SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to early reports the Hyperloop's initial tests (open air tests) were a success at their test track in North Las Vegas. Image.
It didn't go far but it did work. A metal sled accelerated from zero to 116 mph in 1.1 seconds, or about 2.4 Gs of force. It traveled little more than 100 meters, then stopped, kicking up a cloud of sand in the process.
The Verge has a couple articles Here, before the test and test pictures here.
Pencilled in for Q4 2016, however, is what the company is describing as its "Kitty Hawk" moment - a reference to the Wright Brother's first flight - where it plans to run a full-scale test track. Expected to be more than two miles of low-pressure tube, the pod inside should run at over 700 mph if all goes as planned.
Even if the system scales as Hyperloop One expects it to, human passengers may not be welcome, at least initially. The company is looking to cargo transportation as the most likely use for a commercial Hyperloop system - presumably because boxes and crates are less fragile than families - with interest already from a number of countries in a potential logistics system that would run through tubes and underground tunnels.
(Score: -1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @07:44AM
Muskyrail! Muskyrail! Muskyrail! [youtu.be]
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday May 12 2016, @07:53AM
There is lots of it to move around.
This system is incredibly easy to damage so it fails catastrophically. And a train crashing to a sudden stop from 500+ mph does not end well for the passengers. Bullet trains currently aren't particularly good at crashing, this will be much much worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @07:59AM
This system is incredibly easy to damage so it fails catastrophically.
Terrorists accept your incredibly easy challenge! Good luck getting your cheap Chinese crap transported to you by hyperloop after the bombings begin.
(Score: 2) by naubol on Thursday May 12 2016, @05:04PM
Terrorists are in the business of producing terror. Derailing a carton of "cheap Chinese crap" is not terror inspiring.
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:12AM
So easy to damage.
Agreed.
A nice idea and a it could possibly be a great application of modern technology. Not to mention, it's impressive in a sci-fi sense.
The vulnerabilities are obvious and many, though.
So a question that should probably be asked is this: Is there a sabotage scenario that is likely to occur after such an expensive investment? I'm inclined to say yes, because of the high profile attention that would result. Although, on the other hand, the box-cutter ruffians haven't even managed to poison a water supply.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:33AM
Yes, it could be sabotaged, but name new one transportation system that couldn't. I don't think this thing will be any easier to disable than a regular train.all you need to do to disrupt one of those is to sneak on to the tracks (of which their are miles and miles guarded by nothing more than fences) and lay a piece of wood across the tracks.
If I was a terrorist intent on making the American public afraid to leave their houses, I can think of far more effective ways than blowing up a baggage train.
But hey, let's all do nothing new in case the scary terrorists use it against us,let's live our lives paralysed by fear, that's the way to beat terrorism, right?
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:42AM
Yeah, i think we agree. Lots of things could be sabotaged easily, and they haven't been.
The reason?
I'd say mostly because of the ineptitude of our so-called "freedom haters" bug-a-boo.
"But hey, let's all do nothing new in case the scary terrorists use it against us,let's live our lives paralysed by fear, that's the way to beat terrorism, right?"
I'm sure that's sarcasm, but I'm not sure who it's directed to. Where are the people who are paralyzed? Surely this endeavor is contrary evidence.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday May 12 2016, @04:38PM
Yeah, i think we agree. Lots of things could be sabotaged easily, and they haven't been.
The reason?
I'd say mostly because of the ineptitude of our so-called "freedom haters" bug-a-boo.
Maybe there are not really all that many "freedom haters"?
"But hey, let's all do nothing new in case the scary terrorists use it against us, let's live our lives paralysed by fear, that's the way to beat terrorism, right?"
I'm sure that's sarcasm, but I'm not sure who it's directed to. Where are the people who are paralyzed? Surely this endeavor is contrary evidence.
Judging by the many responses to this article who are immediately claiming that it will be a target for terrorists, there are a lot of people who are, if not paralyzed, at least fearful enough to raise strong objections.
(Score: 2) by patella.whack on Thursday May 26 2016, @07:04AM
Hey Joe,
(where you going with gun in your hand?)
Seriously though, I think we're in agreement,
too many people paralyzed with fear.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:44AM
It's more of how long it takes to get it up and running again. And how public it will be.
Right now, blowing up train tracks is no big deal. You'll derail a train going maybe 60-80 mph, and a day or two later, more trains will be going through.
