Don't you wish you were part of the Hyperloop Project?

[Anonymous No.8099260]

> I do

> I want to be part of scientific history

[Anonymous No.8099269]

>>8099260
I wish I was smart enough to be part of this. I'm too poor and White trash.

[Anonymous No.8099278]

>>8099260
What happened to /sci/s hyperloop team?

[Anonymous No.8099311]

>>8099278
Who knows

[Anonymous No.8099337]

>>8099260
>mfw I had a group working on a design in '13
just kill me.

[Anonymous No.8099463]

>>8099260
if its in a vacuum why does it need to compress air in front of it?

[TrollPost_ItsAJokePeople No.8099473]

Eventually they're going to add ramps, attach booster rockets, and try to send people to mars on those things.
True story.
Also Musk doesn't understand economics.
>Tax the people 9999999 septillion dollars
>derp

[Anonymous No.8099488]

>>8099269
>not getting a truck license
>not applying for transport duty
Believe anon

;-;

[Anonymous No.8099537]

>>8099260
>build a complete hyperloop track from A to B
>pay out the ass for technology, material, property, power and maintenance costs
>all to send a single cargo container at a time through at airplane speeds
for what pupose
which logistic needs does this fulfill

[Anonymous No.8099540]

>>8099463
It's simpler to have it slightly pressured

[Anonymous No.8099552]

>>8099463
Its nearly impossible to create a perfect vaccum. There is still some air, and moving at 750 mph that "some air" quickly rises to regular atmopheric pressure unless you equalize both sides of the capsule. Hence big ass compressor, although its not really a compressor in the traditional sense.

[Anonymous No.8099554]

>>8099537
Who says it can only do a single car at a time? Its a hyperLOOP not a hyperline.

[Anonymous No.8099559]

>>8099537
Electrcity is way cheaper than jet fuel, and doesnt pollute when powered by green energy.

[Anonymous No.8099572]

>>8099537
>which logistic needs does this fulfill

Literally none, it's just another thing for the Musketeers to jerk themselves off to.

[Anonymous No.8099574]

>>8099559
I guess construction and material is free then
also no maintenance cost either
and the state will of course provide the stretches of land to build this whole thing free of charge, too

the thing basically pays for itself
>Michael Anderson, a professor of agricultural and resource economics at UC Berkeley, predicted that costs would amount to around US$100 billion
oh

>>8099554
should've said one car at a time

[Anonymous No.8099579]

This shit looks like a complete scam

Subways aren't profitable, but some fucking hyper loop will be? gimme a break

Rail itself is barely profitable, high speed rail isn't at all, how is this thing going to be?

Yea sure maybe with non-union employees, no "diversity" or other bs it'll be better but still

[Anonymous No.8099580]

>>8099574
as in:
one container per car

[Anonymous No.8099618]

>>8099260
Wouldn't blowing air out of the bearings completely destroy the vacuum?

[Anonymous No.8099630]

>>8099552
>>8099540
so that would be cheaper than having the tube totally in vacuum, ok

but what about, having the tube in normal atmopsheric pressure and having a bigger compressor, since youre gonna put a compressor in there you might as well go ahead

besides isnt keeping thousands of miles of flimsy transport tube in a perfect atmospheric state insanely difficult and complex, maybe akin to a space elevator

particularly taking into consideration that any breach would produce, according to my estimations a couple of megatons of pressurizative energy, this thing could really not travel trough cities

[Anonymous No.8099634]

I am just glad they have enough ground contact to at the least allow it to support moving cargo.
Some of the other theoretical train projects are too far removed for reality for that.

[Anonymous No.8099639]

>>8099579
>Subways aren't profitable
Because they're poorly designed because Americans have a problem with mass transportation for some reason.
>Rail itself is barely profitable
Once again, because it's a shit design. Why would you wanna go on a train when your own car would get you there faster, even with heavy traffic?
>High speed rail isn't at all
Because America doesn't have any shithead. Like seriously how can you expect something America doesn't have to be profitable when there's no one there to use it? Here in california, people are just completely against the idea of a high speed rail for some reason. My own father has said that "People hate it because trash from one city will travel to another city easily and no city wants the bad people from other cities". Again, people hate that other people can move without cars because americans are so enslaved by their vehicles.

