SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Competition(spacex.com)
spacex.com
SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Competition
http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop/
26 comments
I'm an aeromechanical engineer around LA and might be interested in contributing some design/analysis work in a non-leadership role. Current work is in structural analysis, interested in aerodynamics though (was my master's concentration years ago).
So now I'm very curious: can anyone comment on what's the biggest collaboration of this sort to have come out of Hacker News?
I'm a Toronto-based Mechanical Design Engineer with an Electrical Engineering education, I've worked in Toronto and Mountain View.
I've designed airborne laser LIDAR scanning systems and large-scale lighting solutions. I've also done a lot of work with stress and heat management, mass electronics production and packaging.
I'd be interested in taking up a project like this and seeing how far we could go with it!
If you're interested, shoot me a message: [email protected].
I've designed airborne laser LIDAR scanning systems and large-scale lighting solutions. I've also done a lot of work with stress and heat management, mass electronics production and packaging.
I'd be interested in taking up a project like this and seeing how far we could go with it!
If you're interested, shoot me a message: [email protected].
This immediately reminded me of the early days of steam when, very similarly, at Rainhill a one mile test track of railway was constructed and people were invited to compete their different locomotives. The winner was Stevenson's rocket which amazed the large crowd by travelling at a heady top speed of 30mph.
An "also ran" was the amusing cycloped, the only non-steam entry, a horse on top of a treadmill walking the carriage forward.
An "also ran" was the amusing cycloped, the only non-steam entry, a horse on top of a treadmill walking the carriage forward.
Hoping you were not old enough to know this first hand ;)
This is fascinating? Where did you come across this info?
This is fascinating? Where did you come across this info?
There's an excellent book on the start of the railways "Fire and Steam: A New History of the Railways in Britain". It's very interesting and full of side stories about how people adapted to the start of the steam age.
For example the one of the first railway lines was more like a toll road. A company built the tracks, and then other companies paid to run their locomotives on them. This lead to chaos where two locomotives would meet on the single track, neither was willing to back up, and so the passengers would often get out and fight each other over it.
For example the one of the first railway lines was more like a toll road. A company built the tracks, and then other companies paid to run their locomotives on them. This lead to chaos where two locomotives would meet on the single track, neither was willing to back up, and so the passengers would often get out and fight each other over it.
>> neither was willing to back up, and so the passengers would often get out and fight each other over it.
Hahahaha..
Hahahaha..
Adding it to my reading list. Thank you!
There's a Wikipedia article on this, it seems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainhill_Trials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainhill_Trials
That fact really made me laugh when I looked into it. Thank you for the cycloped fact.
Wait But Why - Tim Urban's take: http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/hyperloop.html
Thanks for the article. I'm really hopeful that this competition will bring out something on the table (maybe a prototype).
It would be really nice to be able to travel between nearby cities in the US without spending hours driving / flying. Flying itself is not really bad if it's not because of the time you need to waste until you actually fly.
It would be really nice to be able to travel between nearby cities in the US without spending hours driving / flying. Flying itself is not really bad if it's not because of the time you need to waste until you actually fly.
> SpaceX will construct a one-mile test track adjacent to our Hawthorne, California headquarters
I'm not sure which would be the more remarkable achievement, getting the Hyperloop working, or obtaining the real estate to build a mile-long test track in Hawthorne.
I'm not sure which would be the more remarkable achievement, getting the Hyperloop working, or obtaining the real estate to build a mile-long test track in Hawthorne.
I live in Hawthorne. Residential real-estate is fairly expensive in some areas (western side, where ~1200sqft goes for ~$700K), but commercial real estate is still not that expensive. Plus, Hawthorne is very diverse and Spacex is located on the less expensive east side of the city.
Nearby El Segundo is quite a different story, which I assume is part of the reason SpaceX moved from El Segundo to Hawthorne.
I also expect that they will run the test track around their current airport campus. I'm not even sure if they need to buy all that much new property to do so. They may just need to cut a deal with (or buy) the airport.
The cool thing is that this test track should be visible from the 105 freeway (along with the massive Tesla logo). So even people not familiar with the project will be enticed to find out more!
As a Hawthorne resident, I am excited!
Nearby El Segundo is quite a different story, which I assume is part of the reason SpaceX moved from El Segundo to Hawthorne.
I also expect that they will run the test track around their current airport campus. I'm not even sure if they need to buy all that much new property to do so. They may just need to cut a deal with (or buy) the airport.
The cool thing is that this test track should be visible from the 105 freeway (along with the massive Tesla logo). So even people not familiar with the project will be enticed to find out more!
As a Hawthorne resident, I am excited!
They could use what I will call a rocket-estate crash coupling:
1. "Accidentally" crash a rocket near some properties there (far enough not to do any actual damage).
2. Wait for said property prices to crash.
1. "Accidentally" crash a rocket near some properties there (far enough not to do any actual damage).
2. Wait for said property prices to crash.
They are right next to Hawthorne Airport... that's the only place I can see the track being located. The rest of the surroundings are industrial buildings.
Aren't these meant to be underground?
Nope. Above ground, with solar panels on top.
I believe it would be overhead too as shown on their site. I assume it would be easier to construct overhead tracks adjacent or over the freeways.
For the most part it is to be elevated over the I-5 median, which helps with right-of-way.
The costs of an underground tunnel connecting LA with SF would be prohibitive.
Yes probably cheaper than acquiring the property rights for above ground in that area.
Well the design review is happening at Texas A&M. I'm sure they could have done the test track here easily.
Why not over the parking lots or back alleys, etc?
