Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Seen the video before. And it is a fantastic summary of all the problems with Hyperloop. 30 mins might be beyond the attention span of swimmer_spe though.....
Fundamentally, Hyperloop violates the most basic principle of simplicity. It's a solution that involves a massive increase in complexity for very little in actual gain over existing HSR and Maglev technologies.
There's some things he didn't mention in that video. Musk said 30 mins from LA to SF. In reality, their proposal was 30 mins from Burbank to Oakland. Not "downtown" on either side. So all the added inconveniences of driving to an airport. The other issue not mentioned in that video is the risk acceptance for certification. For passenger aviation, designs and modifications aren't certified unless they can show a probable fatality risk no greater than 1 in 10 million. The amount of technological maturation, testing and demonstration needed to prove this on every single Hyperloop (unlike airplanes every single one is different), would kill the idea.
To date, the fastest Hyperloop has achieved is 463 kph. And that's for a cart on a test track. They aren't close to carrying a human. Or building a full sized pod in a full sized tube to test out how they are going to overcome the Kantrowitz limit. Compare that to the Chuo Shinkansen. Plain old full sized Maglev train that does 500 kph on the test track regularly and maxed out at over 600 kph. No Guinness Record vacuum chamber required. And it has actually carried 200 000 humans on test rides.
|
Why would any of us want it fast tracked? I for one think the idea of testing till we know it is as safe as a plane isn't a bad idea.
We have Via Rail stations not int eh middle of the city (Edmonton) yet everyone feels that is fine. I agree that if this were built out, it should go to the airports, and to the downtown cores. If it is only going to the edge of the cities, then it is dead before it gets going.
The first train wasn't fast. From what you are saying about flying, I would think you would be happy they are testing it thoroughly. BTW, 463 km/hr would be 1 hour, which would be competing with air travel. Imagine, building something between cities that competes with flying, yet will not be delayed due to weather. Maglevs are even prone to slow speeds in weather.
I am not saying this is going to be the solution to our transportation, but if they can show it is as safe as flying, and it won't be much more expensive than flying, why not?
How much is a new airport worth?
How much is a new plane worth?
Speed costs money. Let's spend some money.
Or, just enjoy the delays behind a slow freight train.
Threaded Mode