I dunno, after watching thunderf00t's video on hyperloops, I'm pretty convinced that there are fundamental engineering barriers that would have doomed the company anyway.
If not internal squabbles and lawsuits, the practical laws of nature would eventually have to be reckoned with (just like with Solar Freakin Roadways)
Thunderf00t's objections are mostly based on misunderstandings of fluid dynamics and the hyperloop design. It's almost impressive -- he's singlehandedly founded a whole raft of hyperloop engineering myths with one "controversial" video.
There would be no sonic "shock wave" killing everyone in the tube in the event of a breach. Viscous drag on the tube walls would reduce the flow velocity to highway speed in only a couple km. The wave front spreads out, becoming a gradual pressure rise.
The entire tube would be designed for rapid repressurization (under 60 seconds). The cars can easily stop in 15-20 seconds since the passengers are strapped in and possibly in seats facing backward to arrest braking forces.
Expansion joints are easily accommodated at the end stations, and the slight leaks from the sliding interfaces are compensated by mechanical pumps (easy to maintain 1/1000th of an atmosphere, damn near impossible to maintain 1/1000000 of an atmosphere for true vac trains given the linear decrease in vacuum pumping mass flow at low pressures and the need for turbomolucular pumps and/or cryopumps at those pressures).
There's a great need for pumping near the end stations anyway due to residual air entering around the pod in the airlock. They'll pump down the majority of the pressure of course, but due to the exponential drop in pumping speed over time it makes little sense to make passengers wait a long time and pump it down to the exact same pressure when they can cut it off early and just let the tube pumps make it up. Even on the space station (where air is very expensive) they only pump the airlock down part-way and vent the remaining residual atmosphere so the astronauts (whose time is also expensive) don't have to wait.
What convinced that it would not work was reading about the temperature pressure differences the on car motor was supposed to handle. It sounds like there needs to be a giant air compressor strapped to the car. Having been in a garage when an air compressor turns on (unpleasant), I really don't want to be in a tiny metal tube with a giant air compressor on all the time. It sounds several times worse then being in an airplane.
The compressor in your garage is almost certainly a reciprocating compressor (oscillating motion = very loud), while the hyperloop uses an axial compressor (pure rotary motion = much quieter).
The same sound absorbing layers and vibration isolation technology that's used on jet planes could also be used if needed.
I know it's a sensitive subject for HN, but I'll go ahead and encourage folks not to watch that video, at least without taking a look at some of the other popular videos on that channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A) and making an informed decision.
To be clear, since technical expertise and regressive politics are not necessarily mutually exclusive, I'm not saying that you shouldn't watch it-- just that you might not want to.
Snarky reply replaced: I'm sincerely curious if that's really all you're taking away from my comment, including the explicit disclaimer. My advice was to pay closer attention to the material, not to ignore it, so I'm perplexed as to how you managed to get the complete opposite message.
This seems exceptionally straightforward to me, so I'll make it as un-political as I can: There are lifetimes of new content available for your consumption every single day.
Maybe it's not all worthwhile. Maybe not 1% of it is. It doesn't matter-- you'll never get to see an infinitesimal fraction of it, even just the good, true, accurate stuff.
So how do you decide what to pay attention to with your mortal lifespan? Just as a first pass, I like to use filters like "is this notably excellent" or "does this make me want to throw up at all, even just a little".
Then if it's not excellent, or if the speaker doesn't agree with my politics, or especially both, I don't feel any remorse whatsoever about skipping it.
This isn't about shutting myself off. I think it's very important to expose myself to perspectives that differ from my own, to broaden my own frame of reference. I also think that feces play a critically important role in my metabolism, but that doesn't mean I'm excited to open a box of donuts and discover a frosted turd.
And I'll accept exactly 0 concern trolling around my publicly saying, just, hey... look in the box.
If it's a turd in there, you don't still have to eat it.
I'm not commenting on everything, just the things I think are the most important. I can't read your mind, but in your own words you "encourage folks not to watch that video at least without..."
Just my impression, but it appears to me that you aren't even trying to contribute to the actual topics of discussion in any meaningful way.
> but in your own words you "encourage folks not to watch that video at least without..."
Trying really hard not to get back on snark here, but... did you literally just stop reading there? Just finish my sentence: I "encourage folks not to watch that video, at least without [...] making an informed decision."
So, do you think folks shouldn't make an informed decision, or do you think my decision is wrong?
Just my impression, but it appears that you might be arguing one as a proxy for another.
So... watch several of his other videos and then decide whether to watch this one? And that's to save time spent on consuming non-worthwhile content? You could stand to be a lot more specific about what your beef is with this youtuber and how that links back to the arguments given in this video.
No. Just go to the channel, read the titles of some of the other videos, and then either walk away, or not, for your own reasons, or not. Or don't, if that really seems so hard.
Again, weirded out that this is such a burdensome ask for some of you. Like, I'm not even talking about my politics, just pointing out that my politics exist.
> watch several of his other videos and then decide whether to watch this one?
I think that is a generous interpretation. I fear that we are probably being asked to ignore Thunderf00t's criticism of the Hyperloop on the basis of the titles of the other videos - without even looking at the content of those videos!
The titles alone should be sufficient for us to agree that Thunderf000t is so terrible, with his terrible 'regressive' politics, that all of his videos are unworthy of watching.
I mean, do you actually believe that I think the Hyperloop is extremely important, criticism of it must be quashed at any cost, and this YouTuber will just have to be one of the broken eggs?
I'm serious. Is that... is there a part of your brain that what you just said actually makes sense to?
Is it possible in your universe that I've just expressed my actual feelings? And now we're having a big argument about my actual feelings? Even though at this point I doubt you even know what my actual feelings are?
I mean, do you actually believe that I think the Hyperloop is extremely important, criticism of it must be quashed at any cost, and this YouTuber will just have to be one of the broken eggs?
No, I think GP is suggesting that you have some other sacred cow, and you consider the "quashing" of technical arguments about other topics to be acceptable collateral damage in protecting it.
And yet for some reason, while I've barely so much as mentioned politics, you can't seem to stop talking about it.
If you think I am projecting bias in my comments, you're more than welcome to note it. Unless... is it possible I am not the only one with a sacred cow?
Respectfully (because your writing looks fine) but in all honesty, is English your first language?
You ended your quotation on the preposition "without", which alone should tell you that the meaning of the sentence is contingent on what follows. That sentence could end "...without putting on your PPE" or "...without grabbing a popcorn and soda first", completely opposite meanings.
