Two passengers enter first trial of Virgin Hyperloop

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
I do not see maintaining the vacuum on these tubes as being a trivial matter. There will be leaks.
Of course, which I pointed out in my initial post. However, the actual routes being proposed are primarily in subterranean tunnels, not tubes. The leakage will be minimal except at endpoints (it's rather difficult for air molecules to migrate through several meters of solid rock), and in any case, the system hardly needs a perfect vacuum, nor anything close to it.

The Sci-Fi TV Series Babylon 5 portrayed this concept as a travel mechanism for Mars. Therefore, it is not patentable. I would not be surprised if that is where Musk got the idea.
Actually, such systems were proposed at least as early as the 1940s. The basic concept isn't patentable, but there are already many dozens of patents in force for refinements of that concept.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
Well then, there won't be "the massive savings over air travel", that you claim will happen either..
A 747 burns 125,000 lbs of fuel per five-hour flight. Some high-traffic air traffic routes handle 30,000+ flights per year. One single hyperloop link can replace all those flights, with a net savings of several hundred million pounds of fuel.

And yes, purchasing right-of-way for tunnels is ungodly expensive. But it doesn't consume resources; it merely moves pieces of the pie around.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,747   +5,481
In any case, I'm sure if in 1905 that I would have told you that, in just a few short decades, the nation would be covered with two million miles of paved roads for horseless carriages, you'd have scoffed at that also.
Wow, you really dug deep in your black little heart for that straw man bunch of garbage, didn't ya?
A 747 burns 125,000 lbs of fuel per five-hour flight. Some high-traffic air traffic routes handle 30,000+ flights per year. One single hyperloop link can replace all those flights, with a net savings of several hundred million pounds of fuel.
Spare me! First, you choose the largest measurement quantity you could find to measure fuel consumption. And then pull "30,000 flights replaced", out of your a**

How about if we use the old saying, "a pint's a pound the world around", and divide your numbers by that, to come up with gallons of fuel consumed?

As for "one single hyperloop replacing 30,000 flights, you need to put down whatever it is you're smoking, and rejoin reality. At six passengers per car, they have another name for that pastime. It's called, "bumper cars". :rolleyes:

And yes, purchasing right-of-way for tunnels is ungodly expensive. But it doesn't consume resources; it merely moves pieces of the pie around.
And destroys the environment while your at it. Those earth movers, front end loaders, and boring machines, won't run on your hot air

Next you'll be telling me that Musk is promising all electric versions of those things. Again, spare me.

BTW, did you know that they have been/ resumed using draft horses for logging operations? They do much less damage to the environment than Caterpillar tractors.
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
First, you choose the largest measurement quantity you could find to measure fuel consumption. And then pull "30,000 flights replaced", out of your a**
Actually, I could have quoted a higher figure using the A-380, or one of the larger cargo jets, such as the An-120 or C-5 Galaxy (valid, since many Hyperloop proposals include cargo as well). What's your point? Even using the burn rate of a L-1011, the fuel savings are astronomical.

As for the 30,000 flights figure, that's a bit low, actually. Melbourne-Sydney runs 55,000 flights a year, Seoul-Jeju runs 65,000/year, and even LA-San Francisco is 35,000/year. One single Hyperloop installation can easily replace those levels of traffic. Even assuming individual 6-man cars, they can move 4.5 million people by running just one car every 45 seconds. As I know from personal experience, that's slower than even the Moscow subway, and it operates multi-car trains carrying 150+ each run, using just 1960s-era technology.

At six passengers per car, they have another name for that pastime. It's called, "bumper cars".
See above. Even with individual cars, its feasible -- and of course on a high-traffic route, they can always link up multiple cars.

BTW, did you know that they have been/ resumed using draft horses for logging operations?
You've convinced me! We should instantly ban all trucks, autos, and airplanes, and return to the horse and buggy era.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,747   +5,481
Actually, I could have quoted a higher figure using the A-380, or one of the larger cargo jets, such as the An-120 or C-5 Galaxy (valid, since many Hyperloop proposals include cargo as well). What's your point? Even using the burn rate of a L-1011, the fuel savings are astronomical.

