3 ms·

Insane is a bit of a strong word, no? If Musk was a visionary he would have built trains, not cars.

by kitsune_ 3y ago

andsoitis 3y ago
> If Musk was a visionary he would have built trains, not cars. Musk started SpaceX in 2002.
bengale 3y ago
Maybe one of the Musks this person doesn't want would build trains. It's another huge undertaking.
gizmo 3y ago
Maybe, but imagine how large a rocket SpaceX would have to build to launch a train into orbit.
- _visgean 3y ago
  Maybe thats the true motivation for the starship?
Sebb767 3y ago
> If Musk was a visionary he would have built trains, not cars Cars are not going anywhere and train lines are incredibly hard to build [1]. You have to work with the world you have, not with a perfect green field dream. [1] You need massive amounts of connected land, a lot of it in places where land is really expensive and people are not willing to sell to you easily. Additionally, you have building restrictions (not a lot of cities will let you bulldoze hundreds of homes for your train line) and - I can't stress this enough - all of this land needs to be connected, which makes avoiding problematic areas just so much harder.
ta1243 3y ago
We have trains, lots of them, all sorts, from 350kph intercity trains to flywheel powered ones the size of a bus. Some are driven and crewed by guards, some are driver only, some are fully automatic. What could he bring to the world of trains? When Musk got involved in Tesla, the idea of an electric car was laughable.
tzs 3y ago
Cars was a better choice than trains on both environmental grounds and business grounds. First, environment. • Trains are somewhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the CO2 emissions per passenger over a given distance than are cars. • For freight are nearly an order of magnitude less per ton over a given distance than trucks. Second, business. • Nobody buys sports trains. Trains are expensive to build and expensive to buy. Almost nobody other than big companies and governments buys trains, and they buy them to do a job. Those buyers tend to be conservative buyers when it comes to technology. They want their new trains to be a lot like their old trains, with just incremental improvements. With cars you can build a sports car, and people will put up with all kinds of problems as long as you nail the performance (acceleration, top speed, handling). Sports cars are playthings, not work things. With a sports car you can try very different things and then take what works and use it to develop cars for the more widespread car market.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > Sports cars are playthings, not work things. And accordingly, they shouldn't be allowed on the public highway; they should be restricted to private racetracks. There's no reason to allow cars that can cruise at 3x the speed limit to be driven among ordinary civilians.

Insane is a bit of a strong word, no? If Musk was a visionary he would have built trains, not cars.

andsoitis 3y ago

> If Musk was a visionary he would have built trains, not cars. Musk started SpaceX in 2002.

bengale 3y ago

Maybe one of the Musks this person doesn't want would build trains. It's another huge undertaking.

gizmo 3y ago

Maybe, but imagine how large a rocket SpaceX would have to build to launch a train into orbit.

_visgean 3y ago
Maybe thats the true motivation for the starship?

Sebb767 3y ago

> If Musk was a visionary he would have built trains, not cars Cars are not going anywhere and train lines are incredibly hard to build [1]. You have to work with the world you have, not with a perfect green field dream. [1] You need massive amounts of connected land, a lot of it in places where land is really expensive and people are not willing to sell to you easily. Additionally, you have building restrictions (not a lot of cities will let you bulldoze hundreds of homes for your train line) and - I can't stress this enough - all of this land needs to be connected, which makes avoiding problematic areas just so much harder.

ta1243 3y ago

We have trains, lots of them, all sorts, from 350kph intercity trains to flywheel powered ones the size of a bus. Some are driven and crewed by guards, some are driver only, some are fully automatic. What could he bring to the world of trains? When Musk got involved in Tesla, the idea of an electric car was laughable.

tzs 3y ago

Cars was a better choice than trains on both environmental grounds and business grounds. First, environment. • Trains are somewhere from 1/2 to 1/4 the CO2 emissions per passenger over a given distance than are cars. • For freight are nearly an order of magnitude less per ton over a given distance than trucks. Second, business. • Nobody buys sports trains. Trains are expensive to build and expensive to buy. Almost nobody other than big companies and governments buys trains, and they buy them to do a job. Those buyers tend to be conservative buyers when it comes to technology. They want their new trains to be a lot like their old trains, with just incremental improvements. With cars you can build a sports car, and people will put up with all kinds of problems as long as you nail the performance (acceleration, top speed, handling). Sports cars are playthings, not work things. With a sports car you can try very different things and then take what works and use it to develop cars for the more widespread car market.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> Sports cars are playthings, not work things. And accordingly, they shouldn't be allowed on the public highway; they should be restricted to private racetracks. There's no reason to allow cars that can cruise at 3x the speed limit to be driven among ordinary civilians.