I legitimately don't understand why America is so backward when it comes to mass transit systems. Europe does a marvelous job at connecting people from one place to the other. Hell, you can travel from the UK to any place in europe and it's a god damn island!
Yet, in a giant landmass like the US, we can't travel 40 miles without some train derailing, or going into a traffic jam, or having bus systems that are so slow that it would be much better to walk where you need to go.

Maybe a hyperloop might be exciting and innovative enough that people will finally see its benefits.

Maybe people will be stupid and continue being stupid. But who cares? At least those with an actual education and an actual purpose in life will be part of this pioneering movement. And when years pass and we all die, people who didn't believe in it and didn't do it will be forgotten, while people who worked to progress humanity will live on in history.

Enjoy no legacy, pleb.

[Anonymous No.8099645]

>>8099537
you can have many cars if you want, the limit is how close together can they be
lets use the extremely conservative number of 1 car every 2 miles, the us is 2800 miles across
thats 1400 cars running between both coasts of the us (theres one tube that goes and one that comes)

each car would be as cheap as a truck, lets be conservative, about 80.000U$S(eight thousand), against a passenger jet plane which is at least 250.000.000U$S (250 million, or 250 thousands of thousands)

so for each car you buy youre saving about 312500% the money!!!

oh and bad news for you little kiddy non sciency boy

there is almost not mantainance costs to this system, its lesss than a train. all is magnetic maglev non mecanic, all is absolutely 100% wear and tearless

so its a just one time only investement and after that your economy will increase by 312500% times each of the 1400 cars = 437500000%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but sure, lets not do this, lets obey your non scientific romantic point of view becaeues "le poetry" lets not listen to me the god tier god of mathetmatics

[Anonymous No.8099652]

>>8099579
>Subways aren't profitable,
subways are INMENSELY profitable when you use them for what they were intended, transportation of huge volumes of people across short distances in very dense traffic intensive areas.

but when you have ameriburguers who want to go everywhere by subway, even if theres only like 2 people who take that line, then yeah you lose money

the difference is between ameriburguer inferior and superior citizen of the planet superior

[Anonymous No.8099653]

>>8099645
>passenger jet plane which is at least 250.000.000U$S (250 million, or 250 thousands of thousands)
Wrong. A Boeing 737 is between $51.5 million and $87 million, depending on the model.

[Anonymous No.8099659]

>>8099653
it coudl be 20 million its still a ratio of 250 to 1

thats 250000%!!!!!!!!!

its like comparing a super star of millions of miles across against a fraction of an ant molecule, and someone says "but that star just shrinked by half a mile" WHO THE FUCK CARES MY POINT IS STILL GOD TIER DEFEATEAR

[Anonymous No.8099781]

>>8099645
>>8099659
>conveniently omits the fact that you have to build those 2800 miles of hyperloop first
heres your (you)
economically challenged retard

[Anonymous No.8099792]

>>8099781
we built the train, and it gave us faaar lesser benefites.

this wont be more expensive to construct that a maglev train and that also gives much less benefites

also you dont know hjow the progress of world countries work

you start with a
haha
you thoguth
tHAHA
HAHAHAH YOU RHITNK THE %5500 MILES GET BUJILT FIRTS!!! N
no idiot ifnerior listen to le ebin me explaingn to the inferior you:

you first built
and listen cause this is important
you first built 100 miles of tracks, that gives you benefit money
and then you build more

pretty soon you have a logical explosion but you must not be an inferior first

this all happens because we are in a democracy in which people like you can opinionate, give power to the me, and were at the moon in no time

[Anonymous No.8099802]

>>8099792
>a logical explosion
your post is more of a logical implosion

[Anonymous No.8099804]

>>8099645
>against a passenger jet plane

Nobody flies freight you dumb fuck, and if they do it's done rarely, 99 times out of 100 it's moved by train and trucks, so do a fair comparison and compare it to freight trains. Also:

>each car would be as cheap as a truck, lets be conservative, about 80.000U$S

But the whole project is going to cost about $100 billion, for that much you could by something on the order of 10,000 737s. ALSO:

>each car would be as cheap as a truck

Citation fucking needed.

