Elon Musk & "Hyperloop" announcement 12 Aug 2013

[D.P. Roberts]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/15/4524726/elon-musk-will-reveal-plans-for-hyperloop-august-12th

I've been seeing more and more articles about this. I doubt it could happen any time soon, with or without Musk.

 

[me_little_me]

I am sure he's going to offer to fund it to show it is better than HSR. :giggle:

 

[afigg]

I don't know what to make of the Elon Musk Hyperloop concept, except to say that I'm very skeptical that it is anything more than a totally impractical concept.

BTW, the Hyperloop concept is not a rail system, although it is a fixed guideway. Discussions about it really should be in the non-rail transportation forum.

 

[railiner]

How's that song go..."Everything Old Is New Again".....?

http://www.nycsubway.org/wiki/Beach_Pneumatic_Transit

In this case......143 years old......

 

[Texan Eagle]

One thing I have learnt over the past few years is not to underestimate Elon Musk's ideas (see: Tesla). Yes HyperLoop sounds crazy, impractical and unfeasible but then ten years ago the idea of an all-electric car that has more luxury features that you can dream of and can be a most sought-after car among the rich and famous, in a world dominated by gas powered luxury cars, was also an idea that many thought was crazy and unfeasible.

 

[Ryan]

And Tesla isn't a one off. Space X is just as impressive.

It sounds like a crazy concept, and if be quick to dismiss it if it was a done else, but I'm not counting this out just yet.

 

[MattW]

Well, he's produced a paper describing the concept: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf (warning, large PDF)

Other than the insistence on the tsa's nonsense, it seems pretty good, almost too good to be true...almost. I'm not sure if it's quite ready to begin turning shovels yet, but it will be interesting to see where this technology goes in the future. Even if it doesn't take off for land-based transportation, I could see an undersea model between say New York and the UK working since it's faster over the journey than current aircraft.

 

[Texan Eagle]

TL;DR version for the lazy:

- 35 minutes from SF to LA

- Ticket price $20 one-way as per today's dollars

- Cost of construction $6 billion (about 1/5th of CA High Speed Rail cost)

- Capacity to transport 840 passengers per hour at peak

- Predominantly solar powered

- Can be constructed in 3-4 years

Sounds too good to be true, isn't it?

Elon Musk has done some pretty amazing work with Tesla, SpaceX and SolarCity, but I am skeptical this project will see light of day ever. If not technical, there will be a lot of political challenges he will have to overcome.

 

[Ryan]

Reminds me of this:

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Here's a computer magazine's speculative take on it; includes slideshow of several not-so-hot vehicles, and the famous monorail song from "The Simpsons:"

The Hyperloop: Another Great Transportation Failure? - http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow/story/314676/the-hyperloop-another-great-transportation-failure

"While the Hyperloop is earthbound, the idea is far out, likely relying on tubes to transport passengers. Until today, the furthest Musk has gone in revealing his vision was explaining it will be a "cross between a Concorde and a railgun and an air-hockey table." Musk said the closest guess to his design is from self-described tinkerer John Gardi, who posted his speculative plans of how the Hyperloop will work, showing a turbine-powered air column filled with cars traveling via magnetic linear decelerators and accelerators."

Speculative plans for a working system:

 

[Tracktwentynine]

I think the general rule of thumb is that if it sounds too good to be true, check the math.

Musk's proposal has a few issues. They may be technically surmountable, but they're problems nonetheless. The biggest issue is that he believes that this could be open and operating in 10 years. Even if that were possible, it will likely be a scaled-down version, because his claims don't add up. Like I said, check the math.

Claims:

• Pods would depart every 30 seconds during peak times.
• Stations would have capacity for up to 3 capsules at a time.
• Acceleration/Deceleration would be limited to 0.5gs (10.97 mph/sec).
• A maximum speed of 760 mph.
• A vehicle capacity of 28 passengers per capsule.
• Trip from LA to SF in 30 to 35 minutes.