Derailing a train going 700 mph as it passes through some small town is like hitting it with a missile. And then that section is down for weeks afterwards as they have to rebuild, test and depressurize the tube before they can send another train down that track.
This thing would have an immediate big red X on it.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday May 12 2016, @09:57AM
are there any modes of transport that aren't trivial to sabotage so that they fail catastrophically? i don't see how this is any different from anything else mechanical.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 12 2016, @12:25PM
Speed matters. A bullet thrown at your head by hand is mostly harmless. A bullet accelerated to your head by a gun is potentially deadly.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:38PM
I thought we were all going to be 3D-printing our own stuff at home from free (as in speech) plans downloaded from the interwebs soon?
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Thursday May 12 2016, @09:26PM
When a train comes crashing to a sudden stop at 50 mph it does not end well for the passengers.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday May 13 2016, @03:34AM
The outcome of most people on the train will be very different between a train crash at 50 mph and a train crash at 500+ mph.
A passenger train derailment at 50 mph, most people walk away from it, some go to the hospital, and some may die. It's entirely possible nobody dies or is seriously injured.
A passenger train derailment at 500+ mph, for the same length train, I would expect most of the people on the train to die or be seriously injured, and maybe a few people being able to walk away with minor injuries.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @07:54AM
"Kitty Hawk" it is not. The Wright brothers actually invented a new technology. Last time I checked, trains already exist in this universe.
Elon Musk is not inventing anything. He's merely a giant asshole.
Elon Musk is only inviting his legion of braindead fans to stroke off his massive ego, and they'll do it, because stroking off Elon Musk is soooo trendy among the social media moron crowd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:01AM
To be fair, my dad had discussed similar designs as far back as the 60s. And no doubt the working basics had been passed on long before then.
The difference is putting your money where your mouth is. With the sheer amount of STUFF being passed back and forth, maybe it makes more sense now than back when (not to mention better technology).
That doesn't detract from the accomplishment, nor how much this could transform transportation.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:21AM
To be fair, my dad had discussed similar designs as far back as the 60s. And no doubt the working basics had been passed on long before then.
Sure, everybody "invented" (in their mind) the lowly pneumatic tube as a means of transportation. This is nothing more than an up-scale of the systems used in large office buildings for almost 100 years till computers made them mostly obsolete. Now you mostly just see them as drive through cashier lanes in banks,.
Right you are, its all about who would step up and actually build a human scale tube, Still, probably not many takers for the first 10 or 20 years till they solve all the potential problems. 700 MPH is "pink mist" speed if something goes wrong. You won't feel a thing.
But sooner or later it will probably be safe enough.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:55AM
pneumatic tube as a means of transportation. This is nothing more than an up-scale of the systems used in large office buildings
I don't think it is a good idea either; but no, it is not a pnuemaitic tube system.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 12 2016, @04:06PM
This test was "open air".
The completed system will indeed use pneumatic tubes, in that there will be a partial vacuum in the tubing ahead of the capsule to reducing drag.
If you don't believe the wiki article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperloop [wikipedia.org]
then just check out Hyperloop's own site:
https://hyperloop-one.com/hardware [hyperloop-one.com] and also https://hyperloop-one.com/what-is-hyperloop [hyperloop-one.com] (on the latter one hover over they little blue green circles in the first cut away view.
Meets the definition of a pneumatic tube easily because there is no hard and fast definition. Some operated on compressed air, some on vacuum, and some on both,
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @10:04AM
Sure, everybody "invented" (in their mind) the lowly pneumatic tube as a means of transportation
Small difference being dad had a Masters in thermodynamics from Cal. Tech., and the "pneumatic" aspect mattered less than getting rid of wind resistance. The difficulty from his perspective was synchronizing closing sections of tunnels to be in a near vacuum right when the train passed through so there wasn't the waste and cost of a constant vacuum. The smarts bit was controlling the amount of air to act as a brake and propulsion, so short of overcoming initial inertia, the whole thing could be run with air pressure alone.
So no, not everybody.
Cargo (as in things) would be the logical application. Design it around shipping containers, and you've knocked billions off of the cost of transport. Pink mist doesn't happen until far into the future.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 12 2016, @04:22PM
> Design it around shipping containers, and you've knocked billions off of the cost of transport.
This.
If you can't drop a container straight inside a hyperloop carrier without opening it, you don't integrate with the container system, and therefore you can't really win big.
Shipping containers save handling money and time. Airline containers save handling and time. Heck, even moving companies bring you pods to save handling time.
