Hyperloop To use solar-powered system

Hyperloop Alpha
Intro
The first several pages will attempt to describe the design in everyday
language, keeping numbers to a minimum and avoiding formulas and jargon. I
apologize in advance for my loose use of language and imperfect analogies.
The second section is for those with a technical background. There are no
doubt errors of various kinds and superior optimizations for elements of the
system. Feedback would be most welcome – please send to
hyperloop@spacex.com or hyperloop@teslamotors.com. I would like to thank
my excellent compadres at both companies for their help in putting this
together.
Background
When the California “high speed” rail was approved, I was quite disappointed,
as I know many others were too. How could it be that the home of Silicon
Valley and JPL – doing incredible things like indexing all the world’s knowledge
and putting rovers on Mars – would build a bullet train that is both one of the
most expensive per mile and one of the slowest in the world? Note, I am

hedging my statement slightly by saying “one of”. The head of the California
high speed rail project called me to complain that it wasn’t the very slowest
bullet train nor the very most expensive per mile.
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 route
Is 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.
Constraining the Problem
The 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.

However, for a sub several hundred mile journey, having a supersonic plane is
rather pointless, as you would spend almost all your time slowly ascending and
descending and very little time at cruise speed. In order to go fast, you need to
be at high altitude where the air density drops exponentially, as air at sea level
becomes as thick as molasses (not literally, but you get the picture) as you
approach sonic velocity.
So What is Hyperloop Anyway?
Short of figuring out real teleportation, which would of course be awesome
(someone please do this), the only option for super fast travel is to build a tube
over or under the ground that contains a special environment. This is where
things get tricky.
At one extreme of the potential solutions is some enlarged version of the old
pneumatic tubes used to send mail and packages within and between buildings.
You could, in principle, use very powerful fans to push air at high speed
through a tube and propel people-sized pods all the way from LA to San
Francisco. However, the friction of a 350 mile long column of air moving at
anywhere near sonic velocity against the inside of the tube is so stupendously
high that this is impossible for all practical purposes.
Another extreme is the approach, advocated by Rand and ET3, of drawing a
hard or near hard vacuum in the tube and then using an electromagnetic
suspension. The problem with this approach is that it is incredibly hard to
maintain a near vacuum in a room, let alone 700 miles (round trip) of large
tube with dozens of station gateways and thousands of pods entering and
exiting every day. All it takes is one leaky seal or a small crack somewhere in
the hundreds of miles of tube and the whole system stops working.
However, a low pressure (vs. almost no pressure) system set to a level where
standard commercial pumps could easily overcome an air leak and the
transport pods could handle variable air density would be inherently robust.
Unfortunately, this means that there is a non-trivial amount of air in the tube
and leads us straight into another problem.
Overcoming the Kantrowitz Limit
Whenever you have a capsule or pod (I am using the words interchangeably)
moving at high speed through a tube containing air, there is a minimum tube to
pod area ratio below which you will choke the flow. What this means is that if
the walls of the tube and the capsule are too close together, the capsule will
behave like a syringe and eventually be forced to push the entire column of air
in the system. Not good.
Nature’s top speed law for a given tube to pod area ratio is known as the
Kantrowitz limit. This is highly problematic, as it forces you to either go slowly

or have a super huge diameter tube. Interestingly, there are usually two
solutions to the Kantrowitz limit – one where you go slowly and one where you
go really, really fast.
The latter solution sounds mighty appealing at first, until you realize that going
several thousand miles per hour means that you can’t tolerate even wide turns
without painful g loads. For a journey from San Francisco to LA, you will also
experience a rather intense speed up and slow down. And, when you get right
down to it, going through transonic buffet in a tube is just fundamentally a
dodgy prospect.
Both for trip comfort and safety, it would be best to travel at high subsonic
speeds for a 350 mile journey. For much longer journeys, such as LA to NY, it
would be worth exploring super high speeds and this is probably technically
feasible, but, as mentioned above, I believe the economics would probably
favor a supersonic plane.
The approach that I believe would overcome the Kantrowitz limit is to mount
an electric compressor fan on the nose of the pod that actively transfers high
pressure air from the front to the rear of the vessel. This is like having a pump
in the head of the syringe actively relieving pressure.
It would also simultaneously solve another problem, which is how to create a
low friction suspension system when traveling at over 700 mph. Wheels don’t
work very well at that sort of speed, but a cushion of air does. Air bearings,
which use the same basic principle as an air hockey table, have been
demonstrated to work at speeds of Mach 1.1 with very low friction. In this
case, however, it is the pod that is producing the air cushion, rather than the
tube, as it is important to make the tube as low cost and simple as possible.
That then begs the next question of whether a battery can store enough energy
to power a fan for the length of the journey with room to spare. Based on our
calculations, this is no problem, so long as the energy used to accelerate the
pod is not drawn from the battery pack.
This is where the external linear electric motor comes in, which is simply a
round induction motor (like the one in the Tesla Model S) rolled flat. This
would accelerate the pod to high subsonic velocity and provide a periodic
reboost roughly every 70 miles. The linear electric motor is needed for as little
as ~1% of the tube length, so is not particularly costly.
Making the Economics Work
The pods and linear motors are relatively minor expenses compared to the tube
itself – several hundred million dollars at most, compared with several billion
dollars for the tube. Even several billion is a low number when compared with
several tens of billion proposed for the track of the California rail project.

The key advantages of a tube vs. a railway track are that it can be built above
the ground on pylons and it can be built in prefabricated sections that are
dropped in place and joined with an orbital seam welder. By building it on
pylons, you can almost entirely avoid the need to buy land by following
alongside the mostly very straight California Interstate 5 highway, with only
minor deviations when the highway makes a sharp turn.
Even when the Hyperloop path deviates from the highway, it will cause minimal
disruption to farmland roughly comparable to a tree or telephone pole, which
farmers deal with all the time. A ground based high speed rail system by
comparison needs up to a 100 ft wide swath of dedicated land to build up
foundations for both directions, forcing people to travel for several miles just
to get to the other side of their property. It is also noisy, with nothing to
contain the sound, and needs unsightly protective fencing to prevent animals,
people or vehicles from getting on to the track. Risk of derailment is also not
to be taken lightly, as demonstrated by several recent fatal train accidents.
Earthquakes and Expansion Joints
A ground based high speed rail system is susceptible to Earthquakes and needs
frequent expansion joints to deal with thermal expansion/contraction and
subtle, large scale land movement.
By building a system on pylons, where the tube is not rigidly fixed at any point,
you can dramatically mitigate Earthquake risk and avoid the need for expansion
joints. Tucked away inside each pylon, you could place two adjustable lateral
(XY) dampers and one vertical (Z) damper.
These would absorb the small length changes between pylons due to thermal
changes, as well as long form subtle height changes. As land slowly settles to a
new position over time, the damper neutral position can be adjusted
accordingly. A telescoping tube, similar to the boxy ones used to access
airplanes at airports would be needed at the end stations to address the
cumulative length change of the tube.
Can it Really be Self-Powering?
For the full explanation, please see the technical section, but the short answer
is that by placing solar panels on top of the tube, the Hyperloop can generate
far in excess of the energy needed to operate. This takes into account storing
enough energy in battery packs to operate at night and for periods of extended
cloudy weather. The energy could also be stored in the form of compressed air
that then runs an electric fan in reverse to generate energy, as demonstrated
by LightSail.

Hyperloop Preliminary Design Study
Technical Section
1. Abstract
Existing conventional modes of transportation of people consists of four unique
types: rail, road, water, and air. These modes of transport tend to be either
relatively slow (i.e., road and water), expensive (i.e., air), or a combination of
relatively slow and expensive (i.e., rail). Hyperloop is a new mode of transport
that seeks to change this paradigm by being both fast and inexpensive for
people and goods. Hyperloop is also unique in that it is an open design concept,
similar to Linux. Feedback is desired from the community that can help
advance the Hyperloop design and bring it from concept to reality.
Hyperloop consists of a low pressure tube with capsules that are transported at
both low and high speeds throughout the length of the tube. The capsules are
supported on a cushion of air, featuring pressurized air and aerodynamic lift.
The capsules are accelerated via a magnetic linear accelerator affixed at
various stations on the low pressure tube with rotors contained in each capsule.
Passengers may enter and exit Hyperloop at stations located either at the ends
of the tube, or branches along the tube length.
In this study, the initial route, preliminary design, and logistics of the
Hyperloop transportation system have been derived. The system consists of
capsules that travel between Los Angeles, California and San Francisco,
California. The total trip time is approximately half an hour, with capsules
departing as often as every 30 seconds from each terminal and carrying 28
people each. This gives a total of 7.4 million people each way that can be
transported each year on Hyperloop. The total cost of Hyperloop in this
analysis is under $6 billion USD. Amortizing this capital cost over 20 years and
adding daily operational costs gives a total of about $20 USD (in current year
dollars) plus operating costs per one-way ticket on the passenger Hyperloop.
Useful feedback is welcomed on aspects of the Hyperloop design. E-mail
feedback to hyperloop@spacex.com or hyperloop@teslamotors.com.
2. Table of Contents
1. Abstract..................................................................................6
2. Table of Contents ......................................................................6
3. Background ..............................................................................8
4. Hyperloop Transportation System....................................................9
4.1. Capsule............................................................................ 11
4.1.1. Geometry.................................................................... 13