Cost. A full-scale hyperloop needs to be on pylons, but a 1-mile test track can be built directly on the ground, which would be a lot cheaper. Why pay for pylons if you don't have to?
Right. Wait for the stentorian voice to tell you when you need more pylons.
So you can test the pylons.
I thought this was an interesting tidbit from the linked rules pdf:
> In addition to hosting the competition, SpaceX will likely build a pod for demonstration purposes only. This team will not be eligible to win.
> In addition to hosting the competition, SpaceX will likely build a pod for demonstration purposes only. This team will not be eligible to win.
I think that's admirable, and doesn't strike me as out of the ordinary for Elon. SpaceX has some remarkable engineering talent (which also transfers tech to Tesla; see their friction stir welding technique that is used by both companies now).
It wouldn't be fair for SpaceX to be able to win.
It wouldn't be fair for SpaceX to be able to win.
I agree SpaceX recusing itself from winning its own competition is the right thing, but the bit I found interesting was just that they were building a pod as well as the track, putting even more skin in the metaphorical game.
I've had projects before where I came up with an interesting idea but dismissed it as too costly (in time or money or what have you), but it stuck in my head. So then, well maybe I'll just do a quick proof of concept... And then, well, maybe I can hack something a bit more complete together. Eventually, despite myself, it makes it to being a fully formed thing just because it was so interesting I couldn't ignore it.
I'm wondering if the Hyperloop is going to be that sort of thing for Elon et al.
I've had projects before where I came up with an interesting idea but dismissed it as too costly (in time or money or what have you), but it stuck in my head. So then, well maybe I'll just do a quick proof of concept... And then, well, maybe I can hack something a bit more complete together. Eventually, despite myself, it makes it to being a fully formed thing just because it was so interesting I couldn't ignore it.
I'm wondering if the Hyperloop is going to be that sort of thing for Elon et al.
Elon Musk doesn't have the time to learn civil engineering, property development, let alone the politics surrounding it.
I am pretty sure you were joking, but just in case ... Elon already sat down and decided to learn enough rocket science to found SpaceX, and enough engineering to found Tesla. He's learned more in his "spare time" than most of us have learned at university, and then has gone on to apply the lever of business to it.
If Elon felt that it were necessary to get his pet project done, I believe he'd make time to master civil engineering and politics to the degree that it were necessary.
Basically, he's the real Tony Stark. ;)
If Elon felt that it were necessary to get his pet project done, I believe he'd make time to master civil engineering and politics to the degree that it were necessary.
Basically, he's the real Tony Stark. ;)
Civil engineering is fairly rigid and defined by applicable building codes. There isn't any real room to innovate in the industry, at least in the public sector. "Mastering" civil engineering just entails becoming familiar with the code and then it becomes a game of politics and liability.
More likely, he would just hire a civil engineering firm. Laws throughout the country are such that you can't really buy your way into the industry the same way he has with Tesla and SpaceX. Practicing civil engineering requires licensure everywhere in the USA.
More likely, he would just hire a civil engineering firm. Laws throughout the country are such that you can't really buy your way into the industry the same way he has with Tesla and SpaceX. Practicing civil engineering requires licensure everywhere in the USA.
[deleted]
[deleted]
After Elon said "fuck it" and built his own rocket motors after getting screwed by the Russians, I don't see him wasting any time with politics or property development (who I'd argue would be leeches/vultures trying to extract their tax on the project).
He's just commission 2-4 TBMs (tunnel boring machines, about ~$20MM/each), drop them in the ground, and have them start digging hyperloop tunnels.
He's just commission 2-4 TBMs (tunnel boring machines, about ~$20MM/each), drop them in the ground, and have them start digging hyperloop tunnels.
You don't want to do that for reasons that Elon understands well.
Part of Elon's design for the pylons allows the track to remain stable even when the pylons are moved by an earthquake. Which is kind of important with pods moving around Mach 1. Doing the same thing with a tunnel requires you to have cut a large enough hole to shift the tube inside of. Which is a massively harder piece of engineering.
Part of Elon's design for the pylons allows the track to remain stable even when the pylons are moved by an earthquake. Which is kind of important with pods moving around Mach 1. Doing the same thing with a tunnel requires you to have cut a large enough hole to shift the tube inside of. Which is a massively harder piece of engineering.
Interested. TBMs are designed to drill through the earth, and then to wrap the tunnel walls with concrete blocks that are rated to last over 100 years. I'm curious if a TBM could cut through the earth and build hyperloop infrastructure behind it as well.
As with everything, there are tradeoffs. Building above ground means land use issues, and the tunnel needs to be so small you can't stand in the hyperloop pods. Building underground means more support infrastructure, but you're limited less by politics and land use problems and more by engineering.
The questions is: which is cheaper to solve? Engineering? Or politics?
As with everything, there are tradeoffs. Building above ground means land use issues, and the tunnel needs to be so small you can't stand in the hyperloop pods. Building underground means more support infrastructure, but you're limited less by politics and land use problems and more by engineering.
The questions is: which is cheaper to solve? Engineering? Or politics?
The answer is an emphatic no. Concrete can do many things, but it will not hold back a slip fault. Concrete roads, bridges, etc will buckle and break in the slip zone no matter what they are rated for.
Take the 1906 earthquake as an example. As http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/move.html says, the horizontal slip was 21 feet at one point. Something like the Hyperloop has to be designed with the expectation of facing a similar event. Concrete is simply not strong enough to hold back a wall of dirt trying to move 21 feet.
