Sei sulla pagina 1di 76

HYPERLOOP

T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

OFFICIAL

CROWDSTORM

DOCUMENTATION

THE FUTURE IS

NOW
HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

Weve put this document together to explain the process Hyperloop Transportation
Technologies, Inc. is going to use in order to make the Hyperloop a reality. It will also show
the progress and some of the key opinions and ideas that have been surfaced since the
Hyperloop idea was announced. Finally, youll find some preliminary studies and concepts
done in the interests of helping to answer some key safety and engineering questions.

THE METHOD
In todays economy, most entrepreneurs are trying to solve small-scale problems or
improving on currently active technologies. This leaves many larger but no less pressing
issues unresolved. The Hyperloop would not only have the potential revolutionize
transportation,, it solves a ma jor problem: over populated cities and highways. The
ramifications of partially resolving that problem is staggering. The question that we ask
ourselves: are the times of the Carnegies and Rockefellers over?
Our answer is a resounding No! We as a company believe that dedicated people
organized into companies can still succeed in amazing, massive undertakings. Of course
we are aware that building the Hyperloop will require a significant investment. However,
the most important ingredient to achieving amazing results is getting people involved who
are committed and passionate about working to achieve results. With people resources in
place, the financing of the project question becomes less daunting.
In todays world its much easier to connect passionate, interested individuals to each
other. At JumpStartFund, we truly believe that if we connect people who are willing to
invest their time and knowledge in the Hyperloop project, we will make it a reality.
Hyperloop Transportation Technologies (HTT) was founded with the specific intent to use
crowd collaboration as an integral component of its business model, from the first day of
inception to becoming a multi-billion dollar company. JumpStartFund believe that smarter
companies will be built that way. The crowd has power, offering opinions and expertise that
are difficult to come by easily unless harnessed through collaboration,. The crowdsourcing
model has proven itself in a variety of contexts, and has shown that it can beat even the
brightest scientists and supercomputers.
Reliance on crowdsourcing, allows anyone who gives valuable input should receive value in
return. By using JumpStartfunds (www.jumpstartfund.com) approach, 10% of HTTs future
revenue will be divided among the participants and winners of the different tasks that will
be completed (read more here www.jumpstartfund.com/howitworks).
This approach borrows many aspects from open source models, and combines them
with commercial enterprise. Thus, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies is a unique
combination of a commercial company and open forum, in which virtually anyone with ideas
and passion can participate and be part of potential future profits. If you can contribute
something valuable, you can receive a part of the companys success in return. This
open-ended, crowd-oriented approach has been Hyperloop Transportation Technologies
approach from the very beginning, and will continue to be.

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

The Team
Currently the core team consists of over a hundred amazing people who believe in the project
enough to work without immediate compensation, some of them full time. They dedicate as
much as forty or more hours a week and commit to a weekly minimum in exchange for stock
options within the company. Most of them have full-time jobs and amazing backgrounds.
Top talent has applied with education from top universities like Harvard, Stanford, MIT,
Dartmouth, UCLA and many others. Many also have work experience in leading companies
like Boeing, Airbus, NASA, Tesla, SpaceX, Salesforce, Yahoo, Cisco and many more.

HYPERLOOP
WORLDWIDE TEAMS

One of Hyperloop Transportation Technologies key partnerships is with UCLAs SUPRASTUDIO (for more info
see http://www.aud.ucla.edu/programs/m_arch_ii_degree_1.html). They UCLAs SUPRASTUDIO will lead the
design efforts in an extensive program with participants from all over the world, as well as with members
of Hyperloop Transportation Technologies core team who are interested in specific areas such as capsule
design, station logistics, and overall traveler experience.

Progress
The uniqueness of this crowd-oriented commercial project has brought some unique challenges to the
forefront, including the legal ramifications of this brand new model. Despite the obstacles, however, we
have attracted and developed a core team that will progress quickly and make sustainable impact. The
community has discussed many issues and several people have contributed amazing value. We would like to
use this document to present some of the findings that came from our treatment of the initial topics. This will
include opinions and ideas that range from the most immediately applicable to those in the distant future.
Why include the even the futuristic ideas? Its simple - we believe that at times, those are the ones that spark
the most valuable outcomes. Overall, we are trying to solve the challenges with a completely new approach.
One idea leads to the next, and with a project as new and gigantic as building the Hyperloop will be the only
way were going to find the correct solutions is by keeping an open mind.

Call to

Action
We believe that there are no technical challenges that cant be solved, and by using this unique
approach we hope to resolve challenges faster and more efficiently than would otherwise be possible.
Besides the technology aspect of the Hyperloop, we see enormous advantages on how the lives of
millions of people would be positively influenced with the Hyperloop becoming reality.
The most amazing thing in this process is that so many people, from all over the world and with
amazing backgrounds, is coming together to make the Hyperloop happen. Its the first project of its
kind in history, and people who share a common belief are doing it. The input of tens of thousands of
people, including yours, will make this one of the best transport systems in the world.
If youre interested in the Hyperloop, we would like you to join our team. Anyone whos interested in
being part of the project is welcome to apply at: www.jumpstartfund.com/hyperloop/team
If you are not quite ready to join the team, but still have an idea or an opinion youd like to share, let
us know! We welcome input on an array of topics included in this document, whether in the form of
new ideas, criticism, and general commentary, please submit them at: http://jumpstartfund.com/#!/p/
hyperloop/file/crowdstorm-document
Since the announcement of the Hyperloop concept in August 2013, the idea has anything but gone
away. Hyperloop Transportation Technologies has done a lot of engineering research on the capsule,
the tube, and the propulsion system. As much as we would love to have the Hyperloop built by the end
of the year, there are still plenty of questions that remain unanswered. Thats why weve published
this crowdstorming document. We want to brainstorm with you. Do you have ideas or answers to
these questions? Maybe you have other questions? In any of these cases, please let us know!

Hyperloop
Initially the Hyperloop was presented as an alternative to the Highspeed rail project from Los Angeles to San Francisco. As a refresher, the
Hyperloop design uses a combination of low air pressure and magnetic
acceleration to get people from LA to SF in just about 30 minutes, which is
almost three times faster than flying, while producing its own electricity
from solar power, with round-trip tickets projected to cost between $40$60. If you want to know more about the details of this system, you can
check out SpaceXs Hyperloop page (www.spacex.com/hyperloop),
which includes a good first look at the original proposal, as well as Elon
Musks original white paper.
While it would of course be fantastic to have a Hyperloop between LA
and SF as originally proposed, those arent the only two cities in the US
and all over the world that would seriously benefit from the Hyperloop.
Beyond the dramatic increase in speed and decrease in pollution, one
of the key advantages the Hyperloop offers over existing designs for
high-speed rail is the cost of construction and operations. Our goal is
to keep the ticket price between LA and SF in the $20-$30 range. If this
same overall price point were preserved for other city pairings, it could
dramatically change the way people live and work in cities.

