Slashdot Mirror


Elon Musk Says He'll Start Digging a Tunnel From SpaceX HQ Next Month (techcrunch.com)

It appears Elon Musk is really serious about digging a tunnel to fix the traffic jams on roads. Last month, the SpaceX CEO sent out a string of tweets complaining about traffic. He suggested that a possible solution might be to start a tunnel-digging firm called -- wait for it -- The Boring Company, following it up by saying "I am actually going to do this," and updating his bio to read: "Tesla, SpaceX, Tunnels & OpenAI." This morning, he repeated the claim, and even assured a questioner that he was, in fact, serious. From a report on TechCrunch: Musk's tunnel plans, then, seem possibly aimed at reducing his travel time between SpaceX and LAX, at least initially. LAX is an airport he likely frequents with dizzying regularity, given his commitments at SpaceX, Tesla and SolarCity. [...] It's hard to gauge Musk's seriousness on Twitter, given his ability to come with fairly dry and playful responses. But he has insisted the tunnel plans were serious previously, and so far, nothing to indicate he's just joking has emerged. Here, too, he responded to a query from a fan wondering if he was serious with a simple "Yup," and he does include "Tunnels" as a list item of his concerns in his Twitter biography.

288 comments

  1. Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Hawthorne airport (Jack Northrup Field) is right next to SpaceX.

    1. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by demonlapin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Runway is too short for jets there. He could helicopter over, but helicopters are risky ways to get around.

    2. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Runway is too short for jets there. He could helicopter over, but helicopters are risky ways to get around.

      Yes, it seems 75% of helicopter flights end in disaster.

    3. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

      Extend the runway. gotta be cheaper than tunnels to LAX

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    4. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that he hasn't built a flying car.

      Also, I was disappointed to hear that he is "digging" a tunnel. I was hoping that he was planning to build a quantum entanglement warp transporter tunnel to beam himself back and forth to the airport.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    5. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      If they wanted to extend the runway then one of the two roads it sits in between would have to be split into two parts.

      Or have the road go under the runway but then there's a lot of extra maintenance costs, even if he pays the installation, just so a billionaire can land his jet and save a few minutes.

    6. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by operagost · · Score: 2

      As opposed to boring a tunnel to LAX?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re: Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least other people could use it

    8. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

      Extend the runway. gotta be cheaper than tunnels to LAX

      You've never actually interacted with the government before, have you?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    9. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In for a penny in for a pund I guess.

    10. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by eliphalet · · Score: 1

      That's Northrop.

    11. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by eliphalet · · Score: 2

      Would make it even more likely that a plane headed for LAX would try to land at Hawthorne, which is southeast of LAX and on almost the same heading -- it's happened before.

    12. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wouldn't the tunnel require interacting with government?

    13. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "Also, I was disappointed to hear that he is "digging" a tunnel"

      Not "digging" - BORING as in The Boring Company, "Boring - it's what we do"

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    14. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably, but that doesn't serve as a proof-of-concept for anything.

      If he can dig his tunnel and show proper structural integrity, cost efficiency, etc, he could have another business venture.

    15. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Correction: SpaceX is IN the Hawthorne airport. I live just a couple of blocks away from it.

      And yes, he does have his own jet. I see it take off from the Hawthorne airport all of the time.

    16. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe for a 747 or other large commercial jet, but there are Learjets and other smaller jet that use that airport. Helicopters use that airport a lot too and there hasn't been a single crash.

    17. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by demonlapin · · Score: 2

      I thought you were joking. I thought, how could you miss the Pacific? But no. Thank goodness they realized the mistake before touching down.

    18. Re: Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% of Stevie Ray Vaughns die in helicopter crashes

    19. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Extend the runway. gotta be cheaper than tunnels to LAX

      You've never actually interacted with the government before, have you?

      Its not just the government, but airlines too. They're not going to start scheduled services for a handful of passengers.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    20. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've heard helicopters are actually safer than most general aviation. For example in 2014 there were 1,047 fatal fixed wing accidents, that vs 132 helicopter accidents. Of course helicopters are less popular than fixed wing, but even taking that into account while they do crash more often (9.84 per 100k hours vs 7.28) they are safer when they do crash (1.3 per 100k hours vs 1.4). And most of the reason why they aren't far ahead of fixed wing aircraft in terms of safety is that they are usually used in more risky situations (landing in fields, near power lines, low flight, etc) where fixed wing aircraft often simply fly airport to airport.

      http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/10/hellish_copters.html

    21. Re:Elon Musk doesn't have a private plane? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the runway should be extended into a tunnel.
      I saw that on Comet TV a while back.
      On a more serious note, I knew a someone who served in the US Armed forces in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I. He told me that he was at an airbase that was mostly underground, with runways continuing into ramps underground. May or may not have been 'doors' that closed off the underground portion leaving a flat surface. Hardened against bombing, but that would not be needed in Hawthorne.

  2. tunnels, walls.... by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    make it stop

    1. Re:tunnels, walls.... by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      It's the new cold war.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
  3. ... to fix the traffic jams on roads by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

    Like those in a tunnel would be any better.

    --
    Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
    1. Re:... to fix the traffic jams on roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would if it were a private tunnel, only open to subscribers or even just billionaires.

    2. Re: ... to fix the traffic jams on roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pneumatic mail delivery system with pods large enough for one person.

    3. Re:... to fix the traffic jams on roads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A toll tunnel with a $1000 fee for normal commuters would knock out a lot of traffic.

