
Hyperloop - jashmenn
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop
======
uvdiv
There was a large thread about this yesterday, speculating about what it is:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5796880>

I think a "launch loop" is consistent with all of Musk's statements (and
nothing else is):

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5797212>

~~~
snogglethorpe
Many people seem to be comparing Musk's statements with the current California
HSR plans, but the wikipedia page makes launch loops sound quite unsuitable as
an HSR alternative, e.g.:

\+ "provides a relatively low 3g acceleration"

\+ "for safety and astrodynamic reasons, launch loops are intended to be
installed over an ocean near the equator, well away from habitation"

etc.

Some of the enormous advantages of HSR are the ease with which it can be
seamlessly be integrated into urban infrastructure, its ability to directly
serve city cores, the low trip overhead for passengers (30s from local subway
train to HSR seat!, no advance reservations necessary), the ease with which it
can serve multiple markets with a single trip (because the cost/overhead of an
intermediate stop is quite low), and its high energy efficiency.

This make it quite different from air travel, and launch loops are more like
extreme versions of air-travel in many ways (though without the flexible
routing of airplanes, apparently).

------
ihuman
Non-mobile link: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop>

------
dragonbonheur
The only realistic thing would be a ground effect vehicle. Pushing the
envelope on that idea would be using a magnetohydrodynamic ionization shield
around the vehicle for propulsion, but it would require putting a submarine's
nuclear reactor inside. Feasible for a billionaire. But everybody's brains
around that thing would fry... [http://www.savoir-sans-
frontieres.com/download/eng/aspirisou...](http://www.savoir-sans-
frontieres.com/download/eng/aspirisouffle.htm)

------
robomartin
There are far more significant problems to solve in transportation than this.
The most significant of which, in my opinion, is working to move container
transportation onto next generation land-based alternatives.

The fleet of container ships traversing the globe is huge. If I remember
correctly it is in the hundreds of thousands of ships. These ships burn the
most horrible fuel known to mankind: bunker fuel. This stuff pollutes like
nothing else. The pollution created by these ships nearly dwarfs that produced
by all automobiles in the world combined. On top of that, the ships also
contribute to species pollution by accidentally relocating marine fauna
through their ballast tanks. It is a horribly inefficient mode of transport
screaming for a land-based solution.

This is where high speed rail could make a huge difference in the US. Huge
cargo only trains reaching average speeds in the 200 to 300 mph range could
move all cargo from coast to coast and keep tens of thousands of container
ships from going through the Panama Canal. Power could come from nuclear, wind
and solar. Beyond that, such a project could also be leveraged to install the
massive power distribution network needed to support millions of electric cars
in the future.

~~~
uvdiv
_These ships burn the most horrible fuel known to mankind: bunker fuel. This
stuff pollutes like nothing else. The pollution created by these ships nearly
dwarfs that produced by all automobiles in the world combined._

If you source this statistic [1], you find it's contrived to compare one
pollutant (sulfur) which auto fuels _in particular_ contain extremely little
of. Coal power emits two orders of magnitude more sulfur than gasoline/diesel
[2], and is the largest SO2 source worldwide (not bunker fuel). It's very
polluting, but far from the worst.

[1] <http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/>

[2] [http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/data-and-
maps/indicators...](http://www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/data-and-
maps/indicators/eea-32-sulphur-dioxide-so2-emissions-1/assessment-2)

 _It is a horribly inefficient mode of transport screaming for a land-based
solution._

It's by far the _most_ efficient method of transport. In what sense do you
think it's not?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_transport#Shipping)

~~~
robomartin
> It's by far the most efficient method of transport. In what sense do you
> think it's not?

It's called "hydrodynamics", google it.

A purpose built high speed electric train pushes around air, not water, and
can move the same cargo with far less power and definitely less pollution.
Instead of doing 20 knots it would travel at 200 to 300 miles per hour. It
could also plot a more direct route between, say, Los Angeles and New York
than going through the Panama Canal.

A typical container ship doing that route burns over a MILLION gallons of
bunker fuel. And there are tens of thousands of ships making that trip per
year. When I checked, fuel costs for the trip were in the order of USD $1.5
million plus approximately $300K canal crossing fees.

Between fuel, fees, crew, bonding, and other operating costs each trip
probably costs well beyond two million dollars. That's the competition. The
high speed cargo train I envision should be able to make the coast-to-coast
trip for far less money, pollute less and make a nice profit in the process.

The part that is equally important is that such a train system would have vast
ramifications across industry segments. I could see it creating hundreds of
thousands of jobs, if not millions. I would feed the industrial base with
much-needed cash. It would provide a unique opportunity to build a massive
power and data backbone to service the next hundred years of growth, including
a transition to electric cars and trucks. It would also provide a solid
business advantage to the North American continent for the next 100+ years.
The advantages only multiply as oil price increases.

Looking at this as just an idea to get containers on a new-fangled high-speed
cargo train would be to miss what lives below the tip of the huge iceberg such
a national project would represent.

BTW, the idea isn't to eliminate all container ships. The only way to make
that happen would be to create a project of unprecedented international
cooperation that would, effectively, connect the continents with high speed
cargo rail.

An setup connecting US and Canadian Pacific ports to the Gulf of Mexico and US
and Canadian Atlantic ports would cut cargo travel times from Pacific to
Atlantic from about two weeks to a day or two at the most.

If you can get cargo from US Pacific to US Atlantic in two days you can now
compete with the Suez Canal in getting goods from Asia to Europe (about 30
days).

Container ships could now travel from China to the US Pacific coast. They'd
transition cargo to land-based high-speed trains for a trip to the Atlantic.
Once on the other coast container ships would take the cargo to Europe and
other destinations. It would be cheaper, faster and pollute a hell of a lot
less.

Strategically speaking, this would also place the US in a very unique position
as the preferred cargo travel route between major world-wide sources and
destinations. This has to be good. And it would be an advantage easily good
for a century or more.

Going further, I could see a new generation of container ships developed to
service the new routes. The idea being to maximize performance at every level.

Yes, I put a effort into researching this a nearly every level. It's hard to
post references and links here because the information is spread all over the
place and you really need to do a bunch of math to see the logic. It was very
easy to conclude that high speed passenger rail in the US is nothing more than
highly refined political horse shit. It has nearly no value and it will be a
constant drain of resources as we keep them running for the few people who
will use them. You would have to both massively modify American cities, roads
and culture for them to begin to make sense.

Don't get me wrong, I also understand it would be easier to prove the
existence of god than to build a new true high speed transcontinental cargo
rail system. We are at an age where we are incapable of approaching large
projects due to, well, a million reasons. So, yeah, this, to some extent, is
nothing more than a somewhat pointless spreadsheet exercise.