If you have to open the box to transfer stuff at both ends of the tube, you lose your value proposition.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:40PM
What about the illegal immigrants hiding in the shipping containers? Every so often a few dozen of them turn up dead or dying at our ports. It's a serious problem. Putting them in one of those tubes wouldn't be beneficial to their health.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday May 24 2016, @06:10AM
Rather than placing a shipping container inside a vacuum carriage, would it be feasible to place one or more vacuum carriages inside a shipping container?
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nuke on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:48AM
None of the individual components of the Hyperloop are new except the vehicle travelling in a (partial) vacuum tube to reduce air resistance (but this test was open air anyway). Magnetic propulsion, air cushions - old hat.
Anyway, this is not going to "transform transportation". I can see a single line being built between two cities, LA and SF probably, or LA to Las Vegas because of the novelty entertainment factor, and that will be it. It's capacity will be low; it will be a market niche like Concorde was. This is a billionaire playing with a dream he had, one that any of us might have but would never have the means to try it in reality. It is not particularly clever in engineering terms as a concept.
You can see Musk already backing off from the idea of human passengers. His company is beginning to realise the massive regulatory hoops and safety expense involved in public transport. We keep hearing nonsense that the Hyperloop will be cheaper than a conventional railway - but it is those regulatory and safety issues that make railways so expensive, and those same issues (and more) will appy to Hyperloop too.
But it won't be much good for freight either; freight does not need to be moved at extreme speed, and for economy freight needs a big loading gauge (ie the cross sectional area of the way, allowing double-stacking of containers for example). A large loading gauge the Hyperloop does not have, and making that tube bigger is going to make it disproportionatly more expensive.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 12 2016, @10:00AM
Here and now, future doesn't exist yet, eh?
What about a mature technology, tested on/with humans (and paid by greedy investors hunting unicorns, which recover their money from other more greedy/gullible ones), which enables SpaceX to build a mix of smaller StarTram [wikipedia.org] and single stage rocket at the end?
Some years ago, nobody thought of recovering the booster to reduce launching cost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by frojack on Thursday May 12 2016, @06:05PM
Greedy Investors!
Those bastages! How dare those 1%-ers spend their ill gotten fortune polluting our pure ideas!!!
We must put an end to this project right away. As well as driverless cars, electric vehicles, solor power, wind farms, and every other new thing. Why: because greedy investors.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @10:30AM
None of the individual components of the Hyperloop are new except
adequate, cheap computing power to synchronize operations at near Mach 1. Ooops!
Anyway, this is not going to "transform transportation".
Except for the fact you can get produce picked in California the very same day in New York. All at a cheaper cost (amortized) than train.
I wonder what something like Wal-mart, which is a logistical powerhouse, could do with shipping anywhere that day? What would it do to inventory costs?
freight does not need to be moved at extreme speed
Which is why FedEx next day air is hemorrhaging money. Which is why automotive parts suppliers source from many different vendors in case of hiccups. Which is why the local sushi place gets overnight fresh fish daily.
What you meant to say is you don't require extreme speed.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 12 2016, @03:20PM
So you say the credit for the Hyperloop should go to Intel?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @05:32PM
I'm saying someone dense enough to compare the technology from the 60s to today without acknowledging the thing he's typing on is probably free from the ravages of intelligence or is a rogue chatbot that escaped a BBS and still thinks 640k is good enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:11AM
Because "new technology" is based upon however you feel about it, not other technologies. You've definitely advertised your emotion on the matter however.
We all stand on the shoulders of giants that came before us, man. The concept that novel invention is some magic thing that exists without being derivative IS a largely _Apple_ philosophy, you know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:31AM
the company is describing as its "Kitty Hawk" moment
"the company" is Hyperloop One. They say it's Hyperloop One's Kitty Hawk moment.
Hyperloop One is not owned by Elon Musk.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @03:51PM
It's funny. They had a nice segment on The News Hour last night about it, and Miles O'Brien mentioned that this really isn't a 'Kitty Hawk' moment, but more akin to the relatively unknown glider tests that the Wright brothers did before Kitty Hawk. However, Hyperloop One will call it a 'Kitty Hawk' moment (probably saving "moonshot" for a later test) because they're beating the investor bushes pretty hard (they've raised over $100M).
(Score: 5, Funny) by b0ru on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:19AM
I must admit, there's a certain appeal to firing humans through a railgun. If this project fails, I wonder if it can be pointed space-wards and repurposed as a management relocator...
(Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:40AM
Pointing it space-wards for use as a spaceship launcher sounds fascinating, in a sci-fi sort of way. I'm not a rocket surgeon, so I have no idea if it'd work. You did identify the ideal test group though.
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday May 12 2016, @11:50AM
See StarTram [wikipedia.org]. Would suit SpaceX quite nice to drive the space launches further down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday May 12 2016, @09:09AM
firing humans through a railgun.
Isn't it much easier and efficient to fire [with] a railgun through humans? Although probably less spectacular...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Insightful) by b0ru on Thursday May 12 2016, @09:13AM
Not to mention missing the opportunity for a manned solar surface exploration program.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @04:08PM
I agree, but Hyperloop doesn't use a railgun [wikipedia.org]. It uses a linear induction motor [wikipedia.org], according to TFA.
(Score: 1) by segwonk on Wednesday May 18 2016, @11:57AM
I wonder if it could be modified to be a solution for transport on a space elevator?
Constant 1 or 2 G acceleration/deceleration the whole way - can someone who's good with math could figure out how it would take?
.......go til ya know.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @08:57AM
A metal sled accelerated from zero to 116 mph in 1.1 seconds, or about 2.4 Gs of force.
2.4 Gs is equal to 23.5 m/s^2 (+/- 0.5)
However, accelerating an object to 116 mph in 1.1 seconds is actually 47 m/s^2 or 4.8 Gs, double that.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday May 12 2016, @10:02AM
Actually, this is still wrong. G [wikipedia.org] is the gravitational constant (unit N* m^2/kg^2), while in this context the gravitational acceleration 'g' [wikipedia.org] (unit m/s^2) would be more helpful.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Funny) by maxwell demon on Thursday May 12 2016, @12:33PM
Actually I read Gs as "gigaseconds" (prefix G = giga, unit s = second). 2.4 Gs is a bit more than 76 years.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday May 12 2016, @03:11PM
Well that sucks! I could walk from LA to SF faster than that! :)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday May 12 2016, @05:52PM
However, accelerating an object to 116 mph in 1.1 seconds is actually 47 m/s^2 or 4.8 Gs, double that.
That degree of acceleration was only used because their test track is so short. In real deployment, there would be much slower acceleration because people would bitch, and unsecured objects would deploy rearward.
Like everything else in any mode of transportation Its not the departure that is worrisome its arrival.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Thursday May 12 2016, @10:35AM
So maybe it's not a hype. I wonder if things like hard disks can withstand such acceleration. There's no point in accelerating by a 100 miles per second because this thing is supposed to only go long distances.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday May 12 2016, @02:22PM
Pretty sure hard-drives (spinning kind) can withstand hundreds of G's. Think acceleration to zero as it reaches the floor : )
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday May 12 2016, @06:31PM
I recall the old 20MB Seagate drive had a label claiming the warranty was void if exposed to a shock in excess of something like 80Gs.
My immediate question was then: how much of a drop is that? (don't want to do destructive testing to find out :p)
(Score: 1) by Spamalope on Thursday May 12 2016, @10:39AM
where it plans to run a full-scale test track (near Vegas)
How about connecting to the airport?!?! That'd be a breakthrough for Vegas!
They have public transportation everywhere except the most important place! (damn taxi cab lobby)
(Score: 3, Informative) by bitstream on Thursday May 12 2016, @02:48PM
Images?
A moving machines is better described by video:
Hyperloop One 1st Propulsion Test in Las Vegas desert - May 11, 2016 [youtube.com]
(lots of blabbering in the beginning. Forward to 0:38 for the action)
Tip on better videos on this event? just reply below.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 12 2016, @04:36PM
It's almost as though there are many who can't accept acceleration unless it comes with the combustion of fossil fuels. That is ridiculous. You can, as a regular person, experience electro-magnetic propulsion [wikipedia.org] today, with the price of admission at Cedar Point. Ride that, and then dispute its ability to propel you and yours at high speeds to your destination.
It was even announced that they would use passive levitation for safety and cost reasons.
Let's suppose they use a sealed system to cause a partial vacuum to reduce air resistance. Then let's suppose that some terrorist or government agent breaches that seal. It won't be as if the hyperloop train runs into a brick wall. Rather, it will be a gradually increasing resistance as the train approaches the leak. That is really far from catastrophic failure the detractors envision.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 12 2016, @05:52PM
this would be great to transport bottled water and oil ... oh wait.