Hardt Hyperloop: Pioneering the Future of Transportation

Is Hyperloop Dead?

Wondering if Hyperloop is dead or want to know recent facts about Hyperloop? It’s time for an exciting update! As we step into a new era of technological advancements, the way we travel is evolving. One company at the forefront of a transport revolution is Hardt Hyperloop, a Dutch start-up that is redefining the concept of convenience, speed and efficiency in transportation. Hardt Hyperloop is developing a super-fast tube transport network technology, a concept that will transform the way we commute in the future.

Recent Facts about hyperloop


Despite the economic challenges posed by rising interest rates and high inflation, Hardt Hyperloop has shown remarkable resilience. The company recently raised €12 million in growth capital from investors, demonstrating the confidence the market has in their innovative vision. This capital will be instrumental in their plans to open a test center in Veendam, Groningen next year.

Recent Developments

In the face of rising interest rates and high inflation, Hardt Hyperloop has demonstrated its resilience and strategic prowess. The company recently secured €12 million in growth capital from a mix of public and private investors. This successful capital raise is a testament to the confidence and trust that investors have in Hardt Hyperloop’s vision and capabilities.

These funds will play a crucial role in the company’s ambitious plans. One of the key projects on the horizon is the opening of a test center in Veendam, Groningen. This center is set to become a hub for innovation and development, bringing the company’s vision of a super-fast tube train closer to reality.

While other start-ups have faced financial difficulties, Hardt Hyperloop continues to forge ahead. The company’s ability to secure funding in a challenging economic climate sets it apart and underscores its potential to revolutionize transportation.

The Vision

Hardt Hyperloop is not just about creating a faster mode of transport; it’s about reimagining the future of transportation. The company envisions a world where distances become irrelevant, and travel is as efficient as it is fast. The hyperloop, a tube network capable of reaching speeds of up to 700 mph, is central to this vision. Higher speeds are possible with the current change in the design since Musk’s original idea of using low air pressure and fans has been scrapped.

But the company’s vision extends beyond speed. The hyperloop is designed to float on magnetic levitation (maglev), reducing friction and making the journey smoother and more comfortable for passengers. This floating pod inside the tube is not just a concept; it’s a step closer to reality with the planned opening of the test center in Veendam.

Hardt Hyperloop’s vision is a long-term one. The company hopes that by 2050, there will be a network of hyperloop tubes across Europe, connecting cities and countries with unprecedented speed and efficiency. As co-founder Tim Houter often says, “Luckily I’m still young.”

With the latest round of capital, the company believes it can continue its progress until the middle of next year. This confidence, coupled with the support of investors who understand the long-term nature of the project, keeps Hardt Hyperloop on track to realize its vision.

Challenges and Criticisms

Like any groundbreaking innovation, the hyperloop concept has faced its share of criticism. Critics have raised concerns about the cost and energy efficiency of the vacuum travel environment hyperloop tubes. There are also practical challenges associated with laying a hyperloop route, which must be straight through the landscape.

One persistent myth is that a hyperloop can only transport three loads per hour. However, Hardt Hyperloop’s co-founders, Tim Houter and Mars Geuze, have refuted this claim. According to Geuze, technically, a pod inside a tube (not a train) can shoot through the landscape every 10 to 15 seconds, significantly increasing its transport capacity.

This is allowed by an elegant switching mechanism that allows a travel pod to route and be switched along the travel pathway until it reaches it’s preset destination. Travel then becomes seamless from beginning to end with no stops, no traffic snarls, not changing at terminals or stations. Getting away from the “train” and terminal concept is the key game changer that makes Hyperloop transport technology so attractive and compelling.

Despite these criticisms and challenges, Houter and Geuze remain undeterred. They continue to passionately defend their dream project, providing well-reasoned responses to critics and demonstrating their unwavering commitment to making the Hyperloop a reality.

Future Plans

Hardt Hyperloop’s future plans are as ambitious as they are exciting. The company is eagerly looking forward to next spring when it can start using the test tube in Veendam. The European Hyperloop Center, located there, will not only serve Hardt Hyperloop but also offer space to other interested hyperloop companies, fostering a collaborative environment for innovation.

The test tube in Veendam is a critical component of Hardt Hyperloop’s plans. It will demonstrate the hyperloop’s ability to change lanes and float past a station, distinguishing it from traditional trains. This feature allows the hyperloop to stop less frequently than a train, increasing its efficiency.

Hardt Hyperloop is also in discussions with various parties for future hyperloop projects. One of the most concrete discussions is with Saudi Arabia, which is considering building a hyperloop at The Line, a futuristic city planned in the desert. While the Gulf states are potential markets, Hardt Hyperloop’s co-founders emphasize their European roots and their commitment to ensuring that Europe has the best transport system.

The European Commission has shown interest in the hyperloop concept and included it in its mobility vision for the future. This recognition gives Hardt Hyperloop hope for building the pilot route in the Netherlands, possibly in Rotterdam, their hometown. The city council of Rotterdam has already passed a motion in support of a hyperloop and is investigating how it can be integrated with the city’s existing public transport.


Hardt Hyperloop stands at the intersection of innovation and ambition, driving forward a vision that could redefine the future of transportation. Despite the challenges and criticisms, the company continues to make strides towards its goal, backed by a strong team, supportive investors, and a resilient spirit.

The company’s plans for the test center in Veendam and the ongoing discussions with various parties for future hyperloop projects underscore the progress being made. With the European Commission’s interest in the hyperloop concept and the support from the city council of Rotterdam, Hardt Hyperloop’s dream of a network of hyperloop tubes across Europe seems increasingly achievable.

As we look towards a future where distances become irrelevant and travel is as efficient as it is fast, Hardt Hyperloop is undoubtedly a company to watch. Its journey is a testament to the power of innovation and the potential of human ingenuity to create a better, more connected world.

Hardt Hyperloop Update Courtesy: fd.nl

Previous Article: Comparing Hyperloop and ET3 Efforts and The Tech Behind Each

A better Future for Travel: Comparing ET3 & Hyperloop One, Hardt Hyperloop, and Hyperloop TT


Introduction to Hyperloop Technology

What is Hyperloop?

Hyperloop is a proposed mode of passenger and freight transportation, first patented by ET3s Daryl Oster in 1999 as evacuated tube transportation technology – then later introduced by Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla, Inc in August 2013. It’s a sealed system of tubes through which a pod may travel free of air resistance or friction, conveying people or objects at high speed while being very efficient, thereby drastically reducing travel times.

The Concept and Working of Hyperloop

The concept of Hyperloop technology originally involved a low-pressure transit tube system in which pressurized capsules ride on an air cushion driven by linear induction motors and air compressors. It is designed to be a faster, cheaper, safer, and more sustainable alternative to other modes of transportation. It’s also energy agnostic and receives energy produced from any source. Although, the main idea and thrust is to utilize renewable – sustainable energy sources. Later designs have fallen in line with ET3 – using linear motors and maglev.

ET3 design takes it even further with a proposed design using a higher vacuum rate, meaning lower pressure than its counterparts. Lower pressure simply means lower resistance and with ET3, it’s a near-space environment, the oldest and most proven travel environment in the known universe. No company today is incorporating Musk’s pipe dream design incorporating compressors or air suspension technology. Those are all atmospheric – the very thing a tube transport system’s design is supposed to be eliminating.

ET3 Global Alliance

Overview of ET3:

ET3 Global Alliance, short for Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies, is an American company that has proposed a transportation system using car-sized cargo and passenger capsules traveling in evacuated tubes on frictionless magnetic levitation (maglev) at speeds up to 4000 mph. The company claims that ET3 could provide 50 times more transportation per kWh than electric cars or trains.

Technology and Innovation at ET3

ET3’s approach to transportation is unique. It combines the technologies of maglev trains and vacuum tubes to create a system that can theoretically reach speeds of up to 4,000 mph. The capsules are designed to carry six people or a similar amount of cargo, and the entire system is automated, reducing the potential for human error.