4.1.2. Interior....................................................................... 15
4.1.3. Compressor.................................................................. 17
4.1.4. Suspension................................................................... 20
4.1.5. Onboard Power ............................................................. 22
4.1.6. Propulsion ................................................................... 22
4.1.7. Cost........................................................................... 23
4.2. Tube............................................................................... 24
4.2.1. Geometry.................................................................... 25
4.2.2. Tube Construction.......................................................... 26
4.2.3. Pylons and Tunnels......................................................... 27
4.2.4. Station Construction ....................................................... 31
4.2.5. Cost........................................................................... 32
4.3. Propulsion ........................................................................ 32
4.3.1. Capsule Components (Rotor) ............................................. 35
4.3.2. Tube Components (Stator) ................................................ 36
4.3.3. Energy Storage Components .............................................. 37
4.3.4. Cost........................................................................... 37
4.3.5. Propulsion for Passenger Plus Vehicle System ......................... 38
4.4. Route.............................................................................. 38
4.4.1. Route Optimization ........................................................ 40
4.4.1.1. Los Angeles/Grapevine - South ........................................ 43
4.4.1.2. Los Angeles/Grapevine – North ........................................ 45
4.4.1.2. I-5 .......................................................................... 47
4.4.1.3. I-580/San Francisco Bay................................................. 48
4.4.3. Station Locations ........................................................... 50
4.5. Safety and Reliability ........................................................... 52
4.5.1. Onboard Passenger Emergency........................................... 52
4.5.2. Power Outage............................................................... 53
4.5.2. Capsule Depressurization ................................................. 53
4.5.3. Capsule Stranded in Tube................................................. 54
4.5.4. Structural Integrity of the Tube in Jeopardy........................... 54
4.5.5. Earthquakes ................................................................. 54
4.5.6. Human Related Incidents ................................................. 54
4.5.7. Reliability.................................................................... 55
4.6. Cost................................................................................ 55

6. Conclusions ............................................................................ 56
7. Future Work ........................................................................... 57
3. Background
The corridor between San Francisco, California and Los Angeles, California is
one of the most often traveled corridors in the American West. The current
practical modes of transport for passengers between these two major
population centers include:
1. Road (inexpensive, slow, usually not environmentally sound)
2. Air (expensive, fast, not environmentally sound)
3. Rail (expensive, slow, often environmentally sound)
A new mode of transport is needed that has benefits of the current modes
without the negative aspects of each. This new high speed transportation
system has the following requirements:
1. Ready when the passenger is ready to travel (road)
2. Inexpensive (road)
3. Fast (air)
4. Environmentally friendly (rail/road via electric cars)
The current contender for a new transportation system between southern and
northern California is the “California High Speed Rail.” The parameters
outlining this system include:
1. Currently $68.4 billion USD proposed cost
2. Average speed of 164 mph (264 kph) between San Francisco and Los
Angeles
3. Travel time of 2 hours and 38 minutes between San Francisco and Los
Angeles
a. Compare with 1 hour and 15 minutes by air
b. Compare with 5 hours and 30 minutes by car
4. Average one-way ticket price of $105 one-way (reference)
a. Compare with $158 round trip by air for September 2013
b. Compare with $115 round trip by road ($4/gallon with 30 mpg
vehicle)
A new high speed mode of transport is desired between Los Angeles and San
Francisco; however, the proposed California High Speed Rail does not reduce
current trip times or reduce costs relative to existing modes of transport. This
preliminary design study proposes a new mode of high speed transport that
reduces both the travel time and travel cost between Los Angeles and San
Francisco. Options are also included to increase the transportation system to
other major population centers across California. It is also worth noting the
energy cost of this system is less than any currently existing mode of transport

(Figure 1). The only system that comes close to matching the low energy
requirements of Hyperloop is the fully electric Tesla Model S.
Figure 1. Energy cost per passenger for a journey between Los Angeles and San Francisco for
various modes of transport.
4. Hyperloop Transportation System
Hyperloop (Figure 2 through Figure 3) is a proposed transportation system for
traveling between Los Angeles, California, and San Francisco, California in 35
minutes. The Hyperloop consists of several distinct components, including:
1. Capsule:
a. Sealed capsules carrying 28 passengers each that travel along the
interior of the tube depart on average every 2 minutes from Los
Angeles or San Francisco (up to every 30 seconds during peak
usage hours).
b. A larger system has also been sized that allows transport of 3 full
size automobiles with passengers to travel in the capsule.

c. The capsules are separated within the tube by approximately 23
miles (37 km) on average during operation.
d. The capsules are supported via air bearings that operate using a
compressed air reservoir and aerodynamic lift.
2. Tube:
a. The tube is made of steel. Two tubes will be welded together in a
side by side configuration to allow the capsules to travel both
directions.
b. Pylons are placed every 100 ft (30 m) to support the tube.
c. Solar arrays will cover the top of the tubes in order to provide
power to the system.
3. Propulsion:
a. Linear accelerators are constructed along the length of the tube
at various locations to accelerate the capsules.
b. Stators are located on the capsules to transfer momentum to the
capsules via the linear accelerators.
4. Route:
a. There will be a station at Los Angeles and San Francisco. Several
stations along the way will be possible with splits in the tube.
b. The majority of the route will follow I-5 and the tube will be
constructed in the median.
Figure 2. Hyperloop conceptual diagram.
Los
Angeles,
CA
San
Francisco,
CA

Figure 3. Hyperloop tube stretching from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
In addition to these aspects of the Hyperloop, safety and cost will also be
addressed in this study.
The Hyperloop is sized to allow expansion as the network becomes increasingly
popular. The capacity would be 840 passengers per hour which more than
sufficient to transport all of the 6 million passengers traveling between Los
Angeles and San Francisco areas per year. In addition, this accounts for 70% of
those travelers to use the Hyperloop during rush hour. The lower cost of
traveling on Hyperloop is likely to result in increased demand, in which case
the time between capsule departures could be significantly shortened.
4.1. Capsule
Two versions of the Hyperloop capsules are being considered: a passenger only
version and a passenger plus vehicle version.
Hyperloop Passenger Capsule
Assuming an average departure time of 2 minutes between capsules, a
minimum of 28 passengers per capsule are required to meet 840 passengers per
hour. It is possible to further increase the Hyperloop capacity by reducing the
time between departures. The current baseline requires up to 40 capsules in
activity during rush hour, 6 of which are at the terminals for loading and
unloading of the passengers in approximately 5 minutes.
Hyperloop Passenger Plus Vehicle Capsule

The passenger plus vehicle version of the Hyperloop will depart as often as the
passenger only version, but will accommodate 3 vehicles in addition to the
passengers. All subsystems discussed in the following sections are featured on
both capsules.
For travel at high speeds, the greatest power requirement is normally to
overcome air resistance. Aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed,
and thus the power requirement increases with the cube of speed. For
example, to travel twice as fast a vehicle must overcome four times the
aerodynamic resistance, and input eight times the power.
Just as aircraft climb to high altitudes to travel through less dense air,
Hyperloop encloses the capsules in a reduce pressure tube. The pressure of air
in Hyperloop is about 1/6 the pressure of the atmosphere on Mars. This is an
operating pressure of 100 Pascals, which reduces the drag force of the air by
1,000 times relative to sea level conditions and would be equivalent to flying
above 150,000 feet altitude. A hard vacuum is avoided as vacuums are
expensive and difficult to maintain compared with low pressure solutions.
Despite the low pressure, aerodynamic challenges must still be addressed.
These include managing the formation of shock waves when the speed of the
capsule approaches the speed of sound, and the air resistance increases
sharply. Close to the cities where more turns must be navigated, capsules
travel at a lower speed. This reduces the accelerations felt by the passengers,
and also reduces power requirements for the capsule. The capsules travel at
760 mph (1,220 kph, Mach 0.91 at 68 ºF or 20 ºC).
The proposed capsule geometry houses several distinct systems to reside within
the outer mold line (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Hyperloop passenger capsule subsystem notional locations (not to scale).
Compressor
motor
Seating
(2 x 14)
BatteriesCompressor
fan
Inlet
Air storage
Suspension
Firewall/
sound bulkhead

4.1.1. Geometry
In order to optimize the capsule speed and performance, the frontal area has
been minimized for size while maintaining passenger comfort (Figure 5 and
Figure 6).
Figure 5. Hyperloop passenger transport capsule conceptual design sketch.