It quickly becomes apparent just how dramatically the Hyperloop


could change transportation, road congestion and minimize the carbon
footprint globally.. Even without naming any specific cities, its apparent
that the Hyperloop would greatly increase the range of options available
to those who want to continue working where they do, but dont wish
to live in the same city, or who want to live further away without an
unrealistic commute time; solving some of the ma jor housing issues some
metropolitan areas are struggling with. In reality, any cities connected
by a Hyperloop would see a flourishing development comparable to
the beginning of the 20th century with the arrival of widespread train
connections. One reason for this is that right now, many people cannot
readily afford air travel, and taking the time to drive long distances is
often a luxury. With the Hyperloop, extremely fast, inexpensive intercity
travel would be widely accessible. If both people and goods can move
more quickly and comparatively cheaply, rapid growth is a logical
outcome. As to the economics, we have confirmed that its absolutely
feasible to build the entire line for an estimated $20-45 million per mile.
For comparison, consider that other mass transit option being considered
for routes between San Francisco and Los Angeles comes out to an
estimated $200 million per mile.
From the social and economic point of view, the Hyperloop is simply
unbeatable. Before it can be built, there are some questions wed like
your feedback on.
As with all the points in this document, we hope to solicit feedback as
well as input for these numbers.
While the initial idea was truly fascinating, it left most of the details
unexplored. Here is a sampling of some of the issues the community has
helped us begin to address. Following this section youll find a technical
details section. If youre here for the charts and graphs, thats where
youll find them.

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

Progress Overview
CAPSULE | AERODYNAMICS
Several studies have been conducted, with the one from Ansys standing out most have
shown that from a theoretical point of view it is feasible. Below is some of the information
from the analysis conducted by Ansys:
Assumptions:
1. Capsule moving at 210 m/s, i.e. at 470 miles per hour
2. Mass flow split assumed as: 50% sucked by fan, 50% goes around the capsule.
3. Air sucked by the fan is then distributed at 40% from the tail and remaining to the air bearings.
Preliminary results:
1. A circular cross-section will lead to better aerodynamics.
2. Exhaust of the air bearings will have to be controlled carefully to ensure proper capsule aerodynamics.
3. Front opening needs to be circular like that of an aircraft jet engine for improved aerodynamics.
4. End point of the tail needs to be lifted for improved capsule aerodynamics.

Our team has elaborated further, refined those models assuming the initial parameters:
Tube pressure = 100Pa
Air density = 0.00116kg/m3
Capsule speed = 210m/s (470mph) initially for better accuracy, later up to 760 mph
Mass flow is split 50-50 between compressor and outside capsule
-Compressor mass flow distributed 40-60 to the tail outlet and air bearings, respectively

And came to the following conclusion:


The capsule should have a more circular cross section (axisymmetric shape).

The air flowing out of the air bearing strongly disturbs the airflow around the
capsule, so if the air bearing solution is implemented, the air bearing skies need to
be designed as one part to reduce disturbance of flow around capsule.

The initial tail design can be improved significantly for aerodynamics by


lifting the tail.

THE TUBE-TO-CAPSULE CROSS-SECTION AREA RATIO IS ~1.52 (CURRENT DESIGN)


Overall mainly the shape of the capsule tube-to-capsule determines the Kantrowitz limit
issue area ratio should vary along the capsule length (not in the current design).
Mach number, Max. Mach =1.979

ZONES WITH MACH NUMBER, HIGHER THAN ONE ARE RED

VELOCITY

CROSS SECTION VELOCITY VECTORS

VELOCITY AT COMPRESSOR INLET

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

Questions and Next steps:


1. Can we tune the capsule geometry for better
aerodynamics - not a constant cross section?
2. Should it be axisymmetric (revolution object)?
3. How will it change with different back tail design (lifting tail)?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

CAPSULE ASSEMBLY
The initial design of the capsule was in one piece and with nice looking wing doors. We
believe the design is important for the passenger. It makes him feel comfortable and safe.
When thinking of boarding it comes clear that due to the barrow space boarding can only be
done laterally.

But the low pressure inside the tube and the velocity requires for a very solid capsule, which
would require very large doors and creates design challenges to keep the capsule structural
stable.
Here a concept that uses an independent shell and loads them sideways.

A boarding from the back would be beneficial, as it would allow having a very stable capsule
and only one heavy door. But that seems impossible to do due to the space restrictions and
in addition if possible would delay boarding times.
The solution is to create a capsule assembly, where the outer shell, which travels inside the
tube and incorporates the compressor as well as all necessary technology is independent
from the seating module, Passengers can still board laterally and will than be moved inside
the outer shell ready for departure once seated.
The capsule could be kept separate from the outer shell, through magnetic levitation and
balance movement to provide a more comfortable ride.
The space in between the outer shell and the seating module could be in a vacuum to create
isolation from sound as well as high temperatures.

Capsule Types
In order to optimize the routes, we defined 3
types of capsule arrangements.
Economy class
Here the seating arrangement is dense to optimize performance

Business Class
The business class arrangement allows for more comfort and interaction during the ride.
The capacity is lower due to the use of some of the space for amenities.

Freight
The freight module fits standard airfreight shipping containers for easy handling.

CAPSULE INTERIOR
Claustrophobia was one of our main concerns while designing the interior. People will find
it difficult to accept a new mode of transport that makes them feel cramped and trapped.
How do you create a sense of openness inside a capsule with no windows?
We are studying several solutions. One is to create a window like feeling, where we imitate
the light spectrum outside of the capsule. It would vary by the time of day and therefore
not feel closed. We believe it would improve the overall passenger experience.

LIGHT AND ILLUMINATION

Color Emotion and Illumination System

healthy

DEPARTURE

Flashlight
10s Alarm

ACCELERATION

30s Linear Light


Illumination

Linear Light
Illumination

CRUISE

Visualization
Screen

Entertainment
System

Spot Light
Personal Space
Emergency

DECELERATION

30s Linear Light


Illumination

ARRIVAL

Flashlight
10s Alarm

White Light
Illumination

Fluorescent
Indicator

The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

Other solutions that are being analyzed are concepts where the wall and ceiling of the
capsule would be lined with OLED television screens that work together to project the image
of the outside of the capsule or stock scenery.

An emergency bathroom could be available in the business class capsule, this bathroom
would be meant only for emergencies as we can assume a fasten seat belt sign on for
the entire trip. Any cabin feature / functionality that has passengers leaving their seats or
unbuckling their seat belts / harness is likely to be problematic. The accelerations in normal
operation are going to be of the order of +/- 0.5g axially and 1g or more under emergency
stopping situations. The emergency exit would be through the back of the capsule. The
business class will have all of the necessary amenities.
INTERFACE OF HYPERLOOP CAPSULE

PASSENGER INTERFACE OF HYPERLOOP CAPSULE


To Realize A Human-oriented Passenger Interface

To Realize A Human-oriented Passenger Interface

DUE TO THE SITA PASSENGER SELF-SERVICE SURVEY 2012

80%

of passengers aged between 18-24 use social


media.

31%

of passengers find security the most stressful


part of the passenger journey.

44%

of passengers are stressed due to concerns


over loss of time.

