SpaceX and space-relevant hyperloop updates and discussion thread

[go4mars]

Let's keep this thread tidy and not bug Chris by going overly into discussion about non-SpaceX related aspects of Elon's hyperloop program.

The following replies didn't seem appropriate on the Boeing fusion jet thread, hence this one.

You really think there's a secret agenda behind the hyperloop competition?  You think it's a cover to work on high-altitude electric aircraft?

Yes, and in part yes.

There's no reason whatsoever to say it's about hyperloop if it's actually about aircraft, and plenty of reasons not to, starting with the fact that having a competition for something related but not the same as what you actually want is never going to be as effective as having a competition for what you already want.

I think hyperloop is interesting and worth working on in its own right.  And yes, it will attract talent. But Elon would not waste time on it unless it directly supported his Mars architecture.  So how does hyperloop tech support the Mars architecture?

Several ways -
1)  Governing bodies will only become comfortable allowing widespread VTVL when the safety statistics can be demonstrated.  The worldwide VTVL launch infrastructure play isn't just orbital rockets, it's also high-speed intercontinental travel.  Once again the Terran masses support the Martian's antecedent infrastructure.  Elon is a pilot, his dad was a pilot, and Elon has mused for almost 2 decades about advancing airline technology by 3 or 4 generations rather than little iterations.  Plus Steve Jurvetson and Kimbal Musk are on the SpaceX board - and I know they want to see these happen.        But that point 1 is only peripherally related to the Mars architecture.

2)  The pods will need to keep people sealed in and breathing happy in external Mars-like atmospheric pressure.  Obviously useful in de-risking similar systems for Mars.
3)  The electric propulsion modules will be high-speed electric fans that allow supersonic travel in extremely rarefied atmosphere.  Obviously useful hopper technology on a planet with no roads.  The payload will increase even further in a scenario of broadcast power or laser-photovoltaics or new form of Uber-Capacitor/battery.  Which could be developed and de-risked on Earth in various iterations in hyperloop tubes and at about 80,000 feet altitude. 
4)  Technology level and logistical comfort.  It would be a lot harder to fund the development of the Mars-relevant vehicles or sell those vehicles to customers, unless there is analogy on Earth that funders/customers/design engineers can draw from.  The Unfinalized Flying Objects for the Martians will be much more realizable if this path is taken.  In my opinion. 

[DigitalMan]

I don't think HyperLoop has anything to do with Mars, I think it was put forward in hopes of avoiding California traffic.

[Prober]

I don't think HyperLoop has anything to do with Mars, I think it was put forward in hopes of avoiding California traffic.

Its more gov. money....end of story

[Owlon]

I don't think HyperLoop has anything to do with Mars, I think it was put forward in hopes of avoiding California traffic.

Its more gov. money....end of story

Elon Musk had been pretty clear in multiple statements that he is not currently or planning to be personally involved in commercializing the hyperloop. He had said that he might get involved (though Tesla, I believe) if there was no movement on it within several years, but there are now multiple companies working on it. SpaceX is only really involved through a  self-funded engineering design competition that has the ever-so-convenient bonus of filtering out engineers that are a great fit for either of his companies.

[beancounter]

I don't think HyperLoop has anything to do with Mars, I think it was put forward in hopes of avoiding California traffic.

Its more gov. money....end of story

How do you arrive at this conclusion?  Just asking!
Cheers

[R7]

Here's a transcript of the meeting where SpaceX involvement was decided:

Elon: Hyperloop needs a boost, suggestions?

Minion: Lets hold a competition for students.

Elon: Excellent, make it happen.

Minion: Sir, which company should host it?

Elon: Eeny, meeny, miny, mo... SpaceX.

[JasonAW3]

Let's be honest, Amtrak, the way it is currently run, is a mess.

     Current railroad companies would much prefer that Amtrak didn't use the same rail system as they do.  Currently, long distance passenger rail service is effectively dying, primarily due to cost and speed of service.

     By establishing a seperate, high speed long, distance mass transit system, passenger rail service would explode.

     By enclosing the system in a tube, accidental collisions cease completely.  By raising it above ground, ground traffic interference ceases.

     By mostly depressurizing the tube in which the train travels, you allow the train to travel as speeds faster than normal aircraft.  Also, by depressurizing the tube, accidental fires are minimized due to lack of oxygen.

     By suspending the train above the inside of the tube magnetically, you avoid mechanical wear and tear as well as avoiding potentile derailment scenerios.

      By using the tubes upper surface for solar panels, you make the entire system both self powering as well as a conduit that can be used for power distribution.

      As to it's application for SpaceX?  Add magnetic coils around the tube, elevate same at a fourty-five degree angle, place a break away lid on the upper end, and you have a pretty good magnetic linear accelerator that could act as a first stage for putting payloads into orbit even cheaper tham SpaceX is doing now.  Using such a system on Mars or the Moon would allow a fully fueled space craft to launch into orbit using only a minimal amount of fuel to circularize the orbit.   Remember, getting to orbit takes most of the fuel required to get anywhere in space.

[rickyramjet]

Hyperloop has nothing to do with Mars.  It's a sci-fi-ish idea that Elon got from one of his many science fiction novels he read (probably).  Transportation systems are developed based on need and on existing infrastructure to develop a given system.  Looking at the development of transportation systems on Earth: Steam ships and steam powered locomotives were fine for a long time.  The transcontinental railroad was finished in 1869.  The population of the Earth was roughly 2 billion people at the time.  And obviously transportation systems on Mars will be much different, but there will be no need for 800 mph systems for a very very long time.  If ever.  Assuming we even establish a self sustaining colony on Mars, transport will probably be slow, big lumbering vehicles providing life support and able to traverse minimally improved "dirt" roads.  In other words, a bulldozer moved the big rocks out of the way.  My 2 cents!

[quanthasaquality]

I don't think HyperLoop has anything to do with Mars, I think it was put forward in hopes of avoiding California traffic.

As such, I can see the logic in a space related forum prohibiting discussion of hyperloop. I've already seen a few hyperloop threads vanish. Hyperloop discussion would be better suited elsewhere. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/  for big buildings and big cities, and transportation between cities, such as a hypothetical hyperloop.

Let's be honest, Amtrak, the way it is currently run, is a mess.

Amtrak is the way it is, in part because many rural state senators, want to keep the trains running, just like the "Essential Air Service". But, this is not a ground transportation forum.

[Nomadd]

 If a Hyperloop reached orbital velocity, would it be related?

[sanman]

Heh, this Hyperloop-for-Mars notion seems to be gaining traction in the media:

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/Elon-Musk-will-test-a-superfast-train-inTexas-6381452.php

[jzjzjzj]

     [..]
     By suspending the train above the inside of the tube magnetically, you avoid mechanical wear and tear as well as avoiding potentile derailment scenerios.
     [..]

[..] capsules ride on an air cushion [..]

[BusterSky]

      As to it's application for SpaceX?  Add magnetic coils around the tube, elevate same at a fourty-five degree angle, place a break away lid on the upper lid, and you have a pretty good magnetic linear accelerator that could act as a first stage for putting payloads into orbit even cheaper tham SpaceX is doing now.  Using such a system on Mars or the Moon would allow a fully fueled space craft to launch into orbit using only a minimal amount of fuel to circularize the orbit.   Remember, getting to orbit takes most of the fuel required to get anywhere in space.

But that wouldn't be possible right ? To reach sufficient speed you would need the launch track to be enormously long and enourmously high, or so wikipedia says 2000 km long and 80 km high 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

      As to it's application for SpaceX?  Add magnetic coils around the tube, elevate same at a fourty-five degree angle, place a break away lid on the upper lid, and you have a pretty good magnetic linear accelerator that could act as a first stage for putting payloads into orbit even cheaper tham SpaceX is doing now.  Using such a system on Mars or the Moon would allow a fully fueled space craft to launch into orbit using only a minimal amount of fuel to circularize the orbit.   Remember, getting to orbit takes most of the fuel required to get anywhere in space.