Hyperloop One (Virgin/Hyperloop One)

Overview of Hyperloop One

Hyperloop One, previously known as Virgin Hyperloop since Richard Branson’s Virgin Group invested in the company then exited, is an American transportation technology company that works on the high-speed technology concept called Hyperloop. The company successfully conducted a full-scale Hyperloop test in May 2017, reaching speeds of up to 240 mph.

Technology and Innovation at Hyperloop One

Virgin Hyperloop is pioneering the technology and the regulatory framework for the deployment of Hyperloop systems around the world. Their system uses linear accelerator electric propulsion to accelerate a passenger or cargo vehicle through a tube in a low-pressure environment. Autonomous vehicles levitate slightly above the track and glide at faster-than-airline speeds over long distances, due to ultra-low aerodynamic drag.

Hardt Hyperloop

Overview of Hardt Hyperloop

Hardt Hyperloop is a Dutch company that aims to develop the Hyperloop high-speed transportation system. Founded in 2016, Hardt Hyperloop emerged from the winning team of the SpaceX Hyperloop Pod Competition. The company is currently working on a European Hyperloop network, with a focus on integrating the system within the existing transportation modalities.

Technology and Innovation at Hardt Hyperloop

Hardt Hyperloop’s technology is based on the use of magnetic levitation in a low-pressure environment to achieve high speeds with low energy consumption. The company is also working on the development of lane-switching technology, which would allow the Hyperloop system to create a network of tubes, much like a highway system, rather than a point-to-point connection.

Hardt Hyperloop Update 7/21/2023

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (Hyperloop TT)

Overview of Hyperloop TT

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, also known as HyperloopTT, is an American research company that uses a crowd collaboration approach to develop a commercial transportation system based on the Hyperloop concept. The company was founded in 2013 and has made significant strides in developing the technology and infrastructure needed for a functional Hyperloop system. More recently, the company has struggled with what appears to be limited funding sources. The company was recently procured for its supposed so-called “valuable” patent portfolio.

Technology and Innovation at Hyperloop TT

HyperloopTT is known for its unique approach to innovation, leveraging a global team of contributors working in exchange for future equity. The company’s technology includes a passive magnetic levitation system called Inductrack, which uses permanent magnets to achieve levitation, reducing the need for power and increasing safety. HyperloopTT is also developing a full-scale passenger capsule and has signed agreements for feasibility studies and potential Hyperloop systems in several countries around the world.

The obvious drawback to the Hyperloop TT design would be its sheer size. Original concepts, artwork and designs suggest the company plans to move cargo as large as 40′ shipping containers. There’s much to consider with this approach as the size of tubes and infrastructure required to support such a network are astronomical and unfeasible. Hyperloop TT will never fly when a train can perform the same task with a similar cost – and trains for freight are already in place and function well.

Comparing ET3, Hyperloop One, Hardt Hyperloop, and Hyperloop TT

Speed and Efficiency

All four companies aim to drastically reduce travel times compared to current modes of transportation. ET3 stands out with a proposed top speed of 6500 km/h or 4000 mph, while Hyperloop One, Hardt Hyperloop, and Hyperloop TT aim for speeds around 1200 km/h. In terms of efficiency, all companies use magnetic levitation, which reduces friction and energy consumption.

ET3 extends efficiency even further and is able to achieve higher speed: creating a lower vacuum state – more like space. The lower vacuum environment allows ET3 capsules to glide along the travel path on the frictionless maglev using no additional energy after a capsule has accelerated. In addition, ET3 uses less energy than its Hyperloop counterparts – when capsules reach their desired destination, 90% of the energy used to accelerate is recaptured.

Until recently, ET3 was the only design that would integrate switching into the tube network, but now, both Hardt and Hyperloop One have adopted and are planning as well.

Safety Measures

Safety is a top priority for all four companies. They all propose using low-pressure tubes to reduce air resistance and potential damage from external conditions. The use of magnetic levitation also eliminates many of the risks associated with mechanical parts. HyperloopTT has additionally developed a proprietary passive magnetic levitation system called Inductrack, which they claim increases safety.

ET3 approach to maglev is HTSM or High Temperature Superconductor Magnets – maglev is recharged before the beginning of each travel and no additional energy is required until the capsule reaches its final destination.

Cost and Feasibility

The cost of building a Hyperloop system is high, but the exact amount varies depending on the specific route, terrain, and other factors. All four companies are working on feasibility studies and partnerships with governments and other organizations to make their visions a reality. HyperloopTT and Hardt Hyperloop have made significant progress in Europe, while Hyperloop One has conducted successful tests in the United States.

Although it’s extremely difficult to estimate construction costs, especially with something so new and untried like tube transportation systems; Daryl Oster – whose first patents for ET3 were awarded in 1999, estimates a backbone network beginning in New York and ending in London via the Bering Strait – Suggests an approximate cost of $2Trillion USD as of 2021.

Oster, also eludes that size matters significantly when constructing a tube network and that larger concepts proposed by Hyperloop designs will cost significantly more to build. In addition, the higher tube enviroment pressure precludes Hyperloop designs to the 5X lower speeds than ET3, not to mention, lowers efficiency as energy is constantly required to move capsules along due to added resistance of slight atmospheric conditions.


The Hyperloop concept represents a significant leap forward in transportation technology. While ET3, Hyperloop One, Hardt Hyperloop, and Hyperloop TT each have their unique approaches and innovations, they all share a common goal: to revolutionize the way we travel. As these companies continue to develop and refine their technologies, the dream of high-speed, efficient, and sustainable travel is becoming closer to reality.

When it comes to regional and intercity travel, Hyperloop will be a winner no doubt with its estimated top speed exceeding 600 mph. ET3 claims their 4000 mph design would reduce to as low as 350 mph for local travel but the design would theoretically allow the higher end assuming the travel path was straight enough. All the designs are subject to physical forces created through curves, climbs, and descent and would have to adjust capsule speed accordingly.


Note: The term “Hyperloop” is applied as defining tube transportation which also includes ET3.

    1. What is the Hyperloop?
      The Hyperloop is a proposed mode of transportation that involves a sealed system of tubes through which a pod may travel free of air resistance or friction, conveying people or objects at high speed.

    1. How fast can a Hyperloop go?
      The proposed speeds vary by company, but they range from around 1200 km/h for Hyperloop One, Hardt Hyperloop, and Hyperloop TT, to up to 6500 km/h for ET3. For perspective, using switched tube network, capsules travel from origination point to destination seamlessly without stopping, you get in the capsule, it enters the lock where atmosphere is evacuated while you program your destination. The capsule moves into the network, then accelerates at 1 g force until reaching 4000 mph then merges into the flow of tube traffic. You’re on your way to Tokyo and will arrive in less than an hour and a half. Is that convenient and fast enough? No terminals, no transfers, no waiting… just get in and go.

    1. Is Hyperloop travel safe?
      Safety is a top priority for all Hyperloop companies. They propose using low-pressure tubes to reduce air resistance and potential damage from external conditions, and magnetic levitation to eliminate many of the risks associated with mechanical parts. Also, by creating a travel path that’s completely controlled, all the designs eliminate any possibility of that pathway being disrupted or obstructed.

    1. How much does it cost to build a Hyperloop?
      The cost varies depending on the specific route, terrain, and other factors. All four companies are working on feasibility studies and partnerships to make their visions a reality. (See the above ET3 estimate.)

    1. When will the Hyperloop be available?
      It’s hard to say exactly when the Hyperloop will be available for public use, as it depends on many factors including technological developments, regulatory approvals, and construction timelines. However, all four companies are making significant progress in developing the necessary technology and infrastructure.

Also of note: ET3 has had a significant head start over its Hyperloop counterparts and as a result, has been ready for the next phases before Elon Musk ever thought about Hyperloop. In fact, he invited Daryl Oster and the ET3 group to Space-X in the summer of 2013 before releasing his Hyperloop Alpha document and announcing the idea via most major news networks. At that time, the technical folks at Space-X who design the rockets and such suggested to Elon that ET3 is a far more advanced and elegant design than his original Hyperloop idea. They suggested he write a check to ET3 then and there to fund the ET3 effort.

