Hyperloop One Announces Opening of Its First Manufacturing Plant (techcrunch.com) 128
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Hyperloop One is today announcing the opening of its first manufacturing plant. Called Hyperloop One Metalworks, the 105,000 square-foot building in North Las Vegas will be the new professional home of many of the company's 170 employees, including engineers, machinists and welders. These folks will build and test a number of components for the DevLoop, a full-system prototype of the Hyperloop, set for testing in 2017. The project, if successful, promises a half-hour travel time between Stockholm and Helsinki, which is the equivalent of about 300 miles. The company plans to have a working prototype of the Hyperloop by 2017 thanks to this new plant."Hyperloop One Metalworks is the first Hyperloop manufacturing plant in the world," said co-founder and President of Engineering Josh Giegel in a press release. "The ability to have a world-class machine shop in-house gives us an advantage to build rapidly and develop the Hyperloop in real-time."
Translating for the rest of the world (Score:5, Informative)
Incidentally, 482 km in 30 minutes is about 960 km/h. Not bad!
Re: (Score:1)
Which is equivalent to one (1) Stockholm-Helsinki-Distance-Unit. And so we come full circle.
BTW, it's also 283701 smoots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Translating for the rest of the world (Score:5, Informative)
European
You might want to try again [wikimedia.org]
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Unless you're using Kelvin and metric time, you can STFU about metric.
It's worse for everyday use because shit is based on 10 which doesn't divide as evenly as things like 12, 36, 5280, etc.
For scientific use, no one with a brain gives a shit. Units are units. Measure and convert as necessary.
And don't fall for the "significant figures" bullshit, either. Most people get it wrong, including the "authorities" on the matter. The only things you should round due to significant figures are measurements beyon
Re: (Score:2)
Metric isn't universal for every field either. Aviation (and other forms of navigation) is typically based on nautical miles. The reason why is because they correspond perfectly to minutes of latitude, and because it's considerably easier when doing time/distance equations (and the 60 base scale we use for time happens to easily calculate into navigational figures as well, which is probably why the Babylonians used it for astronomy.)
Re: (Score:2)
The babylonians used and we use 360 degrees and the divisor 60 for one reason:
By coincident the year is nearly exactly 360 days
Which means the rise of a star is every day nearly exactly one degree off.
Re: (Score:2)
By coincident the year is nearly exactly 360 days
Which means the rise of a star is every day nearly exactly one degree off.
No, that's not why. The Babylonian number system was base 60 as opposed to our base 10 system. The fact that there are 365 days in a year is coincidental. The number 360 would be represented as the number 60 if done in their base unit and converted to our numeric symbols. This means that you can divide by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60 without the need for representing as fractions, decimals, etc, which is very convenient. Just how convenient? Well, take for example the fact that we have pi up
Re: (Score:1)
I wouldn't recommend trying to build anything that involves circles using that notation. Not unless you allow an extra 0.141 'overlap' on each axial piece.
BTW the numbering system should not affect the value of pie. There basically is no (sane) way to make pie rational.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's not why. The Babylonian number system was base 60 as opposed to our base 10 system.
Sigh ...
and the Babylonian number system is based on 60, because of:
By coincident the year is nearly exactly 360 days
Can't be so hard to grasp.
However in Babylonian math, pi is simply the number 3.
That is wrong.
It is still 3.1495...blah
To have "3" as the value of PI your number system would need to have instead of a 1 a special "1" that is PI/3.
That's the whole point.
Seems you missed the whole point and you are b
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, forgot to mention:
The american Wikipedia article is misleading with its "true place positional value" statement and the reference to sedecimal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Every "place" actually was written in a decimal system :D or at least in a from decimal derived system.
E.g. 360 is 6 times 60 + 00
In pseudo Babylonian that would be 0-6-00 (dashes used to separate the places).
So what is a more interesting number? 51 perhaps, or 52. We would write that obviously like this: 0-5-1. In Babylonian scri
Re: (Score:1)
"How many 'metric degrees' do you think there are in a circle?"
Did you really want to ask that? The answer of course is :- 2 x pie, or 6.283185..etc. The specific SI unit is the radian, a full circle = 2 x pie radians.. :)
Of course 360 degrees is also an acceptable SI unit, so its a bit of a redundant question.
Re: (Score:2)
Only in high school and really shitty hobby coding instead of anything in science or industry.