      LA use to have a subway system. Are there old tunnels leading out from LAX?

    4. Re:... to fix the traffic jams on roads by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      He could restrict it to electric cars...

    5. Re:... to fix the traffic jams on roads by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Los Angeles used to have a trolley system; I'm not aware of any old subway system. The current light rail system goes a substantial distance, but LA is a very sprawled-out city, so the lines are not convenient to much of the population. Two of the lines are subways, but go nowhere near LAX.

      The Green Line, a surface rail, runs down the center of the 105 Freeway and has stops at the airport in Hawthorne and the commercial services area of LAX.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  4. He seems to be completely bananas... by gweihir · · Score: 0

    Loss of contact with reality and too much money. A bad combination.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Two months to get local government permission to do this, with no public inquiry, no protesting, no legal battles...? Yeah, I don't think this is going to happen - its a joke, nothing more.

    2. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You talking about Trump ?

    3. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, everything is about Trump now. He is relevant to every discussion.

    4. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by Notabadguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      You misunderstand.

      If he digs deeply enough, government won't know about it. Unless he delves too deeply and awaken a Balrog. Then he can blame it on Trump.

    5. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      Musk?? Trump? All of the above? I get confused so easily.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    6. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      Dam. I thought it was the pesky ruskies. Judging by how frequently they come up on slashdot.

      Hey, How about changing Slashdot's name to SickleHammer?

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
    7. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump! Trump! Trump!

    8. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand.

      If he digs deeply enough, government won't know about it. Unless he delves too deeply and awaken a Balrog. Then he can blame it on Trump.

      Just dig a trench, put in a rocket on it side and light the touch paper. It'll ram it's way through the ground in make a tunnel to LAX in a couple of minutes.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by MrLogic17 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look at the timing. We're close to the end of the month. A recent post said in about a month. That's mighty close to April 1st....

    10. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by zawarski · · Score: 1

      He SHALL pass. Period.

    11. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Did you miss one of the *two* months between the end of January and the start of April? Namely February *and* March...?

      Not as close as you think...

    12. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by Quirkz · · Score: 5, Funny

      You mean Trump *isn't* the balrog?

    13. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      I figure either he's fracking with our heads or, he's got a stealth company/project, e.g. hyperloop, that he getting to take the wraps off of and he's teasing with hints. The guy is just enough "bananas" to never truly know.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    14. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      Maybe Lord Kinbote would rescue him.

    15. Re: He seems to be completely bananas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk voted for Trump.

    16. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by haruchai · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean Trump *isn't* the balrog?

      No, his hands are much too small

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    17. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Well, he has to do something with all those recovered boosters he has lying around now.

    18. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bad combination.

      It is much better than loss of contact with reality in addition to being broke.

    19. Re: He seems to be completely bananas... by orlanz · · Score: 1

      What do you think the actual tunnel will be made of? The used car batteries will be powering the LEDs inside.

    20. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by gweihir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trump is not bananas. Trump is a reasonably intelligent, uncultivated narcissist. In fact, Trump is basically a text-book example of Narcissistic personality disorder. If he hadn't inherited big, he would probably be the prototypical dishonest used-car salesman. But he is not bananas. He just says whatever he needs to tell people in order to get them to do what he wants. I very much think he does know that he is mostly lying, but because he is the great leader, that is acceptable because his vision is so superior to all others that the end justifies the means.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Not at all. Somebody with money can do a lot of damage when losing contact with reality. Somebody broke will only load the social system to a small degree.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    22. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      Trump? Balrog? Hmmm, "(born June 14, 1946)" so conceived around October 1945. That's about the time that Tolkein was writing the Lord of the Rings and "stuck in Moria" as his notes put it.

      You could be onto something there.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    23. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      IF he'd been doing anything of significance with the "HYPErloop" concept, then he'd have paid some attention to tunnelling - as well as to bridging - because if a mile of tunnel (bridge) can save you 30 miles of route, and tunnels (bridges) cost 10 times as much per metre of route then regular ground-level building, then the tunnel (bridge) makes economic sense. This has been known since the canal boom of the late 18th century - and hasn't changed despite the huge changes in technology in that time.

      Building both tunnels and bridges are pretty stable industries. In tunnels, you're limited by having to get the spoil from the workface, past your boring equipment, to the entrance of the tunnel. In bridges, you've got to lift the components into position ; both limit the rate at which you can move stuff.

      I deduce the Musk is making a joke of some sort, or is not actually investing any serious consideration into the "HYPErloop" project. Or both.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    24. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      Is there a Balrog in the woodpile?

    25. Re:He seems to be completely bananas... by Notabadguy · · Score: 1

      Are you asserting that Trump's orange skin is actually an inner fire, glowing out from behind fleshy curtains?

  5. Wrong solution by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He is trying to build a better buggy whip. The solution to traffic congestion is not more infrastructure capacity, but using the capacity we have more efficiently. Automatic braking, lane control and (eventually) SDCs, should be able to increase road capacity by a factor of 2 to 5. As the CEO of Tesla, he should focus on that. By the time the tunnel is built, it will no longer be needed.

    1. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      We'll need these tunnels to hide from the AI that controls hunter killer modified SDCs in 2056.

    2. Re:Wrong solution by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The closer a road operates to maximum theoretical capacity, the more dramatic the traffic congestion when something goes slightly wrong.

