Adjacent to SpaceX headquarters, 25 teams gathered for another Hyperloop Pod Competition. This time the winner would be judged by how quickly they could go down the 1.25 kilometer (about .77 miles) track. On the final day of competition, three teams advanced to the finals and had the chance to push their pod to the limit.
With a speed of just over 200 miles per-hour, the Warr (pronounced Varr) team from the Technical University of Munich handily beat the two other finalists with its small, but quick pod. Weighing just 80 kg (176 pounds) and powered by a 50kw motor, the vehicle was essentially a small electric car built specifically for winning the competition.
[...] At the end of the competition, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk mused that there's no reason why future pods in the competition couldn't hit 500 to 600 miles per-hour on the 1.25 kilometer track. Of course that means that there will be another Hyperloop Pod Competition sometime next year and who knows, maybe we'll see pods hitting the speeds that'll make the mode of transportation truly rival air travel.
Source: https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/27/hyperloop-pod-competition-winner-hits-200-mph/
Related Stories
In November, Washington, D.C.'s Department of Transportation granted the Boring Company a permit to excavate at a parking lot within the city:
Washington, D.C., has issued a permit allowing Elon Musk's Boring Company to do preparatory and excavation work in what is now a parking lot north of the National Mall. The company says the site could become a Hyperloop station.
The permit, reported Friday by the Washington Post, was issued way back on November 29th of 2017. The permit is part of an exploratory push by the city's Department of Transportation, which according to a spokesperson is examining the feasibility of digging a Hyperloop network under the city. The Hyperloop is an as-yet theoretical proposal to use depressurized tubes and magnet-levitated pods to move passengers at very high speeds.
From The Washington Post:
Asked about the permit, issued Nov. 29, a Boring Company spokesman said Friday that "a New York Avenue location, if constructed, could become a station" in a broad network of such stops across the new system.
D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) visited the Boring Company in California this month, walking in a tunnel to learn more about the technology the company says will make tunneling faster and cheaper.
The District's Department of Transportation is figuring out what other permits the Boring Company would need to cut under city roads and other public spaces, according to Bowser's chief of staff, John Falcicchio.
Previously: Elon Musk Claims to Have "Verbal Approval" to Build New York to Washington, D.C. Hyperloop
NY-Philly-Baltimore-DC Hyperloop: Not Vaporware?
Related: Hyperloop Pod Competition Winner Exceeds 200mph (324 km/h)
Sir Richard Branson Invests in Hyperloop
Elon Musk's Boring Tunnel Near Los Angeles
Elon Musk's Boring Company Sells Flamethrowers
(Score: 2, Disagree) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday August 28 2017, @10:32PM (5 children)
the passengers will explode due to sudden decompression.
Derailments of passenger trains do happen sometimes.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday August 28 2017, @11:11PM
The pods are fully enclosed in a tube, so they can't exactly "derail". That's not to say that there couldn't be failures, just that the failure modes will be completely different from passenger rail (high-speed or otherwise). It will come down to how safely those failure modes can be handled or mitigated. If we can figure out how to make commercial passenger flights one of the safest forms of travel, why couldn't we do the same with a hyperloop pod?
(Score: 2) by forkazoo on Monday August 28 2017, @11:24PM
Passengers probably wouldn't "explode," regardless. That's a bit sensationalistic. But if a pod "derails," it would imply the tube is breached, so air rushes into it and the vacuum stops being a potential danger. If the pod develops a small hole, it will take a while to lose air pressure to the tube, which can be detected and dealt with. It's not significantly more dangerous than being in an airplane, and a lot easier to just stop and wait for help than an airplane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @11:35PM
Your lack of faith in Musk is disturbing.
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:16AM (1 child)
Drill a hole into the hyperloop tunnel
Connect a hose, connected to a cement/glue (or just very runny cement) mix.
Allow vaccuum to suck goop into tunnel.
Wait for bang.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @05:27AM
Sounds like a porno!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @10:37PM (1 child)
No one cares Roberto. Leave your lame Apple loving ego at the door please.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @11:52PM
Some people like that personalized stuff, no need to go on the attack. Makes you definitely worse than that guy.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 28 2017, @10:56PM (10 children)
> the vehicle was essentially a small electric car built specifically for winning the competition
Yup, hyperloop is a fun science project for universities, and a great concept for trill rides.
Where's the "long-distance public transport" business plan, with the ROI spelled out?
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @11:12PM (4 children)
Yeah, somebody should have told a couple idiots that same thing a little over 100 years ago, they could have gone back to something useful like their bicycle shop instead of wasting time on that novelty flying project . . .
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday August 28 2017, @11:18PM (1 child)
Man had always dreamt of flying. You didn't need a financial return as motivation.
