Falcon Heavy will launch this yea-

It got pushed up a single week and this moved it over to the new year.

Do you really think the ideology matters?
Whether it's "muh freedoms, democracy" or "power to the people, communism" is not important. It's just a cover for how authoritarian you'll really go.

>hahahaha this company that had only launched a few prototypes up until a couple of years ago and is now globally dominant in its industry, with technology decades ahead of anyone else and plans far more ambitious than everyone else's catch-up plan, has yet again failed to meet its most optimistic schedule estimate and pushed back a secondary project to deal with matters of greater importance!
>what a bunch of idiots!
>what a meme company!

Don't you get tired of being this guy? I mean, you started out laughing and naysaying and acting smug about how they would never succeed, and you kept laughing at them the whole time as they climbed to the top of a proverbially difficult field. Now they're there, and it's obvious to everyone that you're just an idiot. What are you even doing now?

SLS is going to beat that 10t to leo junkheap.

Seems it'll launch earlier too.

Will you give me 25 billion dollars via taxes if is still happens in 2017?

>globally dominant in its industry, with technology decades ahead of anyone else

. . . Are you serious?

>plans far more ambitious than everyone else's catch-up plan

I'l give you this. the lack of ambition in other organizations is downright depressing. Musk's reach might exceed his grasp but at least he's reaching in the first place.

Why are you retards so mad about Musk?

SpaceX is doing great in general. Of course not everything will go perfectly.

Care to go over the viability of the hyper loop?

>. . . Are you serious?

He's right though. They are cheaper than everyone else and doing good. Meanwhile ESA and NASA future rockets are already outdated tech and Russians are stuck in the 90's.

He's an obvious con artist or has access to some "Super Secret Tech" that has never been shown or patented. He is a hype machine that makes money from hype.

Veeky Forums is a meme board. Look at the catalog. 40% of it is retards dickwaving about how much $ they will make with their math degrees. Half of the rest is flat earthers and even dumber shit. Threads about actual science get 5 posts and die.

So you are just mad that a guy with vision is achieving something?

Of course he's not a scientist. Or course he's businessman first.

But because of him space travel is advancing for real first time in decades.

how is he a conartist when people are buying teslas and rides for their expensive payloads

>has never been shown or patented
whats wrong with that?

they keep the advantage as long as they keep the tech a company secret
patent it and everyone knows how it works

>with technology decades ahead of anyone else

This is completely false.
Nobody in the industry takes SpaceX and their overblown marketing seriously.
Reusable launch vehicles are not something new they invented, nor a practical and efficient way to access space despite any such claims.

They are cheaper than everyone else with same success rates if not better. How the shit are they a joke?

>elon musk
>spacex

>SpaceX is a meme
Maybe in 2012. Memes aside, they hold 1/3rd of the launch market.

>Nobody in the industry takes SpaceX and their overblown marketing seriously.

>So you are just mad that a guy with vision is achieving something?
How the fuck did you get that from what I said? Seriously? I'm happy with every advancement he makes that actually useful but the man actually thinks the hyper loop is a good idea. Can you please explain the me how it's at all reasonable to put a 100 mile long metal tube in the desert and expect to maintain a vacuum safely enough to carry passengers many times a day? Every reasonably informed person I've spoken to and every person I've spoken to with a related expertise says that it is well beyond reason. What expertise do you have to say it's not a scam?

Shit they do today was beyond reason 20 years ago.

Holy shit, you are painfully stupid if theses are real questions. Just give yourself a minute to think honestly and see if you can answer them for yourself, if you can, say so and I'm sure I, or someone else will explain.

>I have no argument

Everything from Musk is 85% marketing hype and bullshit.

Yeah, musk wants to do it in two years not twenty and he is acting as if it's already possible today, he's yet to even propose a development plan for addressing problems, leading me to believe they either are not problems, which if true would imply that he has some miracle technology that no one has even conceived of but also hasn't taken the time to protect his intellectual property, or he doesnt think that he needs ant new technology and can do it with only what he's proposed which would mean he's living in a fantasy world, or he doesnt care if it's actually viable becuase he's a con man and will extract value from it regardless. Which seems more likely? Keep in mind that literally no-one has a viable strategy to build a 100 mile long vacuum tube capable of carrying passengers safely.

The only way to venture into space is if USA, China, and Russia work together.