But that wouldn't be possible right ? To reach sufficient speed you would need the launch track to be enormously long and enourmously high, or so wikipedia says 2000 km long and 80 km high 

At a 3g acceleration, in order to be a replacement for a first stage (3km/s Delta V) the tube would need to be 51km long. The vehicle being accelerated would be a little larger than a current LV US and more streamlined as well as sporting wings and probably a scramjet to increase speed even more as it travels up through the rest of the atmosphere to up to 4-5km/s before the rocket engines take over for the remainder of the 8.6km/s needed to reach orbit.

A 3km high mountain next to a near sea level plain in which it is possible to have a gentle curve from the horizontal to a high upward angle >60 degrees in which most of the tube is on the plain and only the last 5-10 km is the curve and trip up the mountain. This also helps in lowering the power requirements for acceleration since only the last part needs to overcome earths gravity to maintain the 3g acceleration.

[Kansan52]

Let's see, destroy portions of untouched environment for a slower more expensive system or make a leap to a faster system with less environmental impact at less cost. High Speed Rail vs Hyperloop.

Elon believes in creating a better world. He believes Space X and Mars do that. He believes Telsa and recharging stations do that. Even his work with Solar City and uber batteries does that.

Plus, if he believes synergies coming to and from Hyperloop and his other projects will help each succeed and therefore help us, he will do everything he can to accomplish Hyperloop.

IMHO, batteries and solar power is the link among them and Mars.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Let's see, destroy portions of untouched environment for a slower more expensive system or make a leap to a faster system with less environmental impact at less cost. High Speed Rail vs Hyperloop.

Elon believes in creating a better world. He believes Space X and Mars do that. He believes Telsa and recharging stations do that. Even his work with Solar City and uber batteries does that.

Plus, if he believes synergies coming to and from Hyperloop and his other projects will help each succeed and therefore help us, he will do everything he can to accomplish Hyperloop.

IMHO, batteries and solar power is the link among them and Mars.

Talking about batteries the automotive temp range is -40C to 125C very close to that of the Mil spec range of -55C to 125C. If the Tesla batteries are made to not only automotive specs but meet or exceed Mil specs then these batteries are useful for space applications as well. One battery design for all applications: Automotive, Aeronautical, Home, Industry, Military, and Space. By having one battery design and one production line the batteries are produced at cheaper costs because of the larger quantities due to be used not only for the Tesla cars but eventually a larger quantity in the other industry areas combined.

Yes, using the combined products from other EM businesses can produce lower development and operational costs, For hyperloop this would be using Tesla batteries, Solar city power tech, and SpaceX hyper-velocity computer models for atmospheric flight of LV shapes.

[spacenut]

The Hyperloop idea can be built on existing interstate highway mediums or along the sides.  No new areas would have to be destroyed, trees cuts, etc. to build the hyperloop system.  Hyperloop's can also be constructed on Mars between various colony cities or twos.  This would avoid dust and pressure-depressurization from a wheeled vehicle. 

[Lee Jay]

The Hyperloop idea can be built on existing interstate highway mediums or along the sides.

How would you like to go around a corner designed for 55mph, at 550mph?  Remember, g-forces go up with velocity squared.

EDIT:  Just looked it up.  Highway curves are generally designed for a g-load of 0.28g.  So, at 10 times the velocity, that's 28g's.  Hmmm.....don't think so.

[JasonAW3]

If a Hyperloop reached orbital velocity, would it be related?

     You really wouldn't want to reach obital velocity even in the Hyperloop tube.  A pressure leak would almost act as a brick wall to a hypersonic tube train.

     At full orbital velocity?

     You'd pancake the entire train.  Not very conducive to the passengers good health.

[spacenut]

The interstate highway system was designed in the 1950's for 90 mph, not 55 mph.  The corners could be cut via crossing the road.  Also, If you are going between towns in the East, one wouldn't go 700mph, but probably 200-300mph.  Popular science had some ideas in the early 1970's for 300 mph elevated trains along the interstate system.  In the real world, It would not replace planes, nor automobiles.  We have a speed-transportation-time gap between 70 mph and 600mph taking longer than 2 hours, so 300 mph would be right in the middle.  It would fill the gap that puddle hopper planes fill now.  At least that is the way I see it.  Yes, across the plains states or desert, 600 mph is possible, but we have too many people who drive all day between cities that are 200-300 miles away for business trips, thus the interstate highway system is full of vehicles.  I drove 150 miles for many many business trips from where I was located to a larger city where the meetings were held.  Took me 2-1/2-3 hours each way, depending on traffic.  I see hyperloop as a gap filler, not replacing planes for trips taking longer than two hours.  I could have taken this trip in 30-45 minutes with a hyperloop.  I worked normally 8-5 with an hour for lunch.  Meetings were 9am and usually lasted to 3 or 4pm.  So, I had to leave home at about 6am, and get home round 7pm.  That was for a long day.  With a hyperloop, I could have stayed within my normal 8-5pm. 

[JasonAW3]

The Hyperloop idea can be built on existing interstate highway mediums or along the sides.

How would you like to go around a corner designed for 55mph, at 550mph?  Remember, g-forces go up with velocity squared.

EDIT:  Just looked it up.  Highway curves are generally designed for a g-load of 0.28g.  So, at 10 times the velocity, that's 28g's.  Hmmm.....don't think so.

Most highways are built as straight as possible to minimize transit time between cities.  Those areas that would require turns, would most likely drift off to either side of the highway, into the right of way, to minimize the G loads.  Those areas where they couldn't reduce the curve and the G load, would require purchase of right of way areas as needed.  As the foot print of the Hyperloop pylons would be rather small, most likely the land use in the right of ways would not be interupted, except for maintenance or repair purposes.

      In most cases, as the Hyperloop system will likely have solar panels covering the upper surface, to both shade the tubes from excessive sun and weather, as well as generate power, there will be enough excess power generated locally that local land owners would likely be allowed to share in part of this excess, as part of the right of way agreement.

     The main issues I have with this system is that it would most likely require a series of powered superconducting electromagnets for the suspense of the cars.  While the air cushion idea first presented by Elon looks good on paper, mass issues could prove problematic.  However, on the otherhand, inductive recharging of the Hyperloop train's batteries from the solar panels mounted on top of the tubes, could proviode sufficent power to compensate for excess mass contingencies.

     Overall, I see a number of ways that this system could be made to work, but I also see a number of issues that would need to be addressed in order to ensure its functionality.

     In regards to its potentile use in space flight; the similarities that this has to guns introduced in Germany during WWII and another gun built for the Iraquis, are not entirely lost on me.  Creating a sufficently long hyperloop tube, with the end point sufficently elevated, the system, as described, could be used as a primary booster to place payloads into orbit, as a fraction of the current fuel requirements.  Note that this would also allow more robust upper stages which could be recovered and reused multiple times.

[Lee Jay]

The Hyperloop idea can be built on existing interstate highway mediums or along the sides.

How would you like to go around a corner designed for 55mph, at 550mph?  Remember, g-forces go up with velocity squared.

EDIT:  Just looked it up.  Highway curves are generally designed for a g-load of 0.28g.  So, at 10 times the velocity, that's 28g's.  Hmmm.....don't think so.

Most highways are built as straight as possible to minimize transit time between cities.  Those areas that would require turns, would most likely drift off to either side of the highway, into the right of way, to minimize the G loads.  Those areas where they couldn't reduce the curve and the G load, would require purchase of right of way areas as needed.  As the foot print of the Hyperloop pylons would be rather small, most likely the land use in the right of ways would not be interupted, except for maintenance or repair purposes.

