Hyperloop Transportation Technologies just filed for a building permit in California. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587630] i'm still not getting why it wouldn't be just be a better idea to copy what the rest of the world is doing for mass transit by improving rail infrastructure instead of dubious science fiction schemes[/QUOTE] If we applied this mindset we would never improve anything. New technology is worth looking into and if it doesn't pan out then so be it, sometimes it's even worth revisiting old technologies that didn't work out. It's not like Musk has gone to the state of California and said "Yeah, fuck your high speed rail system give me money and i'll build this thing right now". SpaceX has unseated ULA from their monopoly on the US launch market, and applied an iterative process to rocket design. They are pioneering reusability as well. SpaceX has forced more change onto the rocket industry in it's life span than we have seen since the 60s. Tesla proved the EV can be viable, fast and has potential to replace the ICE. They also forced the other big manufacturers to start creating EVs. The US hasn't seen a new successful car company since 1926 iirc.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49587743]He's been doing this for awhile now, both Tesla and SpaceX are doing great and are continuing to grow, and let us not forget the monumental achievement of reusable launch vehicles. You can bitch and moan and cry about how he's a hack, a charlatan, a fraud, and how all his companies are going to implode but the fact of the matter is [B]reality disagrees with you.[/B] The claim that "he will fail" has already been proven wrong, SpaceX is not going anywhere in the near future and I dare you to actually prove me wrong on that. Go ahead, cite some stupid goddamn unrelated article about the price of tea in China like you always do to try and prove that SpaceX is somehow going to go nowhere.[/QUOTE] spacex literally only exists because of extensive and generous government subsidies propping it up tesla isn't going anywhere as long as oil prices remain low. don't really see why you're saying reality disagrees with me when its stating the exact opposite [QUOTE=Morgen;49587752]If we applied this mindset we would never improve anything. New technology is worth looking into and if it doesn't pan out then so be it, sometimes it's even worth revisiting old technologies that didn't work out.[/QUOTE] the rest of the world is using the /new/ technology proven to work. it's still innovation in that field. there's also maglev, which is proven as well and an emergent technology we can focus on

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587802]spacex literally only exists because of extensive and generous government subsidies propping it up tesla isn't going anywhere as long as oil prices remain low.[/QUOTE] Well I guess that invalidates that company Is anyone who takes advantage of what's on offer a charlatan to you or some shit?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587802]spacex literally only exists because of extensive and generous government subsidies propping it up tesla isn't going anywhere as long as oil prices remain low. the rest of the world is using the /new/ technology proven to work. it's still innovation in that field. there's also maglev, which is proven as well and an emergent technology we can focus on[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;RT23JrwZiAo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT23JrwZiAo[/video]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587802]spacex literally only exists because of extensive and generous government subsidies propping it up tesla isn't going anywhere as long as oil prices remain low. the rest of the world is using the /new/ technology proven to work. it's still innovation in that field. there's also maglev, which is proven as well and an emergent technology we can focus on[/QUOTE] SpaceX got a government contract to build and fly the Falcon 9 for cargo and crew trips to the ISS. A government contract is not a subsidy. Tesla paid off their loans long ago with interest and business continues to climb dispite the oil prices today. Hyperloop [I]is[/I] maglev technology. It's linear induction propulsion in a tube.

[QUOTE=OvB;49587877]SpaceX got a government contract to build and fly the Falcon 9 for cargo and crew trips to the ISS. A government contract is not a subsidy. Tesla paid off their loans long ago with interest and business continues to climb dispute the oil prices today. Hyperloop [I]is[/I] maglev technology. It's linear induction propulsion in a tube.[/QUOTE] You could argue SpaceX even saves the government a considerable amount of money. The only option they had before was ULA, which had a monopoly and ballooning costs. Launching with SpaceX is considerably cheaper than launching with ULA.

