If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Good news everyone, I've discovered a method of transporting people from LA to NY in 45 minutes   (cnn.com) divider line 178
    More: Followup, Elon Musk, Los Angeles, magnetic levitation, energy usage, Rand Corporation  
•       •       •

8374 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Jul 2013 at 8:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-16 09:45:49 PM
Interesting, but if I'm reading the graphic correctly he's thinking it'll hold 4-6 people at 800-900 lbs total? Has he forgotten what the average American physique is?

And no that's not the capsule's weight, in the body it said they were supposed to be "400-pound, passenger car-sized capsules".
 
2013-07-16 09:48:33 PM

Iczer: Interesting, but if I'm reading the graphic correctly he's thinking it'll hold 4-6 people at 800-900 lbs total? Has he forgotten what the average American physique is?

And no that's not the capsule's weight, in the body it said they were supposed to be "400-pound, passenger car-sized capsules".


Article is all farked up.  Since there are no publicly available details or images until August 12, they used pictures from ET3, which is something else.
 
2013-07-16 09:50:53 PM
No mention in the article of how much the tube would cost.
 
2013-07-16 09:53:35 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: No mention in the article of how much the tube would cost.


Six billion dollars for SF to LA.
 
2013-07-16 09:54:26 PM

Hollie Maea: You can be pretty certain that this idea is a bit too robust to be broken up by a few Farkers who just heard about it.


I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
 
2013-07-16 09:55:22 PM

Hollie Maea: The All-Powerful Atheismo: No mention in the article of how much the tube would cost.

Six billion dollars for SF to LA.


Does that include the land?

/Serious question this time.
 
2013-07-16 09:56:34 PM

Hollie Maea: The All-Powerful Atheismo: No mention in the article of how much the tube would cost.

Six billion dollars for SF to LA.


That's not LA to NY.
 
2013-07-16 09:57:13 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Hollie Maea: The All-Powerful Atheismo: No mention in the article of how much the tube would cost.

Six billion dollars for SF to LA.

Does that include the land?

/Serious question this time.


Yes, that's total project cost.  Of course that's just an estimate, but it's a very educated estimate.
 
2013-07-16 09:57:21 PM
I say we just move everyone to KC, where NYC and LA are two days by car.

Then again, no one would drive there, because everyone would be in KC.
 
2013-07-16 09:59:06 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: No mention in the article of how much the tube would cost.


They can offset the cost by using the tubes to transport internet...
 
2013-07-16 10:00:17 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Hollie Maea: The All-Powerful Atheismo: No mention in the article of how much the tube would cost.

Six billion dollars for SF to LA.

That's not LA to NY.


Like I said, the article is all farked up and is mixing a bunch of different ideas.  The only route that Elon Musk has done an economic study on is SF to LA.  It is "ET3" that is looking straight to NY-LA.  But in general, he says it's about 1/10 the cost per mile as a bullet train.  He also hasn't yet said anything about multi thousands of miles per hour like "ET3" has.  And like I said, his idea is not vacuum tube.  It's pneumatic tube.
 
2013-07-16 10:01:52 PM

Hollie Maea: The All-Powerful Atheismo: No mention in the article of how much the tube would cost.

Six billion dollars for SF to LA.


Also I'm pretty sure that number is a load of bullshiat.
 
2013-07-16 10:02:42 PM

moike: The All-Powerful Atheismo: No mention in the article of how much the tube would cost.

They can offset the cost by using the tubes to transport internet...


How will they do that with no dump trucks to build it?
 
2013-07-16 10:03:12 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Also I'm pretty sure that number is a load of bullshiat.


Why would it be?  Nothing else that Elon Musk says is bullshiat.
 
2013-07-16 10:06:55 PM

Hollie Maea: way south: maybe Elon has a trick up his sleeve. Gotta wait and see I guess.

He's one of the smartest most visionary people on Earth, and he has been working on this project for almost three years.  In addition to the technology, he's worked out the energy consumption and economics.  You can be pretty certain that this idea is a bit too robust to be broken up by a few Farkers who just heard about it.


Sure, he founded PayPal, SpaceX, and Tesla Motors.  And he was involved in getting SolarCity rolling.  But what else has he ever accomplished?

The idea sounds kooky, but I can't think of any reason why it couldn't work.  Bullet trains work great in a number of countries, and this sounds essentially like an enclosed bullet train or long-distance subway.  Interested to learn more.

