Virgin Hyperloop's Historic Pod is Going to the Smithsonian

[Forogil]

Considering all this would you say security checks would be lessened for Hyperloop as it becomes more common and widespread, or would it remain as a constant element? I'd wager a Hyperloop ticket would already be pricier than a regular train ticket, so they might be able to bump it up even further as much as security infrastructure requires.

That depends on the actual and perceived threat, and more importantly on whether Hyperloop actually is built.

It's just that a large part of Hyperloop's attractiveness is that it is able to take people to places fast, making it less of a big deal to live elsewhere than the city your employment is at.

I don't see how hyperloop solves that problem.

Basically you need lots of fine-grained public transport to handle getting people from home to work, and it's difficult to have public transport that is both fast and start and stop at lots of places. Having parts of a train that split into different directions is usually just confusing (been there) - and trying to solve it with even more pods would make it even less convenient and increase the cost a lot.

[Daedius]

But can I send documents around in it still?

[PC2]

But can I send documents around in it still?

What? Documents are digital now.

[Forogil]

What? Documents are digital now.

And if they aren't digital one usually scans them and then sends the digital version.

I don't see that rapid transportation for the few documents that actually need to be sent physically is a major market.

[cubby]

Basically you need lots of fine-grained public transport to handle getting people from home to work, and it's difficult to have public transport that is both fast and start and stop at lots of places. Having parts of a train that split into different directions is usually just confusing (been there) - and trying to solve it with even more pods would make it even less convenient and increase the cost a lot.

The larger issue there is people living 2+ hours away from major metropolis' who still have to commute into work. The Hyperloop (and/or other rapid transportation systems) solves the 5+ hour commute (2H each way, plus ancillary transport from the bigger hub - i.e. train to downtown, then bus/Link to office) by making the 4 hour both commute each day down to 30 minutes. I believe that is what @Zuben was suggesting.

- - - Updated - - -

And if they aren't digital one usually scans them and then sends the digital version.

I don't see that rapid transportation for the few documents that actually need to be sent physically is a major market.

I have to agree with you on that one - even major contracts requiring "wet" signatures are moving to digital. Everything else was there 10 years ago. DocuSign and other similar companies have pretty much put the legal document courier business to bed.

[Forogil]

The larger issue there is people living 2+ hours away from major metropolis' who still have to commute into work. The Hyperloop (and/or other rapid transportation systems) solves the 5+ hour commute (2H each way, plus ancillary transport from the bigger hub - i.e. train to downtown, then bus/Link to office) by making the 4 hour both commute each day down to 30 minutes.

That makes little sense, as most things with Hyperloop. People will not have 15 minute from home to Hyperloop station and then 15 minute from Hyperloop station to work, it's more likely to be 40 minutes to an hour for each of those trips.

- - - Updated - - -

You two should get a room. I love that your entire ridiculous disagreement with my premise was the phrase "under construction". Seriously, let us know the date, we'll send flowers and a nice serving bowl. Would you prefer the term "under development"?

My new point is that you said it was "under construction" when it was supposed to be under construction later during 2019.
It's now 2021 and it's not clear that it's actually under construction yet on that project - and we see Branson no longer chairing Virgin Hyperloop.

Some people see through all this; and others don't.

[cubby]

That makes little sense, as most things with Hyperloop. People will not have 15 minute from home to Hyperloop station and then 15 minute from Hyperloop station to work, it's more likely to be 40 minutes to an hour for each of those trips.

I guess it depends on where you live. The math is pretty clear though - especially on Hyperloop station to city, that time would be cut down dramatically. 15-20 minutes max, if it's used that way. Tell me what you're thinking here, I feel like I'm missing something with what you're saying.

My new point is that you said it was "under construction" when it was supposed to be under construction later during 2019.
It's now 2021 and it's not clear that it's actually under construction yet on that project - and we see Branson no longer chairing Virgin Hyperloop.

Some people see through all this; and others don't.

Gotcha - so can we just agree on "under development" or whatever and put this silly issue to bed? The horse died long ago.