haha lmao [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587802]spacex literally only exists because of extensive and generous government subsidies propping it up[/QUOTE][B]What[/B] subsidies exactly? [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587802]tesla isn't going anywhere as long as oil prices remain low.[/QUOTE]Uh, yeah low oil prices should be the death of an electric car company and yet Tesla is surviving just fine. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587802]don't really see why you're saying reality disagrees with me when its stating the exact opposite[/QUOTE]No it isn't lmao and I really don't see any proof that your bullshit claim that "nuh uh, I'm the one who's right!" has any merit. SpaceX offers the lowest price per kilogram to LEO and has had a pretty great launch record for a private spaceflight company, I don't see how the hell this means they're doomed to fail. They provide a good, reliable service and they do it cheaply, and they're going to do it even [U]more[/U] cheaply when they begin to successfully reuse launch vehicles. You maybe have a slight point with Tesla, but again, they're doing pretty well so anything you have to say is completely negated by the fact that they are successfully competing in the automotive industry. I haven't actually seen any proof that they're absolutely going to fail within ten or even twenty years. You're just making shit up and you are talking out of your ass, Sobotnik.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;49587923]No it isn't lmao and I really don't see any proof that your bullshit claim that "nuh uh, I'm the one who's right!" has any merit. SpaceX offers the lowest price per kilogram to LEO and has had a pretty great launch record for a private spaceflight company, I don't see how the hell this means they're doomed to fail. They provide a good, reliable service and they do it cheaply, and they're going to do it even [U]more[/U] cheaply when they begin to successfully reuse launch vehicles. You maybe have a slight point with Tesla, but again, they're doing pretty well so anything you have to say is completely negated by the fact that they are successfully competing in the automotive industry. I haven't actually seen any proof that they're absolutely going to fail within ten or even twenty years. You're just making shit up and you are talking out of your ass, Sobotnik.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html[/url] these subsidies jumpingjackflash, you're pretending things that aren't actually the case and display a shocking lack of knowledge of the topic jumpingjackflash

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587956][url]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html[/url] these subsidies jumpingjackflash, you're pretending things that aren't actually the case and display a shocking lack of knowledge of the topic jumpingjackflash[/QUOTE] Its almost like the government invests in endeavors that offer them a direct benefit or something.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587956][url]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html[/url] these subsidies jumpingjackflash, you're pretending things that aren't actually the case and display a shocking lack of knowledge of the topic jumpingjackflash[/QUOTE] literally the article talked about in the above posted video

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587956][url]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html[/url] these subsidies jumpingjackflash, you're pretending things that aren't actually the case and display a shocking lack of knowledge of the topic jumpingjackflash[/QUOTE]Aside from the fact that the above video already showed how that article was complete bullshit, let's talk about these subsidies. Here the article talks about SpaceX: [quote]On a smaller scale, SpaceX, Musk's rocket company, cut a deal for about $20 million in economic development subsidies from Texas to construct a launch facility there. (Separate from incentives, SpaceX has won more than $5.5 billion in government contracts from NASA and the U.S. Air Force.)[/quote] Interesting, I suppose depending on your definition of "the government" then yeah, I guess SpaceX does get subsidies. From [I]Texas.[/I] But on that note, [quote]Included in the local subsidies is a 15-year property tax break from the local school district worth $3.1 million to SpaceX. Officials say the development still will bring in about $5 million more over that period than the local school district otherwise would have collected. "That's $5 million more than we have ever seen from that property," said Dr. Lisa Garcia, superintendent of the Point Isabel Independent School District. "It is remote.... It is just sand dunes."[/quote]Oh, so it's actually fifteen million including tax breaks and also a few million from "local governments." This is literally what Kyle902 was talking about:[QUOTE=Kyle902;49587972]Its almost like the government invests in endeavors that offer them a direct benefit or something.[/QUOTE] They gave SpaceX an incentive to build something on a useless piece of shit plot of land that might actually be beneficial for the local economy, Texas is trying to cultivate this industry and SpaceX is by no means the only company to receive such incentives. Doesn't disprove anything else I said, and do note I was just asking you to elaborate on these subsidies; I never claimed the company didn't receive them.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49586529]that will be the same case with hyperloop - only rich people will use it [/QUOTE] Same things has been said for aluminum, air transports, long distance phone calls and flatscreen tv.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587328]the main problem is that it still suffers from the same shortcomings. musk isn't a civil engineer, and the design he penned out (and the one that the hyperloop company is working on) isn't really feasible either[/QUOTE] Look man, you don't have to "be a civil engineer" to be a successful entrepreneur like Musk. As he and so many others have proved. He is a leader, he has many qualified civil and other engineers working for him that inform his decisions. Leaders aren't responsible for every minute detail of their plans, that's up to the specialists. The fact is, Musk has had a huge impact on many industries. You don't have to love every idea he has, or think they're feasible, but all of his ideas come from a good place. The guy's just making an honest effort to make the world a better place and he's a damn brave man for it

