Author Topic: SpaceX and space-relevant hyperloop updates and discussion thread (Read 39047 times)

Star One · « **Reply #60 on:** 07/20/2017 04:38 pm »

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 · « **Reply #61 on:** 07/20/2017 06:13 pm »

tweets from Musk

Quote

@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

Quote

@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 · « **Reply #62 on:** 07/20/2017 06:38 pm »

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 · « **Reply #63 on:** 07/20/2017 10:16 pm »

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 · « **Reply #64 on:** 07/20/2017 10:53 pm »

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 · « **Reply #65 on:** 07/20/2017 11:10 pm »

Quote from: yokem55 on 07/20/2017 10:53 pm

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 · « **Reply #66 on:** 07/20/2017 11:18 pm »

Quote from: SpacedX on 07/20/2017 11:10 pm

Quote from: yokem55 on 07/20/2017 10:53 pm
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 · « **Reply #67 on:** 07/20/2017 11:41 pm »

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 · « **Reply #68 on:** 07/21/2017 05:40 am »

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 · « **Reply #69 on:** 07/21/2017 06:56 am »

Quote from: meekGee on 07/21/2017 05:40 am

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 · « **Reply #70 on:** 07/21/2017 07:33 am »

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 · « **Reply #71 on:** 07/21/2017 11:49 am »

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 · « **Reply #72 on:** 07/21/2017 10:30 pm »

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 · « **Reply #73 on:** 07/22/2017 05:25 am »

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 · « **Reply #74 on:** 07/23/2017 12:56 am »

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 · « **Reply #75 on:** 07/23/2017 01:33 am »

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 07/23/2017 12:56 am

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 · « **Reply #76 on:** 07/23/2017 03:52 pm »

Quote from: RonM on 07/23/2017 01:33 am

Quote from: Zed_Noir on 07/23/2017 12:56 am
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 · « **Reply #77 on:** 07/24/2017 06:59 am »

Quote from: deruch on 07/22/2017 05:25 am

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 · « **Reply #78 on:** 07/24/2017 11:27 am »

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 · « **Reply #79 on:** 07/24/2017 04:10 pm »

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.