And you called it the "important" part.
I realize it was a strange question. It was a strange quote.
Things have calmed down a bit, so I'll just double down on this before I go:
Do you even hear yourself when you talk? "What could be more regressive?"
Um, how about deporting children? How about mandatory minimums in drug sentencing? How about forced pregnancy to death? How about racial gerrymandering?
How about, jesus, any actually regressive policy? No, when it starts interrupting low-fi YouTube debates about hypothetical public transit infrastructure, that is when the tyranny of the majority has gone too far!
Wow. Honestly, I don't even care if you or anyone wants to use HN to score a few points in Gatorade's famously unpopular ARG. But you know, people do read this stuff, and the public already has a very low opinion of technical folks' political aptitude, so when you say something outright absurd like that it reflects poorly on all of us.
Anyway, there's my "politics", hope you like them <3
Tunderf00t's youtube channel may seem to be a product of complete lunatic, but is actually an result of years of antagonisation between members of the community that used to be very close but underwent falling out due to internal agendas and opinions on what their community actually should be.
Yes, in my opinion the parent is trying to poison the well while saying "I'm not poisoning the well", then saying "How dare you suggest I'm poisoning the well when I actually said I wasn't poisoning the well".
If I were discrediting the channel as a means to discredit the video or its content, that might be poisoning the well. But the content is (god, I hope) not at issue. Discrediting the channel on its own merits is more of a "hey look, poison!"
Anyway. I'm comfortable that a reasonable person can page through YouTube, Google some names, and determine that no sort of reciprocity is going on here. If they care.
The revisionism is annoying, but fortunately the "community" to which you refer is structured around providing "context" that, to dispassionate observers, merely proves the point.
It should be obvious to every honest person that the other content of Thunderf00t's channel is irrelevant to the claims being made in his video about the hyperloop.
So? I've said a few times I don't care about the claims.
They could be right, they could be wrong, better engineers than me will tell in the end. So what? Saying something true doesn't create an obligation to listen.
In fact, if you say enough true things loudly enough, they'll cart you off to jail. It's really not a great argument.
> If I were discrediting the channel as a means to discredit the video or its content
If that's not your intent, you're just making personal attacks on the creator as a complete non-sequitur to the thread, which is even more of an inappropriate abuse of the HN audience than well-poisoning would be.
Yes, exactly. They say themselves: "They could be right, they could be wrong, better engineers than me will tell in the end." They have no interest in the topic at hand, just poisoning the well, then defending their thinly veiled well-poisoning.
Sorry, can you clarify from elsewhere-- am I trying to discredit the topic at hand, or do I have no interest in it?
I know it doesn't really make a big difference to your narrative, but you really need to pick one or the other of "political non-sequitur" and "interested well-poisoning". They just don't go together.
If you want to make an argument as to why people shouldn't watch the video, please do so in a more direct manner. You seem to be making an ad hominem argument without even bothering to explain what specific ill the target is guilty of (beyond vague "regressive politics".)
Maybe it's just me but I'm more tempted to trust engineers who's day-to-day job is engineering rather then a Youtuber who replaces vowels with letters.
But strawman/direct attacks aside.
In my experience when one engineer is disagreeing with a team of engineers, they're wrong or the team a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem they're working to solve.
What about the guy who warned about the space shuttle's O-rings? And that is an example from a conservative environment.
Now take startups that just want VC money with no intention of producing a product, a team of engineers that likes their salaries and you'll get a fake consensus very easily.
I mean if we toss around incentived claims then you can't trust literally anyone in a capitalist society. Since they can be incentived to lie to you, and you have to do due diligence to prove they aren't before trusting them. This defense is the home of conspiracy theorists and crazy people.
If you are really concerned with this why are you posting on a forum literally owned by a SV Billionaire?
Buts let's pretend you are rational. How does a master in chemistry grant you knowledge of mechanical, structural, and fluid engineering. If you say they're both Math/STEM fields, then why aren't chemistry professors, and comsologist certified electricians? It's related by the same logic.
> I mean if we toss around incentived claims then you can't trust literally anyone in a capitalist society.
Only if you fall prey to logical fallacies. Noting that not all engineers are motivated to be maximally honest doesn't require that you completely mistrust literally everyone. False dilemma.
> If you are really concerned with this
What is it, exactly, that you think I'm concerned about? And how concerned do you think I am?
I can't help you with your chemistry/STEM straw man.
>I can't help you with your chemistry/STEM straw man.
How is this a strawman? Because it is literally the crux of your argument that a masters of chemistry is an expert on structural engineering and fluid dynamics?
Thunderf00t isn't just some average Joe on the street. The guy has a PhD in chemistry and has dedicated a decade to educate the world at large about matters of science and intellectualism. The world would be a better place if we had more Thunderf00ts on YouTube.
His videos on the hyperloop are pretty comprehensive and succinct about their reasoning. Why not watch them instead of mindlessly repeating the same strawman argument that every other Elon Musk fanboy/fangirl left on his videos?
Thunderf00t isn't just getting hate from people who take their (otherwise understandable) admiration of Elon Musk too far, Thunderf00t is also getting hate from those who are deeply invested in 3rd wave feminist ideology.
"Expert" is a vague term, but the parent didn't claim that it did. Do you think that one needs to be an 'expert' (whatever that means) in mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics to make meaningful criticism of a project like this?
I hope you don't take that to such an extreme as to think that every line item of criticism in which Thunderf00t applied general science principles to the hyperloop paper under discussion is invalid due to a lack of sufficient technical expertise.
Right? Surely Thunderf00t is qualified to make some of the criticism he made?
I would agree that there are likely a few areas in which his criticism exceeded his understanding, though I have yet to read a criticism of his criticism that doesn't mis-represent his claims.
I still don't see the specific relevance of mdorazio's comment to computerex's.
At this depth of the thread we're not discussing whether Thunderf00t is correct in his analysis. Computerex claimed that Thunderf00t wasn't "just some average Joe on the street." His background in chemistry was brought up to show that he has special standing. Mdorazio countered that from the perspective of mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics, he is in fact an average Joe on the street.
Doesn't mean he's wrong, just means he doesn't have special standing.
In my opinion, valarauca's comment is the correct place to start looking at the context, here. V. started the conversation in a way that could easily be construed as an effort to discredit Thunderf00t.
To me, Computerex seems to simply be saying "Thunderf00t has sufficient general knowledge of science to make his debunking videos worthy of watching".
