• gerbler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      More like a pipe dream with no practical thought put into it that was sold by a conman entirely to derail the planned high speed rail that would have connected SoCal to Seattle.

      The end result is a tiny quarter mile tube in a convention centre where you can drive your Tesla in a loop but only like 10 mph and god forbid there’s an emergency like a fire because there’s no emergency exits if you’re stuck behind a burning Tesla.

      • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        FWIW the hyperloop (“pods” in vacuum tubes) and the loop (teslas in tunnels) are separate grifts.

      • const_void@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        you can drive your Tesla

        Incorrect. You don’t even get to drive your own car. Someone else drives a Tesla for you. Basically an underground Uber car.

        • azimir@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          And underground taxi with only one destination option. It defeats the purpose of using individual cars for travel in almost every category.

      • nothacking
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Actually, maglev trains are slowly becoming practical, and the hyperloop is just a train in a tube with no air. It won’t be something revolutionary, just an even faster high speed train. Of course removing air from a tunnel creates its own problems: What if there is a fire? Normally you could get out into the tunnel, can’t do that with no air.

        • Hobovision@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is much harder for fire to exist without air. There are some self oxidizing fires, but it should be relatively easy to avoid those materials. For fires inside the vehicle, there are some existing fire protection protocols that could be followed. There have been fires on the International Space Station and they couldn’t exactly run outside either.

          • n2burns@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The ISS isn’t exactly mass transit. In most of those fires, they could evacuate to another area if necessary. That doesn’t work for a train where basically all the space is announced for.

            • Hobovision@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Having multiple, semisolated compartments in a Hyperloop train is entirely reasonable. There’s definitely room in a traincar for the occupants of a compartment that’s on fire to move to another compartment for emergency purposes.

              Evacuation points would be defined every so often (say every few miles) such that the train could come to an emergency stop within one, seal doors on each side and let air in. This would take a few minutes, but so does landing a plane or stopping a high speed train.

              Bottom line is that fire safety is, to me at least, an entirely solvable problem. The biggest problem with Hyperloop, I think, is that given the materials for the vacuum sealed tube and the energy required to hold that vacuum, it is just so unlikely to be more efficient than a maglev. For medium distance travel, even standard high speed rail is good enough to replace planes, so we don’t need the extra speed for ~500 mile distances. For longer distances where high speed rail is super slow or impossible, such as across continents and oceans the cost of building the vacuum tube will be so costly that it would take something like a complete ban of non-renewable fuels in aircraft for it to be a consideration. Even then, I think it could end up being cheaper to develop and use renewable fuels for aircraft.