Clearly your analysis is both wrong-headed and simplistic, but I've long since abandoned the idea that Musketeers can be reasoned with.

[Anonymous No.8099814]

>>8099645
>>8099659
> saving about 312500% the money
>increase by 312500%
>437500000%
>250000%
schizophrenia meets economics: the post

[Anonymous No.8099937]

>>8099639
>I legitimately don't understand why America is so backward when it comes to mass transit systems.
Take a glance at the demographics
EU is already totally different due to this flood of muslims, eventually they will understand why public transit is shit too

If we lived in a prosperous white country, it would be a different story.

[Anonymous No.8099946]

>>8099804
No baby, 9/10 times it's moved by ship.

But you're cute.

http://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-facts/shipping-and-world-trade

[Anonymous No.8100028]

>>8099804
>Nobody flies freight
>if they do it's done rarely
Contradicting yourself in the first sentences shows that you do not know what objecitve truth is

so

learn to respect the big boys and to do basic elementary school logic before coming here

[Anonymous No.8100164]

>>8099463
Rareified air still means shock waves. What they ought to do is fill the tube with rareified hydrogen or water vapor.

[Anonymous No.8100728]

This project will never work.
1) moving massive amounts of freight with steel wheel and steel rail is the most efficient means known to man.
2) the sheer amount of work building the tunneling , not to mention the time it would take, go look up the Goddard tunnel project.
3) the electrical requirements for this project would staggering difficult as the entire line has to be wired to the same power source (Electrical engineers know what I refer to)
4) Where the hell you going to get this much copper?
5) I would rather spend the money and get a high speed rail network built, sadly the airline companies are suing as its 'unfair competition' and winning ( see Texas high speed rail)
6) No idea how you think a single railway car carrying a single container can possibly be remotely as efficient as a double stack train on steel rail.
7) the important one, what the hell do we need to ship from LA to NY this damn fast? takes 80 hours for a container from LA to go to chitown. and how many weeks by a boat before it got here from China? the time saved shipping when it reaches America is not that relevant
8) freight railroads in America make massive profits and are considered blue chip investments
9) why not build a rail line over the Bering strait and connect Asia to Alaska, or a trans Atlantic rail tunnel for the same money?
10) Remember the L5 retards? same concept
11) any one with a basic engineering degree can debunk this whole thing as a really dumb concept.

You are being trolled thinking this is a legitimate project worth wasting the effort on.

Inb4 uneducated laymen try to counter with false information and data.

[Anonymous No.8100739]

>>8099260
Will they even bother with seatbelts? If it crashes at some velocities there won't be much left of you regardless

[Anonymous No.8100772]

>>8099269
I'm smart enough, but really lazy. :^)
>>8099278
https://twitter.com/ituhyperloopsci
Looks like they went to the design competition. Also looks like they didn't run with my tandem compressor idea.

Last I saw them here was right after New Years. Not too surprised they've stopped coming here; they caught a lot of shit from /sci/ in that thread when posters realized it was basically an ITU senior design team looking for help from /sci/ and "representing" us without formally declaring their relationship with us (almost like a homework thread, heh). Plus, the design weekend itself (when their design proposal was supposed to be finished already) was at the end of January, so yeah. Judging from the paucity of updates after January, I suspect they lost and didn't make it to the prototype stage (which is really to be expected from a design that apparently wasn't even close to finalized a mere month before competition).

[Anonymous No.8100789]

>>8099946
And if you want to move a container from Detroit to Las Vegas...do you use a ship for that as well?