Or for more recent history https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/landers-and-big-bear-califo... where the slip was 18 feet horizontally and 6 feet vertically. And that one demonstrates that it isn't enough to build something special for every slip zone you know about. Because in a real earthquake you are likely to discover slip zones that nobody noticed.
Take the 1906 earthquake as an example. As http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/move.html says, the horizontal slip was 21 feet at one point. Something like the Hyperloop has to be designed with the expectation of facing a similar event. Concrete is simply not strong enough to hold back a wall of dirt trying to move 21 feet.
Or for more recent history https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/landers-and-big-bear-califo... where the slip was 18 feet horizontally and 6 feet vertically. And that one demonstrates that it isn't enough to build something special for every slip zone you know about. Because in a real earthquake you are likely to discover slip zones that nobody noticed.
How is the issue of a horizontal slip different for a tunnel versus for an above ground structure? Neither piece of infrastructure can be economically designed to withstand a seismic movement if the structure crosses the fault where the offset occurs.
Why does the possibility of an offset result in a tunnel being an "emphatic no" while still allowing for this pylon idea?
Why does the possibility of an offset result in a tunnel being an "emphatic no" while still allowing for this pylon idea?
Because steel is very ductile and tough, where as concrete is very strong, but brittle.
Make a tunnel in the ground with concrete and if the ground moves, your tunnel moves too, along with it. Unless your tunnel is stronger than the ground. Which it isn't. Or if it is, it's a 10ft diameter tunnel with 40 foot thick walls. Which is SEVERELY uneconomic.
Make it out of steel and put it in the air, and things get a lot different. The air doesn't make the tunnel move so instead of being surrounded on all sides by things which can exert force (in the ground) it's instead only acted upon by the pylons.
The pylons are supposed to be around every 100 feet. That means if the earth moves 20 feet sideways between two pylons the steel has a chance to bend and move rather than be sheared. And you can design the pylons to be strong enough to hold the tube up, but not so strong as to break the tube. So if things move a long distance, the closest pylons will break free from the tube and the tube will be supported by pylons which are further apart. That reduces the angles necessary to keep the rest of the tube on the remaining pylons which support it, and that means you're asking even less of the steel.
Sure the tube might get some bends in it that it wasn't designed for, and it might even sag down. But you can give the cars braking mechanisms that'll automatically be triggered in an earthquake so that the forces experienced when encountering these new features isn't so unpleasant.
The alternative with the concrete tube in the ground is that the tube shears into two parts which are no longer connected. That means that the tube suddenly stops and you're crashing into the dirt at 500+ mph.
Make a tunnel in the ground with concrete and if the ground moves, your tunnel moves too, along with it. Unless your tunnel is stronger than the ground. Which it isn't. Or if it is, it's a 10ft diameter tunnel with 40 foot thick walls. Which is SEVERELY uneconomic.
Make it out of steel and put it in the air, and things get a lot different. The air doesn't make the tunnel move so instead of being surrounded on all sides by things which can exert force (in the ground) it's instead only acted upon by the pylons.
The pylons are supposed to be around every 100 feet. That means if the earth moves 20 feet sideways between two pylons the steel has a chance to bend and move rather than be sheared. And you can design the pylons to be strong enough to hold the tube up, but not so strong as to break the tube. So if things move a long distance, the closest pylons will break free from the tube and the tube will be supported by pylons which are further apart. That reduces the angles necessary to keep the rest of the tube on the remaining pylons which support it, and that means you're asking even less of the steel.
Sure the tube might get some bends in it that it wasn't designed for, and it might even sag down. But you can give the cars braking mechanisms that'll automatically be triggered in an earthquake so that the forces experienced when encountering these new features isn't so unpleasant.
The alternative with the concrete tube in the ground is that the tube shears into two parts which are no longer connected. That means that the tube suddenly stops and you're crashing into the dirt at 500+ mph.
If the pylons are every 100 feet and the joint offset is 20 feet between pylons then that implies a shear strain of .20. This is LARGE for a shear strain. Assuming a shear modulus of 11500 ksi then a shear strain of .2 results in a shear stress of 2300 ksi which is well beyond the ultimate strength of any steel that I've ever worked with.
Now your argument that the tube will just break free of the pylons seems like it has merit; however, the question of "why do we have all these pylons every 100 ft if we only need them every XXX ft?" should immediately spring to mind. The answer obviously lies with the rigidity of the tube between support points.
In order to get into the realm of the possibility for the steel being able to take a 20 ft offset you're talking about putting supports once a mile, at most.
Again, neither the pylon idea nor the tunnel idea have a feasible/economic engineering solution for displacement along a fault if it occurs along alignment.
Now your argument that the tube will just break free of the pylons seems like it has merit; however, the question of "why do we have all these pylons every 100 ft if we only need them every XXX ft?" should immediately spring to mind. The answer obviously lies with the rigidity of the tube between support points.
In order to get into the realm of the possibility for the steel being able to take a 20 ft offset you're talking about putting supports once a mile, at most.
Again, neither the pylon idea nor the tunnel idea have a feasible/economic engineering solution for displacement along a fault if it occurs along alignment.
> why do we have all these pylons every 100 ft if we only need them every XXX ft?
Because most of the time people want to have their design include a safety factor.
Further there's a huge difference between "what this system is designed to do all day every day" and "what this system will do in the 5 minutes between an earthquake beginning and the time that the system is fully halted until repairs can be made"
Have you ever seen the remains of a power pole hanging from a power line? That would seem to indicate that there exists excess strength in the system, or that the line support structures are substantially overbuilt.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130601193956-15-...