I think you're dramatically underestimating the difficulty of obtaining rights-of-way, and how curvy even main roads are.  Take 101 from LA to SF.  Have a look a this one spot between them:

https://goo.gl/maps/sWO90

[llanitedave]

The interstate highway system was designed in the 1950's for 90 mph, not 55 mph.  The corners could be cut via crossing the road.  Also, If you are going between towns in the East, one wouldn't go 700mph, but probably 200-300mph.  Popular science had some ideas in the early 1970's for 300 mph elevated trains along the interstate system.  In the real world, It would not replace planes, nor automobiles.  We have a speed-transportation-time gap between 70 mph and 600mph taking longer than 2 hours, so 300 mph would be right in the middle.  It would fill the gap that puddle hopper planes fill now.  At least that is the way I see it.  Yes, across the plains states or desert, 600 mph is possible, but we have too many people who drive all day between cities that are 200-300 miles away for business trips, thus the interstate highway system is full of vehicles.  I drove 150 miles for many many business trips from where I was located to a larger city where the meetings were held.  Took me 2-1/2-3 hours each way, depending on traffic.  I see hyperloop as a gap filler, not replacing planes for trips taking longer than two hours.  I could have taken this trip in 30-45 minutes with a hyperloop.  I worked normally 8-5 with an hour for lunch.  Meetings were 9am and usually lasted to 3 or 4pm.  So, I had to leave home at about 6am, and get home round 7pm.  That was for a long day.  With a hyperloop, I could have stayed within my normal 8-5pm.

Wouldn't matter, if you're going to spend two hours being strip-searched by the TSA before the train leaves the station, and sit packed like cattle during the trip, you're still better off driving.

[Oli]

The Hyperloop idea can be built on existing interstate highway mediums or along the sides.

How would you like to go around a corner designed for 55mph, at 550mph?  Remember, g-forces go up with velocity squared.

EDIT:  Just looked it up.  Highway curves are generally designed for a g-load of 0.28g.  So, at 10 times the velocity, that's 28g's.  Hmmm.....don't think so.

The biggest competitive advantage trains have, in my opinion, is comfort. There is little lateral acceleration and the ride is smooth. I take the train because I can actually use the travel time productively.

If you want to keep that comfort that means the faster you go, the straighter the track must be.

Now with hyperloop you cannot even look ahead, as you can when you drive a car, so it must be a vomit comet indeed, especially at those speeds. At least if you do not make the tracks straight as a ruler.

 

[Hotblack Desiato]

In regards to its potentile use in space flight; the similarities that this has to guns introduced in Germany during WWII and another gun built for the Iraquis, are not entirely lost on me

There were the cannons Dora and Gustav.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav



800mm and 1000mm kaliber, accellerated the projectiles to  up to 1 km/s, a 4-7mt weight.

I'm not entirely sure how this beast is going to be used as an accellerator for hyperloop or a spacelaunching-hyperloop based system, as the g-forces are way too high, and the cannon pipe was not able to endure even the 100 shots it was built for.

regarding train transportation (but it's getting a bit off topic):

The interstate highway system was designed in the 1950's for 90 mph, not 55 mph.  The corners could be cut via crossing the road.  Also, If you are going between towns in the East, one wouldn't go 700mph, but probably 200-300mph.  Popular science had some ideas in the early 1970's for 300 mph elevated trains along the interstate system.  In the real world, It would not replace planes, nor automobiles.  We have a speed-transportation-time gap between 70 mph and 600mph taking longer than 2 hours, so 300 mph would be right in the middle.  It would fill the gap that puddle hopper planes fill now.  At least that is the way I see it.  Yes, across the plains states or desert, 600 mph is possible, but we have too many people who drive all day between cities that are 200-300 miles away for business trips, thus the interstate highway system is full of vehicles.  I drove 150 miles for many many business trips from where I was located to a larger city where the meetings were held.  Took me 2-1/2-3 hours each way, depending on traffic.  I see hyperloop as a gap filler, not replacing planes for trips taking longer than two hours.  I could have taken this trip in 30-45 minutes with a hyperloop.  I worked normally 8-5 with an hour for lunch.  Meetings were 9am and usually lasted to 3 or 4pm.  So, I had to leave home at about 6am, and get home round 7pm.  That was for a long day.  With a hyperloop, I could have stayed within my normal 8-5pm. 

In european cities, the rail transportation has one big advantage: railway-stations are in the center of the city. Look at cologne, the station is right next to the dome in the very center of the city. Same applies to munich, vienna, paris, london and so on. Nowadays it would be immensely expensive to tear down buildings to create a track for a railway, but 100-150 years ago, that was no problem (because either the major could just decide to do so, or the are was still unoccupied back then). I guess, the french and german networks are the best example for that. They operate at 300-400 km/h, are relatively cheap and provide direct links between cities.

Would be interesting how a train-based system would work on mars. Thin atmosphere, no neighbors who complain about noise, they could easily travel at 400-500km/s with classic rail-systems, reducing the time people are exposed to the surface radiation (I know, that isn't much, but reducing exposure time is always a good idea).

[spacenut]

Again, from what I have seen, a hyperloop car has minimum capacity.  It is not a train, more like a van.  Therefore people might not be "stripsearched" like they are at an airport.  A bomb on a hyperloop car will affect a minimum of people and a miminum of damage to a section of tube.  They would not be able to highjack a vehicle to drive it into a building or such.  Many of these tubes or terminals could be built underground. 

High speed trains would require new electromagnetic tracking, thus more disturbance to the environment.  Using existing railroad tracks means 200 mph is about maximum, and that is not counting curves on railroads.  Hyperloop vehicles can be able to slow down for curves and speed up on long straight a ways.  Since they would be much lighter than trains, they can be elevated.  From what I have read they would be cheaper and easier than high speed trains. 

Also, if they are picking up power from overhead solar panels, the system can reduce power in curves. 

Europe rebuilt their rail system after WWII since it was mostly bombed out.  The US never had to.  Also their cities were bombed out.  It is also not such a big deal to build a station 10 miles from a downtown area, since most people flying or using a train, would have to get a taxi to get to their destination anyways.  Blighted areas could be demolished and used as the transportation hubs.  To me, if it is a choice of high speed train or hyperloop, it seems hyperloop wins out every time.  I also don't believe they will be going 700 mph in hyperloop, but more like 300 mph average due to station stops and curves. 

[guckyfan]

To me, if it is a choice of high speed train or hyperloop, it seems hyperloop wins out every time.  I also don't believe they will be going 700 mph in hyperloop, but more like 300 mph average due to station stops and curves.

There is that one metric of passengers/hour. I would be interested what the max ist for hyperloop. Most likely train will win this.

[R7]

I think you're dramatically underestimating the difficulty of obtaining rights-of-way, and how curvy even main roads are.  Take 101 from LA to SF.  Have a look a this one spot between them:

https://goo.gl/maps/sWO90

This thread has derailed from spaceflight to terrestrial land legalities, TSA searches and city planning.

I'd report to mod but even the mod is off the track.

One more locomotive pun .... ... I got nothing.

[BusterSky]

@ oldAtlas_Eguy


Glancing over the wiki on the launch loop, it seems the limitating factor is if you want to send people into LEO. Wouldn't such a thing be feasible if you only wanted to blast up simple cargo like spare parts or fuel ? Without requiring any other propulsion system ? Hyperloop for space cargo ?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop

[spacenut]

I still believe hyperloop would be great land transportation on Mars between various colonies.  For instance, one colony is near a large source of water would farm and make methane gas.  One farm might be at a mining location for a particular mineral.  A hyperloop connection between the two would be easier than rocket hopping, or rovers with having to pressurize-depressurize when transporting between colonies.  Excess power from the hyperloop can be used at either colony. 

[Star One]

No updates for a while on this thread so here is one from the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35361093

[Falcon8]

The Spacex Hyperloop Pod Competition Design Weekend will be held at Texas A&M on Saturday (Jan 30th).

They have some activities open to the public from 2:30 pm to 5:30 pm.

http://hyperloop.tamu.edu/schedule-for-public/

[theebag]

A couple of days ago a Dutch team (Delft university of technology) presented their design. They've abandoned the concept for an air fan and went for magnetic propulsion.

Team: http://www.delfthyperloop.nl/

Introduction Movie:

Article (in Dutch): http://tweakers.net/reviews/4327/3/tu-delft-onthult-hyperloop-ontwerp-het-ontwerp-van-de-tu-delft.html

[Dante80]

This is an interesting design which essentially describes a maglev train/capsule of shorts. But a couple of questions.