Re:Translating for the rest of the world (Score:4, Funny)
It's worse for everyday use because shit is based on 10 which doesn't divide as evenly as things like 12, 36, 5280, etc.
This is a ver dumb argument, and wrong btw, a foot is not evenly divideable by 36.
Secondly: no one cares if a measuring can be diveded evenly (I assume you actually meant: diveded by integer division without leaving a reminder?)
Thirdly: it helps you absolutely nothing that a foot is 'evenly divedeable' by 2, 3, 4, 6, 12 because 9 feet 1" e.g is undevideable by any of them, so is 9 feet 9" and plenty of others.
I for my part extremely rarely work with stuff that exactly x (unit)'s long where dividing it up leads to nice rational numbers or natural numbers even. More interestingly: the situation that I have to divide something up like that rarely occures.
In real life my meassures are odd (and have a decimal point) all the time. So are yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Christ almighty did someone buy this troll account? Usually the angel'o'sphere retard's posts are at least readable.
It's not a dumb argument, almost all measurements are made to be practical and divisible. Look up acre, for example.
A foot is not divisible by 36, and I didn't claim it was. A yard is, however. It's also divisible by 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 12, and 18.
A pound is 16 ounces so you can repeatedly halve it. This is important in common tasks, such as cooking. People didn't have digital scales back in
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you are mistaken.
The fact that 90% of the planet uses the metric system clearly proofs: no one cares about dividing evenly.
There is no reason they should.
See teaspoons and tablespoons - both the items and the units of measure.
And, what is the point? Both vary greatly in size, it is unclear how high the salt/sugar etc. is piled in the spoon, it is only somewhat "equalized" when you measure liquids, and as a cook you are supposed to use your own judgement if you consider the spoon in your hand a big o
Re: (Score:2)
Wow amazing advice. Pick what unit you want, convert and divide away however you feel, and don't worry about significant figures.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm advising people to use whatever they want and to IGNORE significant figures unless they know how to use them. Most people don't.
They should ONLY be used for specific measurements where precision of the measuring device is known, NOT on any calculations or conversions thereupon.
The way it's taught, the lowest precision measurement is applied to every damned term and every intermediate calculation.
Re: (Score:2)
All metric unit conversions can be done with NO complicated, useless, and perfunctory math.
The thing you're missing is that common people almost never do unit conversions?
Quick, how many inches in a mile? Answer: who cares. Regular people driving to work never need to figure that out. How many inches in 473 feet as in your example? Again, no one cares, they don't need to do that. Go find some housewife who's cooking something and ask her how many cubic inches are in a gallon. Guess what? She doesn't
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. As long as the Brits continue to state their body weight in "stones" (whatever TF that is), then shut up about us commonly using non-metric units.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the aluminum thing, *you're* doing it wrong. Aluminum was the original word, before some idiots decided to change it for no good reason.
If you disagree, you're a hypocrite, because all the other old latin element names, and some others, are the same: cuprum, ferrum, aurum, plumbum, argentum, hydragyrum, platinum, molybdenum, etc. In short, if you're not also insisting on calling Pt "platinium", then you're an idiot and a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
Your point?
Some elements end in -um, some in -ium. If you complain about aluminum, then you're a hypocrite for also not complaining about all the others. Americans aren't complaining about all the elements ending in -ium; we have no problem understanding that some are one way and some another, it's only a bunch of dickheads who seem to think they should all end in -ium and complain about this even though a bunch of them don't, and haven't for millenia.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're not careful you'll trigger a rant about how we spell Aluminum and how we write our dates backwards.
Aluminum? No such word unless you count published typos.
Self fulfilling prophesy much?
Re: (Score:2)
Aluminum? No such word unless you count published typos.
Are you ignorant or stupid?
Re:Translating for the rest of the world (Score:5, Funny)
"International" dates are big-endian.
British dates are little-endian.
American dates are VAX-endian.
Sorry. I've been waiting 20 years for the chance to use "VAX-endian" in a sentence. I couldn't pass it up... :-D
(for anybody who didn't major in computer science... the way VAX mainframes represented double-precision floating point internally was... er... kind of weird... I think it did something wacky like represent the mantissa as a little-endian bit sequence, followed by a big-endian exponent, so the most significant bits ended up in the middle. Or something like that. I'm not old enough to have had to personally deal with it, but I remember one of my professors mentioning it as a historical footnote during the discussion of big- vs little-endian-ness as an example of how a vendor could completely throw a monkey wrench into the usual dichotomy and make a REAL mess).
