Attached: 1 image
The Hyperloop was never meant to be built. Elon Musk admitted it was all about fueling opposition to California’s high-speed rail project so it would get canceled.
He never planned to improve transportation; he just wants to keep people trapped in cars.
https://newrepublic.com/article/174089/big-tech-watching-drive
#tech #transport #elonmusk #transportation #hyperloop #trains
Come on people the hyperloop as a concept is deeply unpractical and impossible to build. It was never to be an alternative to anything in the best case scenario a deluded billionaires dream but it seems it’s more than that it’s also malevolent.
Why are these notions (billionaire, bullshit, malevolent, etc.) So often present in the same contexts?
It’s not impossible to build. There’s no magical technology in it. Lots of things can be built if you just sink money in the project. But hyperloop is inefficient and insanely expensive. It would carry very few people, would be hell to maintain, with likely a lot of down time, and really isn’t worth the hassle.
(and don’t even get me started on his idiotic “let’s add more cars underground” idea)
Yep, anything you saved in additional speed would probably be eaten up by longer boarding times and security. The reason high speed rail is competitive with airlines below ~500km is the fact that the train stations are close to where you need to be, and you can rock up 5m before departure and still make your train.
I have no idea whether hyperloop is impractical/impossible to build and no intention of defending Elon Musk, but nobody thought landing a rocket was possible and SpaceX has since made it seem like a simple and easy thing. Starship seems completely bonkers to me too, but I wouldn’t be surprised if SpaceX ends up completely changing space exploration with it.
Edit: I wrote “nobody” in my comment, clearly some did, but my point was that the rest of the industry clearly didn’t expect them to have any success.
This isn’t an English issue, your English is great and I couldn’t tell the difference compared to a native speaker even if I looked for it. “But” in a discussion as the you’ve made can be looked as a separator. On the left, it’s a sale pitch. Ground prep for the reader to buy into what’s to follow after the but.
I used to do this all the time so I don’t blame people who do it too.
I’m not gonna delve too much into SpaceX. To me the accomplishment of that company is largely thanks to the employees. Elon Musk does not strike me as a competent engineer or manager, he’s just a guy with a lot of money and sometimes he makes good use of it. To me, he isn’t worth the benefit of the doubt. It’s your time though and if you think a billionaire is worth it then who are we to judge?
Okay, trying to say it in another way: I don’t think many people thought SpaceX had much chance of success or becoming basically the #1 in the industry, far ahead of everyone else.
I don’t buy your sci-fi argument. Do people also think time travel will be possible?
Have you ever heard of NASA’s DC-X? It was a working reusable launch vehicle prototype in the 90s based on the same concept.
Often, when someone talks about SpaceX, it seems like they’re not even interested in launch vehicle development. The DC-X was a well-known project.
Yes, I’m fully aware of it. Very cool, but it never got any further than the prototype stage AFAIK - SpaceX made it work and has lowered the price to orbit considerably and the rest of the industry is scrambling to catch up.
Scientists are really looking forward to Starship because of the incredible potential it provides. If SpaceX manages to get it working, it’ll likely change space exploration in a massive way. I find that quite exciting.
Then I don’t understand why you mentioned that a reusable launch vehicle was inconceivable before. Anyway.
This whole story isn’t as one-sided as you described it. Even though the program was cost-effective, it was eventually discontinued due to budget constraints and an accident. At that time, understandably, ISS was the priority, since unlike SpaceX, space agencies are not transportation companies. This is why the growing market demand for low-Earth orbit transportation in the 2000s was beneficial, and NASA got involved in the Falcon 9 project early on in the 2000s, providing engineers and funding for development. It was/is mutually beneficial, since the costs were lower for both NASA and SpaceX.
Therefore, NASA didn’t fail to develop its own reusable launch vehicle, but joined a similar project shortly after the end of the DC-X(A).
The vertical takeoff and landing concept isn’t as groundbreaking after the aforementioned proof of concept as some people make it out to be. Apart from a few years after DC-X, the concept went through a steady development to practical use.
I might have been lacking coffee when I wrote my first comment 🙂 I re-wrote it in a later comment.
SpaceX and the other big space companies wouldn’t exist without NASA and/or the military. NASA have sent quite some money towards SpaceX - I think NASA is quite satisfied with their investement.
Musk is good at getting investors, but he was smart enough to let other people run Space X. Twitter is just a toy they convinced that he needed so that he would leave the cars and rockets alone for a while.
Well, again, I also showed that Von Braun was suggesting the same thing at the same time. And yes, I do think some people think time travel will be possible considering people have believed time travel hoaxes before.
But I don’t know what people thought SpaceX’s chances of success were.
Sci-fi also includes forms of travel like Hyperloop, FTL travel, time travel… Does that mean people believe all those things are possible, or does it mean people like those fantasies and/or they hope future innovations will make those things possible?
I don’t think “look at sci-fi” really means anything here, regardless of what the opinion of experts and the public was.