    3. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution to traffic congestion is not more infrastructure capacity, but using the capacity we have more efficiently.

      No, it's eliminating the unnecessary traffic. How many of those in traffic are going to jobs that they could telecommute to just fine?

      And shouldn't Musk have a little helicopter shuttle to run him back and forth from the airport?

    4. Re:Wrong solution by quantaman · · Score: 1

      He is trying to build a better buggy whip. The solution to traffic congestion is not more infrastructure capacity, but using the capacity we have more efficiently. Automatic braking, lane control and (eventually) SDCs, should be able to increase road capacity by a factor of 2 to 5. As the CEO of Tesla, he should focus on that. By the time the tunnel is built, it will no longer be needed.

      I've no idea if Musk is serious, I'm pretty certain that digging a tunnel under a city requires a ton of permits and months/years of public consultation that don't seem to have happened, but if he were serious I wonder if he's thinking about a private tunnel for just the rich.

      There's a lot of obscenely rich people in LA who don't want so spend hours in LA traffic, and private choppers have a lot of limitations.

      So make a smaller scale tunnel that costs $10k/month, it doesn't fix the traffic problem but it allows him and his fellow rich folks avoid traffic along that particular route.

      I've no idea if that would make the numbers add up but I'm not sure how else he plans to make money (or even afford the construction cost).

      --
      I stole this Sig
    5. Re:Wrong solution by arth1 · · Score: 1

      He is trying to build a better buggy whip. The solution to traffic congestion is not more infrastructure capacity, but using the capacity we have more efficiently. Automatic braking, lane control and (eventually) SDCs, should be able to increase road capacity by a factor of 2 to 5. As the CEO of Tesla, he should focus on that. By the time the tunnel is built, it will no longer be needed.

      No, that's not the solution to traffic congestion.
      Another is to reduce the need for transportation.
      Reward decentralization - bring traffic into the equation when deciding to close a post office or police station, and give proportional tax breaks to branch offices that reduce how much people have to travel.
      Stop welcoming large malls that cause people to drive longer distances, whether it's to work there or shop.
      Encourage broadband, where electrons flow, not people.
      Create incentives for local production and warehousing, so goods aren't shipped across the country and back again, clogging up roads with trucks.

      It's much like network design. You can get a fatter pipe, you can utilize the pipes better, or you can reduce the need for data to flow. Local caching and in-housing services can work wonders.

    6. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the best solution is to increase use of devices while driving. It won't be long before this cuts down the traffic.

    7. Re:Wrong solution by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Certain routes have too much congestion, especially in LA where there are far too many surface intersections. Software optimization only gets you so far. You really need bypass tunnels/bridges for through traffic, and limit the surface lights to turning traffic. From SpaceX, getting under the 105 and a few miles north would help. So would a bridge to the Green Line metro.

    8. Re:Wrong solution by bizquick · · Score: 1

      Nah... I think he's just trying to get more government subsidies. Why change what works :P

    9. Re:Wrong solution by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      People who like, as in are enthusiastic, about cars aren't going to want any of the solutions you listed because they impact the driving experience they love. People who don't would be happy with better transit and walkability. Better, cheaper, tunnelling could actually improve both transit (reducing grade seperation problems) and walkability (putting transportation infrastructure underground would allow buildings to be built closer together without the massive free parking problems of today.)

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the flip side, tunnels have pretty much the same problem. Accidents outside a tunnel may close one or two lanes, but accidents inside a tunnel tend to lead to full tunnel closures.

    11. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This whole thought process seems like complete bullshit - the more automated cars become, the more people will send them on all sorts of autonomous tasks / bullshit, as there won't even be the personal cost of having to drive the car yourself.

      I will be going to the mountains even MORE - 2 hour drive to the mountains for just 1 hour in the mountain ? No longer a problem if I can sleep / read / work. Won't give a fuck if there is more traffic caused by my actions because I don't have to drive.

    12. Re:Wrong solution by oobayly · · Score: 1

      As the CEO of Tesla, he should focus on that

      I think they already are focusing on that.

    13. Re:Wrong solution by religionofpeas · · Score: 5, Funny

      The obvious solution is to dig only under your own property. Any two pieces of property can be connected by digging straight down from both of them until the tunnels intersect.

    14. Re:Wrong solution by EvilSS · · Score: 5, Funny

      On the flip side, tunnels have pretty much the same problem. Accidents outside a tunnel may close one or two lanes, but accidents inside a tunnel tend to lead to full tunnel closures.

      Just tunnel under the accident. It's tunnels all the way down!

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    15. Re:Wrong solution by chispito · · Score: 1

      Automatic braking, lane control and (eventually) SDCs, should be able to increase road capacity by a factor of 2 to 5. As the CEO of Tesla, he should focus on that.

      Has anyone on earth led to more practical results in those areas than Elon Musk?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    16. Re:Wrong solution by SlashDread · · Score: 1

      Might be a good place to upgrade to a vac tube though

    17. Re:Wrong solution by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      The obvious solution is to dig only under your own property. Any two pieces of property can be connected by digging straight down from both of them until the tunnels intersect.

      They conveniently intersect at his secret underground volcanic lair...

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    18. Re:Wrong solution by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      He is trying to build a better buggy whip. The solution to traffic congestion is not more infrastructure capacity, but using the capacity we have more efficiently.

      I think you misunderstand. On Mars, tunnels will be the efficient infrastructure that will need to be built anyway.

