The Hyperloop was always a scam
Hyperloop’s collapse is prompting renewed scrutiny of Elon Musk’s 2013 vacuum-tube transport concept, with many arguing it was physically and economically unworkable from the start and may have served mainly to undermine California’s high-speed rail project. Commenters debate whether Musk acted in bad faith to protect car-centric interests or merely floated an overhyped idea for publicity, contrasting the speculative Hyperloop with proven but politically troubled rail systems. The conversation broadens into the power of billionaires to steer public infrastructure priorities, the real cost and performance of modern rail and rockets, and why large transit projects succeed in some countries but stall in the US.
Hyperloop’s Purpose and Motives
- Many see Hyperloop as inherently infeasible and primarily a PR or political weapon, not a genuine transport project.
- One camp argues it was meant to delay or kill California high‑speed rail and broader public transit by dangling a “better, cheaper, futuristic” alternative that would never be built.
- Others say this is overblown: Musk published an open design, didn’t fund Hyperloop One, and likely wanted attention or to express frustration with an overpriced, underperforming rail plan rather than to run a grand conspiracy.
- A biographer’s early claim that Musk explicitly wanted to stop CA HSR is cited; later that biographer said this was being overinterpreted.
California High-Speed Rail and Politics
- Several comments stress the core problem is U.S. political dysfunction, permitting, and route mandates, not any tech from Silicon Valley.
- Disagreement over whether the mountain crossing is genuinely under‑planned or already covered in detailed engineering documents.
- Some argue the route and detours were always in law and that “hijacking” narratives misunderstand funding flows (e.g., HSR money also upgrading local transit).
- Others highlight vast cost overruns and delays as evidence of systemic failure.
Technical and Economic Feasibility of Hyperloop
- Multiple posters argue the original whitepaper’s numbers are unrealistic even on their own terms, especially capacity versus conventional rail.
- Key technical issues raised: maintaining partial vacuum, supersonic flow in tubes, safety, and huge tunnel/tube costs; prior similar concepts (e.g., SwissMetro) struggled.
- A minority suggests vactrains might make sense in the far future or for Mars, or in scaled‑down freight/package contexts, but most think conventional rail/air remain superior.
Musk’s Broader Credibility
- Strong split:
- One side sees a pattern of overpromising “revolutionary” ideas (Hyperloop, tunnels, Mars, full self‑driving, finance super‑app) mainly for publicity and stock valuation.
- Another emphasizes successful companies (Tesla, SpaceX, Starlink, earlier ventures) as evidence he’s not simply a con artist.
- Debate over whether he “built” Tesla vs joined after founding, and how much credit he deserves.
Public Transit vs Car Culture
- Extended subthread on whether public transit “sucks” versus cars.
- Non‑US commenters argue that in places with good networks (Europe, Japan, parts of UK), transit is often preferable and car supremacy is a policy choice.
- Others counter that many people genuinely prefer driving, especially with families, given door‑to‑door time, flexibility, and cost.
Reaction to the Article Itself
- Some find it a compelling, well‑argued piece tying Hyperloop to anti‑transit politics.
- Others dismiss it as low‑quality “Musk hate porn” with conspiratorial framing, weak sourcing on key cost claims, and misattribution of CA HSR’s problems to Musk.