He does mention luggage would be 1) handled by hyperloop employees 2) removed from the pod all at once to be handled at a different time. Probably more like these pods, which are mostly "blast resistant" http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6918501.html
The big benefit of being "not a plane" is that your emergency measures can be built around that concept. There's also a big benefit to only moving 30 people at once - terrorism looks for mass casualties or mass hostages. Blowing up a hyperloop is basically like bombing a bus - no one really bothers to try.
The big benefit of hyperloops over planes would all depend on how quickly you could brake those pods and re-pressurize the tube to let people escape. Because that's something you definitely can't do on a plane and it governs most of our thinking about them - if anything happens, you're possibly over an hour from being able to land anywhere and no one is able to get off quickly.
Re:Hyperloop
by SideburnsOfDoom on Tuesday August 13, 2013 @01:15PM
(#6206934)
> Blowing up a hyperloop is basically like bombing a bus - no one really bothers to try.
Oh, bus-bombing happens; mostly in the middle-east, but it did happen in London once. You can google it.
I also expect that an explosion inside a depressurised pipe would shut the whole thing down in a way that an explosion above a road surface would not.
On the other hand even with a recommendation to use something similar to TSA doing something similar to airport security, his response plan to a terrorist attac--, er, a "human related incident" is basically to say that the system will have redundant power and vacuum pumps.
I suppose this isn't his area of expertise and so it's better to say little, but this is the kind of thing people are going to worry about before they board a small tube hurtling at 700 mph while 100 feet above the ground.
For instance, does a HRI impact his plan for rapidly handling luggage pods at all? Just one thing to think about...