Outside of the UAE, where are you going to find enough consumers with the income to pay for a high-NRE high-maintenance low-throughput blind people pipe? Unlike most other transportation systems, you can only put light cargo on it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:24AM
The point is, there were plenty of naysayers for them, too. It will be fun to see what things look like in 20 years. Perhaps you are right, and the idea will go nowhere, but I am happy to see them trying.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @11:19PM (1 child)
Yeah, somebody should have told Robert H. Goddard that same thing in 1904, he could have gone back to something useful like rockets instead of wasting time on that novelty vactrain [wikipedia.org] project . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:27AM
Right, so the idea isn’t new. Wouldn’t be the first time a technology had to wait for the right circumstances to succeeed.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:09AM (4 children)
That's the real trick ain't it? Scaling with at least no negative ROI. I always remember hearing about the "water engine", and then hearing out the rare earth metals it requires. None of it ever scaled beyond one single very expensive demo unit, that could indeed, run on water. Since the industry wasn't interested in making a half million the new threshold for buying a car... the idea died. Very often people ignore the scaling factor, and that at some point, you need to break even, or make money.
It will be the same with the hyperloop. Testing and design could be completed, and yet require very expensive and difficult to engineer track. I was always astonished when I heard just how much a half-mile of road costs. That's asphalt! You want concrete to German Autobahn standards (which can take jet planes landing on it), it's even more per mile. Something that can reach a vacuum, and yet support 500-600mph speeds in it? These are very impressive engineering feats, and even more if the cost could be kept to less than 10x traditional infrastructure costs. I think people forget just how much of a daunting engineering task it is to cross the entire U.S. with infrastructure. We take it for granted these days.
I've got a rather different idea. Let's build massive canal systems, lifts, dams, and pumps to create a water based infrastructure. To begin with we get concrete canals similar to the ones you see in Los Angeles and elsewhere. Capable of a lot of water, or can be redesigned to hold other traffic. Including the Hyperloop built on top of it. Or affordable housing. We already have a very large rail system. Convert all the lines to canals, and where there are railroad crossing guards you find bridges instead.
Building those canals will be a project that rivals the original interstate highway programs. If we build to last, we could end up with some seriously valuable infrastructure that can be built upon, and indeed, contain the Hyperloop. Why I like the canals though is, all we need is traditional steel and concrete. We can benefit from advances in both technologies when we build the canals. Simple engineering materials, and plenty of jobs to be created. Nothing complicated like a vacuum tube supporting magnetic travel and super high velocities. It's mostly future proof in that provides a suitable foundation for future infrastructure. In other words, it is valuable in its own right.
I would fill these canals up with straight sea water. It's readily available, and if we believe the scientists (which I do) we already have sea level rise problem. Desalination technologies keep getting better all the time, and we need to be able to deliver water across the whole country more easily in the future. Climate change or not, there are some US states with record drought problems greatly affecting wheat futures. So we end up with an absolute ton of sea water flowing across the whole U.S. in their own canal infrastructure. What's more efficient than using gravity and floating packages on it in barges? So what if it takes a week to cross the U.S if it provides really cheap shipping that is by definition environmentally friendly with no fossil fuel emissions? If we have a great need for water in some places, it would be nice to create a large desalinization plant in a state without beaches. This provides oodles of water in the same way the natural gas lines in the U.S total in the hundreds of billions in terms of capacity.
I toy with the idea regularly because it doesn't require anything really complicated, millions of tons of rare earth metals, or expensive engineering. If we ever developed extremely good desalinization it could mean plentiful and cheap water everywhere. All this does is create a project slightly more involved than the original interstate project, which was very successful and improved this country dramatically. Lastly, what I really like about it, is that Americans own it. Not some fake not-evil billionaire who dreams of a dynasty on Mars. We own our interstates, which means we own our infrastructures. The trend towards privatization isn't good when making roads. Trump is just giving away billions by attempting to invest in our infrastructure, but with private corporations that end up owning it. Do you want corporations to really own the main arteries that allow us to move around freely? Give me your papers can just as easily be replaced with financial hardship and private property rendering your ability to move a lot harder.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:49PM (1 child)
[Splitting this reply up to see if I can get round the lameness filter.]
Nice idea. Obviously it'd be complementary to any hyperloop infrastructure, which would be all about getting humans over medium distances as quickly as possible. (At least, that's how it was conceived.)
Waterways also tend to be desirable from an aesthetic PoV, and for human well-being. In Britain you can take lovely canal holidays.
But that does bring me to my next point. Before building new canals for transport, you'd want to have a good understanding of why Britain's canals - once its industrial backbone - have been supplanted by other forms of transport, and what your new scheme would do differently.
In Musk's original document [spacex.com], magnetism was not the plan. He suggested that the levitation would be done on a cushion of air pumped from the front of the pod - which also prevented a build-up of air resistance at the front of the pod, and meant that the tubes merely need to be low pressure rather than a 'hard vacuum'.
However, a company called Hyperloop One does seem to be thinking in terms of magnetic levitation for their projects.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:42PM
Interesting. I did not know the Britain's canals were once an industrial backbone, but it makes sense. I believe the new scheme would work for many uses cases and could replace freight lines. Overnight and passenger travel will obviously need to be much faster. Also, I plan on designing it so that gravity and water flow replaces propulsion. It's a passive system that only requires energy input at the pumping/lift stations. If those can be as energy efficient as we can make it, and the capacity of these canals is much larger than Britain's, it may provide for much cheaper transport as opposed to rail, plane, and Hyperloop. I'm thinking solar and wind where possible. I'm thinking there could even by hydro power production serving a similar purposes to regenerative braking on electric vehicles.
