# Seems to me, that Hyperloop is not only the future, it will benefit all of us and save us a lot of time.



## Space Lynx (Aug 24, 2021)

Watch this video in full before commenting please.  Keep in mind, even in the pandemic like now, hyperloop would still be better than all other modes of public transport (the pods are more sanitary since only small number of people for each one, versus air being exchanged on an entire train, etc. 

it is inevitable to me that due to climate change, we will all be on like a hyperloop system in around 100-150 years, or automated cars at 100%. but to me it seems like Hyperloop is the future. logically speaking it makes a lot of sense. it has almost no maintenance, doesn't cost much to build (don't have to barrel through hills like a railroad track, just build your columns higher or lower for various terrain, etc.

there is a working hyperloop in middle east (I might have the location wrong, I don't know) somewhere Richard Branson's company made, so yeah it's not just hypothetical.

this is an awesome video and it is very much the future imo, it makes a lot of sense, 0 emissions, way faster than normal transport or even bullet trains, easier to build and faster than bullet trains (hyperloop will go 670mph in some sections), etc:


----------



## Remeca (Aug 24, 2021)

No. It is not practical in reality at all. No more promises and 3D renderings. All the prototypes fail for a reason. High speed rail is a better investment.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 24, 2021)

Remeca said:


> No. It is not practical in reality at all. No more promises and 3D renderings. All the prototypes fail for a reason. High speed rail is a better investment.



did you watch the video? they have a working prototype...

high speed rail has emissions, this doesn't also train tracks are hard to build and maintain, this is not.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 24, 2021)

A vacuum tube is easy to build and maintain? Direct to destination?... that is what a car does.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Aug 24, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> A vacuum tube is easy to build and maintain? Direct to destination?... that is what a car does.



Cars are disgusting polluters. Fast trains across large countries are much better, direct, and faster.


----------



## Remeca (Aug 24, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> did you watch the video? they have a working prototype...


I have watched dozens of videos on the topic, and it just isn't feasible, practical, cost effective or _safe._



How many seals do you need for 500km of near vacuum tube? How many pumps do you need along the track to keep the near vacuum? How do the prototypes account for thermal expansion? How do you get people out of the tube in the event there is an accident that doesn't kill everyone? How will the survivors breath?

This idea has been around for a _long time_, what has changed to make it feasible now?



lynx29 said:


> high speed rail has emissions, this doesn't


That isn't true.


lynx29 said:


> also train tracks are hard to build and maintain, this is not.


That isn't true.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 25, 2021)

Remeca said:


> This idea has been around for a _long time_, what has changed to make it feasible now?



The video was posted yesterday, official channel of Virgin Hyperloop. They have a working prototype, for the third time. You should probably watch this video as it is the latest and most up to date one, and perhaps you can figure out for yourself what they did, they explain a lot of it there. I'm not an engineer though so I can't repeat or verify any of it as progress. I am simply saying they have a working prototype now, and they MUST know about all the issues you talked about, yet they are still investing billions into it, so... they must have figured something out.


----------



## Remeca (Aug 25, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> The video was posted yesterday, official channel of Virgin Hyperloop. They have a working prototype, for the third time. You should probably watch this video as it is the latest and most up to date one, and perhaps you can figure out for yourself what they did, they explain a lot of it there. I'm not an engineer though so I can't repeat or verify any of it as progress. I am simply saying they have a working prototype now, and they MUST know about all the issues you talked about, yet they are still investing billions into it, so... they must have figured something out.


You're repeating their objectively false claims, so why would I believe anything they have to say? It's all puffery to get more investors on board. This isn't going anywhere. None of their claims have been demonstrated. There are too many problems they are ignoring, while making the same old false claims that make people think it's a great new technology. It isn't, it's as old as trains and planes, and there's a reason we have planes and trains now and no hyperloop.


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 25, 2021)

Due to the geographical spread, all rail transports in US (including Hyperloop) has the "last mile" problem. Take for example: Long Island is 150km (100 miles) long, do you stop every 5 minutes? Or have a complex timetable for some service to skip stops? Or build massive stations to take the thousands of individual pods?


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 25, 2021)

Fourstaff said:


> Due to the geographical spread, all rail transports in US (including Hyperloop) has the "last mile" problem. Take for example: Long Island is 150km (100 miles) long, do you stop every 5 minutes? Or have a complex timetable for some service to skip stops? Or build massive stations to take the thousands of individual pods?