The problem is not technological.

It is political.

You do indeed have no argument, retard. If you put a small amount of effort into your response rather than acting like this is /b or /pol youd know that.

Yeah yeah, everyone knows con artist Musk is sending stuff to ISS through his con artist magic hat. You are so smart user.

They are controlling 30% of world space launches today and their price is 1/3 of the competition. NASA literally stated that stuff SpaceX already achieved would cost them 10x more. You are fucking retarded if you think this is a scam.

The scam is apparently making money off of developing technology and offering services.

I don't get it.

>Yeah yeah, everyone knows con artist Musk is sending stuff to ISS through his con artist magic hat. You are so smart user.
>They are controlling 30% of world space launches today and their price is 1/3 of the competition. NASA literally stated that stuff SpaceX already achieved would cost them 10x more.

I never contested any of that, are you retarded? Can he not own space X and also be a con man? Would you care to respond to my points on Elon miss hyper loop being a con job or do you just have no argument other than "but this other thing he dis works pretty good"

What makes that a con?

Be clear, you fuck.

Well, you see, if it can't be done, but you tell people that it can, and you take their money, and then you don't work towards making it so that it can be done, that's a con. What's so hard to understand about this?

>implying it can't be done

>Would you care to respond to my points on Elon miss hyper loop being a con job or do you just have no argument other than "but this other thing he dis works pretty good"

oh i see what's going on now. you've been having an 'argument' with yourself about how musk is a con man in your head and sporadically in online posts which is why nobody can follow your train of thought. that explains the sudden injection of 'hyperloop' into the thread.

>literally no-one has a viable strategy to build a 100 mile long vacuum tube capable of carrying passengers safely.
You're a Thunderf00t fan, aren't you? He sometimes makes good points to do his irritating repetitive rants at, but when he makes himself look good, it's mostly by picking very easy targets, so he people don't want to niggle over the stuff he overstates and fucks up details on. He bit off more than he could chew with Hyperloop, and is basically just showcasing his own failure of imagination and general ignorance.

>Every reasonably informed person I've spoken to and every person I've spoken to with a related expertise says that it is well beyond reason. What expertise do you have to say it's not a scam?
People said this exact thing about SpaceX's reusable rocket plans, and about Tesla getting beyond the novelty toy car market.

There are successful investors and technical people who aren't Elon Musk who are putting serious money and effort into Hyperloop, so this appeal to authority is ridiculous.

Just about all the arguments against the feasibility of Hyperloop lead up to an appeal to incredulity: "OMG, just how could it be possible?! Who could possibly believe it would work?! How could anyone solve these problems?!" And again, this is the same as the arguments against SpaceX and Tesla: this hasn't been done, there are some hard engineering problems I haven't seen the solutions to, I can't imagine the solutions myself, therefore it can't be done.

>Just about all the arguments against the feasibility of Hyperloop lead up to an appeal to incredulity: "OMG, just how could it be possible?! Who could possibly believe it would work?! How could anyone solve these problems?!
are you stupid? of course it can work, there nothing really revolutionary in hyper loop, what will not work is the cost, the proposed cost from LA to san francsico is 6 billion, as with all projects like that where the cost is estimated, actual real world cost be 10 times of that, if not more. Even if lets say it costs 20billions, who in their right mind will invest (throw away the money) that much money into it with no real prospect of return

Show me that it Can? Burden of proof and all.

I'm sorry you have no reading comprehension, maybe try following the thread back to see how we got to having this conversation?

So you're argument is basically, it can be done, he said so? Are you actually that stupid? He has shown no evidence for how he plans to build and operate a hyper loop profitably. People have spent millions of dollars trying to build a vacuum chamber the size of a small building. That doesn't even begin to incorporate the complexity involved in having a train go through your vacuum chamber at literally hundreds of miles per hour. Im sorry I don't just accept what Elon musk says at face value without thinking about it.

>the proposed cost from LA to san francsico is 6 billion, as with all projects like that where the cost is estimated, actual real world cost be 10 times of that, if not more.
"OMG, just how could it be that cheap?! Who could possibly believe it would work at that cost?! How could anyone solve these cost problems?!"

Big improvement in your argument, there.

>Even if lets say it costs 20billions, who in their right mind will invest (throw away the money) that much money into it with no real prospect of return
Who will build a highway, with no real prospect of return? Who will build an airport, with no real cost of return? Who will build high speed rail? It's infrastructure!

