|
|
|
|
|
|
by leo_mck
4165 days ago
|
|
|
I am not familiar with the hyperloop concept so maybe I am wrong but I never understood the "cost is too high" argument. Is this not almost always the case on every technology breakthrough? Things like gene mapping and 3D printing comes to mind - someone had to started doing it at prohibitive costs so we can evolve the tech and get the prices down. |
|
|
In the case of the hyperloop the technology isn't too bad. We can likely build it without developing too much. Most of the technological problems are already largely solved in aircraft design.
In this case it is more a "this cost literally too many resources" problem. High speed rail is fairly simple, you clear land (expensive), flatten it, even it out, and then lay metal tracks with wooden/concrete sleepers.
With the hyperloop you're literally building a tunnel that has to withstand weather including extremes, withstand negative pressure internally without crushing, transfer the weight/internal/external forces down to pillars, and yet still you're left with the "clear land" problem as nobody wants to live under a hyperloop track, or have it blocking their natural sunlight.
Hyperloop might see some savings as it requires less land than high speed rail, but you'll easily offset that by physically how many resources go into the tunnel and pillars (and raising the tunnels into position and sealing them).
If all hyperloop was was a tunnel in the sky it might be easier to imagine the financials making sense. But then you add negative pressures within, and you're talking about aircraft skin the entire length of the thing, and then dealing with attaching these pieces of loop together on-site (so presumably double-riveting them like aircraft skins are, which is time consuming/expensive).