They show this in the video. The tubes will easily jettison off, its a very simple solution really, and I believe their aim is thousands of individual pods, or not single person but smaller than what you may be thinking, again the video shows estimates and 3d graphics for how they imagine it will all play out.



Remeca said:


> You're repeating their objectively false claims



so science can never progress? how do you explain Elon Musk's reusable rocket breakthrough? 

this video was literally posted yesterday, I'm just saying, it seems like they are making progress and I think that is cool. I do hope it is the future.  It would be neat to visit big city museums, etc in short amount of time with no flying, etc. I dislike flying immensely, afraid of heights and such.


----------



## joemama (Aug 25, 2021)

Looks like it will take a long time until it can actually go into practice, it is just too complicated for our current technology level


----------



## Remeca (Aug 25, 2021)

I would say, talk to me again when there has been a demonstration of a pod carrying at least one human sized passenger, traveling in a near vacuum, faster than any in-service rail train. It hasn't happened yet.

The video also doesn't answer any very basic reality based questions, like what if someone shoots it? That would rapidly pancake/dismantle the _entire_ tube. If it was ever in operation, I would never ride on one, and after the first catastrophic failure, nobody else will either. Making earth travel more dangerous than space travel sounds like a supremely bad idea.

The video merely restates the same bull buzzwords like "zero emissions" and "faster than any train" hyperloop salesmen have been pitching for years, still without a simple demonstration of such.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Aug 25, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> train tracks are hard to build and maintain, this is not.



That's a confidently incorrect response...


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 25, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> They show this in the video. The tubes will easily jettison off, its a very simple solution really, and I believe their aim is thousands of individual pods, or not single person but smaller than what you may be thinking, again the video shows estimates and 3d graphics for how they imagine it will all play out.



If you look at MTA's website, we are talking about hundred thousand riders per day, up to tens of thousands for the busier stations. how big of a station would they need in order to manage all these pods starting and stopping? 

From my experience with various subways around the world, it takes a lot of minutes just to navigate from your basic 2 platform station to street level, let alone the massive number required for this pod concept.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 25, 2021)

Fourstaff said:


> If you look at MTA's website, we are talking about hundred thousand riders per day, up to tens of thousands for the busier stations. how big of a station would they need in order to manage all these pods starting and stopping?
> 
> From my experience with various subways around the world, it takes a lot of minutes just to navigate from your basic 2 platform station to street level, let alone the massive number required for this pod concept.



well as my original post says, I said in 100-150 years, when we realize it is the only option due to climate change/limited natural resources. You won't have streets anymore, pods will go to houses, to Wal-Mart, everywhere. It will be an entire ecosystem that is built on top of the roads (this is just my guess btw, I am not claiming it as science, just saying it seems like the natural progression of things in 100-150 years... assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves by then)



ShiBDiB said:


> That's a confidently incorrect response...



Oh? When is the last time you carved out the middle of a giant hill to make a train tunnel through it? You won't have to with hyperloop, it can more easily go around, just adjust the column lengths, etc.


----------



## Remeca (Aug 25, 2021)

You can't have pods traveling in near vacuum tubes at high speeds. The air will build up a pressure wave in front of it until.... There's a reason many renderings have giant turbines on the front of them, and then read about why this idea was abandoned a century ago. This is a ridiculous waste of money and resources, isn't green, isn't futuristic, and isn't better than anything we already have.


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 25, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> well as my original post says, I said in 100-150 years, when we realize it is the only option due to climate change/limited natural resources. You won't have streets anymore, pods will go to houses, to Wal-Mart, everywhere. It will be an entire ecosystem that is built on top of the roads (this is just my guess btw, I am not claiming it as science, just saying it seems like the natural progression of things in 100-150 years... assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves by then)



100-150 years is sufficiently far enough to claim possibility, and both of us will not be around to prove it. In that case, then they should stop this Hyperloop experiment until 80 years later, since it shouldn't take more than a couple of decades from proof of concept to mass deployment. 