I suspect that in a hyperloop you could lose 5-10 pylons in a row and what would happen is that the tube would sag well beyond normal operational parameters between the remaining pylons, quite possibly even touching the ground. The reason that so much extra strength will probably exist in the system is that there's a limit to how much deflection you can tolerate without jostling passengers too much for them to buy tickets on a regular basis. And that small deflection means that there's a lot of extra strength in the system, even though it's not strictly needed just to hold things up.
This is why machine tools have giant castings well in excess of the strength needed for the machine to stay together. It's because the Young's modulus matters far more than the yield strength or the ultimate tensile strength when you're trying to build a machine that can hold a sub 0.001" tolerance.
So if you happened to be traveling in that overbuilt tube at 500mph just after it's fallen to the ground, you'd quite likely bump (or smash) your head on the sides and ceiling of your vehicle.
But what you wouldn't do is slam into the dirt that's now at the end of the tube like you would if your buried concrete tube was sheared 20ft by a fault line.
Because most of the time people want to have their design include a safety factor.
Further there's a huge difference between "what this system is designed to do all day every day" and "what this system will do in the 5 minutes between an earthquake beginning and the time that the system is fully halted until repairs can be made"
Have you ever seen the remains of a power pole hanging from a power line? That would seem to indicate that there exists excess strength in the system, or that the line support structures are substantially overbuilt.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130601193956-15-...
I suspect that in a hyperloop you could lose 5-10 pylons in a row and what would happen is that the tube would sag well beyond normal operational parameters between the remaining pylons, quite possibly even touching the ground. The reason that so much extra strength will probably exist in the system is that there's a limit to how much deflection you can tolerate without jostling passengers too much for them to buy tickets on a regular basis. And that small deflection means that there's a lot of extra strength in the system, even though it's not strictly needed just to hold things up.
This is why machine tools have giant castings well in excess of the strength needed for the machine to stay together. It's because the Young's modulus matters far more than the yield strength or the ultimate tensile strength when you're trying to build a machine that can hold a sub 0.001" tolerance.
So if you happened to be traveling in that overbuilt tube at 500mph just after it's fallen to the ground, you'd quite likely bump (or smash) your head on the sides and ceiling of your vehicle.
But what you wouldn't do is slam into the dirt that's now at the end of the tube like you would if your buried concrete tube was sheared 20ft by a fault line.
The pylons are built with an internal structure allowing them to move horizontally both ways, and vertically. The tube itself can remain stationary in the air. We do not have a cost effective way to allow the tube to remain stationary if it is attached to the ground and the ground moves. And avoiding buckling and sudden bends kind of matters when you're traveling at mach 1.
Search for "earthquake" in http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha.pdf to confirm that this is a design factor the Elon explicitly considered.
Search for "earthquake" in http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha.pdf to confirm that this is a design factor the Elon explicitly considered.
I'm sorry but no - this does not answer the question. Expansion joints and "lateral dampers" do not make the problem of a joint offset go away. In order to resist a horizontal or vertical offset of 20+ feet with the tube "remaining stationary" then the pylon must be built to allow an extra 40+ feet to account for this movement.
How, exactly, does the pylon not suffer the same design flaw as the tunnel under the use case that you yourself brought up of a horizontal or vertical offset occuring along a splay?
How, exactly, does the pylon not suffer the same design flaw as the tunnel under the use case that you yourself brought up of a horizontal or vertical offset occuring along a splay?
Where do you get your 40+ feet figure from?
If each side can move the tunnel 10 feet relative to itself without breaking, you should theoretically be able to handle up to a 20 foot slip between plates. One side bends one away, the other the other way. The pylons move 20 feet relative to each other, and only 10 feet relative to the tube.
That said, my information is based on the blueprint that Elon published and I already linked to. It includes graphs showing numerical simulations of how their design is supposed to respond to earthquakes. If you have further questions, you can start with that, then download the designs that they and others have produced and do your own work.
I am not an engineer. However I do know that engineers have done exactly what I suggested and come to the conclusion that his design is feasible.
If each side can move the tunnel 10 feet relative to itself without breaking, you should theoretically be able to handle up to a 20 foot slip between plates. One side bends one away, the other the other way. The pylons move 20 feet relative to each other, and only 10 feet relative to the tube.
That said, my information is based on the blueprint that Elon published and I already linked to. It includes graphs showing numerical simulations of how their design is supposed to respond to earthquakes. If you have further questions, you can start with that, then download the designs that they and others have produced and do your own work.
I am not an engineer. However I do know that engineers have done exactly what I suggested and come to the conclusion that his design is feasible.
You can include base isolation for pylons crossing known faults. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_isolation
Thank you for the info!
I think it's reasonable to expect at this point that there would be quite a lot of people willing to help Musk battle various leeches and vultures.
I don't disagree whatsoever. I frequently wonder, "What could Elon Musk do with another 100K employees and Apple's war chest?"
And a quite a lot of people presenting themselves that way will be various leeches and vultures.
How do we differentiate them then?
Probably those willing to do it pro bono would be ok.
If tunnel boring was that cheap, why is it costing the city of SF $1B to bore a tunnel ~1 mile?
You're off by an order of magnitude on the cost of a TBM.
"The machine is a remarkable and unique piece of equipment. Purpose-built for Crossrail by German firm Herrenknecht – one of a handful of TBM manufacturers in the world – it cost around £10m ($15m), weighs close to 1,000 tonnes, has an external diameter of 7.1 metres (23ft) and from cutting-face-to-end stretches 150m (500ft)."
