Never mind fast commuting...
...build a Wipeout track.
That is all.
Some said SpaceX billionaire Elon Musk was mad when he wanted to build Hyperloop – a high-tech transport system described as "a cross between a Concorde and a rail gun." On Thursday, he vowed to construct it anyway. Will be building a Hyperloop test track for companies and student teams to test out their pods. Most likely in …
People said Musk was mad when he started Tesla also. Few would argue that SpaceX was an incredibly high-risk investment when he started it also, but it seems to have paid off.
As I understand it, from what I've read about Musk elsewhere, he is more interested in pushing the limits with these sorts of things than in actually making money. The fact that he IS making money on them, I think, is a bit of a surprise. If that is true (which, grain of salt, it may not be since that's just my impression from a few articles I've read) then the whole Hyperloop thing doesn't seem quite so mad. Even if it's not true he's already made a mint from two "mad" ideas so why not go for a third?
The two are not comparable. Automobiles were known technology, as was using batteries to operate cars (some of the earliest cars built in the 1890s were electric) The skepticism was not "that technology will never work" but "it is too hard/expensive to start an automaker from scratch".
That's miles apart from the skepticism over hyperloop, which is not skepticism of Musk's business acumen (which he proved by making Tesla work) but skepticism towards making the basic technology and engineering of hyperloop work.
The fact is, linear induction motors are rather old technology, so we do know how to make them work. See maglev for an example in use today.
Evacuated tubes would be an issue though, seals degrade and would erode performance, but again, not an overwhelming technological issue.
Now, for solar powered everything, I'm a lot dubious on that one, solar powered car, possibly, but the magnetic motor, I'm inclined to doubt that one.
At least in US railroads (the old-school, slow kind) tracks are connected to ties which sit on a gravel surface.The design accounts for bot contraction and expansion of the tracks and ground movement (frost heave, water causing softening/swelling, etc). So far as I know, maglev and monorails also account fore movement of the track and ground. They need some flex.
But if you look at railway track each section has a small amount of space for thermal expansion at each end. A seal would been needed for a vacuum tube. I really don't think sealing would be that big of an issue though. I read up on a similar design using a vacuum tube and they reckoned the pumps would be able to deal with a completely missing seal something like every 10km.
I'm not big on any of the green tech, even his cars. I think it's likely a waste of time and resources. But at least it is his cash, not government cash, so I can live with it on the cars.
That being said, having solar panels on the tubes strikes me as an interesting idea. Even if it can't carry the whole load, it has the potential to significantly reduce draw from the grid. So it's worth investigating. It's not like you're going to use the outside of the tube for anything else. Maybe it pays, maybe it doesn't. If it doesn't but the tube proper works, the solar can be discarded for the second tube built.
Take a maglev train combine it with the cash tubes that you may see next to cash registers in some stores and you have some of the basic and proven principles for this venture.
I would expect by now, if they are considering the nausea of passengers while going around a corner they have decided that it is feasible from a technology perspective.
From a legislative, cost, time, rights perspective it may be a completely different matter. However if Musk reckons he can make something affordably, he does have some experience in that matter. As long as he and everyone else hasn't convinced themselves that all he touches turns to Gold.
In the end I would much prefer to see a billionaire spend his money on majorly outlandish projects that have a chance of success than either the Government wasting it, the billionaire squirreling it away and spending it on artwork, properties and small islands or the plans being shelved indefinitely because no-one had the balls to give it a go.
Absolutely. The transition to a low energy society will mean that most of our expectations will have to change. In 30 years the low energy solutions for almost everything we do will make today's high energy lifestyle seem profligate. Our grandchildren will be laughing at us, not at Musk.
In 30 years the low energy solutions for almost everything we do will make today's high energy lifestyle seem profligate.
That's one possibility. The other is that fusion really is 20 years away* and that we'll have essentially limitless clean energy 30 years from now. In that case we may actually end up going the other direction and today's lifestyle will seem low energy.
*Yes, yes, yes, I know. Fusions been 20 years away for 30 years now. But hey, eventually they'll be right about it being only 20 years off.
Did anyone yet work out what to do with all those high-energy neutrons coming out of the thing? After the plant has been running for 10 years, how radioactive is it going to be?
Fusion doesn't have to produce neutrons: there is aneutronic fusion, and one of the most promising reactions is 1p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV (or to put it more simply hydrogen + boron → helium + energy). Look up a thing called "focus fusion" to see it in action.
The man is a true genius. Starting a project that will cause the most talented engineers, new and old, to volunteer their time and talents on his project (who doesn't want to build and race a pod racer!). Once the right pods are designed and the tubes are tweaked --> PROFIT all around.
I'm crossing my fingers that his next project will be either flying cars or teleporters
"I'm crossing my fingers that his next project will be either flying cars...."
If Hyperloop can be made to work, then there won't be much of a market for flying cars, nor for overland passenger aircraft. That could do wonders for reducing emissions (for those that care), and for reducing fossil fuel demand, which has very tangible impacts on energy prices and resource use. I would imagine aircraft makers will soon be busy lobbying against this with all the resources they can muster.