1. This is a LOT more expensive than the hyperloop concept (you need the magnets on the track).

2. For this to work as expected (and at the speeds the video says), you need a total vacuum (very expensive). If you don't have that, you need a system to "remove" air somehow from the front of the vehicle. The hyperloop uses a compressor, this project seems to have nothing. However good your Cd may be, you are going to encounter problems sooner or later.

Any thoughts? Does the article talk about the things mentioned above?

[Chris_Pi]

From a quick look at their website, Particularly the articles in the blog section - No magnets in the track, just the cars. There is a raised center guide to limit side-to side movement and provide something for the emergency brakes to grab.

They do not expect an extremely good vacuum. I couldn't find anything the explicitly said so, But it looks like the plan is to have the capsule quite a bit smaller than the tube and just live with some drag. The design does have a longish conical tail to help with this.

[Robotbeat]

If at least part of the tube is aluminum instead of steel, they can levitate using that one hover board technology at low speeds and induction at higher speeds.

At the moment, aluminum is SUPER cheap.

[theebag]

I’ve loosely translated the article regarding the propulsion. I’m not affiliated in any way with the team, so should one of the team members stumble on this translation please correct it were necessary .

The envisioned system by Hyperloop is according the students not efficient enough and too expensive. Their system has permanent magnets underneath the capsule. The tunnel needs to have a conducting aluminium plate, which provides thrust under influence of the magnets. Normally aluminium is not magnetic but by the Law of Lenz, Eddy Currents will be generated under influence of those magnets.

Wheels are provided in case of emergency to reach the next station/stop. An extra set of magnets is provided for guidance of over a guidance rail and they can also be clamped down for an emergency stop. In such event this should happen automatically.

As there is a still some air in the tube they choose an aerodynamic shape. The capsule is made from CRFP and has a third of the total passenger and luggage mass. There are no windows and the doors placed alternately for strength.

Source: http://tweakers.net/reviews/4327/3/tu-delft-onthult-hyperloop-ontwerp-het-ontwerp-van-de-tu-delft.html

[OxCartMark]

      As to it's application for SpaceX?  Add magnetic coils around the tube, elevate same at a fourty-five degree angle, place a break away lid on the upper lid, and you have a pretty good magnetic linear accelerator that could act as a first stage for putting payloads into orbit even cheaper tham SpaceX is doing now.  Using such a system on Mars or the Moon would allow a fully fueled space craft to launch into orbit using only a minimal amount of fuel to circularize the orbit.   Remember, getting to orbit takes most of the fuel required to get anywhere in space.

But that wouldn't be possible right ? To reach sufficient speed you would need the launch track to be enormously long and enourmously high, or so wikipedia says 2000 km long and 80 km high 

At a 3g acceleration, in order to be a replacement for a first stage (3km/s Delta V) the tube would need to be 51km long. The vehicle being accelerated would be a little larger than a current LV US and more streamlined as well as sporting wings and probably a scramjet to increase speed even more as it travels up through the rest of the atmosphere to up to 4-5km/s before the rocket engines take over for the remainder of the 8.6km/s needed to reach orbit.

A 3km high mountain next to a near sea level plain in which it is possible to have a gentle curve from the horizontal to a high upward angle >60 degrees in which most of the tube is on the plain and only the last 5-10 km is the curve and trip up the mountain. This also helps in lowering the power requirements for acceleration since only the last part needs to overcome earths gravity to maintain the 3g acceleration.

If I'm following, the 3G you're thinking of is in the horizontal direction.  But what about the G loading to make that curve in the last 10-20% of the track length, the portion where they'd be moving at ~90% of your 3km/sec.?  That 5-10km ramp up would cause you to accelerate vertically 3km in about 2.8 seconds.  That's gonna hurt a bit.  But let's put a number to it [scribble scribble, cypher] 79G.  Yep, definitely gonna hurt.

I think the more practical space application would be launching from an airless or near airless body such as the moon, launching from the highest available near horizontal landmass, and then with some additional rocket propulsion to circularize the orbit to avoid bumping into the launch on the next orbit.

I don't think HyperLoop has anything to do with Mars, I think it was put forward in hopes of avoiding California traffic.

Yep.  Born of the frustration of a guy who has businesses in two distant cities in California and who has no good way to get between them (assuming personal jet is seen as polluting) and who has napkins and pens on said jet.

This is an interesting design which essentially describes a maglev train/capsule of shorts. But a couple of questions.

1. This is a LOT more expensive than the hyperloop concept (you need the magnets on the track).

If you move to an architecture where the track propels the cars electromagnetically (more expensive as stated) then there is one mild benefit, which is that electric power for the fan doesn't need to be provided from onboard batteries but rather can be provided by electromagnetic coupling to the track.

In my estimation this thread's grasp on NSF is tentative at best.  Let me help it along with a hairbrained concept.  For long distance interplanetary ships you could create artificial gravity by having part of the ship be a circular hyperloop track with pods going around it to create artificial gravity.  And angularl momentum.  Yep, hairbrained.

[gregpet]

Elon was at the Hyperloop competition at Texas A&M (my alma mater!) and took questions.  I caught the very last bit on Ustream but I'm assuming that a replay will be up at some point...

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/uAPmkVhqjrx

[theebag]

The winners of the Hyperloop competition have been announced. MIT won with the TU of Delft coming in second. In total 22 teams (with possible 10 more) will get the change to test their pod on the testtrack currently under construction.

More information and source : http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/30/10877442/elon-musk-spacex-hyperloop-competition-awards

Winning team: http://hyperloop.mit.edu/

[su27k]

rLoop, the team from the other website won the best non-student team award, I guess this proves they have some capable engineers over there, instead of just lolcatz lovers as some here seem to believe...

[woods170]

The winners of the Hyperloop competition have been announced. MIT won with the TU of Delft coming in second. In total 22 teams (with possible 10 more) will get the change to test their pod on the testtrack currently under construction.

More information and source : http://www.theverge.com/2016/1/30/10877442/elon-musk-spacex-hyperloop-competition-awards

Winning team: http://hyperloop.mit.edu/

Very nice to see Delft coming in  at second place in the Hyperloop competition. But then again they do have a bit of reputation to protect after former astronaut Wubbo Ockels firmly set TU Delft in the direction of "everything sustainable". For example, TU Delft entered the World Solar Challenge eight times. Six times they won. On the other two occassions they finished second.

[CuddlyRocket]

Elon said that the Hyperloop technology could be used on Mars; except that because of the low atmospheric density you wouldn't need a tube and would just need a track or even just a road.

[TomTX]

I think you're dramatically underestimating the difficulty of obtaining rights-of-way, and how curvy even main roads are.  Take 101 from LA to SF.  Have a look a this one spot between them:

https://goo.gl/maps/sWO90

Which is why you would route largely along I-5.

The Hyperloop Q&A at Texas A&M yesterday was interesting. Elon apparently thinks that Hyperloop will basically work as-is on Mars (likely minus the tube, maybe minus any tracking.... just a road. Going fast...)

[Nine_thermidor]

In terms of relevance to SpaceX's long term profitability (and therefore space travel) I've often wondered if this is one of Elon's synergy plays - if you are going to build a very long, very sealed tube, you are presumably going to need a parts manufacturer with experience of building segments of long metal tubes, with with a few metres diametre. A bit like how the home battery storage product arose out of Tesla and the gigafactory, could earth-bound hyperloop component construction be spun out of their stir-friction welding metal cylinder knowledge? 

Or maybe the tube will be concrete and I'm barking up entirely the wrong pylon?

[Beittil]

Hmm, is it just me or would actually building a tube on Mars not be a bad idea after all? It just doesn't have to be nearly as sophisticated as here on Earth since there is no need to actually pump out any air.

The main benefit, I think, would be maintetance. There is often a lot of dust in the air on Mars, seems like a good idea to me to me that if you build a track on Mars that you do it inside a cheaply constructed tunnel that is just sitting on the surface. That way you avoid having to clean up the track all the time.

[starsilk]

seems to me the pods will be heavily dependant on having a tube around them, for steering but also for the flow of very thin 'air' around them. removing the tube would require completely different pod design..