    19. Re:Wrong solution by David_Hart · · Score: 1

      The obvious solution is to dig only under your own property. Any two pieces of property can be connected by digging straight down from both of them until the tunnels intersect.

      They conveniently intersect at his secret underground volcanic lair...

      No, Magma lair...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    20. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automatic braking, lane control and (eventually) SDCs, should be able to increase road capacity by a factor of 2 to 5.

      Current highways are already operating at about 1/10th of the theoretical maximum throughput (literal bumper-to-bumper traffic) at 65mph. No matter how much automation you incorporate, mundane things like acceleration, braking, and maneuvering (all things associated with entering and exiting traffic, which is a major cause of congestion) will still take too much time to allow for much of an improvement. And even if you could double highway throughput, all of that traffic has to go somewhere and those somewheres are much harder to increase the capacity of with software.

    21. Re:Wrong solution by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      It's better to run trains in them, for that reason. Unfortunately Elon is likely to insist on hyperloop trains instead of normal ones, when normal ones would do the job, go quite fast if you design them to, and would get done.

    22. Re:Wrong solution by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      Why is that unfortunate? Gotta prove out the technology on smaller scales before you sink untold $$$ into proper scale projects.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    23. Re:Wrong solution by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Actually, what happened is this:

      A couple months ago, Musk watched the old Bond movie "You Only Live Twice". Ever since then, he's been obsessed with the idea of a private subway system such as Tiger Tanaka (the head of Japanese intelligence) had in that movie - so he's resolved to build one for himself.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    24. Re:Wrong solution by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about the facts. This is an eat the rich, beat up on Musk thread.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    25. Re:Wrong solution by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More roads don't fix congestion, they make it worse. California is a good example of this. All more road capacity does is encourage urban sprawl and more traffic, more miles driven and some huge societal costs. There is no easy or good solution to the problem from this point of view.

      You can extract more capacity out of your roadways by increasing the density and speed of vehicles, but to do that you need computers in charge of cars that can drive at 90mph while 6 inches or less from the bumpers in front and behind that communicate with each other and essentially act as a mass transit system. This is a future we will likely see.

    26. Re:Wrong solution by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      It's better to run trains in them, for that reason.

      When is there going to be a train that runs from my house to the grocery store?

    27. Re:Wrong solution by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      It's soo wrong, if an engineer truly believed in reincarnation. He would find a sustainable system that. Would be scalable for any population size. Because who in their right mind would want to be forced to come back to this shit hole. Elon is an idiot.

    28. Re: Wrong solution by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      When there's a jet plane that takes you to the grocery store. That is not what trains are for. Elon's issue is getting from Hawthorne to/from LAX, where having his car would be inconvenient and expensive.

    29. Re:Wrong solution by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      No, it's eliminating the unnecessary traffic. How many of those in traffic are going to jobs that they could telecommute to just fine?

      Most of the jobs that can be done just fine with telecommuting have already been outsourced to Mumbai, or soon will be.

    30. Re: Wrong solution by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      He needs to buy Piz Gloria first.

    31. Re:Wrong solution by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Yes, automatic brake control and so on can increase the capacity of a freeway, but that still won't eliminate traffic congestion. At best, it can only delay the onset of congestion for a few years, because once people see that the freeway is flowing smoothly again, they will drive on that freeway more often, developers will build along the freeway, and so on until the freeway is gridlocked again. This happens every time you widen an unpriced freeway without also preventing development (particularly places to park) along the corridor.

      So there are two permanent solutions to the problem of freeway traffic congestion: (1) stop pricing the freeway below market equilibrium (because this only encourages people to drive and create traffic congestion), and (2) stop forcing developers to overbuild their parking lots (because overbuilt parking lots also encourage people to drive).

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    32. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps after enough incarnations. This engineer would invent the comma. Or perhaps a question mark. Full stop.

    33. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There's a lot of obscenely rich people in LA who don't want so spend hours in LA traffic, and private choppers have a lot of limitations.

      So make a smaller scale tunnel that costs $10k/month, it doesn't fix the traffic problem but it allows him and his fellow rich folks avoid traffic along that particular route."

      Even if that's his plan... so what? Assume he gets all of the permits and receives no tax money. Other than jealousy, what is the objection?

    34. Re:Wrong solution by gosand · · Score: 1

      I agree with your efficiency comment, but I am certainly not looking forward to those solutions you mention.
      I live 18 miles from work, and about 17 of that is 2 or 3 lane divided highway. Speed limit is 65. I can make it to work on a normal day in about 23 minutes. That is mostly doing about 75, with some areas where it is slower, and usually comes to a dead stop in a couple of places due to heavy merging traffic.

      The other day it was snowy. The roads were ok, but not great. It seemed that there was the same amount of traffic, but everyone was going about 50. I got to work in 25 minutes. The drive was easy, no sudden braking, no slowing to a stop, or even slowing at all. No dumbasses who HAVE to be going 85, weaving in and out trying to eke ahead while putting everyone at risk. It was rather pleasant.

      I have to wonder if we did that every day if there would be fewer accidents and more consistent travel times.

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    35. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is trying to build a better buggy whip. The solution to traffic congestion is not more infrastructure capacity, but using the capacity we have more efficiently. Automatic braking, lane control and (eventually) SDCs, should be able to increase road capacity by a factor of 2 to 5. As the CEO of Tesla, he should focus on that. By the time the tunnel is built, it will no longer be needed.