Re:Translating for the rest of the world (Score:4, Interesting)
I worked on PDP's in my younger days. I haven't thought about that in a long time. Another oddity I deal with but never understood why is the difference between International sports hosting order and the US. In the US it Team A @ Team B, while internationally it is Team A hosting Team B. I have to remind myself of that when I am watching UEFA/BPL/La Liga, vs US football or the MLS.
Re: (Score:2)
This could change everything... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
....just like the Segway did.
It's going to carry mall cops to Cinnabon at 960 km/hr? Saul is not going to like this.
Re: (Score:2)
....just like the Segway did.
Except you could actually build the Segway, and they did. And no, it's didn't change everything, it barely changed anything.
This hyperloop bullshit is technologically impossible to construct and maintain, let alone protect against the simplest of threats or malfunctions.
Re: (Score:2)
This hyperloop bullshit is technologically impossible to construct and maintain, let alone protect against the simplest of threats or malfunctions.
Exactly what they said in 1900 about the airplane...
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly what they said in 1900 about the airplane...
A few well-known people at the time scoffed, but the majority of technical people at the time realized it was indeed possible.
One cool thing about airplanes is that, unlike the hyperbullshitloop, when one of them has a failure, it doesn't kill everyone else in every other plane flying that route.
The temperature-contraction of the tube issues alone make this unworkable, but don't let physics get in the way of your fantasy. Producing a high vacuum environment in that size of a vessel is also wildly impractica
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing impossible about HyperLoop. It's just impractical, completely unnecessary and solves no problem
You forgot "expensive". The hyperloop is going to need some massive civil engineering unless it can be built on an almost flat and empty plain. That is because changes in direction (in either the lateral or vertical planes) will need to be very gradual to avoid large g-forces on the passengers. So think in terms of a lot of tunnelling, viaducts, and property demolition (no-one will want to live under this thing). Some people would have us believe that it will cost no more than a large oil pipe line -
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious how much it will change given it seems like such a ripe terrorism target. I mean think about it, it's a really big evacuated tube that houses an object that moves very fast. I can't help but wonder what kind of hell a well timed explosion could cause.
What a coincidence! (Score:2, Informative)
I just watched this video debunking the feasibility of the Hyperloop [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What a trash video. He basically says "um have they considered that you'll be going fast and that crashing is bad?"
He's not even consistent - he claims in one breath that any crash would breach the outer walls and that repressurization would be catastrophically fast, and in the next that humans couldn't possibly survive until the tube repressurized and would die nearly instantly from being exposed to vacuum.
He also doesn't really know how anything works and throws in meaningless stats constantly. Like when
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Have you ever heard of a "fluid hammer"? The mass of the hammer matters there.
Only for incompressible fluids. Not air.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A crash or compromise of the internal vehicle would expose the occupants to the vacuum, a crash or compromise of the outer shell would cause a rush of atmospheric air at the speed of sound to hit the vehicle. That is to say given you can even plausibly get a vacuum that large. It hasn't been done before and requires a lot of engineering including vacuum seals that don't even exist yet. The current design as marketed doesn't even account for the steel tubes expanding and contracting.
Re: (Score:1)
including vacuum seals that don't even exist yet.
I've worked on vacuum vessels that sealed a door large enough to drive a car through, yet pumped down to the ultrahigh vacuum regime. The leak rates of those seals is low enough that you could have thousands of them and still be able to pump down to a vacuum good enough to remove air friction, as that is orders of magnitude higher pressure than UHV work. For things that aren't going to open and close on a regular basis, you can just weld things together, which gives a very good seal with well established
Re: (Score:2)
According to the Hyperloop people, the vacuum will be complete. Equivalent to the vacuum in outer space. If it were just a very light vacuum, it'd be cheaper to just not have the tubes and run a regular maglev.
Re: (Score:3)
Citation needed. Everything I've read states that it'll be a mild vacuum. There's no such thing as a "complete vacuum" on earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. Everything I've read states that it'll be a mild vacuum. There's no such thing as a "complete vacuum" on earth.
Not in space either.