As for the maintenance side of the story, anything that deals with pressure or temperature differential costs a lot of maintenance money. This thing with vacuum + meglev means it will be at least an order of magnitude more expensive as conventional railtracks.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 25, 2021)

Fourstaff said:


> 100-150 years is sufficiently far enough to claim possibility, and both of us will not be around to prove it. In that case, then they should stop this Hyperloop experiment until 80 years later, since it shouldn't take more than a couple of decades from proof of concept to mass deployment.
> 
> As for the maintenance side of the story, anything that deals with pressure or temperature differential costs a lot of maintenance money. This thing with vacuum + meglev means it will be at least an order of magnitude more expensive as conventional railtracks.



I think the idea is to try to save the Earth before it is to late, I think that is what Richard Branson is hoping for with this, but I honestly have no idea.  I'm pretty sure Elon Musk thinks its too late to save Earth, hence his hyper focus on self-sustaining colonies on Mars.



Remeca said:


> You can't have pods traveling in near vacuum tubes at high speeds. The air will build up a pressure wave in front of it until.... There's a reason many renderings have giant turbines on the front of them, and then read about why this idea was abandoned a century ago. This is a ridiculous waste of money and resources, isn't green, isn't futuristic, and isn't better than anything we already have.



I'm not disagreeing with you at all, I just found that video interesting and it was just posted yesterday. I think it's just neat to think about and discuss is all. I hope they do figure it out personally, if it was truly impossible, I find it hard to believe they would still be trying though.


----------



## joemama (Aug 25, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> well as my original post says, I said in 100-150 years, when we realize it is the only option due to climate change/limited natural resources. You won't have streets anymore, pods will go to houses, to Wal-Mart, everywhere. It will be an entire ecosystem that is built on top of the roads (this is just my guess btw, I am not claiming it as science, just saying it seems like the natural progression of things in 100-150 years... assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves by then)


If it's 100~150 years, I would still bet on improved automobiles such as a whole system of auto driving electric cars, the hyperloop idea is limited by it's mobility, you need to have tubes going everywhere to make it happen and the tube maintenance is a big problem.


----------



## Fourstaff (Aug 25, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I think the idea is to try to save the Earth before it is to late, I think that is what Richard Branson is hoping for with this, but I honestly have no idea.  I'm pretty sure Elon Musk thinks its too late to save Earth, hence his hyper focus on self-sustaining colonies on Mars.



If the objective is to save Earth, this will not be the solution. We will be emitting crazy amount of CO2 just by building a parallel set of infrastructure to get this hyperloop up, and will still need to maintain existing infrastructure to transport bulky objects. Sounds like a no-win scenario to me.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 25, 2021)

joemama said:


> If it's 100~150 years, I would still bet on improved automobiles such as a whole system of auto driving electric cars, the hyperloop idea is limited by it's mobility, you need to have tubes going everywhere to make it happen and the tube maintenance is a big problem.



perhaps if we have a breakthrough in batteries I'd agree with you, eventually we run out of oil. 

I guess if we figure out Fusion which is a long shot still but hopeful... then we could have unlimited hydrogen power I suppose. 

battery based cars are still again dependent on natural resources that can't last forever.



Fourstaff said:


> If the objective is to save Earth, this will not be the solution. We will be emitting crazy amount of CO2 just by building a parallel set of infrastructure to get this hyperloop up, and will still need to maintain existing infrastructure to transport bulky objects. Sounds like a no-win scenario to me.



I have no idea on this, I'm in the Elon Musk camp at this point, in the sense we need to colonize Mars sooner rather than later, since we can't seem to control our short term greed.


----------



## droopyRO (Aug 25, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> yperloop would still be better than all other modes of public transport (the pods are more sanitary since only small number of people for each one,


If people would get easely covid or other airborne disease from riding public transportation, we would have millions of cases each day. It only matters what is practical and can be implemented around the world. If a few wealthy countries make a fancy train, it changes nothing globally. I don't see this being implemented in our lifetime nor do i see colonizing any planet as a posibility without a major power source that dose not go kaboom with the power of millions of kilograms of TNT


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 25, 2021)

droopyRO said:


> If people would get easely covid or other airborne disease from riding public transportation, we would have millions of cases each day. It only matters what is practical and can be implemented around the world. If a few wealthy countries make a fancy train, it changes nothing globally. I don't see this being implemented in our lifetime nor do i see colonizing any planet as a posibility without a major power source that dose not go kaboom with the power of millions of kilograms of TNT



Oh, I don't see either one ever happening either, that is the great irony of our species, capable of so much, yet so little.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 25, 2021)

Remeca said:


> How many seals do you need for 500km of near vacuum tube? How many pumps do you need along the track to keep the near vacuum? How do the prototypes account for thermal expansion? How do you get people out of the tube in the event there is an accident that doesn't kill everyone? How will the survivors breath?


