Hacker News Reader

Comment by sylvinus | Hacker News Reader

IMHO Musk (or anyone who follows up) should drop the "passenger" version and go with the "passenger plus vehicle" version only.

Because right now what people and the press are going to focus on is how small the cabins are, why there are no toilets, etc. On the other hand if you can imagine putting a car in there the claustrophobia argument disappears and you can think straight again...

View on HN

I disagree. The "passenger plus vehicle" option is definitely more complicated, and in the first version of any project you need to keep things as simple as possible. I mean, the system in question is as complex as it is. I think the "passenger plus vehicle" version is included only to make the case for the additional possible uses of the system.

Disagree completely. I'd ditch the vehicle option. If the earliest forecast is for this to be built in seven years, how much will the driving landscape change in that time? Robo-cars even? This is primarily for commuters who can walk/taxi/rent at the destination. Even travellers will do the same.

If you want to take your car, drive it IMO. When you fly, there is no expectation of taking your car along with you and this should be similar - focus on what we will need rather than on what a minority could fancy.

I agree to your point about taking your actual car. Loading cars inside would indeed complicate the system a lot.

What I tried to say was more about the psychological impact of imagining a car fit in the capsule, even if the same space is just taken by larger seats.

It would seem to make the stations a lot more complicated – they'd need to handle the car loading, the accompanying traffic, and the security would be really challenging.

Can we not be thinking about adding the inefficiency of the TSA to such a nice system? The security theatre needs to end.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com