To date, The Hyperloop One/Virgin effort being the first to build and test an evacuated tube environment project – abandoned most of the Hyperloop Alpha concept leaving a tube, capsule with the redesign looking a lot more like ET3. Unfortnately, that effort to date cost investors and the rest of us 10 years to date and over $200 Million USD. Somebody needs to ask why. Today, we could have been and should already be building out these networks and the $200 Million would have gone a long way toward that effort.

It’s an important question to ask ourselves – how do we want to travel in the future? Do we want it to cost like bus fare, but get you there in record time and convenience? When listening to people like Musk, it becomes clear that Hyperloop was never an effort he was going to pursue, but instead, looking at the Hyperloop Alpha document, it becomes clear that his mind’s dreams were always going to be in the skies flying in rockets and fast planes. For him, Hyperloop was a means of sandbagging efforts already underway that would undermine his dreams of flying. 

Further yet, it’s still amazing that there’s mention trains, vac trains, hsr or high speed rail and such in the same breath while speaking about Hyperloop technology. Ironically as well, it’s also interesting to note that Hyperloop was always intended to be a subsonic travel technology – not hypersonic as its name tries to convey. The only known design that’s hypersonic potential is ET3.

PDF Hyperloop Facts (Click Here)

Hyperloop TT Is Too Big: Does Size Really Matter?

In the realm of futuristic transportation, the concept of the Hyperloop has stirred a revolution, promising a paradigm shift in how we view and experience travel. The brainchild of entrepreneur Elon Musk, the Hyperloop is more than just a high-speed transit system – it is a vision of a world where distance and time no longer pose barriers to human connectivity and economic growth. Yet, as we delve deeper into this world of near-supersonic speeds and cutting-edge technology, an essential question emerges: What should the Hyperloop’s vehicles, or ‘capsules’, look like?

This article embarks on a journey through the evolving landscape of Hyperloop design, focusing on the size and structure of these capsules. We will explore how different companies have interpreted and expanded upon Musk’s initial concept, as we delve into the approaches of Hyperloop One, Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies (ET3), and Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HyperloopTT).

Along the way, we will make a compelling case for a future where Hyperloop capsules are small and packet-like, marking a departure from the conventional notion of large passenger vehicles. Strap in as we accelerate into the future of transportation.

The Original Hyperloop Concept: A Leap Toward Subsonic Tube Travel

While Elon Musk popularized the term “Hyperloop,” it’s essential to note that the initial conceptual groundwork for tube transportation was laid by Daryl Oster. His visionary idea of transporting passengers and goods in tubes at remarkable speeds sparked the imaginations of engineers and entrepreneurs worldwide.

Elon Musk’s Hyperloop concept, as detailed in his 2013 alpha-design white paper, was a bold step forward in this field. It envisioned a high-speed transit system where passengers or cargo would be transported in capsules or “pods.” These pods would travel through low-pressure tubes, propelled with linear electric motors while levitated via onboard fans. The design aimed to achieve silent, turbulence-free travel at speeds of up to 760 mph, making it a subsonic mode of transportation. The original Alpha design required a low pressure environment, not a vacuum.

Musk’s capsules were envisaged to be large, aiming to accommodate about 28 passengers at a time, much like a traditional train or subway car. However, the large capsule design has sparked a debate. Would it be more efficient and cost-effective to build smaller, packet-like capsules? Hyperloop One and other efforts have come to that conclusion.

When we consider the Hyperloop’s ambitious speed and efficiency targets, smaller capsules emerge as an intriguing proposition. The smaller the capsules, the lower the infrastructure costs, as less material would be required for tube construction. Furthermore, smaller capsules could potentially reduce the energy needed for propulsion and increase the system’s overall efficiency.

As we turn to the adaptations and iterations of Musk’s original Hyperloop concept, we see a fascinating diversity in capsule design and strategy. Let’s take a closer look at how companies like Hyperloop One, ET3, and HyperloopTT have interpreted and expanded upon the original vision for tube transportation.

Hyperloop One: From Passenger Travel to Freight

Among the various companies striving to make tube travel a reality, Hyperloop One, known from 2017 to 2022 as Virgin Hyperloop, has emerged as a significant player. Founded in 2014, this American transportation technology company has committed itself to the commercialization of the Hyperloop concept, though not without making some notable changes to the original vision.

Hyperloop One’s technical adaptations have led to a variation of the vacuum train concept. They have managed to design systems intended to move cargo at speeds comparable to airlines, but at a fraction of the cost. These systems operate with capsules suspended by magnetic systems in vacuum tubes, embodying Musk’s original concept of air-bearing levitated pods but with some strategic shifts.

A pivotal change was Hyperloop One’s decision to transition its focus from passenger travel to freight. This strategic shift was accompanied by a reconsideration of the size and design of their capsules. While passenger capsules would need to be large enough to accommodate humans comfortably, cargo capsules could be smaller and more akin to packets. This shift towards smaller, packet-like capsules has the potential to enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the system significantly.

However, the journey towards commercial operations, which Hyperloop One aims to launch by 2030, has not been without its challenges. After more than 400 uncrewed tests and the first human trial conducted at a speed of 107 mph, the company decided to abandon plans for human-rated travel in February 2022. The decision led to a significant reduction in workforce and a reversion to the company’s original name, Hyperloop One, after parting ways with the Virgin branding. Despite these hurdles, Hyperloop One’s journey underscores the evolving nature of Hyperloop technology and the importance of flexibility and innovation in realizing this ambitious concept.

HyperloopTT – Transportation Technologies: Size Matters

Another noteworthy player in the Hyperloop saga is Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HyperloopTT). This company has embraced the original Hyperloop vision, but it’s their approach to capsule design that merits our attention, particularly in the context of our discussion on capsule size.

#HyperloopTT’s Massive Capsule Requires a 13′ diameter tube. 

HyperloopTT has proposed large passenger capsules that seem to align with the original vision of Musk. Their designs showcase spacious capsules that prioritize passenger comfort and seek to provide an immersive travel experience. However, these larger capsules, while attractive in their passenger-centric design, come with a set of challenges that warrant further exploration.

The larger the capsule, the larger the tube needs to be to accommodate it. This requirement could lead to significant increases in infrastructure costs due to the increased materials needed for tube construction. Additionally, larger capsules could potentially consume more energy for propulsion, impacting the system’s overall efficiency.

This raises the question: While large capsules may offer an enhanced passenger experience, are they the most efficient and cost-effective solution for the Hyperloop system? As we look to the future of Hyperloop technology, the importance of balancing passenger comfort with system efficiency and affordability becomes increasingly apparent. This delicate balance forms the crux of the debate on capsule size, and it’s here that we see the case for smaller, packet-like capsules gain strength.

ET3: Hypersonic Speeds and the Case for Smaller Capsules

When discussing the evolution of tube transportation and the debate around capsule size, it is crucial to mention Evacuated Tube Transport Technologies (ET3). Founded by Daryl Oster, who we’ve acknowledged as the original brainchild behind the concept of tube transportation, ET3 has been a significant force in advocating for smaller, packet-like capsules.

ET3’s vision diverges significantly from the large capsule design proposed by companies like HyperloopTT. The company’s design involves small capsules, capable of carrying up to six people or an equivalent amount of cargo. These smaller capsules are designed to travel in tubes with a significantly smaller diameter than those proposed for larger capsules. This design choice aligns with the principle we’ve been exploring – smaller capsules could lead to more cost-effective infrastructure due to the reduced size of the tubes.

But the innovation of ET3 doesn’t stop with capsule size. The company has also pushed the boundaries of speed. While Hyperloop concepts are subsonic, aiming for speeds around 760 mph, ET3 envisions a hypersonic model with an estimated top speed of 4000 mph. This leap in speed is another domain where the smaller capsule design of ET3 could have an advantage – smaller capsules could potentially manage high speeds more effectively.

