Two yahoo.com
stories appeared this year about a potentially revolutionary travel method that
could shake up American employment. Their
titles were sort of out of order, with “Hyperloop is edging closer to reality”
by Daniel Cooper coming out on March 8th, and Will Nicol’s “What is
the Hyperloop? Here’s everything you
need to know” released October 6th.
Hyperloop, proposed by Tesla and SpaceX leader Elon Musk and
being tested and developed by Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT), is
in effect a pneumatic tube designed to carry people and cargo. It involves “a low pressure environment,
surrounding the [passenger and freight-carrying] pod with a cushion of air that
permits the pod to move safely at such high speeds, like a puck gliding over an
air hockey table.” Magnetic
accelerators, fascinatingly using the rare-earth metal neodymium, provide
impetus, and solar panels deliver power.
Travel speeds could exceed 700 miles per hour, and, on half-mile test
tracks, have already reached 240.
Progress has been real if preliminary, with HTT already obtaining tens
of millions of dollars and making a prototype passenger pod, Quintero One,
available in October. The company has established
partnerships with Aecom, a business “involved in many high profile engineering
projects,” and Oerlikon, “a leader in vacuum technology since the dawn of the
20th century.”
As is clear to all, despite a claim by HTT chairman Bibop
Gresta that a Hyperloop run from Los Angeles to San Francisco “will be fully
optimized and ready for passengers in 2019,” the system may never
materialize. Yet it could. What points are for and against it?
On the good side, with lower costs and easier implementation,
Hyperloop may have bullet trains completely covered. Its speeds are potentially much higher, and
Musk’s $6 billion estimate for making the California run above operational is
dwarfed by the $68 billion expected for only the first phase of that state’s under-construction
high-speed rail network. It has real
potential to take less time, considering that dealing with airports, than
flying for up to 1,000 miles. It could
eventually be built deeper into the earth, cutting distances to places on other
parts of the planet and making the “core-tubes,” a fanciful 30th-century
invention written about 50 years ago, a reality.
There are also several real problems. As with other large infrastructure projects,
Hyperloop construction will probably run way over budget, making its final
LA-SF cost closer to that $68 billion than Musk would like to admit. As with railroads Its structure is
inflexible, and does not lend itself to other uses as vehicles and airplanes
offer with theirs. I am skeptical that
solar panels can provide most or all the system’s power needs, as HTT
executives have implied. That company
may have unnecessarily hurt perceptions of its seriousness by naming its pod
construction material “vibranium,” an already-used name as familiar to many
Marvel comic book readers as “kryptonite” was to DC fans. The Quintero One photos also, fair or not,
left me thinking their capacity was small.
Overall, can we predict whether Hyperloop will be by 2050 a
common transportation choice, or only another Buck Rogers idea from the past? It seems clear that it would work, but that
is not the issue. Why did commercial
supersonic air travel fail? Why did
pneumatic technology, commonly used for mail in mid-century, go nowhere for
decades after that? Why are rail
connections from airports to city centers so rare in the United States? Until we can easily answer
transportation-system questions like these, we will have no idea whether this, one
more of Elon Musk’s visionary ideas, will turn out like CD’s to bullet-train’s
cassettes, or the other way around. In
the meantime, let’s take Hyperloop, and the jobs it could create and eliminate,
seriously but cautiously.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete