23 Universities advance to next round of Hyperloop competition - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Morgen;49643694]If you are competing with roads than that is pretty amazing. You are sending 3600 passengers an hour a fairly long distance in a short amount of time, with solar panels on top of the tube generating far more power than the system requires. It will pay for itself in short order and you can build another tube. [editline]31st January 2016[/editline] Hyperloop is intended for just that, travel between cities. However it is capable of having multiple stations along the way with joins in the tube according to the white paper.[/QUOTE] but it's being built specifically in response to the california high speed railway being built, because musk didn't think it was good enough. in order to compete with it, the hyperloop would need to carry about 12,000 passengers an hour if it wanted to be a serious contender for mass transit (otherwise it would remain a small thing largely used by people who aren't rich enough to own private jets but too wealthy to use plebian transport). In order to do that, assuming the generous 3600 passengers an hour (a clearance time of 30 seconds is at the extreme of possibility), you would still need to scale up operations significantly. Not to mention that the more heavy use a mass transit system sees the more expensive maintenance and work that needs going into it. I just don't see any feasible way that this can compete with HSR in terms of sheer volume. Again there's mentioning the fact that they won't be building hyperloop stations in the middle of cities, unlike HSR which can take advantage of existing infrastructure.

It all comes down to how many pods you can send downstream at a time with enough space for the ones in front to stop to load/unload. One holdup at one station has the potential to slow the whole system down.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49643731]but it's being built specifically in response to the california high speed railway being built, because musk didn't think it was good enough. in order to compete with it, the hyperloop would need to carry about 12,000 passengers an hour if it wanted to be a serious contender for mass transit (otherwise it would remain a small thing largely used by people who aren't rich enough to own private jets but too wealthy to use plebian transport). In order to do that, assuming the generous 3600 passengers an hour (a clearance time of 30 seconds is at the extreme of possibility), you would still need to scale up operations significantly. Not to mention that the more heavy use a mass transit system sees the more expensive maintenance and work that needs going into it. I just don't see any feasible way that this can compete with HSR in terms of sheer volume. Again there's mentioning the fact that they won't be building hyperloop stations in the middle of cities, unlike HSR which can take advantage of existing infrastructure.[/QUOTE] It's not supposed to compete in volume, it's supposed to compete in speed. If you don't care about speed, take a regular non-high speed train that wouldn't cost so much to build.

[QUOTE=Morgen;49643778]It's not supposed to compete in volume, it's supposed to compete in speed. If you don't care about speed, take a regular non-high speed train that wouldn't cost so much to build.[/QUOTE] volume is more important for mass transit than speed though. even then the speed improvements don't count for anything if the hyperloop station isn't in the middle of the city. if its in the outskirts then you will still need to get out and hire a taxi to take you the rest of the way. it seems a much better use of resources to increase the speed of a railway and its capacity for intercity travel, than it is to make a really fast form of transport only wealthy people are going to use. not to mention reduced environmental impact. japan mastered this years ago, and they only keep edging up capacity and speed as time goes on.

Just look at the cost per passenger to. If this costs $8 billion to build but a high speed railway costs $64 billion but this system can handle 3600 an hour vs 12,000 then the cost per passenger is lower. If we spent the same amount on it we could get 28,800 an hour. [editline]31st January 2016[/editline] The Hyperloop has a lower setup cost and lower energy costs so it would actually cost less than high speed rail to use. Cost increases would be driven by demand more than anything.

[QUOTE=Morgen;49643887]Just look at the cost per passenger to. If this costs $8 billion to build but a high speed railway costs $64 billion but this system can handle 3600 an hour vs 12,000 then the cost per passenger is lower. If we spent the same amount on it we could get 28,800 an hour. [editline]31st January 2016[/editline] The Hyperloop has a lower setup cost and lower energy costs so it would actually cost less than high speed rail to use.[/QUOTE] hyperloop isn't going to cost $8 billion lol, that's an extremely unrealistic figure the real figure is closer to around $100 billion: [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-is-dead-wrong-about-the-cost-of-the-hyperloop-in-reality-it-would-be-100-billion-2013-8?IR=T[/url]

Oh well then, if a professor of history says it can't be done then clearly the team of engineers and physicists must be wrong.