By embodying the principles of smaller, packet-like capsules and hypersonic speeds, ET3 illuminates a path that others in the field, such as Hyperloop One, have begun to follow. It demonstrates that the original concept, as conceived by Oster, remains a guiding force in the evolution of tube transportation technology. Hyperloop One’s latest vision also includes ET3 capsule and tube switched network for seamless travel from beginning to end. Switching and smaller – hypersonic speed capsules are the real game changer when considering intercontinental travel. How quickly can you get from San Francisco to Tokyo at 4000 Mph? Think about it…

In conclusion, while the journey towards operational tube transportation systems is still ongoing, the discourse around capsule size is an essential facet of these technological advances. The strategic choices made by companies like Hyperloop One, HyperloopTT, and ET3 will significantly influence the future of tube transportation. Whether the industry will lean towards larger, passenger-centric capsules or smaller, packet-like capsules remains to be seen. However, the smaller capsule design, as initially proposed by ET3 and now followed by others, presents compelling advantages that cannot be ignored.

The Future of Tube Transportation: A Shift Towards Smaller Capsules?

As we look forward to the future of tube transportation, we can’t ignore the potential shift towards smaller, packet-like capsules as popularized by ET3 and now also adopted by Hyperloop One. This shift could revolutionize the industry, paving the way for a more cost-effective and efficient approach to high-speed tube transport.

The implications of this shift are profound. For one, the adoption of smaller capsules could reduce construction costs dramatically due to the decreased size of the tubes. This could make tube transportation an even more attractive alternative for mass transit, increasing its viability and potential for widespread adoption.

Moreover, smaller capsules could also enhance the system’s efficiency. By reducing the energy requirements for propulsion and the infrastructure necessary for larger capsules, smaller capsules could make tube transportation more sustainable in the long run. This would align with global efforts to reduce carbon emissions and promote green transportation solutions.

However, challenges remain. Ensuring passenger comfort in smaller capsules is one significant hurdle. Reconciling the need for efficiency with the requirement for a comfortable passenger experience will be a critical balancing act for companies in the tube transportation industry. That said, the innovations and technological advances we’ve seen so far give us reason to be optimistic.

In conclusion, while there are still many unknowns in the world of tube transportation, one thing is clear: the debate around capsule size will continue to shape the future of this industry. Whether we’ll see a world where smaller capsules dominate the Hyperloop system or a blend of small and large capsule designs, the discourse around capsule size, as spearheaded by companies like ET3, Hyperloop One, and HyperloopTT, will undoubtedly continue to be a key driver of innovation in this space.

Conclusion: The Capsule Size Debate Continues

In the realm of tube transportation, the debate on capsule size continues to be a driving force for innovation. The original concept of smaller, packet-like capsules, introduced by Daryl Oster and ET3, has provided a compelling alternative to the larger capsules proposed by companies like HyperloopTT. Companies like Hyperloop One have since adopted this concept, showcasing the potential benefits of smaller capsules, such as lower construction costs and improved efficiency.

However, the larger capsule design isn’t without its merits. It offers increased capacity, which could be a significant advantage for mass transit systems, and a potentially more comfortable experience for passengers. The challenge for companies pursuing this design will be to reduce costs and increase efficiency while maintaining these benefits.

It’s clear that the choice of capsule size isn’t just a technical decision—it’s a strategic one that reflects each company’s vision for the future of tube transportation. Will we see a one-size-fits-all approach, or will the industry diversify, with different companies specializing in different capsule sizes? The answer will undoubtedly shape the future of high-speed tube transport.

As we continue to monitor the evolution of this exciting field, we can look forward to new technological breakthroughs, innovative design solutions, and, most importantly, the continued push towards making tube transportation a reality. Regardless of the outcome of the capsule size debate, one thing is clear: the quest for efficient, high-speed tube transportation continues, driven by the innovative spirit of companies like ET3, Hyperloop One, and HyperloopTT. The journey may be long, but the destination—a world connected by high-speed tube transport—promises to be well worth the wait. Similar article

The Fallacy of the Hyperloop TT vision

When a Project Lacks Proper Due Diligence and Sound Vision:

The big idea behind an effective HET3 – ET3-Hyperloop design is to create something new, something innovative and highly effective… something much faster, safer and substancially more convenient.

Today, air travel is the best thing we have to move people and ship things around our globe at the highest speed… but, planes have to move through the atmosphere – we’re still moving at sub-sonic speed. The promise of the future is traveling in a space environment within an evacuated tube that will go beyond supersonic allowing hypersonic travel on earth. This is and should be our future…

In contrast, air travel – not to mention, the entire system of terminals where planes have to gate for boarding and un-boarding is outdated. In addition, air travel for passengers has become bogged down so much that getting from point A to B takes a lot longer while more stops are added along the travel path that requires more boarding and un-boarding – passengers have to do all that switching between gates then wait during long layovers for their next flight where they’ll board once again. These measures have been implemented in order to extract greater profits toward sustainable airline businesses.

A tedious and outdated system that wastes a lot of valuable time. Also, air for moving freight is inefficient due to high cost, not to mention the carbon footprint effect. But it is the most convenient at this time for getting smaller shipments from point A to B in the most time-efficient manner.

Ground transport in some respects is a different story. Today, for freight, we use rail technology to move larger loads with greater efficiency.

Continue here from LinkedIn article: There’s a reason Berkshire Hathaway has invested heavily in railroads, because they still work and, they continue being a foundational workhorse. On the passenger – rail transport side though, there’s still the element of changing lines at designated terminals where we switch from one line to another that eventually gets us to our desired destination.

The only thing that’s changed most over time is rail’s propulsion technology from steam to electric and diesel. Only problem with rail transport is the slowness. Same goes for maritime shipping. Did you know that maritime shipping is even more energy efficient than rail and that canal barge beats all?  Good stuff for heavy load lifting for sure as long as you can plan ahead and have the time to wait. Weather also plays a potential disruptive factor.

There have been some advancements in the rail transport arena though. For example – the use of magnetic levitation for high speed passenger trains increases efficiency via friction reduction. Currently, there are 5 high-speed maglev rail systems in Japan, China and South Korea that use linear electric motors for propulsion.

All of these still move through the atmosphere though. There’s been a lot of talk regarding trains moving into evacuated environments or Vactrains. But the idea, like a whale-sized Hyperloop such as Hyperloop TTs concept is completely impractical and cost-ineffective. The infrastructure needed to support such systems requires far too much material to construct.

To date, the companies that have created the latest rail tech with the objective of increasing speed and efficiency are always looking to improve those elements further. Also, there’s consideration for using alternative power sources and hybrid designs. But reality suggests any further advancements will only extract slight incremental gains. Although it can be pleasurable to travel by train as a passenger, it’s too unsustainable a method that can’t serve near enough people en masse.

The issue is the sheer mass of the infrastructure required to carry the weight of the transport vehicle combined with the load it carries. With rail – this element hasn’t changed since its inception. In addition, moving rail cars carrying freight at any higher speeds will most likely increase accidents. This is what draws attention to the Hyperloop TT concept, mass and weight. It already takes the average freight train moving at 55 Mph one mile to stop. Accidents continue to happen. The original idea presented by Elon Musk wasn’t about a Hyperloop train. More like a bus it seems.

One note for consideration regarding market encroachment concerns of both rail and maritime entities – when it comes to a potential/perceived threat of ET3-Hyperloop tech facilitating their displacement. If current air freight or trucking methods aren’t a concern, then why would a tube transportation solution become any more of a threat? The larger bread and butter heavy loads will still remain on ships and trains as they should.

Our focus subject today is Hyperloop TT (H-TT). Specifically, the focus is on the extremely large size of H-TT’s Hyperloop train like capsules and the very large tubes they would need to move through. Rather than focus on the extreme infrastructure cost of design and buildout, let’s focus on the simple fact that there’s another way to move things around that would normally go inside containers or rail cars. (Forbes Hyperloop Article image and link)

H-TT’s vision is to move large containers inside their massive capsules as a method of moving large shipments from point A to B. It’s important to acknowledge and understand that any tube transport project shouldn’t be designed and built to accommodate outdated shipping and logistics methods. The point is, we’ve already got enough well developed technologies to accommodate those large loads. Trains for the longer leg and trucks for last mile.

Why would anyone want to build an elaborate network of tubes, then move entire containers full of goods inside of them? Is it possible that there’s another way and approach that’s far more efficient and convenient that automates much of the shipping and logistics that are still being used today via trains, trucks, and delivery vans?