[Anonymous No.8100814]

>>8099574
>$100 billion
What's the plan, to loop around the world three times?
Because while giant vacuum tubes are surely expensive, if you're making thousands of kilometres of it you're going to have to get a factory to do the work, though that so happens to make it cheaper per metre.

You're not going to need much in the way of pumping air out if your tubes are rather airtight, and if you get a factory to just spew out steel tubes with rails in them then that sounds pretty damn airtight and not too pricey either.

[Anonymous No.8100824]

>>8100814
You also need to buy up land, which is (if I'm not mistaken) where the bulk the cost comes from.

[Anonymous No.8100827]

>>8100824
This. Some land is cheap but a lot is needed. Other land, particularly at at cities where stations would be, has to plow through existing zones and pay the property owners off to move out of the way.

[Anonymous No.8100852]

>>8100824
>>8100827
i think i read that most of the tracks would be along highways and the like, using already purchased land. But like you said, the stations are gonna be a bitch

[Anonymous No.8100860]

>>8099537
>let's centralize everything so disasters can affect everything and stop everything at once
>don't decentralize or segregate anything, that's what slavery did to the blacks

[Anonymous No.8100861]

>Amerifag here

Can somebody please explain why americans dont want to build high speed rails?
Im so fucking perplexed we get shit like hyperloop.
Why are americans not okay with mass transit system.
Does every american fuck their exhaust pipe.
Jesus christ hyperloop is such a bullshit idea, high speed trains are a much more plausible idea.

[Anonymous No.8100883]

>>8100860
Her boyfriend could easily have gotten some serious goodlooking bitches.

[Anonymous No.8100889]

>>8100789
>shipping anything from Detroit
>implying Detroit produces anything of value

Well meme'd my friend.

[Anonymous No.8100896]

>>8100789
You do realize:
>1> USA isn't the extent of global shipping
>2> Most goods consumed in USA are produced abroad
>3> 9/10 is including your precious bottlepissing roadkings, not exempting.

[Anonymous No.8100901]

>>8100861
American cities are more spread out than European ones and Americans generally don't like public transportation.

[Anonymous No.8100903]

>>8100772
>I'm smart enough, but really lazy. :^)
Are you actually triggered by this shit?

[Anonymous No.8100904]

>>8100901
>more spread out
is an argument FOR high speed rail, not against. It means noise regulations can be lifted, higher speeds between stations etc.

its the argument against high speed rail in yurop. "it would be a good idea if cities were further apart"

[Anonymous No.8100910]

Americans should tell their leaders not to build a wall until they build a railway. Seriously, the fact that you guys are so far behind the rest of the world in cargo handling is almost as shameful as the fact that you don't have clean water.

[Anonymous No.8100914]

>>8099792
The train succeeded for three reasons 1) it blew it's only real competitor (the canals) out of the water (no pun intended). 2) At the time there was a big upsurge in goods needing to be transported due to the industrial revolution and 3) It was actually using existing infrastructure, railways existed long before locomotives did, they were horse drawn. it was just a case of changing the rails from wooden to iron. Hyperloop is not any faster or has any more capacity than a plane, it needs completely new infrastructure and there is no pressing demand for it. it would have to be way cheaper for it to be worth it and plane travel is already pretty damn cheap.

In short I think it's a great idea but there's no market for it. Musk should save it for Mars, as he said himself you don't even need the tube up there and it would be actually necessary seeing as plane travel in the Martian atmosphere is infeasible.

[Anonymous No.8100923]

>>8100914
I still think with all the hype and investment so far, there's enough crazies who disagree with you and the rest of the peanut gallery to actually fund a functional stretch of tubetrain.

Also come on, there's no big bad reason why you can't place the pylons alongside highways where this could work. The footprint of the tube isn't the entire shadow, it's just the pylons and station area.