Befuddled: One of the nice things about air travel is it is essentially impossible for the average idiot to do harm to aircraft as they criss-cross our nation as they are out of sight and out of reach. Putting a high-speed transportation system on the ground is asking for some dumbass to cause a wreck.


Which is why rail and subway systems have never worked in history.

netringer: Cool, but I'm already screaming with claustrophobia.  They have to have escape tunnels because we know something would go wrong.  Not a mention what happens if there's a sudden decel from 4500MPH - I guess the passengers bodies could be sent home in an envelope.


Which is why airplanes have never caught on for traversing long distances.  I mean, if anything went wrong with one of those things at 30,000 feet, that would sure be a disaster.

There are reasons to think this might not work, but these are dumb objections.
 
2013-07-16 10:07:42 PM
resources0.news.com.au
 
2013-07-16 10:10:09 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: StopLurkListen: Not much that goes wrong when flying or driving is survivable, either. Or motorcycling or riding a train or really any activity that makes your little meat body go faster than it can run.

WTF kind of cars are you driving? In most (I would venture 99+%) technical or equipment failures in a car... it will simply stop working, slow down and eventually stop.


One of the most dangerous things you'll probably do today is get in a car. Over thirty thousand people in the United States are killed each year in cars.

You odds are obviously extremely good that you won't be killed, but we're not talking about the odds of something going wrong, we're talking about surviving when something does. Going sixty miles per hour in your car and hit something? Good luck. You'll need it because you just ran out of all of it. Those thirty thousand killed didn't die from coasting and eventually stopping ... I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the stop was probably a bit more abrupt.

And before you think I'm an anti-car safety crusader or something, I'm just putting this in perspective for you. Surviving accidents is pretty much out of the question above sprinting speeds. Avoiding accidents should be priority #1.
 
2013-07-16 10:11:13 PM

Hollie Maea: Pray 4 Mojo: Hollie Maea: The All-Powerful Atheismo: No mention in the article of how much the tube would cost.

Six billion dollars for SF to LA.

Does that include the land?

/Serious question this time.

Yes, that's total project cost.  Of course that's just an estimate, but it's a very educated estimate.


If you're talking City to City... that seems like an awfully low estimate. It's about 330-350 miles from LA to SF... Even at a cost effective assumption of the right of way required... say 50 feet... it's over (I'm pretty sure) 2000 acres of land to be purchased. Getting anywhere near SF and LA (and their real estate prices)... that's gotta be eating up 20% of the budget.
 
2013-07-16 10:12:09 PM

chimp_ninja: Sure, he founded PayPal, SpaceX, and Tesla Motors.  And he was involved in getting SolarCity rolling.  But what else has he ever accomplished?


He's not an empty suit either. A lot of people don't realize this, but he's also the chief designer at Spacex...a company that successfully docked with the ISS in only a decade after being founded.  He's one of the greatest engineers on Earth, and has never had a significant failure.  Don't see why he would start now.
 
2013-07-16 10:12:46 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: If you're talking City to City... that seems like an awfully low estimate. It's about 330-350 miles from LA to SF... Even at a cost effective assumption of the right of way required... say 50 feet... it's over (I'm pretty sure) 2000 acres of land to be purchased. Getting anywhere near SF and LA (and their real estate prices)... that's gotta be eating up 20% of the budget.


Just have the tubes sit 50 feet directly above the interstate highway system. Problem solved.
 
2013-07-16 10:14:11 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Even at a cost effective assumption of the right of way required... say 50 feet...


That's a much larger right of way than will be needed.  The entire tube diameter will be 2 meters.  But yeah, the vast majority of the costs will be land acquisition.
 
2013-07-16 10:16:08 PM

DamnYankees: Just have the tubes sit 50 feet directly above the interstate highway system. Problem solved.


There will undoubtedly be a lot of that.  This will be up on pylons anyway.  It will have to stray from freeways at times because it can't turn nearly as tightly due to the high speeds.
 
2013-07-16 10:19:27 PM

StopLurkListen: Pray 4 Mojo: StopLurkListen: Not much that goes wrong when flying or driving is survivable, either. Or motorcycling or riding a train or really any activity that makes your little meat body go faster than it can run.