Re: (Score:2)
The Hyperloop resembles a vactrain system but operates at approximately one millibar (100 Pa) of pressure. That is stratosphere-level vacuum where jet engines no longer work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if you watched the Mythbusters episode where they tried to crush a railcar with a vacuum [thetvaddict.com], you'd see that it was actually pretty difficult for a normal rail car and required them to drop a large block of concrete on the "thin metal shell" to dent it enough to collapse it.
So all that your video demonstrated was a vessel designed for atmospheric (or higher) pressure isn't suitable for a hard vacuum. Shocking. I guess Hyperloop won't be able to build their track out of old discarded damaged railcar tankers.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole "Hyperloop" thing is a ridiculous joke that will never, EVER be built.
Such statements are usually wrong. It will be build some time in the future, on some planet where the environment is so bad that air travel is an even worse option. It's basically another example a solution looking for a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Such statements aren't usually wrong. Some superfast mass mover will exist on the ground. MagLev, or Hyperloop, or what-have you. Keep in mind, when poeple said, e.g. Da Vinci's ornithopter thing would never fly, they really meant heavier than air flight. And ewhile we got heavier than air flight, and his ornithopter can now be buitl, we primarily use planes or helicopters. The few ornithopters are built as toys. Likewise, while we may eventually be able to build a hyperloop, it seems likely that mag
Re: (Score:2)
It is the cost thing the media parrots that drives me nuts. I just saw on the local news there will be a San Antonio/Austin loop built in the next 20 years or so that will cost 10 bucks to ride, runs every 10 minutes, 24 hours a day. Heck a bus ride across town almost costs that much and those are not running 24 hours a day or every 10 minutes in most cases. Maybe I'll announce my new magic anti-grav sphere tech that runs on air and can transport you anywhere in 30 minutes or less.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that people at 4am will want to travel between austin/sa every 10 minutes. Buses run when they run because demand warrants it, and they run empty a good bit of the time even with that. To give you some idea of how much $ we are talking about, they say it is going to cost 20B, so assume for crazy sake they are correct and not off by the typical 5X. If capital costs 1 dollar per ride, that is 5.5million trips/day for 10 years. Austin/SA only has about 3 million people. So unless everyone (man
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that people at 4am will want to travel between austin/sa every 10 minutes. Buses run when they run because demand warrants it, and they run empty a good bit of the time even with that. To give you some idea of how much $ we are talking about, they say it is going to cost 20B, so assume for crazy sake they are correct and not off by the typical 5X. If capital costs 1 dollar per ride, that is 5.5million trips/day for 10 years. Austin/SA only has about 3 million people. So unless everyone (man, woman and child) is taking 2 trips/day for 10 years will they recover capital, assuming zero interest. This is a nerd site, does no one on this site even do a rough back of the envelope calculation for stuff like this.
Thank you for bringing a bit of sanity into the discussion. Most of the people cheering this nonsense on are dull-witted suckers who are hard of thinking.
I'll bet anyone here $10,000 that nothing comes of it and that not a single functioning vehicle or route will exist, even after 10 years of "development".
Re: (Score:2)
You have it backwards. It is because it runs every ten minutes that it costs 10 bucks to ride.
Because running something more often costs less? Then why don't operation and maintenance costs go down when you use a car 24/7?
Your thinking is faulty. See if you can guess where.
-
It's spreading the cost of the system over many uses. A bus ride across town doesn't have the number of users or duty cycle that would allow the cost to go down.
Yeah, and guess what? Neither does the demand for trips from L.A. to San Francisco have the demand or duty cycle to make it cost effective to that level. There's even less demand for longer distance routes than for shorter distance routes. Seriously, give me a fucking break, have any of you people actually thought about this shit
We spent half a trillion (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
in America on a fibre roll out that never happened and nobody has the balls to ask for our money back. So you're forgive me if I'm not in even the tinciest bit surprised shit like this can fly. The loans will be private with public guarantees and we'll all eat it like we eat sports Colosseums.
Exactly. They'll spend a shitload of public money and in the end there will be nothing to show for it. Where will the money have gone? To a magical place called "someone else's wallet".
And whatever was built will be abandoned and left to rot, never having moved a single person from point A to point B.
As I said before, I'll bet anyone here $10,000 that nothing comes of it and that not a single functioning vehicle or route will exist even after 10 years. Money to be held in escrow by an agreed-upon 3rd party
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, you believe you have superior knowledge.
But actually it is inferior. For you and the rest of the americans the hyperloop is a new concept.