You mention 'special standing', which suggests an 'all or nothing' approach to categorizing people's status and knowledge, rather than a more reality-accommodating recognition that expertise and knowledge are a matters of degree.
Mdorazio did not state what you say they did, they instead asked a leading question in which words were placed in another person's mouth. Further, Mdorazio would be incorrect to state that "from the perspective of mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics, he is in fact an average Joe on the street." because the average Joe on the street, relatively speaking, is not as equipped as Thunderf00t to understand issues of mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics. I'm not saying that Thunderf00t is or is not properly equipped to make each criticism, just pointing out the problem with 'all or nothing' style thinking here.
You would be right to question whether Thunderf00t has sufficiently advanced and detailed knowledge to make each and every one of the criticisms that he makes, but this would depend on the specific criticism and the specifics of Thunderf00ts knowledge.
As it happens, not even having a PhD in fluid mechanics would guarantee that the critic has the relevant knowledge, nor is thinking through the problem correctly.
I guess you don't know how much dedication and effort it takes to earn a good PhD. A PhD in STEM teaches you how to be a good scientist, how to think about problems and how to conduct research. These skills are very useful in pretty much every discipline imaginable.
Not to mention the fact that a PhD in chemistry warrants a very heavy mathematical/physics background. If you honestly think that Thunderf00t has the same credibility as some average Joe on the street about Hyperloop/physics/engineering, you must have a very religious background.
I think he's just having fun being irreverent and silly. Within the larger academic community Thunderf00t isn't some intellectual titan, he's just yet another guy with a PhD. From an academic perspective, I'd think that having a strong youtube following is like being king of the rats.
However, I would absolutely agree with you that Thunderf00t is adequately qualified to make most of the criticism that he has made in a variety of his debunking videos. Thunderf00t is doing our culture a valuable service by debunking that ridiculous re-breather apparatus, 'solar freakin roadways', and the allegedly endless water bottle. Its sad that people are so ignorant of basic science that they are taken in by this snake oil.
Maybe I'm mis-remembering, but I don't recall Thunderf00t's video suggesting that the hyperloop was truly as absurd as, say, the idea of using solar roadways to melt snow off the road.
I thought that his main message was that people are over-selling the feasibility of the hyperloop and playing down the incredible engineering challenges and dangers.
To me all the Hyperloop startups have just been a scam to take big chunks of money from investors who believe in any Musk hype. None of them can still really explain how to overcome the big technical hurdles and I don't believe the cost estimates for a minute.
The technical hurdles are enormous but they are nothing compared to the economic hurdles.
Just look at the planned LA-SF high speed rails. It suffered delays and cost overruns over and over again. The latest figure of $68B most likely will not be enough[1].
And that is a garden-variety high speed rail that has been proven all over the world for decades. Hyperloop is completely unproven and requires construction of end-to-end airtight tubes.
If a few hundred miles of vanilla high speed rail costs $70B and counting, how much would hyperloop cost? $500B? $1T? It'll never work economically.
Hyperloop boosters also seem to ignore that it will require the same sorts of right-of-way acquisition as high speed rail, which is an enormous component of both the cost and political difficulty of building HSR.
Some hyperloop proponents insist that right-of-way acquisition will be so much easier that that of a train, because the tube is elevated and might be engineered to have a small footprint of pylons.
I think it remains to be seen whether it can actually be built in this manner. Regardless, there may be still be noise concerns and the problem of creating an unsightly above ground structure. Plus, the very idea of having one close by might be frightening for many.
The original Hyperloop paper addresses this issue; HSR can't run down the middle of I5 for most of its length. I have no idea what the costs will be, but if you're going to attack Hyperloop for getting this wrong, it'd be a good idea to attack what they actually proposed instead of something different.
That was part of the basis for low costs, the other part was that the original Hyperloop paper avoided the costs of connecting population centers by putting its termini far from the population centers it was supposed to service on either end.
Of course, that makes it kind of silly to compare it as an alternative to HSR, whose high costs include acquiring land in the very expensive neighborhoods of the population centers it was supposed to serve, so that it would actually be a useful means of connecting population centers.
One thing I remember was the cost estimates for hyper loop vs the California High Speed Rail are an oranges to apples comparison.
A significant and costly part of the high speed rail project is the commuter rail bit which requires of extensive/expensive work on right of ways in developed areas. And big engineering challenge is constructing tunnels to connect to the Los Angles basin[1]. A hyper loop system would need the same infrastructure to provide the same service[2].
[1] 14 mile tunnel under the San Gabriel Mountains. This is part of the reason they punted and decided to work on the northern section first.
[2] The original design I saw for the hyper loop made it seem to be a way for wealthy people to get from their ranchetts north of Los Angles to the Bay Area.
Submitter changed title to reflect all Hyperloop projects instead of just one specific one, and also the article is written like garbage and doesn't actually get to the fucking point.
Edit: Mod has changed title to reflect Hyperloop One.
Air travel is a huge pollutant and is literally destroying ecosystems and life all across the planet Earth. Either airplanes need to get to 0 greenhouse gas emissions, or we need new types of long-distance and fast transportation. The hyperloop is a great concept because it can significantly reduce the demand for high-polluting air travel. There are other ways too, of course - hyperloop isn't some single savior for everything. But you cannot pitch airplanes as an alternative. They are not.
Even if you were right (air travel is insignificant pollutant contributor compared to, say, cars), you can't sell it on the open market. If air travel is more convenient and cheaper, you can't compete with cleaner technology unless it delivers value somewhere else.
Huge yes, but still only about 1-4% of total emissions. It's good to make inroads there, but I'm more worried about cars, power plants, etc. I think the biggest argument to make in favor of the hyperloop is ease of use, speed, and price.
After all, maybe we'll have battery powered airplanes some day or maybe we'll just use gliders for shorter distances though maybe that wouldn't be as great for a reliable transport.
Security checks will be the same, speed is lower, price is higher. No added value except novelty factor.
I would rather hoped for suborbital passenger transportation. 10x improvement: delivered (and engineering-wise, about as hard as Hyperloop). People are meant to fly, not stay tethered to the Earth forever.
I'm not convinced security would be the same. Amtrak is great with respect to the security inconvenience (nearly none). The trains might be more regular than flights, and the price? Who knows for now, it's a new technology (for something that barely exists).
Wouldn't the tunnels flooding with air slow down the cars? The survivors could decelerate to a stop and await rescue. I'm not convinced that it would be worse than a rail attack without more detail if precautions are designed in.