[Jdeshetler]

There is often a lot of dust in the air on Mars, seems like a good idea to me to me that if you build a track on Mars that you do it inside a cheaply constructed tunnel that is just sitting on the surface. That way you avoid having to clean up the track all the time.

Mars dust might be more like abrasive & electrically charged talcum powder which will be much hard to clean up than typical Earth dust.

[Beittil]

Which would seem like another reason to build a tube for the pods anyway. Easier to maintain and clean that way, especially on Mars.

[Ludus]

I think you're dramatically underestimating the difficulty of obtaining rights-of-way, and how curvy even main roads are.  Take 101 from LA to SF.  Have a look a this one spot between them:

https://goo.gl/maps/sWO90

Which is why you would route largely along I-5.

The Hyperloop Q&A at Texas A&M yesterday was interesting. Elon apparently thinks that Hyperloop will basically work as-is on Mars (likely minus the tube, maybe minus any tracking.... just a road. Going fast...)

Hyperloop Tech also seems to be looking at routing through the ocean. The tubes would be buoyant and would be anchored with cables sort of like a reverse suspension bridge. No right of way issues. Very straight routes. Better security. Better earthquake isolation. Down 20m in a 100 or 200m of water it would be below storms and ship traffic.

[GORDAP]

I think you're dramatically underestimating the difficulty of obtaining rights-of-way, and how curvy even main roads are.  Take 101 from LA to SF.  Have a look a this one spot between them:

https://goo.gl/maps/sWO90

Which is why you would route largely along I-5.

The Hyperloop Q&A at Texas A&M yesterday was interesting. Elon apparently thinks that Hyperloop will basically work as-is on Mars (likely minus the tube, maybe minus any tracking.... just a road. Going fast...)

Hyperloop Tech also seems to be looking at routing through the ocean. The tubes would be buoyant and would be anchored with cables sort of like a reverse suspension bridge. No right of way issues. Very straight routes. Better security. Better earthquake isolation. Down 20m in a 100 or 200m of water it would be below storms and ship traffic.

Err, wouldn't that separate one large chunk of ocean from being accessible to another large chunk (wrt shipping)?

[JamesH]

I think you're dramatically underestimating the difficulty of obtaining rights-of-way, and how curvy even main roads are.  Take 101 from LA to SF.  Have a look a this one spot between them:

https://goo.gl/maps/sWO90

Which is why you would route largely along I-5.

The Hyperloop Q&A at Texas A&M yesterday was interesting. Elon apparently thinks that Hyperloop will basically work as-is on Mars (likely minus the tube, maybe minus any tracking.... just a road. Going fast...)

Hyperloop Tech also seems to be looking at routing through the ocean. The tubes would be buoyant and would be anchored with cables sort of like a reverse suspension bridge. No right of way issues. Very straight routes. Better security. Better earthquake isolation. Down 20m in a 100 or 200m of water it would be below storms and ship traffic.

Err, wouldn't that separate one large chunk of ocean from being accessible to another large chunk (wrt shipping)?

20m down is quite a long way, even for the largest ships.  This beast had a draft of 24m, and was unable to traverse many places normal shipping would go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawise_Giant


Fishing would be a problem.

[Hotblack Desiato]

I think you're dramatically underestimating the difficulty of obtaining rights-of-way, and how curvy even main roads are.  Take 101 from LA to SF.  Have a look a this one spot between them:

https://goo.gl/maps/sWO90

Which is why you would route largely along I-5.

The Hyperloop Q&A at Texas A&M yesterday was interesting. Elon apparently thinks that Hyperloop will basically work as-is on Mars (likely minus the tube, maybe minus any tracking.... just a road. Going fast...)

Hyperloop Tech also seems to be looking at routing through the ocean. The tubes would be buoyant and would be anchored with cables sort of like a reverse suspension bridge. No right of way issues. Very straight routes. Better security. Better earthquake isolation. Down 20m in a 100 or 200m of water it would be below storms and ship traffic.

Err, wouldn't that separate one large chunk of ocean from being accessible to another large chunk (wrt shipping)?

20m down is quite a long way, even for the largest ships.  This beast had a draft of 24m, and was unable to traverse many places normal shipping would go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawise_Giant


Fishing would be a problem.

Going down to 50m would virtually solve all problems with ships (except submarines, fishers and cable laying ships). The fishers don't actually need to cross the line while having their nets out in the water. Cable layers however need to traverse the route with the cable. I have two solutions so far for this: Route the tube above the water for short distances (essencially build a bridge in the middle of the water). Or, since they just need to get the cable over to the other line, add a way to temporarely raise the tube to the surface, and route the cable below the tube. It's bit more complicated, may require to cut the cable and reattach the two ends, but that's a standard procedure during repairs.

The big advantage of maritime hyperloop: Transatlantic routes. Hop into hyperloop in Paris, and ride to New York (Might require a few stops in swimming cities, being locked up in a hyperloop-cabine with 30 other persons for 10 hours, there are plenty of things that are way funnier. and hyperloop-cabines are not equipped with a toilet ;-).

EDIT: added the word solve in italics.

[Robotbeat]

...that's why the hypersonic variant would come in handy!

(According to Musk speaking at Texas A&M Hyperloop design competition, that's where the "hyper" in Hyperloop comes from...)

[AncientU]

I think you're dramatically underestimating the difficulty of obtaining rights-of-way, and how curvy even main roads are.  Take 101 from LA to SF.  Have a look a this one spot between them:

https://goo.gl/maps/sWO90

Which is why you would route largely along I-5.

The Hyperloop Q&A at Texas A&M yesterday was interesting. Elon apparently thinks that Hyperloop will basically work as-is on Mars (likely minus the tube, maybe minus any tracking.... just a road. Going fast...)

Hyperloop Tech also seems to be looking at routing through the ocean. The tubes would be buoyant and would be anchored with cables sort of like a reverse suspension bridge. No right of way issues. Very straight routes. Better security. Better earthquake isolation. Down 20m in a 100 or 200m of water it would be below storms and ship traffic.

Not sure how this oceanic discussion 'space-relevant'...
But, I've spent considerable time submerged to well below 20m and can report that storms are quite violent at 20m, and still strong 100m.  Buoyant tubes, suspended on cables won't be stable at 20m.

[llanitedave]

I think you're dramatically underestimating the difficulty of obtaining rights-of-way, and how curvy even main roads are.  Take 101 from LA to SF.  Have a look a this one spot between them:

https://goo.gl/maps/sWO90

Which is why you would route largely along I-5.

The Hyperloop Q&A at Texas A&M yesterday was interesting. Elon apparently thinks that Hyperloop will basically work as-is on Mars (likely minus the tube, maybe minus any tracking.... just a road. Going fast...)

Hyperloop Tech also seems to be looking at routing through the ocean. The tubes would be buoyant and would be anchored with cables sort of like a reverse suspension bridge. No right of way issues. Very straight routes. Better security. Better earthquake isolation. Down 20m in a 100 or 200m of water it would be below storms and ship traffic.

Not sure how this oceanic discussion 'space-relevant'...
But, I've spent considerable time submerged to well below 20m and can report that storms are quite violent at 20m, and still strong 100m.  Buoyant tubes, suspended on cables won't be stable at 20m.

Agreed.  I have been on a submarine submerged well below 300 feet, and it was still rocking quite significantly from a storm on the surface.

[Semmel]

Submerged hyperloops are not a good idea in my opinion. Alone the dangers of a leak at 20m or more below the surface is prohibitive. How would you get people out? How would you get the water out? How would you repair the corrosion of the salt water in case of a leakage?

Additional: hyperloop is not as good as an airplanes at long distances. Its just not cost efficient.

[Hotblack Desiato]

Another idea: How about hyperloop through the bering strait? It's just 80km with 2 islands in the middle, and would allow passenger and cargo transfers between japan, korea, china, russia and canada, usa, mexico and the south american countries on the other side.

The underground at the bering strait is plain granite and well suited for drilling tunnels.

One hyperloop track (passenger and cargo, 4m wide, enough for a TEU-container) for each direction, one regular railway for non-express-cargo (if required), and pipelines for oil and gas.