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150602-crossrail-the-monst...
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150602-crossrail-the-monst...
https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/quic...
$250 million for a water tunnel that goes 3km. It's simpler than a hyper loop tunnel.
Also I'm not sure Crossrail is a good counter example. That's a 30 billion dollar project to go 73 miles. Saying the TBM cost $20 million is like quoting the cost of a truck without including the price of the driver or diesel fuel.
$250 million for a water tunnel that goes 3km. It's simpler than a hyper loop tunnel.
Also I'm not sure Crossrail is a good counter example. That's a 30 billion dollar project to go 73 miles. Saying the TBM cost $20 million is like quoting the cost of a truck without including the price of the driver or diesel fuel.
TBMs are typically built specifically for a job and its ground conditions. Depending on the type of ground, the machine can be a different type of machine that uses different tooling. This will ultimately drive TBM cost. It is possible to reuse machines but this is, again, dependent on geology.
Anyways, the cost of a TBM is generally not the most expensive part of a tunneling operation.
Anyways, the cost of a TBM is generally not the most expensive part of a tunneling operation.
> Anyways, the cost of a TBM is generally not the most expensive part of a tunneling operation.
What is the most expensive part?
What is the most expensive part?
Labour costs. TBMs are amazing but they are slow and require a whole lot of infrastructure. It's not just a case of sticking them in the ground, turning them on and waiting for a nice tunnel to materialize. For instance, what do you with the excavated dirt? To give you an indication of the sheer cost here, London's crossrail project runs at approximately £4m/day - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail
Hyperloop tubes are elevated, not buried underground.
They don't have to be elevated; they simply need power for the stator plates.
Serious observation.
Why do people (here) feel they can refer to Elon Musk as just 'Elon' - using his first name, that is? It seems overly familiar, and impolite to me. Being from the UK, I would refer to him as 'Musk' in both writing and speech, and perhaps even as 'Mr. Musk' in formal writing. Is it a SV, or even just American, thing perhaps? It seems to depend on the person, though.
For instance, the Google founders are often referred to as 'Larry and Sergey' rather than 'Page and Brin' here, although 'Eric' was rarely used, his full name seeming to be preferred instead. Similarly, nobody would talk about 'Tim' from Apple, rather 'Cook' or 'Tim Cook', although the nickname 'Jony' is often used instead of 'Ive' or 'Jonathan Ive', and 'Jobs' more often than 'Steve' although that coulkd have been due to the possible confusion over the two founders.
In general, it seems that certain engineering icons and luminaries are granted this informal status. In a similar way to actual rock stars, perhaps because the referers feel the informality gives a sense of familiarity that brings them closer to their idols?
Why do people (here) feel they can refer to Elon Musk as just 'Elon' - using his first name, that is? It seems overly familiar, and impolite to me. Being from the UK, I would refer to him as 'Musk' in both writing and speech, and perhaps even as 'Mr. Musk' in formal writing. Is it a SV, or even just American, thing perhaps? It seems to depend on the person, though.
For instance, the Google founders are often referred to as 'Larry and Sergey' rather than 'Page and Brin' here, although 'Eric' was rarely used, his full name seeming to be preferred instead. Similarly, nobody would talk about 'Tim' from Apple, rather 'Cook' or 'Tim Cook', although the nickname 'Jony' is often used instead of 'Ive' or 'Jonathan Ive', and 'Jobs' more often than 'Steve' although that coulkd have been due to the possible confusion over the two founders.
In general, it seems that certain engineering icons and luminaries are granted this informal status. In a similar way to actual rock stars, perhaps because the referers feel the informality gives a sense of familiarity that brings them closer to their idols?
Different cultures I assume, based on my interaction with my UK (I'm in the US) counterparts.
I would imagine there are a bunch of nerds at SpaceX who would be might annoyed if they weren't allowed to participate in building something like this. Very cool of the company to make it an official thing, and to realize the issues with having their people win.
I'm really happy to see Tesla and SpaceX being run properly as platforms. Clearly Elon Musk has a great understanding of platforms with his online involvement with PayPal, however there aren't as obvious examples of it occurring in the physical product world; there are attempts though they seem more to control a user's behaviour and entrench people into a recurring business model than actually disrupting an unmanaged-disorganized system.
Platforms that generate a lot of value from APIs succeed by getting developer adoption by running things like hackathons - and this effort seems no different. Kudos.
Platforms that generate a lot of value from APIs succeed by getting developer adoption by running things like hackathons - and this effort seems no different. Kudos.
I wonder what they will do about claustrophobia?
> The capsule itself would need to be small—4.43ft (1.35m) wide and only 3.61ft (1.10m) high. No standing room
No windows, pod inside a metal tube, seats reclined with minimal head room. There's no rational reason to panic in that position, but many people will not be comfortable. Video displays might help, but only to a point.
> The capsule itself would need to be small—4.43ft (1.35m) wide and only 3.61ft (1.10m) high. No standing room
No windows, pod inside a metal tube, seats reclined with minimal head room. There's no rational reason to panic in that position, but many people will not be comfortable. Video displays might help, but only to a point.
Innovation like this requires some getting used to from consumers. I'm sure people thought fear of heights would be a problem for commercial airlines when they started up. Early adopters have to be fearless and then it will become mainstream once everyone perceives it as safe and normal.
At 600MPH, I'm not sure I'd want to see the ground speeding past a few feet below...
"Commuter Luge"
VR goggles.
VR goggles displaying a view of outside, maybe recorded from a plane that flew the same path then synced to your location to simulate your actual trip.
