Hacker News Reader

Comment by aclements18 | Hacker News Reader

Silicon Valley did fund some "hyperloops", look no further than Musk's other two big ideas (Space X & Tesla). Look for the few VCs that are non conventional thinkers themselves. The ones that discuss the distant future as though it is right around the corner or even happening now.

As an example watch any 10 minutes of this interview with Steve Jurvetson of DFJ. You'll see why he and Musk were a good fit: http://youtu.be/O2tK0Wl2F8w

View on HN

Those are not hyperloops. Both SpaceX and Tesla are built on decades of R&D and core science paid for mostly by taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.

This is not to take anything away from the "layer" that Musk added to this foundation. But hyperloop does not have the same foundation. There have been space missions and electric cars before; there hasn't been anything approaching a hyperloop at scale. So the investment risk is even greater.

I was going to compare it with the bullet train - but that apparently runs on standard gauge rails (just welded to the sleepers instead of bolted) - I swear they told us it was a levitated magnet in school...

So maybe you're right, the hypertube is very complicated compared to a pair of rails and an power supply cable.

Even standard HSR is a lot more complicated that that—you can't just put a bigger motor in a slow-speed train—but it certainly benefited from the large amount of commonality with lower-speed rail, and most of the higher-speed technology was developed over time, with real testing. [Note the first Shinkansen was a fair bit slower (~200km/h) than today's highest-speed models, and ramping up the speed from there occurred over many years.]

Japan is also building a real (long-distance, high-speed) maglev system. It's much more of a leap from standard rail than HSR was, but again, they're using technology which they actually have long-term real-world experience with.

Hyperloop, by contrast, doesn't even have a lab model. It's a diagram on a napkin, with some of the calculations worked out.

The press and the general public may not notice this distinction, but people investing large amounts of money most certainly will...

I think the point is that a "lab model" would be useless, since the problems change non-linearly at scale and speed... and computer simulations of fluid dynamics and physical systems are pretty good these days, since computers got so much faster (physicists add more and more complexity/realism to their modelling such that a simulation always takes ~3 days to run, however good their computer. Our computers are awesome now.)

Also, some parts of it are tested, e.g. the roller coaster magnetic thrusters/brakes.

I do understand the difference, but the point stands for all revolutionary, as opposed to incremental, technologies. We will need some, how do we fund them?

If SpaceX isn't a "hyperloop" project, then almost nothing would qualify. HP, Intel, Cisco, and other Silicon Valley giants -- the type of companies that the original post would probably point to in contrast to something like Snapchat -- benefited from decades of military and university research.

And if that's the case, that also suggests an answer to all of this. Spend more on basic R&D.

There's no contradiction. HP, Intel, etc. happened because they were built on a foundation of massive government investment in microprocessor tech during its early, super high risk phase, and then government procurement. Hyperloop isn't happening within the Silicon Valley model because it's core tech/infrastructure that does not have the government's interest, because our system is built around defense spending.

That's not to say the government couldn't fund it as a transportation infrastructure project, but that's not the Silicon Valley model, and the funding is much smaller and harder to come by than defense spending.

The problem isn't really just to spend "more" on R&D -- have you seen the defense budget? Hyperloop would be a blip. The problem is deeper.. it's that our system is not set up to funnel taxpayer funds into public services like this. IMHO for political reasons. Running it through the pretext of defense makes it harder for citizens to question how funds should be spent and who they should benefit.

We need political change to make sustainable public transport projects like this take priority. Just like we need it for education, social welfare, etc. It's easier to control people when you tell them the Russians/terrorists are coming so we have to take your money and fund defense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com