      There is a non-high-tech solution to this. A network of small buses solves congestion problems, and they are employed in most metro areas in Europe, but in Silicon Valley we solve everything via huge and ambitious venture-funded techno-bubble

    36. Re:Wrong solution by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter.Only those who want to know will get it. The key to a happy life is ignorance, discrimination, prejudice.

    37. Re: Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harrier jump jet?

    38. Re:Wrong solution by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Why not hyperloop trains? You've already got the airtight tube "for free", so the extra cost to partially evacuate it is minimal and the potential efficiency/speed gains are significant.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    39. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Automatic braking, lane control and (eventually) SDCs, should be able to increase road capacity by a factor of 2 to 5.

      We use a device that improves road capacity by a factor 20 to 50 over here. It's called a bus.

    40. Re:Wrong solution by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Once Trump finishes his genocidal extermination of Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, Leftists, and other defectives, there'll be plenty of excess capacity on the roads.

    41. Re:Wrong solution by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Development time between now and a hyperloop that works, is relatively safe, economical to run, can be maintained economically, and is desirable for the customer is at least a decade, possibly two, and might never complete. Most of the issues are around it being evacuated.

    42. Re:Wrong solution by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      See this reply.

    43. Re:Wrong solution by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You are missing the point of tunnels. Tunnels create additional roads where otherwise there is no more space for roads. Whether they can break down or get blocked is irrelevant when the main problem is more cars than road capacity can handle.

    44. Re:Wrong solution by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2

      The solution is easy but so radical, nobody would ever do it: stop making workplaces so far from places where people live. The problem is, jobs are rarely where the people want live. So we need to look at what IS a job and what IS where someone lives and find ways blend them in a way that affects neither work life nor home life.

      Allowing remote working solves the issue immediately but it's not compatible with many workplaces.
      Breaking up huge offices into multiple smaller ones spread around shows promise. Yet companies like Yahoo have done the opposite, as well as forbidding remote working. I am not sure being that way has helped Yahoo at all.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    45. Re:Wrong solution by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      More roads don't fix congestion, they make it worse.

      That depends entirely on the design of the road system. Take a look at Chicago for example. A grid system where every road crosses the river, every road is connected to every other road, and adding more roads would do absolutely nothing to resolve the city traffic.

      However not all cities are like Chicago. In fact there are far more cities not laid out in this fashion than there are laid out in this fashion. Most cities grew out from a centrally and often disorganised point and then major arterials were decided on and these got bigger and bigger to the point where they can't be increased in size anymore. Often these cities have highways going around them but not into them and the major arterials serve to connect the cities to these highways.

      In such cases traffic jams cause on the arterials and close to the access point of these arterials. In these cases adding new major roads, especially tunnels, and double especially if your city has a river in it like many do, will decrease traffic congestion by spreading it out more evenly over the city area. The other scenario where you get a benefit is if the highways or arterials themselves are blocked.

    46. Re:Wrong solution by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      They've said that sort of thing about Elon's other accomplishments as well. If you say something can't be done and no one tries, of course it will never happen; audentes Fortuna iuvat

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    47. Re:Wrong solution by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      In both the case of Tesla and of SpaceX, Elon took an existing product that was being held back by entrenched manufacturers, and removed the hold. The technology to make great electric cars already existed. Rockets similar to the Falcon 9 already existed.

      Putting people in evacuated tunnels and moving them really quickly is not the same sort of solved problem. The closest thing we have is flying them in jets, where there is miles of space between the jets as a buffer rather than fractions of an inch of mechanical tolerance on rails. We also don't send people up in spacesuits to maintain the "tracks" that jet planes fly upon.

      So, if Elon is going to take 20 years to dig his tunnel and will start today, he can have a train design when he's finished. But that won't solve the problem of his commute before he's 64 and possibly ready to retire.

    48. Re:Wrong solution by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      You missed my point. By decreasing the congestion you encourage urban sprawl and people drive more miles. These increased numbers of miles driven make congestion worse. It's simply impossible to add highways and arterials to relieve the congestion because you'll frequently get right back to the same point within a much shorter time period than you predicted because you sprawled the city out and people started driving more miles.

      As I mentioned California tried to do this. They were very much like the example you try to use with single corridors and points of congestion that jammed up the whole system.. They attempted to grow capacity to alleviate their traffic congestion (there are freeways with 11 lanes in each direction in California) they built whole freeways just to connect across arterial zones. They did this for near on 40 years, they never got rid of the congestion, they'd relieve it temporary, often a quarter of the time predicted and would immediately be back to the same spot they were before the expanded capacity and the city expanded outward and people started driving 20% more miles. The counter example to this is New York, a city that hasn't really expanded capacity in 40 years and much longer in some areas. Instead they built mass transit and leveraged that. They didn't sprawl the city outward the city infilled by building up with the subway and other public transit systems adding carrying capacity. The result is a stable car carrying system and expanding public transit access.

      The cost here is the near complete loss of the suburban environment. I'm not advocating for either position, merely pointing out that you can't grow capacity to solve congestion issues as an indefinite solution. The more and more capacity you add the less efficient the added capacity is. It's a losing proposition and requires better up front planning for growth to avoid the situation Southern California has ended up with. Musk wants to solve the problem by adding more capacity but all it's going to do is make it worse in the long term. He'd be better served trying to improve the efficiency of the capacity they already have, something that requires innovation and probably removing the human driver. There is no simple solution to the traffic problems in Southern California. They need to solve the much bigger zoning and land use issues they've created before they attempt to fix the traffic issues.

