Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by Diesel, Sep 30, 2017.
He certainly has a knack for fleecing governments of money
Whoa up there Millers, it's not like he's a banker or the like.
Ok, tell me all about the reusable rockets - how many times etc etc?
Have a read. It is an impressive list of achievements
Ok, let's see the orbit of the moon in 2018 only 15 months to see if he is not full of BS.
Could I suggest he wouldn't be paying his 30% (in Oz, anyway) corporate tax on his real profits.
You don't rate his efforts in space to date?
How many times has he used the same rocket to launch? The wiki report didn't seem to say.
I don't get why people hate the bloke.
Wallet envy I guess.
I could give a flying f**k whether the guy is a trillionaire, just don't sell snake oil bullshit to the plebs.
Why do you say the hyperloop is pointless? I mean the cost benefit of it at this point is ridiculous, but if they can figure it out, it would help decentralize workforces. In the US in particular, if they made it viable in places like California, Texas or Upper East Coast, it would massively help ease housing pressures. That is a big IF though.
The mere thought of the technology 5 years ago was laughable, now they have operational tracks spanning miles. The cost to depressurize and build tubes spanning large distances is obviously problematic but it's certainly not impossible.
The theory of a hyperloop has been around for over a century. The pointless part is you can create a standard high speed rail or mag lev train that will work almost as well, without any of the insanely difficult engineering feats and risks involved.
The economics aren’t the only thing that is holding it back. Building a conintuous tube that stretches 1000 miles is not something that is really possible with current tech and materials. You certainly couldn’t build it out of steel, and composites are far to too expensive.
Then there’s the sheer danger of the thing. Can you imagine the carnage or a failure at the speed of sound?
That is exactly the reason why putting it in a tube makes much more sense than on rails exposed to the elements.
Hyperloop has a crazy amount of backing now, whether it will pan out or not, I have no idea. However, if they can solve the technical and cost hurdles, it makes much more sense than regular high speed rail.
Putting it in a vaccuum tube is what causes the danger. You are now in a situation where you can have a failure anywhere along the 1000 mile tube and it will be catastrophic. That’s an awful lot of points of failure.
There’s the expansion issues of a singular tube of such length, which using the current materials the test tubes are made out of amounts for literally hundreds of metres.z
High speed rail has been a proven winner for decades. I don’t see why they wouldn’t just use that system considering it can carry 10 times the passengers (or more) at a still excellent speed
How so? Zero exposure to elements or obstructions. Speed is what poses the significant risk, being in a shielded environment helps mitigate that to some degree. The tubes are low pressure, not a complete vacuum.
A couple of years ago, even getting it up and running would have been thought to be impossible, in any length of test track. It's a significant engineering challenge, no question about it. I certainly am not ready to write it off and say it's pointless at this point. There is a huge amount of investment behind it, and significant progress.
High speed rail has significant issues that hyperloop can address such as being able to run in metro environments, can be both underground and above ground and more efficient transfer of passengers. Cost to operate also massively favours hyperloop.
Loading single carriages or pods and shooting them down a tube could theoretically handle much higher volume of people depending on the pod loading mechanism.
I'm not sold on the technology, but I wouldn't say it's pointless at this point. If they get it to work on a commercial scale, it could be a complete game changer.
The tubes are pressurised to the equivalent of low earth orbit, like 60km above earth. A puncture or bend in the tube would be catastrophic.
Now they can bury the thing to offer it protection from deliberate or accidental damage e.g. a vehicle crashing into it, but then you are making the cost completely unrealistic.
They've have working model vaccuum systems for close to a century. Its not a new idea or technology. If it were a feasible form of transportation we'd have seen a working system somewhere by now you would think.
As it stands they atill aren't passed the model phase. The hyperloop test track vehicles are incapable of carrying even a single passenger, and they will need to scale up the size of the tubing by some margin if its going to be a feasible replacement to mass transport (you'd imagine you'd need to carry several dozen per pod for it to make financial sense).
Why does it cost less to build a hyperloop tunnel compared to a high speed train tunnel? What makes hyperloop cheaper to run than a high speed train? Why couldn't a high speed electric train run in metro areas?
We are so far away from even coming close to any of the claims the hyperloop attempts to make for itself. I can't see it happening.
Using reusable rockets to launch people around the planet is probably more likely at this point.
Start a hyperloop thread boys.
I want to go to Mars with maggie and millers.
You could always share Uranus with them.
But I haven't got an allegry to cat fur.
Funny how no poster has answered my real world questions but raved on about more fairyland stuff.
What real questions are those? are you referring to you asking for numbers produced, profit per vehicle, recall ratio, practicality of distance travel etc?
If so, I'll answer them.
Not sure what relevance numbers produced has, but they made over 80,000 vehicles last year for whatever that's worth.
Profit per car is apparently at about 20%
Recall rates are better than VW, Mazda, and BMW. Worse than Porsche and Mercedes. Telsa has the highest rate of serious recall issues of all manufacturers, however they also initiate 100% of their recalls themselves, while the average car maker only issues half of their own recalls (the rest being forced through government investigation, like what happened the VAG group).
As to practicality, for your average city dweller with the occasional regional stint, they are fine. Around 300-400km I believe in practical driving environments. Some hypermiler types have got 1000km out of them but you'd never drive like they do every day. Tesla also has far superior quick charging relative to its competitors on the market at the moment, although that will change pretty quickly.
As I mentioned earlier, Tesla will struggle to stick around in the long term. IMO it will be absorbed by a larger manufacturer, or potentially go bust when they try to ramp up production to create a genuinely mass sold car in the model 3. Even so, I can't think of another car manufacturer that was founded in the last 20 years that comes close to the success of Tesla. Can you?
Separate names with a comma.