WHAT DO PASSENGERS WANT ?

In todays mobile connected world, passengers


demand the same comforts in the Hyperloop as
they do at home or the office.
FEATURES OF INTERFACE

FEATURES OF INTERFACE

Virtual Office
Book,
Magazine,
bag, trash
space

Entertainment

Calling, Seat Moving Map


control panel
Environment

iPad Arm
Mount Dock

Membrane
Switch Panels,
reading/table
light, thermal
Security
control,

Passengers are presented with a variety of choices in Hyperloop Capsule. From controlling lighting and temperature to experienc ing
advanced information, entertainment and management functionalities, you will decide what happens in your journey and have a
fulfilled time and a wonderful experience.
1. Wide
varietyHD
of entertainment
and
information
table
light and choices:
headsets,
HDMI
Galley
Scroll Wheel
CD MP3,
TV and
Radio overhead light
and USBDVD,
devices,
Control
Panel,
and table light
2. Full
digital Audio
and Video
Ethernet
sources
easy access
to distribution
3.
Vertual
office
features
and bluetooth
all cabin
4.
Flexible
configuration
devices.
functions
5. Interactive moving map
6. Touchscreen control of all system capabilities
The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles

HD Widescreen
LCD

Blu-ray and
DVD Player

Folding board
for meal

Space for working

Questions and Next Steps:


1. Bathrooms:
One belief is that with a 40 min trip time it is not
absolutely necessary to have restrooms on board.
Another is that perhaps capsules could be designed
differently depending on how long the trip will be. No
bathrooms for shorter trips (<1 hour or so, different
capsule designs including bathrooms for longer trips.
One solution could be to allow each seat to be
separated and isolated from the others and use a system
integrated in the seat for emergency issues
2. Should the chairs perhaps be oriented to face backwards?
3. How will the interior capsule enter the outer shell?
4. Are there any other existing solutions that would take away
from the passenger a possible claustrophobic feeling?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

SEATING ARRANGEMENTS
Human emotion is always important while making a design, it could be influenced by so many
factors like dimension, environment, user experience, etc. It is widely accepted that different
spaces could generate specific feelings. Here we are going to research the influence of
space and distance to human emotion. As we have already studied the relationship between
human and space in dimension aspect, it would be possible for us to view a single person as
a bubble and combine several bubbles in different patterns to find out the most appropriate
function for different area.

HOVERING AND PROPULSION


We have extensively discussed several options and believe an Air Suspension System could
be the best solution, as it would be the lowest cost alternative. In addition, we are evaluating
several existing technologies and believe air and magnetic levitation are the most feasible
solutions, perhaps using wheels.

The white paper suggests a propulsion system based on advanced linear induction motor
system developed to accelerate/decelerate the capsule and intermittently maintain speed
at regular tube intervals not to exceed a maximum of 1g. A rotor (capsule) and stator (tube)
system needs to be designed with an interface method & control such that the capsule
enters, it stays within and exits the gap safely and precisely.
The community has discussed the topic and several contributors even outside the core team
have sent us their ideas.

Discussions and Ideas

AIR
Suspending the capsule within the tube will be a significant technical challenge due to
transonic cruising velocities. The airflow will create a disturbance and controlling the capsule
during the ride as well as being able to connect safely to the linear motors at high speed,
seem to be the biggest challenges.
Proposed combined air suspension and section / plan of intercooling utilizing tube ambient
as means of cooling.

Magnetic Levitation
Many newer technologies, seem to be a fit for the system. It would be possible to use it for
levitation as well as propulsion. The capsule could be controlled throughout the way. But
even a hybrid might be a solution.

Wheels
The proposed wheel for Hyperloop, it is 1,200 mm (4ft) diameter, and has a curved surface.
Like ball bearings in a race, the surface radius is slightly smaller than that of the tube.
Hyperloop runs in a cylindrical tube, which is the perfect track because it has a large surface
area and cannot derail. Larger and wider wheels can be used and the system is inherently
stable with the capsule adopting the ideal bank angle to suit the speed.
Centrifugal force is inversely proportional to the
diameter; and bigger wheels have less stress. At
1200mm diameter and 1200km/h, the rotational
stresses are within safe limits for forged steel or
aluminum (Hoop stress 433 or 150 mPa).
Compared to typical railway wheels,
Hyperloops are larger diameter, wider and
have 1/5th of the surface contact stress.
The capsule requires acceleration and
regenerative braking of 0.5g. All 4 wheels
would be motor-driven. The friction coefficient (rail adhesion) of steel on steel is 0.35 - 0.5,
so we may need to angle the wheels 45 degrees from vertical, so the wedging effect would
allow a minimum 0.5g of grip. Other surface materials would perform better.
See the section on tube construction: Steering is required to give the passengers a smooth
ride. The bearings would need to be supplied with cool oil.

The Kantrowitz problem


The Kantrowitz problem needs to be solved by
compression of the air, in order to get the required
mass flow over the pod without exceeding
the speed of sound. The wheel solution
compresses the air in front of the pod
using the thrust of the wheels; Alpha
uses internal compression.

Questions and Next Steps:


1. What other system might exist?
2. Are there any existing working systems similar to the Air skis?
3. Are their any magnetic levitation technologies, that exist
that dont impact to much on the construction cost?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

Compressor
The compressor removes the air in front of the capsule and reduces the Kantrowitz limit.
Many commercial compressors exist that should fit the requirements.
At this time we have to define the exact requirements to select the first one.

STEAM VERSUS AIR


An alternative approach was proposed utilizing water vapor versus air. Utilizing the ambient
conditions of the tube as heat exchangers for inter compression cooling.

Questions and Next Steps


1. If air skis are being used what are the requirements for the compressor?
2. If there are no air skis being used what are the requirements?
3. Which compressors exists that are in the range of this application?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

Tube Material
Cost, stability, and ease of manufacturing are the main factors we consider when looking at alternative materials. Most
of the time it comes back to the cost. A more stable tube needs less support. The pylons are a big cost factor and if we
can use less, we can reduce the construction cost dramatically.
Being able to manufacture the tube with ease on location would be great and accelerate production therefore reduce
cost as well.

Steel Option
There are several options when looking at steel. We are researching
the best fit to keep the cost minimal. One of the issues with a tube
like that is the fact that it will deform under its own weight. This
can be solved by producing a tube that has an oval shape and
than becomes round under its own weight. It would make sense
to manufacture the tubes in proximity to the building site, with an
eventual movable production site could be a solution.
A tra jectory for the tube would be designed to give the best passenger comfort at high speed. It
would be a complex blended curve, with gentle lead-ins for the tight turns and elevation changes.
The accuracy of the tube surface relative to the tra jectory would affect the g-forces and vibration
of the capsule even a few mm would cause problems.
Air bearing skis and wheels have the same challenges with smooth running in the tube.
The skis have a clearance of about 1mm, so the tube surface must be better than that.