The greater question would have to be: what’s a better way that improves shipping and logistics on all levels?

As mentioned, we already have a well-developed shipping and logistics system in place. What technology could be applied in a way that would improve upon the current models? How could an ET3-Hyperloop design using mag lev and electric linear propulsion inside a vacuum improve the scenario in myriad ways that help achieve sustainability goals and objectives – while getting some of the smaller packetized loads to their respective destinations efficiently and cost-effectively?

What design would work best and why? Why would Hyperloop TT’s massive train sized capsule be a misguided approach that will be a costly mistake? This isn’t a pick on H-TT day, it’s just a reality check on vision gone askew that’s not based on reality and our needs going forward. The vision only reflects what we already do today with the added element of moving similar activities inside a vacuum environment. Not necessary for larger payloads.

The answer lies within a smaller design such as ET3’s use of inexpensive maglev tech and linear electric motors to accelerate small pod capsules in a vacuum environment. This idea isn’t new though… Daryl Oster, the inventor of ET3 has been dreaming of the idea and has been at this since childhood. The vacuum environment idea came about while wind tunnel testing at Walla Walla University in the U.S. state of Washington.

The first patent was awarded to ET3 by the USPTO in 1999. That’s 14 years before the Hyperloop-Alpha document was released and about 16 from the time of filing. It’s fair to say that Daryl has spent a lot of time conceiving and developing what appears to be a superior concept in so many ways. So much so that to date, both Virgin Hyperloop One and Hardt are beginning to present ideas that mirror the basic concepts of ET3. Virgin’s efforts have been exhilarating to witness and learn about… and have a development cost to the tune of over $200M USD to date.

That money was spent – first to attempt to prove out, then disprove the Alpha document Hyperloop design idea/concept. Then begin the process of designing and developing a much more efficient and elegant maglev linear motor system that supports a pod in a vacuum state. A move in the right direction at least and more like ET3.

Those are some of the elements of ET3. So much time and money have been wasted. So… getting back to the importance and place tube transport tech will serve and complement existing tech, we’ll now focus on how it will do that and what it can bring to the table. Most importantly, how it will perform transport of freight and people far more efficiently and intelligently.

It’s no secret that automation, AI, autonomous vehicles, and such are in the news every day. We’re absolutely moving in that general direction and things are only going to move that way more quickly as time moves forward. This is where technologies like ET3 shine due to the foundational nature of how the system has been designed to function.

ET3 for example uses smaller size pods that would resemble a small van in cargo space to give an idea of size, say carry up to 3 pallets of cargo. Alternatively, think of a small SUV that can carry up to 6 passengers for that side of things. It also uses automation intelligence for routing capsules.

Either way, the cargo capacity will be at 800-900 Lbs per capsule. The method of routing these pods through the network of tubes allows each pod can be addressed for a set destination. Once addressed, the pod begins its travel path – switching along the way until it exits at the final destination where it slows down with energy-recapturing technology. (reverse linear electric effect) ET3 estimates the maximum pod speed could reach 4000 Mph.

The advantages of shipping smaller loads (think packetized like internet packets) via pod will be extreme efficiency. Greater speed, and smaller loads will allow separate pods to be sent to various destinations that get product close to final delivery at 90% efficiency. From there, trucking – container-sized shipments or smaller vans can move things shorter distances to their final destination. This approach will save energy, reduce CO2 and lower cost of delivery significantly.

The idea of moving large containers through tubes doesn’t make sense when shipments of product can be sent from various global destinations in smaller packetized pods where those shipments can then be aggregated at the last mile delivery location to then be trucked.

The correct design will change the entire shipping logistics equation that everything needs to be consolidated earlier in the process, then sorted at facilities along the way until things get where they need to be. That process takes a lot of time and energy and the cost is significant. Not to mention, the carbon footprint aspect. Due to the high efficiency rate, maintaining inventories in more real time sustainably will be possible with smaller shipments.

If we’re going to introduce a new 5th mode transport technology, then why not think it through with a vision that’s in line with the potential 5th mode promises with the elements of speed, efficiency, and automation add to the mix?

Hyperloop – TT fails at this in every way. They need to go back to the drawing board or consult the people who are already light years ahead of everyone on this concept and have the patents to prove it. Otherwise, their currently active competition is already moving toward smaller pods and tube network infrastructure.

The first call they should be making is to Daryl Oster and ET3 before wasting more time or another dime of investors’ money. Also considering the long term effect of not addressing carbon-releasing activities sooner due to time wasted in ignorance. To date, the Hyperloop TT efforts – any IP that’s been generated has recently been sold off. I’d be curious to learn what those patents are and what value they could bring to the entire effort? Also hoping for the sake of those investors that the patents aren’t specific to the larger design ideas planned by the original H-TT effort.

The biggest issue that’s sandbagged this entire effort of all the players engaged to date, deals with the misleading concept and vision presented by the core design aspect in the Hyperloop-Alpha document. The core promise presented there that I believe got everyone’s attention was the element of open source. Immediately, we as humans seem to go to free as in royalty-free use. I believe that’s been a huge mistake that every Hyperloop project should step back for a moment to consider the broader landscape. Spending >$200 million for R&D to discover what others already know doesn’t indicate much effort toward the importance of due diligence. How much more time and money will be spent as a way of reinventing a wheel that’s already been invented?

Every effort that’s been launched to date has taken and run with Elon Musk’s vision of what a tube transportation system should look and function like… while glancing over his statement regarding ET3 without having a speck of curiosity about what the company is and what they’ve accomplished in terms of concept and vision.

Business and investments in new ideas and ventures typically require deep and well-thought-out due diligence – why has everyone skipped this most critical step while considering such a venture?

How to travel hypersonic safely, Hyperloop space travel does

Hyperloop suggests hypersonic travel, but in reality, the very name is a diversion away from ET3’s near-vacuum environment version that’s a hypersonic Hyperloop. Hyperloop’s initial design intent was always limited to supersonic status.

ET3 and the latest Hyperloop developments agree that using fans and air hockey bearings is a dead-bad idea… and what about the “rail gun” thing? All disproven and dropped from any serious effort that’s gotten significant traction to date – not to mention using larger bus-like capsules and the idea that it’s a hyperloop train.

In order to move at hypersonic speed – like 4000 Mph, no trains & smaller capsules. Hyperloop One is leading things as there’s talk of smaller capsules and pod caravans that will switch tubes automatically to reach respective destinations. Think Internet for people and things.

Using a low-pressure atmosphere travel path and fans to thrust a hyperloop pod along the route, Elon’s idea simply sandbags the greater potential of vacuum environment travel – it’s essentially a highjacking of a much greater idea that preceded it called ET3 – Evacuated Tube Transportation Technology. So…

Let’s call it HyperloopET3 (HET3) because ET3 at hypersonic 4000 Mph potential doesn’t need to excuse a 750 Mph limitation because of a flawed, inferior design. Atmosphere in the tubes creates drag – a throwback design to the dark ages. Today’s Hyperloop and ET3 go way beyond that and Elon’s original Hyperloop-Alpha presentation.

We”ve heard him explaining away – why Hyperloop can’t exceed the 750 Mph mark, but do we know and understand why? Right before the 57-page Hyperloop-Alpha document appeared on Tesla and Space-X websites, Elon had a visit from Daryl Oster and ET3 principles who weren’t for lack of brilliant ideas, but lacked the funding and authentication to thrust tube transport tech into the spotlight.

Musk’s document did one thing for sure – it thrust HET3 smack into the limelight where it needed to be. We can be thankful for that.

Elon’s top tech talent at Space-X heard Daryl Oster of ET3 present a well-thought-out design that was light years ahead of Elon’s idea… yet, Mr. Musk failed to write a check that would have made history and accelerated the progress of Hyperloop-ET3 technology by 10 years… instead, companies like Virgin Hyperloop-Hyperloop One spent a great deal of time and money discovering what Elon already knew.

That a hypersonic transport system would work best using capsules, magnetic levitation and linear accelerator motors in a near vacuum – space-like environment. Musk knew because his best people had already told him that ET3 was far more elegant and advanced than his speed-diluted 20th century Hyperloop idea. It’s safe to say that most of the Hyperloop efforts have moved on to 21st-century-worthy ideas – thank goodness.

