Connect with us

News

Australia Parliament committee recommends Hyperloop technology as alternative to high-speed rails

Published

on

Musk hyperloop

The Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities’ created by Australia’s Parliament has recommended the government to explore the use of Hyperloop technology as an alternative to investing in high speed rail systems. Australia is two thirds the size of the United States with vast distances between its major cities. Ultraspeed Australia’s Sean Duggan says the Hyperloop could create a network of “30-minute cities.”

That concept has special resonance for Australians. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull made it a central theme in his latest election campaign. As people flock to urban areas, Australia’s cities are experiencing massive growth but also massive congestion. The “30 minute city” envisions new transportation systems that make it possible for people to live in suburban areas while being able to access the employment, education, and entertainment opportunities available in Australia’s cities within 30 minutes.

U.S.-based Hyperloop One maintains constructing a Hyperloop connection would cost 20% less than building high speed rail lines and be able to operate profitably at much lower occupancy rates. According to Australia Financial Review, Dr. Alan James, head of Hyperloop One, claims the high speed pod system would be financially viable at 15% occupancy, whereas such low usage number would “bankrupt a high-speed rail system.” That’s partly because the operating costs of the Hyperloop would be 60% lower than for a high speed rail system. James says it will cost “next to nothing” to move people from one city to another using the Hyperloop because of its low pressure, low drag configuration.

ALSO SEE: Behind the scenes photos from SpaceX’s Hyperloop Pod Competition

The Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities’ report to Parliament says the Hyperloop would allow passengers to travel between Sydney and Melbourne in less than one hour. Today, that trip requires 12 hours by train or 9 hours 30 minutes by car.  Hyperloop One suggests a pod in a “superluxe” configuration could carry 24 people, 50 people if configured for business class travelers, or 90 in economy mode. Pods will be much smaller than rail cars and could operate more frequently with far fewer passengers.

Of course, all of this depends on Hyperloop transportation proving to be technically feasible. The idea is brilliant, as most of Elon Musk’s innovations are, but the engineering challenges are immense. The fact that the Australian government will as least consider using the Hyperloop for some of its future transportation infrastructure is a small but significant step forward for the nascent technology.

 

Advertisement
-
-

"I write about technology and the coming zero emissions revolution."

Advertisement
Comments

Investor's Corner

Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors: Morgan Stanley

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

In a new note to investors on Tuesday, Morgan Stanley analyst Andrew Percoco said that Tesla has one big financial question to answer for investors regarding its Robotaxi rollout, Full Self-Driving software, and Optimus.

Percoco said in the note that, for the most part, investors are still very positive about the direction the company is headed. However, there are some things the firm would like to see, and they have to do with financials.

Tesla (TSLA) Q2 2026 earnings results: miss on EPS, beat on revenue

Tesla bulls are more than convinced that the company’s Full Self-Driving software is proof it can develop physical AI. Financially, however, there are still some questions, especially on elevated spending, which CEO Elon Musk said would occur as the company works to roll out Robotaxi faster and continue developing its Optimus robot.

The latter two are where Tesla will have to prove progress to investors, as Percoco writes that both projects “will require clearer evidence that Robotaxi is scaling and more tangible Optimus proof points to support the ROI on elevated capex.”

Percoco said the second quarter earnings call did not change his long-term thesis of where Tesla is positioned in the AI race, which is out in front. However, there are concerns that weaker gross margins and higher R&D spend will stress financials, and that has “sharpened our (and investors’) focus on measurable progress across Robotaxi and Optimus.”

Additionally, Robotaxi still needs to be proven with more operation in existing cities while maintaining safety but improving how many rides it gives in any given time, he said. For Optimus, Percoco wrote that he is “still looking for evidence beyond commentary around SOP.”

Advertisement
-
-

Morgan Stanley put Percoco in charge of covering Tesla after long-time analyst Adam Jonas transitioned to the automotive side.

Currently, Morgan Stanley has a $415 price target on Tesla and a ‘Hold’ rating on the stock. It is trading at around $330 at the time of publication, which was 2:30 P.M. on the East Coast.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

SpaceX AI investment gamble will make it a big winner, firm says

Published

on

Credit: SpaceX

SpaceX’s massive investment in AI will make it a big winner, Argus Research said after the company’s successful earnings call last week.