>unless the lobbies make sure everyone knows they need at least a blast radius of 300 ft or else all the mommies and daddies just trying to drive home like normal moral muricans are gonna get exploded into a billion pieces by rich californians going to get more kombucha

[Anonymous No.8100928]

>>8100896
You do realize:
>1:discussing inland cargo transportation
>2:comparing the efficiency of something like Hyperloop against rail/truck and plane transport
>2: pointing out that almost all cargo goes by rail and road, and where close to that amount by air
>3: somehow bringing shipping by ship into the discussion, even though its completely pointless, seeing as we ARE ON FUCKING LAND!

No matter where the fuck the goods come from, you are still discussing on-land, interstate transportation when you talk about systems like rail and Hyperloop.
10/10 loads to LOE is brought there by rockets, but its something thats completely pointless in this discussion

[Anonymous No.8100930]

>>8100928
You're a gross americacentric fool if you think a proof of concept in the desert of burgerland will NOT spark investment and building in the rest of the world where public transit is the norm.

Go sing to your flag now.

[Anonymous No.8100933]

>>8100928
Oh, and efficiency wise you can't find any better than evacuated tube transport. It's the frictionless chicken in a vacuum we've always been waiting for.

>you probably meant economic "efficiency", didn't you. Well, that's called ROI.

[Anonymous No.8100934]

>>8100930
How the hell did you get that from >>8100930?

Also, not a burger.

[Anonymous No.8100935]

>>8100923
By all means if Musk wants to fund a trial stretch out of his own pocket then he should go for it because you never know. But public funding? No way, too risky.

I have another issue with the hyperloop, it is not very pleasurable. A large part of why Europeans love trains so much is because there is a whole culture of scenery and relaxation around them. Americans are more practical and serious so never really understood why Euros preferred to sit in a train watching the cows go by instead of sitting in a car looking at tarmac. Hyperloop doesn't even have the scenery angle, it's not fun at all. You are in a windowless tube. However it's not a huge issue because my own country is famous for having underground railways in tube shaped tunnels and they are hugely popular.

[Anonymous No.8100939]

>>8100935
>Americans are more practical and serious
ugh.

[Anonymous No.8100942]

>>8100904
Planes are faster and cost far less for distances in the US.

[Anonymous No.8100946]

>>8100942
"no"

But the initial cost doesn't work in most gigacorps budget meetings. Your economy is the immediacy of a cigarette in a world that more than ever needs more pipe.

[Anonymous No.8100949]

>>8100933
I have no idea what will be be best, ROI-speaking. Hell, it might be completely pointless. The point I was trying to make was that bringing ocean going shipping into a discussion comparing different in-land transportation options is completely pointless.

[Anonymous No.8100954]

>>8100946
930 km/hr vs 250 km/hr is the difference between a 6 hour flight and an 18 hr train ride.

[Anonymous No.8100956]

>>8100860
>a disaster that can collapses the majority of the railroad network will somehow NOT collapse the hyperloop tracks - which are 10 times more technically complex to boot
hundreds of kilometers of simple, bent steel will ripped apart by disaster
but my evacuated steel tube filled to the brim with electronics and sealing surfaces won't

epin logic m8

[Anonymous No.8100959]

>>8100939
They are, that's why you have longer working hours and don't do rehabilitation. It's called the Protestant work ethic.

[Anonymous No.8100961]

>>8100860
>a disaster capable of collapsing the majority of the railroad network will somehow NOT collapse the hyperloop tracks - which are 10 times more technically complex to boot
hundreds of kilometers of simple, bent steel will be ripped apart by disaster
but evacuated steel tubes filled with electronics and sealing surfaces won't

epin logic m8

[Anonymous No.8100963]

ITT: A bunch of dumb kids with the balls to question Elon Musk.

[Anonymous No.8100964]

>>8100949
It might be beside the point, but it's hardly pointless, all the time the US still imports the majority of it's products.

The reason I bring it up is: there's little point in discussing at length the stupidity of a new transport system on basis that it won't account for 1/10 of the goods transported on land today. It's a red herring in a world increasingly reliant on sea transport.

If and when the North West Passage opens and is ice free most months, the face of global shipping will change so fast, you have no idea.