The good news though, despite Elon’s efforts to slow things down – companies such as Hyperloop One have figured it out and are now employing many of the original ideas patented by ET3 as far back as 1999. In addition, by posting and promoting the general idea of traveling in tubes as opposed to riding on rails – has put the entire concept into the spotlight.

For example, when the Hyperloop-Alpha document was first released to the media, that same media was clueless and had nowhere to go but speak with Daryl Oster and Nick Garzilli. Both were on most of the major talking head forums that evening – why? Because there was no one else who could speak intelligently about the topic. The concept was far too new to a surprised and uneducated media not built to address dramatic shifts.

Unfortunately for all the funded efforts to date that have plowed hundreds of $millions in R&D efforts toward the original Hyperloop idea – that’s money and time lost while we continue to wait for Hyperloop’s promiss. It’s nearly 10 years on and the best ideas are beginning to finally take form.

The best example to date with an actual working model is Hyperloop One (Virgin Hyperloop effort). It’s going to be interesting to see the reactions of those efforts when they figure out that Hyperloop’s original concept was more an effort to hijack any real potential. But hey, maybe they just had to learn the hard way? It’s been difficult to watch the hard-knock schooling while knowing we could be so much further ahead by now.

The obvious reason for his textbook magic misdirection is revealed in the beginning of the Alpha document. There it becomes crystal clear that Elon acknowledged ET3 while using psychology that diverted any interest away from that effort. Secondly, within the document, he suggests that flying supersonic planes into space, then landing on the far side of the planet – would be a more economical and better approach. How? You’re still going to have to deal with terminals, layovers, boarding, un-boarding – basically, you’ll have to perform your own gate switching. Not to mention the energy factor and cost.

That suggestion alone tells a lot if you read between the lines. It presents Hyperloop as a slowed down version that can’t compete with his dreams of faster airplanes. By diverting any attention away from ET3’s better approach via labeling it a “failed effort”, that never went anywhere, he effectively manipulated attention to his own idea. Yet, it’s looking like ET3s ideas haven’t failed at all as momentum suggests efforts are embracing the company’s 21st century ideas.

Let’s step back and take a look, put on our thinking caps for a moment to see why this diversionary tactic also contains a flawed set of assumptions…

  • First – the presented assumption of the 750 Mph limit is based on a flawed pneumatic design scheme. Pneumatic means there’s still atmosphere in the tube travel pathways. Movement is subject to aerodynamic effects.
  • Second – atmosphere is just that… air, whether it’s lower density created by a partial vacuum – some air still remains that keeps the entire design in an aerodynamic state. This is where the limit is created – by design.
  • Third – Musk knew of the ET3 design before finishing the Hyperloop-Alpha document – he was aware of the idea of using maglev and linear motors. He was also aware of ET3 patents that suggest using vacuum without atmospheric conditions inside the tubes.
  • Fouth – Hey, the guy’s really into space rocket travel and fully understands the efficiencies and characteristics a vacuum travel path affords. There’s no better travel environment we know of because it’s nature’s very own and best design.
  • Fifth – Let’s assume that Elon knows the difference and give him his due of being smart – unfortunately though, it appears that he’s used the power of his influence and authentication to both promote Tube Transport Technology while injecting a slowdown via design that renders the technology to shorter trips – then explaining why it will never compete with really fast airplanes. Basically, it’s manipulation and an attempt to control the outcome.
  • Sixth – When someone rises to a place of authority or their success places them in a state of being authentic and capable, we don’t usually question them as a culture. We usually jump on board and go with what they say is viable and authentic. That’s on us really… but it’s also fair to say that most don’t know the differences and can become easily misled. It seems more mis-leadership when someone of high profile abuses their privilege and influence because something that’s coming about like ET3 creates a disruption of their ideas or plans. Simply put – conflict of interest.

Also, even though Musk claimed Hyperloop to be his own original idea – there was an effort to reach out to him and Richard Branson by several ET3 participants including myself around the time Elon began to speak of his idea cryptically. He claims he didn’t get the idea from anyone else… but honestly, it seems doubtful that’s true. Tube transportation wouldn’t have been on his radar, he was too involved, engaged and focused as he needed to be with the projects of that time – Space-X and Tesla.

The Hyperloop idea was originally presented by him against the backdrop as a railing against highspeed rail vs something better. Can’t argue there… but if you’re aware of something better, why not jump to that instead of an incremental idea that’s already based on outdated ideas and methods?

Maybe the HSR backdrop was another misdirection to keep attention off of ET3’s more elegant-superior design? Sadly, California along with the federal government continues to promote and drive things in the direction – a deployment of HSR. The cost unfortunately is astronomical for a technology that dates back to the 1800s. Funny thing about this too… relating to our conditioning as a culture is that many are still calling it a Hyperloop Train.

Bottom line here is this: The whole air hockey – air bearing – fan – rail gun thing that was supposed to levitate and move people and things through the tubes has been abandoned by anyone who has put money up toward research and development. These ideas have been solidly disproven by the Virgin Hyperloop effort.

The conclusions are absolute – near vacuum travel environment, maglev and linear motors are the way to go. That’s ET3 with patents awarded starting in 1999 – what Daryl Oster figured out long before Elon Musk had any idea. We should be giving credit to the true inventor instead of crediting an imposter for hijacking another’s brilliant ideas. Yet, when you read about Hyperloop – it’s presented most of the time as Elon Musk’s Hyperloop… completely inaccurate.

So, where do we go from here? What’s the larger promise we should be focusing on and looking at when it comes to the potential promise of HET3 technology? What should U.S. Transport Secretary Pete Buttegieg be thinking about and focusing on as he moves forward with supporting ideas that have been proven – yet are now outdated?

A hint, Europe and much of the world, including China, India and the Middle East have serious effort and initiatives for developing Hyperloop technologies. Euorpe has gone as far as beginning to set standards for networks… they’re serious. They’ve also been there, done that when it comes to rail and HSR application and use. Why should or would the U.S. invest in technology that’s now being left behind for better?

Where do these ideas come from? Here’s a list of words and phrases, commonly used search terms that summarize what people seem to believe and think about Hyperloop: Hyperloop Train, Elon Musk Hyperloop, Hyperloop speed, Hyperloop cost, Elon Musk Hyperloop speed, Hyperloop one, Virgin Hyperloop stock, Elon Musk Hyperloop update… not to mention The Boring Company.

Then there are the questions: Why did Elon Musk stop the Hyperloop? Is Elon Musk still working on Hyperloop? What is the current status of the Hyperloop? When Hyperloop will start in world? At least the last two seem more relevant to the topic. The “when” question is the one everyone wants to know!

There’s a lot of mention of Elon Musk, but I have to ask why? Why when the ideas that are now moving forward are honestly a lot better and in line with what we should be expecting and getting from a properly designed and built hypersonic tube transportation system?

See you in the next segment!

Virgin-less: Hyperloop – One Goes solo

The split off of Virgin from their Hyperloop involvement has taken everyone by surprise along with Hyperloop One’s stated intent to abandon the idea of transporting people. They claim they’re only focusing on freight. Is this a permanent strategy or a step back to get the system going with freight first, and passengers later? And why the Virgin exit?

Both situations create more questions than answers but let’s take a look at things and hopefully find some valid perspective. To me at least, the idea of being able to travel at hypersonic speed – a real potential of traveling in a vacuum state – is extremely attractive and a major reason I’d want to switch my long-distance travel mode away from flying. How about you?

Why would anyone want to stop flying? Why travel in a tube environment that’s controlled and in a vacuum? Are there advantages?

The obvious reasons are: Flying is affected by weather. The travel path since it’s in the atmosphere, is subject to whatever the earth’s weather decides it’s going to throw at you. Lightening, storms, wind, rain, clouds, fog… then there’s always the other planes or some foreign object that might enter the flight path. More reasons why are stated below.