Figure 6. Hyperloop passenger transport capsule conceptual design rendering.
The vehicle is streamlined to reduce drag and features a compressor at the
leading face to ingest oncoming air for levitation and to a lesser extent
propulsion. Aerodynamic simulations have demonstrated the validity of this
‘compressor within a tube’ concept (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Streamlines for capsule traveling at high subsonic velocities inside Hyperloop.

The maximum width is 4.43 ft (1.35 m) and maximum height is 6.11 ft (1.10
m). With rounded corners, this is equivalent to a 15 ft2
(1.4 m2
) frontal area,
not including any propulsion or suspension components.
The aerodynamic power requirements at 700 mph (1,130 kph) is around only
134 hp (100 kW) with a drag force of only 72 lbf (320 N), or about the same
force as the weight of one oversized checked bag at the airport. The doors on
each side will open in a gullwing (or possibly sliding) manner to allow easy
access during loading and unloading. The luggage compartment will be at the
front or rear of the capsule.
The overall structure weight is expected to be near 6,800 lb (3,100 kg)
including the luggage compartments and door mechanism. The overall cost of
the structure including manufacturing is targeted to be no more than $245,000.
The passenger plus vehicle version of the Hyperloop capsule has an increased
frontal area of 43 ft2
(4.0 m2
), not including any propulsion or suspension
components. This accounts for enough width to fit a vehicle as large as the
Tesla Model X.
The aerodynamic power requirement at 700 mph (1,130 kph) is around only 382
hp (285 kW) with a drag force of 205 lbf (910 N). The doors on each side will
open in a gullwing (or possibly sliding) manner to allow accommodate loading
of vehicles, passengers, or freight.
The overall structure weight is expected to be near 7,700 lb (3,500 kg)
including the luggage compartments and door mechanism. The overall cost of
the structure including manufacturing is targeted to be no more than $275,000.
4.1.2. Interior
The interior of the capsule is specifically designed with passenger safety and
comfort in mind. The seats conform well to the body to maintain comfort
during the high speed accelerations experienced during travel. Beautiful
landscape will be displayed in the cabin and each passenger will have access
their own personal entertainment system.
The Hyperloop passenger capsule (Figure 8 and Figure 9) overall interior weight
is expected to be near 5,500 lb (2,500 kg) including the seats, restraint
systems, interior and door panels, luggage compartments, and entertainment

displays. The overall cost of the interior components is targeted to be no more
than $255,000.
Figure 8. Hyperloop passenger capsule version with doors open at the station.
Figure 9. Hyperloop passenger capsule version cutaway with passengers onboard.

The Hyperloop passenger plus vehicle capsule overall interior weight is
expected to be near 6,000 lb (2,700 kg) including the seats, restraint systems,
interior and door panels, luggage compartments, and entertainment displays.
The overall cost of the interior components is targeted to be no more than
$185,000.
4.1.3. Compressor
One important feature of the capsule is the onboard compressor, which serves
two purposes. This system allows the capsule to traverse the relatively narrow
tube without choking flow that travels between the capsule and the tube walls
(resulting in a build-up of air mass in front of the capsule and increasing the
drag) by compressing air that is bypassed through the capsule. It also supplies
air to air bearings that support the weight of the capsule throughout the
journey.
The air processing occurs as follows (Figure 10 and Figure 11) (note mass
counting is tracked in Section 4.1.4):
1. Tube air is compressed with a compression ratio of 20:1 via an axial
compressor.
2. Up to 60% of this air is bypassed:
a. The air travels via a narrow tube near bottom of the capsule to
the tail.
b. A nozzle at the tail expands the flow generating thrust to mitigate
some of the small amounts of aerodynamic and bearing drag.
3. Up to 0.44 lb/s (0.2 kg/s) of air is cooled and compressed an additional
5.2:1 for the passenger version with additional cooling afterward.
a. This air is stored in onboard composite overwrap pressure vessels.
b. The stored air is eventually consumed by the air bearings to
maintain distance between the capsule and tube walls.
4. An onboard water tank is used for cooling of the air.
a. Water is pumped at 0.30 lb/s (0.14 kg/s) through two intercoolers
(639 lb or 290 kg total mass of coolant).
b. The steam is stored onboard until reaching the station.
c. Water and steam tanks are changed automatically at each stop.
5. The compressor is powered by a 436 hp (325 kW) onboard electric
motor:
a. The motor has an estimated mass of 372 lb (169 kg), which
includes power electronics.
b. An estimated 3,400 lb (1,500 kg) of batteries provides 45 minutes
of onboard compressor power, which is more than sufficient for
the travel time with added reserve backup power.

c. Onboard batteries are changed at each stop and charged at the
stations.
Figure 10. Compressor schematic for passenger capsule.
1. Tube air is compressed with a compression ratio of 20:1 via an axial
compressor.
2. Up to 85% of this air is bypassed:
a. The air travels via a narrow tube near bottom of the capsule to
the tail.
b. A nozzle at the tail expands the flow generating thrust to mitigate
some of the small amounts of aerodynamic and bearing drag.
3. Up to 0.44 lb/s (0.2 kg/s) of air is cooled and compressed an additional
6.2:1 for the passenger plus vehicle version with additional cooling
afterward.
a. This air is stored in onboard composite overwrap pressure vessels.
b. The stored air is eventually consumed by the air bearings to
maintain distance between the capsule and tube walls.
Pin ≈ 52 kW
Air In
p ≈ 99 Pa
T ≈ 292 K
𝑚 ≈ 0.49 kg/s
Pin
≈ 276 kW
Air Out
p ≈ 2.1 kPa
T ≈ 857 K
𝑚 ≈ 0.2 kg/s
Nozzle expander
Axial compressor
Intercooler Intercooler
Air Out
Fthrust ≈ 170 N
Pthrust ≈ 58 kW
Water Reservoir
p ≈ 101 kPa
T ≈ 293 K
𝑚 ≈ 290 kg Air Out
p ≈ 11 kPa
T ≈ 557 K
Air Cooled
T  300 K
Air
p ≈ 11 kPa
T ≈ 400 K
Steam Out
Water In
𝑚 𝐻2 𝑂 ℓ ≈ 0.14 kg/s
Steam
𝑚 ≈ 0.29 kg/s

4. An onboard water tank is used for cooling of the air.
a. Water is pumped at 0.86 lb/s (0.39 kg/s) through two intercoolers
(1,800 lb or 818 kg total mass of coolant).
b. The steam is stored onboard until reaching the station.
c. Water and steam tanks are changed automatically at each stop.
5. The compressor is powered by a 1,160 hp (865 kW) onboard electric
motor:
a. The motor has an estimated mass of 606 lb (275 kg), which
includes power electronics.
b. An estimated 8,900 lb (4,000 kg) of batteries provides 45 minutes
of onboard compressor power, which is more than sufficient for
the travel time with added reserve backup power.
c. Onboard batteries are changed at each stop and charged at the
stations.
Figure 11. Compressor schematic for passenger plus vehicle capsule.
Pin ≈ 60 kW
Air In
p ≈ 99 Pa
T ≈ 292 K
𝑚 ≈ 1.43 kg/s
Pin
≈ 808 kW
Air Out
p ≈ 2.1 kPa
T ≈ 857 K
𝑚 ≈ 0.2 kg/s
Nozzle expander
Axial compressor
Intercooler Intercooler
Air Out
Fthrust ≈ 72 N
Pthrust ≈ 247 kW
Water Reservoir
p ≈ 101 kPa
T ≈ 293 K
𝑚 ≈ 818 kg Air Out
p ≈ 13.4 kPa
T ≈ 59 K
Air Cooled
T  300 K
Air
p ≈ 13.4 kPa
T ≈ 400 K
Steam Out
Water In
𝑚 𝐻2 𝑂 ℓ ≈ 0.39 kg/s
Steam
𝑚 ≈ 1.23 kg/s

