SpaceX and space-relevant hyperloop updates and discussion thread

[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.