As for the 30,000 flights figure, that's a bit low, actually. Melbourne-Sydney runs 55,000 flights a year, Seoul-Jeju runs 65,000/year, and even LA-San Francisco is 35,000/year. One single Hyperloop installation can easily replace those levels of traffic. Even assuming individual 6-man cars, they can move 4.5 million people by running just one car every 45 seconds. As I know from personal experience, that's slower than even the Moscow subway, and it operates multi-car trains carrying 150+ each run, using just 1960s-era technology.
Right OK. So now every country in the world is going to build hyper loops, And I suppose you'll be telling me next, we're going to run them across the pacific ocean. How else are you going to justify quoting statistics world wide?

See above. Even with individual cars, its feasible -- and of course on a high-traffic route, they can always link up multiple cars.
You've convinced me. I'll even build you a hyper loop for a penny a day, doubled every day until it's finished. Now, let me see if I can arrange a government grant to get started.

You've convinced me! We should instantly ban all trucks, autos, and airplanes, and return to the horse and buggy era.
How about if you save some of that spit and snot, you might need it to wash down your next meal.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
I suppose you'll be telling me next, we're going to run them across the pacific ocean. How else are you going to justify quoting statistics world wide?
You do realize that neither Melbourne to Sydney, nor Seoul to Jeju crosses the Pacific? No need to tunnel underneath it.

Interestingly (for other readers; I'm sure you won't be piqued) at least one proposed Hyperloop is undersea: a Helsinki-Stockhold route. Of course, the Baltic there is very narrow, and only a few dozen meters deep, a far cry from the Pacific.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,747   +5,481
You do realize that neither Melbourne to Sydney, nor Seoul to Jeju crosses the Pacific? No need to tunnel underneath it.
Wait, let me check Google maps.

Interestingly (for other readers; I'm sure you won't be piqued) at least one proposed Hyperloop is undersea: a Helsinki-Stockhold route. Of course, the Baltic there is very narrow, and only a few dozen meters deep, a far cry from the Pacific.
Well, at least you admit they won't be good for, or replace all current methods of transport.

Another fun fact you'd likely save half the fuel we now burn, if people would get it out of their heads that you don't need to visit in person, since there's "Zoom". (And other tele-messaging apps).

As fasr as Hyper loops go, my vote goes for building one (or more), across the British Channel.

But, NYC to LA, that's a big no.

They really are using "Heavy Horses", for logging in some places nowadays. I guess there's still some Luddites around who haven't succumbed to your charm.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
Wait, let me check Google maps.
Shrug, I'm not the one who thought Melbourne to Sydney ran under the Pacific. šŸ˜Š

They really are using "Heavy Horses", for logging in some places nowadays. I guess there's still some Luddites around who haven't succumbed to your charm.
Horses have legs: an advantage over wheels in broken terrain, where there's not enough traffic to justify a road. However, in 25 years or so, when Boston Dynamics' legged bots are larger and cheaper, I'm sure those horses will wind up in the glue factory.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,747   +5,481
Shrug, I'm not the one who thought Melbourne to Sydney ran under the Pacific. šŸ˜Š
No, you were quoting, such fantastical numbers, from so many different countries. But, I'm well aware that Melbourne to Sydney. doesn't run across the pacific. It's just that so much of what you post seems like crap to me, that I don't read it very carefully..

Two douches go a 100 yards or so in this so called hyper loop, (which is actually a straight line at this point), and you have the whole transportation world re-imagined in your own mind, from behind a keyboard.

I know you know a lot more about everything than anybody, so cut me some slack, willya.
 
Last edited:

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
Two douches go a 100 yards or so in this so called hyper loop [and] you have the whole transportation world re-imagined...
One douche went 40 yards at Kitty Hawk, and people reimagined the whole transportation world, did they not?

To clarify, though, I see this as evolutionary to train travel more than revolutionary. But it will supplant at least some air travel routes within the next 25 years, and likely a majority of non-pelagic routes within the century.
 

Markoni35

Posts: 1,074   +440
A 747 burns 125,000 lbs of fuel per five-hour flight. Some high-traffic air traffic routes handle 30,000+ flights per year. One single hyperloop link can replace all those flights, with a net savings of several hundred million pounds of fuel.

30,000 flights per year, assuming a year has 365 days (on my planet it does) would mean 82 flights per day. Which means one flight every 17.5 minutes. I'd really be curious which company makes one 5-hour flight every 17.5 minutes. Also, the exact number of 747 airplanes they need to deploy to maintain one 747 flight every 17.5 minutes on a single route.

Secondly, a 5-hour flight is around 4500 km long. How long will it take to make a tunnel of that size (which will become the longest tunnel of all times)? How much would it cost, along with real-estate, cost of boring and all the expensive infrastructure needed to keep the hyperloop operational? Also, how much fossil fuel do you need to bore a tunnel that is 4500 km long?