That compares with 90 mbpd global petroleum consumption in 2012 (BP Annual Statistical Review, 2016)
That's 5.5% of petroleum consumption, which is about 1/3 of total energy (BP, 2016). Carbon allocation is to petro, gas, and coal, so 2-4% of total CO2 emissions actually is about right.
No, we won't. Environmental concerns aside, there's enough for 100-150 years by current market/consumption rates. And nuclear energy (with closed cycle / fast breeder reactors) is possible for ~ million years given present consumption, including the ability to synthesize artificial fuel or making hydrogen fuel cells. And I am not even talking about fusion power.
...and once we hopefully eventually be done with TSA nightmarish setup, it will be still manageable in terms of time it takes not only to fly, but to depart and arrive.
As of hyper-loop, even if, arguendo, it works; every other major type of transportation eventually failed. Trains do derail sometimes and planes do fell off the sky even if very rarely. I seen some pretty scary pictures in my life, and once seen a deadly car accident (head-on collision at 80mph) myself where you couldn't distinguish where the dashboard ends and actual human body begins, but I can't imagine how it would feel or look like when a body of tissue organs and blood crashes down after driving 780mph.
Cheaper today? Absolutely! But if a Hyperloop were created the costs would continue to go down and speed would be faster than the typical 747. Seems like a worthwhile persuit though this first batch of companies mostly seem like a facade with most of them either not being possible or they're simply maglev.
Air travel has numerous externalities and shifted costs. It's also completely dependent, at present scales, on liquid hydrocarbon fuels, for which there's not yet a non-fossil-fuel alternative.
Long-distance air travel can be pretty efficient, and compares favourably with personal auto travel -- you'll consume about as much fuel driving across the United States in a car as you would on a plane, and travel at about 1/10th the speed (though you'd also be free to stop and take in the scenery where you wanted).
What ground-based alternatives to air travel offer most specifically is alternate modes of energy supply. A fixed-track system (conventional or high-speed rail, maglev, hyperloop) can have energy delivered electrically, meaning transport is divorced from fossil fuels.
There's some disagreement in this thread of total CO2 emissions, which translate strongly to fuel consumption (burning a given mass of kerosene, a/k/a jet fuel, produces a fixed amount of CO2, no matter where you do it). The figure I've seen is about 6% of global emissions, and recently an 11% of US emissions figure (possibly a result of falling electricity emissions due to reductions of coal use, now that I think of it).
I'm actually not a fan of Hyperloop -- similar systems were proposed in the 1970s, explored by RAND, and rejected on multiple bases. But a high-speed, ~300 kph wheeled rail connection between regional hubs in the US does seem quite sensible. It's working out well in Europe.
Here in Europe, railway travel is almost completely passé.
When a plane ticket e.g. from Geneva to Barcelona can be bought for $40, trains really can't compete, at least between countries. They are slowly dying out on government subsidies.
There's one thing that keeps bothering me about all the Hyperloop competitions and startups: everyone seems to be using maglev. This does not match up with the original Hyperloop proposal, which used an air compressor to suck up oncoming air and blow it out the bottom, creating a fluid bearing.
Maglev trains have been proposed before; there's nothing particular new or novel about the idea. One of the bigger problems with maglev is that the tracks are very expensive. One of the exciting things about the Hyperloop concept was that the tracks should be much cheaper, since all you need is a steel tube.
Is it really right to call it a Hyperloop if it eschews the original concept in favor of building a maglev train in an evacuated tube? Feels like they're taking a totally different idea and just using the Hyperloop name to generate hype.
I'm not sure how a gigantic many mile long pressure vessel is supposed to be cheaper than maglev rail...
In my opinion the Hyperloop is an insane idea and these companies are suspect. It seems more likely that they're the 2010s version of the Moller Aircar, something to keep "almost there" for decades while you milk investor money.
The ultimate investor milking machine would be "fusion-powered flying car moving inside a hyperloop." It's almost there and it'll be truly revolutionary!
One of Maglev's biggest problems is that it requires a great deal of power to keep at high speed because of atmospheric drag; Hyperloop's evacuated tube mitigates this issue. Hyperloop is also faster than most Maglev concepts, and having the tube helps to guide the vehicle (without requiring complicated curve construction).
Depends on how much atmosphere is leaked back into the tunnel and how much vacuum you need. The former is a much bigger issue with the concept, if it takes a lot of energy to evacuate the tube once it's not too big of an issue, but ongoing maintenance of the vacuum would be problematic with leaky or damaged seals over the lifetime of the tunnel.
Of course, most of the vacuum tube proposals require a vacuum of something like 0.001 atmospheres, which is incredibly problematic as well....
Quite a bit, but the power does not have to be stored aboard the vehicle, or transmitted to it while the vehicle is travelling at hundreds of kilometers per hour.
Stupid question: why evacuate the tube? The ends of the cars could have props that provide thrust and "lift". I know it's not as efficient as gliding through a vacuum but it would be a much simpler solution.
I recognize there's a penalty there, but it also translates into a zero cost for creating/maintaining a vacuum, and the thrust could be used for levitation as well.
It just seems like if it was done this way it would be so much simpler and therefore cheaper to build.
If you do that, you can also leave out the tube to make it even simpler and cheaper. My guess would be that it would be more energy efficient, too, as it gives the air more room to 'escape' from the front of the train.
Only problem is that it would turn the idea into 'just another maglev train'.
Good question! Many teams are using induction maglev. Regular maglev technology required either permanent magnetic tracks or expensive electronically controlled tracks with embedded electromagnets, but induction maglev requires only a conductive plate on the floor (the hyperloop test track uses aluminum)[1] and a "hover module" which induces eddy currents in the floor and repels off them.[2] Based on their spec sheet the current generation of technology consumes 66 watts per kg of lifted mass, and since it's a constant power draw the faster you go the less energy it uses per mile.
I'm on one of the hyperloop teams (UCSB) that's using maglev.
We aren't using the type of maglev that's used in maglev trains where the track is magnetized and super expensive. We're using ArxPax hover engines[1]. They just spin a Halbach array[2] super fast and generate a hovering force off of an aluminum track.
The winning team of Design Weekend last January, MIT, is also using magnetic levitation but they are doing a passive version. The track still isn't magnetized, but their magnets generate their eddy currents just by the movement of the pod. It sort of "takes off."