Actually it is minimum 45 years old and especially in Switzerland a research project since 40 years.
The only costly thing is drilling the tunnels. And in the case of the USA, I would not wonder if they just put a pipe overground, which would drasticly reduce the costs, or burry it by digging a trench.
Re: (Score:2)
The Hyperloop plans I've seen call for the tube to be elevated on pylons over the ground. It's far cheaper that way, plus you don't have to worry much about seismic problems (you can engineer the pylons and tubes to have a certain amount of flexibility, much like skyscrapers do).
Re: (Score:1)
Actually it is minimum 45 years old and especially in Switzerland a research project since 40 years.
And as usual, you are full of shit.
Show us ONE functioning hyperloop station or route like the one Elon Musk is proposing, just ONE.
Show us ONE high-vacuum tunnel several meters in diameter that is more than 10 feet long.
Show us ONE self-contained, vacuum-capable passenger container that has ever been used.
You can't, because they don't exist and never will.
Mark my words: The hyperloop, as proposed, is bullshit and will never, ever be built. I'll bet anyone here $10,000 that nothing comes of it and that n
Re: (Score:2)
Show us ONE high-vacuum tunnel several meters in diameter that is more than 10 feet long.
Please, stop mixing up units of measurement. Please try wolframalpha and get a clue what 10 feet is in relation to several meters (diameter).
Show us ONE self-contained, vacuum-capable passenger container that has ever been used.
That is off topic. Obviously no one has built that yet.
The hyperloop, as proposed, is bullshit No it is not. It is just a peace of so far imaginary transportation. The technology for it is readil
Re: (Score:2)
Please, stop mixing up units of measurement. Please try wolframalpha and get a clue what 10 feet is in relation to several meters (diameter).
In other words, you can't, can you? That's because you're lying, there is no working hyperloop, nor anything like it. And there never will be a working hyoerloop outside of some experimental bullshit designed to suck investors into the scam.
-
That is off topic. Obviously no one has built that yet.
Exactly, and that's why you're full of shit, like always. No one has built one because it's impractical beyond all measure from nearly every angle.
-
The technology for it is readily available since decades.
No, it hasn't. If it has, SHOW US ONE, just one example of this in the real world. As usual, you can't.
-
Then: no. I rather put $10,000 into Elons company and either lose it or become a billionaire.
You'd lose it, but
Re: (Score:2)
That's because you're lying, there is no working hyperloop
I never said there is one, idiot. The liar is obviously you.
No, it hasn't. If it has, SHOW US ONE, just one example of this in the real world. As usual, you can't.
Three universities in Germany have a small scale version, how retarded are you?
In other words, you can't, can you?
This was your comment to mixing feet with meters? Well, 10 feet are 3 meters, several meters is certainly below 10 meters. So you want to see a 3 meters long tube with 5 to 10
Re: (Score:2)
Three universities in Germany have a small scale version, how retarded are you?
Then show us a link, angel'o'sphere, show us one of these working prototypes of a vacuum train transport system.
If you're so sure this is a workable concept, why not bet some money on it? If you can't afford $10,000, let's bet $1,000, or even just 1 dollar.
Put your money where your mouth is, angel'o'sphere. If you won't, then I think that tells us all we need to know about your belief in this nonsense scheme.
Re: (Score:2)
Vacuum or low pressure air pressure "pneumatic delivery" we have since the 19th century.
Modern concepts for cargo and passengers are:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/... [www.welt.de]
http://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/ein-... [www.nzz.ch]
http://www.trendsderzukunft.de... [trendsderzukunft.de]
Your google foo must be low on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Your google foo must be low on you.
Your intelligence foo must be low on you.
Re: (Score:2)
All the problems of deep space travel? I wasn't aware the hyperloop would also contain a particle accelerator that generated powerful cosmic rays, that you'd have to stock it with months of food, that passengers would suffer bone density loss due to lack of gravity, or that highly explosive chemicals would be loaded on board. I'm glad I know that now so that I can stay away from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Wherefore art thou Slashdot? (Score:5, Insightful)
Three different people posting the same Youtube link to the same babbling jackass.
