Comment by mbenjaminsmith | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbenjaminsmith | Hacker News Reader

You're assuming a few things here.

1. People would shy away from this new form of transportation. Why? People get on airplanes every day without thinking much about it. Ditto for driving 60+ mph a few feet from stationary obstacles and opposing traffic. Risk and transport seem to go hand in hand.

2. It would be cheaper to build an "unsafe for humans" version first. Why? If the ultimate goal is human transport then I think it's easy to argue the opposite. Why build a system with different design goals, different termination points, etc and then build a system with completely different goals.

3. Lowered road traffic. That might be true but at what scale would that kick in? Is that a worthwhile near/mid-term goal? What about the negative press generated by killing truck driving jobs?

You also have to look at the perceived value of the system, especially early on. If you put a link between two major cities and can significantly impact travel (from an individual perspective) between the two the PR will be fantastic. In comparison, how much freight are you going to have to move around before there's a noticeable impact? What would that impact even be? Shipping is one of those things that is invisible to most people unless it's not functioning properly.

Also don't forget that Elon is already tackling two modes of human transportation with a very high potential for blowback in the case of a fatal accident. I don't think he would shy away from it.

I could have been clearer in my original post. Let me clarify by addressing your points.

1. People get into planes and cars every day routinely because we have been using these technologies for decades. Any new technology that comes along will be held to much higher expectations of safety and quality than currently available modes of transport were at their inception. Understanding the risks and learning how to mitigate them to an acceptable level will take some time but we should be able to get some of the benefits of high speed transport earlier.

2. I'm not suggesting making an unsafe for humans version or a version with incompatible design goals. At some point on the path towards having a system that is acceptably safe for humans, there must be a system that is safe enough to send non-human cargo so why not take advantage of that? Having a real functional system would allow larger scale testing that could provide very useful feedback when trying to work out all the kinks before human passengers get on board.

3. Good point. I've got no idea of the scale of any impact on road usage that this would have. It may or may not be a compelling goal by itself, but as a side effect of implementing technology that is a necessary stepping stone to transporting people, it could at least be a nice bonus. Negative PR from job losses comes along with many disruptive technologies and is generally an area where there's lots of room for improvement.

Shipping may be invisible to most but people do notice the ease of access to goods, in their availability and price. The eventual possibility of cheaper same-day shipping over large distances sounds okay to me. This doesn't have the same direct impact to an individual as being able to travel that far or fast themselves but its a start. I might be going out on a limb here but it seems to me that having faster means of moving goods around at large scale should make much more efficient distribution of resources possible. That's something we can all benefit from.

I'd be disappointed if Elon did shy away from the goal of a new form of human transportation but no one has said that's what SpaceX are doing when they send unmanned capsules up to the ISS.

Replacing a rail freight line with a system that can potentially move physical goods at the scale of road freight at twice the speed of air freight, and doing it cheaply, could be Hyperloop's minimum viable product.

> People get on airplanes every day without thinking much about it.

I think you underestimate people's paranoia and what it has done to flying. Planes are the safest way to travel by far, yet there are safety instructions, passenger screenings, restrictions on luggage, etc.

You don't get this when getting on a train or bus, because people simply aren't as paranoid about it.

You are correct that reasonable people do not fear what is safe. Phobia rules the minds of the irrational. Many refuse to fly in a commercial jet in spite of the fact it is 1/15th the risk of driving in a car the same distance. 1/3 of Americans have never been in an aircraft of any kind, and another 1/3 fly less than 1 time per year. Americans fly more than most other nations, yet air travel in the us is only 7% of passenger miles. Others have phobia about being in a small enclosed space like a car, and even more people have unfounded fears of being in large vehicles like trains, planes and buses with hundreds of strangers, however the unreasoned fears do not prevent the success of our transportation modes (even relatively risky modes like bikes).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com