The first reason we -- and others in the competition, though not the majority I believe -- went with maglev is that the we (well, the Mechanical Engineering students, I'm CS) couldn't find air-skis that worked at high speeds. Elon mentioned at Code Conference that they'd been tested up to Mach 1.1 but when I told the ME's of that they said they hadn't found anything they could use nor any research showing that the air being pushed out of the ski "keeps up" with the pod at high speeds.
In addition to the speed problem with air skis, they also hover much lower off the ground than the maglev and require much higher tolerances on the track (more expensive).
Part of the reason to have the competition is to try a bunch of different ideas at once and see what works best. I do believe there are plenty of teams that will be testing air-skis on the track at competition weekend. We'll see how it goes.
I'm honestly not properly educated to answer that. My responsibly on the team has been controls & networking. I don't think the tube necessarily has to be perfectly straight as the pod could bank on the turns like a racecar or roller coaster.
I think the tube itself could be made reasonably cheaply compared to the CA high speed rail system. We transfer oil in huge pipelines with high pressure differences so I think it should be pretty feasible to keep it properly sealed. I'm more worried about the cost of the safety mechanisms and them being able to secure the land rights.
Elon mentioned at design weekend that initial versions could even use wheels if they aren't going over ~250MPH.
The original "flying" hyperloop plan has a very low flying height - 0.5 to 1.3 mm, wrote Musk in his original paper. This requires a very smooth tube. Welded joints would need inside polishing. Expansion joints would be complicated. Tube sections can't have any sag, which probably means a stiffening beam will be required. All this pushes up the cost of the tube/track. The whole point of the "hyperloop" was that the tube/track would be cheap, on a par with pipelines. There are also safety concerns with such a tight clearance. The Transrapid maglev, the system used in Shanghai, has about 150mm of ground clearance, and about 10mm rail clearance.[1]
The Hyperloop competition (not Hyperloop One) had an aluminum rail down the track center, and the winning team (MIT) levitated magnetically against that at 15mm height. Maglev against an aluminum rail is energy-intensive, but they were only making a trip of a thousand feet or so, and could do it on batteries without using superconducting magnets.
Maglev in vacuum is an old idea. That's called "Vactrain". There have been many proposals, none built.
> the Hyperloop concept was that the tracks should be much cheaper, since all you need is a steel tube
[Technical nitpick first: tube is a structural element, while pipe is something that can hold pressure.]
The price of pressure-rated steel pipe is roughly proportional to the diameter squared. At 132 inches in diameter, the hyperloop pipe itself would cost at least $600/ft. It would also weigh > 1000 lbs/ft, so the support system would be absolutely massive and probably double that price. That's just the cost of raw materials.
For comparison, Elon Musk's total cost estimate is $1400 per foot per pipe [$6 billion total cost, 380 miles, two pipes], so I'm inclined to say that his estimate might be a bit optimistic.
From what I can tell, total cost per foot for maglev is estimated around $6000/ft. [US highway construction cost per lane per foot is also around that number.] But I understand those numbers as the total cost including also engineering work, shipping/logistics, actual building work, buying the land etc. While my $1200/ft estimate is just raw materials.
So if we as a very coarse estimate say raw materials is 1/4 of the price, hyperloop is not significantly cheaper than maglev.
Small correction: you used the diameter of the large Hyperloop design, but the cost estimate of the small one. It should be $7.5b or $1870/tube foot.
Fyi there is a cost breakdown on pp55 of the Hyperloop PDF, which lists the tube construction costs as half what you specify. What kind of "pressure tubes" are you referring to for these cost estimates? http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-201...
That's especially the case when you consider that the proposed track across CA is really a fairly short track on which the Hyperloop would not save a great deal of time in aggregate: the Hyperloop has a passenger capacity of about 10% of high-speed rail. It's obvious that given the economic/technical costs the Hyperloop imposes, it's way more marginally efficient to build a Shinkansen or TGV-like system.
The Hyperloop might be worth pursuing it it were 10% of the price of HSR, but that's just not anywhere near the case, as other commenters have duly pointed out.
The Shinkansen was extremely expensive to build, comparable to the hyperloop. The lines cost JPY 400 billion in 1963 currency and the whole thing basically led to the regionalization and privatization of JNR.
Hyperloop supporters claim that the Hyperloop is more economically feasible than traditional high-speed rail like the Shinkansen. This is, of course, based on estimates which can only be trusted somewhat. However, those estimates are by no means ridiculous.
The original Hyperloop proposal is interesting reading, you might want to take a glance at it. It covers the economics, including issues like land use rights, which are a major component in any high-speed transport system which must necessarily have a course with limited curvature.
The location is also a big issue. Consider the profitability of Japan's Shinkansen in light of the high population density and the ease in which you can serve 25 million people with a single 250 mile train line--other Shinkansen lines are not as profitable to run.
To be clear, I'm relating the arguments in favor. I'm also fairly skeptical.
I'm really disappointed to see Hyperloop One come crashing down, but I'm not surprised by it. Those who have worked closely with him have learned that Shervin Pishevar is absolutely toxic. There's not much else I can say without violating HN's civility rules, but this seems to be an open secret in SV. Some people love him, some just tolerate him, but many say they will never work with him again.
I don't think this project will amount to much; it almost certainly will not become part of a widely used mass transit system. It was always a tech geek vanity project at best, even before the serious trouble started.
131 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 180 ms ] threadIf not internal squabbles and lawsuits, the practical laws of nature would eventually have to be reckoned with (just like with Solar Freakin Roadways)
There would be no sonic "shock wave" killing everyone in the tube in the event of a breach. Viscous drag on the tube walls would reduce the flow velocity to highway speed in only a couple km. The wave front spreads out, becoming a gradual pressure rise.
The entire tube would be designed for rapid repressurization (under 60 seconds). The cars can easily stop in 15-20 seconds since the passengers are strapped in and possibly in seats facing backward to arrest braking forces.
Expansion joints are easily accommodated at the end stations, and the slight leaks from the sliding interfaces are compensated by mechanical pumps (easy to maintain 1/1000th of an atmosphere, damn near impossible to maintain 1/1000000 of an atmosphere for true vac trains given the linear decrease in vacuum pumping mass flow at low pressures and the need for turbomolucular pumps and/or cryopumps at those pressures).
There's a great need for pumping near the end stations anyway due to residual air entering around the pod in the airlock. They'll pump down the majority of the pressure of course, but due to the exponential drop in pumping speed over time it makes little sense to make passengers wait a long time and pump it down to the exact same pressure when they can cut it off early and just let the tube pumps make it up. Even on the space station (where air is very expensive) they only pump the airlock down part-way and vent the remaining residual atmosphere so the astronauts (whose time is also expensive) don't have to wait.