You people do realize that Elon Musk had actual rocket scientists working on the original Hyperloop paper, right? Whether or not Mr. Musk's own physics degree is worth anything or not, the degrees of his employees definitely are, or SpaceX rockets wouldn't fly. They did modeling of vacuum evacuation of the tube. They did modeling of stresses on a basic pylon, using the same software they use to model the stresses on SpaceX rockets. They did modeling of the capsule. The math and engineering have been vetted pretty seriously. At least, the original version.
Whether or not Hyperloop One's version has enjoyed the same degree of scrutiny by people who have been demonstrated not to drop a decimal place I don't know, but regardless, you can stop linking to the babbling fool.
The fundamental flaws of Hyperloop are political, not physical. The link proposed between SF and LA will never be built because it would have followed the highway, which would deny the Right People the opportunity to get rich off of real estate speculation, the way the Not Very High Speed Rail project is allowing.
Re: (Score:2)
More than speculation in real-estate, it would not stop in the middle, further isolating those areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wherefore art thou Slashdot? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you slightly miss the overall point of the video. The math is one thing, and surely no-one's claiming it's impossible to build a system that works with enough effort, however the real question is whether or not such a system will be worth the advantage, which, as the video explains, will not be much more than an hour cut from the travel time when you take into consideration that the system will likely have to have close to airport-level security anyway.
The cost calculations they've been showing thus far are vastly understated, they assume no maintenance costs whatsoever, and the costs for the building of the thing are sketchy at best.
Overall the whole project of HyperLoop One as it's been thus far presented is heavy on hype and light on facts and doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence because of that. For example as mentioned in the video, they currently waive the challenges caused by thermal expansion of by saying they can have a moving tube at the endpoint, that is, that they'll just allow the whole thing to expand few hundred meters and just move the station with it, but it should be obvious that you can't have 600 miles of solid steel tubing without any expansion joints and assume that this thing won't buckle at all and cause issues... I'm no engineer but this still seems very sloppy if they want their project to be taken seriously.
Simulating these things is one thing since in simulations you can simply assume a working system (ie. a working 600 miles long vacuum-tube), the video is talking about the difficulties of actually building/maintaining such a system using current technology while keeping the costs sensible.
This is not to say some version of the hyperloop is physically impossible, just that given all the challenges present in actually building and maintaining one, it looks to me at the moment like it's not really worth it.
As this article well put is: [theverge.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The physics are sound but the engineering practicalities may not be. For example, the original design requires air to be actively pumped from in front of the vehicle out the back, because even in low pressure the air resistance is problematic. You can't get much lower air resistance without a much more complicated, and thus expensive and failure prone, tube.
The issue of the pylons subsiding is also rather severe. On Japanese high speed railways they inspect every metre of track every night, and repair it as
Re: (Score:1)
The drooling masses of Luddites on Slashdot are probably still claiming that SpaceX's reusable rockets don't exist, or that all the videos of them landing after a launch are faked.
But you're probably right about the Hyperloop never coming to California, at least not any time soon. They'll probably build a bunch of them in various other countries on the other side of the planet first, and finally, 50 years later, California will decide it wants one after spending a few trillion on a high-speed rail project
Not real news, not an idea, but hey :) (Score:1)
Yet this is not a real hyperloop (Score:1)
Wait... (Score:2)
Is this not the same Hyperloop One that is having massive political infighting right now, with lawsuits being slung back and forth and serious management shenanigans?
I hope the employees of this factory are getting paid very well for the employment uncertainty they're facing.
Stop arguing about irrelevancies: (Score:2)
I don't know from unobtainium, but doesn't it bother anyone else that the Hyperloop is not really a loop?
A loop is more like a circle than a line, and if you take it in one direction you'll eventually arrive back at your starting point. Everything I've ever heard about the hyperloop just has it running directly from San Francisco to Los Angeles.
I mean, I guess you could ride it from Los Angeles to San Francisco and then back, but there's a bunch of roads that do the same thing, and we don't call them loops
Have they figured out how........ (Score:2)
Have they figured out how:
(1) To make a tube that sags just a few millimeters between pylons? Hint: A 1-inch thick steel tube sags several inches between those pylons.
(2) How to get people into space suits? Even the Air Force doesn't let pilots, even in wartime, sit in a plane at 70,000 feet without a space suit.
(3) How to get a common-carrier license, for a vehicle and tube without emergency exits?
Those are all pretty hard show-stoppers, and they seem to be working on everything but.
Re: (Score:2)
Well their location is one of the worst possible places in America to live. I wouldn't work there just because of where they are.