Or Dr. Bronner
The other fun thing about making a glorious tunnel under New Orleans is, even if you solve the problem of digging through river silt, and dig down to rock, or clay, or line your tunnels with 6 feet of concrete or 2 inches of stainless steel, or 1/4 in of unobtaniun, the entrances that people use still have to be at ground level. And the next time there is a flood, your tunnels become nice mole tunnels that get submerged.
No problem! They’ll solve that with AI something something mumble.
That would at least provide work for some of the ten billion robots he’ll be producing every year.
I understand that Elon has the plans for one person xubmarines so there isn’t a real problem there.
This thread has me thinking Musk is the singer in Donald Fagan’s IGY
The future looks bright
On that train all graphite and glitter
Undersea by rail
Ninety minutes from New York to Paris
What a beautiful world this will be
I love that one!
Maybe that’s the plan - flooded tunnels for submarines to move people.
Bioengineering to give everyone in New Orleans gills.
Will gills be available for rent to tourists?
Yes for a fee to Elon. And they are working on self-driving gills.
Self-driving or self-diving?
Ohhhh, I missed an obvious one there!
It already has. It’s cheaper than Soyuz (which is saying something given the devaluation of anything priced in rubles) and has better cadence.
That Bronner ↔ musk duality was already mentioned yesterday upthread: Now that Elon Musk has bought Twitter - now the Pit edition (Part 2) - #3194 by Smapti.
The problem of boring a tunnel through silt was solved over a hundred years ago with the tubes under the Hudson River to Manhattan. You pressurize the bore to hold the mud back until you can get the lining in place.
I thought there had been a couple blowouts but a quick search did not come up with any mentions but there were many about workers getting the bends.
You’re right about the flooding though. I have childhood memory of hoses being introduced down the gopher-holes in an infested yard to drive the buggers up to the surface where they’d be dispatched.
Who said anything about price or cadence?
The claim was the most successful and reliable rocket ever created. It’s a good design. No doubt about that. But it still has a ways to go before it displaces Soyuz, which has an operating record decades longer covering many more missions. It’ll probably get there soon enough, but it’s not there yet.
Not arguing with you but reusability should be in the equation with price and cadence - or is it already figured into the price?
Anyway the Soyuz was perfectly cromulent for its time. The Falcon is the current leader.
And Elon is psychotic declining drag on humanity.
Soyuz is the descendent of the R-7 prototype ICBM first tested in 1957. It became the USSR/Russia’s workhorse launcher for its weight class. It’s simply been around for so long that every way it could fail got hammered out over time. Agreed that it’s as basic as an expendable rocket can be but it’s gone as far as it can go.
Again, not disagreeing with any of that.
But that doesn’t make it the ‘most successful’ ever made. At least, not yet. If the standard was “the craft I’d risk my life on if I had to make a choice”, sure. But that wasn’t the claimed standard.
So what exactly does “most successful” mean to you? It’s not a standard engineering term.
I’m not trying to be argumentative or say you’re wrong. I just think various folks are using terms they think are universally self-evident that are not really.
Once we have a common set of agreed terminology we can use those words to achieve mutual understanding. Maybe not mutual agreement, but at least mutual understanding.