If everything wasn't taxed and regulated to hell and back, and competing with publicly-funded transportation infrastructure, such private investments would be possible, as they were in the past with the railroads and turnpikes. In the modern world, government does it. If it saves people time or otherwise makes them more productive, they get to collect more taxes, or get more done for their same tax dollar.

You 're know you're responding to multiple people over the course of the thread right?

>So you're argument is
M'ye position is that you people lack the mental equipment to discuss this rationally, and you make it pretty fucking obvious every time you post.

You're comments act as if Elon musk proposed and patented a physically possible version of the hyper loop and we are just denying it. In case you didn't know, he hasn't yet, he hasn't even proposed a plan to address the issues with it other than a hand wave at such questions as "how will you be able to maintain a vacuum in a chamber of that size"

He doesn't just get to claim he's going to do something without providing some evidence that it's possible or that he plans to make it possible. If he builds a working hyper loop, I'll be happy, but right now he hasn't even come close to that, all he's done is collect checks and repeat that he will do it.

Stop acting like a fucking mongoloid and actually try to have a conversation. State your argument clearly maybe, becuase so far you've called other people's arguments appeals to authority despite in the same paragraph making an appeal to authority.

Not an argument. >If everything wasn't taxed and regulated to hell and back, and competing with publicly-funded transportation infrastructure, such private investments would be possible, as they were in the past with the railroads and turnpikes. In the modern world, government does it. If it saves people time or otherwise makes them more productive, they get to collect more taxes, or get more done for their same tax dollar.
This isn't at all relevant, no bussiness that plans to make money would build such a thing at the current projected costs, it just won't make money, the same way no-one would build a railroad that couldn't turn a profit.

>There are successful investors and technical people who aren't Elon Musk who are putting serious money and effort into Hyperloop.But go ahead and ignore that, this appeal to authority is ridiculous.

There, fixed that for you.

I'll get the gun

I haven't even taken a strong position that it'll work. I'm only here shooting down the absolutely moronic level of argument against it:
>the burden of proof is on YOU, here and now, to explain this vastly complex technical and financial matter to me, a random anonymous idiot, in a way that I can understand and be convinced to my satisfaction, after I've wagered my pride on the opposite position. I'll be the defense, judge, and jury, you be the prosecution and it's still innocent until proven guilty!
>the people I'VE listened to, who sounded like relevant experts to me, have said that it won't work, so we should ignore the relevant experts who believe in it enough to be working on it
>of course it can work, but it just will cost ten times more than the estimate, it just will, because I say so, even though I've shown no awareness of the costs involved

You people are just total garbage. What are you even doing here on a science board?

For instance, look at this shit:
> "how will you be able to maintain a vacuum in a chamber of that size"
This isn't a smart person's question. This is a moron's question. Because it's been answered repeatedly, and has been since the earliest days:
- it's only a partial vacuum, a low air pressure, not a hard vacuum
- inability to maintain vacuum is a non-catastrophic failure mode, it just means the cars currently in it will go slowly, and more cars won't be launched until it's fixed
- there will be vacuum pumps at intervals all along the length to deal with minor leakage, and to restore vacuum quickly after maintenance
- air doesn't just magically phase through solid steel
- they'll build it to not leak, and plug the leaks that do develop
- it's just a big fucking pipeline with a negative pressure rather than a positive one, we have built fucking pipelines

You absolute trash. The point was that the appeal to authority was ridiculous because there were plausible authorities on both sides of the argument. What I was doing was nothing like what I was responding to.

If you weren't something that should be burned in a dumpster, that would be obvious to you.

It's not a perfect vacuum it's only 1/1000 atmosphere, such a difference!

>- it's only a partial vacuum, a low air pressure, not a hard vacuum
>- inability to maintain vacuum is a non-catastrophic failure mode, it just means the cars currently in it will go slowly, and more cars won't be launched until it's fixed
>- there will be vacuum pumps at intervals all along the length to deal with minor leakage, and to restore vacuum quickly after maintenance
>- air doesn't just magically phase through solid steel
>- they'll build it to not leak, and plug the leaks that do develop
>- it's just a big fucking pipeline with a negative pressure rather than a positive one, we have built fucking pipelines

If you think that's how his 1/1000th atmosphere tube is going to work, you're retarded.

