Comments by "XSportSeeker" (@XSpImmaLion) on "Hyperloop Revolution: The Real Story of its Origins and Future" video.

  1. The more I watch Hyperloop related content, both negative and positive, the more I am convinced that it's not a mode of transportation, it's more like a cult, some form of propaganda, an attempt to skirt around existing proprietary technology, or just a cash grab. It's all hyperboles, theoretical stuff based on borderline fantasy, and no criticism or comparison as to why it's looked as highly upon itself as it is, specially in comparison to what is already out there. And yes, cue the people saying how we didn't get to the moon by sitting on our asses or something similar to this tired argument. Let's see the claims: 1. it's a new mode of transportation. I'd say it's existing and already employed Maglev technology with a ridiculously expensive and hard to do near vacuum tunnel system. What makes people think that countries will be able to build entire subterranean or even non-subterranean vacuum tube systems when they can't even revamp way cheaper and way simpler stuff like roads or train tracks? 2. zero emissions. If you are going to need electricity and energy to create a near vacuum inside tubes, zero emissions is highly reliant on grid. Which, btw, is the same case for maglev train technology. I don't see anything in this tech that would make it more power efficient in comparison to other existing forms of transporation, so this claim is pretty much baseless. 3. comparisons to current US train systems, and outlandish false equivalences to the evolution of other types of technology. See, all of those pros could be achieved right now by just investing in and building up a bullet train system in the US. The problem is not that we don't have the technology, the problem is making government and private sector invest and actually build it. 4. this entire documentary still didn't answer the most common questions that comes around the idea itself, it's just the same tired bullshit that has already been fed since the start of this entire thing. How much it would cost, how secure it'd be, how accessible, how would it be funded, how it compares to existing similar technology. Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting area of study that could result in parallel discoveries, tech and ideas to improve other areas and whatnot. But this is the only thing I can see it being. Not a new form of transportation, not something that is even remotely close to being achieved, but something of a modern monorail thing. I don't want to sound that much of a bullet train fan, but I'm making the comparison due to proximity of tech and transportation ability. Here are the advantages I can imagine for maglev trains: it doesn't depend on near vacuum tubes or tunnels, but they probably could be used or adapted to use in such scenarios. They don't need to fit exact pod sizes, running in different car configurations, which lends flexibility to the system. They can, much like trains, be built progressively and in a more interconnected way, which seems to be something hard to do at least for the core hyperloop idea. You can have lots of stops in between major points because it doesn't have a pod that needs to be accelerated up to certain speeds to work efficiently. They already work and are in use right now, so it's not a theoretical thing. They are actually already considered "ground airplanes" or something in a similar tone, so you don't have to steal the moniker from another form of transportation. It's a technology that is still progressing and still breaking new records each year. The advantage for hyperloop - it can theoretically reach higher speeds at huge extra costs and a bunch of disadvantages. That's it. I'm talking about theoretical speeds, because that often repeated LA to San Francisco in 30 to 40 minutes? That's theoretical, an highly doubtful whenever and if Hyperloops ever happen. They didn't even manage to pull those sorts of speeds in reduced scale, ideal conditions testing grounds just yet. And complexity grows exponentially with this sort of thing. The longer the track and size of pod is, the more and more complex it becomes - to maintain a near vacuum, to have straight tracks and tunnels, to make the thing accelerate properly, to avoid accidents, to keep things in perfect shape, etc etc. So, I have to start speculating why this entire thing is being sold this way, as if they are gonna soon solve half a dozen unsolvable problems in just a decade or less. I think that people are afraid that if the idea of making a trip from x to y city in record time isn't put upfront, the funding and the support will run dry. People are less enthusiastic on putting money on research and development of technologies involved if it's not going to produce an actual thing. Same reason why they keep repeating Musk's name. Ellon Musk does not have a hyperloop company. He only conceptualized the idea. All companies working on developing it further than a napkin drawing are unrelated to Musk. Quite likely because he himself doesn't think it's technologically or economically feasible. The overpromisses are helping governments accept the idea, which for now is great, but could become a huge problem when it ends up not being delivered. Maglev train technology is proprietary, so they can't outright say they are replicating a whole ton of stuff from it without getting in legal hot grounds. My guess why it's never mentioned in Hyperloop documentaries, interviews and whatnot despite being the closest transporation technology to it. Perhaps it's also the only way they can keep investing, educating, researching and developing the stuff they are doing without stepping over proprietary technology's feets. Prove me wrong. I've made similar comments on several hyperloop related videos, articles and posts so far... until now, I've got nothing concrete in return. Just very weak Hyperloop fan retorts.
    1