People need to understand jakuzis work with the same Venturi principle that can collapse a stupid Hyperloop tunnel. The collapse happens when the 'vacuum fails', so it is inherently critically unsafe as even transient vacuum loss will meet with huge air velocity that will surpass operating stress limits.

Haven't we experienced pressure shock from passing cars at the side of the road? Tunnels will be just as reliable as hovercrafts are which aren't long term durable. Anything working with pressure is doomed to plastic deformation.(unless we cover the entire site with metallic glass).

Hyperloop is only viable since steel (and rare metals for magnets) to make maglev infrastructure is so expensive and the dream is to make it out of concrete(sort of). We know how tensionally durable that is.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 25, 2021)

Gruffalo.Soldier said:


> Cars are disgusting polluters. Fast trains across large countries are much better, direct, and faster.



Sure, until you find out you need a whole list of transportation to _really_ get where you need to be. This requires planning, preparation, time, all those things people really like to skip past so they can get in the car and drive, typing the destination on nav while they nearly hit a kid on a bike as they drive out of town.

Let's face it, we're lazy motherfuckers.



lynx29 said:


> I think the idea is to try to save the Earth before it is to late, I think that is what Richard Branson is hoping for with this, but I honestly have no idea.  I'm pretty sure Elon Musk thinks its too late to save Earth, hence his hyper focus on self-sustaining colonies on Mars.



The ideas there are to make money and have fun doing it. If we wanted to save the Earth, we'd be talking about reduction, not changes. Changes like these are just progress, they're not saving anything.

Save the Earth... means less people. Did you hear China just lifted its child birth limitations? Good luck placing your solar panels and tubes.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 25, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> Save the Earth... means less people.


That is the Darwinist dogma. We need more life on the planet, not less. Animals, fungi and plants form complete ecosystems. You cannot generate soil and - eventually die from soil erosion - if you don't time the rainy season with ploughed plant matter and animal fertilizer all at the same time(all done by using nature) to activate fungi to break all organic matter down to new soil. Open ground oxidation is greenhouse inducing. Fungi can incorporate the carbon we are so actively scared of unlike our pessimistic predictions go. They are pretty good at what they do, it is our interventions of ecosystems that make the land barren. When is the last time herbivores trampled vegetation at the start of the rainy season, or a forest is considered a soil bank?

People are not polluters, the lifestyle is pollution oriented. Nobody needs to have new stuff, we just don't have a service economy.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 25, 2021)

mtcn77 said:


> That is the Darwinist dogma. We need more life on the planet, not less. Animals, fungi and plants form complete ecosystems. You cannot generate soil and - eventually die from soil erosion - if you don't time the rainy season with ploughed plant matter and animal fertilizer all at the same time(all done by using nature) to activate fungi to break all organic matter down to new soil. Open ground oxidation is greenhouse inducing. Fungi can incorporate the carbon we are so actively scared of unlike our pessimistic predictions go. They are pretty good at what they do, it is our interventions of ecosystems that make the land barren. When is the last time herbivores trampled vegetation at the start of the rainy season?
> 
> People are not polluters, the lifestyle is pollution oriented. Nobody needs to have new stuff, we just don't have a service economy.


More life - I said less people  Unless you see us trampling that vegetation with bare feet.

As for the lifestyle, sure. But you still need less people, even in a service economy. Services won't change a thing, they'll just reduce our means of freedom and control, something humans cope very badly with in a general sense. But let's not drift too far away from those hyperloops


----------



## Steevo (Aug 25, 2021)

Maybe they should build this under the solar roadways that were a farce. Or give the passengers the solar refilling water bottle. Or any of the hundreds of ideas that don’t match up 


The economy of scale makes this a non-starter, the millions of tons of concrete, steel, energy to produce the infrastructure outweighs the benefit. The safety issues aren’t just something you can easily engineer around, and remember that Musk had a rocket blow up too, and can anyone name a rocket that has been reused yet? Only one Falcon 9 has been reused AFAIK so again, good idea but most companies pay the premium for new when launching hundreds of millions of dollars to space. Imagine 100 people dying due to a faulty seal that will have the same force as a blowout at 42,000ft in a jet, meaning it will tear itself apart.