Math:

Now, briefly, let's consider some of the math.

Let's assume for a moment that having a capsule depart every 30 seconds is feasible. Fine. With a capsule every 30 seconds capable of seating 28, the Hyperloop can carry 3,360 passengers per hour. That sounds like a lot, right?

Well, actually, it doesn't. Because a freeway lane can carry 2,000 cars per hour. A subway line running at 3 minute headways can carry 36,000 (yes, thousand) passengers per hour. And the California HSR, which this purports to replace, will have a throughput of 12,000 passengers per hour.

Okay, okay, so the Hyperloop can only carry 25% of the number of passengers as CAHSR, it's still 10% of the cost, right? So it's a win. Details, details.

But is 30 second headway feasible? Let's do some more math. (I know, everybody though there wasn't going to be math.)

A capsule traveling at 750 mph with a maximum deceleration of 0.5 gs (10.97 mph/sec) will take 68.4 seconds to come to a full stop. See the problem?

A vehicle can never be closer to the vehicle in front than its own stopping distance. If pod A had a catastrophic failure and became wreckage in the tube, pod B would not be able to stop in time. Neither would pod C.

So, a more likely headway is something like 80 seconds. And at that rate, the Hyperloop can only move 1,260 passengers per hour. Let's remember, CAHSR will be able to move 12,000 passengers per hour. A full order of magnitude higher.

In order for the Hyperloop to have the same capacity as CAHSR, it would need to be built with 10 tubes in each direction instead of just 1. And if we multiply the infrastructure investment by 10, surely we multiply the cost by 10. And if we multiply the cost by 10, we actually make the Hyperloop more expensive (at $60B) than CAHSR (at $53B in 2013 dollars).

Oh, and one more thing: That 35 minute trip time promised on the Hyperloop?

Yeah, that's from Sylmar to "San Francisco".

Sylmar is an hour by train from Downtown LA, so add that in. And while the map shows the Hyperloop going to Downtown San Fransisco (crossing the Bay Bridge or parallel to it), no mention of crossing the bay is included. Oh, and they didn't add that cost in, either. So you should probably count on this thing stopping in Oakland. So add the BART ride, too.

So basically, what this proves is: If you promise to build something that carries 10% of the capacity of CAHSR, doesn't go to either downtown, and doesn't stop in any intermediate cities, and you completely make up cost numbers*, you can "build" it cheaper.

*Pedestrian Observations has a great takedown of the cost numbers. Also keep in mind that Musk believes that the hyperloop doesn't need to be seismically stable because it's not on the ground. How did that work out for the Cypress Street Viaduct back in '89?

 

[WhoozOn1st]

Don't you just hate it when some killjoy spoils the party with pesky facts? Especially when they involve math??

 

[Bob Dylan]

Don't you just hate it when some killjoy spoils the party with pesky facts? Especially when they involve math??

Thus spoke the Master!

 

[CHamilton]

Here's a roundup of other coverage that discusses the shortcomings of the project:

“Hyperloop”: Not Quite Shovel-Ready

 

[CHamilton]

Next Media Animation, a Taiwanese media company known for its goofy animations that depict strange and popular news stories, released a video today on Elon Musk’s hyperloop design. Expect to see a particularly devious-looking Musk and lots of hyperloop malfunctions.

 

[Anderson]

I really hope someone viciously calls Musk out on this in an interview at some point. Then again, I also wish the press would basically say "not covering Musk anymore" on the grounds that he's either an *****, a liar, or both.

Suffice it to say that, especially if the theories about him doing this to sabotage CAHSR are true, I'm officially cheering against Tesla on principle.

 

[Texan Eagle]

So, a more likely headway is something like 80 seconds. And at that rate, the Hyperloop can only move 1,260 passengers per hour. Let's remember, CAHSR will be able to move 12,000 passengers per hour. A full order of magnitude higher.