Traveling in a vacuum – space is a vacuum for instance and the oldest and most proven form of travel happens in our universe all the time. For example, our Earth home travels around the sun perpetually in a vacuum. It’s able to do that because a vacuum removes all forms of atmosphere. Just like maglev removes rolling resistance, vacuum environments remove travel path resistance by removing any elemental molecules from that environment.

The advantages of a vacuum travel path are multiple. Efficiency increases dramatically – for example, ET3 has calculated that a 90% efficiency rate can be gained in a vacuum.

Speed – a vacuum allows anything within it to travel at much higher speeds without disturbance. No air molecules means an almost unlimited speed potential. The only limiting factors would be the curvature of the earth and gravity’s effect including g forces where tubes have to have curves, go up or downhill. 4000 Mph is the estimated limit assuming radius of curves are no smaller than 250 miles and you want to keep g forces limited to 1 g.

Why maglev and linear motors?

Maglev isn’t a new idea, it’s been applied to six high-speed rail projects. China has three, South Korea – has two and Japan has one. In the case of train technology – maglev reduces rolling component friction by eliminating anything that touches anything else. Wheels and rails touch one another and cause resistance. All the axles and components that support rolling wheels also contribute to rolling resistance.

In the case of trains and Hyperloop-ET3 (HET3), if you use maglev, then you’ve got to use linear motors. What are they? If you’ve ever ridden on a modern-day roller coaster and felt extreme acceleration, then you’ve experienced the power and potential of linear motors. The difference in the application – trains vs HET3 would be the mass and weight. Trains weigh a lot and require a lot of energy to move them and whatever’s inside.

In addition, trains still move through the atmosphere so, will always have speed limitations. HET3 requires a lot less energy to get a capsule going. As, HET3 weighs a lot less and is a new design from the ground up that performs inside a vacuum state, like space – so the application of linear motors can be thoughtfully integrated into this new system while unleashing the greater potential they offer. Travel pods weigh a lot less than trains. An additional advantage with HET3 designs is the ability to recapture energy through regenerative braking. ET3 suggests 90% of the energy used to move a pod can be reclaimed using HTSM maglev.

Why Hypersonic speed – aren’t planes fast enough? What about Hyperloop’s supersonic 750 Mph?

The simple answer would be – get where you’re going a lot faster while spending a lot less time sitting, waiting to get there. How much time do we spend in planes and at airports – waiting? A typical flight to S.E. Asia, Bangkok from West Coast U.S. for instance – usually takes 20 hours in the best circumstances. U.S, domestic flights with layovers, boarding, and un-boarding, unless you can get a direct flight, have moved into the 10+ hour category. If Hyperloop were limited to 750 Mph, you’d probably still get there a lot faster than flying. Speed counts for sure.

Airplane travel at sub-sonic speed is faster than a car or train, but it’s still slow. And, it takes a lot of energy to get a plane to fly and stay flying while reaching cruising altitude and speed. Hyperloop in a vacuum will definitely be faster. It will also be a lot more efficient… it has to be. Current sub-sonic airplane travel is just too slow when newer technology has come along to displace it. Although, stated in the Alpha-Hyperloop document gives a peek inside the minds of aerospace dreamers and thinkers. They’d like to keep us in planes, including Elon Musk. Also, flying at supersonic speed will consume even more energy. It will also require that we briefly head into space, then re-enter at the desired location for landing.

There’s a big problem with all this though… If the technology to fly faster costs more to develop and build, if planes use even more energy than today – we can assume that the cost to fly faster will increase. That’s a big problem in the larger realm – eight billion people now inhabit our planet. How will the idea of supersonic airplanes be able to serve the vast majority of travelers who won’t be able to afford it? The larger argument of staying on course with advanced aviation doesn’t hold up.

Unless you’re creating an industry that serves an exclusive group who can afford it, most passengers won’t be flying supersonic. Also, it’s highly doubtful that airplanes are going to get you there at 4000 Mph… then you’ve got the reality of the terminal system that’s completely broken. It’s antiquated and archaic when comparing today’s current air travel design to HET3 designs such as Virgin Hyperloop, Hardt Hyperloop and ET3 – all utilize switched pods that eliminate layovers and plane transfers. Switching changes everything.

What’s the idea behind pod travel path switching & what’s it do for you?

When the ideas started coming out about a vision of Hyperloop travel and what that would look like, it resembled the traditional airport terminals with the idea of making them more like Singapore with all it has to offer. It’s a nice idea, but… with all technological change and utilizing the right/smartest design, the idea of long layovers and lounging in terminals won’t be necessary. Those pretending to be visionaries were clueless about the power and potential, HET3 will eliminate anything that resembles today’s terminal designs.

The people realized immediately that Elon Musk’s “Hyperloop Train” idea could be actually something, never met Daryl Oster and didn’t research the design elegance of ET3. Elon Musk knew about ET3 though – before he published the Hyperloop-Alpha document, but the publication effectively misguided Hyperloop participants away from ET3s ideas. Research and development efforts have cost a lot of money that has finally led to the discovery of Daryl’s ideas… now everyone is thinking along the lines of ET3. But, it they’re not, they’re complete fools following the wrong lead and it will cost them dearly.

When you get into your car and drive somewhere and want to get there – no frills like, do you want to stop and lounge someplace? Usually, the answer would be no unless you like traveling that way or your journey is a long one. When we travel by car, we do that because it’s most convenient and serves our needs best. It also can save a lot of time vs bus or other scheduled methods that use terminals. Most people’s objective when traveling is to get where they’re going. That’s typically the highest priority.

Essentially, switching eliminates the need for elaborate terminals – with HET3, you won’t be waiting for connections, no long layovers. How that’s accomplished is through switching pods during travel. Each pod has a unique destination. Think of the internet and how information travels to get to your screen. It doesn’t stop along the way and wait for a physical handshake – no one has to carry your request by hand and walk it to the next flight so it gets to you eventually. When you put in your request, within seconds, you’ll get a result.

HET3 works very much the same way, except now we’re switching pods in a physical network. An internet for moving people and things. Except when you get inside a small travel pod that seats up to six people, you program your destination and go. Your journey begins when the pod launches and ends when you get there without stopping. Along the travel route, your pod switches to the appropriate tubes in the network until you get there. It’s seamless and extremely efficient – most convenient like your car, but no traffic and goes a lot faster! No terminals required, only stations large and small for getting in and getting out.

Hyperloop – What’s the Big Deal?

So far, all the Hyperloop talk is around a travel limit of 750 Mph or 1200 Kph – yet, what’s that limitation based on? What no one realizes, or what they’re not saying is this: in the past 9+ years since development efforts began, much of the original Hyperloop design has changed. Today, what remains are – tubes, low pressure – now lower, pods and the Hyperloop name. Sir. Richard Branson and Virgin Hyperloop – Hyperloop One have contributed the most promising development to date that’s disproven most of the original Space-X Tesla Alpha-Hyperloop – Elon Musk idea. the original limit was based on leaving some atmosphere inside the travel path. Remove that and you’ll really fly.

The changes – lower pressure, now a vacuum travel path environment, magnetic levitation, linear motors to accelerate pods, pod switching and routing, Virgin’s caravan concept where pods travel nose to tail along the route until switched and routed off to desired destinations for whatever’s in the pod is the right way to go, like ET3 patented as far back as 1999. No mention of fans and air cushion bearings that were the original basis of the Hyperloop design. At best, the scrapped ideas were more of a misdirection – a sandbag effort to limit Tube Transport tech’s greater promise and potential. The flip side? A vacuum environment allows travel speeds to be much faster – like 4000 Mph or 6500 Kph.

What’s left then of the original Hyperloop idea presented in Elon Musk’s 57-58 page Hyperloop-Alpha document?

This idea isn’t new. But much of Hyperloop will become reality in time. If that wasn’t the case, Richard Branson wouldn’t have invested so much in the idea.

So, it wasn’t Elon Musk’s idea. Musk says so at the beginning of the Hyperloop-Alpha Document. And yet, everyone believes he’s the inventor. Many who’ve written about it also think Hyperloop is a train. But, they’re dead wrong and clueless for saying so. What Elon Musk has done that deserves credit would have to be his suggestion that a system that uses tubes to move around at high speeds is in fact an authentic idea. Credit where it’s due, right? …name isn’t so bad either!