    49. Re:Wrong solution by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Have you been on LA freeways at rush hour? Tripling effective capacity by means of automated vehicle control might temporarily end tie-ups, until the population grows again or more people realize that it seems OK to travel at 5 PM and jam up the roads again.

      The pinch region is the Sepulveda pass, and traffic backs for 20 miles.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    50. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a solution, more efficient use of the network:

      Led by Professor Daniela Rus of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), researchers developed an algorithm that found that 3,000 four-passenger cars could serve 98 percent of taxi demand in New York City, with an average wait-time of only 2.7 minutes.

      “Instead of transporting people one at a time, drivers could transport two to four people at once, results in fewer trips, in less time, to make the same amount of money,” says Rus, who wrote a related paper with former CSAIL postdoc Javier Alonso-Mora, assistant professor Samitha Samaranayake of Cornell University, PhD student Alex Wallar and MIT professor Emilio Frazzoli. “A system like this could allow drivers to work shorter shifts, while also creating less traffic, cleaner air and shorter, less stressful commutes.”

      The team also found that 95 percent of demand would be covered by just 2,000 ten-person vehicles, compared to the nearly 14,000 taxis that currently operate in New York City.

    51. Re:Wrong solution by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      He's only a few miles away, he could maybe afford to do it, but it'd be years before he could use such a tunnel, in the unlikely event that he could even get permits. My first thought was that a helicopter solves the issue rather more expediently.

    52. Re:Wrong solution by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Allowing remote working solves the issue immediately but it's not compatible with many workplaces.

      Actually it's compatible with the overwhelming majority of white collar jobs, although those in charge tend to strenuously deny this due to a mixture of ignorance, delusion and self-preservation.

    53. Re:Wrong solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...]SDCs, should be able to increase road capacity by a factor of 2 to 5. As the CEO of Tesla, he should focus on that.

      What rock have you been living under that makes you think Tesla is not focusing on developing self driving cars? Also, it's not like Musk is developing the software and training the AIs himself...

  6. Tunnel to Hell! by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    Now instead of Double layer highways, we can have double layer roads! top goes south/west tunnel goes north/east

    1. Re: Tunnel to Hell! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what a boring problem

    2. Re:Tunnel to Hell! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Now instead of Double layer highways, we can have double layer roads! top goes south/west tunnel goes north/east

      But what if I want to go north/west?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    3. Re:Tunnel to Hell! by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      thats what the Oil Burners are for! also helps keep the polar bears warm!

  7. Probably not LAX by XXongo · · Score: 1
    "LAX is an airport he likely frequents with dizzying regularity, given his commitments at SpaceX, Tesla and SolarCity"

    Since he flies his own jet, I expect he doesn't fly out of LAX.

    1. Re:Probably not LAX by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "LAX is an airport he likely frequents with dizzying regularity, given his commitments at SpaceX, Tesla and SolarCity"

      Since he flies his own jet, I expect he doesn't fly out of LAX.

      Why not? LAX services business jets as well - they usually have a separate entrance and separate terminal building too.

      He doesn't fly commercial jets like most people going to LAX, but he certainly would use the private jet terminal. And yes, they have standard security as well, but since fewer people use the terminal, there's no lineup and they usually will be able to go from the car to the jet in about 5 minutes.

    2. Re:Probably not LAX by Zak3056 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And yes, they have standard security as well, but since fewer people use the terminal, there's no lineup and they usually will be able to go from the car to the jet in about 5 minutes.

      Not familiar with the GA terminal at LAX, but I'd be stunned if they had "standard security" as most have what you would call "no security." I remember one FBO that had a keypad lock on the gate to the barbed wire topped chain link fence, and a sign above the keypad that had the code neatly engraved upon it (and yes, this is post 9/11--that's why the fence had barbed wire and a lock).

      The simple truth is that the feds cannot and do not dictate what you bring on board on your own personal airplane. I once wore a glock on my belt while piloting a C172 just for the sheer novelty of doing so, and did not break any laws by so doing.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    3. Re:Probably not LAX by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you wore said glock while over a state that forbids open carry you probably violated the law. Though pretty much impossible to be enforced it still constituted one of your 3 felonies a day.

    4. Re:Probably not LAX by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not familiar with the GA terminal at LAX, but I'd be stunned if they had "standard security" as most have what you would call "no security." I remember one FBO that had a keypad lock on the gate to the barbed wire topped chain link fence, and a sign above the keypad that had the code neatly engraved upon it (and yes, this is post 9/11--that's why the fence had barbed wire and a lock).

      The simple truth is that the feds cannot and do not dictate what you bring on board on your own personal airplane. I once wore a glock on my belt while piloting a C172 just for the sheer novelty of doing so, and did not break any laws by so doing.

      This is true for most GA airports. But LAX also services commercial airplanes, so anyone on the air side of the airport will have to have gone through security screening.

      Otherwise it's a Very Big Security Hole at LAX. Because you can always just use the GA terminal to get full access to the airfield and the restricted parts of the airport. (It's all connected to the same runways and all that, and if you're willing to walk a bit, you can end up at the regular terminal as well. Or just take one of the many carts).

      So no, commercial airports will demand their GA terminal have standard security screenings. Regular GA-only airports usually don't have much more than a security door, and most cases the FBO will just have two doors - one from the outside into the FBO, one from the FBO to the field.

