This is an interesting case of perspectives, when I read his announcement from his blog, I didn't get the impression that he found the solution at all. I don't think you can fault someone for how the media portrays them. As for the Hyperloop, it may very well be a giant dud or it may drive the conversation and the science/engineering in a new direction tangential to the hyperloop all together. I think kdelwat is right, it's meant to get people talking. Hell, prior to the announcement he all but said that he'd have nothing to do with the building of it should it come to fruition. He's just spitballing ideas with the world. I dig that. Open source everything. But you are right that the media and people in general want to make him the second coming. To that I say, GREAT. I would much rather the media be gushing over a guy that genuinely wants to solve large problems via science and technology than say... a Kardashian.
I read an article - can't find it now, although I thought I saw it here on hubski - that said exactly that - this is not Musk flexing or tipping his hat on something is working on - he's saying here's a seed. And if some people want to take this initial idea and foster it, care for it and make it grow, go for it.He's just spitballing ideas with the world. I dig that. Open source everything.
Exactly. I find it hard to ascribe false motives when he's said that none of his organizations will be building it or working on it.
It might have been the way this was hyped, but I got the impression Musk presented this as a full blown alternative to the high speed rail link between the two cities. I think the author of this article agrees, otherwise he woudn't be criticizing the details of the plan so much. If it was just to throw an idea out there, why did he do all the engineering stuff himself and not let someone else do it? Besides, I disagree on your last point: ofcourse I prefer this above the Kardashians, but I prefer proper journalism above all. It's less terrible for sure, but that doesn't mean it is great.
He presents it as a potential alternative which needs a lot of work. His overarching point seems to be that if we are to throw this much money at a solution, shouldn't we consider all potential solutions? I tend to agree. Here is the PDF of his announcement. This bit gets to his motivation for presenting it, which seems to be what you are questioning: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.