The feeling to your body would then match the view too.
The feeling to your body would then match the view too.
I was about to say that sounds even more vomit-inducing, when you consider all the g-forces going on, and then add goggles on top of it. But then, if the g-forces match what the passenger is seeing through the goggles, that could actually be less vomit-inducing maybe? It's an interesting idea. I personally find the idea of spending an hour in a tiny enclosed space with no ability to move to be quite disturbing, and I'm not sure if the idea of doing it with VR goggles makes that less disturbing or more.
Why are there lots of G forces? once you are at cruising speed it might not feel like you are moving at all.
I've been worried about the same thing. Also the idea that if the pod stops you have no way out for hundreds of miles.
I'm pretty sure the plan would include service access every few KM.
Somehow that's a little more scary.
It's not clear how the hatch on a stopped pod would open between service points, if at all. So you're stuck in the pod, possibly with no lights or power either to the pod or the tubeway in the case of damage.
Rescuers have to enter at the station and travel some KM to the pod, how, by crawling? If they need a rescue pod, it would have to be lifted from the ground to the service door, so they need a crane now; that's more hours.
Then there's the small matter of air supply for passengers.
It's not clear how the hatch on a stopped pod would open between service points, if at all. So you're stuck in the pod, possibly with no lights or power either to the pod or the tubeway in the case of damage.
Rescuers have to enter at the station and travel some KM to the pod, how, by crawling? If they need a rescue pod, it would have to be lifted from the ground to the service door, so they need a crane now; that's more hours.
Then there's the small matter of air supply for passengers.
Pod proposals (more like musings at this point) I've read include sufficient self contained locomotion ability to move slowly between egress points.
This is actually fairly close to the Eurotunnel between England and France. There are windows in the trains but they are very small and entirely useless for the 30 minutes whilst you're inside the tunnel. In the Eurotunnel you have to remain in your car - i.e. no standing.
The original Hyperloop system was supposed to be powered by linear induction motors spaced along the track. The pod doesn't have propulsion capability, except maybe an emergency system. So the pod/track interface is pretty much set by the propulsion system.
For trains, linear induction motors have usually been paired with magnetic levitation, as in the Transrapid system. But they don't have to be. Many roller coasters with a linear induction motor launch system have been built; Flight of Fear at King's Dominion, by Premiere Rides, was the first, in 1996. For a 1-mile test track, outsourcing the whole job to Premiere Rides or Intamin would be a good move. Intamin, which mostly makes amusement park rides, also has a transportation division. They build monorail systems. Intamin would just have to combine the car design from their P8 monorail[1] with their linear induction motor launch system.[2] By Intamin standards, a fast 1 mile loop with no hills is easy. ("We can put in a vertical loop for a small extra charge...")
[1] http://www.intaminworldwide.com/transportation/Home/news/Sha... [2] http://www.intaminworldwide.com/amusement/RollerCoasters/LSM...
For trains, linear induction motors have usually been paired with magnetic levitation, as in the Transrapid system. But they don't have to be. Many roller coasters with a linear induction motor launch system have been built; Flight of Fear at King's Dominion, by Premiere Rides, was the first, in 1996. For a 1-mile test track, outsourcing the whole job to Premiere Rides or Intamin would be a good move. Intamin, which mostly makes amusement park rides, also has a transportation division. They build monorail systems. Intamin would just have to combine the car design from their P8 monorail[1] with their linear induction motor launch system.[2] By Intamin standards, a fast 1 mile loop with no hills is easy. ("We can put in a vertical loop for a small extra charge...")
[1] http://www.intaminworldwide.com/transportation/Home/news/Sha... [2] http://www.intaminworldwide.com/amusement/RollerCoasters/LSM...
as an aside, holy crap that website is terrible!
The projections of capacity seem way too low. It says it can do 840passengers/hour.
In the UK each 11 car train on the West Coast Mainline can take about 600 passengers seated + maybe slightly over 100 more standing. So around 700. We have 3 trains per hour between London and Birmingham, which adds up to a rough capacity of 2200 per hour.
This doesn't even take into account the multitude of slower trains that go between the two cities.
All these trains are generally congested as hell at peak (and increasingly off peak).
How is 840 passengers/hour enough for two big cities? I would assume making each pod bigger and heavier would require a greater stopping distance between them so the only way I can see to add more capacity is to build parallel hyperloops. At that point you've got the land take and the expense that comes with it.
In the UK each 11 car train on the West Coast Mainline can take about 600 passengers seated + maybe slightly over 100 more standing. So around 700. We have 3 trains per hour between London and Birmingham, which adds up to a rough capacity of 2200 per hour.
This doesn't even take into account the multitude of slower trains that go between the two cities.
All these trains are generally congested as hell at peak (and increasingly off peak).
How is 840 passengers/hour enough for two big cities? I would assume making each pod bigger and heavier would require a greater stopping distance between them so the only way I can see to add more capacity is to build parallel hyperloops. At that point you've got the land take and the expense that comes with it.
I had the same thought. The waitbutwhy article cites 840 per hour being slightly less than the current traffic for that city pair, but that's assuming quite non-peaky traffic (7+ million if run 24/7).
It's also assuming that the demand at a cost of $20 and 35 minutes will be roughly the same as it is now.
It's also assuming that the demand at a cost of $20 and 35 minutes will be roughly the same as it is now.
To be fair, Birmingham <-> London is 125 miles, while Los Angeles <-> San Francisco is 380 miles. A better comparison would be Edinburgh <-> London, at 410 miles or so. At those distances, required capacity probably drops off.