WTF kind of cars are you driving? In most (I would venture 99+%) technical or equipment failures in a car... it will simply stop working, slow down and eventually stop.

One of the most dangerous things you'll probably do today is get in a car. Over thirty thousand people in the United States are killed each year in cars.

You odds are obviously extremely good that you won't be killed, but we're not talking about the odds of something going wrong, we're talking about surviving when something does. Going sixty miles per hour in your car and hit something? Good luck. You'll need it because you just ran out of all of it. Those thirty thousand killed didn't die from coasting and eventually stopping ... I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the stop was probably a bit more abrupt.

And before you think I'm an anti-car safety crusader or something, I'm just putting this in perspective for you. Surviving accidents is pretty much out of the question above sprinting speeds. Avoiding accidents should be priority #1.


My problem with what you said isn't that car travel is dangerous... it's equating the danger of air or 4000mph rail travel to car travel. Engines fail mid flight on a commercial plane... you're pretty much dead.

I accept that there is a danger when I drive. But an equipment failure at 70mph is rarely fatal.
 
2013-07-16 10:21:58 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: My problem with what you said isn't that car travel is dangerous... it's equating the danger of air or 4000mph rail travel to car travel. Engines fail mid flight on a commercial plane... you're pretty much dead.

I accept that there is a danger when I drive. But an equipment failure at 70mph is rarely fatal.


Definitely the biggest engineering challenge with this project is making sure that it is as close as possible to 100 percent safe.  That's what Musk has spent most of his work on so far.
 
2013-07-16 10:28:29 PM

Hollie Maea: Pray 4 Mojo: Even at a cost effective assumption of the right of way required... say 50 feet...

That's a much larger right of way than will be needed.  The entire tube diameter will be 2 meters.  But yeah, the vast majority of the costs will be land acquisition.


For each tube? With one in each direction? So a total width of probably 15 feet for the two tubes... and then a 15-20 foot accessible area on each side for construction, maintenance and safety equipment. 50 feet sounds about right.
 
2013-07-16 10:31:05 PM

kimwim: Terry Bisson


Thanks, interesting read.
 
2013-07-16 10:34:16 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Hollie Maea: Pray 4 Mojo: Even at a cost effective assumption of the right of way required... say 50 feet...

That's a much larger right of way than will be needed.  The entire tube diameter will be 2 meters.  But yeah, the vast majority of the costs will be land acquisition.

For each tube? With one in each direction? So a total width of probably 15 feet for the two tubes... and then a 15-20 foot accessible area on each side for construction, maintenance and safety equipment. 50 feet sounds about right.


Personally, I would put the access road between the two tubes...since it would be up on pylons don't need much buffer on each side.
 
2013-07-16 10:35:34 PM
Neat idea.

Terrible writing. The author clearly doesn't understand the topic very well (taking two barely-related concepts and smashing them together into the same article), and several sentences begin with "but" because the author is trying to create some sort of weak dynamic in the story. There's actually some interesting stuff to learn about here, but writing well about new concepts requires research and careful explanation, not just slapping up some hyperbole and then a few half-understood details.

Then at the end, the author turns to "sources say" nonsense and Twitter quotes that aren't even that relevant to the story.

/I really hate Wired sometimes. They employ some of the worst tech writers on the planet and then farm their content out to media sources like CNN where people don't know any better.
 
2013-07-16 10:36:45 PM

StopLurkListen: One of the most dangerous things you'll probably do today is get in a car. Over thirty thousand people in the United States are killed each year in cars.


Yup.  Let's say we built tube-trains 100 years ago.  What if someone came along in 2013 and said this?

"My idea is that essentially any adult, even really dumb ones, would have a 2 or 3 ton ground vehicle that can go essentially wherever the occupant wants.  To prevent collisions, we'll draw lines on the ground and ask people to pretend that they are actual barriers.  If it's really confusing, we'll put up a system of flashing colored lights and written instructions and ask everyone to memorize what they mean and obey them.  Yeah, I've seen people who can't figure out how to order at a McDonald's, but I'm sure they'll correctly process written instructions as they're hurtling around at 60+ mph.

