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

91–97 of 97 posts

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

#91

Post by stcredzero »

dragonwriter wrote: post #90
stcredzero wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then how do people get there? Train? OK, then you have to plan how it interacts with the train network's traffic and schedules, duh. Your reasoning applies equally to airports. Congrats, you just "debunked" the airplane! (duh!) So even if you don't want them to, people can drive to near an entrance and park. There will be induced traffic This is vacuous. There will always be induced traffic for such a project. But th…

> Your reasoning applies equally to airports. That's not really in dispute. > Congrats, you just "debunked" the airplane! (duh!) If by “debunked the airplane” you mean “demonstrated the already widely-accepted fact that air travel only is effective with considerable attention to the surface transport connecting airports to the places people actually want to go to and from in the area serviced by the airport”, sure.

If by “debunked the airplane” you mean “demonstrated the already widely-accepted fact that air travel only is effective with considerable attention to the surface transport

Well, yes! Perhaps I shouldn't have used the click-baity, "Solved:" but those are my best guesses as to the strategies used to minimize the problems.

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

#92

Post by abalone »

lucaspiller wrote: post #71
abalone wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they're hoping to mitigate 3 and 4 by going deeper than most things. But wouldn't that make 2, emergency escape routes, a lot more expensive? How do you make a very long, very deep, narrow-diameter, elevator-accessed tunnel safe from fires and toxic gas releases? You can make it a vacuum but then what if you have to escape a vehicle? How does this thing not become a death trap in the event of a fire? Fire i…

The Channel Tunnel is a good example of how it could be done safely. There are two tunnels for trains, and a third smaller tunnel in the middle for emergency use. In the event of a fire people can be (and have been - there have been a few fires) evacuated to the service tunnel, and then road vehicles are sent to collect them. The Channel Tunnel is only 31.5 miles long vs 230 miles (driving) from New York to DC, but h…

That's precisely my point: with that approach they'd have to dig an parallel 230 mile tunnel just for emergency access. Plus cross passage escape tubes that you can get to on foot before you're overtaken by smoke or gases.

The Gotthard tunnel has them about every half mile, but the Boring Company will use smaller diameter tunnels where smoke and gas spread faster, so they'll probably need them more tightly spaced -- say, every quarter mile. And they'll use separate tunnels for each direction of traffic. So that's three tunnels plus 230 x 4 x 2 = 1,840 cross passage tubes.

This is all technically achievable, but the Boring Company's vision is all about cost.. building tunnels 10X cheaper. This is, I think, at least as great of a challenge as getting government approvals to dig very deep.

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

#93

Post by Boothroid »

stcredzero wrote: post #66
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…

Planning the traffic impact Solution: Do not connect the tunnel directly to the road network. Emergency ventilation Solution: Build a kind of infrastructure that only allows onboard backup as emergency ventilation. Escape routes Solution: Minimize escape shafts and provision emergency rescue vehicles capable of transporting an entire pod. Maximize reliability by exploiting the increased reliability of electric drivet…

There is the small matter of geology, following have to be considered, for example:

-Rock type

-Groundwater flow

-Tectonic activity

You can have a whole career as a geotechnical engineer. There are genuine and difficult problems that require consideration if your tunnel isn't to collapse after a few years of use. I don't think these problems magically disappear with new technology or going deep enough.

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

#94

Post by ubernostrum »

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.

There are many viable solutions for commuters.

There are many viable solutions for many problems. The choice of which problem to give first priority to, given an abundance of viable solutions for many problems, reveals much. As does the claim that only that particular problem has a viable solution.

HN's priorities are skewed toward solving the problems of people who are, on the whole, similar to HN commenters. I happen to think this is a bad thing, and reflects a poor set of priorities; it's not "whataboutism" to suggest a different priority order. "Whataboutism" is commonly misunderstood (by those selfsame HN commenters) to mean an evasion of any priorities.

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

#95

Post by std_throwaway »

bluehawk wrote: post #74
std_throwaway wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You won't get fires if there is nothing that burns.

So... passengers can't wear clothing or bring any belongings with them that can burn?

Things you can take on a plane would probably be alright.

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

#96

Post by abalone »

std_throwaway wrote: post #64
abalone wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe they're hoping to mitigate 3 and 4 by going deeper than most things. But wouldn't that make 2, emergency escape routes, a lot more expensive? How do you make a very long, very deep, narrow-diameter, elevator-accessed tunnel safe from fires and toxic gas releases? You can make it a vacuum but then what if you have to escape a vehicle? How does this thing not become a death trap in the event of a fire? Fire i…

You won't get fires if there is nothing that burns.

Wishful thinking. The video envisions Teslas driving directly into the tunnel system via elevators. That means arbitrary cargo and, moreover, Teslas have giant battery packs that can catch fire.
Post reply on HN