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49587956][url]http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html[/url] these subsidies jumpingjackflash, you're pretending things that aren't actually the case and display a shocking lack of knowledge of the topic jumpingjackflash[/QUOTE] Dude. Do you not know how government investment works or are you just mad they got government investment? Because if either is the case you should throw out your computer, smartphone and stop using the internet as well as any cars, trains, or planes.

My take is that Sobotnik is generally correct that this would be a huge waste of money relative to building a proper french/japanese-style HSR which is overall the better option, but... Elon Musk literally Hitler? :what:

After doing a bit of digging, there are two companies building Hyperloops. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop_Technologies[/url] [url]http://hyperlooptech.com/[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop_Transportation_Technologies[/url] [url]http://hyperlooptransp.com/index.html[/url] That's a bit confusing. Here's a CNN clip about it: [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14Hs0r5RUww[/media] Hyperloop Technologies already has a tube built. Also it should be known, that the Hyperloop should in theory require less energy than a Maglev because it uses less magnets. A maglev requires electromagnets along the whole track in order to levitate and propel the vehicle. A Hyperloop uses essentially the same concept, but since it's floating on air in a evacuated air tube, it slides a lot easier, meaning you don't need magnets along the whole length of the track. The Hyperloop only uses a battery powered car to power the compressor, and then propulsion stations every couple miles to maintain speed. The tube is literally just a steel tube. Not a complex track system. Since it's not a complete vacuum, if a hole cracks in the tube it could wait until after hours to be repaired. Propulsion areas could have accessibility ports. [editline]24th January 2016[/editline] My biggest concern with it is comfort. No windows, leaned back seats. Doesn't seem friendly to the claustrophobic, elderly, or disabled. I feel like in order for this to take off, you need to be able to sit up right like a train.

For fucks sake Sobotnik, really? What are your qualifications for all of this? Do you run large corporations? Are you a physicist, civil engineer, city planner, mass transit expert, software engineer, aerospace engineer, electrical engineer, or any sort of other highly skilled/learned person? Or are you just an angsty interwebs nerd who works in a government lab literally testing fucking potatoes for mold? I do agree that the Hyperloop isn't the most brilliant concept for transit, and that Maglevs are probably a safer bet. But maglevs are stupidly expensive since magnets are, I dunno, not fucking cheap. Not to mention the fact that the US is wayyyy different in scale than the UK so high-speed rail here is unlikely. As the saying goes, Americans think 100 years is a long time, and the British think 100 miles is a long way. And spacex a fraud because they got government contracts? Really? The company that has advanced the field and been one of the first private companies to build entire launch vehicles themselves is a phony? Yeah, the work culture is tough and thats [I]very[/I] well known in the industry and is not something anyone tries to hide. The whole demagogue factor of him being unapproachable is just sorta par for the course with newer engineering companies like this. Regardless of all this, Space does [I]not[/I] fuck around and any sort of fuck up costs you tremendous amounts of reputation and cash- and all of SpaceX's losses have been learning experiences or have lead to improved safety for their future launches. I can't even be bothered with the rest, you just seem hilariously salty and filled with the hubris of someone thinking they're entirely in the right all the time. I still think this tech should be developed- vacuum tube transit makes sense for large-scale space settlements in asteroids and the like. And this sort of attitude is the sort of attitude that cuts money from other technological endeavours, like fusion power, the continuing search for FTL methods, or any other item that seems vaguely "sci-fi". I can't espouse a hard stance on the hyperloop- I don't really know enough about it. My current instinct is that it will be wretchedly difficult to maintain and run, and suitably expensive. But it could help with city-to-city metropolitan commuting, and right now with how bad traffic is getting in larger Western-US cities any idea for mass transit is worth testing. Your ego is writing checks you cannot cash. Stop while you're ahead.