[QUOTE=Morgen;49643924]Oh well then, if a professor of history says it can't be done then clearly the team of engineers and physicists must be wrong.[/QUOTE] [quote]Michael L. Anderson, an associate professor of [b]agricultural and resource economics[/b] at the University of California, Berkeley, predicted that the cost of the entire project would be closer to $100 billion.[/quote] you're ignoring the costs such as the buying of land, negotiating legal stuff, the labour costs, etc engineers and physicists aren't economists

[QUOTE=Bradyns;49641730]Was it any surprise that MIT won? They are the go-to people for getting the most bizarre engineering creations to function.[/QUOTE] actually they mostly have money and a select group of people to put into an A team, if there's no budget for whatever reason to complete a project, then you can beat them and if it's not their A team they won't win. I've seen MIT people be pompous feeling they shouldn't be at a competition and fail on their asses to community college people. Quite a few people at MIT need to be taught a lesson in humility to become better engineers and scientists, which is why I wanted the MIT people in battle bots to fail.

I don't see what the harm is in trying...

Except they are already building a five mile long track, for $100 million. Which while slightly more than Musk's estimate, is nowhere near what that guy estimated. It will only get cheaper.

The tracks being built right now are all on private property. Sobotnik is not wrong that buying enough property rights to build between cities is going to be expensive.

expensive, yes, but crazy? How do you expect innovation to happen if you throw in the towel claiming nothing is feasible? We have no idea what optimizations will come out of designing these systems and thats why there's the contest in the first place, to see who can do it the best way.

[QUOTE=OvB;49643976]The tracks being built right now are all on private property. Sobotnik is not wrong that buying enough property rights to build between cities is going to be expensive.[/QUOTE] The stilts greatly reduce how much land you need to buy. It's not going to cost $263 million per mile like his source claimed.

the existing california high speed railways $64 billion cost incidentally is mostly eaten up by the expense of land and other legal matters. the hyperloop would probably also have to change the route in case of local opposition to it being built there, various difficulties with construction, extremely high costs for development, etc. as for putting a station in a city center (and later expanding the network presumably to other cities), well, good luck. [QUOTE=Morgen;49643994]The stilts greatly reduce how much land you need to buy. It's not going to cost $263 million per mile like his source claimed.[/QUOTE] it really doesn't. not by enough to reduce costs enough also putting something on stilts is something civil engineers try to avoid - bridges and the like are extremely expensive. [QUOTE=Map in a box;49643991]expensive, yes, but crazy? How do you expect innovation to happen if you throw in the towel claiming nothing is feasible? We have no idea what optimizations will come out of designing these systems and thats why there's the contest in the first place, to see who can do it the best way.[/QUOTE] credulous nerds

I think I'd rather leave the budgeting and route planning to the actual people working on it than claiming things that are very unlikely. Cities opposing having the hyperloop go through their city is terrible PR for them and would likely inhibit them from getting any new transportation methods in the future as well.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;49643991]expensive, yes, but crazy? How do you expect innovation to happen if you throw in the towel claiming nothing is feasible? We have no idea what optimizations will come out of designing these systems and thats why there's the contest in the first place, to see who can do it the best way.[/QUOTE] Right? I'm sure SpaceX, Texas A&M and MIT are doing this for a reason, logistics can come once we prove how feasible this is. Why just say "yeah it wont work because x y z" when we haven't even tried the main concept out? This really is a matter of shoot first ask questions later. Alternatively, could they just TBM the distance?

The thing is though, land costs will be similar regardless of what mode of rail/tube transport you build. Unless you can snag rights to build above the interstates. So what should be compared is construction and R+D costs since the land costs are understood. Is a Hyperloop cheaper to build than an equally long high speed rail?

[QUOTE=OvB;49644018]The thing is though, land costs will be similar regardless of what mode of rail/tube transport you build. Unless you can snag rights to build above the interstates. So what should be compared is construction and R+D costs since the land costs are understood. Is a Hyperloop cheaper to build than an equally long high speed rail?[/QUOTE] I wouldn't imagine it would be, especially if its all built on a raised viaduct for much of the route (viaducts cost a lot of money to build). HSR can also make use of a lot of existing infrastructure, which is another advantage when it comes to expenses.

[QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;49643961]I don't see what the harm is in trying...[/QUOTE] Yeah, this. Maybe the first iteration won't be feasible.. Maybe the second won't.. But at least they're doing something. You have to respect the fact that these people are trying to break through the plateau we've hit in terms of transit. We can't keep using trains for the rest of our existence as a species, at some point we need a breakthrough.

[QUOTE=OvB;49644018]The thing is though, land costs will be similar regardless of what mode of rail/tube transport you build. Unless you can snag rights to build above the interstates. So what should be compared is construction and R+D costs since the land costs are understood. Is a Hyperloop cheaper to build than an equally long high speed rail?[/QUOTE] Well that's what the proposed track is supposed to do. Follow the interstate and only divert from it when it makes a sharp turn. It doesn't need to be built on pillars either, it's only on pillars to reduce the amount of land you need to buy since the pillars would be pretty much on par with a tree in dimensions. You gain the advantage of earthquake protection from the pillars though. A ground based high speed rail system by comparison needs up to a 100 ft wide swath of dedicated land to build up foundations for both directions, forcing people to travel for several miles just to get to the other side of their property. It is also noisy, with nothing to contain the sound, and needs unsightly protective fencing to prevent animals, people or vehicles from getting on to the track. The Hyperloop just has a bunch of tree sized pillars going along.

[QUOTE=Morgen;49644077]Well that's what the proposed track is supposed to do. Follow the interstate and only divert from it when it makes a sharp turn. It doesn't need to be built on pillars either, it's only on pillars to reduce the amount of land you need to buy since the pillars would be pretty much on par with a tree in dimensions.[/QUOTE] this is being slightly optimistic here you would need an access road along the route of the tube (otherwise building and maintaining it would be difficult).its still going to cost shitloads because farmers dont want a giant steel tube going over their land, not to mention they won't like the access roads either. together this will drastically reduce the value of the land and people will want compensation for it [QUOTE=Morgen;49644077]needs unsightly protective fencing to prevent animals, people or vehicles from getting on to the track..[/QUOTE] a giant steel tuber on concrete pylons looks a bit more unsightly than some fences to stop cows wandering lol

[QUOTE=OvB;49643976]The tracks being built right now are all on private property. Sobotnik is not wrong that buying enough property rights to build between cities is going to be expensive.[/QUOTE] the thing is that land has to be bought for normal rail lines too, no? and the land itself would have to be heavily altered to carry a ground level train between cities, no?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49644100]this is being slightly optimistic here you would need an access road along the route of the tube (otherwise building and maintaining it would be difficult).its still going to cost shitloads because farmers dont want a giant steel tube going over their land, not to mention they won't like the access roads either. together this will drastically reduce the value of the land and people will want compensation for it a giant steel tuber on concrete pylons looks a bit more unsightly than some fences to stop cows wandering lol[/QUOTE] It's a pillar with a shock absorber. You aren't going to need frequent access to that. The tubes are prefabricated and then just put in place and welded together, so construction time at each pillar is minimal to. Sure they will want some money for it but it's not as unsightly as a train line. You don't have the massive noise from a train going past, or as much land being used. Sure it won't look amazing but neither does a massive fence and train tracks.

[QUOTE=Morgen;49644186]It's a pillar with a shock absorber. You aren't going to need frequent access to that. The tubes are prefabricated and then just put in place and welded together, so construction time at each pillar is minimal to. Sure they will want some money for it but it's not as unsightly as a train line. You don't have the massive noise from a train going past, or as much land being used. Sure it won't look amazing but neither does a massive fence and train tracks.[/QUOTE] you're still ignoring that it will still has as much an impact as an ordinary railway a giant steel tube and pylons is something you dont want on a farm. considering they will still need an access road (not to mention electrical substations, communication centers, etc), a significant proportion of the land will be made useless for farmers. considering this, they might as well sell it all off anyways. and honestly, something like this isn't as simple as welding steel tubes together and sticking them on top of concrete pillars. are the pillars prefabricated too? what about foundations? engineering it for seismic activity? how will you deal with thermal expansion? what connects the tube to the pylon? what about expansion joints? what about fibre optics needed for communications? safety and redundant systems? for something like this you need a real-time map of the entire line (as is the case with railways). maintaining the vacuum through expansion joints? what about when it comes to (inevitable) tunnels, bridges, wetlands, etc? nobody can be seriously suggesting one can build the hyperloop for $8 billion when all this hasn't even been taken into account