Corrugated option
The most economical way to make a vacuum tube is corrugated
steel, possibly spiral-wound like used for culverts using much thinner
steel. The tube is less rigid, expansion joints are not required, and it
could be formed to match the curves.
But the accuracy would be poor, so the lower half needs to be faired
with precision with a concrete- like filler. Then a liner would be required
for the running surface, and a light liner above to help airflow.

Fiber Glass

Fiberglass molded sections would work well, giving excellent
accuracy using a computer-adjusted internal mold for the curved
sections. The material cost is much higher than steel, offset by
reduced labor cost, as the process could be automated. It would not
need expansion joints. The lower half would need to be lined.

An interesting idea regarding the fiberglass solution is the concept presented by AutoCAD.
There are machines that can churn out limited qualities of the braided carbon fiber. Brandt
envisions building a supersize version and mounting it onto a rig loaded with reels of carbon
fiber so it could roll along the Hyperloops route. Working at a rate of 1 meter per minute, this
factory on wheels could weave a Hyperloop tube from Los Angeles to San Francisco in less
than two years, and, so says AutoCAD, require fewer support pylons.

Tube Orientation
Currently exploring different solutions.
The basic premise is to stack the tubes rather than arranging them side-by-side. This will
achieve a greater structural depth, which has direct positive impact on the spanning capacity
of the tube assembly. I am speculating that it may be very efficient at spans approaching
150 feet or so based on conventional truck length to height ratios, which would cut the
number of pylons by at least half. There are some thoughts about the pylon construction in
those sketches the primary question being whether the pylon is itself a node to which
the tubes are mounted or is it simply a support to which the tube is attached.
Tube ideally consists of a single ovoid steel shell with lightweight super strong, super
smooth liner. You would want a somewhat sloppy fit to enable the liner preferably carbon
fiber composite, to smooth out the radii without needing to bend the steel shell (difficult),
which at a radius of a mile or so is no issue. It might then make sense on tighter radii to
switch to a rectangular steel tube with tighter radii within. The ease with which a carbon
fiber or other composite can be configured to a radius makes it the obvious choice for a
liner, which could then be suspended within the steel tube on shock absorbent of at least
compliant mounts.

Tube orientation
concepts

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

Questions and Next Steps:


1. What material and method of tube construction presents the ideal
combination of safety, cost, and overall function?
2. How will tube construction allow for emergencies, such as rapid
depressurization or large scale leaks, capsule malfunction, or
natural disasters such as earthquakes?
3. How much arching of the tube is allowed with the different solutions?
4. Is carbon a viable option, as it will cost more than a steel pipe and
concrete pylon together?
5. How will the static created by carbon fiber affect the capsule electronics?
6. Can the durability of Kevlar be used as it has better wear and abrasion
resistance compared to carbon?
7. Would the carbon fiber weave machine mix and apply the 2-part
epoxy and create an inner mold for it to form around to maintain its
shape and rigidity at a meter per minute? Most epoxies fully cure
within hours and cold night temperatures delay and prevent a full
cure causing inconsistency and weakness.
8. Would it make sense to implement a carbon sandwich (foam or
nomex) to increase strength and reduce cost?
9. Does the tube need to be in conformity of any special code
requirements? (e.g., ASME)
10. Do we need emergency exits and structures?
11. Can the tube be anchored end to end at stations and float entire length?
12. Will the tube need interior coating?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

Pylons

The pylon design also involves cost, safety, and strength. Any project this size will also
incur a large real estate acquisition cost. To decrease our footprint we are looking to
reduce our number of pylons, increase our span between them, all while exceeding safety
codes and regulations.
We have factored in the weights for multiple capsules and a double stacked tube
spanning up to 200 ft. We are taking inspiration on up to date pylon designs used in topheavy concrete highways. The pylons have to factor in compressive loads as well as wind
and earthquake shear.
Ultimately, we can account for all these stresses with a large safety margin by using more
than the calculated vertical rebar, using post tensioned bars, fiber reinforced concrete,
and horizontal hoop reinforcement to account for any shear forces.
To ensure maximum safety there will be periodic tests and monitoring for uniformity and
consistency regarding concrete mix ratio and curing temperatures.
Correct ballast will also be needed for the varying terrains and soils we will have to
encounter and test for. Special attention needs to be given to liquefaction zones around
earthquake faults. Dampening and base isolation systems commonly found in bridges
and buildings can be utilized to reduce and eliminate damage to the structure as a whole.

There will be a fine line between bracing for movement or simply isolating the structure
and the moving ground.
A concept for a modular pylon design

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

Questions and Next Steps:


1. What vertical pylon shape is optimal for our situation and load?
(H beam, Y Beam, Pyramid)
2. What horizontal pylon shape is optimal for our situation and
load? (Square, Round, Octagon)
3. What is the optimum concrete ratio available that allows for
strength without being brittle?
4. How deep and wide shall the ballast be?
5. How will base isolation movement affect the tube alignment?
6. How can we monitor in real time tube and pylon alignment?
7. Will there be an emergency shutoff or slowdown if misalignment
is detected?
8. How will the pylon move at different pylon heights and how
much displacement will the tube experience?
9. How can we optimize pillar anchoring with seismic requirements
/ structural and tube lateral vertical displacement allowance?
10. Extended structural analysis to optimize anchoring at the
ground and end points?
11. Preliminary tube design integrating intermittent station
pumping system and propulsion?
- Station to tube interface expansion joint design.
- Simulation of tube lateral and axial tolerance for capsule
ride ability suspension design.
12. Alternate or custom construction techniques to optimize costs?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

Safety

SAFETY AND RELIABILITY


Safety is one of our ma jor concerns. We are trying to identify all possible problems and actions to be taken.
What should we do if someone gets sick, continue or stop? In attachment S, you can see the FMEA document
in progress, outlining the potential hazard and the actions to take.
We need to ask us things like:
1. What will happen in the event of the depressurization of a Hyperloop capsule? Pressure is so
low (100 Pascal) that under the point of view of human physiology the conditions are closer to
space than to the ones at commercial airplanes. At 100 Pascal none of the emergency measures
commonly used even by military pilots (except the partial pressure suit of course), are enough
to avoid severe hypoxia and traumas related to the decompression. Luckily we are not in
space but on earth and believe we can find systems to compensate the pressure fast enough.
2. What happens if a capsule is stranded in the tube? Where will the emergency exits be?
A possible method to make an emergency brake procedure in a fast and reliable way might be to use the
Kantrowitz effect. If air from the outside is allowed to come into the tube and equalize the pressure with the
exterior, the capsule will suddenly have to go through and push a lot of air. At 300m/s the capsule will start
compressing the air in front of it, working as a syringe head. If the pressure is allowed to rise above the sea
level (for example closing some of the valves that initially opened to let the air in) the deceleration could
possibly be more powerful. If the capsules area is not wide enough compared to the tubes area, some
spoilers could be deployed to help block the air in front of it.
Separating sections of the tube could be the way to avoid having to pump out the air from the whole system
once the service has to be restarted. Big valves that close the whole tube could separate one section from the
next one. This has the advantage that could also help build up the pressure in front a capsule thats braking
while maintain the low pressure behind, helping this way to stop the capsule in less time, just by opening the
valves in front of it and letting the ones behind closed.
Instead of using a big sliding door or a similar kind of solid valve, a high-pressure inflatable plug could be used.
It could be a textile closed shaped as a cylinder (imagine a inflatable Coke can, with the same diameter of the
tube) that could be stored in a relatively small pack (similar to the ones that contain airplane slides or survival
rafts) at the side or upper part of the tube, maybe forming a package with the recompression valves.
This repressurization packs would be installed every 10 km or so in the faster parts of the system (the capsules
will be separated by 2 min, at their top speed that means 20 km), and closer at parts were the capsules go slower.

