Talk:Hyperloop/Archive1

God article!
http://www.citylab.com/tech/2015/12/the-hyperloop-is-not-superior-to-high-speed-rail/419592/

God article! Should be mentioned in the mainspace! 79.194.18.205 (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The sources needed template
Could those that doubt statements in this article please fact tag the individual statements instead of putting this gigantic ugly template on the topic of this page? This is supposed to be a maintenance template but it does not lead to anybody actually doing anything... Fact tags are way more efficient in this... 107.178.104.14 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Why?
RW seems more and more a place for people to dump their venting. Anyway, if it's "bad" anything, it's bad engineering and/or entrepreneurship, not bad science.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If they built it and it crashed, I guess it would be bad engineering. Makes sense to me to have an article on this because the egregious nonsense about what's possible is definitely bad science. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an example of political pseudo-science... This project was proposed by Saint Elon as an "alternative" to proven technology (high speed rail) 141.23.69.52 (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Both "political" and "pseudoscience" don't make sense in this context.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ummm, "bad engineering" also covers things like "impractical design", which can be recognized even before something is built (and crashes). Many things are possible, but not useful or economically feasible. Unless a machine's supposed operating principles require rewriting established science (e.g. perpetual motion, cold fusion, zero-point energy), it's bad engineering, not bad science.--AndYourFoesShallRejoice... (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * His cost estimates require the rewriting of the science of what stuff costs. You cannot build a route on stilts for a cheaper price than one on the ground. Mister Musk is unaware of this very simple fact that has been proven true in every single project in ever... If it weren't true, the Romans or the Babylonians or someone would have built streets on stilts instead of normal streets. They haven't. And neither do people today unless the ground is already occupied by something else. 141.23.69.52 (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Unless a machine's supposed operating principles require rewriting established science": Well, in this case, it does. The heating issue, for example. Maintaining those tiny tolerances over large distances and over time would require unobtainium, for another. These aren't engineering challenges; they're scientific howlers. Whatever distant future supertransit we end up with eventually, we can be 100% sure it won't be the hyperloop as described. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Gravity/vacuum transport
If you're going to use evacuated tubes for transport, why not drill them through the center of the earth? Missile engineer Lawrence Edwards worked on more modest gravity-powered transit on shorter distances which is neat, but won't get you to China. Annquin (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Longest tunnel: 612 km - Central Yunnan Water Diversion Project (under construction). Diameter of earth: 12,700 km.  Temperature of earth's core: ~5,200° Celsius.  Melting point of steel: 1,370° Celsius tops. Mr Larrington (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Hyperloop is plagued with corruption bickering and infighting
Look at this. It is just another major case of "told you so". I hope someone finds time and interest to actually write about this latest iteration in the nuclear dumpster fire that is Hyped Loop. I am unfortunately rather busy at the moment. 149.210.131.21 (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Shut up Avenger. 00:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is Avenger? 149.210.131.21 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2016 (UTC)