>>8100954
250 km/h is when travelling intercity. Transcontinental railway only works in a place like USA, and would be closer to 500-600 km/h.

not to mention the fact that airports are decentralized for the same reasons railways are not. If you take an ICE train in Europe, you can go from commercial centre to commercial centre in a matter of 1-2 hours. If you try doing the same via air, you spend 1-2 hours simply going to and from the airport, waiting for the eternal bottleneck to clear, going through security...

In time from door to door, trains have the upper hand until we're talking intercontinental, no matter if you use 70's tech or 10's tech.

[Anonymous No.8100979]

>>8099260
That's what happens when Elon Musk can't build electric airplanes.

> huuur duurrrr let's reinvent trains!
> let's call it derploop cuz it's nicer
> ITS BETTER GUYS TRUST ME

Electric airplanes when?

[Anonymous No.8100982]

>>8100860
This bitch is probably rich af and her normal bf is getting some serious cash from her parents to make her "happy".

This dude could easily fuck some normal pussy...

Also

> getting cucked by chromosomes

[Anonymous No.8100992]

>>8100963
>not questioning an eccentric, billionaire pipe dreamer.

[Anonymous No.8101006]

>>8100992
Not when he's MacGyvered his way from old ICBMs to space launch capability, built the most popular electric car and made the next "apple cult". No, not really. I don't kill the goose when it lays golden eggs.

[Anonymous No.8101100]

>>8100964
>US still imports the majority of it's products.

And then transports them over land. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time understanding this, the question is why would anyone choose to use the hyperloop over conventional trains; you (or anyone else) saying "well that's completely pointless, most freight is shipped by sea" is retarded since we're comparing how to transport something over land.

>>8100933
Efficiency is only important when it makes savings, if you have to pay more to use a more efficient system than you do to use a less efficient system then efficiency becomes completely pointless.

[Anonymous No.8101121]

>>8101100
Time is money m8
If the government allows him to build his hyperloop on top of the interstate or something, I could see it managing to be profitable

Obviously cargo hyperloop will likely never happen, he should also aim for the autonomous electric truck market

[Anonymous No.8101170]

>>8101121
>he should also aim for the autonomous electric truck market
top kek
we're barely scratching acceptable range for personal vehicles, and those aren't supposed to haul 40 tons of cargo across thousands of miles nonstop

[Anonymous No.8101171]

>>8101121
>Time is money m8

Only to a degree. Time becomes worth a lot less when you have to pay a lot more for the privilege.

[Anonymous No.8101219]

>>8101170
sure NOW
but what about 10 years from now?

[Anonymous No.8101223]

Where will it head to

[Anonymous No.8101237]

>>8101170
they're called trains

[Anonymous No.8101258]

>>8099278
>>8100772
well we did consider the tandem, then came up with a simpler (and way cheaper) solution that doesn't use axial compressors - basically a gas dynamics expert joined us and offered a rotational compressor system which checked out.

>"representing" us without formally declaring their relationship with us
the team started off 100% from /sci/, then that team imploded because aerodynamics design went nowhere with no aero engineer, so we had to patch up with students from ITU. it's a shame though, the initial team could have done wonders, like the Reddit team. The ITU students were mostly inexperienced, although they worked hard.
I've told from the beginning that after securing the sponsor and passing the design stage, I would start working a 4chan vs Reddit narrative, which would allow us to regroup a larger team on 4chan that would operate along with ITU without fucking up team identities. That didn't work because the following:

>I suspect they lost and didn't make it to the prototype stage (which is really to be expected from a design that apparently wasn't even close to finalized a mere month before competition).
True, and I'll give you that the design completion was a hectic process. Although we prepared our strategy based on a SpaceX rule that teams with sponsors autoadvance, and we were one of the few teams with a sponsor. However SpaceX changed the rules on the last week and introduced elimination, so our design flaws became way more decisive unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.8102358]

>>8100992
>questioning Bruce Wayne
>questioning Oliver Queen
>questioning Tony Stark

Let the heroes do what they must.