Questions and Next Steps:


1. How fast can capsule decelerate for emergency stop? Allowing damage, and without
damaging system?
2. What is the capsule behavior if it hits higher or even normal density air while traveling
at 700 MPH? Can it be designed to survive that and protect the passengers
3. If there is a large tube breach, will the air be filling the tube at a high velocity? Will
the additional speed and turbulence increase the danger to the capsule?
4. How fast will the capsule decelerate if it encounters high-density air?
5. Could the bladders deploy correctly with high-speed air flowing by?
6. How fast will the capsule decelerate if the compressor is turned off? Reversed?
7. How fast will the capsule decelerate if a wing is used to block the gap around the
capsule?
8. Will we have good data access to allow remote medical assistance via video consult?
9. How long will the system continue to run if we lose power in the area? Need to at least
finish trip for all in progress capsules. If possible nice to continue for 8 hours to allow
people to get home.
10. How fast can we deploy bladders and fill a section of the tube if needed to provide air
for passengers?
11. How much tunnel misalignment is allowed?
12. Will oxygen masks work in a ma jor capsule breach?
13. Could we provide fire suppression the capsule?
14. What is the quake resilience of pylons, supports, etc.? VS quake magnitude
15. Could people walk in tube if capsule is unable to move to exit?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

Station

STATION TYPES
The time passengers will spend inside the station affect the design a lot. Time can decide
the size of station, the amenities in the station and the number of passengers inside the
situation.
So, first of all we need to decide how long we want the passengers to stay inside the station.
If we want them pass the station as soon as possible, we can design it like a subway station.
So our station will be very efficient. To further improve the efficiency we could provide some
special services such as Hyperloop Shuttle to take passengers from their own home then
directly to the gate.

The time inside the boarding area should be reduced to the minimum.

LUGGAGE HANDLING

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

The time that capsule is in the boarding area needs to be precise to guarantee a constant workload.

Handling modes for the capsule


There are several different ways to turn an arrived capsule over in order to leave.
A U-turn, would lets the capsule turn while the approach of a turntable rotates on it self.
Another concept could be to switch the front of the capsule from one end to the other or let
the capsule be able to move in both directions.

AIRLOCK
The tube has a lower pressure than the station. So in order to maintain the pressure, we
need to employ airlocks. In this case a capsule would enter the first area and once the
airlock connected with the tube closed we can move forward into the next area which
closes behind and regulates the pressure.
.

FIRST AND LAST MILE


We believe its important to give the passenger a great experience throughout. What could
might a trip time of 30 min do, if it takes over an hour to get to the station and the stress
and traffic ruined your day.
We looked into several options to make it easy to get to and from a station.

By foot, car sharing or with other transit solutions the local hyperloop stations could be
easily reached. Local Hyperloops travel at lower speed, and can be integrated easily into
the city landscape.

Different stations can be connected by a circular Hyperloop

Route

METHODOLOGY
Finding optimal routes for the Hyperloop across the USA is a two-step process:

SELECTING OPTIMAL CITY PAIRS


We evaluated city pairs by the likelihood of the acceptance of a Hyperloop proposal, which
boiled down to 7 selection variables. The selection variables have been ordered by level of
importance below (most important first):
1. Existing air travel demand between city pair (significant intercity air travel demonstrates
likelihood for high HL ridership)
2. Population of cities in pair (larger population centers lead to increased HL ridership)
3. Terrain between city pair (flatter and straighter routes reduce cost and have the
potential for faster speeds with smoother vertical and horizontal curves)
4. % Of route distance in urbanized area (Urban construction increases cost and limits
potential speed)
5. Distance between city pair (longer distances prove effective for the HL as standard
ground transportation becomes increasingly cost ineffective with distance, but air
transportation does set an upper limit to the HLs effective distance as HL construction
costs outweigh the benefits of time savings)
6. Air travel hub (air travel hubs provide substantial transportation network extension
possibilities for the HL)
7. Recent growth rates of city pair (faster city growth leads to congested existing
transportation as well as increased future demand for alternative transportation)

SELECTING OPTIMAL ROUTES


Once the optimal city pairs were established, we had to develop a systematic way to, given
a city pair, select an optimal connecting route. We settled on 3 variables with which to
evaluate routes:
1. Cost
2. Travel time
3. Comfort - Comfort was equated to the radial acceleration along the route, with 0.5 gs
as the accepted limit, as per the Hyperloop Alpha document.
We have developed two optimization algorithms (along with complementary proprietary
software) in order to find the best route.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
In the course of research a baseline for the Carbon Footprint was established as a comparative
between routes:
Hyperloop Environmental Analysis Matrix
Base assumptions:
Hyperloop

CO2 per passenger mile


(Source: http://www.buses.org/
files/2008ABAFoundationComparativeFuelCO2.pdf
& http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/documents/
resources/commute_travel_product.pdf)

Headway between
Capsules (Peak Hr.)

0.50

Peak Hour compared to


Daily

10%

Passengers per Capsule

28

Pass per Peak Hour

3,360

Pass per Year

12,000,000

Use from Hyperloop Alpha 7,000,000

Car; 1 person
Car; 2 people
Diesel Train
Domestic Jet- Long Haul
(>700 miles)

Impact Type

Passengers/Day

378

Grams CO2/ pass/mile

189

Grams CO2/ pass/mile

186

Grams CO2/ pass/mile

185

Grams CO2/ pass/mile

Domestic Jet- Medium


Haul (>300 & <700 miles) 229
Domestic Jet- Medium
Haul (<300 miles)
277

Pounds per Gram Conversion

Minutes

Grams CO2/ pass/mile


Grams CO2/ pass/mile

0.00220462
Comparison

Difference
380

Miles from LA to SF

CO2 Emissions
1 person/car

2.2

2 people/car

1.1

Diesel Passenger Train

1.1

Hyperloop

0.0

Billion
Year
Billion
Year
Billion
Year
Billion
Year

Pounds CO2 per


Pounds CO2 per
Pounds CO2 per
Pounds CO2 per

THE OPTIMAL ROUTES


We identified several routes as impactful. In doubtful a network of Hyperloops would connect
America in a new way.

After looking at the criteria mentioned above, we conclude that the two ma jor factors that
influence the users of the routes between two cities are population and ridership.

The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles

We combine them with other factors to get the final grades for the cities. The top ten cities
are chosen as the first stations of Hyperloop, and the next ten cities are the phase two of the
Hyperloop construction. Eventually the network will extend to other smaller cities.