4.1.4. Suspension
Suspending the capsule within the tube presents a substantial technical
challenge due to transonic cruising velocities. Conventional wheel and axle
systems become impractical at high speed due frictional losses and dynamic
instability. A viable technical solution is magnetic levitation; however the cost
associated with material and construction is prohibitive. An alternative to
these conventional options is an air bearing suspension. Air bearings offer
stability and extremely low drag at a feasible cost by exploiting the ambient
atmosphere in the tube.
Figure 12: Schematic of air bearing skis that support the capsule.
Externally pressurized and aerodynamic air bearings are well suited for the
Hyperloop due to exceptionally high stiffness, which is required to maintain
stability at high speeds. When the gap height between a ski and the tube wall
is reduced, the flow field in the gap exhibits a highly non-linear reaction
resulting in large restoring pressures. The increased pressure pushes the ski
away from the wall, allowing it to return to its nominal ride height. While a
stiff air bearing suspension is superb for reliability and safety, it could create
considerable discomfort for passengers onboard. To account for this, each ski is
integrated into an independent mechanical suspension, ensuring a smooth ride
for passengers. The capsule may also include traditional deployable wheels
similar to aircraft landing gear for ease of movement at speeds under 100 mph
(160 kph) and as a component of the overall safety system.
Hyperloop capsules will float above the tube’s surface on an array of 28 air
bearing skis that are geometrically conformed to the tube walls. The skis, each
4.9 ft (1.5 meters) in length and 3.0 ft (0.9 meters) in width, support the
weight of the capsule by floating on a pressurized cushion of air 0.020 to 0.050
in. (0.5 to 1.3 mm) off the ground. Peak pressures beneath the skis need only
reach 1.4 psi (9.4 kPa) to support the passenger capsule (9% of sea level
atmospheric pressure). The skis depend on two mechanisms to pressurize the
thin air film: external pressurization and aerodynamics.
The aerodynamic method of generating pressure under the air bearings
becomes appreciable at moderate to high capsule speeds. As the capsule
accelerates up to cruising speed, the front tip of each ski is elevated relative

to the back tip such that the ski rests at a slight angle of 0.05º. Viscous forces
trap a thin film of air in the converging gap between the ski and the tube wall.
The air beneath the ski becomes pressurized which alters the flow field to
satisfy fundamental laws of mass, momentum, and energy conservation. The
resultant elevated pressure beneath the ski relative to the ambient atmosphere
provides a net lifting force that is sufficient to support a portion of the
capsule’s weight.
However, the pressure field generated by aerodynamics is not sufficient to
support the entire weight of the vehicle. At lower speeds, very little lift can be
generated by aerodynamic mechanisms. Temperature and density in the fluid
film begin to rise more rapidly than pressure at high speeds, thus lift ceases to
increase as the capsule accelerates into the transonic regime.
Lift is supplemented by injecting highly pressurized air into the gap. By
applying an externally supplied pressure, a favorable pressure distribution is
established beneath the bearing and sufficient lift is generated to support the
capsule. This system is known as an external pressure (EP) bearing and it is
effective when the capsule is stationary or moving at very high speeds. At
nominal weight and g-loading, a capsule on the Hyperloop will require air
injection beneath the ski at a rate of 0.44 lb/s (0.2 kg/s) at 1.4 psi (9.4 kPa)
for the passenger capsule. The air is introduced via a network of grooves in the
bearing’s bottom surface and is sourced directly from the high pressure air
reservoir onboard the capsule.
The aerodynamically and externally pressurized film beneath the skis will
generate a drag force on the capsule. The drag may be computed by
recognizing that fluid velocity in the flow field is driven by both the motion of
the tube wall relative to the ski and by a pressure gradient, which is typically
referred to as a Couette-Poiseuille flow. Such flows are well understood, and
the resultant drag can be computed analytically (as done in this alpha study)
and improved and/or validated by computational methods. The predicted total
drag generated by the 28 air bearings at a capsule speed of 760 mph (1,220
kph) is 31 lbf (140 N), resulting in a 64 hp (48 kW) power loss.
The passenger capsule air bearing system weight is expected to be about 6,200
lb (2,800 kg) including the compressors, air tank, plumbing, suspension, and
bearing surfaces. The overall cost of the air bearing components is targeted to
be no more than $475,000.
The passenger plus vehicle version of the Hyperloop capsule places more
aggressive lifting requirements on the air bearings, but the expanded diameter
of the tube provides a greater surface area for lift generation. For this version,
an extra 12 in. (30 cm) of width would be added to each bearing. The nominal

air supply pressure would increase to 1.6 psi (11.2 kPa), but the flow rate
required would remain 0.44 lb/s (0.2 kg/s) thanks to the increased area under
the skis. Drag on the skis at 42 lbf (187 N), results in a power loss of 85 hp (63
kW).
The passenger plus vehicle capsule air bearing system weight is expected to be
about 8,400 lb (3,800 kg) including the compressors, air tank, plumbing,
suspension, and bearing surfaces. The overall cost of the air bearing
components is targeted to be no more than $565,000.
4.1.5. Onboard Power
The passenger capsule power system includes an estimated 5,500 lb (2,500 kg)
of batteries to power the onboard compressor and capsule systems in addition
to the compressor motor and coolant. The battery, motor, and electronic
components cost is estimated to be near $150,000 per capsule in addition to
the cost of the suspension system.
The passenger plus vehicle capsule power system includes an estimated 12,100
lb (5,500 kg) of batteries to power the onboard compressor and capsule
systems in addition to the compressor motor and coolant. The battery, motor
and electronic components cost is estimated to be near $200,000 per capsule in
addition to the cost of the suspension system.
4.1.6. Propulsion
In order to propel the vehicle at the required travel speed, an advanced linear
motor system is being developed to accelerate the capsule above 760 mph
(1,220 kph) at a maximum of 1g for comfort. The moving motor element (rotor)
will be located on the vehicle for weight savings and power requirements while
the tube will incorporate the stationary motor element (stator) which powers
the vehicle. More details can be found in the section 4.3.
The overall propulsion system weight attached to the capsule is expected to be
near 2,900 lb (1,300 kg) including the support and emergency braking system.
The overall cost of the system is targeted to be no more than $125,000. This
brings the total capsule weight near 33,000 lb (15,000 kg) including passenger
and luggage weight.
The overall propulsion system weight attached to the capsule is expected to be
near 3,500 lb (1,600 kg) including the support and emergency braking system.
The overall cost of the system is targeted to be no more than $150,000. This

brings the total capsule weight near 57,000 lb (26,000) kg including passenger,
luggage, and vehicle weight.
4.1.7. Cost
The overall cost of the Hyperloop passenger capsule version (Table 1) is
expected to be under $1.35 million USD including manufacturing and assembly
cost. With 40 capsules required for the expected demand, the total cost of
capsules for the Hyperloop system should be no more than $54 million USD or
approximately 1% of the total budget.
Although the overall cost of the project would be higher, we have also detailed
the expected cost of a larger capsule (Table 2) which could carry not only
passengers but cargo and cars/SUVs as well. The frontal area of the capsule
would have to be increased to 43 ft2
(4 m2
) and the tube diameter would be
increased to 10 ft 10 in. (3.3 m).
Table 1. Crew capsule weight and cost breakdown
Vehicle Component Cost ($) Weight (kg)
Capsule Structure & Doors: $ 245,000 3100
Interior & Seats: $ 255,000 2500
Propulsion System: $ 75,000 700
Suspension & Air Bearings: $ 200,000 1000
Batteries, Motor & Coolant: $ 150,000 2500
Air Compressor: $ 275,000 1800
Emergency Braking: $ 50,000 600
General Assembly: $ 100,000 N/A
Passengers & Luggage: N/A 2800
Total/Capsule: $ 1,350,000 15000
Total for Hyperloop: $ 54,000,000
Table 2. Cargo and crew capsule weight and cost breakdown
Vehicle Component Cost ($) Weight (kg)
Capsule Structure & Doors: $ 275,000 3500
Interior & Seats: $ 185,000 2700
Propulsion System: $ 80,000 800
Suspension & Air Bearings: $ 265,000 1300
Batteries, Motor & Coolant: $ 200,000 5500
Air Compressor: $ 300,000 2500
Emergency Braking: $ 70,000 800
General Assembly: $ 150,000 N/A
Passengers & Luggage: N/A 1400
Car & Cargo: N/A 7500

Total/Capsule: $ 1,525,000 26000
Total for Hyperloop: $ 61,000,000
4.2. Tube
The main Hyperloop route consists of a partially evacuated cylindrical tube
that connects the Los Angeles and San Francisco stations in a closed loop
system (Figure 2). The tube is specifically sized for optimal air flow around the
capsule improving performance and energy consumption at the expected travel
speed. The expected pressure inside the tube will be maintained around 0.015
psi (100 Pa, 0.75 torr), which is about 1/6 the pressure on Mars. This low
pressure minimizes the drag force on the capsule while maintaining the relative
ease of pumping out the air from the tube. The efficiency of industrial vacuum
pumps decreases exponentially as the pressure is reduced (Figure 13), so
further benefits from reducing tube pressure would be offset by increased
pumping complexity.
Figure 13. Typical vacuum pump speed for functional pressure range.
In order to minimize cost of the Hyperloop tube, it will be elevated on pillars
which greatly reduce the footprint required on the ground and the size of the
construction area required. Thanks to the small pillar footprint and by
maintaining the route as close as possible to currently operated highways, the
amount of land required for the Hyperloop is minimized. More details are
available for the route in section 4.4.
The Hyperloop travel journey will feel very smooth since the capsule will be
guided directly on the inner surface of the tube via the use of air bearings and
suspension; this also prevents the need for costly tracks. The capsule will bank
off the walls and include a control system for smooth returns to nominal
capsule location from banking as well. Some specific sections of the tube will
incorporate the stationary motor element (stator) which will locally guide and
accelerate (or decelerate) the capsule. More details are available for the
propulsion system in section 4.3. Between linear motor stations, the capsule
will glide with little drag via air bearings.