The firm also upgraded shares to a Buy from Hold and set a $160 price target.

SpaceX (NASDAQ: SPCX) is currently recovering from its heavy AI infrastructure investments, as it spent nearly $16 billion in Q2 alone. The company did this primarily by monetizing high-demand GPU compute capacity at a much faster pace than traditional data center economics would suggest.

Company CFO Bret Johnsen said that SpaceX would be able to pay back anything on new deployments within a year.

There are plenty of ways the company can do this:

Leasing excess compute capacity through contracts

SpaceX has already built Colossus and Colossus II, largely for its own model training. However, much of that capacity is already rented out to third parties. It already has major deals with Anthropic, Google, and Reflection AI. These partnerships are adding billions per month to SpaceX’s spreadsheet.

SpaceX is charging Anthropic massive money for its compute

Advertisement
-
-

High utilization driven by industry-wide scarcity

The demand for advanced AI training and inference capacity continues to exceed what is available for use. SpaceX can fill new racks quickly after they come online, so the capital deployed converts into revenue with minimal idle time.

Additionally, management and outside observers have described the new compute capital as behaving more like a cost-of-goods-sold than traditional multi-year capex, especially because of this rapid monetization pattern.

Capacity has already scaled from ~0.4 GW a year to 1.4 GW annually by the end of Q2. There are targets of more than 2 GW by year-end.

High incremental margins on the rental business once capacity is online

GPU cloud providers often operate at strong gross margins. SpaceX can monetize capacity that was already partially built or can be added efficiently. This means that incremental EBITDA margins on the rental revenue are usually high. This accelerates cash recovery relative to the gross capital outlay.

Parallel monetization of its own AI software and applications

Beyond pure infrastructure rental, SpaceX also generates revenue from Grok through subscriptions and usage, from X through ads, data, and other related services, enterprise APIs, and the planned integration of the Cursor coding tools acquisition.

These application layers ride on the same compute infrastructure and provide additional high-margin streams that could offset build-out costs. AI-segment revenue overall rose sharply to about $2.6 billion in Q2, according to Motley Fool. This was driven primarily by the infrastructure contracts, but the software side is also partially responsible.

Efficient, large-scale deployment and vertical integration advantages

SpaceX has emphasized the rapid construction of power and cooling infrastructure and favorable cost-per-megawatt economics relative to industry benchmarks in some disclosures.

Advertisement
-
-

Combined with its ability to scale capacity aggressively and the fact that many contracts start generating revenue within months of capacity coming online, the effective payback compresses dramatically compared with more conventional multi-year data-center projects.

SpaceX’s dominant near-term recovery path will turn the AI clusters into a hyperscale-style compute rental business for other leading AI companies while still using a portion for internal models.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla headlights cause recall of over 20,000 Model 3 and Model Y

Published

on

Tesla headlights have caused a recall of over 20,000 of the company’s two most popular vehicles, the Model 3 and Model Y, due to the low-beam bulb exceeding the maximum allowed intensity according to federal standards.

Tesla initiated the recall with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) this morning, stating that the low-beam output “exceeds the maximum allowed intensity in the outer upper-right and outer upper-left areas of the 10U and 90U zone, as prescribed in FMVSS No. 108.”

Tesla sourced the impacted headlights from Marelli Automotive Lighting, a Mexico-based company. The recall impacts 2020-2023 Model Y vehicles and 2017-2023 Model 3 vehicles. It is estimated that every VIN in this recall is impacted by the defect.

Typically, Tesla would remedy recalls of this nature through an Over-the-Air software update, which has been a major focus of criticism by the company and its supporters because the NHTSA still refers to it as a “recall,” even though it requires no action by the vehicle owner. The fix is shipped over the internet and downloaded to the car.

Advertisement
-
-

However, there appears to be a potentially different solution for this problem. Tesla has not developed a remedy for this issue, so it could potentially be on the way. The big issue appears to be the fact that these recalled lamps are out of production, and this is an old body style for both vehicles. The headlights and front-end designs are completely different.

Tesla switched to another supplier when the affected headlight design was discontinued. It plans to begin notifying owners of their remedy options by September 15.

Tesla filed a petition protesting the recall to fix the vehicles’ headlight issue, but the NHTSA denied it. Now, Tesla will come up with a solution to fix it.

Continue Reading