We'll also lay down, I don't know, 4 million miles of wide concrete strips so that these 3-ton things don't bounce too much as they move around.  We'll load each vehicle up with ~100 pounds of extremely flammable liquid and draw power from a series of controlled explosions.  We'll start that using a big tank of lead and concentrated sulfuric acid.  My initial estimates are that this system will kill roughly as many people each year as breast cancer or alcohol does, and that's before we think about the lung disease from the reduced air quality."


Alternate Universe Fark would blow up.
 
2013-07-16 10:42:51 PM
I don't know.  This entire concept seems less fun than my 2,444 mile long Slip and Slide.
 
2013-07-16 10:43:23 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: My problem with what you said isn't that car travel is dangerous... it's equating the danger of air or 4000mph rail travel to car travel. Engines fail mid flight on a commercial plane... you're pretty much dead.

I accept that there is a danger when I drive. But an equipment failure at 70mph is rarely fatal.


Huh?  On a per-mile basis, traveling by airplane is about eight times safer than traveling by car.
 
2013-07-16 10:44:27 PM
img.trekmovie.com

Roddenberry used the concept Twice in the 70's for Genesis II and recycled the sets for Planet Earth.
A Vacuum global subway system that was still left intact after the 'Apocalypse' as it was pretty much bullet proof and self contained and solar and nuke powered.
But then again this wasn't his (Roddenberry's) idea; the idea of a fast 'rail gun' type subway has been around for long time.

I think Tesla dude must have grown up watching the same 70's SciFi.
 
2013-07-16 10:44:57 PM
Looks viable except there is no bathroom and no way to prevent other passengers BO or farts from asphyxiating you.
 
2013-07-16 10:46:05 PM

Hollie Maea: Personally, I would put the access road between the two tubes...since it would be up on pylons don't need much buffer on each side.


Ohhh... good call. What about seismic and noise issues?

/Hope you know I'm not doing this to break balls... it's really interesting.
//and I appreciate your indulging me.
 
2013-07-16 10:46:15 PM

secularsage: Twitter quotes that aren't even that relevant to the story.


Twitter quotes from yesterday that are a bit more relevant:

Will you cover Hyperloop safety for earthquake prone areas like CA?

yes, that is a critical design driver

http://twitpic.com/cw4pqb

your guess is the closest I've seen anyone guess so far. Pod diameter probably around 2m

This means we can make long sections of HL tube @ a central local, move them down the overhead girders & attach them in sequence!

pretty much.
 
2013-07-16 10:48:17 PM

chimp_ninja: Pray 4 Mojo: My problem with what you said isn't that car travel is dangerous... it's equating the danger of air or 4000mph rail travel to car travel. Engines fail mid flight on a commercial plane... you're pretty much dead.

I accept that there is a danger when I drive. But an equipment failure at 70mph is rarely fatal.

Huh?  On a per-mile basis, traveling by airplane is about eight times safer than traveling by car.


Yeah... you missed the point.
 
2013-07-16 10:48:48 PM

StopLurkListen: Surviving accidents is pretty much out of the question above sprinting speeds


As a mediocre mountain biker, my continued existence refutes your claim...
 
2013-07-16 10:50:37 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: Hollie Maea: Personally, I would put the access road between the two tubes...since it would be up on pylons don't need much buffer on each side.

Ohhh... good call. What about seismic and noise issues?

/Hope you know I'm not doing this to break balls... it's really interesting.
//and I appreciate your indulging me.


It'll be interesting to see what he comes up with for the seismic issue.  My guess is that there will be sort of a pendulum type system in which the pylons can move independent of the tube.  Making pylons that can withstand earthquakes is just old fashioned engineering.  I wouldn't ride on the inevitable Chinese version though.

As far as noise goes, the key to this working is laminar air flow, so it shouldn't be very noisy.

/Thankee for TF
 
2013-07-16 10:51:17 PM

zarker: stuhayes2010: And maintaining a vacuum of that size will only required a1/3 of the nation's electricity.

Wanna know how I know you didn't RTFA


did you miss the fourth paragraph?
 
2013-07-16 10:51:52 PM

kimwim: I am terrified to fly. I would get in this, in a heartbeat.


Which is probably about the time frame from "Start moving" to "chunky salsa"
 
2013-07-16 10:52:36 PM
Listen to this song from a former Stealy Dan member.

I.G.Y (International Geophysical Year) What a beautiful world it would be....

90 mins from NY to Paris---Undersea by rail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sogYgHlNnqo
 
2013-07-16 10:52:45 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

IT CAN'T BE DONE!


