I think it's time we started doing stuff like this. Get some super high-tech high-industry onto the North American continent
You say that like it's not a big deal.Please read the full proposal - it specifically talks about laterally damped vibration isolators in each pylon-tube connection. Also, it primarily runs up the central valley, it only crosses the major faults twice. Those places happen to be close to urban areas, where the capsules aren't at full speed.
And lots of people are saying that's extremely unrealistic. According to the critics he'd have to get CalTran to hand over their own right-of-ways that are pretty much exactly the routes he want.the pylons are not much different in footprint than electrical towers - and much of it can run right up I-5.
Critics are also saying this plan is solely intended to scuttle the rail project. I have no idea about that; I don't know that he's against that plan or whatever. Just more of an fyi.This saves billions compared to the proposed high speed rail project.
That's another reason to discount the project in my opinion. Why give away an idea that totally could work and is perfect in inception?This is an open source proposal for a system of expandable public transit infrastructure.
I agree with this statement in general terms. I don't dislike the project at all, I think it's quite neat. I just feel the need to criticize it to balance out the hype of the hyperloop.I think it's time we started doing stuff like this. Get some super high-tech high-industry onto the North American continent
They also tried using nuclear warheads to excavate canals.
FOR SCIENCE!
Yeah I know, and the US even detonated underground warheads to measure the radiation dose put off by them.
The key difference is that the glorious USSR actually set them off in the open.
Well, it's not impossible. Japan is littered with high speed elevated track, so that says something. I'm not sure if any of Japan's tracks cross the same sort of faults as this one, but this shouldn't discount the proposal out of hand. Which you're not doing, but some critics are.You say that like it's not a big deal.
I can tell you there's not much you can do to 'damp vibrations' when the ground splits apart 10 feet under your track. Again, I'm not saying this is a unique problem with this system, but I still suspect he's over-optimistic on how well this though-exercise can deal with the actual problems presented by a strike-slip fault.
Again, this is a proposal for a public transit project - CalTran could pick it up, even. He's not saying "I, Elon Musk, want this land for my project".According to the critics he'd have to get CalTran to hand over their own right-of-ways that are pretty much exactly the routes he want.
Here's a brief on the route, from the PDF:(It can't run up I-5, as I-5 doesn't go through the Bay Area. The only road directly connecting SF and LA is US 101, which runs down the Pacific coast and through at least three other metro areas in between. I have no idea how California's rail system - if it has one - is set up, so can't speak for that)
1. Maintaining the tube as closely as possible to existing rights of way (e.g.,
following the I-5).
2. Limiting the maximum capsule speed to 760 mph (1,220 kph) for
aerodynamic considerations.
3. Limiting accelerations on the passengers to 0.5g.
4. Optimizing locations of the linear motor tube sections driving the
capsules.
5. Local geographical constraints, including location of urban areas,
mountain ranges, reservoirs, national parks, roads, railroads, airports,
etc. The route must respect existing structures.
The proposed route considers a combination of 20, 50, and 100 ft (6, 15, and 30
m, respectively) pylon heights to raise and lower the Hyperloop tube over
geographical obstacles. A total tunnel length of 15.2 miles (24.5 km) has been included in this optimization where extreme local gradients (>6%) would
preclude the use of pylons.
The route has been divided into the following sections:
 Los Angeles/Grapevine – South and North
 I-5
 I-580/San Francisco Bay
Not just the tech, but also the design and testing process is fundamentally different now.This idea is also not new by any stretch, Goddard had a similar proposal back in ~1909 and there have been periodic revisits of it over the years. The Soviets even designed a system in the 30's but abandoned it. Makes you wonder why it never worked out and what's different now, you know? I'm sure lots of things have changed and Elon does have some novel tech behind him (self-powering tubes with solar arrays), still I need more details!
Hehehe the Tsar Bomba is so amazing. It was supposed to be a 100 megaton explosion, but the designer felt so uneasy about the specter of radiation contamination that he dialed it back to 50 on his own.Hey, don't dis the Russians. If they hadn't flouted safety concerns, we'd never have learned a lot of things. For example, they're the only ones who had actually flown a hot nuclear reactor in space. I think they also had a nuclear-powered aeroplane. They're very Kerbal in lots of things...
And they proved that a 50 megaton nuke isn't big enough to set Earth's atmosphere on fire
Again, this is a proposal for a public transit project - CalTran could pick it up, even. He's not saying "I, Elon Musk, want this land for my project".
The US also had the infamous "nuclear manhole" test that possibly (albeit unlikely) managed to get an object into space several years before Sputnik.
peter grimes: Interesting, I need to look closer at this pdf then.
It's just frustrating sometimes. As a mundane muggle, I just cannot significantly increase the odds of any specific project going forwards.I agree with this statement in general terms. I don't dislike the project at all, I think it's quite neat. I just feel the need to criticize it to balance out the hype of the hyperloop.
The Soviets also tried to drill into the Earth's mantle for the hell of it, so I suppose...hmmm...
I really wish the Americans dedicated more public funds to things like that
The onion has picked up on it
It's an interesting idea, and I vaguely remember hearing about similar vague ideas sometime in the past. It seems a bit too far-fetched for now though, although hobbsyoyo is probably a better judge of this than I am. At this point, anything that stops American infrastructure from backsliding into the same level as some developing nations is a good thing.
(It can't run up I-5, as I-5 doesn't go through the Bay Area. The only road directly connecting SF and LA is US 101, which runs down the Pacific coast and through at least three other metro areas in between. I have no idea how California's rail system - if it has one - is set up, so can't speak for that)
I think what we need are advances in tunneling technology so as to make it cost-effective to just build the entire thing underground.
Totally. Could you imagine being able to go from NYC to London in 3 hours?
As to the rail system - there isn't one continuous train that runs from SF to LA right now. If you absolutely want to take a train, you would take Caltrain from SF to Gilroy, then transfer onto a greyhound or Amtrak bus, and ride that down into the San Fernando Valley, at which point you'd get on a light rail or Amtrak train and ride that wherever you want. What I'm saying is that rail really isn't an option for cross-state travel in CA. If you want to go from SF to LA and you don't have your own car, your only feasible options are bus (a greyhound ticket runs to about $40, each way, but takes 10 hours), or plane ($160-300 round trip, and only takes 1 hour).