I believe in the free market, so let it do its job without forcing my tax dollars to pay for their ideas. If it’s feasible and marketable it will work, and the inventors can be rich.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 25, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> Unless you see us trampling that vegetation with bare feet.


That is the job of herbivores. If we are to enter into carbon economy, each "straw" of decaying plantlife needs to matter: it can either become carbon emission, or new soil. It is our decisions that make the difference. Decaying organic matter needs to meet the ground where fungi can turn that into economy. All I'm saying is - as with your example also depicts - we aren't herbivores, we aren't fungi. What we are is higher intellectual creatures who can take them for what they are: parts of the ecosystem.
Each stick, each dead animal can be recycled to make soil - if only we let earth saprophytes break them down. Not bugs - just fungi.

Animal fertilizer - trampled dead plant matter - rain - fungi all needs to be at the same place at the same time. It is so simple, we just need to have herbivore parades before the rains fall...


----------



## Ripcord (Aug 25, 2021)

this is just a maglev train in a vacuum tunnel it should be possible with current technology


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 25, 2021)

Ripcord said:


> this is just a maglev train in a vacuum tunnel it should be possible with current technology


You mean like maglevs are economic with current technology?


----------



## Shrek (Aug 25, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> it is inevitable to me that due to climate change, we will all be on like a hyperloop system in around 100-150 years, or automated cars at 100%.



World population is doubling about every 50 years, so in 150, if the trend continues, we will have 8 times as many people as we have now.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 25, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> World population is doubling about every 50 years, so in 150, if the trend continues, we will have 8 times as many people as we have now.


Slippery slope argument.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 25, 2021)

All extrapolation has its dangers.


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 25, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> All extrapolation has its dangers.


Not if they are exaggerated on false premises. Common sense isn't exaggerated.


----------



## Shrek (Aug 25, 2021)

Doubling every 50 years is false?


----------



## mtcn77 (Aug 25, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> Doubling every 50 years is false?


Apocalyptic prophecies is wrong. We are running into issues because of deforestation, not because of population growth. While I know you will make a false dichotomy out of the two, population may be stopped while deforestation continues. That is prevailing the issue. In other news, we may activate ocean algea with iron as fertilizer and make more carbon sequestration than all forests can provide. It is only the will and care missing to account for the backbones of organic life.

PS: @Remeca yes that is what I have been trying to say. Also, comparing concrete to a forest is inherently wrong. A forest can recycle itself. Concrete will release all carbon it sequestered from the atmosphere when it runs out of calcium hydroxite to turn into calcium carbonate which is due in the next 75 years - and because concrete has terrible recycling options.


----------



## Remeca (Aug 25, 2021)

The population argument is a red herring. The claims being made by these companies are false. This isn't a new technology, it isn't zero emission, it isn't green in any way shape or form just because some 3d renderings have solar panels, it isn't faster than anything we have now, it's inherently unsafe and impractical, and there are monumental engineering obstacles that are just being ignored.


----------



## Frick (Aug 25, 2021)

Steevo said:


> Maybe they should build this under the solar roadways that were a farce. Or give the passengers the solar refilling water bottle. Or any of the hundreds of ideas that don’t match up
> 
> 
> The economy of scale makes this a non-starter, the millions of tons of concrete, steel, energy to produce the infrastructure outweighs the benefit. The safety issues aren’t just something you can easily engineer around, and remember that Musk had a rocket blow up too, and can anyone name a rocket that has been reused yet? Only one Falcon 9 has been reused AFAIK so again, good idea but most companies pay the premium for new when launching hundreds of millions of dollars to space. Imagine 100 people dying due to a faulty seal that will have the same force as a blowout at 42,000ft in a jet, meaning it will tear itself apart.
> ...



The first stage boosters have been reused a whole bunch of times. Reusing entire rockets is a whole other deal and is what Starship is about. I mean Musk is an asshat who shouldn't be allowed on Twitter or in public spaces, but SpaceX is transforming the launch industry before our very eyes, and they save metric butt-tons of tax dollars.