// Oh. Well. They were right about that one.
 
2013-07-16 10:53:38 PM

stuhayes2010: zarker: stuhayes2010: And maintaining a vacuum of that size will only required a1/3 of the nation's electricity.

Wanna know how I know you didn't RTFA

did you miss the fourth paragraph?


Yep, article mentions a vacuum tube.  But the article is wrong.
 
2013-07-16 10:54:00 PM
Need to figure out how to cancel Inertia...I mean, while you're at it.
 
2013-07-16 10:54:31 PM

Hollie Maea: way south: maybe Elon has a trick up his sleeve. Gotta wait and see I guess.

He's one of the smartest most visionary people on Earth, and he has been working on this project for almost three years.  In addition to the technology, he's worked out the energy consumption and economics.  You can be pretty certain that this idea is a bit too robust to be broken up by a few Farkers who just heard about it.


Let me be upfront and say I've had a serious mancrush on Elon for his work with SpaceX and Tesla motors.
But, as with his time in paypal, what he does seems more evolutionary than revolutionary.  He brings fresh energy and capital into stale industries, tilting at the windmills of the establishment and getting decent results. He gets away with doing the things many wanted to do but, for various reasons, couldn't get away with.

That said: If this is a land based system, what he's going to need is a revolt.  There's alot of old blood and big money locking up access to urban centers as a means to enrich themselves. So I'm not convinced a new kind of train is the secret to getting around that.

So, yes, I'm hopeful that he's got a real rabbit in the hat this time. Also suspicious that it isn't the kind of solution Populace Science is ready to put on its cover.   Something more to do with the back end politics of getting access than the machinery itself.
 
2013-07-16 10:56:58 PM

phalamir: kimwim: I am terrified to fly. I would get in this, in a heartbeat.

Which is probably about the time frame from "Start moving" to "chunky salsa"


Like I said, this could easily be accomplished with a mere 1.5G of acceleration, which causes no physiological harm.  The high speed, of course, has zero effect on the body.
 
2013-07-16 11:00:28 PM
syntheticsean.files.wordpress.com

Yeesh.  90 comments and I am the first to bring up Friday?
 
2013-07-16 11:00:52 PM

Hollie Maea: /Thankee for TF


Don't thank me. I just destroyed your productivity for the next 30 days. Muahahahaha!!
 
2013-07-16 11:01:01 PM

StopLurkListen: Pray 4 Mojo: StopLurkListen: Not much that goes wrong when flying or driving is survivable, either. Or motorcycling or riding a train or really any activity that makes your little meat body go faster than it can run.

WTF kind of cars are you driving? In most (I would venture 99+%) technical or equipment failures in a car... it will simply stop working, slow down and eventually stop.

One of the most dangerous things you'll probably do today is get in a car. Over thirty thousand people in the United States are killed each year in cars.

You odds are obviously extremely good that you won't be killed, but we're not talking about the odds of something going wrong, we're talking about surviving when something does. Going sixty miles per hour in your car and hit something? Good luck. You'll need it because you just ran out of all of it. Those thirty thousand killed didn't die from coasting and eventually stopping ... I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the stop was probably a bit more abrupt.

And before you think I'm an anti-car safety crusader or something, I'm just putting this in perspective for you. Surviving accidents is pretty much out of the question above sprinting speeds. Avoiding accidents should be priority #1.



Wha...

**blinks*

...

...

I...

....


...

i624.photobucket.com

....


Yea. Umm. Have ...a...pleasant day?
 
2013-07-16 11:01:56 PM

way south: That said: If this is a land based system, what he's going to need is a revolt.  There's alot of old blood and big money locking up access to urban centers as a means to enrich themselves. So I'm not convinced a new kind of train is the secret to getting around that.


That's why my plan for the company I am trying to start would do the initial proof of concept from Portland to Salem.  Relatively small number of politicians to work with, and overwhelmingly would be the type to not give a shiat about big money politics.  Plus the trump card that a lot of the state level pols live in Portland and commute to Salem.  Cutting that commute from 90 minutes to 5 would be irresistible.  The side benefit is that it's about the right length for an initial proof of concept, plus the terrain is easy.  But once the first one of these is built and people see it in action, there WILL be a revolt if "powers that be" try to withhold it.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report