
Errr, we were pushing it to have one thread on hyperloop, but it was just about allowable given it was so interesting. Really not sure we should have to two threads.

The opening post was pretty hard to read anyway. Paragraph breaks!
« Last Edit: 08/17/2013 01:19 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0