Sadly, here in Britain the government is busy apeing the state of California, with an unfeasibly expensive, unproductive and largely unnecessary high speed rail line which will cost many tens of billions, yet is essentially being designed on the basis of giving the British taxpayer by 2030 a short length of line built to standards that were high tech in 1980. If HS2 were either maglev or Hyperloop I think it would have far more to commend it, but I think that Musk demonstrates the point: Governments cannot and will not innovate, always preferring the obsolete, the expensive, and the vested interest every time.
The difference between HS2 and the california thing is that HS2 has an extra political dimension to it. Viewed purely in terms of Great Britain it's entirely pointless, replicating lines that already exist and that travel at almost the same speed, but it was never meant to be merely a line between London and Edinburgh. It's part of the European high-speed rail network. Viewed from that perspective it makes sense - at least politically, if not economically.
But HS2 (as planned) doesn't even go to Edinburgh! If it was a true High Speed network linking all of GB (Bristol, Cardiff, Brum, Manchester, Leeds etc and on to Glasgow and Edinbugh) then there might be a point to the project. Cost would be insane though. As would the price of tickets. (But why is HS2 so much more expensive than building the original railways in the 19th century, which connected up just about every village and hamlet?)
"But why is HS2 so much more expensive than building the original railways in the 19th century, which connected up just about every village and hamlet?"
I suspect in inflation adjusted terms you'd find the costs were not dissimilar for the well engineered mainlines. The main difference is that the original Victorian routes were built speculatively by private capital, and when many proved unprofitable (railway companies being over-invested during the "Railway Mania" of the times) they went bust. In some cases the routes couldn't cover operating costs so they closed, but many others could operate after the original investors had been wiped out, and the new owner took over with much lower capital on their balance sheet.
This still happens. Both the Channel Tunnel, and HS1 (the high speed line from London to the tunnel) never covered their build costs, and the shareholders and creditors had to take a bath (in the case of HS1 the British taxpayer nobly stepped forward to shoulder some of the losses). And so it will be with HS2. Late, over-budget, uneconomic, with somebody destined to take a savage haircut on the cash "invested".
"But why is HS2 so much more expensive than building the original railways in the 19th century, which connected up just about every village and hamlet?"
Those railways were very expensive for the people who invested in them... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_Mania
I think if you include land acquisition costs into Musk's plan, the price advantage will shrink somewhat, but Musk's offer has a higher risk of overrun, or not working at all. Doing a proof of concept will help him get acceptance from people who are being asked to pay for it. Right now, you'd need to be insane to pour billions of taxpayers' money into an idea hasn't even been demonstrated as viable.
Nope. The Cali thing is purely political too.
Which is part of what appeals to me about Musk's idea. Even though politically he's a loony on the left, the project isn't about promoting his politics, it's about putting something out there that either works or doesn't. I respect that.
Hmmm, we need to do some language-innovating here. We clearly have the term "mad scientist" for people who do this sort of thing with their own two hands, but what do you call them if they're the ones hiring the boffins? I mean "mad entrepreneur" doesn't quite have the same vibe...
Not going to dis the basic concept. Seems wacky? Maybe, but a lot of our transport systems were deemed unfeasable, before they became everyday mundane.
Is California, or anywhere the ground doesn't stay still a great place to take it to once it works in Texas? Umm.
I don't think the problems the tube would face would differ greatly from what happens now with roads or other rail transit. You build the segments to make their failure during an earthquake a survivable event for passengers who might be affected, then deal with the aftermath as usual. Essentially, it's Cali, Cali has earthquakes. Deal with it. Oklahoma has tornadoes, Florida has hurricanes, and DC gets thunderstorms and ice. Everybody has some significant weather/geological issue that has to be dealt with.
Is California, or anywhere the ground doesn't stay still a great place to take it to once it works in Texas? Umm.
That doesn't worry me at all. The very rings that decellerate/accelerate the capsule would correct the placement of the vehicle itself. You'd have to have an extreme slew rate for it to make a difference. Heck, Bob Heinlein featured that as part of the design in Starman Jones and in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Come to think of it, the solar panels featured as part of a design (Douglas-Martin Sunscreens) in The Roads Must Roll. Except for the Sunscreens, and some of the materials we're playing with today seem appropos, none of it is novel (yes, pun intended).
Monorail, monorail, monorail!
(Sorry, couldn't resist - if it's any consolation that jingle will be in my head all bloody day now too).
Anyway on a similar topic - "But it now appears Silicon Valley's answer to Hank Scorpio has decided to go ahead."
Somehow methinks it's more the other way about, "inspiration behind" (at least in part) rather than "answer to"...
Caltrain is in dire need of replacement by something without level crossings, and the SF Bay area isn't a bad place for tech innovation. It would be a nice way to develop / showcase the technology, and could be extended to LA. "High Speed Rail" isn't.