How many of gargantuan several-thousand-kilometer long tunnels do you need to replace all the airplanes? How about a tunnel from US to Easter Islands? That shouldn't cost much, right?
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,747   +5,481
One douche went 40 yards at Kitty Hawk, and people reimagined the whole transportation world, did they not?
Feel free to correct me, but I believe that was in 1903. And again, if my math is correct, that's 117 years ago..
During the beginning of the Vietnam war, "Puff the Magic Dragon", was the lowly C-47, a tail dragging, twin piston engine, low wing monoplane. (The civilian version is the DC-3, so you don't have to tell me).

The first 707 was delivered in 1958, 55 years after the incident at Kitty Hawk

And, as you pointed out earlier, I'm well aware that the air at 30,000 feet.is much thinner than at sea level. In fact, many supersonic jet fighters, can't break mach 1 at sea level.

Like I said, the concept is valid for something like crossing the English Channel. Maybe even NYC > Philadelphia > Washington DC, where you already have railroad rights of way..

As for cross country, it's very improbable. Many much geographically smaller countries will probably have these before the US, and stand a chance for developing "longer routes".

Still, I believe Musk pawned this project off on Virgin, and I can't believe Musk would part with anything he could make money on.

FWIW, he barely got funding for his, "Escape from LA", tunnel project. He sold "Tesla flame throwers", IIRC, to help fund the mess. Big scandal. I wonder how well they'd go over this year in California.
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 16,747   +5,481
30,000 flights per year, assuming a year has 365 days (on my planet it does) would mean 82 flights per day. Which means one flight every 17.5 minutes. I'd really be curious which company makes one 5-hour flight every 17.5 minutes. Also, the exact number of 747 airplanes they need to deploy to maintain one 747 flight every 17.5 minutes on a single route.

Secondly, a 5-hour flight is around 4500 km long. How long will it take to make a tunnel of that size (which will become the longest tunnel of all times)? How much would it cost, along with real-estate, cost of boring and all the expensive infrastructure needed to keep the hyperloop operational? Also, how much fossil fuel do you need to bore a tunnel that is 4500 km long?

How many of gargantuan several-thousand-kilometer long tunnels do you need to replace all the airplanes? How about a tunnel from US to Easter Islands? That shouldn't cost much, right?
Dude, I tried reasoning with the individual you're quoting, to no avail.

Oh well, perhaps you'll have better luck.
Although, Easter Island would be "a trip", so to speak. You could paint Moai on the sides of the cars, projectiles, trashcans, call them what you will.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,216
30,000 flights per year, assuming a year has 365 days (on my planet it does) would mean 82 flights per day. Which means one flight every 17.5 minutes. I'd really be curious which company makes one 5-hour flight every 17.5 minutes.
You do realize that more than one airline can and does fly the same route? On a busy route,, there may be five or more carriers all handling traffic. The traffic corridor data I gave isn't some wild guess; it's based on actual historical data, and not subject to debate.

how much fossil fuel do you need to bore a tunnel that is 4500 km long?
Quite a bit. However, that's a one-time expenditure. Jets burn fuel year after year after year. And, of course, the first hyperloop-style systems will certainly be over routes far shorter than 4500 km.

How about a tunnel from US to Easter Islands? That shouldn't cost much, right?
It seems vocabulary comprehension is a lost art. Hint: what do you think the word "pelagic" means when I specified non-pelagic routes?

Dude, I tried reasoning with the individual you're quoting, to no avail.
Your 'reasoning' involved attempting to convince me that travelling from Sydney to Melbourne required passing underneath the Pacific seafloor. My apologies for remaining unconvinced.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,747   +5,481
Your 'reasoning' involved attempting to convince me that travelling from Sydney to Melbourne required passing underneath the Pacific seafloor. My apologies for remaining unconvinced.
No it didn't. What part of, "I don't bother reading thoroughly all of the crap you post", was unclear to you?

All I know is, you were quoting statistics from several foreign countries, while I was discussing the practicality of transcontinental travel in the US.

I have online acquaintances from the ANZAC nations, whom I'd much rather be talking with than you. I can even sing and almost remember all the words to, "Waltzing Matilda".
 

mailpup

Posts: 7,654   +757
TS Special Forces
I think this thread has had enough personal comments. Endymio and captaincranky, please discontinue your personal argument in this thread. If you must continue, do so via PM. Thank you.