----------



## Remeca (Aug 25, 2021)

Frick said:


> The first stage boosters have been reused a whole bunch of times. Reusing entire rockets is a whole other deal and is what Starship is about. I mean Musk is an asshat who shouldn't be allowed on Twitter or in public spaces, but SpaceX is transforming the launch industry before our very eyes, *and they save metric butt-tons of tax dollars.*


When has spaceX been on/under budget? I'm not finding any such contracts. In fact, most of Musk's public contracts have been overpromised, under delivered, and never for the vast savings claimed in the sales pitches that everyone believes.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 25, 2021)

Frick said:


> and they save metric butt-tons of tax dollars.



true, but isn't NASA still pursuing SLS even though its not reusable and everyone and their mom knows Starship is the future.



Remeca said:


> When has spaceX been on/under budget? I'm not finding any such contracts. In fact, most of Musk's public contracts have been overpromised, under delivered, and never for the vast savings claimed in the sales pitches that everyone believes.



I bet you are a fun one at parties.


----------



## P4-630 (Aug 25, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> Watch this video in full before commenting please.  Keep in mind, even in the pandemic like now, hyperloop would still be better than all other modes of public transport (the pods are more sanitary since only small number of people for each one, versus air being exchanged on an entire train, etc.
> 
> it is inevitable to me that due to climate change, we will all be on like a hyperloop system in around 100-150 years, or automated cars at 100%. but to me it seems like Hyperloop is the future. logically speaking it makes a lot of sense. it has almost no maintenance, doesn't cost much to build (don't have to barrel through hills like a railroad track, just build your columns higher or lower for various terrain, etc.
> 
> ...



What happened with Elon Musk his hyperloop dream?


----------



## Remeca (Aug 25, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> true, but isn't NASA still pursuing SLS even though its not reusable and everyone and their mom knows Starship is the future.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet you are a fun one at parties.


Yes, facts and reality suck, don't they.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 25, 2021)

P4-630 said:


> What happened with Elon Musk his hyperloop dream?



he hit it and quit it cause Mars got some big distracting ta ta's.


----------



## Frick (Aug 26, 2021)

Remeca said:


> When has spaceX been on/under budget? I'm not finding any such contracts. In fact, most of Musk's public contracts have been overpromised, under delivered, and never for the vast savings claimed in the sales pitches that everyone believes.



The Space Shuttle was about $1.5 billion per launch. A Falcon 9 can be about $62 million.

Again, I'll never defend Musk for anything, but SpaceX (which is more than one asshat, most notably they have Gwynne Shotwell) has achieved remarkable things.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 26, 2021)

Andy Shiekh said:


> World population is doubling about every 50 years, so in 150, if the trend continues, we will have 8 times as many people as we have now.


Well, I wasn't trying to say it would double every 50 years into infinity but the past curve is showing that, indeed. Its unlikely to keep curving that way though. But... we have several big 'surges' of population growth to go, that is why I gave the example of China. Nobody can predict the future, but we have strong indicators.

@mtcn77   As for 'apocalyptic' and how some don't like uncomfortable truths... I actually think its rather arrogant to think we can just technology our way out of extinction and that we have the measures of control some people think we do. We really don't. Shit has hit the fan many times in our rather short history of existence, and when it does, its quite an event. We make mistakes to learn. Big ones, and the number of mistakes you can make is finite, not infinite. Every mistake is less time, resources and opportunity to find a correct solution towards something that is sustainable, and not looking at big red numbers and accompanying erosion of public trust and health.

This hyperloop idea is an extension of our arrogance. To even consider the technology with all of its caveats speaks of greed before trying to improve anything. "Its new, its sexy, build it and make me rich, while I put illusions in your head this will somehow make lives better" - that's what I'm reading here, and with all/most of those other new things that are going to fix everything. Without a system of checks and balances, and sustainability of that system, all you have is hot air and more potential waste. And of course, all the emotions accompanying the purchase or use of something new 'the other guy' doesn't have. We're sheep.

