Elon's hyperloop under construction:

Originally posted by humy
But the passengers will still be in big trouble if the vertical supports for the tube fail in an earthquake

I find it highly unlikely that the vertical supports would fail. Does that happen with overhead rail?

which a assume would result in breakage of tube
Tube breakage is a definite risk even with minor shifting of the tube. Some flexibility (if it is overground) might be wise, but it must be noted that at high speeds, any deviation can be dangerous.

and then, to make matters worse, air rushing in at unimaginable speeds and force, a serious problem that conventional high speed rail wouldn't have.
This problem applies to any loss of pressure and is hardly unique to earthquakes. In fact I suspect that earthquakes would be one of the rarer causes.
I believe the solution might be to have controlled vents all along the track that can be opened in case of emergency so that air is introduced to the track evenly rather than from one end. In fact, introducing air in a controlled fashion while the train is moving would be an easy way to apply emergency braking - essentially one massive airbag.

Then there is the possibility that if the tube collapses, even if the train is stationary, the collapse could cause breakage of the train and sudden decompression for the passengers.
So here you are suggesting the car is breached but not the vacuum in the tube? Again, emergency venting of the tube should be built in.

In fact, if that even happened just once for real, it wouldn't surprise me if the governments banned the hyperloop purely on safety grounds (and I think rightly so)
Except that hasn't happened with high speed rail (which has suffered many catastrophic accidents).

I bet they also haven't given that dreadful possibility much thought either!
Who is 'they' in this instance?

Although I find the hyperloop a pretty interesting idea, the more I think about the problems with the hyperloop, the more I think the whole thing is both a safety nightmare and probably will never be cost effective and personally think the whole thing is SO problematic that its not worth any investment in it and any money spent on its development is wasted money that could be better spent on other things. Well, that's my opinion anyway.
I too am highly skeptical that it is cost effective or even close. The benefits of going slightly faster just don't seem to be worth it. (Think Concorde)

I see no reason not to ponder some of the engineering challenges, and many of them could be tested with ease without spending much money - which is one reason I find it interesting that Hyperloop One has not done so (or at least not publicly). Instead they have spent all their money on marketing and trying to raise more money. It looks like a scam to me.

Originally posted by humy
But the passengers will still be in big trouble if the vertical supports for the tube fail in an earthquake which a assume would result in breakage of tube and then, to make matters worse, air rushing in at unimaginable speeds and force, a serious problem that conventional high speed rail wouldn't have. Then there is the possibility that if the tube collapses, ...[text shortened]... ment is wasted money that could be better spent on other things. Well, that's my opinion anyway.

If you hype it enough, money will flow, for a while anyway. Look at the Concord. Look at the Space Shuttle, the Shuttle was touted at the beginning as cutting the cost to space by 90%. We all know how THAT turned out, eh.

I think the only way this thing will be safe and relatively inexpensive is if it were partially buried underground and protected by cushions from earthquakes and the tube itself not made of steel but carbon fiber reinforced concrete with hatches for enterance and emergency hatches that could close off in case of a break. At least with a long line you would have a chance at being able to close off a break, the flow of air inside I think can't happen faster than the speed of sound at STP, don't quote me on that but it seems a hatchway can at least get the signal a lot faster than the airflow can reach the train.

I think the engineering involved would keep something like that to be safe requiring decades of design work and not some slipshod quicky deal it seems Musk is planning.

Originally posted by sonhouse
If you hype it enough, money will flow, for a while anyway. Look at the Concord. Look at the Space Shuttle, the Shuttle was touted at the beginning as cutting the cost to space by 90%. We all know how THAT turned out, eh.

You chose some really bad examples. Nether the Concorde nor space shuttle where inherently bad ideas and they both were real working products, and neither was funded by venture capital.

not some slipshod quicky deal it seems Musk is planning.
I don't know how many times I have to say something before you hear me. It seems that once you get an idea in your head it just sticks there forever.
The main company working on this has nothing to do with Musk! Why do you keep attributing everything to Musk?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You chose some really bad examples. Nether the Concorde nor space shuttle where inherently bad ideas and they both were real working products, and neither was funded by venture capital.

[b] not some slipshod quicky deal it seems Musk is planning.
I don't know how many times I have to say something before you hear me. It seems that once you get an ...[text shortened]... any working on this has nothing to do with Musk! Why do you keep attributing everything to Musk?[/b]

I thought Musk took hold of it, he had the bucks or some of it anyway. Just seems he is a present day mover a milkshaker....

Originally posted by sonhouse
I thought Musk took hold of it, he had the bucks or some of it anyway. Just seems he is a present day mover a milkshaker....

And I corrected you on that several times already in this thread, and you still keep on saying it. Why?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I corrected you on that several times already in this thread, and you still keep on saying it. Why?

I profusely apologise. I'm on my knees begging for forgiveness🙂 It won't happen again.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I profusely apologise. I'm on my knees begging for forgiveness🙂 It won't happen again.

I wasn't looking for an apology, I am just curious as to why you kept repeating it even after you knew full well that it just wasn't so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I wasn't looking for an apology, I am just curious as to why you kept repeating it even after you knew full well that it just wasn't so.