    5. Re:Probably not LAX by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      SpaceX is right next to the Hawthorne Muni Airport which has a terminal 'Jet Center Los Angeles'. He could just walk there and fly a small business class jet anywhere he wanted.

    6. Re:Probably not LAX by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      As I said, I'm not familiar with the GA terminal at LAX, but your statement that "commercial airports will demand their GA terminal have standard security screenings" is untrue. Maybe LAX does indeed do this (I have no knowledge) but you're simply wrong about the general case.

      Here's an example. I've been in several of their FBOs. Really nice people, really nice facilities, all at "real" airports (one of them is at RDU, which is a decent sized airport any way you slice it, and also has an entire regiment of attack helicopters based there, which are probably a bit more sensitive from a security standpoint than some CRJ). Please click the link, they've got nice slide shows and/or movies of all of their locations. You can feel free to point out the baggage xray machines, backscatter scanners, and metal detectors if you find any (hint: there aren't any to find).

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    7. Re:Probably not LAX by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      As I said, I violated no laws in the doing.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    8. Re:Probably not LAX by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Never heard of such a thing. The large airports I've flown into generally have markings on the pavement denoting the secure area, and you don't cross it unless you felt like having some very awkward conversations with people with large guns. Which makes sense as the real danger (to the extent there is any) comes from being within the aircraft with a bunch of people at your mercy (or vice-versa, as seems more common) or being able to somehow compromise the aircraft itself while in flight - neither of which are served particularly well from a Cessna on the ramp, or even taxiing before or after the jet. Sure you could load up with explosives and it would mess up the jet but it's doubtful you'd do much damage to a lot of people inside.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    9. Re:Probably not LAX by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      This is true for most GA airports. But LAX also services commercial airplanes, so anyone on the air side of the airport will have to have gone through security screening.

      Otherwise it's a Very Big Security Hole at LAX. Because you can always just use the GA terminal to get full access to the airfield and the restricted parts of the airport. (It's all connected to the same runways and all that, and if you're willing to walk a bit, you can end up at the regular terminal as well. Or just take one of the many carts).

      So no, commercial airports will demand their GA terminal have standard security screenings. Regular GA-only airports usually don't have much more than a security door, and most cases the FBO will just have two doors - one from the outside into the FBO, one from the FBO to the field.

      But your theory has a Very Big Security Hole: I can fly my private plane into LAX from an unsecured GA airport and I'd have "full access to the airfield and the restricted parts of the airport." As you point out, they're all connected by runways and taxiways.

      I suspect that the cross-access restrictions for mixed use airports are stricter than you think they are.

    10. Re:Probably not LAX by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... This sort of lame security features in NS's book.

  8. Utter nonsense. by Harold+Halloway · · Score: 1

    Of course Musk isn't going to start digging tunnels next month. I can scarcely begin to imagine how much work it involves to get permission, permits, acquire land, and the million-and-one other things you have to do before even breaking the sod.

    What's gone wrong with this website? Someone please fix it.

    1. Re:Utter nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is exactly what's wrong with you kids these days. It's much easier to ask forgiveness than permission. You just do it, and fill out the paperwork later. What are they going to do, tell you to go fill it back in? Christ this is Tony Stark^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^hElon Musk we're talking about here. It won't be an issue.

    2. Re:Utter nonsense. by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Unfortunately this is Slashdot, where we fellate Elon Musk at every possible opportunity, even when his so-called plans are clearly so absurd as to be an obvious joke.

      It's a shame. This used to be a site for nerds; now it's a site for mouth-breathing morons to act breathless about the companies, products and figureheads that they personally idol-worship.

    3. Re: Utter nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just this website. Seekingalpha, the investment site, has articles that talks about the financial problems of Tesla and a lot of folks go apeshit.

      There's this huge cult of personality around Musk that makes no sense to me. all I can think of is that he has awesome publicists.

    4. Re:Utter nonsense. by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Just dig deep enough, and you'll end up below the permit depth.

    5. Re:Utter nonsense. by Nutria · · Score: 1

      If Slashdot fellated Elon Musk at every possible opportunity, then half of the comments wouldn't be (rightly) mocking and debunking his "plans".

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re: Utter nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about all the complaining that goes on here too!

    7. Re:Utter nonsense. by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      I can scarcely begin to imagine how much work it involves to get permission, permits, acquire land, and the million-and-one other things you have to do before even breaking the sod.

      Perhaps he has. Some journalist should file an FoIA request to get a look at the permits, deeds, etc.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    8. Re:Utter nonsense. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Of course Musk isn't going to start digging tunnels next month. I can scarcely begin to imagine how much work it involves to get permission, permits, acquire land, and the million-and-one other things you have to do before even breaking the sod.

      What's gone wrong with this website? Someone please fix it.

      The environmental impact studies alone will cost millions and take years, then there are the traffic studies, engineering and as you point out acquisition of the right of way and permits... He is either kidding (my guess), or blowing smoke/steam about LA's traffic problems. He's either not thought this through or he's not serious and given who this guy is, I cannot believe he's serious.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    9. Re:Utter nonsense. by BJH · · Score: 1

      ...says Mr. #921799. Get off my goddamn lawn.

    10. Re:Utter nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only he knew the President, and the President had pledged to cut thru red tape for projects like this. Oh, wait, both of those are true....

      I hope they look at some of the tunnels in South Korea, they really have a great system there. and even a similar happening with a undersea tunnel (48m under the ocean) that the government did not want to build, a private businessman did get it built.