4.2.1. Geometry
The geometry of the tube depends on the choice of either the passenger
version of Hyperloop or the passenger plus vehicles version of Hyperloop.
In either case, if the speed of the air passing through the gaps accelerates to
supersonic velocities, then shock waves form. These waves limit how much air
can actually get out of the way of the capsule, building up a column of air in
front of its nose and increasing drag until the air pressure builds up
significantly in front of the capsule. With the increased drag and additional
mass of air to push, the power requirements for the capsule increase
significantly. It is therefore very important to avoid shock wave formation
around the capsule by careful selecting of the capsule/tube area ratio. This
ensures sufficient mass air flow around and through the capsule at all operating
speeds. Any air that cannot pass around the annulus between the capsule and
tube is bypassed using the onboard compressor in each capsule.
Figure 14. Hyperloop capsule in tube cutaway with attached solar arrays.
Passenger Hyperloop Tube
The inner diameter of the tube is optimized to be 7 ft 4 in. (2.23 m) which is
small enough to keep material cost low while large enough to provide some
alleviation of choked air flow around the capsule. The tube cross-sectional area
is 42.2 ft2
(3.91 m2
) giving a capsule/tube area ratio of 36% or a diameter ratio
of 60%. It is critical to the aerodynamics of the capsule to keep this ratio as
large as possible, even though the pressure in the tube is extremely low. As
the capsule moves through the tube, it must displace its own volume of air, in

a loosely similar way to a boat in water. The displacement of the air is
constricted by the walls of the tube, which makes it accelerate to squeeze
through the gaps. Any flow not displaced must be ingested by the onboard
compressor of each capsule, which increases power requirements.
The closed loop tube will be mounted side by side on elevated pillars as seen in
Figure 5. The surface above the tubes will be lined with solar panels to provide
the required system energy. This represents a possible area of 14 ft (4.25 m)
wide for more than 350 miles (563 km) of tube length. With an expected solar
panel energy production of 0.015 hp/ft2
(120 W/m2
), we can expect the system
to produce a maximum of 382,000 hp (285 MW) at peak solar activity. This
would actually be more energy than needed for the Hyperloop system and the
detailed power requirements will be detailed in section 4.3.
Passenger Plus Vehicle Hyperloop Tube
The inner diameter of the tube is optimized to be 10 ft 10 in. (3.30 m), larger
than the passenger version to accommodate the larger capsule. The tube cross-
sectional area is 92.1 ft2
(8.55 m2
) giving a capsule/tube area ratio of 47% or a
diameter ratio of 68%.
The closed passenger plus vehicle Hyperloop tube will be mounted side by side
in the same manner as the passenger version as seen in Figure 5. The surface
above the tubes will be lined with solar panels to provide the required system
energy. This represents a possible area of 22 ft (6.6 m) wide for more than 350
miles (563 km) of tube length. With an expected solar panel energy production
of 0.015 hp/ft2
(120W/m2
), we can expect the system to produce a maximum
of 598,000 hp (446 MW) at peak solar activity. This would actually be more
energy than needed for the passenger plus vehicle Hyperloop system and the
detailed power requirements will be detailed in section 4.3.
Station Connections
The stations are isolated from the main tube as much as possible in order to
limit air leaks into the system. In addition, isolated branches and stations off
the main tubes could be built to access some towns along the way between Los
Angeles and San Francisco. Vacuum pumps will run continuously at various
locations along the length of the tube to maintain the required pressure
despite any possible leaks through the joint and stations. The expected cost of
all required vacuum pumps is expected to be no more than $10 million USD.
4.2.2. Tube Construction
In order to keep cost to a minimum, a uniform thickness steel tube reinforced
with stringers was selected as the material of choice for the inner diameter
tube Tube sections would be pre-fabricated and installed between pillar
supports spaced 100 ft (30 m) on average, varying slightly depending on

location. This relatively short span allows keeping tube material cost and
deflection to a minimum.
The steel construction allows simple welding processes to join different tube
sections together. A specifically designed cleaning and boring machine will
make it possible to surface finish the inside of the tube and welded joints for a
better gliding surface. In addition, safety emergency exits and pressurization
ports will be added in key locations along the length of the tube.
Passenger Hyperloop Tube
A tube wall thickness between 0.8 and 0.9 in. (20 to 23 mm) is necessary to
provide sufficient strength for the load cases considered such as pressure
differential, bending and buckling between pillars, loading due to the capsule
weight and acceleration, as well as seismic considerations.
The expected cost for the tube is expected to be less than $650 million USD,
including pre-fabricated tube sections with stringer reinforcements and
emergency exits. The support pillars and joints which will be detailed in
section 4.2.3.
Passenger Plus Vehicle Hyperloop Tube
The tube wall thickness for the larger tube would be between 0.9 and 1.0 in
(23 to 25 mm). Tube cost calculations were also made for the larger diameter
tube which would allow usage of the cargo and vehicle capsule in addition to
the passenger capsule. In that case, the expected cost for the tube is expected
to be less than $1.2 billion USD. Since the spacing between pillars would not
change and the pillars are more expensive than the tube, the overall cost
increase is kept to a minimum.
4.2.3. Pylons and Tunnels
The tube will be supported by pillars which constrain the tube in the vertical
direction but allow longitudinal slip for thermal expansion as well as dampened
lateral slip to reduce the risk posed by earthquakes. In addition, the pillar to
tube connection nominal position will be adjustable vertically and laterally to
ensure proper alignment despite possible ground settling. These minimally
constrained pillars to tube joints will also allow a smoother ride. Specially
designed slip joints at each stations will be able take any tube length variance
due to thermal expansion. This is an ideal location for the thermal expansion
joints as the speed is much lower nearby the stations. It thus allows the tube to
be smooth and welded along the high speed gliding middle section.
The spacing of the Hyperloop pillars retaining the tube is critical to achieve the
design objective of the tube structure. The average spacing is 100 ft (30 m),
which means there will be near 25,000 pillars supporting both tubes and solar

panels. The pillars will be 20 ft (6 m) tall whenever possible but may vary in
height in hilly areas or where obstacles are in the way. Also, in some key areas,
the spacing will have to vary in order to pass over roads or other obstacles.
Small spacing between each support reduces the deflection of the tube keeping
the capsule steadier and the journey more enjoyable. In addition, reduced
spacing has increased resistance to seismic loading as well as the lateral
acceleration of the capsule.
Due to the sheer quantity of pillars required, reinforced concrete was selected
as the construction material due to its very low cost per volume. In some short
areas, tunneling may be required to avoid going over mountains and to keep
the route as straight as possible. The expected cost for the pillar construction
and tube joints is expected to be no more than $2.55 billion USD for the
passenger version tube and $3.15 billion USD for the passenger plus vehicle
version tube. The expected cost for the tunneling is expected to be no more
than $600 million USD for the smaller diameter tube and near $700 million USD
for the larger diameter tube.
Structural simulations (Figure 15 through Figure 20) have demonstrated the
capability of the Hyperloop to withstand atmospheric pressure, tube weight,
earthquakes, winds, etc. Dampers will be incorporate between the pylons and
tubes to isolate movements in the ground from the tube.
Figure 15. First mode shape of Hyperloop at 2.71Hz (magnified x1500).

Figure 16. Second mode shape of Hyperloop at 3.42Hz (magnified x1500).
Figure 17. Deformation at 1g Inertia in X (in.) (magnified x10).

Figure 18. Maximum principal stress at 1g Inertia in X (psi) (magnified x10).
Figure 19. Minimum principal stress at 1g Inertia in X (psi) (magnified x10).