You bring numbers? I bring in some more for you. You say CAHSR if ever built will be able to carry 12,000 passengers per hour? Where did you come up with this number? Assuming a very optimistic scenario that CAHSR will run 10 car trains, with each car carrying 100 passengers (how much does Acela carry again?), that would still require 12 trains per hour, so a departure every FIVE MINUTES. Do you really think that is going to happen?

Can you even load a 1000 passenger train in 5 minutes, again being optimistic that CAHSR will not have the archaic Amtrak mentality of assuming passengers are 5 year old kids and letting them into the platforms only in a single file. Instead, I am considering passengers are allowed to walk to their trains as and when they wish.

Even if you somehow manage to streamline boarding/deboarding and have a train depart every 5 minutes, where is it going to run? In its latest decision, mid-Peninsula cities have shot down 4 track system so the CAHSR is going to share tracks with Caltrain from SF to SJ, an entire two track section with fast, semi-fast and slow commuter trains. They can barely keep Caltrains run at full speed even if one train stops for an extra minute at a station, entire system goes for a toss with trains catching up behind. There is no way you can add 12 high-speed trains into the mix per hour.

Being even more optimistic, somehow the rich folks in Atherton-Palo Alto allow a 4 track system and now you have capacity to send out trains every 5 minutes, how much rolling stock do you need for this? SF-LA run is supposed to take 3 hours, assuming a very optimistic 15 minute turnaround at both ends, a trainset departing SF at 12.00pm would be able to complete roundtrip and start next trip at 6.30pm. So you would need 78 trainsets to keep a every-5-minute service. Is this included in the cost? Buying SEVENTY-EIGHT ten-car trains, with 156 locomotive/power units?

If Musk's plan looks like castle-in-the-air to you, the CAHSR which has been in planning for what, twenty years now? without a single mile of track constructed and cost inflated by 5 times of initial estimate is total **** too.

 

[MattW]

While I doubt CAHSR will run 12,000 pph initially, that's probably a good "upper-limit" capacity after substantial growth. After substantial growth with the hyperloop however...you'd need another tube, or many tubes.

 

[Ryan]

So, a more likely headway is something like 80 seconds. And at that rate, the Hyperloop can only move 1,260 passengers per hour. Let's remember, CAHSR will be able to move 12,000 passengers per hour. A full order of magnitude higher.

You bring numbers? I bring in some more for you. You say CAHSR if ever built will be able to carry 12,000 passengers per hour? Where did you come up with this number? Assuming a very optimistic scenario that CAHSR will run 10 car trains, with each car carrying 100 passengers (how much does Acela carry again?), that would still require 12 trains per hour, so a departure every FIVE MINUTES. Do you really think that is going to happen?

I believe that he was talking about max theoretical capacity, not most likely capacity.

Given the demand and equipment, CAHSR *COULD* move 12,000 pax/hour. There's no way the hyperloop could ever carry that many.

 

[Tracktwentynine]

So, a more likely headway is something like 80 seconds. And at that rate, the Hyperloop can only move 1,260 passengers per hour. Let's remember, CAHSR will be able to move 12,000 passengers per hour. A full order of magnitude higher.

You bring numbers? I bring in some more for you. You say CAHSR if ever built will be able to carry 12,000 passengers per hour? Where did you come up with this number? Assuming a very optimistic scenario that CAHSR will run 10 car trains, with each car carrying 100 passengers (how much does Acela carry again?), that would still require 12 trains per hour, so a departure every FIVE MINUTES. Do you really think that is going to happen?

Can you even load a 1000 passenger train in 5 minutes, again being optimistic that CAHSR will not have the archaic Amtrak mentality of assuming passengers are 5 year old kids and letting them into the platforms only in a single file. Instead, I am considering passengers are allowed to walk to their trains as and when they wish.

I got the 12,000 number from the CAHSR Business Plan as revised in 2012.

The plan is indeed to run 12 trains per hour by 2030. Each train will have 1,000 seats.