[Edge-]

I guess it depends on where you live. The math is pretty clear though - especially on Hyperloop station to city, that time would be cut down dramatically. 15-20 minutes max, if it's used that way. Tell me what you're thinking here, I feel like I'm missing something with what you're saying.

Assuming it gets to the theoretical speeds. Also assuming it's legit just a straight shot, which means centralized transportation hubs that may be out of the way of someone's normal commute, so they're still commuting to the out of the way transportation hub. If it has stops like traditional commuter trains etc. then it's completely pointless.

Because even if the direct transit on hyperloop may be super fast, getting to/from both the departure/arrival hubs may end up functionally adding back on most of the commute time anyways. At best, it's a functional super-expensive and theoretically-faster version of commuter trains.

Again, great theoretical applications and in perfect worlds where you can easily get to/from stations to home/work it'd save mountains of time. But given the state of infrastructure and population densities in the US, I wonder how practical it would even be as a commuter train compared to less expensive options.

[cubby]

Assuming it gets to the theoretical speeds. Also assuming it's legit just a straight shot, which means centralized transportation hubs that may be out of the way of someone's normal commute, so they're still commuting to the out of the way transportation hub. If it has stops like traditional commuter trains etc. then it's completely pointless.

Because even if the direct transit on hyperloop may be super fast, getting to/from both the departure/arrival hubs may end up functionally adding back on most of the commute time anyways. At best, it's a functional super-expensive and theoretically-faster version of commuter trains.

Again, great theoretical applications and in perfect worlds where you can easily get to/from stations to home/work it'd save mountains of time. But given the state of infrastructure and population densities in the US, I wonder how practical it would even be as a commuter train compared to less expensive options.

Assuming a lot, for sure.

For the above, I was assuming it would replace the current "transit" system in place taking people from the outer regions, 2+ hours away from major city, and bring them in that way. But solid point about number of stops and location making the saved time moot by adding in other places.

[Edge-]

Assuming a lot, for sure.

For the above, I was assuming it would replace the current "transit" system in place taking people from the outer regions, 2+ hours away from major city, and bring them in that way. But solid point about number of stops and location making the saved time moot by adding in other places.

It depends on the distance for "2 hours", because that can differ wildly based on where you live.

If it's anything but a straight shot, I can't see how it would be an improvement over the current solutions. It'd still have to do the usual speedup/slowdown between stations and likely never hit theoretical speeds. And given the size of the pods (28 people?) it seems like you'd need a LOT to replace even the normal commuter trains that act a bit more like hyperloop would.

All the marketing sounds fucking amazing, but even if we take all the hype at face-value and ignore the technical challenges there are still a lot of questions on just how practical it will be for a lot of everyday solutions.

[cubby]

It depends on the distance for "2 hours", because that can differ wildly based on where you live.

If it's anything but a straight shot, I can't see how it would be an improvement over the current solutions. It'd still have to do the usual speedup/slowdown between stations and likely never hit theoretical speeds. And given the size of the pods (28 people?) it seems like you'd need a LOT to replace even the normal commuter trains that act a bit more like hyperloop would.

All the marketing sounds fucking amazing, but even if we take all the hype at face-value and ignore the technical challenges there are still a lot of questions on just how practical it will be for a lot of everyday solutions.

Ignoring the issues with fault lines, if Hyperloop went up in California, between San Jose and San Diego (San Francisco seems like the obvious choice, but I think getting in there would be even more difficult than the existing theoretical challenges). If we assumed there would be four total stops (San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno/Bakersfield, and San Jose) over a distance of 460 miles, it would probably end up being a 2 hour trip, with stops and acceleration/deceleration taken into account. Normally that drive would take 6 hours. A flight would be 4ish - with airport issues on both ends.

This is back-of-the-envelope math of course.

