Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 97 posts

Re: Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

#31

Post by trendia »

LurkingPresence wrote: post #18

Wouldn't it be smarter to start with a smaller project? Like maybe do the Chicago airport project before tearing up the east coast for a super tunnel. That seemed to work for Space X (start small, iterate).

If you're investing your own money, then you'd definitely want to test it out so that you can ensure that 1) it's easy to build and 2) people are willing to pay to use the tunnel.

However, if you want the government to subsidize it / provide tax breaks, then you want to be able to go to politicians in every state and show them how this tunnel is going to bring jobs and money. You pull up a big map and say, "This is going to go from San Francisco to New York, and if you are willing to help we'll make sure it goes right through your state!"

That's the political game that you play. (It also makes it politically unfeasible to shut down later. See: military contractors in every state)

Re: Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

#33

Post by nusq »

ProblemFactory wrote: post #21

Is technology really the slow and expensive part of boring tunnels? To me it has always seemed that tunnels are expensive because: * Planning the traffic impact and how it interacts with other transport lanes, all the above-ground building work to make the tunnel useful, * Emergency ventilation and escape routes, and all other infrastructure that goes into the hole, * Avoiding any building foundation piles, unmapped…

I can't upvote your comment enough and I would add geology to that list.

Re: Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

#34

Post by tyingq »

oceanswave wrote: post #15
tyingq wrote: post #5

The headline seems to be focused just on the drilling/tunnel part. Whether a hyperloop is as crazy as SpaceX or Tesla doesn't seem to be covered.

Creating tunnels in an efficient manner is orthogonal to concepts such as hyperloop

I guess, but if you read the first two paragraphs, the purpose of the tunnel is a hyperloop.

My comment was an exploration of the title "...Tunnel Plan Isn't as Crazy..." Then the article didn't seem to explore any of the crazy aspects of the purpose of the tunnel.

Talking about the "craziness" of digging the tunnel separate from the purpose seemed...odd.

Edit: Appears I may also be confused as to which "Tunnel Plan" in the article title maps to which "tunnel plan" the article is talking about.

Re: Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

#35

Post by dammitcoetzee »

LurkingPresence wrote: post #18

Wouldn't it be smarter to start with a smaller project? Like maybe do the Chicago airport project before tearing up the east coast for a super tunnel. That seemed to work for Space X (start small, iterate).

No. It would be boring.

Re: Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

#36

Post by tyingq »

b_ttercup wrote: post #17
tyingq wrote: post #5

The headline seems to be focused just on the drilling/tunnel part. Whether a hyperloop is as crazy as SpaceX or Tesla doesn't seem to be covered.

I recall reading the plan was to make electric sleds for cars (vaguely akin to car wash tracks) rather than hyper loops.

Perhaps. That's not what's said in the first two paragraphs of the article though.

"That superfast train, known as the hyperloop"

Edit: Ah, perhaps the article structure is just confusing to me. It's hard to map which "Tunnel Plan" they mean in the article.

Re: Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

#37

Post by losteric »

ProblemFactory wrote: post #21

Is technology really the slow and expensive part of boring tunnels? To me it has always seemed that tunnels are expensive because: * Planning the traffic impact and how it interacts with other transport lanes, all the above-ground building work to make the tunnel useful, * Emergency ventilation and escape routes, and all other infrastructure that goes into the hole, * Avoiding any building foundation piles, unmapped…

#2 and 3 certainly sound like technology problems; eg #3 - would underground probes, small tunnelers, help survey the territory between point A and B?

Re: Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

#38

Post by [deleted] »

simonh wrote: post #30
ubernostrum wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but that's not who this is aimed at I think a lot of legitimate criticism of HN's darlings starts with which markets and demographics they aim at, and whose problems they deem worthy of solving.

It's not about worthiness, it's about having a solution or not. If Musk has a solution for long distance but doesn't have one for commuters, should he not pursue the long distance solution because reasons? That seems absurd.

[deleted]

Re: Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

#39

Post by raleighm »

simonh wrote: post #30
ubernostrum wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but that's not who this is aimed at I think a lot of legitimate criticism of HN's darlings starts with which markets and demographics they aim at, and whose problems they deem worthy of solving.

It's not about worthiness, it's about having a solution or not. If Musk has a solution for long distance but doesn't have one for commuters, should he not pursue the long distance solution because reasons? That seems absurd.

Question is what municipalities should do, given that each expenditure has opportunity costs. I though the OP's point was about municipalities' priorities.

Re: Elon Musk’s Tunnel Plan Isn’t as Crazy as SpaceX or Tesla

#40

Post by simonh »

raleighm wrote: post #39
simonh wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not about worthiness, it's about having a solution or not. If Musk has a solution for long distance but doesn't have one for commuters, should he not pursue the long distance solution because reasons? That seems absurd.

Question is what municipalities should do, given that each expenditure has opportunity costs. I though the OP's point was about municipalities' priorities.

The Post I replied to explicitly called out HN darlings.

As for the OP, are there no long distance transport problems worth solving? Really? It's just a daft and pointlessly negative comment, a variation on lazy whataboutism.

Post reply on HN