And yes, you can indeed load a 1000 passenger train in 5 minutes. BART does it with 2 doors per car at Embarcadero in 40 seconds. But realistically, we're not talking 1000 people all getting on in Los Angeles. CAHSRA anticipates an average loading factor of 70%. And some passengers will board at San Fernando. And some will board at Palmdale. And some will board at Bakersfield.

But don't take my word for it. I would encourage you to read the CAHSRA's Business Plans. They lay out what the Authority plans to do.

 

[CHamilton]

More numbers.

Criticism Mounts of the Hyperloop

Alon Levy takes a look at the physics of the Hyperloop and concludes it’s a barf ride:

This is worse than sideways acceleration: track standards for vertical acceleration are tighter than for horizontal acceleration, about 0.5-0.67 m/s^2, one tenth to one seventh what Musk wants to subject his passengers to. It’s not transportation; it’s a barf ride.


Levy takes a look at the estimates for Hyperloop energy consumption and comes to a damning conclusion:



Indeed, a train with a thousand seats, 20 MW of power drawn, 60% seat occupancy, and a speed of 360 km/h can only ever expend 333 kJ per passenger-km while accelerating, and much less while cruising (acceleration at lower speed requires more energy per unit of distance, but cruising at lower speed expends only a fraction of the energy of full-power acceleration).

 

[CHamilton]

High-Speed Rail or Hyperloop? Let’s Try Both, and Reward the Winner

It’s been a bumpy week for high-speed rail advocates in California. On Sunday, the Los Angeles Times published a story saying that groundbreaking on the first section of the “bullet train” route linking L.A. and San Francisco will likely slip into 2014—more than two years behind schedule. Then on Monday, aerospace and automotive mogul Elon Musk published details of his proposed Hyperloop, which would shorten the one-way trip from L.A. to San Francisco to just 35 minutes by shooting passenger pods through steel tubes on cushions of air at more than 700 miles per hour.No one thinks the timing was a coincidence. It seems clear that Musk is trying to deflate enthusiasm for the existing rail project by dangling an even sexier alternative in front of the traveling public’s eyes. “I don’t think we should do the high-speed rail thing,” Musk told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It’s basically going to be California’s Amtrak.” (“He didn’t mean that as a compliment,” Bloomberg Businessweek helpfully explained.)

But it’s a false choice. The proposed routes for the two systems don’t overlap by much, so building one doesn’t preclude building the other. It’s really a question of hedging our bets—and supporting innovation of all stripes.

 

[NW cannonball]

Good to see that this fraudulent fantasy is being debunked. Musk himself has (in other contexts) admitted that it takes a few tries before new tech is accepted. If the fantasy ride ever works, Elon should be the first to ride through the first sun-kink on the fantasy-tube. With all the puking passengers. Something like this might possibly work, but not in the next few decades. What a BS'er.

 

[Anderson]

Ok, let's give Musk the benefit of the doubt for a just moment. I have a wonderful idea: If Musk will hand the money to the state for a full battery of preliminary engineering, a Tier I EIS, and an alternatives analysis (with the project to be handed to a third-party firm not affiliated with Musk in any way so he can't fudge the numbers), then it'll be given due consideration while the current portion of HSR is under consideration. Even let him run the money through a 501©(3) of his choosing.

I'd be interested to see what he'd say to a very loud "put up or shut up" dare on this front. Then again, given his initial proposal, the best candidate for making the offer might not be Jerry Brown. It might be James Randi.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

Musk should still give it a try. You never know what is Possible until you try to do it. We must constantly push the boundaries of Impossible in order to futher Civilization. Back in 1700, only three hundred years ago, no one thought that man could travel around the world in less than 40 hours.

If the Hyperloop works eventually, I've sure kick out HSR any day for Hyperloop. Don't think those foolish CAHSR planners are going to make anything hpppen anytime soon. We need a private operator to get things running, even if he needs subsides.