Well, there's between one and two trains per hour between London and Edinburgh, each holding about 600 people. So that's more just on train capacity, and there's up to 53 flights a day between London and Edinburgh. So that's another 6000ish seats per day.
Just doesn't add up.
Just doesn't add up.
Rather than 2 parallel hyperloops would it be more efficient to make passing points? Orgainse timings so pods pull off at a platform and then car traveling in the opposite direction or overtaking can go past.
but that would prevent using the pressure in the loop?
Not if the pod itself is creating the pressures needed. I believe this is the current thinking as a true evacuated tunnel was deemed not feasible.That said they do envisage 2 tracks. Interesting read linked;
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-201...
http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-201...
Very cool announcement.
It strikes me that this is a pretty good insurance policy against a poor implementation of Hyperloop being used as an argument against its feasibility. SpaceX/Musk gets to put out a proof of concept track and pod without committing to building the full thing themselves.
It strikes me that this is a pretty good insurance policy against a poor implementation of Hyperloop being used as an argument against its feasibility. SpaceX/Musk gets to put out a proof of concept track and pod without committing to building the full thing themselves.
For those interested in getting a better handle on the vehicle thermodynamics, see[1].
Feel free to play around with the open-source python model here[2]
[1] https://mdao.grc.nasa.gov/publications/AIAA-2015-1587.pdf
[2] https://github.com/OpenMDAO-Plugins/Hyperloop
[3] http://www.popsci.com/hyped-up-startups-race-hyperloop-life
[1] https://mdao.grc.nasa.gov/publications/AIAA-2015-1587.pdf
[2] https://github.com/OpenMDAO-Plugins/Hyperloop
[3] http://www.popsci.com/hyped-up-startups-race-hyperloop-life
For those of us who aren't aeronautical engineers... if you just covered a normal expressway with a half tube, wouldn't the air start moving along with the vehicles and greatly decrease the drag at high speeds, making higher speeds more economical? Or at what point does the vacuum and ratio of vehicle to tube size make hyperloop work out, but a simple enclosed highway doesn't?
IANA engineer...
Only if the vehicles are self propelling from the ground, and if you refer back to trains really they are just pushing air in front of them, with some air escaping past them.
If there were not ventilation systems to allow the air behind the train to be filled, the train would need to work harder to essentially pull the air behind it.
At least, that's my understanding.
If the vehicles are not self propelling from the ground, and propel with air, like the original hyper-loop proposal, they are actually pushing air backwards to their direction of motion, which would stop any such forward moving air flow develop.
Only if the vehicles are self propelling from the ground, and if you refer back to trains really they are just pushing air in front of them, with some air escaping past them.
If there were not ventilation systems to allow the air behind the train to be filled, the train would need to work harder to essentially pull the air behind it.
At least, that's my understanding.
If the vehicles are not self propelling from the ground, and propel with air, like the original hyper-loop proposal, they are actually pushing air backwards to their direction of motion, which would stop any such forward moving air flow develop.
The 9 engineering points at the end of the text, are very important and extremely dificult each one of them.
I would add a pod decompression, and the emergency braking emergencies. Common oxigen masks don't work above 50000' and you can not dissipate the kinetic energy of a pod traveling at 900km/h just by friction without a brake fire.
I would add a pod decompression, and the emergency braking emergencies. Common oxigen masks don't work above 50000' and you can not dissipate the kinetic energy of a pod traveling at 900km/h just by friction without a brake fire.
> you can not dissipate the kinetic energy of a pod traveling at 900km/h just by friction without a brake fire.
Sure you can, just use water stored onboard to cool the brakes. Obviously the only case when you would need to use friction brakes in the hyperloop is in an emergency so we're fine with just boiling away the water into the steel tube. It takes 2,261 KJ per kg to boil water in the vacuum of the tube and assuming a pod weighs in at 1000 kg and is travelling 300 m/s that gives us 45 MJ of kinetic energy to deal with. That comes out to just under 20 kg of water to stop a 1000 kg pod moving 300 m/s. That's a decent size tank when considering the form factor of a hyperloop pod but still doable.
Sure you can, just use water stored onboard to cool the brakes. Obviously the only case when you would need to use friction brakes in the hyperloop is in an emergency so we're fine with just boiling away the water into the steel tube. It takes 2,261 KJ per kg to boil water in the vacuum of the tube and assuming a pod weighs in at 1000 kg and is travelling 300 m/s that gives us 45 MJ of kinetic energy to deal with. That comes out to just under 20 kg of water to stop a 1000 kg pod moving 300 m/s. That's a decent size tank when considering the form factor of a hyperloop pod but still doable.
They plan on releasing the full requirements for the final design in Aug, but the rules document includes some example technical questions. Most calculations I imagine can be estimated using college physics and mechanics: drag coefficient, pneumatic pressure, heat flux, etc. But I'm curious if anyone has any references specific to air compresser propulsion systems? I'm thinking it would make a nice WebGL simulation that shows the relationship between speed and heat generated ;)
For those who couldn't access the site:
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/18IkkbuxMbrzaVKHRnqXqtWimxF5...
Webpage screen grab [0]
Guidelines [1]
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/18IkkbuxMbrzaVKHRnqXqtWimxF5...
> Neither SpaceX nor Elon Musk is affiliated with any Hyperloop companies
what does that mean? Didn't they come up with the idea of hyperloop?
what does that mean? Didn't they come up with the idea of hyperloop?
For things like this, "affiliated" usually has a very precise legal definition, which means that they don't help each other with research and they're not financially invested. It means they're not cheating by entering their friends (or themselves) in the competition. Compare with the small print on most lotteries and contests, e.g. Google Code Jam:
> You cannot participate in the Contest if... you are a current employee (including intern), contractor, officer, or director, of Google or its affiliates.
> You cannot participate in the Contest if... you are a current employee (including intern), contractor, officer, or director, of Google or its affiliates.
Elon has flat out said he is too busy with Tesla and SpaceX to do yet another company.
Site was erroring when I visited; Google cache is here: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.sp...
Does anyone know about the relationship between SpaceX and Hyperloop Technologies? It looks like Hyperloop Tech has a lot of ex SpaceX engineers/execs, but they don't seem to have an active partnership with Musk or SpaceX
If it works well, I'd like to see these in LA or other big cities too, not just long distance. Would be great to get on one of these and end up at the beach in Santa Monica at high speed instead of suffering through traffic.
Texas triangle:
At an average speed of 600mph, it'd be about 25m commute between points, worst case.
San Antonio <-> Austin <-> Dallas
Houston <-> Dallas
House <-> San Antonio
At an average speed of 600mph, it'd be about 25m commute between points, worst case.
Would a Hyperloop system work well in a system with frequent stops, where you wouldn't be able to get up to full-speed because you needed to stop and the stops could disrupt other express traffic. Would you really be gaining that much over other traditional rail transportation options?
It seems like the strength of the Hyperloop is extremely fast travel over long distances. Personally, I think having a line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles would be awesome, as the traffic can be horrible on that route, especially on weekends and probably significantly affects traffic in LA in general. Its also around 100 miles less than the LA to SF route, through mostly undeveloped desert, so it could be a lot cheaper to build.
It seems like the strength of the Hyperloop is extremely fast travel over long distances. Personally, I think having a line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles would be awesome, as the traffic can be horrible on that route, especially on weekends and probably significantly affects traffic in LA in general. Its also around 100 miles less than the LA to SF route, through mostly undeveloped desert, so it could be a lot cheaper to build.
Would a Hyperloop system work well in a system with frequent stops, where you wouldn't be able to get up to full-speed because you needed to stop and the stops could disrupt other express traffic.
No, which is why it's strictly city-to-city. It's supposed to compete with short haul point to point airlines. Those don't have neighborhood stops either.
No, which is why it's strictly city-to-city. It's supposed to compete with short haul point to point airlines. Those don't have neighborhood stops either.
I think it would, however I didn't realize until now how small the tubes and cars are, might make a metro-type system challenging. Or, it could be widened for metro usage, like the disneyland monorail.
Yeah, I wondered if some sort of on-ramp/off-ramp or multi-lane system might work, but given the distance it would take to get up to full-speed (or decrease speed to stop), that could greatly increase the cost of construction, especially if there are a lot of stations.
For the Hyperloop to make any sense in a shorter distance metro setting, you'd probably want to have no stops between where you start and your destination. (So you might go directly from Anaheim to Santa Monica, for example) With smaller cars/trains, this may be possible (since you might be able to fill trains quickly enough to not make people wait too long), but potentially very expensive to build enough lanes to manage that amount of traffic with greatly varying speeds efficiently.
Without that sort of system, however, I think the additional stops would delay you so much that the gain over a traditional metro train would be small and not worth the extra expense of building it.
For the Hyperloop to make any sense in a shorter distance metro setting, you'd probably want to have no stops between where you start and your destination. (So you might go directly from Anaheim to Santa Monica, for example) With smaller cars/trains, this may be possible (since you might be able to fill trains quickly enough to not make people wait too long), but potentially very expensive to build enough lanes to manage that amount of traffic with greatly varying speeds efficiently.
Without that sort of system, however, I think the additional stops would delay you so much that the gain over a traditional metro train would be small and not worth the extra expense of building it.
Looks like it would be a lot cheaper than an underground metro though. But perhaps a standard monorail would be better for short distances.
It seems like theres way too little information here to build anything.
It's funny they are building a 1 mile test track but don't have any interest in running with the idea... seems pretty committed at this point.
[deleted]
"Neither SpaceX nor Elon Musk is affiliated with any Hyperloop companies. While we are not developing a commercial Hyperloop ourselves, we are interested in helping to accelerate development of a functional Hyperloop prototype."
I thought Elon wanted to create the Hyperloop. Here I was thinking I would see it in the next 5-10 years :(
I thought Elon wanted to create the Hyperloop. Here I was thinking I would see it in the next 5-10 years :(
I think he wants it to be created by someone, but my recollection is that when he announced the plans he specifically said he didn't have time to do it himself and wanted others to take the ball and run with it.
Hey Boston, want to join a feasibility meeting I'm setting up? Email me. :)
I'm finding the center alignment of the text bothersome.
Aside from that, very cool!
Aside from that, very cool!
"Neither SpaceX nor Elon Musk is affiliated with any Hyperloop companies" Yet it is hosted on spacex.com. I love the project but I hate the legalities here. What does that mean? If something bad happens during operation then these aforementioned entities cant be held responsible.
It means what it says. Various people have formed companies to try to commercialise the Hyperloop concept. SpaceX and Elon Musk are not affiliated with them.
SpaceX and Elon Musk are behind this competition.
SpaceX and Elon Musk are behind this competition.
[deleted](2)
About me: full stack software engineer with a degree in Systems Engineering from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. I work on classic cars and build shit with my hands when I'm not coding. I'm into efficiency, and I loooove the idea of building a better, faster cheaper CA high-speed railway.