5 ms·
As I recall, they go for 2x smaller diameter tunnels. This gives 4x less dirt to move. Beyond that, they aim to get something like a 2x or 3x improvement by swi
by rocqua 9y ago
As I recall, they go for 2x smaller diameter tunnels. This gives 4x less dirt to move. Beyond that, they aim to get something like a 2x or 3x improvement by switching to electric and being better about strutting walls and boring at the same time.
The 4x less work done 2x faster should be about an order of magnitude better.
The reason they can go for smaller tunnels is using 'skates' as opposed to letting people drive. 'Skates' are kinda like a bus for your car. As the environment is controlled, the skates can be controlled by self-driving technology a lot easier. The added precision and control allows for smaller 'roads'.
That is the argument from Musk as I understood it.
- tigershark 9y agoIt's a concept completely wrong in a lot of details starting from the premises. Their primary objective is to build a tunnel for 100M$ a mile saying that currently a tunnel costs 1B$ a mile. And as I linked in a previous thread London crossrail is already on that price range while boring full-size tunnels for underground trains. So I'm not really sure what they are trying to accomplish here given that the crossrail is already cheaper for tunnels with double the size of the ones than their are trying to build.
- jessaustin 9y agoThe costs quoted are USA costs. Massive infrastructure projects cost more here.
- BariumBlue 9y ago>currently a tunnel costs 1B$ a mile I've always thought that maybe it'd make more sense to just give pickaxes to a bunch of people from a 3rd world country
- Boothroid 9y agoKeynes would be proud!