This would connect two of the largest economies in the world.

[Chris Bergin]

I think the idea of this thread is for the space related elements, as opposed to Hyperloop itself. So let's get this one back on track

[Robotbeat]

I think the idea of this thread is for the space related elements, as opposed to Hyperloop itself. So let's get this one back on track

I see what you did thar...

[Star One]

Given permission to build Hyperloop between New York & DC.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/elon-musk-hyperlook-new-york-dc-approval-announcement-philidelphia-baltimore-twitter-a7851481.html

[Zed_Noir]

tweets from Musk

@elonmusk

Just received verbal govt approval for The Boring Company to build an underground NY-Phil-Balt-DC Hyperloop. NY-DC in 29 mins.
8:09 AM - 20 Jul 2017

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/888053175155949572

@elonmusk

City center to city center in each case, with up to a dozen or more entry/exit elevators in each city
8:11 AM - 20 Jul 2017

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/888053729919877120

[Star One]

I do think this is an important component of technology if he's serious about colonising Mars so hopefully this does go ahead now.

[SpacedX]

The Guardian and other sources report that NYC officials deny Musk claims. Hmm.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/20/elon-musk-hyperloop-verbal-government-approval

[yokem55]

The tweet was satire. Of course it's impossible for a 'verbal permission' to be given on a project of this scope. But the point is that such permissions are often more complicated than the straight engineering of the project.

[SpacedX]

The tweet was satire. Of course it's impossible for a 'verbal permission' to be given on a project of this scope. But the point is that such permissions are often more complicated than the straight engineering of the project.

Huh? Satire? R U saying that because verbal permission is impossible, this is satire?

The fact is verbal go ahead does exist. Somebody needs to clarify. If it was satire or a joke, I fail to see the beneficial purpose.

YMMV

[yokem55]

The tweet was satire. Of course it's impossible for a 'verbal permission' to be given on a project of this scope. But the point is that such permissions are often more complicated than the straight engineering of the project.

Huh? Satire? R U saying that because verbal permission is impossible, this is satire?

The fact is verbal go ahead does exist. Somebody needs to clarify. If it was satire or a joke, I fail to see the beneficial purpose.

YMMV

Verbal go aheads for a project of this scale are a joke. The sheer number of local governments who would have a say in this along with a lot of regulatory review and bureaucratic process mean that even if everyone was looking to get this done, it wouldn't happen with just one 'verbal go ahead'. So, even if Musk was sincere about wanting to move forward on this, the 'verbal go ahead' is meaningless and a pointed statement about how much in the way of approvals is required to begin such a project.

[Kansan52]

I'll be devil's advocate. A verbal go ahead seems very likely to me.

It could range from 'go ahead, because the regulations will kill you quick' to 'go ahead and I'll be at your side trying to maneuver the regulations'.

The future how useful that verbal go ahead will be.

[meekGee]

I'll be the GSM's advocate.

If you've been given a verbal "go ahead", keep it to yourself until you have it on paper.  Why raise all the obvious demons?  It's not like HL won't be the enemy of anyone who's into conventional transportation... 

[Chris_Pi]

I'll be the GSM's advocate.

If you've been given a verbal "go ahead", keep it to yourself until you have it on paper.  Why raise all the obvious demons?  It's not like HL won't be the enemy of anyone who's into conventional transportation...

It seems to me publicly announcing a verbal "go ahead" may be a good way to get a yes/no response on paper. Somebody is being looked at to either:

(1) Agree that it has been green-lighted
(2) Assert that it has not
(3) Claim that whoever said it was has no authority to do so
(3a) The answer is no
(3b) Answer is yes or needs more discussion but not no yet

Whichever way it goes will be something more public and more certain than the current situation. Yes or no, It's an answer that can be taken into account and acted on sooner than a less formal verbal go ahead.

Maybe it gets things moving, Maybe it sinks the whole idea. A fast answer may be preferred over any particular outcome. Question answered, Decision done.

[Star One]

Reason they didn't know about it is because verbal approval seemingly came from the WH.

https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/20/elon-musk-hyperloop-approval-white-house/

[garcianc]

I believe there is one aspect that is being overlooked in the news about this "verbal approval", and that is that Musk is speaking as if this were a private infrastructure project, and that is extremely rare (unheard of) for a project of this scale. Like with the privatization of space, the government might be wise to roll out the red carpet and see if this approach could be what makes public "rail"/tube useful in this country. After all, SpaceX is building their own private space launch complex, another rare bird, so the concept of building their own infrastructure is not a new one for them. So, like with the Internet, government deregulation (not the technology) might be the Kitty Hawk moment that launches the industry.

Given what a disaster the California High Speed rail project has been, and how most of the problems are due to government bureaucracy, NOT having the government as an active participant might be the highest possible endorsement to hyperloop.

I imagine it went something like this:
Musk: "So, I want to dig a tunnel from DC to NYC. Longest tunnel in the world."
Government: "Good luck with that."
Musk: "Awesome!"

I am joking but what I mean is that, to Musk, "approval" probably meant that the government would not want to own the project.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A "verbal go ahead" like this is the invitation that there will be political support during the EPA and right of way studies/reviews. It is not the promise of money. This is what the statement from Musk sounded like that there was political support from the PTBs to study and start the planning/probable routing. Although from contract law a verbal agreement is a valid contract. Which is why all military and civil service new hires are told overe and over that when dealing with contractors to never directly tell them to do anything. Because it would be an actual cause of an obligation against the government to fund. And only warranted contract officers who have the authority to do this. And their warrants have usually very specific limitations as to what the can obligate the government to.

[deruch]

No way for the Government to give authority or "Go-Ahead" until all the interested jurisdictions and various departments wrangle out who exactly has the power to grant such authority.  That obviously hasn't happened yet (would be news in its own right), ergo no actual approval was given.

[Zed_Noir]

Just how deep down does state and local authorities have jurisdiction? IIRC the feds have the jurisdiction for mining below a few meters from the surface.

Come to think of it. Just how far down does national jurisdiction extend to?

[RonM]

Just how deep down does state and local authorities have jurisdiction? IIRC the feds have the jurisdiction for mining below a few meters from the surface.

Come to think of it. Just how far down does national jurisdiction extend to?

In the USA, mineral rights are handled by the states. There isn't a depth the feds take over.

[garcianc]

Just how deep down does state and local authorities have jurisdiction? IIRC the feds have the jurisdiction for mining below a few meters from the surface.

Come to think of it. Just how far down does national jurisdiction extend to?

In the USA, mineral rights are handled by the states. There isn't a depth the feds take over.

I know this may sound strange but, what if the tunnel were considered an interstate/national "pipeline"?  Would that shift regulatory responsibility to the federal government? After all, the project would not be digging for the purpose of extracting any natural resources, but to transport resources through a tube. This could be an even more valid argument if the first use of hyperloop were to move cargo.

[nrubin]

No way for the Government to give authority or "Go-Ahead" until all the interested jurisdictions and various departments wrangle out who exactly has the power to grant such authority.  That obviously hasn't happened yet (would be news in its own right), ergo no actual approval was given.

I think that folks have some misconceptions about exactly what the legal issues are when it comes to tunneling.  To my knowledge, in the U.S. there are rarely laws against building tunnels or requiring government permission for building tunnels, per se.  States or cities would generally be free to pass such laws, under their general "police power," which is the basis for things like zoning laws.  But, I don't believe many states or cities have actually done so.

So, if you own the property, you are free to build a tunnel below it.  You will have to comply with a whole bunch of laws concerning worker safety, disposal of waste, pollution, etc., but you won't need some government official to say yes, you can build a tunnel here.

The bigger issue is one of property rights.  The folks that really have the most say about what happens underground are not the state or federal governments, but rather are the folks that own the overlying property.  Just about any useful transportation tunnel is going to have to go under other people's property and to have entrances and other surface infrastructure on what is currently other people's property.  Unless you have those people's permission, that is trespass, and any one of them can go to court and stop you and/or get monetary damages.  So you need to either buy or get the rights to use that property that doesn't currently belong to you.  But, this is not a new or unique problem.  Just about everyone who has ever built a canal, road, railroad, pipeline, sewer, or laid cables has had exactly the same issue.