The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles

1. Los Angeles to Las Vegas (Feasibility Score: 36, Travel time: 26.1 minutes):
We studied the domestic tourism. As you can see the maximum percentage of visitors to Vegas
are from L.A.

Looking at the current networks between L.A and Vegas, there are no existing passenger
rails between the two cities.
The freight railroad is extensive and is owned by union pacific which has stations in both cities.

The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles

Looking at the data of tourism specifically from southern California to Vegas, we see that
the primary means of transport is the car which is 96%.

Since the late 1980s the concept of high-speed travel across the high desert between Southern
California and Las Vegas has been a vision of many entrepreneurs, urban planners and
enthusiasts alike. The Hyperloop offers the opportunity to business travelers and weekend
tourists to breach this expanse in less than 30 min while maintaining the excitement and
expectation of an exciting, short-term adventure.

The Las Vegas Airport is one of the busiest in the U.S.; Hyperloop can serve as a connector
for arriving travelers, Southern California, with its semi-conservative business environment,
is well populated by capable consumers ready to spend ample funds in a loose environment
like Las Vegas with the safety of returning to the safety of their suburban lifestyle at the end
of such a journey.

Likewise, the residents of Las Vegas, while surrounded by entertainment and a viable
night-life, can now access the relaxed and low-key Beach Cities communities of Southern
California, well-known amusement theme parks, and year-round outdoor sports culture in
less time than a high-speed flight.

While affordable, the entire propulsion system for the Hyperloop has a nearly Zero Carbon
Footprint. Furthermore, traversing the expanse between Orange, San Bernardino and Clark
Counties with their pro-business environments will coincide well with these regions desire to
create local, well-paying jobs for their constituents. Next, the Carbon-displacement posed
by the Hyperloop promises to make it a favored alternative form of travel to planes, trains
and automobiles which are traveling the high deserts along the 60 and 10 Highways now.
Here, we place the route skeleton so as to force the path to go around Red Rock National
Conservation Area right before hitting Vegas, to save us the permit hassle:


Travel time, Comfort, and Safety: Despite avoiding the national park at the end, the
accelerations stayed within 0.15gs, with breathing room to the 0.5g limit:

Section San Bernardino to Las Vegas (Feasibility Score: 10, Travel time: 15.3 minutes):
Here, we place the route skeleton so as to force the path to go around Red Rock National
Conservation Area right before hitting Vegas, to save us the permit hassle.

Travel time, Comfort, and Safety: Despite avoiding the national park at the end, the
accelerations stayed within 0.15gs, with breathing room to the 0.5g limit:

Section San Bernardino to SB Metro link (Feasibility Score: 10, Travel time: 154 seconds)

Here, we followed the highway, since the surroundings were dense and heavily urbanized:

Travel time, Comfort, and Safety: Because of the tighter geometry at this small scale, jerky
motions seemed to dominate, and so, despite the radial accelerations being under 0.5gs,
the jerk reached over 5-6m/s^3, which, while safe, could induce vomiting. So while the trip
took a blistering 154 seconds, the speeds will have to be reduced to bring jerk to comfortable
levels:

Anaheim to San Bernardino (Feasibility Score: 10, Travel time: 10.8 minutes)
Once again, we stuck to the highway.

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

TRAVEL TIME, COMFORT, AND SAFETY:


Despite the small scale, the jerky motions were almost 10x less than those in the SB path, and
so this trip is a definite win in the comfort department. As for safety, the radial accelerations
were under 0.5gs with some breathing room. As for time, the curves forced by the urban
areas brought the travel time up to 10.8 minutes.
2. San Francisco to LA (Feasibility Score: 41, Travel time: 34 minutes)
Imagine a business traveler leaving in the morning in Los Angeles to close a business deal
face-to-face with his counterpart in the City-by-the-Bay and be home for dinner with his
partner that same night? Imagine a Bay Area Tourist who wants to visit a Southern California
amusement park with his family and still be home that night? Daily (home the same day)
Wine Country tours for Los Angelinos anyone?
How about Northern Californians hitting the surf of the Southern California Beach Cities
and still being home that night? With a travel time of 35 minutes its easy to imagine the
how many people would travel between the 2 cities. Hyperloop connections might offer a
solution to the housing problems faced by San Francisco.
The propulsion system for the Hyperloop has a nearly Zero Carbon Footprint. Furthermore,
traversing the expanse between these two urban centers will coincide well with these regions
desire to create local, well-paying jobs for their constituents. Next, the Carbon-displacement
posed by the Hyperloop promises to make it a favored alternative form of travel to planes,
trains and automobiles which are traveling along the I-5 and 101 Freeways now.

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

TEXAS TRIANGLE
Overview: When evaluating city pairs, the Dallas - Houston - San Antonio triangle stood out
to the route optimization team as one of the areas in the USA where the Hyperloop could
make the biggest impact. In particular, feasibility predictors #1, 2, 3 and 4 were especially
high:
1. Existing air travel demand between city pair (significant intercity air travel demonstrates
likelihood for high HL ridership).
2. Population of cities in pair (larger population centers lead to increased HL ridership).
3. Terrain between city pair (flatter and straighter routes reduce cost have the potential
for faster speeds with smoother vertical and horizontal curves).
4. % Of route distance in urbanized area (Urban construction increases cost and limits
potential speed).
The destination from Dallas/Fort Worth to Houston to Austin is well traveled as a trucking
and courier route with some set conventional transportation times. For example, the ma jor
airlines have commuter air travel times from one hour plus while courier services between
the three cities is guaranteed for the same day. By contrast, the Hyperloop will be able
to transport the same payloads, people and packages alike, from 18.4 to 22.9 minutes,

less than half the time in the transport of people with no hassle from the Transportation
Security Agency (TSA). Furthermore, larger package items on-board the Hyperloop will
ensure a Carbon-Footprint reduction associated with tractor and trailer trucking as well as
conventional air-flight travel.

As for holiday travel, tourists traveling to the coast from Dallas/Fort Worth would have
an array of attractions with which to choose. Houston is a well-established port city, with
attractions like the Toyota Center, Astrodome, Six Flags AstroWorld, Space Center Houston
and the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. Conversely, travelers from Houston and Austin in
need of an international travel hub would be able to make their international connecting
flight at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) International Airport in less-than-half the current time
that it takes now. To be sure, DFW is so large that it has its own Zip Code (75261); the only
airport in the world with this distinction.

From a jobs creation perspective, while the Hyperloop might initially displace some initial
shipping and courier services; it would the augment the well-established shipping and flight
centers of Houston, Austin and Dallas/Fort Worth respectively. Overall, the reduction in
Carbon-Footprint for travel with the triangle would be immense.

