[Mom]

There's also some technological concerns which may make this sort of impossible, if ridiculously difficult, to pursue. Unless Musk has more than meme power to change how research is done, I doubt we'll ever see this be publicly operational in any meaningful scale.

Although this article Is 5 years old, It gives a pretty good cost breakdown by Elon Musk.

Interesting article. It makes a decent comparison of the costs an speed of other transportation methods like California's bullet train.

---

There's also some technological concerns which may make this sort of impossible, if ridiculously difficult, to pursue. Unless Musk has more than meme power to change how research is done, I doubt we'll ever see this be publicly operational in any meaningful scale.

I'm finding myself a little confused in this respect. There's articles claiming they don't need to develop new technologies for this to happen. And then there are many criticisms saying it's technologically impossible. I'm a little lost on how these claims are so different. It's either possible to build now, or it isn't and requires significant further tech development.

Interesting article. It makes a decent comparison of the costs an speed of other transportation methods like California's bullet train.

---

I'm finding myself a little confused in this respect. There's articles claiming they don't need to develop new technologies for this to happen. And then there are many criticisms saying it's technologically impossible. I'm a little lost on how these claims are so different. It's either possible to build now, or it isn't and requires significant further tech development.

I think it's meant moreso as a pointless endeavor. Is it possible? Technically speaking, yes. In the same way it's possible for you to writhe and slither on the ground to the store, but we can both agree there's another method to get there that would cause you substantially less damage and even get you there faster. The technology we have can, in theory, make the hyperloop possible. However, both the risk and cost is so high that it makes "simpler" modes of transportation just make more sense to opt for. As is obvious, technology is a game of mitigating both risk and cost when compared to yield. The hyperloop, when we consider the yield, falls horrifically short when we compare it to said risk and cost.

The confusion really comes from the fact that we can technically do it, but it's just not worthwhile. We are talking billions of dollars for something that would require more R&D later down the road to make functional enough to be widespread and not simply a very costly experiment.

I'm not terribly sure what this proves? Yes, it may exist, but this doesn't prove its cost-effectiveness. We're no strangers to pointless technology making little spread. Especially when it comes to transportation. ESPECIALLY when it comes to cities like Vegas or Miami.

Interesting article. It makes a decent comparison of the costs an speed of other transportation methods like California's bullet train.

---

I'm finding myself a little confused in this respect. There's articles claiming they don't need to develop new technologies for this to happen. And then there are many criticisms saying it's technologically impossible. I'm a little lost on how these claims are so different. It's either possible to build now, or it isn't and requires significant further tech development.

I think it's meant moreso as a pointless endeavor. Is it possible? Technically speaking, yes. In the same way it's possible for you to writhe and slither on the ground to the store, but we can both agree there's another method to get there that would cause you substantially less damage and even get you there faster. The technology we have can, in theory, make the hyperloop possible. However, both the risk and cost is so high that it makes "simpler" modes of transportation just make more sense to opt for. As is obvious, technology is a game of mitigating both risk and cost when compared to yield. The hyperloop, when we consider the yield, falls horrifically short when we compare it to said risk and cost.

The confusion really comes from the fact that we can technically do it, but it's just not worthwhile. We are talking billions of dollars for something that would require more R&D later down the road to make functional enough to be widespread and not simply a very costly experiment.

Thank you so much for that. Beautifully explained. Especially rounded up with "we can technically do it, but it's just not worthwhile".

I suppose a comparison would be Concorde: Technically possible, but there's plenty of reasons we are no longer using it.

With this in mind, do you think we are ever going to be at a point whether the technology will make it practical, or is it not really worth investing in? Is it just progress for progress' sake and at great expense?

I do believe that this kind of research may eventually be used for more widespread good than some impractical scenic attraction at Las Vegas, yes. The biggest issue is reaching the point where it's a suitable yield and also doesn't demand a total uprooting of the current infrastructure, which I feel is often one of the bigger hurdles we face when trying to figure out what's the "next step" for transportation.

[Boudica]

There's also some technological concerns which may make this sort of impossible, if ridiculously difficult, to pursue. Unless Musk has more than meme power to change how research is done, I doubt we'll ever see this be publicly operational in any meaningful scale.

Interesting article. It makes a decent comparison of the costs an speed of other transportation methods like California's bullet train.

---

I'm finding myself a little confused in this respect. There's articles claiming they don't need to develop new technologies for this to happen. And then there are many criticisms saying it's technologically impossible. I'm a little lost on how these claims are so different. It's either possible to build now, or it isn't and requires significant further tech development.

I think it's meant moreso as a pointless endeavor. Is it possible? Technically speaking, yes. In the same way it's possible for you to writhe and slither on the ground to the store, but we can both agree there's another method to get there that would cause you substantially less damage and even get you there faster. The technology we have can, in theory, make the hyperloop possible. However, both the risk and cost is so high that it makes "simpler" modes of transportation just make more sense to opt for. As is obvious, technology is a game of mitigating both risk and cost when compared to yield. The hyperloop, when we consider the yield, falls horrifically short when we compare it to said risk and cost.

The confusion really comes from the fact that we can technically do it, but it's just not worthwhile. We are talking billions of dollars for something that would require more R&D later down the road to make functional enough to be widespread and not simply a very costly experiment.

I'm not terribly sure what this proves? Yes, it may exist, but this doesn't prove its cost-effectiveness. We're no strangers to pointless technology making little spread. Especially when it comes to transportation. ESPECIALLY when it comes to cities like Vegas or Miami.

I think it's meant moreso as a pointless endeavor. Is it possible? Technically speaking, yes. In the same way it's possible for you to writhe and slither on the ground to the store, but we can both agree there's another method to get there that would cause you substantially less damage and even get you there faster. The technology we have can, in theory, make the hyperloop possible. However, both the risk and cost is so high that it makes "simpler" modes of transportation just make more sense to opt for. As is obvious, technology is a game of mitigating both risk and cost when compared to yield. The hyperloop, when we consider the yield, falls horrifically short when we compare it to said risk and cost.

The confusion really comes from the fact that we can technically do it, but it's just not worthwhile. We are talking billions of dollars for something that would require more R&D later down the road to make functional enough to be widespread and not simply a very costly experiment.

Thank you so much for that. Beautifully explained. Especially rounded up with "we can technically do it, but it's just not worthwhile".

I suppose a comparison would be Concorde: Technically possible, but there's plenty of reasons we are no longer using it.

With this in mind, do you think we are ever going to be at a point whether the technology will make it practical, or is it not really worth investing in? Is it just progress for progress' sake and at great expense?

I do believe that this kind of research may eventually be used for more widespread good than some impractical scenic attraction at Las Vegas, yes. The biggest issue is reaching the point where it's a suitable yield and also doesn't demand a total uprooting of the current infrastructure, which I feel is often one of the bigger hurdles we face when trying to figure out what's the "next step" for transportation.

Either way, this Vegas loop project will likely be a very useful (though expensive) venture that may provide information for how the Hyperloop develops. I'm sure many lessons will be learned in the process. That or they'll go "this isn't worth it on a grand scale" and leave it at just the Vegas loop xD

[Mom]

Snip

Indeed! I believe a similar thing occurred with a magnetic rail system in Downtown Miami. It looked cool, was expensive, and was certainly useful, but it was so unwieldy and ultimately not worth the cost that it never left it's experimental phase there.