The same sound absorbing layers and vibration isolation technology that's used on jet planes could also be used if needed.
To be clear, since technical expertise and regressive politics are not necessarily mutually exclusive, I'm not saying that you shouldn't watch it-- just that you might not want to.
This seems exceptionally straightforward to me, so I'll make it as un-political as I can: There are lifetimes of new content available for your consumption every single day.
Maybe it's not all worthwhile. Maybe not 1% of it is. It doesn't matter-- you'll never get to see an infinitesimal fraction of it, even just the good, true, accurate stuff.
So how do you decide what to pay attention to with your mortal lifespan? Just as a first pass, I like to use filters like "is this notably excellent" or "does this make me want to throw up at all, even just a little".
Then if it's not excellent, or if the speaker doesn't agree with my politics, or especially both, I don't feel any remorse whatsoever about skipping it.
This isn't about shutting myself off. I think it's very important to expose myself to perspectives that differ from my own, to broaden my own frame of reference. I also think that feces play a critically important role in my metabolism, but that doesn't mean I'm excited to open a box of donuts and discover a frosted turd.
And I'll accept exactly 0 concern trolling around my publicly saying, just, hey... look in the box.
If it's a turd in there, you don't still have to eat it.
I'm not commenting on everything, just the things I think are the most important. I can't read your mind, but in your own words you "encourage folks not to watch that video at least without..."
Just my impression, but it appears to me that you aren't even trying to contribute to the actual topics of discussion in any meaningful way.
Trying really hard not to get back on snark here, but... did you literally just stop reading there? Just finish my sentence: I "encourage folks not to watch that video, at least without [...] making an informed decision."
So, do you think folks shouldn't make an informed decision, or do you think my decision is wrong?
Just my impression, but it appears that you might be arguing one as a proxy for another.
Again, weirded out that this is such a burdensome ask for some of you. Like, I'm not even talking about my politics, just pointing out that my politics exist.
Don't you want everyone to form their own opinion, without my bias?
So y'all are doubling down on the idea that simply suggesting folks look at the context of the content they consume is some toxic bias?
If I'd suggested actually reading some content, what would that be, the Jedi Mind Trick?
See, this is why I'm not particularly worried about my politics. Even without expressing a viewpoint, your argument is utterly self-immolating.
I think that is a generous interpretation. I fear that we are probably being asked to ignore Thunderf00t's criticism of the Hyperloop on the basis of the titles of the other videos - without even looking at the content of those videos!
The titles alone should be sufficient for us to agree that Thunderf000t is so terrible, with his terrible 'regressive' politics, that all of his videos are unworthy of watching.
I mean, do you actually believe that I think the Hyperloop is extremely important, criticism of it must be quashed at any cost, and this YouTuber will just have to be one of the broken eggs?
I'm serious. Is that... is there a part of your brain that what you just said actually makes sense to?
Is it possible in your universe that I've just expressed my actual feelings? And now we're having a big argument about my actual feelings? Even though at this point I doubt you even know what my actual feelings are?
No, I think GP is suggesting that you have some other sacred cow, and you consider the "quashing" of technical arguments about other topics to be acceptable collateral damage in protecting it.
If you think I am projecting bias in my comments, you're more than welcome to note it. Unless... is it possible I am not the only one with a sacred cow?
In fact I think you have, for the first time, identified the entire content of my original comment :)
So where's the part with the cow, again?
That was the political objection to a video about the viability of hyperloop that you're so reluctant to explain to us.
Nothing to explain.
Just what I said the first time. Sorry to be such a boring adversary.
Of course not, what a strange question.
You ended your quotation on the preposition "without", which alone should tell you that the meaning of the sentence is contingent on what follows. That sentence could end "...without putting on your PPE" or "...without grabbing a popcorn and soda first", completely opposite meanings.
And you called it the "important" part.
I realize it was a strange question. It was a strange quote.
Do you even hear yourself when you talk? "What could be more regressive?"
Um, how about deporting children? How about mandatory minimums in drug sentencing? How about forced pregnancy to death? How about racial gerrymandering?
How about, jesus, any actually regressive policy? No, when it starts interrupting low-fi YouTube debates about hypothetical public transit infrastructure, that is when the tyranny of the majority has gone too far!
Wow. Honestly, I don't even care if you or anyone wants to use HN to score a few points in Gatorade's famously unpopular ARG. But you know, people do read this stuff, and the public already has a very low opinion of technical folks' political aptitude, so when you say something outright absurd like that it reflects poorly on all of us.
Anyway, there's my "politics", hope you like them <3
Tunderf00t's youtube channel may seem to be a product of complete lunatic, but is actually an result of years of antagonisation between members of the community that used to be very close but underwent falling out due to internal agendas and opinions on what their community actually should be.
Anyway. I'm comfortable that a reasonable person can page through YouTube, Google some names, and determine that no sort of reciprocity is going on here. If they care.
The revisionism is annoying, but fortunately the "community" to which you refer is structured around providing "context" that, to dispassionate observers, merely proves the point.
They could be right, they could be wrong, better engineers than me will tell in the end. So what? Saying something true doesn't create an obligation to listen.
In fact, if you say enough true things loudly enough, they'll cart you off to jail. It's really not a great argument.
If that's not your intent, you're just making personal attacks on the creator as a complete non-sequitur to the thread, which is even more of an inappropriate abuse of the HN audience than well-poisoning would be.
Otherwise, I'm here to talk if you are.
Yes, exactly. They say themselves: "They could be right, they could be wrong, better engineers than me will tell in the end." They have no interest in the topic at hand, just poisoning the well, then defending their thinly veiled well-poisoning.
I know it doesn't really make a big difference to your narrative, but you really need to pick one or the other of "political non-sequitur" and "interested well-poisoning". They just don't go together.
You are more than encouraged to join other commenters in vigorously protesting and debating my non-argument :)
But strawman/direct attacks aside.
In my experience when one engineer is disagreeing with a team of engineers, they're wrong or the team a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem they're working to solve.
Now take startups that just want VC money with no intention of producing a product, a team of engineers that likes their salaries and you'll get a fake consensus very easily.
Even if those engineers clearly have a financial incentive to make biased claims?
If you are really concerned with this why are you posting on a forum literally owned by a SV Billionaire?
