Hyperloop One to shut down
Hyperloop One’s shutdown after years of hype revives skepticism about vacuum-tube transport and, by extension, Elon Musk’s Hyperloop concept itself. Commenters argue the underlying engineering and economics were flawed from the start, and some see the project as a deliberate distraction that helped delay or undermine conventional high-speed rail, especially in California. The thread broadens into a critique of U.S. infrastructure politics, comparing America’s costly, stalled rail efforts with more successful high-speed networks abroad and questioning why proven rail solutions keep losing out to futuristic but impractical ideas.
Technical feasibility of Hyperloop
- Several commenters argue the original concept (near-vacuum tube + air bearings) was physically or economically flawed.
- Air bearings are said to require either very tight tolerances or very high pressures, impractical for long tubes attached to the moving Earth.
- Many companies quietly switched to maglev, implying the original air-bearing idea didn’t work.
- Maintaining low pressure over long distances is seen as a major unsolved, high‑energy, high‑cost problem.
- Safety concerns raised: leaks, decompression, sabotage, vacuum energy release. Some think these are catastrophic; others think they are overstated and likely manageable compared to other showstopper costs.
- Overall sentiment: even if technically possible, Hyperloop is far more expensive and fragile than high‑speed rail for similar capacity.
Musk’s intent and impact
- Multiple comments cite claims that the Hyperloop proposal was meant to “disrupt” or delay California high‑speed rail, not to be built by its proposer.
- Others say this narrative is over-interpreted or based on secondhand reporting; primary sources are contested.
- Some see this as part of a pattern of overpromising tech (FSD, tunnels, rescue gadgets) that distorts public policy; others defend the “moonshot” mindset and credit successes in rockets and EVs.
High‑speed rail vs Hyperloop vs planes/cars
- Many argue we already have the needed technology: conventional high‑speed rail. Hyperloop is viewed as a distraction from proven solutions.
- US attempts at HSR (especially California) are criticized as massively over-budget and delayed, with blame placed on: state dysfunction, NIMBYism, permitting (NEPA/CEQA), land costs, and institutional inexperience.
- Comparisons to Europe/China highlight much lower per‑km costs abroad.
- Debate over intercity rail’s value in North America:
- Pro‑rail side emphasizes comfort, productivity, safety, emissions, and long‑term economics versus driving and short‑haul flights.
- Skeptics argue long distances, existing highways/air networks, car dependence, and low densities make many HSR projects uneconomic.
Tunneling and The Boring Company
- Some believe the real prerequisite for Hyperloop is radically cheaper tunneling; until that is solved, the concept is premature.
- Others say tunneling is a mature industry with few remaining cost breakthroughs, and Boring’s main “innovation” is smaller, non‑compliant tunnels lacking emergency egress.
- Boring Co still advertises “Hyperloop” concepts, but to date only low‑speed Tesla car tunnels exist; this fuels skepticism that meaningful progress is being made.
Broader transport and urbanism themes
- Extensive discussion of US car dependency, zoning, and the difficulty of retrofitting rail/bike infrastructure into low‑density suburbs.
- Some argue most future US transit must be built on or along existing roads; others highlight missed opportunities and sunk‑cost thinking.