[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;49644292]I'm pretty sure they've got most of that shit covered somewhere, because they wouldn't just start doing all this stuff if they wasn't sure it'll work on some level.[/QUOTE] For the large part, they haven't yet. Not much more beyond a white paper and some back of the envelope maths. This project is probably years from even starting the surveying of the route.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49644232]you're still ignoring that it will still has as much an impact as an ordinary railway a giant steel tube and pylons is something you dont want on a farm. considering they will still need an access road (not to mention electrical substations, communication centers, etc), a significant proportion of the land will be made useless for farmers. considering this, they might as well sell it all off anyways. and honestly, something like this isn't as simple as welding steel tubes together and sticking them on top of concrete pillars. are the pillars prefabricated too? what about foundations? engineering it for seismic activity? how will you deal with thermal expansion? what connects the tube to the pylon? what about expansion joints? what about fibre optics needed for communications? safety and redundant systems? for something like this you need a real-time map of the entire line (as is the case with railways). maintaining the vacuum through expansion joints? what about when it comes to (inevitable) tunnels, bridges, wetlands, etc? nobody can be seriously suggesting one can build the hyperloop for $8 billion when all this hasn't even been taken into account[/QUOTE] You don't need access roads. You don't see access roads built for every mobile phone mast on farm land. You don't need electrical substations at every pylon either, the system only needs power every 70 miles to provide more acceleration, which is a relatively insignificant portion of the tube. But you just aren't getting you simply don't need to use as much land as a train track. The tube can be connected to the pylon through adjustable dampeners that can compensate for thermal expansion. Redundant systems on the tube itself? It's a steel tube.. with ports on it that can open in the event of an emergency. You have an induction motor every 70 miles and that's it. Not exactly complicated. Low power systems to check between the powered parts wouldn't be that hard to implement either. You can run things along the outsides of the tube. You can use slip joints near the station to allow for thermal contractions while keeping the main part welded to allow for it to be smooth and high speed. Since it isn't actually a vacuum any leakage can be overcome with pumps easily enough, and near the stations you aren't going at high speed anyway. You can use orbital welding to weld the tubes together. [QUOTE=Atlascore;49644273]Why can't we keep using trains? They're efficient, the technology behind them is improving, the infrastructure is already in place to continue using them, and it's relatively cheap to build more trains and railroads especially in comparison to these over-engineered sci-fi concepts people regularly come up with.[/QUOTE] You want to use the same technology, without even investigating alternatives? Why didn't we keep using horses instead of cars? We are getting better at keeping them healthy for longer, the infrastructure is already in place to continue using them and they are relatively cheap compared to these over engineered cars and roads. It's not like anyone has gone to the state of California and said yeah fuck your high speed rail project, let's build a hyperloop right now. The technology is still being investigated and maybe it won't work out. But trying to tack on crap that old technology uses and saying it won't work because old system X required Y so this must require Y too is poor form at best. [editline]31st January 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49644322]For the large part, they haven't yet. Not much more beyond a white paper and some back of the envelope maths. This project is probably years from even starting the surveying of the route.[/QUOTE] Who even suggested they start surveying the route? I mean really come on now.

Hey Sobotnik did you know that it's really popular for universities to hold design contests sp that students can learn about engineering and have fun? No? I guess we better tell concrete canoe to stop - fuck learning, it's impractical. Same with steel bridge. And Formula SAE. They're not things we can make money off of, so fuck em Jesus Christ get over yourself

Nice to see my alma mater among the winners!

Maglev uses super cooled helium to cool the magnets, and it has to do that the whole track length. That seems like quite a headache for farm land, as much as the hyper loop no?