The answer is eminent domain--the involuntary taking of private property by the government for a public use.  When some company wants to build a railroad line and the property owners don't want to sell or grant an easement for the right of way, they convince the government to exercise eminent domain, compensate the property owners, and then the government sells the right of way to the railroad company.   Every U.S. state has the power of eminent domain, as does the federal government.  In some states, counties, cities, or other entities may be delegated the power of eminent domain, as well.  Most infrastructure is built at the local level (though perhaps with federal financial assistance), so most exercise of eminent domain is by the states or by local entities.  But, the federal government absolutely can exercise eminent domain itself, whether or not the state(s) in question agree.

Practically speaking, the need to make use of eminent domain is the biggest reason that you would need government approvals of any kind to build hyperloop-type tunnels.  In theory, you would only need a single level of government with the necessary eminent domain power to be on board (i.e., just the feds or just the state is enough), but in practice the federal government is extremely unlikely to force such a program on a state government that didn't want it.

The other big reason you need government buy-in is that even if it's legal today, state government could easily make tunneling illegal tomorrow, if people are doing it in an irresponsible way or in a way that negatively affects others.  It's sort of like what we are seeing today with self-driving cars.  Be responsible and cautious, and don't hurt other people, and governments are going to be pretty hands-off and encouraging.  Hurt other people or cause a nuisance, and you will be shut down immediately.

Look, if Musk can prove that he can safely build tunnels at 10% of the current cost, he's going to have governments beating down his door asking where they can sign up.  But, he is going to want all relevant levels of government involved and supportive, or life is going to be very difficult for him.

[spacenut]

I think Musk should get with Warren Buffet for money to build and develop a hyperloop system.  Buffet owns a lot of railroads.  He could use the railroad right of ways, either by boring or elevated loops to get this thing going.  It would make sense for Buffet, because if a hyperloop system pans out, it will overtake rail and maybe even domestic airline traffic.  They hyperloop system would need to be large enough in diameter to handle a cargo container which is about 8' x 9' and about 40' in length, some longer.  Speeding passengers would be first priority, but single cargo containers would be faster than truck or train. 

Another option is the interstate system, but the feds would have to get involved. 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

If used for cargo think of the requirements for Fed-Ex or UPS package shipping. The use of aircraft like containers is more realistic. They have the need for fast transport and the volume. Think of a new delivery product by these companies for parcels between these cities on the order of a guaranteed 2 hr delivery from pickup.

The economics and the changing of business behavior could be significant. Think of how easy the travel could be between these cities when there is a transport leaving every 60 seconds.

Some of these cities also have local subway transport. The co-location of the HyperLoop terminal at the city next to a subway terminal joins these transports making these local transports have the reach of being able to transport a person from nearly anyplace in a city just by walking to anyplace in another city. You could literally work in one city but live in another.

[Nomadd]

 

I think Musk should get with Warren Buffet for money to build and develop a hyperloop system.
 

Midas Mulligan and Hank Rearden?

[Ludus]

No way for the Government to give authority or "Go-Ahead" until all the interested jurisdictions and various departments wrangle out who exactly has the power to grant such authority.  That obviously hasn't happened yet (would be news in its own right), ergo no actual approval was given.

I think that folks have some misconceptions about exactly what the legal issues are when it comes to tunneling.  To my knowledge, in the U.S. there are rarely laws against building tunnels or requiring government permission for building tunnels, per se.  States or cities would generally be free to pass such laws, under their general "police power," which is the basis for things like zoning laws.  But, I don't believe many states or cities have actually done so.

So, if you own the property, you are free to build a tunnel below it.  You will have to comply with a whole bunch of laws concerning worker safety, disposal of waste, pollution, etc., but you won't need some government official to say yes, you can build a tunnel here.

The bigger issue is one of property rights.  The folks that really have the most say about what happens underground are not the state or federal governments, but rather are the folks that own the overlying property.  Just about any useful transportation tunnel is going to have to go under other people's property and to have entrances and other surface infrastructure on what is currently other people's property.  Unless you have those people's permission, that is trespass, and any one of them can go to court and stop you and/or get monetary damages.  So you need to either buy or get the rights to use that property that doesn't currently belong to you.  But, this is not a new or unique problem.  Just about everyone who has ever built a canal, road, railroad, pipeline, sewer, or laid cables has had exactly the same issue.

The answer is eminent domain--the involuntary taking of private property by the government for a public use.  When some company wants to build a railroad line and the property owners don't want to sell or grant an easement for the right of way, they convince the government to exercise eminent domain, compensate the property owners, and then the government sells the right of way to the railroad company.   Every U.S. state has the power of eminent domain, as does the federal government.  In some states, counties, cities, or other entities may be delegated the power of eminent domain, as well.  Most infrastructure is built at the local level (though perhaps with federal financial assistance), so most exercise of eminent domain is by the states or by local entities.  But, the federal government absolutely can exercise eminent domain itself, whether or not the state(s) in question agree.

Practically speaking, the need to make use of eminent domain is the biggest reason that you would need government approvals of any kind to build hyperloop-type tunnels.  In theory, you would only need a single level of government with the necessary eminent domain power to be on board (i.e., just the feds or just the state is enough), but in practice the federal government is extremely unlikely to force such a program on a state government that didn't want it.

The other big reason you need government buy-in is that even if it's legal today, state government could easily make tunneling illegal tomorrow, if people are doing it in an irresponsible way or in a way that negatively affects others.  It's sort of like what we are seeing today with self-driving cars.  Be responsible and cautious, and don't hurt other people, and governments are going to be pretty hands-off and encouraging.  Hurt other people or cause a nuisance, and you will be shut down immediately.

Look, if Musk can prove that he can safely build tunnels at 10% of the current cost, he's going to have governments beating down his door asking where they can sign up.  But, he is going to want all relevant levels of government involved and supportive, or life is going to be very difficult for him.

The legal situation is a close analogy to early aviation. The classical limits of property rights extend upward to the limits of the universe and downward to the center of the earth. When the Wright Bros flew, the prospect was that it would be legally almost impossible to make it practical. Overflying any property would require separate permission in advance. Any flight plan would be bogged down in months to obtains rights to avoid trespass. Every little town and county could pass it's own rules.

Property rights were modified. There are still issues with air rights that have to be settled but it's possible to fly without too much impact on property rights, or legal interference from states and localities.

A similar revolution for tunneling would require federal action to modify property rights for federally licensed tunnels. It would like air rights remove any standing for individual property owners or state and local governments to interfere. It would create a sort of tunneling FAA perhaps FTA. Like FAA rules it would apply below an established depth and would account for existing exercise of rights underground. If a property is making some use of underground areas they'd have to be accommodated. There is a pretty strong analogy with air rights.

Tunneling in a sense is even better suited to this modification than flying. Below a minimum depth, tunneling is completely undetectable from the surface so it has even less impact on surface property than overflights which can be seen and heard.

[catdlr]

If used for cargo think of the requirements for Fed-Ex or UPS package shipping. The use of aircraft like containers is more realistic. They have the need for fast transport and the volume. Think of a new delivery product by these companies for parcels between these cities on the order of a guaranteed 2 hr delivery from pickup.

Introducing DP World Cargospeed

Virgin Hyperloop One
Published on Apr 29, 2018

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQIihCOrvZY?t=005

[Robotbeat]

When are they going to build it and have it running?

[docmordrid]

When are they going to build it and have it running?

Arab Business...

>
Hyperloop CEO Rob Lloyd said a 10-15 kilometre demo track would be built first before construction began along the full route.

The partnership is currently looking at projects in India and the Middle East, but Lloyd they may also look to work in Canada and the United States.

"By the end of the year, I believe we could actually have three government-funded and supported projects underway, two of which could begin construction in 2019 and one in 2020," he told AFP.

[Tulse]

The vehicle looks too short to hold a standard 40' container.  If it can't, I think a lot of the utility of such a system is lost.  (I'm also curious if they intend to pressurize the vehicle -- I imagine that many cargoes would need that, but it does increase the cost.)