The effort that’s done the most so far would have to be Virgin Hyperloop. Recently though, Virgin decided to step back from the Hyperloop One effort and retract the use of its name. Yet, they still have their promotional efforts and website up. those will most likely come down as the effort has stated they’re switching to all freight – no passenger transport.

Yet, the effort built a test track in the desert, built pods, did and paid for a significant amount of research and development that resulted in the first manned loop test flight. Pretty impressive, right? Even more interesting though is how the small capsule that safely carried the first humans inside an evacuated tube environment has no resemblance to the original air-propelled design that Musk proposed in 2013.

Actually, There’s almost nothing other than a tube and a capsule that now rides on maglev and uses roller coaster type linear motor technology to move the pod. The original hyperloop idea is basically dead as it should be because there are so many better ways to levitate and move a pod safely that use much less energy. Also, the pods can move a lot faster than everything that’s being presented so far.

The cool and interesting thing here is how Virgin Hyperloop and another competitor – Hardt Hyperloop have concluded that designing switching and routing technology and capabilities into the network – pods will be able to move to any alternative tube along the route, or exit at anytime.

Now this idea of switching isn’t new either. There’s a list of patents dating back to 1999 granted to ET3. The interesting thing about ET3 is that they figured a lot of this stuff out first before building anything. Think first, then build after you’ve thought long and hard. Saves a lot of money!

It’s unfortunate that Elon Musk didn’t follow through with the proposal that he back and support ET3 instead of designing up the original Hyperloop plans that guaranteed a much slower system than ET3. Unfortunate as well, because companies like Virgin Hyperloop have spent a lot of money that turned out to be a lesson on how not to do an effective tube transport system.

But, that’s what’s happened. What few people know is that Daryl Oster, President and CEO of ET3 visited Elon Musk at Space-X in the summer of 2013, just before he published and released the Hyperloop-Alpha document. Do you know what Musk’s own people said? You should scrap your idea and back Daryl’s because it’s a much better and a more elegant idea – it makes a lot more sense. The people telling Elon this are engineers and physicists that understand when something makes a lot of sense.

But there’s most likely a very good reason that’s stated in the Alpha document referring to aeronautics that fly above supersonic speed, leave the atmosphere briefly into space, then head back down to earth somewhere on the other side of the globe. That seems like a great reason to attach a boat anchor to Hyperloop that uses air at a lower pressure as the travel support and propulsion medium. It’s pretty obvious, looking at it all today, especially considering how the major drivers and developers of Hyperloop efforts have dropped the pneumatic element.

Also, looking at the Hyperloop-Alpha document, it looks more like diversion and distraction psychology to divert anyone interested in the idea away from involvement with ET3. But, just like everyone listening to Elon Musk say that tube transport is viable, they’d also listen to him if he says that ET3 and other projects haven’t panned out or have “fatal flaws.” Interesting to hear him say that when Daryl Oster of ET3 in fact met with Elon to discuss supporting the effort and design, right? He could have just as easily written a check right there at the recommendation of his own people.

For a guy that’s done so much for bringing a needed concept to the foreground, it’s unfortunate that the sandbagging effect he laid out has slowed down the development and eventual deployment of such a promising technology.

Of the two people identified that I and other ET3 licensees involved in the ET3 project early on in November 2008, one was Elon Musk and the other was Richard Branson. It’s unfortunate that Richard Branson and Virgin have spent so much money to date on the design that’s turned out to be flawed after all. Now, much of the designs and vision going forward are looking more and more like ET3.

There’s a lot that we can talk about when it comes to tube transport technology, and we’ll get into that soon in another upcoming post.


let’s look at Musk’s published 58-page hyperloop-Alpha document… What’s it say on Page 2 about Et3?

“The underlying motive for a statewide mass transit system is a good one. It would be great to have an alternative to flying or driving, but obviously only if it is actually better than flying or driving. The train in question would be both slower, more expensive to operate (if unsubsidized) and less safe by two orders of magnitude than flying, so why would anyone use it?

If we are to make a massive investment in a new transportation system, then the return should by rights be equally massive. Compared to the alternatives, it should ideally be:

  •   Safer
  •   Faster
  •   Lower cost
  •   More convenient
  •   Immune to weather
  •   Sustainably self-powering
  •   Resistant to Earthquakes
  •   Not disruptive to those along the routeIs there truly a new mode of transport – a fifth mode after planes, trains, cars and boats – that meets those criteria and is practical to implement? Many ideas for a system with most of those properties have been proposed and should be acknowledged, reaching as far back as Robert Goddard’s to proposals in recent decades by the Rand Corporation and ET3.Unfortunately, none of these have panned out. As things stand today, there is not even a short distance demonstration system operating in test pilot mode anywhere in the world, let alone something that is robust enough for public transit. They all possess, it would seem, one or more fatal flaws(?) that prevent them from coming to fruition. (ET3 approached Musk at Space-X in 2013, presenting the idea with the hopes of gaining his support.) Constraining the ProblemThe Hyperloop (or something similar) is, in my opinion, the right solution for the specific case of high traffic city pairs that are less than about 1500 km or 900 miles apart. Around that inflection point, I suspect that supersonic air travel ends up being faster and cheaper. With a high enough altitude and the right geometry, the sonic boom noise on the ground would be no louder than current airliners, so that isn’t a showstopper. Also, a quiet supersonic plane immediately solves every long distance city pair without the need for a vast new worldwide infrastructure. (Let’s be real – how safe will SUPERSONICAIR travel be? It will need to become totally inclusive and accessable to everyone. Can it? If so, how far off is that reality?)” Site construction in progress… please stay tuned! Thx 

Life on a Chicago winter morning… you wake up, open the blinds, It’s cold, windy, icy and snowy!

Chicago gets super cold in the winter, doesn’t it? You’d rather stay home, sitting in your favorite chair, sipping hot cocoa… than get ready to go out in the unfriendly elements, heading to work …am I right?

There’s a lot of reasons you don’t want to leave the comfort of your cozy home, winter elements can be dangerous for traveling, heck, even walking when it’s icy. Wouldn’t it really nice to just call in sick and instead of staying home…

You head down to your neighborhood Evacuated Tube Transport Station – Let’s shorten Hyperloop Evacuated Tube Transport to HETT, Ok?

When you arrive, hopefully safely without slipping and falling on the ice, you get inside the station, go to the pod loading section, pay about $100, get in your pod, it closes and gets ready while the air lock system creates a vacuum and prepares your pod for long distance travel – then you dial in your destination… Someplace sunny and warm like Florida or better, Hawaii!

Or maybe you love winter – a ski trip in the Swiss Alps is the medicine you’re looking for… either way, you’re going someplace that suits you. Once you dial in your preferred destination, the pod slips into the network entry tube, starts to accelerate… when it’s up to speed, merges with the local pod traffic flow… automatically.

You’re on your way and you’ve chosen Hawaii. Now you’re dreamin! Imagine how pleasant it will be when you arrive. You turn on the entertainment screen, then choose something educational.  The ride, once you’re routed and slip into the international tube network, will take less than 2 hours when you accelerate and reach 4000 Mph! It’s completely silent and smooth as silk.

Did you notice there’s no mention of slogging to the airport, no buying the ticket online, no researching for the best flight at the last minute? No standing in line, no being exposed to thousands of people who might be sick… and worse, get you sick too …and no stops or layovers!

No schedule, no accommodating airline schedules designed today for their highest profit, not your convenience and definitely not to make your life more enjoyable and easier… It’s like you went out to your car, and decide to drive to Hawaii and it’s easy – it only takes a little time to get there.

Let’s face it, traveling long distance today isn’t easy, unless you’ve got a pile of money and access to a private jet, am I right? Reality is, most of us don’t… and don’t forget about the weather and potential delays! Realities of long distance travel by air usually suck. Even a private jet won’t get you to Hawaii in less than two hours.

And guess what? You’ve still got to be back at work tomorrow for that “important” meeting! Try to do that today… seems a lot like we’re more prisoners to current transport modes and their outdated design, doesn’t it?

Read more