[Edge-]

Ignoring the issues with fault lines, if Hyperloop went up in California, between San Jose and San Diego (San Francisco seems like the obvious choice, but I think getting in there would be even more difficult than the existing theoretical challenges). If we assumed there would be four total stops (San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno/Bakersfield, and San Jose) over a distance of 460 miles, it would probably end up being a 2 hour trip, with stops and acceleration/deceleration taken into account. Normally that drive would take 6 hours. A flight would be 4ish - with airport issues on both ends.

This is back-of-the-envelope math of course.

Added time for the airports (there would be added time for boarding the hyperloop, too, though likely less) sure, but the flight itself is maybe 45-50 minutes.

That time isn't too different than the projected travel time for the high speed rail that was supposed to go from SF -> LA...before the cost went out of control and they scaled it way back to a much more pointless Bakersfield -> Merced line in the immediate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...igh-Speed_Rail

Which again, doesn't seem like too much of an improvement over current solutions outside of sounding really fancy and high tech and sexy. The speeds its achieved so far (around 240MPH) aren't much different than what they expected the high speed rail to run at (220MPH). And this is all with the US fucking sucking big fat donkey balls at building rail/trains because apparently we don't bother to learn how to improve from countries that build safe and secure rail networks at a fraction of the cost and in much less time.

Which is another thing: We already suck big fat donkey balls at building traditional rail...I don't want to imagine how much worse we'd be at trying to do something even more challenging and expensive.

[Magical Mudcrab]

It's just that a large part of Hyperloop's attractiveness is that it is able to take people to places fast, making it less of a big deal to live elsewhere than the city your employment is at. If it's essentially just an alternative to air travel without much improvement to convenience and time-saving then I don't see much point in it, other than perhaps lowering pollution (assuming Hyperloop's construction and operation would pollute less, of course).

This sort of transportation problem can be solved with a maglev train (or hell, even simple high speed trains) if there was any real intent to solve it; however, the hyperloop is not meant to actually be a solution to a problem. It's a solution without a reasonable problem statement. Maglev trains are larger (allowing them to accommodate more passengers), faster, and cheaper than the hyperloop, as well as being well understood technologies that do not need to need to undergo the growing pains that new technologies have to (i.e.: missed considerations, such as poorly understood points of failure in the system). The hyperloop is really only designed for technophiles to drool over it while ignoring the problems with the technology.

[cubby]

Added time for the airports (there would be added time for boarding the hyperloop, too, though likely less) sure, but the flight itself is maybe 45-50 minutes.

That time isn't too different than the projected travel time for the high speed rail that was supposed to go from SF -> LA...before the cost went out of control and they scaled it way back to a much more pointless Bakersfield -> Merced line in the immediate - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...igh-Speed_Rail

Which again, doesn't seem like too much of an improvement over current solutions outside of sounding really fancy and high tech and sexy. The speeds its achieved so far (around 240MPH) aren't much different than what they expected the high speed rail to run at (220MPH). And this is all with the US fucking sucking big fat donkey balls at building rail/trains because apparently we don't bother to learn how to improve from countries that build safe and secure rail networks at a fraction of the cost and in much less time.

Which is another thing: We already suck big fat donkey balls at building traditional rail...I don't want to imagine how much worse we'd be at trying to do something even more challenging and expensive.

The flight is actually around 1.5 hours. But your concerns and points still hold up well.

Through all of this, I'm wondering what kind of acceleration and deceleration are available to Hyperloop pods. You have mentioned acceleration issues before. I'm seeing that it's fairly easy to get up to 600 mph in under 5 minutes - that would be about 0.09g constant acceleration. If I'm remembering right, that seems like a pretty easy acceleration to both provide and handle as a passenger.

- - - Updated - - -

This sort of transportation problem can be solved with a maglev train (or hell, even simple high speed trains) if there was any real intent to solve it; however, the hyperloop is not meant to actually be a solution to a problem. It's a solution without a reasonable problem statement. Maglev trains are larger (allowing them to accommodate more passengers), faster, and cheaper than the hyperloop, as well as being well understood technologies that do not need to need to undergo the growing pains that new technologies have to (i.e.: missed considerations, such as poorly understood points of failure in the system). The hyperloop is really only designed for technophiles to drool over it while ignoring the problems with the technology.