[Jcc]

The vehicle looks too short to hold a standard 40' container.  If it can't, I think a lot of the utility of such a system is lost.  (I'm also curious if they intend to pressurize the vehicle -- I imagine that many cargoes would need that, but it does increase the cost.)

I think a standard 40' container is too much to ask to also accommodate the inevitable tube diameter and turn radius restrictions. Need a new industry standard of mini containers that fit inside a 40' container, can be lighter and less rugged, and load into a big container to go on a ship or train, or truck.

[biosehnsucht]

With regards to 40' (or even 53') containers, bend radius shouldn't matter for any of the high speed sections - they'll need to keep bend radius larger due to the speeds involved.

However, I'm sure maintaining such a large radius in the slower areas near terminals and such would be a real pain. Perhaps use a larger diameter tunnel so get more room (pod can "overhang" the normal tunnel space), or an ellipsoidal tunnel (wider radius in only the horizontal dimension, not the vertical)?

[launchwatcher]

The vehicle looks too short to hold a standard 40' container.  If it can't, I think a lot of the utility of such a system is lost.  (I'm also curious if they intend to pressurize the vehicle -- I imagine that many cargoes would need that, but it does increase the cost.)

I think a standard 40' container is too much to ask to also accommodate the inevitable tube diameter and turn radius restrictions. Need a new industry standard of mini containers that fit inside a 40' container, can be lighter and less rugged, and load into a big container to go on a ship or train, or truck.

There are several standard air cargo container sizes (previously discussed on the Boring Company thread) that might work for loop/hyperloop.

[garcianc]

Air freight containers (a.k.a. unit load device (ULD)) might work and would allow a seamless air-cargo-to-hyperloop interface. However, for maritime to hyperloop (which is how most cargo would travel) I tend to agree that a new modularized container might need to be adopted.

[docmordrid]

While the test Hyperloop pods we've seen have been in the 2+ meter class this is no guarantee DP World Cargospeed will go that small. The video seems to show cargo containers being loaded into the pods transversely, not lengthwise. More like garcianc's air freight containers.

[Tulse]

Air freight containers (a.k.a. unit load device (ULD)) might work and would allow a seamless air-cargo-to-hyperloop interface. However, for maritime to hyperloop (which is how most cargo would travel) I tend to agree that a new modularized container might need to be adopted.

Goods are overwhelming shipped in 40' and 20' intermodal containers.  If a hyperloop system is not compatible with that standard, it loses a lot of its attractiveness as a cargo shipment mode.  (That said, I'm dubious in general of the value of hyperloop for cargo shipments of all but the most time-sensitive materials/products, which are not bulk items and thus where changing shipping modes does not come with a large cost.)

[DistantTemple]

Air freight containers (a.k.a. unit load device (ULD)) might work and would allow a seamless air-cargo-to-hyperloop interface. However, for maritime to hyperloop (which is how most cargo would travel) I tend to agree that a new modularized container might need to be adopted.

Goods are overwhelming shipped in 40' and 20' intermodal containers.  If a hyperloop system is not compatible with that standard, it loses a lot of its attractiveness as a cargo shipment mode.  (That said, I'm dubious in general of the value of hyperloop for cargo shipments of all but the most time-sensitive materials/products, which are not bulk items and thus where changing shipping modes does not come with a large cost.)

Searching for info on this, I have not found a clearly stated answer however this:

According to DP World and Virgin Hyperloop One, DP World Cargospeed will use the innovative concept to support the “fast, sustainable and efficient delivery of palletised cargo”, whereby the pod-like vehicle is redesigned to accommodate freight as well as human passengers.

The ‘Cargospeed’ systems will be used to transport high-priority, time-sensitive goods on-demand, including fresh food, medical supplies, electronics, and more.

Future plans for the technology involve expanding freight transportation capacity by connecting with all existing modes of road, rail and air transport. There are also plans to integrate the system into the ports of tomorrow, creating a “synchronised, seamless and intelligent” supply chain.

My Bold
at LloydsLoadingList.com etc
says "palletised" and talks of high value cargoes, and so would appear not to use standard containers. Palletised goods are delivered to all sorts of premises, where large containers, or container volumes, are not appropriate.
DP world uses containers in its existing business.

However others have presented ideas for containers, and the benefits in quickly removing freight from port areas. Perhaps different systems and providers will evolve for different purposes, however there have been hints of "compatibility discussions" between operators.
*where I say containers I mean standard intermodal (40ft/80ft) shipping containers.

[OxCartMark]

The bigger issue is one of property rights.  The folks that really have the most say about what happens underground are not the state or federal governments, but rather are the folks that own the overlying property.  Just about any useful transportation tunnel is going to have to go under other people's property and to have entrances and other surface infrastructure on what is currently other people's property.  Unless you have those people's permission, that is trespass, and any one of them can go to court and stop you and/or get monetary damages.  So you need to either buy or get the rights to use that property that doesn't currently belong to you.  But, this is not a new or unique problem.  Just about everyone who has ever built a canal, road, railroad, pipeline, sewer, or laid cables has had exactly the same issue.

FWIW, I live near a salt mine that is 1100 feet underground.  Its been in business for probably close to 100 years so its very large, I think it extends 7 miles from the entry shaft.  In doing some reading on it I found it said that it doesn't go under residential areas or areas of commercial property where the lots are small.  It goes under large industrial plants, shopping malls, golf courses, and IIRC, roads.  The reason being that for every property they go under they must approach the property owner who needs to get a lawyer and get up to speed, a deal needs to be struck, paperwork, etc.  Its just too much hassle to deal with in a tightly cut up area with a plethora of miniature kingdoms.

He could use the railroad right of ways, either by boring or elevated loops to get this thing going.

That certainly fits with the fewer property owners mentality.  And railroads are linear, have large bend radii, and go from and to places where there are people.

I used to work in an office building where there was a mildly undergound railroad.  The top of the tunnel was close to the surface, probably only 1m of soil on top of it, but it was 50+m from my desk.  I could certainly tell when it was rolling and that was always run at a very slow speed.  That experience leads me to doubt the statements that a shallow tunnel (I think the statement was 30 ft.) would be undetectable on the surface.

What about the affects on ground water?  What about inadvertently draining the aquifer that feeds a well?  What about draining a pond?  What about bringing water into property that was previously dry?  Or just the accusation that these things are occurring anywhere in proximity to the tunnel?

What does any of this have to do with "space-relevant"?

[biosehnsucht]

30ft is a lot further underground, and the mass of individual pods will be much lower than a train, and they must also move much smoother (so less vibration) in order to move at higher speeds.

Also I think the 30ft statement was about building subsiding not vibration/noise from passing pods anyways. But the passing pods should be much less vibration/noise, both due to lower mass versus a train and also because they need to run smoother / more efficiently in the first place for speed.

[Robotbeat]

Air freight containers (a.k.a. unit load device (ULD)) might work and would allow a seamless air-cargo-to-hyperloop interface. However, for maritime to hyperloop (which is how most cargo would travel) I tend to agree that a new modularized container might need to be adopted.

Goods are overwhelming shipped in 40' and 20' intermodal containers.  If a hyperloop system is not compatible with that standard, it loses a lot of its attractiveness as a cargo shipment mode.  (That said, I'm dubious in general of the value of hyperloop for cargo shipments of all but the most time-sensitive materials/products, which are not bulk items and thus where changing shipping modes does not come with a large cost.)

Hardly. A LOT of stuff is shipped air freight these days, and if you could lower the price of air freight dramatically, used the same boxes and kept the same speed, it'd be incredibly attractive as a cargo shipment mode.

Eventually, you could make a bigger Hyperloop and use it for intermodal containers, too. (If also using Maglev tech as both HyperloopOne and HTT plan and a decent vacuum, it'd be more energy efficient even than rail or possibly even ship... Inductrak type Maglev actually increases in efficiency as speed increases, and so you only have aero, which is reduced to arbitrarily low levels in a vacuum train.)

[Lar]

Not seeing the space relevance... let's make sure posts make it clear what the connection is. Thanks.