Figure 20. Maximum shear stress at 1g Inertia in X (psi) (magnified x10).
4.2.4. Station Construction
The intention for Hyperloop stations is for them to be minimalist but practical
and with a boarding process and layout much simpler than airports.
Due to the short travel time and frequent departures, it is envisaged that there
will be a continual flow of passengers through each Hyperloop station, in
contrast to the pulsed situation at airports which leads to lines and delays.
Safety and security are paramount, and so security checks will still be made in
a similar fashion as TSA does for the airport. The process could be greatly
streamlined to reduce wait time and maintain a more continuous passenger
flow.
All ticketing and baggage tracking for the Hyperloop will be handled
electronically, negating the need for printing boarding passes and luggage
labels. Since Hyperloop travel time is very short, the main usage is more for
commuting than for vacations. There would be a luggage limit of 2 bags per
person, for no more than 110 lb (50 kg) in total. Luggage would be stowed in a
separate compartment at the rear of the capsule, in a way comparable to the
overhead bins on passenger aircraft. This luggage compartment can be
removed from the capsule, so that the process of stowing and retrieving
luggage can be undertaken separately from embarking or disembarking the
capsule’s passenger cabin. In addition, Hyperloop staff will take care of loading
and unloading passenger luggage in order to maximize efficiency.
The transit area at a Hyperloop terminal would be a large open area with two
large airlocks signifying the entry and exit points for the capsules. An arriving
capsule would enter the incoming airlock, where the pressure is equalized with

the station, before being released into the transit area. The doors of the
capsule would open, and the passengers could disembark. The luggage pod
would be quickly unloaded by the Hyperloop staff or separated from the
capsule so that baggage retrieval would not interfere with the capsule
turnaround.
Once vacated, the capsule would be rotated on a turntable, and aligned for re-
entry into the Hyperloop tube. The departing passengers, and their pre-loaded
luggage pod, would then enter the capsule. A Hyperloop attendant will then
perform a safety check of each passenger’s seat belts before the capsule is
cleared for departure. At this point the capsule would then be moved forward
into the exit airlock, where the pressure is lowered to the operating level of
the Hyperloop, and then sent on its way. Note that loading and unloading
occurring in parallel with up to three capsules at a given station at any time.
The expected cost for each station is expected to be around $125 million for a
total of $250 million USD initially.
4.2.5. Cost
The overall cost of the tube, pillars, vacuum pumps and stations is thus
expected to be around $4.06 billion USD for the passenger version of
Hyperloop. This does not include the cost of the propulsion linear motors or
solar panels. The tube represents approximately 70% of the total budget.
The larger 10 ft 10 in. (3.3 m) tube that would allow the cargo and vehicle
capsules to fit, would have a total cost including the tube, pillars, vacuum
pumps, and stations around $5.31 billion USD. This minimal cost increase would
allow a much more versatile Hyperloop system.
4.3. Propulsion
The propulsion system has these basic requirements:
1. Accelerate the capsule from 0 to 300 mph (480 kph) for relatively low
speed travel in urban areas.
2. Maintain the capsule at 300 mph (480 kph) as necessary, including during
ascents over the mountains surrounding Los Angeles and San Francisco.
3. To accelerate the capsule from 300 to 760 mph (480 to 1,220 kph) at 1g
at the beginning of the long coasting section along the I-5 corridor.
4. To decelerate the capsule back to 300 mph (480 kph) at the end of the I-
5 corridor.
The Hyperloop as a whole is projected to consume an average of 28,000 hp (21
MW). This includes the power needed to make up for propulsion motor
efficiency (including elevation changes), aerodynamic drag, charging the
batteries to power on-board compressors, and vacuum pumps to keep the tube
evacuated. A solar array covering the entire Hyperloop is large enough to

provide an annual average of 76,000 hp (57 MW), significantly more than the
Hyperloop requires.
Since the peak powers of accelerating and decelerating capsules are up to 3
times the average power, the power architecture includes a battery array at
each accelerator, allowing the solar array to provide only the average power
needed to run the system. Power from the grid is needed only when solar
power is not available.
This section details a large linear accelerator, capable of the 300 to 760 mph
(480 to 1,220 kph) acceleration at 1g. Smaller accelerators appropriate for
urban areas and ascending mountain ranges can be scaled down from this
system.
The Hyperloop uses a linear induction motor to accelerate and decelerate the
capsule. This provides several important benefits over a permanent magnet
motor:
 Lower material cost – the rotor can be a simple aluminum shape, and
does not require rare-earth elements.
 Lighter capsule.
 Smaller capsule dimensions.
 The lateral forces exerted by the stator on the rotor though low at 0.9
lbf/ft (13 N/m) are inherently stabilizing. This simplifies the problem of
keeping the rotor aligned in the air gap.

Figure 21. Rotor and stator 3D diagram
Each accelerator has two 65 MVA inverters, one to accelerate the outgoing
capsule, and one to capture the energy from the incoming capsule. Inverters in
the 10+ MVA power range are not unusual in mining, drives for large cargo
ships, and railway traction. Moreover, 100+ MVA drives are commercially
available. Inexpensive semiconductor switches allow the central inverters to
energize only the section of track occupied by a capsule, improving the power
factor seen by the inverters.
The inverters are physically located at the highest speed end of the track to
minimize conductor cost.
Rotor (mounted to capsule)
Stator (mounted to tube)

Linear motors for
departure track
Linear motors for
arrival track
High speed (700mph) end
Traction power = 46MW
Energy storage
E = 36 MWhr
PCONT = 37MW
PPEAK = 52MW
Solar system
Distributed along length, 285MW peak power total
HVDC bus
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
Low speed (300mph) end
Traction power = 20MW
Traction inverters
65MVA each
Solid-state switches
6MW grid
connection and grid
tie inverter
Figure 22. Linear accelerator concept for capsule acceleration and deceleration between 300
and 760 mph (480 and 1,220 kph).
4.3.1. Capsule Components (Rotor)
The rotor of the linear accelerators is very simple – an aluminum blade 49 ft
(15 m) long, 1.5 ft (0.45 m) tall, and 2 in. (50 mm) thick. Current flows mainly
in the outer 0.4 in. (10 mm) of this blade, allowing it to be hollow to decrease
weight and cost.
The gap between the rotor and the stator is 0.8 in. (20 mm) on each side. A
combination of the capsule control system and electromagnetic centering
forces allows the capsule to safely enter, stay within, and exit such a precise
gap.

Figure 23. Magnetic field strength inside linear induction motor
4.3.2. Tube Components (Stator)
The stator is mounted to the bottom of the tube over the entire 2.5 miles (4.0
km) it takes to accelerate and decelerate between 300 and 760 mph (480 and
1,220 km). It is approximately 1.6 ft (0.5 m) wide (including the air gap) and
4.0 in. (10 cm) tall, and weighs 530 lb/ft (800 kg/m).
Laid out symmetrically on each side of the rotor, its electrical configuration is
3-phase, 1 slot per pole per phase, with a variable linear pitch (1.3 ft or 0.4 m
maximum). The number of turns per slot also varies along the length of the
stator, allowing the inverter to operate at nearly constant phase voltage, which
simplifies the power electronics design. The two halves of the stator require
bracing to resist the magnetic forces of 20 lbf/ft (300N/m) that try to bring
them together.
Rotor aluminum (mounted to capsule)
Stator iron (mounted to tube)
Copper coils
Air gap

Figure 24. Cross section of rotor inside stator
4.3.3. Energy Storage Components
Energy storage allows this linear accelerator to only draw its average power of
8,000 hp (6 MW) (rather than the peak power of 70,000 hp or 52 MW) from its
solar array.
Building the energy storage element out of the same lithium ion cells available
in the Tesla Model S is economical. A battery array with enough power
capability to provide the worst-case smoothing power has a lot of energy –
launching 1 capsule only uses 0.5% of the total energy – so degradation due to
cycling is not an issue. With proper construction and controls, the battery could
be directly connected to the HVDC bus, eliminating the need for an additional
DC/DC converter to connect it to the propulsion system.
4.3.4. Cost
As described above, the propulsion elements on the capsule are limited to the
rotor and not expected to cost any more than $3 million USD for the overall
system. The bulk of the propulsion cost is for the stator elements connected to
the track and for the inverters to drive the stator. All tube-side propulsion
costs together for linear accelerators add up to $140 million USD.
This cost is roughly divided as followed:
- Stator and structure materials = 54%
Stator iron
Stator windings
Rotor

- Power electronics (traction inverters, grid tie inverters) = 33%
- Energy storage = 13%
The solar array and associated electronics provide an average power of 28,000
hp (21 MW) and are expected to cost approximately $210 million USD.
4.3.5. Propulsion for Passenger Plus Vehicle System
Compared to the passenger-only capsule, the passenger plus vehicle capsule
weighs more, requires a more powerful compressor, and has 50% higher total
drag. This increases both the peak and continuous power requirements on the
propulsion system, so that the Hyperloop now consumes an average of 66,000
hp (49 MW). However, there is still more than enough solar power available on
the wider tubes (122,000 hp or 91 MW, on average) to provide this.
The expected total cost for this larger propulsion system is $691 million USD,
divided as follows:
- 66,000 hp (49 MW) (yearly average) solar array: $490 million USD
- Propulsion system total: $200 million USD
o Stator and structure materials = 47%
o Power electronics = 37%
o Energy storage = 16%
4.4. Route
The Hyperloop will be capable of traveling between Los Angeles and San
Francisco in approximately 35 minutes. This requirement tends to size other
portions of the system. Given the performance specification of the Hyperloop,
a route has been devised to satisfy this design requirement. The Hyperloop
route should be based on several considerations, including:
1. Maintaining the tube as closely as possible to existing rights of way (e.g.,
following the I-5).
2. Limiting the maximum capsule speed to 760 mph (1,220 kph) for
aerodynamic considerations.
3. Limiting accelerations on the passengers to 0.5g.
4. Optimizing locations of the linear motor tube sections driving the
capsules.
5. Local geographical constraints, including location of urban areas,
mountain ranges, reservoirs, national parks, roads, railroads, airports,
etc. The route must respect existing structures.
For aerodynamic efficiency, the velocity of a capsule in the Hyperloop is
typically:

 300 mph (480 kph) where local geography necessitates a tube bend radii
< 1.0 mile (1.6 km)
 760 mph (1,220 kph) where local geography allows a tube bend > 3.0
miles (4.8 km) or where local geography permits a straight tube.
These bend radii have been calculated so that the passenger does not
experience inertial accelerations that exceed 0.5g. This is deemed the
maximum inertial acceleration that can be comfortably sustained by humans
for short periods. To further reduce the inertial acceleration experienced by
passengers, the capsule and/or tube will incorporate a mechanism that will
allow a degree of ‘banking’.
The Hyperloop route was created by the authors using Google Earth.

Figure 25. Overview of Hyperloop route from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
4.4.1. Route Optimization
In order to avoid bend radii that would lead to uncomfortable passenger
inertial accelerations and hence limit velocity, it is necessary to optimize the
route. This can be achieved by deviating from the current highway system,
earth removal, constructing pylons to achieve elevation change or tunneling.
The proposed route considers a combination of 20, 50, and 100 ft (6, 15, and 30
m, respectively) pylon heights to raise and lower the Hyperloop tube over
geographical obstacles. A total tunnel length of 15.2 miles (24.5 km) has been

included in this optimization where extreme local gradients (>6%) would
preclude the use of pylons. Tunneling cost estimations are estimated at $50
million per mile ($31 million per km). The small diameter of the Hyperloop
tube should keep tunneling costs to a far more reasonable level than traditional
automotive and rail tunnels.
The route has been divided into the following sections:
 Los Angeles/Grapevine – South and North
 I-5
 I-580/San Francisco Bay
Summary
• 300 mph (480 kph) for the Los Angeles Grapevine South section at 0.5g.
Total time of 167 seconds
• 555 mph (890 kph) for the Los Angeles Grapevine North section at 0.5g.
Total travel time of 435 seconds
• 760 mph (1,220 kph ) along I-5 at 0.5g.
Total travel time of 1,518 seconds
• 555 mph (890 kph) along I-580 slowing to 300 mph (480 kph) into San
Francisco.
Total travel time of 2,134 seconds (35 minutes)
The velocity (Figure 26) along the Hyperloop and distance (Figure 27) as a
function of time summarize the route.

Figure 26. Velocity of capsule as a function of time from Los Angeles departure.

Figure 27. Distance of capsule as a function of time from Los Angeles departure.
4.4.1.1. Los Angeles/Grapevine - South
Visualization - The preliminary route is shown in yellow. Bend radii are
shown in red. The green dashed line delineates the
north/south Grapevine definition in this document.
Route - Follows I-5 through Santa Clarita and Castaic.

Figure 28. Los Angeles/Grapevine South Section of proposed Hyperloop route.
Table 3. Los Angeles/Grapevine South data at 300 mph (480 kph).
Criteria 0.5g
Acceleration
Min. bend radius at
300 mph (483 kph)
2.28 miles
(3.67 km)
Section Distance 13.4 miles
(21.6 km)
Journey time 167.6 seconds
Tunnel distance 1.0 miles
(1.61 km)

No. of 20 ft (6 m)
pylons
563
No. of 50 ft (15 m)
pylons
80
No. of 100 ft (30 m)
Pylons
12
Additional length
Required
1.20 miles
(1.93 km)
4.4.1.2. Los Angeles/Grapevine – North
shown in red. The green dashed line delineates the
north/south Grapevine definition in this document.
Route - Significant deviation from I-5 in order to increase bend
radius and develop straight sections.

Figure 29. Los Angeles/Grapevine North Section of proposed Hyperloop route.
Table 4. Los Angeles/Grapevine North data at 555 mph (890 kph).
Criteria 0.5g
Acceleration
Min. bend radius at
555 mph (890 kph)
7.80 miles
(12.6 km)
Distance 40.0 miles
(64.4 km)
(17.2 km)

No. of 20 ft (6 m)
Pylons
492
No. of 50 ft (15 m)
Pylons
260
No. of 100 ft (30 m)
Pylons
795
Additional length
required
24 miles
(38.6 km)
4.4.1.2. I-5
shown in red.
Route - Follows I-5 to minimize land/right of way purchase costs.
Figure 30. I-5 Section of proposed Hyperloop route.

Table 5. I-5 Section data at 760 mph (1,120 kph).
Criteria 0.5g
Acceleration
Min. bend radius at 760
mph (1,220 kph)
14.6 miles
(23.5 km)
Distance 227 miles
(365 km)
Journey time 1,173.0 seconds
Tunnel distance
0 miles
(0 km)
No. of 20 ft (6 m)
pylons
10,930
No. of 50 ft (15 m)
pylons
1,056
No. of 100 ft (30 m)
pylons
0
Additional length
required
14 miles
(22.5 km)
4.4.1.3. I-580/San Francisco Bay
shown in red.
Route - Follows I-580 to minimize land/right of way purchase costs.
Deviation from I-580 West of Dublin in order to develop
straight sections.

Figure 31. I-580/San Francisco Bay Section of proposed Hyperloop route.
Table 6. I-580/San Francisco Bay Section data at 300, 555, and 760 mph (480, 890, and 1,120
kph, respectively).
Criteria 0.5g
Acceleration
Min. bend radius at
300 mph (480 kph)
2.28 miles
(3.67 km)
Min. bend radius at
555 mph (890 kph)
7.80 miles
(12.55 km)
Min. bend radius at
760 mph (1,220 kph)
14.6 miles
(23.5 km)
Distance 73.9 miles
(119 km)
(5.6 km)
No. of 20 ft (6 m)
pylons
2,783
No. of 50 ft (15 m)
pylons
775
No. of 100 ft (30 m)
pylons
159
Additional length
required
5.7 miles
(9.2 km)

4.4.3. Station Locations
The major stations for Hyperloop are suggested based on high traffic regions
between major cities. The largest cities by metro population in California
according to 2010 to 2012 estimates from various sources (Table 7) are
considered for station locations.
Table 7. Largest cities in California by 2013 population.
City Population
(millions)
Los Angeles 18.1
San
Francisco/San
Jose
8.4
San Diego 3.1
Sacramento 2.6
Fresno 1.1

Stations at these major population centers are considered for Hyperloop. One
additional traffic corridor to consider is between Los Angeles, California and
Las Vegas, Nevada with a metro population of 2.1 million. Significant traffic is
present through this corridor on a weekly basis.
Figure 32. Suggested Hyperloop route map (map courtesy of Google Maps).
The traffic between Los Angeles, California and San Francisco/San Jose,
California is estimated to be at least 6 million travelers per year. This possibly
represents the busiest corridor of travel in California. Travel along this corridor
is anticipated to increase with completion of the Hyperloop due to both
decreased travel time and decreased travel cost.
Additional Hyperloop stations are suggested considered at the following major
population centers:
1. San Diego, California:
a. Connects to Los Angeles, California main station.
b. Capsule departures every 5 minutes.
c. Transports around 3 million people per year.
2. Las Vegas, Nevada:
Suggested main route
Suggested main stations
Proposed branches
Proposed branch stations

a. Connects to Los Angeles, California main station.
b. Uses a portion of the San Diego branch route near Los Angeles and
tube branches near San Bernardino, California.
c. Capsule departures every 8 minutes.
d. Transports around 1.8 million people per year.
3. Sacramento, California:
a. Connects to San Francisco, California main station.
b. Uses a portion of the main route near San Francisco and tube
branches near Stockton, California.
c. Capsule departures every 15 minutes.
d. Transports around 1 million people per year.
4. Fresno, California:
a. Connects to both San Francisco, California and Los Angeles,
California main stations.
b. Los Angeles bound travelers:
i. Uses the main route closer to San Francisco plus a small
branch along State Route 41 near Fresno.
ii. Capsule departures every 15 minutes.
iii. Transports around 1 million people per year.
c. San Francisco bound travelers:
i. Uses the main route closer to Los Angeles plus a small
branch along State Route 41 near Fresno.
ii. Capsule departures every 30 minutes.
iii. Transports around 0.5 million people per year.
4.5. Safety and Reliability
The design of Hyperloop has been considered from the start with safety in
mind. Unlike other modes of transport, Hyperloop is a single system that
incorporates the vehicle, propulsion system, energy management, timing, and
route. Capsules travel in a carefully controlled and maintained tube
environment. The system is immune to wind, ice, fog, and rain. The
propulsion system is integrated into the tube and can only accelerate the
capsule to speeds that are safe in each section. With human control error and
unpredictable weather removed from the system, very few safety concerns
remain.
Some of the safety scenarios below are unique to the proposed system, but all
should be considered relative to other forms of transportation. In many cases
Hyperloop is intrinsically safer than airplanes, trains, or automobiles.
4.5.1. Onboard Passenger Emergency
All capsules would have direct radio contact with station operators in case of
emergencies, allowing passengers to report any incident, to request help and

to receive assistance. In addition, all capsules would be fitted with first aid
equipment.
The Hyperloop allows people to travel from San Francisco to LA in 30 minutes.
Therefore in case of emergency, it is likely that the best course of action would
be for the capsule to communicate the situation to the station operator and for
the capsule to finish the journey in a few minutes where emergency services
would be waiting to assist.
Typical times between an emergency and access to a physician should be
shorter than if an incident happened during airplane takeoff. In the case of the
airplane, the route would need to be adjusted, other planes rerouted, runways
cleared, airplane landed, taxi to a gate, and doors opened. An emergency in a
Hyperloop capsule simply requires the system to complete the planned journey
and meet emergency personnel at the destination.
4.5.2. Power Outage
The vast majority of the Hyperloop travel distance is spent coasting and so the
capsule does not require continuous power to travel. The capsule life support
systems will be powered by two or more redundant lithium ion battery pack
and so would be unaffected by a power outage. In the event of a power outage
occurring after a capsule had been launched, all linear accelerators would be
equipped with enough energy storage to bring all capsules currently in the
Hyperloop tube safely to a stop at their destination. In addition, linear
accelerators using the same storage would complete the acceleration of all
capsules currently in the tube. For additional redundancy, all Hyperloop
capsules would be fitted with a mechanical braking system to bring capsules
safely to a stop.
In summary, all journeys would be completed as expected from the passenger’s
perspective. Normal travel schedules would be resumed after power was
restored.
4.5.2. Capsule Depressurization
Hyperloop capsules will be designed to the highest safety standards and
manufactured with extensive quality checks to ensure their integrity. In the
event of a minor leak, the onboard environmental control system would
maintain capsule pressure using the reserve air carried onboard for the short
period of time it will take to reach the destination. In the case of a more
significant depressurization, oxygen masks would be deployed as in airplanes.
Once the capsule reached the destination safely it would be removed from
service. Safety of the onboard air supply in Hyperloop would be very similar to
aircraft, and can take advantage of decades of development in similar systems.

In the unlikely event of a large scale capsule depressurization, other capsules
in the tube would automatically begin emergency braking whilst the Hyperloop
tube would undergo rapid re-pressurization along its entire length.
4.5.3. Capsule Stranded in Tube
A capsule becoming stranded in the Hyperloop tube is highly unlikely as the
capsule coasts the majority of the distance at high speed and so there is no
propulsion required for more than 90% of the journey.
If a capsule were somehow to become stranded, capsules ahead would
continue their journeys to the destination unaffected. Capsules behind the
stranded one would be automatically instructed to deploy their emergency
mechanical braking systems. Once all capsules behind the stranded capsule had
been safely brought to rest, capsules would drive themselves to safety using
small onboard electric motors to power deployed wheels.
All capsules would be equipped with a reserve air supply great enough to
ensure the safety of all passengers for a worst case scenario event.
4.5.4. Structural Integrity of the Tube in Jeopardy
A minor depressurization of the tube is unlikely to affect Hyperloop capsules or
passengers and would likely be overcome by increased vacuum pump power.
Any minor tube leaks could then be repaired during standard maintenance.
In the event of a large scale leak, pressure sensors located along the tube
would automatically communicate with all capsules to deploy their emergency
mechanical braking systems.
4.5.5. Earthquakes
California is no stranger to earthquakes and transport systems and all built with
earthquakes in mind. Hyperloop would be no different with the entire tube
length built with the necessary flexibility to withstand the earthquake motions
while maintaining the Hyperloop tube alignment.
It is also likely that in the event of a severe earthquake, Hyperloop capsules
would be commanded remotely to actuate their mechanical emergency braking
systems.
4.5.6. Human Related Incidents
Hyperloop would feature the same high level of security used at airports.
However, the regular departure of Hyperloop capsules would result in a
steadier and faster flow of passengers through security screening compared to

airports. Tubes located on pylons would limit access to the critical elements of
the system. Multiple redundant power sources and vacuum pumps would limit
the impact of any single element.
4.5.7. Reliability
The Hyperloop system comprising all infrastructure, mechanical, electrical, and
software components will be designed so that it is reliable, durable, and fault
tolerant over its service life (100 years), while maintaining safety levels that
match or exceed the safety standard of commercial air transportation.
4.6. Cost
The total cost of the Hyperloop passenger transportation system as outlined is
less than $6 billion USD (Table 8). The passenger plus vehicle version of
Hyperloop is including both passenger and cargo capsules and the total cost is
outlined as $7.5 billion USD (Table 9).
Table 8. Total cost of the Hyperloop passenger transportation system.
Component
Cost
(million USD)
Capsule 54 (40 capsules)
Capsule Structure & Doors 9.8
Interior & Seats 10.2
Compressor & Plumbing 11
Batteries & Electronics 6
Propulsion 5
Suspension & Air Bearings 8
Components Assembly 4
Tube 5,410
Tube Construction 650
Pylon Construction 2,550
Tunnel Construction 600
Propulsion 140
Solar Panels & Batteries 210
Station & Vacuum Pumps 260
Permits & Land 1,000
Cost Margin 536
Total 6,000
Table 9. Total cost of the Hyperloop passenger plus vehicle transportation system.
Component
Cost
(million USD)
Cargo Capsule 30.5 (20 capsules)

Compressor & Plumbing 6
Batteries, Motor & Electronics 4
Propulsion 3
Suspension & Air Bearings 5.3
Passenger Only Capsule 40.5 (30 capsules)
Compressor & Plumbing 8.2
Batteries, Motor & Electronics 4.5
Propulsion 3.8
Suspension & Air Bearings 6
Tube 7,000
Tube Construction 1,200
Pylon Construction 3,150
Tunnel Construction 700
Propulsion 200
Solar Panels & Batteries 490
Station & Vacuum Pumps 260
Permits & Land 1,000
Cost Margin 429
Total 7,500
6. Conclusions
A high speed transportation system known as Hyperloop has been developed in
this document. The work has detailed two version of the Hyperloop: a
passenger only version and a passenger plus vehicle version. Hyperloop could
transport people, vehicles, and freight between Los Angeles and San Francisco
in 35 minutes. Transporting 7.4 million people each way and amortizing the
cost of $6 billion over 20 years gives a ticket price of $20 for a one-way trip for
the passenger version of Hyperloop. The passenger plus vehicle version of the
Hyperloop is less than 9% of the cost of the proposed passenger only high speed
rail system between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
An additional passenger plus transport version of the Hyperloop has been
created that is only 25% higher in cost than the passenger only version. This
version would be capable of transport passengers, vehicles, freight, etc. The
passenger plus vehicle version of the Hyperloop is less than 11% of the cost of
the proposed passenger only high speed rail system between Los Angeles and
San Francisco. Additional technological developments and further optimization
could likely reduce this price.
The intent of this document has been to create a new open source form of
transportation that could revolutionize travel. The authors welcome feedback

and will incorporate it into future revisions of the Hyperloop project, following
other open source models such as Linux.
7. Future Work
Hyperloop is considered an open source transportation concept. The authors
encourage all members of the community to contribute to the Hyperloop design
process. Iteration of the design by various individuals and groups can help bring
Hyperloop from an idea to a reality.
The authors recognize the need for additional work, including but not limited
to:
1. More expansion on the control mechanism for Hyperloop capsules,
including attitude thruster or control moment gyros.
2. Detailed station designs with loading and unloading of both passenger
and passenger plus vehicle versions of the Hyperloop capsules.
3. Trades comparing the costs and benefits of Hyperloop with more
conventional magnetic levitation systems.
4. Sub-scale testing based on a further optimized design to demonstrate
the physics of Hyperloop.
Feedback is welcomed on these or any useful aspects of the Hyperloop design.
E-mail feedback to hyperloop@spacex.com or hyperloop@teslamotors.com.

Hyperloop To use solar-powered system

More Related Content

Similar to Hyperloop To use solar-powered system (20)

More from Sri Pradhyumna Technologies Pvt.Ltd Bangalore,India (9)

Recently uploaded (20)

Hyperloop To use solar-powered system