So now you can't defend your beliefs and you've just gone to insults and totally irrational defense. I'm done here.

youtube personalities are not plausible authorities

You're a fucking mongoloid, I'm done with you.

>>>he hasn't even proposed a plan to address the issues with it other than a hand wave at such questions as "how will you be able to maintain a vacuum in a chamber of that size"
>>it's been answered repeatedly, and has been since the earliest days:
>>[detalis]
>If you think that's how his 1/1000th atmosphere tube is going to work, you're retarded.
Hmm... Sealed chamber of sufficient strength and vacuum compatible materials. Plan to tolerate reasonable amounts of leakage and fail gracefully. Adequate pumping capacity...

Yeah, wow, that does sound retarded and inadequate! I guess I just wasn't boggling hard enough at how long the pipe would be. As everyone knows, pipes function radically differently as you make them longer, which makes it a mystery why engineers like to use them so much, as if they believed that once you've got one short section of pipe figured out, you can just repeat it over as long a distance as you like with very little change to worry about. You aren't something I'd want to scrape off my shoe at all!

>It's not a perfect vacuum it's only 1/1000 atmosphere, such a difference!
It is a big difference in vacuum systems. Maintaining a merely low air pressure isn't like the ultra hard vacuum in the twin 27-km-long vacuum pipe rings of the LHC. You can just pump air out, you don't need to worry about things like baking the pipes so they won't outgas and preventing pump and valve lubricant from contaminating the system.

i did, you jumped midstream into some argument about hyperloop that wasn't going on in this thread

kys globalist naysayer

Dude wtf are you talking about? Cheaper yeah, but their success rate is shit. Have you not seen the 'blooper' video of how many rockets they've blown up or crashed? Don't forget the satellite they blew up. If you actually compare their success percents with comparable launch companies it is not one of their advantages.

what he said was

>Globally dominant

untrue until next year by market share. Russians still hold majority and will until end of 2018 - projected.

>with technology decades ahead of anyone else

what, bog standard RP-1-LOX bell engines, and a cool avionics package suddenly qualify as "decades" of technological progress? where are the aerospikes, the thermal motors, the SSO reusable launch craft, the HTOL spaceplanes that everyone else was working on?

SpaceX is re-learning what everyone else willfully forgot. again, I give them props for doing it in the first place, but let's not pretend that they're still as stuck in the past as everyone else.

>as with all projects like that where the cost is estimated, actual real world cost be 10 times of that, if not more.

These programs explode in costs for many reasons, none of them are that actually building it costs more money
Mostly its just corrupt liberal politicians milking money out to their friends & themselves.

it might not be viable, but the tunnel boring technology which is getting developed for it will be worth more than the hypothetical hyper loop anyways. and "the boring company" is a funny name. boringcompany.com/

>scam
you spelled business wrong there.

developing technologies and offering services, its how a business works

>liberal

Oh please.
Obama tried everything to fix NASA yet congress - the republicans - obstructed him on every step and forced that abysmal SLS program down our throats.
If anything the left-wing has shown itself considerably more pro-science than the right-wing, who tend to prefer jesus, pollution, and wars.

the rebcunts cut NASA's budjet by $1.1 bn from what Obama requested

space.com/22023-nasa-authorization-bill-debate.html

>aerospikes, the thermal motors, the SSO reusable launch craft, the HTOL spaceplanes

Aerospace welfare programs.

The free market is inefficient and wasteful. Governments had developed better rockets 50 years ago. #socialism

It got pushed back because of the lost time spent dealing with Zuma.

>calling aerospikes an aerospace welfare program
>Being so deep up musk's ass that you think fully tested and operational engines with significant performance and efficiency advantages are somehow worse than an engine design from the 1970's

Most of those crashes were from early on when they were still working out the kinks.
They haven't had a single failure in like 18 months now, with a pretty high launch frequency.
The last failure wasn't even the booster or landing sequence, it was problem with the second stage while still on the pad.

NASA wastes every last penny they get
ofc they deserve cuts
They get TOO MUCH money, and far too little of it is spent on real work

Hyperloop has nothing to do with rocket launches. What's the motivation behind the Elon Musk trolling?

I have no respect for any loser going against someone who put his entire million dollar networth into realizing his dreams.

You're a fucking loser and I hope you die alone.

