| General > General Technical Chat |
| The Hyperloop: BUSTED |
| << < (3/113) > >> |
| LabSpokane:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2016, 05:08:09 am --- --- Quote from: TerraHertz on July 25, 2016, 04:15:35 am ---My only question is, why is Musk involved in this? --- End quote --- He's not, finacially. http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop "Neither SpaceX nor Elon Musk is affiliated with any Hyperloop companies" --- End quote --- Musk introduced the idea for the simple reason that it generated press buzz for him, Tesla, and SpaceX. The actual viability of the project was irrelevant. |
| mtdoc:
--- Quote from: LabSpokane on July 25, 2016, 05:23:38 am --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2016, 05:08:09 am --- --- Quote from: TerraHertz on July 25, 2016, 04:15:35 am ---My only question is, why is Musk involved in this? --- End quote --- He's not, finacially. http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop "Neither SpaceX nor Elon Musk is affiliated with any Hyperloop companies" --- End quote --- Musk introduced the idea for the simple reason that it generated press buzz for him, Tesla, and SpaceX. The actual viability of the project was irrelevant. --- End quote --- Or he recognizes that it is an interesting idea that deserves further research despite the obvious technical challenges. An idea that inspires engineers and entrepreneurs (which it has) and could lead to useful new technology even if it never leads to a large scale LA to SF type transporter. Musk is not really an engineer after all. He is a futurist (and an entrepreneur) whose role is to inspire others. It's up to the engineers to determine if his ideas can become reality. |
| LabSpokane:
--- Quote from: mtdoc on July 25, 2016, 05:39:14 am --- --- Quote from: LabSpokane on July 25, 2016, 05:23:38 am --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2016, 05:08:09 am --- --- Quote from: TerraHertz on July 25, 2016, 04:15:35 am ---My only question is, why is Musk involved in this? --- End quote --- He's not, finacially. http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop "Neither SpaceX nor Elon Musk is affiliated with any Hyperloop companies" --- End quote --- Musk introduced the idea for the simple reason that it generated press buzz for him, Tesla, and SpaceX. The actual viability of the project was irrelevant. --- End quote --- Or he recognizes that it is an interesting idea that deserves further research despite the obvious technical challenges. An idea that inspires engineers and entrepreneurs (which it has) and could lead to useful new technology even if it never leads to a large scale LA to SF type transporter. Musk is not really an engineer after all. He is a futurist (and an entrepreneur) whose role is to inspire others. It's up to the engineers to determine if his ideas can become reality. --- End quote --- I am more cynical than most when it comes to this stuff. I think if you actually talked to Musk at a cocktail party about four drinks in, you'd find out his real opinion on the viability of hyperhype. |
| TerraHertz:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on July 25, 2016, 05:08:09 am --- --- Quote from: TerraHertz on July 25, 2016, 04:15:35 am ---My only question is, why is Musk involved in this? --- End quote --- He's not, finacially. http://www.spacex.com/hyperloop "Neither SpaceX nor Elon Musk is affiliated with any Hyperloop companies" --- End quote --- Ah ha, interesting. And yet: "To support this competition, SpaceX will construct a one-mile test track..." So he does have dollars in it. I was mostly joking about the 'idiot filter' idea, but given Musk's involvement in 'Hyperloop concept support', including his personally coining the name, maybe it's not such a crazy thought after all. He may not be an engineer, but he is smart and employs a lot of good engineers. Surely some of them would have explained Hyperloop's fundamental flaws to him, if he didn't see them himself? As a name, "Hyperloop(y)" is a pretty cool joke. It's almost a stand-alone sanity check in itself. |
| LazyJack:
--- Quote from: TerraHertz on July 25, 2016, 04:15:35 am ---It was a bit of metal debris lying on the runway from a previous plane. Sucked into an engine of the Concorde on takeoff, turbine disintegration ruptured a wing fuel tank. Fire caused structural failure before it could make it to any landing site. But yes, the accident was an excuse to quit Concorde flights, that were actually no longer profitable. --- End quote --- Small correction. Debris on the runway cut one of the tires, which sent debris flying into the wing. This caused shock waves in one of the fuel tanks that ruptured the tank. The fuel eventually ignited. This happened a the worst possible moment, as they were already traveling too fast to abort takeoff. They plane became airborne, but was doomed by the fire, did not have enough time to return or divert to an other airport. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |