| The original Hyperloop concept avoids the things you mentioned. It does not use vacuum: > The problem with this approach is that it is incredibly hard to maintain a near vacuum in a room, let alone 700 miles (round trip) of large tube with dozens of station gateways and thousands of pods entering and exiting every day. All it takes is one leaky seal or a small crack somewhere in the hundreds of miles of tube and the whole system stops working. > However, a low pressure (vs. almost no pressure) system set to a level wherestandard commercial pumps could easily overcome an air leak and the transport pods could handle variable air density would be inherently robust. It does not use MagLev: > A viable technical solution is magnetic levitation; however the cost associated with material and construction is prohibitive. There are still challenges, but because of the Hype any company doing anything related just calls their system 'Hyperloop' as well. > It boggles the mind as to how investors are falling for this idea.
> But perhaps marketing and branding are where Musk/Bronson's talents lie when it comes to high-speed rail? Please tell me otherwise, as I would love to see better rail infrastructure in the US. Musk has not asked a single investor for money for Hyperloop. He likely knows its currently not a great investment. Bronson is a guy who jumps on anything related to Musk and makes a bad copy of it that gather lots of money and then doesn't do much with it. |
IIRC, the proposed pressure was less than 1 kPa. That would be less than the pressure at the Karman Line, the boundary of space.