>their success rate is shit

Their primary mission success is industry standard.

Landing the booster is a secondary concern. Every booster you see fail to land was involved with a successful launch which made customers happy.
If losing the booster after a successful launch is a failure, then SpaceX is the only company today with any successes at all, considering literally every other launch vehicle today is totally expendable and either crashes into the ocean or into a desert after launching a payload.

A kerolox engine with multiple air-start capability is not bog standard at all, not even considering the TWR of the engine is more than twice that of most engines.

>aerospikes

Shit performance at trans sonic and supersonic speeds in atmosphere.

>thermal motors

Assuming you mean nuclear thermal rockets, they're interesting but a headache to work with, plus the sheer level of regulation SpaceX would be forced to deal with takes them off the table at least for the foreseeable future.

>SSO reusable launch craft

SSTO, and it's because two stage to orbit reusable offers a far higher payload mass percentage for only marginally more cost per flight. Makes much more sense for actually putting hardware into space. Besides, the BFR Ship is an SSTO pretty much everywhere except on Earth and Venus. On Mars it's a single-stage to Earth's surface, no refueling on the way. Elon rightly thinks SSTO around Earth is a meme

>HTOL spaceplane

HOTOL, and it's dead. It had a major problem of managing the center of mass with the engines in the back, Skylon is the redesigned vehicle with the engines on the side.

>SpaceX is re-learning what everyone else willfully forgot

Willfully forgot, like the aerospikes Aerojet-Rocketdyne developed and didn't use, the NTRs that never flew in either America or the Soviet Union, the SSTO concepts that were abandoned or are trapped in development hell? No, the key to making a good product is to start by taking established technology and using it in a more effective way. Once you've proven the idea works, then you start to innovate technology down a path that leads to an even more effective vehicle. Hence the shift from kerosene fueled gas generator engines and aluminum-lithium alloy tanks towards methane fueled full flow staged combustion engines and carbon composite tanks, as well as the scale up in size.

>Aerojet-Rocketdyne
kinda sad, they built all this incredible stuff. but when the vehicle stops being produced they quit doing any improvements or finding new uses or trying to make it cheaper

what are they making now, more RL10s? in use since the 60s and still expensive as fuck

a merlin 1d sl is ~1 million+? vac maybe 2 million?

>engine design from the 1970's

Merlin has a TWR of ~180, vs ~90 for the F-1, which used a gas generator cycle as well. Merlin is the most efficient kerosene gas-generator engine of all time. It may not be a fucking fusion reactor, but it's not an engine that could be built in the 70's.

The aerospike had better altitude compensation than a normal bell nozzle, giving it a more rounded out Isp curve through the atmosphere. Sucks that aerospike nozzles don't work very well from the trans-sonic regime up to about mach 3. They're also a lot heavier and more complicated despite being more efficient across altitude. Oh, and at any specific ambient pressure, a bell nozzle out performs anything else, as long as the nozzle is designed for that ambient pressure.

Merlin is probably sub $1 million now, they're making more than four per week.

RL-10 will never be cheap, since it was designed so long ago it doesn't lend itself to automated production and requires lots of man-hours. I think the RL-10 should be dropped the moment Arianespace gets their Vinci engine in production and buy those. Vinci has literally the same weight and Isp as RL-10, but has twice as much thrust and will probably cost a shitload less. It's as close to a perfect drop-in replacement for RL-10 on Centaur as anyone could hope for.

>>Globally dominant
>untrue until next year by market share. Russians still hold majority and will until end of 2018 - projected.
Proton, their only real competition for Falcon 9, flew only 4 times this year due to recent failures, Angara's stuck, Soyuz had two serious failures. Falcon 9 flew 16 times without incident.

One of the things SpaceX achieved is that going to Russia and dealing with the corruption and uncertainty, and the moral unease of funding that lingering adversary of the West, no longer even saves you any money. Now Russia's just the launch provider for Russia, and in competition with China and India for anyone who's sanctioned from launching in the West but doesn't have their own launch program.

Russia's position in the international commercial launch market is fucking shattered, as a combination of the rise of SpaceX and collapse under the weight of their own corruption.