Not counting waiting at stations, it takes, in this system,


28.6 minutes to get from San Antonio to Dallas (with stop at Austin)
22.9 minutes to get from Dallas to Houston
19.6 minutes to get from Houston to San Antonio

EAST COAST HYPERLOOP NETWORK


The Northeast corridor is one of the busiest corporate travel routes in United Stated,
connecting Washington D.C., Philadelphia, New York City and Boston. About 316,000
Bostonians traveling to New York, and about 1,000,000 New Yorkers traveling to Boston
every year only for business are using the 200-mile distance between Boston and New York.
There are even more travelers commuting between New York City and Washington D.C.
making New York Penn Station and Washington D.C. Union Station the first and second
busiest train stations in the country. Despite the fact that the connection between these four
cities is well developed and various modes of transportations have been in use (frequent
flights, Amtrak, and multiple bus lines), the travel time still falls within 2-5 hours, and the
ticket price, with the exception of the buses, is still pretty steep.
Not only do all these four cities are important business destinations, but they also hold
cultural, educational and commercial significance in the region. With their long history the
cities have much to offer from historical landmarks and historic trails to cultural events such
as concerts and operas, art museums and galleries, as well sports and recreational events.
Needless to say, connecting the cities with the Hyperloop - a more efficient, sustainable
and faster means of transportation - would make a tremendous impact within the Northeast
Corridor, improving their congestion, productivity, commerce as well as ease of traveling
and comfort. A family can catch a Broadway show in Time Square and yet be back home in
Boston for bedtime; or the businessman can have a breakfast meeting at the Capitol in DC
and be back in New York for lunchtime.
Overview: In the East Coast routes, the development was so dense that we changed to an
algorithm that takes a route as input, and mathematically optimizes travel time under a 0.5
total G-force constraint.

1. NEW YORK TO PHILADELPHIA, PA


Today, time is our most valued asset; not only as individuals but also for the success of our
business, the growth of our economy and most importantly for the destiny of our future. As
a country that focuses on rapid growth and technological development, our daily routine
to include effective time management in our travel requirements is a critical key to our
success. Living and working in the North Eastern region of the Unites States is a prime
example of how we value and place importance of our time.
The North Eastern Corridor region is the fifth largest economy in the world, generating over
21 percent of the U.S. National GDP. Over 150 million tourists visit New York, Washington
D.C, Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore per year. The increasing demand for both business
and non business travel between these states and the need to link suppliers, manufacturers,
shippers and customers within the region has led to a realm of challenges faced by local
transportation industries and mega commuters. Hyperloop transportation technologies has
the potential to offer businesses and commuters of the Northeast Corridor a high speed
transit system that would help reduce highway congestion, travel delays, travel time in each
direction and overall travel cost. Hyperloop also would leave much less of a carbon footprint.
The most common methods of transit currently used by daily commuters to travel from
New York to Philadelphia are Air travel from LaGuardia or JFK, Amtrak rail lines, SEPTA, Bolt
Bus and driving route I-95 S. Amtrak is currently the fastest way to travel (1 hr. 25 min) but
too costly for many adding up to around $1395 per monthly pass or $54/ticket for one-way
coach seats. A one-way flight from (LGA) to (PHL) can cost on average $332 with total
travel time up to 3.5 hours. SEPTA train can become costly if not timed right using the SEPTA
to NJ Transit connection and total travel time would equal 3 hours. Bus fare averages $10
per one-way trip but with less comfort and longer travel time and possible frequent stops.
With average traffic conditions, it currently takes about 1 hour and 57 minutes to travel by
car via I-95 South from New York to Philadelphia. For roughly the same amount of money
spent on gasoline per trip $20 commuters can make it to their destination in just minutes in
comparison by taking the Hyperloop.
A Hyperloop capsule route from New York to Philadelphia would add great advantage to
the transportation industry by disencumbering much of the load carried by other forms of
transit, reducing congestion, it would be safer for the environment and it would provide a
more affordable and convenient commute by cutting travel time
2 New York to Boston (Feasibility Score: 10, Travel time: 19.5 minutes)
While commuter-rail transportation along the Eastern Seaboard is well established, the
prospect of truly high-speed ground transportation (near Mach 1) remains elusive. The
Hyperloop offers the prospect for many Easterners of transcending their conventional
transportation and engaging in authentic high-speed transport which makes the route from
the Big Apple to Bean Town seem like a commute to the local grocery store. In fact, to be
sure, an enterprising commuter could certainly shop for their groceries in one city while
dining at home in the next - that is the benefit and value of the Hyperloop!

Here, we analyzed three possible routes (Red, Black, Green):

3 New York to Boston (Feasibility Score: 10, Travel time: 19.5 minutes)
While commuter-rail transportation along the Eastern Seaboard is well established, the
prospect of truly high-speed ground transportation (near Mach 1) remains elusive. The
Hyperloop offers the prospect for many Easterners of transcending their conventional
transportation and engaging in authentic high-speed transport which makes the route from
the Big Apple to Bean Town seem like a commute to the local grocery store. In fact, to be
sure, an enterprising commuter could certainly shop for their groceries in one city while
dining at home in the next - that is the benefit and value of the Hyperloop!
Here, we analyzed three possible routes (Red, Black, Green):

4 New York to Washington D.C. (Feasibility Score: 10, Travel time: 21 minutes)
As already stated, commuter-rail transportation along the Eastern Seaboard is well established
but the prospect of truly high-speed ground transportation (near Mach 1) remains elusive. In
addition, the value of this transportation to the Nations Capital will make access to some of
Washington D.C.s monuments along, The Mall accessible to students from urban centers
who might not have this kind of opportunity otherwise.

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

Questions and next steps:


1. What innovative solutions exist to make travel easier, boarding
processes faster and everything a great experience?
2. What solutions exist or have been done for the Airlocks at the
station?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

Financial
We are looking at 2 ma jor things. Construction cost and the overall business model.
Keeping a ticket price at a low level would allow us to change the way people use the
Hyperloop. The ticket price reflects the construction cost that needs to be recovered so we
want to keep it as low as possible.

COST
In our calculations we are filling in the blanks at the moment with assumptions from the
white paper. Until we have our own calculations, we are very conservative and normally
over-engineer.
We started with calculating a cost per mile. The cost components include site work,
landscaping, tunnels, pillars, tube, electrical, solar panel, HVAC, burdens and miscellany. We
have omitted the negligible costs, like the capsule price per unit.
Calculating, as an example, the initial proposed route between LA to SF, we arrived at a
best-case scenario of $7.027 B and in the worst, $19.034 B.
We know that values will change as we define details. Other areas can be reduced as well.

Questions and Next Steps:


1. What are the costs for the open elements from the white paper?
2. Can the distance between pylons be reduced, to reduce cost?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

Revenue
For the revenue model we primarily are focusing on passenger transport. The revenue
components include traffic times and ticket price anchor points. The potential for massive
improvement in transportation represented by the Hyperloop has the potential to transform
population distributions, commutes, housing markets, etc. in ma jor populations. In order to
reach its highest potential though -- a transportation system that allows people to split ma jor
parts of their daily lives across two ma jor metropolitan areas -- it needs to be affordable as
a daily mode of transportation.
Economic theory would indicate that there is only one appropriate price -- the point at
which supply equals demand. In our case this is where the number of people the loop
can transport equals the number of people who are willing to pay the designated price.
Though, in practice it is possible to employ multiple pricing strategies, like walk-up tickets
vs. prepaid monthly passes.
In short, there are two steps: determining the loops capacity at peak demand times, and
estimating that demand at various prices.