I agree that Hyperloop seems to be moving forward without a specific problem to solve (I like that concept, too - interesting), but it does answer the basic "getting there faster" need, such as it is. If Hyperloop can be built, and functions at the speeds they are claiming, it will be more than twice as fast a maglev trains (current top speed is approx 500 kph for maglev).

[Magical Mudcrab]

I agree that Hyperloop seems to be moving forward without a specific problem to solve (I like that concept, too - interesting), but it does answer the basic "getting there faster" need, such as it is. If Hyperloop can be built, and functions at the speeds they are claiming, it will be more than twice as fast a maglev trains (current top speed is approx 500 kph for maglev).

There's no reason to believe they will be able to deliver on this. Their tests are still nowhere near maglev speeds, and have not improved in 4~ years. <snip> Removed the second part. Thought about it, decided that the G force felt during acceleration probably won't matter as its a function of acceleration, not speed.

[PC2]

I agree that Hyperloop seems to be moving forward without a specific problem to solve (I like that concept, too - interesting), but it does answer the basic "getting there faster" need, such as it is.

If I want to go somewhere and I can't travel at 99% of the speed of light towards my destination then it's a problem for me(I like to go fast). Is it a big problem to have that's on the same level as not having enough food and water? Of course not, but not all problems are serious problems.

[cubby]

There's no reason to believe they will be able to deliver on this. Their tests are still nowhere near maglev speeds, and have not improved in 4~ years. That said, even if the proposed top speed was feasible by the technology, 700 mph is like 5 G's of force at ground level, which could cause people to pass out and possibly die as your brain and organs are denied blood, depending on how long it takes to get to speed.

Let's assume they can deliver on their speeds, and their top speed is possible. Where are you getting 5 G's of force at 700 mph? Once you achieve the speed, there is no G force - G's come from acceleration, not cruising speed. And accelerating to 700 mph, starting at 0 mph, can be achieved in under 5 minutes at 0.09 G's. What am I missing here?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I mean I see a lot of people giving the poor guy crap about the hyperloop but it isn't like the guy didn't move onto revolutionizing electric cars and space travel. I will give him a fairly earn mulligan.

[Magical Mudcrab]

Let's assume they can deliver on their speeds, and their top speed is possible. Where are you getting 5 G's of force at 700 mph? Once you achieve the speed, there is no G force - G's come from acceleration, not cruising speed. And accelerating to 700 mph, starting at 0 mph, can be achieved in under 5 minutes at 0.09 G's. What am I missing here?

Yeah, nevermind that part, I snipped it in my post. For whatever reason I was thinking G force was a function of speed, not acceleration.

- - - Updated - - -

Well he have companies here in Germany that build solar roadways, we have cities paying for them, at least one i know of has been build (a bycicle roadway), it doesn't produce energy, has massive overheating problems and is constantly broken.
Just because companies and cities are involved doesn't mean it's nonsense.

Yeah, solar roads have had a large number of problems, including in the U.S. where one installation caught fire. It's simply not practical.

[Edge-]

The flight is actually around 1.5 hours. But your concerns and points still hold up well.

Huh, seeing flights scheduled for 1H20/30M but having made that flight far too many times over the years I don't remember it ever being over an hour. That's likely including taxying etc I guess?

I'm seeing that it's fairly easy to get up to 600 mph in under 5 minutes - that would be about 0.09g constant acceleration.

Theoretically fairly easy*

Last I saw the fastest they got one going is 240mph, so they're still in the realm of current high-speed rail, and below what more recent trains are capable of (300mph+)

If I'm remembering right, that seems like a pretty easy acceleration to both provide and handle as a passenger.

I'm not thinkin folks are gonna be blasted back into their seats or anything. Just dealing with the acceleration/deceleration slowing down the travel time since it's not running at its theoretical full speed from start to finish.