4 ms·

> big TBMs are heavily bespoke systems specifically built for their planned route, and it's not unusual to just scrap them after the job is done. Would you say

> big TBMs are heavily bespoke systems specifically built for their planned route, and it's not unusual to just scrap them after the job is done. Would you say, they are expensive powerful machines built for a single use to be thrown away? Where much of the expense is due to the lack of re-usability? I wonder if Elon Musk has any experience with anything like that.

loceng 10y ago
There's no space in Elon's exciting master plans for this boring company..
- didgeoridoo 10y ago
  Puns aside, it's fun to speculate how this fits in to SpaceX (will need lots of deep tunnels on Mars for habitation and protection from radiation) and Tesla (ventilating tunnels is much easier if the only cars using it are exhaustless). Or, he's just completely mad.
  - loceng 10y ago
    Agreed. It's probably all of the above ... He's reached a point where he has the resources and buy-in and where he understands that the time/cost to accomplish something huge that will support a holistic ecosystem is far outweighed by the value it brings to reduction in cost once at scale. He's not just shooting for the moon or the stars, he's aiming for the edge of the universe.
shabble 10y ago
I'm sure there are various ways the work spaceX has done on reuse could apply, perhaps in reliability engineering the most. I recall a statement along the lines of 'we could reuse it, but if X, Y, or Z seriously fails in-situ, we'd spend at least as much as a new machine in trying to extricate and repair it. So we don't.' No doubt bits of the machines are modular and can be salvaged and reused, but especially in urban tunneling, the initial bore access can be very tight, and machines are often assembled in-situ and could never be removed in one piece. That, and the sheer punishment they receive during operation makes an easy-to-dismantle design either more expensive or less performant. Finally, my understanding is that the bulk of the cost (especially in overruns) has little to do with the TBM itself, but rather the delays incurred when the territory doesn't match the map. So the solution would be to make a boring system capable of rapid reconfiguration to handle as many expected and unexpected regions as routinely as possible, rather than going for flat-out speed or ultimate machine reuse.
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  What I'm imagining is Elon creating a long skinny Tesla-style robot machine shop that takes in sensor data and sends progressively more useful robots in a queue down to the end of the mine. They take a turn and then head back in the other direction for refurbishment. Over time generically flexible robots will tend to take up residence near the tip. Powerful motors probably stay there with a couple robots to bolt things in place and cycle through a supply of drill bits. Eventually you can snip off a robust robot, and when it comes out the other end you can use it to seed a dig with a similar geological survey. There's never a "product line" per se, just a fleet of tunneling robots with their own personalities.

loceng 10y ago

There's no space in Elon's exciting master plans for this boring company..

didgeoridoo 10y ago
Puns aside, it's fun to speculate how this fits in to SpaceX (will need lots of deep tunnels on Mars for habitation and protection from radiation) and Tesla (ventilating tunnels is much easier if the only cars using it are exhaustless). Or, he's just completely mad.
- loceng 10y ago
  Agreed. It's probably all of the above ... He's reached a point where he has the resources and buy-in and where he understands that the time/cost to accomplish something huge that will support a holistic ecosystem is far outweighed by the value it brings to reduction in cost once at scale. He's not just shooting for the moon or the stars, he's aiming for the edge of the universe.

shabble 10y ago

I'm sure there are various ways the work spaceX has done on reuse could apply, perhaps in reliability engineering the most. I recall a statement along the lines of 'we could reuse it, but if X, Y, or Z seriously fails in-situ, we'd spend at least as much as a new machine in trying to extricate and repair it. So we don't.' No doubt bits of the machines are modular and can be salvaged and reused, but especially in urban tunneling, the initial bore access can be very tight, and machines are often assembled in-situ and could never be removed in one piece. That, and the sheer punishment they receive during operation makes an easy-to-dismantle design either more expensive or less performant. Finally, my understanding is that the bulk of the cost (especially in overruns) has little to do with the TBM itself, but rather the delays incurred when the territory doesn't match the map. So the solution would be to make a boring system capable of rapid reconfiguration to handle as many expected and unexpected regions as routinely as possible, rather than going for flat-out speed or ultimate machine reuse.

erikpukinskis 10y ago
What I'm imagining is Elon creating a long skinny Tesla-style robot machine shop that takes in sensor data and sends progressively more useful robots in a queue down to the end of the mine. They take a turn and then head back in the other direction for refurbishment. Over time generically flexible robots will tend to take up residence near the tip. Powerful motors probably stay there with a couple robots to bolt things in place and cycle through a supply of drill bits. Eventually you can snip off a robust robot, and when it comes out the other end you can use it to seed a dig with a similar geological survey. There's never a "product line" per se, just a fleet of tunneling robots with their own personalities.