PEAK CAPACITY
This part is fairly straightforward; the alpha document estimates shipping a new capsule
every 30 seconds, with a capsule carrying up to 28 people.
Capsule Capacity x Capsule Launch Rate = Transportation Capacity per Unit of Time
Using the alpha document estimates, the loop should be able to transport 3360 passengers
per hour.

DEMAND
This part is much trickier. The alpha document estimates travel as being 7.4 million passengers
per year, using the currently available methods. However, with the Hyperloop providing
such a substantial improvement over current transportation options we should expect the
number of passengers to increase substantially. It should be noted that a minority of people
might still choose to travel by plane/train/car even after travel via the loop is available. In
addition to an initial increase, there could be an increase over time as people incorporate
the availability of the Hyperloop into their plans, as a daily commute or otherwise. It may
be possible to estimate this gradual increase by examining travel increases between cities
where high-speed rail was installed.
To start to estimate this demand, we can compare typical prices and costs of flights, train/
bus rides, and driving to the number of travelers that choose that method.

COST LIMITATIONS
To this point, we left out that a constraint on price is the need to turn a profit, or at minimum
to break even. The alpha document suggest that if the loop transports 7.4 million passengers
annually, it can repay its original projection of $6 billion over 20 years with ticket prices of
$20+ operational costs.
We are using the higher cost estimate of $16 billion, which implies a need for a higher
minimum price per trip. However, this does not account for the assumed increase in travel
between the two cities.
If there is sufficient demand, we could lower ticket prices by increasing capsule capacity
and/or launch rate, otherwise there will have to be a longer repayment plan, or higher prices.

SUMMARY
Passenger capacity per capsule, and capsule launch rate needs to be determined to calculate
maximum number of trips provided at peak times, and per year.
We might assume current demand to be under 7.4 million, but likely to rise once the project
is completed.
The lowest price we can charge is affected by our costs. The alpha document projects $20+
prices could cover $6 billion in costs over 20 years.
However, our current projected cost is closer to $16 billion, implying a need for a higher
ticket price, unless the loop transports significantly more than 7.4 million annually, or the
timeline for repayment is extended. The demand for increased travel may exist with the
shorter trip time provided by the loop, but the ability to match that demand is determined
by transportation capacity (capsule capacity x launch rate).

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

Questions and Next Steps:


1. Should we research changes in total trips between cities where
high-speed rails were installed?
2. What additional revenue opportunities exist?
3. Could there be a revenue opportunity by selling the power
generated in excess?
4. We have approx. 40 -45 min access to the attention of the
passenger, how could we monetize?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

Financing
A very important part of the project is financing.
In general the company HTT is a research and development company that develops the
know how to build Hyperloops in many cities around the world. The company is committed
to using a community-based approach for crowdsourcing technical and financial inputs to
the project.
There are some exciting opportunities ahead for the marketplace in 2015 with respect to the
JOBS Act once the rules go live. Title III, the crowdfunding regulations allows companies to
raise up to $1 million dollars from the general public. But also Title IV Regulation A+ will allow
us to raise up to $50 million, again from the general public online. There is investor limits
based on individual net worth or annual income for each of these financing opportunities,
which are de facto investor protections. The HTT team looks forward to using these methods
because then the crowd has an opportunity to participate and be rewarded for all of the
great work the contributors are making.
We all know that the capital required to make this project a reality is large in sum and
we may need to source some of the money using another JOBS Act provision, Title II
506c (general solicitation and advertising) which is akin to traditional financing methods
allowing only accredited investors to take part even though we can raise the money on a
crowdfunding platform. The benefit using this mechanism of financing is that there is no
cap on the amount of money that HTT can raise and it allows a larger group of investors to
get in at the ground level.
However it is limited to only accredited investors and would leave out the general public,
therefore serious consideration is also being given to filing as a public traded company
to sell shares on the public market so that anybody has an opportunity to be a part of
Hyperloops growth and the company gets the money needed to make this project a reality.

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

Questions and next steps:


1. Who would be the best strategic partner?
2. Are there any other financial models and solutions that allow us
to raise the funds and give anybody the chance to participate
that believes in this venture?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

Prototype
For sure one of the most challenging areas, The team is still uncertain about the best way
to create a prototypes that allows to test all necessary components.
We have started to build a mockup in order to test the capsule interior.

It seems like several steps have to be taken in order to test the different areas
1. A scaled version allow for the testing of the technical feasibility and probably the first step to
take, taking care of hovering and propulsion outside of a tube to then move into the tube and
the low-pressure environment. Here the tube capsule ratio, airflow could be tested as well as
the compressor.
2. A full scale Version of the capsule interior allows for getting an ambient feeling and the human
factor.
3. A full operating capsule that is capable of hovering and boarding people
4. In order to test boarding procedures, it would seem like a great solution to test the station
design at a high traffic area, like an amusement park.
a. On a stretch of a couple of miles a full-scale Hyperloop could transport visitors. Costs
for this version are high but reducing it to a couple of miles it would allow testing all
components with a low risk, as it would be low speed. A draw back is that we would not
be able to test speed.
5. The best solution would be to create a full-scale version on a commercial route used for freight
transport only. Here we could test out all components optimize speed, acceleration and get the
most data for the final scope of transporting humans.
a. In order to get up to speed and be able to slow down, we would need a minimum
length of a little over 38 km (23.61 miles) but it wouldnt be able to be used by people, with a
smooth ride we need approximately 120km (74.56 miles).
b. As the cost for such a prototype are close to the final one, it would make only
sense to place it in an area that has an actual need for a Hyperloop.
Foreign countries interested in a green alternative have approached our company in the past in order to move
the freight transport off the highways. We would not be able to test boarding procedures it still would be the
most complete prototype.

Questions and next steps:


1. What other prototypes might make sense?
2. How much can the different elements be tested on a scale
3. How much would the prototype cost?

JOIN THE

DISCUSSION
W W W. J U M P S TA R T F U N D . C O M

THE FUTURE IS

NOW
HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

CONCLUSION
As you can see, a lot of work has already been done on
the Hyperloop. By this time youve been able to see there
is still a lot more to do.. Let us re-iterate that we are open
to all sorts of ideas. Bring your creativity, your interest,
and your desire to do something radically different about
mass transit in the United States and the world. Together,
well all be amazed at what we can accomplish.
To register to become a member of the team, or just to
throw ideas around, please visit www.jumpstartfund.com.
We look forward to collaborating with you!

HYPERLOOP
T R A N S P O R TAT I O N T E C H N O L O G I E S

Graphic layout and design of this document developed by


Grant J. Kidney. Contact: grantkidney@gmail.com.

Las Vegas

Los Angeles

Mountain range

new york city

Philadelphia

Pittsburgh

san francisco

washington d.c.