>what, bog standard RP-1-LOX bell engines, and a cool avionics package suddenly qualify as "decades" of technological progress?
Yep, when they achieve a goal that the rest of the industry was lusting after for decades and kept failing to achieve. Mind you, those "bog standard" engines have record thrust:weight, rapid throttling, precision-timed in-flight restart, and the ability to be fired for hours, and they're mounted on vehicles with record mass fractions and the durability to withstand repeated launch and EDL.

>where are the aerospikes, the thermal motors, the SSO reusable launch craft, the HTOL spaceplanes that everyone else was working on?
Those were misallocations of resources. Cool-sounding bad ideas, basically irrelevant to the problem of getting to orbit cheaply. Everyone else was barking up the wrong tree.

SpaceX focused the effort where it mattered: evolve the basic rocket to lower cost, increase performance, and improve durability to the point that it can be reused if recovered, then add the absolute minimum of hardware needed to recover it.

>Obama tried everything to fix NASA yet congress - the republicans - obstructed him on every step and forced that abysmal SLS program down our throats.
SLS is pork guarded by a bipartisan alliance, both Republicans and Democrats. "The Swamp" as Trump likes to say.

Don't think that because a house of congress has a majority of one party or another that that party is a unified entity that has everything under control, and deserves sole responsibility for everything that house does. Parties are alliances, not dictatorships, and sometimes other alliances or interests take priority over party loyalty for a given individual. Besides that, in the early Obama administration, the Democrats not only controlled congress, but had a filibuster-proof majority, which is how Obamacare passed, and the Republicans never had the numbers under Obama to force through any legislation he wouldn't sign.

The Democrats held nearly all the cards when Constellation was changed to SLS.

Obama as chief executive made his own contribution to the awfulness of SLS. Obama didn't want Bush's Constellation, or any derivative of it, to be successful. He wanted allies in charge of NASA rather than competent people. The SLS program has suffered basically 8 years of foot-dragging and crony bumbling. Congress put requirements for SLS/Orion to be used for ISS missions, to exceed Saturn V capabilities, to be flying by the end of 2016, but Obama had his phone and his pen, and said basically, "Ha! We're not doing any of that!"

Do you really think that a reasonably-managed NASA, with billions and billions of dollars to spend, couldn't reconfigure shuttle parts into a launch vehicle and build a capsule in 8 years, after 4 years of preparatory effort? They did the Ares I-X test flight after only 4 years. When Obama came in, they were on track to have a basic form of the capsule and Ares I to launch it around the time of the shuttle retirement, and maintain continuity of basic capabilities.

>t. hillbilly

Impending civil war.

>He'll be the chairman of The Independent Peoples Republic of Mars.

Fuck that! The moon as one nation "Luna" will be the richest nation in history. It is the ideal base location for all of mankind's future space endeavors.

so because some of his ideas are good and some are bad he is a con artist, get a clue

>Tesla getting beyond the novelty toy car market.
Still hasn't happened.

>ur a loser ur a loser
You sure convinced me.
By your logic, Veeky Forums should fellate retards like RFK jr.

Model S isn't a novelty toy car. It's no economy model, obviously, but it's a practical and rather nice luxury car for daily driving.

>MFW WE found to purpose of the hyper loop, pushing funding into tunnel boring tech.

>Mostly its just corrupt liberal
Back to /pol

>Maintaining a merely low air pressure
>1/1000th atmosphere is "merely low air pressure"

It's not becuase some of his ideas are bad and some are good, it's becuase some of his plans are demonstrably infeasible to implement in the way that his released documentation claims he will do it and despite that he keeps asking for more money without attempting to address the obvious problems with his design.

when it comes to the hard vacuum in particle accelerators, yes

Getting that last bit out is incredibly hard.

1 bar is quite a thick, dense gas. 1 millibar isn't just some stray molecules, it's a thin but aerodynamically useful atmosphere, quite possible to fly in, easy to pump.

Remember that the concept is for a high speed hovercraft, lifted on a compressed air cushion and pushed along by jet of compressed air, fed by a compressor on the front end of each car. That wouldn't work in anything you could reasonably describe as a vacuum.

By comparison sure, 4 grains a of sand is a lot of sand compared to no grains of sand.
I'm aware of the concept, the point being that calling 1/1000th atmosphere "merely low air presure" is laughable. It might not be nearly as difficult as total vacuum but from an engineers perspective, building such a chamber would seem costly beyond reason at best. I really love the idea of a hyper loop working but there seems to be no practicle way to produce such a thing as of right now, maybe one day.