It's not even a vacuum tube. It' doesn't use a vacuum to move. It's [I]just[/I] a linear induction train (like maglev) in a tube that floats on a cushion of air instead of magnets. The only reason the tube exists is so that they can put it under a slight vacuum so the train moves faster due to less drag. The concept would work entirely the same if you did it to a maglev train. It's a maglev with a train that floats on air instead of magnets. That'll be the biggest test to see if the concept works. The trains air system.

[QUOTE=OvB;49600419]It's not even a vacuum tube. It' doesn't use a vacuum to move. It's [I]just[/I] a linear induction train (like maglev) in a tube that floats on a cushion of air instead of magnets. The only reason the tube exists is so that they can put it under a slight vacuum so the train moves faster due to less drag. The concept would work entirely the same if you did it to a maglev train. It's a maglev with a train that floats on air instead of magnets. That'll be the biggest test to see if the concept works. The trains air system.[/QUOTE] Okay, fair enough. And that makes more sense and makes it considerably more feasible. How do they plan to handle junctions though? The current concept of LA-SF is in a tectonically active area, so that complicates things quite a bit. And I wonder how they'll stop the junctions from being jarring, or from leaking air too much I still don't hate the idea by any means. Our club actually got asked to 3D print some parts for one of the competitors in the competition or whatever it is that was mentioned on the last page, and we would have done it if all of our printers hadn't been down. Its interesting regardless, and I'm sure something of worth can be learned from it.

Tectonic activity is the reason its on stilts. I'm not sure about junctions. I've been wondering that myself. If it can only do point to point, it's going to be difficult to do complex systems, which could be a problem for cargo.

Isn't one of the problems with establishing new rail lines just the general space in the cities? It's hard to actually clear ground level stuff in a line from city to city, AFAIK, right? So doesn't putting the rail way or what have you up on stilts help solve that issue anyways? That's what we did here to create an in city system because a purely underground or ground level system wasn't entirely feasible.

[QUOTE=OvB;49600549]Tectonic activity is the reason its on stilts. I'm not sure about junctions. I've been wondering that myself. If it can only do point to point, it's going to be difficult to do complex systems, which could be a problem for cargo.[/QUOTE] Cargo right now is handled pretty well by conventional rail. I don't see what this system offers for cargo transit, and cargo typically just uses different rail lines from passenger lines since they care less about the quality of the track. For speedy commuter transit, this system makes some sense. I just don't know if cargo hauling is the ideal application for it, but again I just don't know. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49600561]Isn't one of the problems with establishing new rail lines just the general space in the cities? It's hard to actually clear ground level stuff in a line from city to city, AFAIK, right? So doesn't putting the rail way or what have you up on stilts help solve that issue anyways? That's what we did here to create an in city system because a purely underground or ground level system wasn't entirely feasible.[/QUOTE] Depends on the city, but yeah that can be part of it. Seattle is seriously expanding its light rail right now, and its been a huge pain in the ass for us. Everything above ground is taken, and below ground is far below the water table since the ocean and the sound surrounds damn near everything. So below ground is the route that has to be taken, but its ludicrously expensive. Every bridge has to be a floating bridge, and the recently expanded rail line is the first time a rail line has been built across a floating bridge. And thats the only time the line goes above ground. Otherwise, the ground level area just isn't clear at all.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49600561]Isn't one of the problems with establishing new rail lines just the general space in the cities? It's hard to actually clear ground level stuff in a line from city to city, AFAIK, right? So doesn't putting the rail way or what have you up on stilts help solve that issue anyways? That's what we did here to create an in city system because a purely underground or ground level system wasn't entirely feasible.[/QUOTE] From experience LA has a great deal of difficulty expanding its aging train and public transportation sysems

Part of me likes seeing slick new stuff like this in my lifetime but it seems like something that isn't totally necessary and will only get cheaper and more practical later on. Also, monoraaaaaaaaaaaaail.