I thought there would have been some connection, I guess it is just a publicity thing. He does have his hands in some pretty far out ventures like the trip round the moon supposedly taking place next year. It is somewhat more feasible than hyperloop at least.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I thought there would have been some connection, I guess it is just a publicity thing. He does have his hands in some pretty far out ventures like the trip round the moon supposedly taking place next year. It is somewhat more feasible than hyperloop at least.

SpaceX and Musk have been involved with some things to do with the hyperloop. But they are currently not selling the concept to anyone nor raising money for it. So when you say:
"some slipshod quicky deal it seems Musk is planning. " then you are outright wrong.

As for a trip around the moon, its not exactly a 'far out' adventure for a successful rocket company that launches one or two rockets a month and often manages to return the first stage - a feat no one else has ever achieved despite its enormous desirability. By the time the round the moon trip takes place, the Falcon Heavy will have been tried and proven and SpaceX will probably also have carried passengers to and from the ISS.

SpaceX's biggest problem right now is they can't keep up with demand. There is enough business for them to launch much more frequently.

Originally posted by twhitehead
SpaceX and Musk have been involved with some things to do with the hyperloop. But they are currently not selling the concept to anyone nor raising money for it. So when you say:
"some slipshod quicky deal it seems Musk is planning. " then you are outright wrong.

As for a trip around the moon, its not exactly a 'far out' adventure for a successful rock ...[text shortened]... hey can't keep up with demand. There is enough business for them to launch much more frequently.

I really hope the trip round the moon succeeds. I want to see images of footprints from Apollo to squash all the traitorous conspiracy theories. I know the expense we went to, my equipment cost millions, the tracking and timing bit I played in it. Three atomic clocks, well, two, plus a high end quartz crystal clock as third backup, never needed it. But the tracking, THAT was complex. It was all analog, a series of digital generators, based on TTL logic, 5 or so where the count was 2^n-1, n=2,3,4,5 and 6. So those counts went into an analog wire circulator, like an audio transducer for each of the n-1's and the output mixed and sent out by radio to Apollo which had a transducer onboard that sent the combined signal back and they could read out the Z direction, how far away it was, accurate within 50 feet. Not bad for 1969. It is that kind of thing multiplied by a thousand that says it was real, no way could it have been faked. Sorry, I digress. So I wish there are some very high def camera's onboard that can take images of the landing sites and see tracks and such. Apollo's came within 60 odd kilometers of the moon because they had to land but one figure I saw was the Muskmobile will only approach within 50,000 odd Klicks. I hope that is off by a factor of a thousand🙂 Put the conspiracy theorists to sleep permenantly. Of course they will continue even with footprint images, THEY are fake also......

Originally posted by sonhouse
I really hope the trip round the moon succeeds. I want to see images of footprints from Apollo to squash all the traitorous conspiracy theories.

They will almost certainly not be carrying a large telescope on the flight. There are already telescopes orbiting the moon specially designed for that purpose that have far better resolution than anything that will be on the round the moon trip.

So I wish there are some very high def camera's onboard
Optics beat ccd size any day. Its not the 'high def' that matters but the size of your mirror.

...that can take images of the landing sites and see tracks and such.
The tracks are visible in existing imagery. I doubt that footprints are resolvable, but tire tracks are as well as some of the equipment.

Put the conspiracy theorists to sleep permenantly. Of course they will continue even with footprint images, THEY are fake also......
You cannot convince conspiracy theorists with evidence. It just doesn't work.

Originally posted by twhitehead
They will almost certainly not be carrying a large telescope on the flight. There are already telescopes orbiting the moon specially designed for that purpose that have far better resolution than anything that will be on the round the moon trip.

[b]So I wish there are some very high def camera's onboard
Optics beat ccd size any day. Its not the ' ...[text shortened]... ke also......[/b]
You cannot convince conspiracy theorists with evidence. It just doesn't work.[/b]

I wonder what would happen if tourists go to the moon and they cordon off the Apollo sites and people take selfies there, would THAT stop the moon landing deniers?

Originally posted by sonhouse
I wonder what would happen if tourists go to the moon and they cordon off the Apollo sites and people take selfies there, would THAT stop the moon landing deniers?

Would the North pole melting stop global warming deniers?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Would the North pole melting stop global warming deniers?

No, they will probably just say it must be caused naturally by the solar cycle; that is after all is their most common pseudo-scientific explanation of any said observed recent climate warming.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm

They would probably say the same thing if the whole of the Antarctic ice melted and the worlds oceans started to boil. The question they never give a straight answer to is;

"How would you expect the evidence to be different from what we observe it to be if we ARE currently causing global warming?"

In one of my previous posts, I have in full and in great depth already answered the contrary question of;

"How would I expect the evidence to be different from what we observe it to be if we are NOT currently causing global warming?"

only for the excellent answer to be wasted on the arrogant ignorant hypocritical lying time-waster moron. I will dig up and show that answer of mine on request if anyone is interested.