Where it is different would be in the costs once it scales. Not good for every transport job you need, but when logistics and lead times give you the ability to ship across 10 days versus 24 hours, you can realize quite a bit of savings now just by switching from plane to freight.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday August 29 2017, @01:56PM (1 child)
Is that a joke?
More Musk jokes ...
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday August 29 2017, @07:19PM
No, it's not a joke. He may present himself as a "friendly" billionaire trying to make environmentally friendly products, and get us to space, but he's just your typical toxic rich piece of shit.
I liked him a little bit before I found out that all the jobs he was bringing to the U.S were for the Eastern European men he imported as cheap labor. He took quite a few millions from the mouths of families in Northern California that had the skills and could've done the work. Instead, just like every other toxic piece of shit billionaire it was about doing something as cheaply as possible and to hell with the local communities and little guys. I'm sure he got tax relief and all sorts of incentives to come in, which is usually because it will help create local jobs.
That's the problem with complete fucking dipshits like Elon Musk. Yeah, you built your wonderful little toy with cheap labor that hurt our communities, and you still expect us to somehow be able to afford your Hyperloop?
Yeah, he wants to build a dynasty on Mars. Ship people there to be indentured servants essentially creating his new wealth on Mars. Live your entire life as one of his employees, and if his behavior on Earth is any indication, he will provide you with as little as possible to the job. When you are at place that depends on his corporation for continued supplies and the ability to breath air, I'm just totally positive that the work offers will be without duress and completely fair.
Fuck Elon Musk with a Hyperloop.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 28 2017, @11:18PM
Fuck Elon Musk with a hyperloop pod up his fucking anus at 200 mph.
(Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:05AM (6 children)
Suppose you accelerate for half the distance, and decelerate for the other half.
If I've done the math correctly, to reach 220m/s (500 mph) in the middle of a 1,250m track, you'd need to accelerate at 38.7 m/sec2
4 G's won't kill (most) people, but it is the point at which you start graying out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:10AM (1 child)
You should find a hobby, the math you just did to prove they need a bigger track was perhaps the most useless exercise I've yet seen.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @12:27AM
> You should find a hobby,
Making "back of the envelope" rough calculations is one of the very best hobbies ever. If you can't do this for yourself, you are at the mercy of whatever numbers you hear or read, with no way to sanity check them.
Since there are no people in these half-sized pods, 4+ g's won't hurt anybody. I hope they go for it at the next event.
The official SpaceX site hasn't been updated yet (competition was just a few days ago), but fyi it is at http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop [spacex.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:03AM (2 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2017, @03:04AM (1 child)
> braking's always quicker than accellerating,
normal friction braking's usually quicker than accelerating,
Ftfy. In recent 0-100-0 mph tests by MotorTrend of an awd Tesla car, the accel and decel were about the same below about 50 mph, where the performance is limited by tire traction. Above 50 mph the motor power limit came into effect, so braking from high speed down to ~50 mph was "quicker" than the corresponding interval of accel.
Any commercial pod worth the trouble will include regenerative braking. In this case the motor power (and motor heating) limits the power for accel and for decel in roughly equal amounts. With proper scheduling a (conceptual) hyperloop system would use the power generated by decel on one pod to accel another nearby pod. Some electric train (subway/metro) systems may do this already?? (not sure) Friction brakes would be reserved for emergency backup--turning valuable electricity into heat is to be avoided when possible.
For these student-made "test pods" with internal power it could be a little different. If a hard accel heats up the traction battery, then the battery may not be able to accept charge so quickly on the decel, so it won't be perfectly symmetric... With this competition that is based on top speed over limited distance, friction brakes may make sense. However, normal friction brakes in vacuum are limited by the heat capacity of the pads and rotors (or friction rail) -- they won't air cool like typical vehicle brakes. Sizing of the parts in the brake system must take this into account or there will be some melted parts inside the SpaceX tube.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:17PM
Given that Musk is involved, they would use batteries, and not have to worry about that aspect of scheduling. And for above-ground hyperloops, the plan was to have solar panels on top, so you'd want batteries anyway.
(Score: 2) by Open4D on Tuesday August 29 2017, @02:12PM
Sounds about right. But I believe Musk was just suggesting they could do high speed tests even on their short test track. (Without humans)
In a real life system, the acceleration and deceleration would be slow enough to be comfortable for humans, and yet still only a small part of the journey time.
There's a graph of this at the top of page 43 of the original PDF [spacex.com] It seems that for the LA->SF journey, they looked at the geography and planned for 3 separate cruising speeds, with 3 phases of acceleration and 3 phases of deceleration. The slopes of the lines are nearly vertical, but I think they are accurate, and represent perfectly comfortable 'g forces'.