The mention of a service economy is another example of grasping at straws. Services are hot these days aren't they. An economy of 'sharing and efficiency' sounds cool, and holds a promise of saving things here and there because you can only use it when you want to, no devices are made for you specifically. Really? Do we have ANY solid numbers on a working 'service economy' that is somehow more efficient than one where people fend for themselves as much as they can? If I recall correctly, the carbon footprint of our so called green ideas is in fact a few orders of magnitude bigger than those who still grow their own crops and write on paper instead of phones.


----------



## Caring1 (Aug 27, 2021)

So many questions, but I'll stick to the first to mind.
How does a train operating in a vacuum, stop at a station to let passengers on and off without being in a vacuum at that time?


----------



## Remeca (Aug 27, 2021)

Caring1 said:


> So many questions, but I'll stick to the first to mind.
> How does a train operating in a vacuum, stop at a station to let passengers on and off without being in a vacuum at that time?


They use giant valves to create an airlock at every station entrance and exit. Ridiculous.


----------



## Blue4130 (Aug 27, 2021)

Vayra86 said:


> Well, I wasn't trying to say it would double every 50 years into infinity but the past curve is showing that, indeed. Its unlikely to keep curving that way though. But... we have several big 'surges' of population growth to go, that is why I gave the example of China. Nobody can predict the future, but we have strong indicators.


Have you seen the birth rate in china? The one Child policy was changed in 2015 to allow 2 children. Result? A small temporary bump that has since fell. Allow 3 is not going to do much if the majority don't even want one.


----------



## glsn (Aug 29, 2021)

Remeca said:


> That isn't true.


it depends on the rail
some trains do have a double engine which concert fossil fuels to electric energy and then it uses that go
some other are only via fossil, other full electronical (but they are rare)


Remeca said:


> That isn't true.



anyway musks bullshits such as other companies shouldn't be taken literally, their only interest is to make money, they are less ethical/green that they would like you make think, but if you do think so, they can bail out taxpayers money over false promises while at the same time sponsor their apparance/pay less taxes or none if they set up things as beneficiary


----------



## Remeca (Aug 30, 2021)

glsn said:


> it depends on the rail
> some trains do have a double engine which concert fossil fuels to electric energy and then it uses that go
> some other are only via fossil, other full electronical (but they are rare)


No train is zero emissions. Neither would any hyperloop be. That's all I'm saying.


glsn said:


> anyway musks bullshits such as other companies shouldn't be taken literally, their only interest is to make money, they are less ethical/green that they would like you make think, but if you do think so, they can bail out taxpayers money over false promises while at the same time sponsor their apparance/pay less taxes or none if they set up things as beneficiary


There is no disputing the fact standard rails are easier to build and maintain than any proposed hyperloop track.


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 4, 2021)

Remeca said:


> No train is zero emissions. Neither would any hyperloop be. That's all I'm saying.
> 
> There is no disputing the fact standard rails are easier to build and maintain than any proposed hyperloop track.



if one were to employ Keynesian Economic theory and create a new Great Public Works project to stimulate the economy, hyperloop would probably overcome this obstacle fairly easily, due to volume/strength. No worries though, you don't have to worry about that, both sides of the aisle are far to inept to accomplish anything Great these days.


----------



## Remeca (Sep 4, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> if one were to employ Keynesian Economic theory and create a new Great Public Works project to stimulate the economy, hyperloop would probably overcome this obstacle fairly easily, due to volume/strength. No worries though, you don't have to worry about that, both sides of the aisle are far to inept to accomplish anything Great these days.


There are physics problems they just can't overcome. You can't have a near vacuum, and also nowhere to put the air that builds up in front. There is also no way to stop Billy Bob from using a tube as target practice and destroying large portions of it.


----------



## xkm1948 (Sep 4, 2021)

My bet is on near complete internal combustion to EV transition. High speed rail would also take a large portion. Hyperloop i dont have much hope


----------



## Space Lynx (Sep 18, 2022)

I just read this. So, I thought Elon was done with Hyperloop, as in that it is an engineering failed attempt? He just made this comment yesterday. I never know if he is trolling or not, but if not... this could be very interesting. My guess is trolling though, I don't have much faith in him these days.


----------



## Vayra86 (Sep 18, 2022)

CallandorWoT said:


> View attachment 262153
> 
> I just read this. So, I thought Elon was done with Hyperloop, as in that it is an engineering failed attempt? He just made this comment yesterday. I never know if he is trolling or not, but if not... this could be very interesting. My guess is trolling though, I don't have much faith in him these days.