Come on people the hyperloop as a concept is deeply unpractical and impossible to build. It was never to be an alternative to anything in the best case scenario a deluded billionaires dream but it seems it’s more than that it’s also malevolent.
Why are these notions (billionaire, bullshit, malevolent, etc.) So often present in the same contexts?
It’s not impossible to build. There’s no magical technology in it. Lots of things can be built if you just sink money in the project. But hyperloop is inefficient and insanely expensive. It would carry very few people, would be hell to maintain, with likely a lot of down time, and really isn’t worth the hassle. (and don’t even get me started on his idiotic “let’s add more cars underground” idea)
Yep, anything you saved in additional speed would probably be eaten up by longer boarding times and security. The reason high speed rail is competitive with airlines below ~500km is the fact that the train stations are close to where you need to be, and you can rock up 5m before departure and still make your train.
I have no idea whether hyperloop is impractical/impossible to build and no intention of defending Elon Musk, but nobody thought landing a rocket was possible and SpaceX has since made it seem like a simple and easy thing. Starship seems completely bonkers to me too, but I wouldn’t be surprised if SpaceX ends up completely changing space exploration with it.
Edit: I wrote “nobody” in my comment, clearly some did, but my point was that the rest of the industry clearly didn’t expect them to have any success.
When it comes to posts like yours, whatever comes before the but is pointless to read.
I’ll try to formulate my comments better in the future - English isn’t my native language.
This isn’t an English issue, your English is great and I couldn’t tell the difference compared to a native speaker even if I looked for it. “But” in a discussion as the you’ve made can be looked as a separator. On the left, it’s a sale pitch. Ground prep for the reader to buy into what’s to follow after the but.
I used to do this all the time so I don’t blame people who do it too.
I’m not gonna delve too much into SpaceX. To me the accomplishment of that company is largely thanks to the employees. Elon Musk does not strike me as a competent engineer or manager, he’s just a guy with a lot of money and sometimes he makes good use of it. To me, he isn’t worth the benefit of the doubt. It’s your time though and if you think a billionaire is worth it then who are we to judge?
You’ve clearly never watched a 1950s sci-fi movie, since half of them involve rockets which land.
It was clearly something people thought was possible.
Okay, trying to say it in another way: I don’t think many people thought SpaceX had much chance of success or becoming basically the #1 in the industry, far ahead of everyone else.
I don’t buy your sci-fi argument. Do people also think time travel will be possible?
Have you ever heard of NASA’s DC-X? It was a working reusable launch vehicle prototype in the 90s based on the same concept. Often, when someone talks about SpaceX, it seems like they’re not even interested in launch vehicle development. The DC-X was a well-known project.
Yes, I’m fully aware of it. Very cool, but it never got any further than the prototype stage AFAIK - SpaceX made it work and has lowered the price to orbit considerably and the rest of the industry is scrambling to catch up.
Scientists are really looking forward to Starship because of the incredible potential it provides. If SpaceX manages to get it working, it’ll likely change space exploration in a massive way. I find that quite exciting.
Then I don’t understand why you mentioned that a reusable launch vehicle was inconceivable before. Anyway. This whole story isn’t as one-sided as you described it. Even though the program was cost-effective, it was eventually discontinued due to budget constraints and an accident. At that time, understandably, ISS was the priority, since unlike SpaceX, space agencies are not transportation companies. This is why the growing market demand for low-Earth orbit transportation in the 2000s was beneficial, and NASA got involved in the Falcon 9 project early on in the 2000s, providing engineers and funding for development. It was/is mutually beneficial, since the costs were lower for both NASA and SpaceX. Therefore, NASA didn’t fail to develop its own reusable launch vehicle, but joined a similar project shortly after the end of the DC-X(A). The vertical takeoff and landing concept isn’t as groundbreaking after the aforementioned proof of concept as some people make it out to be. Apart from a few years after DC-X, the concept went through a steady development to practical use.
Edit: typo
I might have been lacking coffee when I wrote my first comment 🙂 I re-wrote it in a later comment.
SpaceX and the other big space companies wouldn’t exist without NASA and/or the military. NASA have sent quite some money towards SpaceX - I think NASA is quite satisfied with their investement.
Musk is good at getting investors, but he was smart enough to let other people run Space X. Twitter is just a toy they convinced that he needed so that he would leave the cars and rockets alone for a while.
Well, again, I also showed that Von Braun was suggesting the same thing at the same time. And yes, I do think some people think time travel will be possible considering people have believed time travel hoaxes before.
But I don’t know what people thought SpaceX’s chances of success were.
I have added an update to my previous post. I think we just misunderstand each other.
Of course there are people believing all kinds of crazy shit, like the Earth being flat. I don’t see how that is relevant?
Von Braun was amazing.
Sci-fi also includes forms of travel like Hyperloop, FTL travel, time travel… Does that mean people believe all those things are possible, or does it mean people like those fantasies and/or they hope future innovations will make those things possible?
I don’t think “look at sci-fi” really means anything here, regardless of what the opinion of experts and the public was.
Does this count as sci-fi too?
deleted by creator