Buts let's pretend you are rational. How does a master in chemistry grant you knowledge of mechanical, structural, and fluid engineering. If you say they're both Math/STEM fields, then why aren't chemistry professors, and comsologist certified electricians? It's related by the same logic.
Only if you fall prey to logical fallacies. Noting that not all engineers are motivated to be maximally honest doesn't require that you completely mistrust literally everyone. False dilemma.
> If you are really concerned with this
What is it, exactly, that you think I'm concerned about? And how concerned do you think I am?
I can't help you with your chemistry/STEM straw man.
How is this a strawman? Because it is literally the crux of your argument that a masters of chemistry is an expert on structural engineering and fluid dynamics?
His videos on the hyperloop are pretty comprehensive and succinct about their reasoning. Why not watch them instead of mindlessly repeating the same strawman argument that every other Elon Musk fanboy/fangirl left on his videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDwe2M-LDZQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNFesa01llk
Right? Surely Thunderf00t is qualified to make some of the criticism he made?
I would agree that there are likely a few areas in which his criticism exceeded his understanding, though I have yet to read a criticism of his criticism that doesn't mis-represent his claims.
I still don't see the specific relevance of mdorazio's comment to computerex's.
Doesn't mean he's wrong, just means he doesn't have special standing.
To me, Computerex seems to simply be saying "Thunderf00t has sufficient general knowledge of science to make his debunking videos worthy of watching".
You mention 'special standing', which suggests an 'all or nothing' approach to categorizing people's status and knowledge, rather than a more reality-accommodating recognition that expertise and knowledge are a matters of degree.
Mdorazio did not state what you say they did, they instead asked a leading question in which words were placed in another person's mouth. Further, Mdorazio would be incorrect to state that "from the perspective of mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics, he is in fact an average Joe on the street." because the average Joe on the street, relatively speaking, is not as equipped as Thunderf00t to understand issues of mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics. I'm not saying that Thunderf00t is or is not properly equipped to make each criticism, just pointing out the problem with 'all or nothing' style thinking here.
You would be right to question whether Thunderf00t has sufficiently advanced and detailed knowledge to make each and every one of the criticisms that he makes, but this would depend on the specific criticism and the specifics of Thunderf00ts knowledge.
As it happens, not even having a PhD in fluid mechanics would guarantee that the critic has the relevant knowledge, nor is thinking through the problem correctly.
Phil Mason, PhD in chemistry, and work in nutrition, physics, and nuclear physics, with 34 published papers to his credit, now he's one sassy frood.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Mason
I guess you don't know how much dedication and effort it takes to earn a good PhD. A PhD in STEM teaches you how to be a good scientist, how to think about problems and how to conduct research. These skills are very useful in pretty much every discipline imaginable.
Not to mention the fact that a PhD in chemistry warrants a very heavy mathematical/physics background. If you honestly think that Thunderf00t has the same credibility as some average Joe on the street about Hyperloop/physics/engineering, you must have a very religious background.
However, I would absolutely agree with you that Thunderf00t is adequately qualified to make most of the criticism that he has made in a variety of his debunking videos. Thunderf00t is doing our culture a valuable service by debunking that ridiculous re-breather apparatus, 'solar freakin roadways', and the allegedly endless water bottle. Its sad that people are so ignorant of basic science that they are taken in by this snake oil.
I thought that his main message was that people are over-selling the feasibility of the hyperloop and playing down the incredible engineering challenges and dangers.
Just look at the planned LA-SF high speed rails. It suffered delays and cost overruns over and over again. The latest figure of $68B most likely will not be enough[1].
And that is a garden-variety high speed rail that has been proven all over the world for decades. Hyperloop is completely unproven and requires construction of end-to-end airtight tubes.
If a few hundred miles of vanilla high speed rail costs $70B and counting, how much would hyperloop cost? $500B? $1T? It'll never work economically.
[1] http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-c...
I think it remains to be seen whether it can actually be built in this manner. Regardless, there may be still be noise concerns and the problem of creating an unsightly above ground structure. Plus, the very idea of having one close by might be frightening for many.
Of course, that makes it kind of silly to compare it as an alternative to HSR, whose high costs include acquiring land in the very expensive neighborhoods of the population centers it was supposed to serve, so that it would actually be a useful means of connecting population centers.
A significant and costly part of the high speed rail project is the commuter rail bit which requires of extensive/expensive work on right of ways in developed areas. And big engineering challenge is constructing tunnels to connect to the Los Angles basin[1]. A hyper loop system would need the same infrastructure to provide the same service[2].
[1] 14 mile tunnel under the San Gabriel Mountains. This is part of the reason they punted and decided to work on the northern section first.
[2] The original design I saw for the hyper loop made it seem to be a way for wealthy people to get from their ranchetts north of Los Angles to the Bay Area.
Submitter changed title to reflect all Hyperloop projects instead of just one specific one, and also the article is written like garbage and doesn't actually get to the fucking point.
Edit: Mod has changed title to reflect Hyperloop One.
Same speed, cheaper, exists today, no need to build tracks :)
After all, maybe we'll have battery powered airplanes some day or maybe we'll just use gliders for shorter distances though maybe that wouldn't be as great for a reliable transport.
I would rather hoped for suborbital passenger transportation. 10x improvement: delivered (and engineering-wise, about as hard as Hyperloop). People are meant to fly, not stay tethered to the Earth forever.
IndexMundi gives ~5 million barrels/day of jet fuel consumption, 2012.
http://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=jet-fuel
That compares with 90 mbpd global petroleum consumption in 2012 (BP Annual Statistical Review, 2016)
That's 5.5% of petroleum consumption, which is about 1/3 of total energy (BP, 2016). Carbon allocation is to petro, gas, and coal, so 2-4% of total CO2 emissions actually is about right.
OK, you pass ;-)
multiple sources, all from 2-5%, this seemed to be a mainstream representative: http://energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/articles/national-academies...
As of hyper-loop, even if, arguendo, it works; every other major type of transportation eventually failed. Trains do derail sometimes and planes do fell off the sky even if very rarely. I seen some pretty scary pictures in my life, and once seen a deadly car accident (head-on collision at 80mph) myself where you couldn't distinguish where the dashboard ends and actual human body begins, but I can't imagine how it would feel or look like when a body of tissue organs and blood crashes down after driving 780mph.
Long-distance air travel can be pretty efficient, and compares favourably with personal auto travel -- you'll consume about as much fuel driving across the United States in a car as you would on a plane, and travel at about 1/10th the speed (though you'd also be free to stop and take in the scenery where you wanted).
What ground-based alternatives to air travel offer most specifically is alternate modes of energy supply. A fixed-track system (conventional or high-speed rail, maglev, hyperloop) can have energy delivered electrically, meaning transport is divorced from fossil fuels.
There's some disagreement in this thread of total CO2 emissions, which translate strongly to fuel consumption (burning a given mass of kerosene, a/k/a jet fuel, produces a fixed amount of CO2, no matter where you do it). The figure I've seen is about 6% of global emissions, and recently an 11% of US emissions figure (possibly a result of falling electricity emissions due to reductions of coal use, now that I think of it).
I'm actually not a fan of Hyperloop -- similar systems were proposed in the 1970s, explored by RAND, and rejected on multiple bases. But a high-speed, ~300 kph wheeled rail connection between regional hubs in the US does seem quite sensible. It's working out well in Europe.
When a plane ticket e.g. from Geneva to Barcelona can be bought for $40, trains really can't compete, at least between countries. They are slowly dying out on government subsidies.
We aren't so far away from the days when your actual name was simply whatever you called yourself.
"Until 2014, his name had been Kevin Brogan, but he legally changed it to merge names with his wife, Bambi."
Maglev trains have been proposed before; there's nothing particular new or novel about the idea. One of the bigger problems with maglev is that the tracks are very expensive. One of the exciting things about the Hyperloop concept was that the tracks should be much cheaper, since all you need is a steel tube.
Is it really right to call it a Hyperloop if it eschews the original concept in favor of building a maglev train in an evacuated tube? Feels like they're taking a totally different idea and just using the Hyperloop name to generate hype.
In my opinion the Hyperloop is an insane idea and these companies are suspect. It seems more likely that they're the 2010s version of the Moller Aircar, something to keep "almost there" for decades while you milk investor money.
Of course, most of the vacuum tube proposals require a vacuum of something like 0.001 atmospheres, which is incredibly problematic as well....
Speed figures up to 10000 km/h were thrown around (assuming near perfect vacuum).
It just seems like if it was done this way it would be so much simpler and therefore cheaper to build.
Only problem is that it would turn the idea into 'just another maglev train'.
[1] https://www.badgerloop.com/documents/TubeSpecs.pdf
[2] http://arxpax.com/
We aren't using the type of maglev that's used in maglev trains where the track is magnetized and super expensive. We're using ArxPax hover engines[1]. They just spin a Halbach array[2] super fast and generate a hovering force off of an aluminum track.
The winning team of Design Weekend last January, MIT, is also using magnetic levitation but they are doing a passive version. The track still isn't magnetized, but their magnets generate their eddy currents just by the movement of the pod. It sort of "takes off."
The first reason we -- and others in the competition, though not the majority I believe -- went with maglev is that the we (well, the Mechanical Engineering students, I'm CS) couldn't find air-skis that worked at high speeds. Elon mentioned at Code Conference that they'd been tested up to Mach 1.1 but when I told the ME's of that they said they hadn't found anything they could use nor any research showing that the air being pushed out of the ski "keeps up" with the pod at high speeds.
In addition to the speed problem with air skis, they also hover much lower off the ground than the maglev and require much higher tolerances on the track (more expensive).
Part of the reason to have the competition is to try a bunch of different ideas at once and see what works best. I do believe there are plenty of teams that will be testing air-skis on the track at competition weekend. We'll see how it goes.
[1] http://arxpax.com/product/hover-engine/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array
I think the tube itself could be made reasonably cheaply compared to the CA high speed rail system. We transfer oil in huge pipelines with high pressure differences so I think it should be pretty feasible to keep it properly sealed. I'm more worried about the cost of the safety mechanisms and them being able to secure the land rights.
Elon mentioned at design weekend that initial versions could even use wheels if they aren't going over ~250MPH.
The Hyperloop competition (not Hyperloop One) had an aluminum rail down the track center, and the winning team (MIT) levitated magnetically against that at 15mm height. Maglev against an aluminum rail is energy-intensive, but they were only making a trip of a thousand feet or so, and could do it on batteries without using superconducting magnets.
Maglev in vacuum is an old idea. That's called "Vactrain". There have been many proposals, none built.
[1] http://www.transrapid.de/pdf/tri_engl.pdf
[Technical nitpick first: tube is a structural element, while pipe is something that can hold pressure.]
The price of pressure-rated steel pipe is roughly proportional to the diameter squared. At 132 inches in diameter, the hyperloop pipe itself would cost at least $600/ft. It would also weigh > 1000 lbs/ft, so the support system would be absolutely massive and probably double that price. That's just the cost of raw materials.
For comparison, Elon Musk's total cost estimate is $1400 per foot per pipe [$6 billion total cost, 380 miles, two pipes], so I'm inclined to say that his estimate might be a bit optimistic.
From what I can tell, total cost per foot for maglev is estimated around $6000/ft. [US highway construction cost per lane per foot is also around that number.] But I understand those numbers as the total cost including also engineering work, shipping/logistics, actual building work, buying the land etc. While my $1200/ft estimate is just raw materials.
So if we as a very coarse estimate say raw materials is 1/4 of the price, hyperloop is not significantly cheaper than maglev.
Fyi there is a cost breakdown on pp55 of the Hyperloop PDF, which lists the tube construction costs as half what you specify. What kind of "pressure tubes" are you referring to for these cost estimates? http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/hyperloop_alpha-201...
The Hyperloop might be worth pursuing it it were 10% of the price of HSR, but that's just not anywhere near the case, as other commenters have duly pointed out.
Hyperloop supporters claim that the Hyperloop is more economically feasible than traditional high-speed rail like the Shinkansen. This is, of course, based on estimates which can only be trusted somewhat. However, those estimates are by no means ridiculous.
The original Hyperloop proposal is interesting reading, you might want to take a glance at it. It covers the economics, including issues like land use rights, which are a major component in any high-speed transport system which must necessarily have a course with limited curvature.
The location is also a big issue. Consider the profitability of Japan's Shinkansen in light of the high population density and the ease in which you can serve 25 million people with a single 250 mile train line--other Shinkansen lines are not as profitable to run.
To be clear, I'm relating the arguments in favor. I'm also fairly skeptical.
I'm really disappointed to see Hyperloop One come crashing down, but I'm not surprised by it. Those who have worked closely with him have learned that Shervin Pishevar is absolutely toxic. There's not much else I can say without violating HN's civility rules, but this seems to be an open secret in SV. Some people love him, some just tolerate him, but many say they will never work with him again.