[QUOTE=paindoc;49600531]Okay, fair enough. And that makes more sense and makes it considerably more feasible. How do they plan to handle junctions though? The current concept of LA-SF is in a tectonically active area, so that complicates things quite a bit. And I wonder how they'll stop the junctions from being jarring, or from leaking air too much I still don't hate the idea by any means. Our club actually got asked to 3D print some parts for one of the competitors in the competition or whatever it is that was mentioned on the last page, and we would have done it if all of our printers hadn't been down. Its interesting regardless, and I'm sure something of worth can be learned from it.[/QUOTE] AFAIK there are no junctions, it's just a straight line track both ways

There's no reason why it can't have monorail/maglev-type switches. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_PdCgz7ik[/media]

Sobotnik's argument that SpaceX exists solely because of government investment and subsidies is true for the most part (that's if you decide to completely ignore the multiple contracts for satellite launches listed on the Launch Manifest: [url]http://www.spacex.com/missions[/url]). [b]THAT BEING SAID[/b] You don't have much of a grasp on how most of these aerospace companies work in the United States, do you? I don't mean that as an insult, I mean it as a matter of fact. Here's a short list of companies that exist in the aerospace and aeronautic industry alone because of government investment and subsidy: Rockwell ([b]Space Shuttle[/b]) United Launch Alliance (almost entirely NASA and military contracts) Morton Thiokol ([b]Space Shuttle[/b], almost bankrupted by the Challenger disaster) United Technologies ([b]Space Shuttle[/b], formerly known as Rocketdyne, also almost bankrupted by Challenger disaster) Bigelow Aerospace (Both public and private funding, mostly chasing Federal grants for inflatable space stations at the moment) Blue Origin Armadillo Aerospace The list goes on and on. Hell, half the reason the United States spends so much on its military and civil services is to keep half of the aerospace and aeronautical manufacturing and development corporations from shuttering their doors and putting hundreds of thousands out of work. When I went to tour the facilities at Kennedy Space Center, they made a very big deal out of stating that a good majority of the manufacturing of components for bother launch crafts, orbital crafts, and satellites were done by [b]contracted companies[/b].

[QUOTE=ewitwins;49608352]Sobotnik's argument that SpaceX exists solely because of government investment and subsidies is true for the most part (that's if you decide to completely ignore the multiple contracts for satellite launches listed on the Launch Manifest: [url]http://www.spacex.com/missions[/url]). [b]THAT BEING SAID[/b] You don't have much of a grasp on how most of these aerospace companies work in the United States, do you? I don't mean that as an insult, I mean it as a matter of fact. Here's a short list of companies that exist in the aerospace and aeronautic industry alone because of government investment and subsidy: Rockwell ([b]Space Shuttle[/b]) United Launch Alliance (almost entirely NASA and military contracts) Morton Thiokol ([b]Space Shuttle[/b], almost bankrupted by the Challenger disaster) United Technologies ([b]Space Shuttle[/b], formerly known as Rocketdyne, also almost bankrupted by Challenger disaster) Bigelow Aerospace (Both public and private funding, mostly chasing Federal grants for inflatable space stations at the moment) Blue Origin Armadillo Aerospace The list goes on and on. Hell, half the reason the United States spends so much on its military and civil services is to keep half of the aerospace and aeronautical manufacturing and development corporations from shuttering their doors and putting hundreds of thousands out of work. When I went to tour the facilities at Kennedy Space Center, they made a very big deal out of stating that a good majority of the manufacturing of components for bother launch crafts, orbital crafts, and satellites were done by [b]contracted companies[/b].[/QUOTE] and it actually does feed money back into the economy, to boot.