His facade has already fallen quite a few times, come on. 'I'm buying Twittuurrr' 'Oh no I'm noohooot' 'Oh shit this isn't Twittuurrr I said this on hur hur'. I honestly hope they force him into the transaction.

That was the last credibility he had left after all the broken promises on deadlines, Tesla features and even contractual agreements... Now he posts this truly obvious 'Look at me, I need attention' blurb and gets reposted.

Its a big mouth with a lot of money and disruptive tech ideas much like the rest of those silicon valley muppets, always 'failing forward' and off to the next incredible feat to bury his previous fuckups. 

Disgusting genius, I think describes him well.



xkm1948 said:


> My bet is on near complete internal combustion to EV transition. High speed rail would also take a large portion. Hyperloop i dont have much hope


Transition is in full motion, yep. EV as far as it will go (range/mass wise).

Hydrogen is happening too though possibly not in cars. But the EU is pushing that one super hard and industries are aligning.


----------



## 80251 (Sep 18, 2022)

droopyRO said:


> If people would get easely covid or other airborne disease from riding public transportation, we would have millions of cases each day. It only matters what is practical and can be implemented around the world. If a few wealthy countries make a fancy train, it changes nothing globally. I don't see this being implemented in our lifetime nor do i see colonizing any planet as a posibility without a major power source that dose not go kaboom with the power of millions of kilograms of TNT


What "major power source" goes "kaboom with the power of millions of kilograms of TNT"? If it's nuclear fission power I'd like to see proof that any nuclear reactor anywhere (incl. Chernobyl) has the capability of going "kaboom with the power of millions of kilograms of TNT."


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 18, 2022)

80251 said:


> What "major power source" goes "kaboom with the power of millions of kilograms of TNT"? If it's nuclear fission power I'd like to see proof that any nuclear reactor anywhere (incl. Chernobyl) has the capability of going "kaboom with the power of millions of kilograms of TNT."


Fission can.  Check Trinity site for proof of that.

The fact reactors don't is obviously due to design parameters, but when things break, there are no certainties.


----------



## 80251 (Sep 19, 2022)

R-T-B said:


> Fission can.  Check Trinity site for proof of that.
> 
> The fact reactors don't is obviously due to design parameters, but when things break, there are no certainties.


There are significant design differences between an atomic bomb and a nuclear reactor. The most obvious being explosives are not part of the design of ANY nuclear reactor EVER.


----------



## R-T-B (Sep 19, 2022)

80251 said:


> There are significant design differences between an atomic bomb and a nuclear reactor. The most obvious being explosives are not part of the design of ANY nuclear reactor EVER.


And explosions never happen at a reactor ever either, right?

tl;dr:  You are validating my statement.  Reactors are safe because of design parameters.  Take away those and let chaos in, and you'll find your guarantee expires quickly.


----------



## 80251 (Sep 19, 2022)

The explosions at any and all nuclear reactors to date collectively are nothing in comparison to the kiloton nuclear devices detonated over Japan at the end of WW2 -- incl. Chernobyl.


----------



## claes (Sep 19, 2022)

But it begs the question, why wouldn’t more efficient nuclear processes lead to more efficient or new (and therefore more, barring hypothetical disarmament) nuclear weapons?


----------



## Vayra86 (Sep 19, 2022)

World's first hydrogen engine tractor.
Like I said above, EV for everything until the use case won't allow it:









						H2 Dual Power | De allereerste waterstoftrekker ter wereld
					

Meer informatie of een vrijblijvende offerte? Neem zeker contact op!




					h2dualpower.com


----------



## qubit (Sep 19, 2022)

80251 said:


> There are significant design differences between an atomic bomb and a nuclear reactor. The most obvious being explosives are not part of the design of ANY nuclear reactor EVER.


Indeed, there's basically zero chance of a reactor exploding. The worst that happens is a meltdown, which in the end isn't quite as bad as people think. It's still bad though.


----------



## the54thvoid (Sep 19, 2022)

The discussion on this thread is for Hyperloop. It seems to have very little relevance to that anymore. @CallandorWoT - I'm closing it down for now but feel free to PM me to open it up if there is any new developments on Hyperloop.


----------