    11. Re:Utter nonsense. by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Great. Just when I was dozing off...

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    12. Re:Utter nonsense. by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      SpaceX is at a railroad right-of-way... you could tunnel under and likely be within the railroad's land rights.

    13. Re:Utter nonsense. by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      I said Slashdot fellates him, and that's true. The comments are about a 50/50 mix of fellation and rightful indignation at yet another pathetic puff piece.

    14. Re:Utter nonsense. by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      *old fogey-like typing detected*

    15. Re:Utter nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite possibly yes, they may make him fill it back in, at his expense. That sort of thing does happen when you do things without appropriate planning permission.

    16. Re:Utter nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffft this is exactly what Trump means when he talks about regulations stifling innovation and progress. You see how much time The Don and Musk have been sharing together lately? I'm pretty sure this would be a simple phone call and done.

    17. Re:Utter nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pffft this is exactly what Trump means when he talks about regulations stifling innovation and progress. You see how much time The Don and Musk have been sharing together lately? I'm pretty sure this would be a simple phone call and done.

      Except the president has zero authority here since it would be purely within California. Interstate commerce clause doesn't apply.

    18. Re:Utter nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it does. He's already stated he's going to use the tunnel to get to the airport. Once he gets to the airport, where do you think he'll be getting on his plane and going? Quite often it will not only be interstate, but intercontinental. And someday perhaps interplanetary.

    19. Re:Utter nonsense. by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

      That sort of thing does happen when you do things without appropriate planning permission.

      That was the way I understood the world to be before Uber came along and demonstrated that with enough money and placated constituents, local regulations can be ignored by big business.

      Perhaps Trump is proactively offering Musk a pardon for his personal airport tunnel route in exchange for not productizing the TBM (Tunnel Boring Machines) and selling them to Mexicans looking to circumvent the border wall.

    20. Re:Utter nonsense. by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Of course Musk isn't going to start digging tunnels next month. I can scarcely begin to imagine how much work it involves to get permission, permits, acquire land, and the million-and-one other things you have to do before even breaking the sod.

      The real question is if he will be building his own boring machines. There's already a lot of tunnels being built using boring machines and they are not made in the US. Does he think that he can improve on the machinery like he did rockets and create another company? Tunnels will be important to both hyperloop and Mars colonies. He may just have the idea and people that he can provide that service to his own projects and produce another company out of it.

    21. Re:Utter nonsense. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      There is no permit depth. Depending on the state laws involved if you tunnel off your property you need permission from the property owner (in the west you might not even have permission to tunnel on your own property because someone else owns the mineral rights). If this is in a public ROW (Right-of-way) you need permission from the government in charge who is going to require that this be a public service (no private tunnels) and that you provide access for public utilities and other things as part of your free permission to use this ROW. If you tunnel under private property you are probably going to have to pay the property owner for a permanent easement.

      This is going to depend a lot on the state's laws about property, the ground underneath it, mineral rights and many other issues. It's a legal minefield that will blow your company to bits with the first mistake. Musk's a smart guy but he's a get it done guy that's likely never truly encountered the complication property rights add to an infrastructure project.

    22. Re:Utter nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You definately don't want TunnelX, although TunnelY could be acceptable.

    23. Re:Utter nonsense. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I'm sure many here would like to fellate Trump and going by Melania's facial expressions on Friday, I bet she wishes you'll all hurry up so she doesn't have to any longer (or shorter?)

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    24. Re:Utter nonsense. by haruchai · · Score: 1

      SpaceX is at a railroad right-of-way... you could tunnel under and likely be within the railroad's land rights.

      I believe that's also true of the Gigafactory.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  9. TunnelX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://image.slidesharecdn.com/lessonslearnedvalidating60000pagesofapidocumentation-140527163002-phpapp01/95/lessons-learned-validating-60000-pages-of-api-documentation-3-638.jpg?cb=1401208305

  10. Not Tech News by Luthair · · Score: 0

    Unless we're having a conversation about tech billionaires going crazy because reporters are jumping over themselves to pat them on the back.

    1. Re:Not Tech News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I've learned nothing else from all those Bond movies, the latest season of South Park and a really good 3-part Archer episode, it's that we're only 10-20 years from Elon building space lasers and populating Mars with humanity's best looking females. Which means there's going to be a 22-minute delay from Mars-based porn studios to your parents' basement - tech news indeed!

  11. I can has tunnels? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to give Elon a nice train set, with lots of tunnels, so he'll settle down.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:I can has tunnels? by tepples · · Score: 2

      That or he'd end up making an N-scale model of his big dig to present to investors.

    2. Re: I can has tunnels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His goal is to build tunnels to Mexico to balance certain idiots...

    3. Re: I can has tunnels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drug smugglers beat him to it

    4. Re: I can has tunnels? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have more respect for El Chapo and his tunnel digging department.

  12. Hyper tunnels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First we build a tunnel... then we suck all the air out... then we move people around through a series of tubes.

    1. Re:Hyper tunnels. by bobbied · · Score: 3, Funny

      First we build a tunnel... then we suck all the air out... then we move people around through a series of tubes.

      What could go wrong? (gasp)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Hyper tunnels. by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What could go wrong? (gasp)

      First we build a thin aluminum can. Then we fly it 10000 meters up where there's no air to breathe and if you stop, you drop. It's not hard to make flying sound like a death trap.

      I imagine if Musk is thinking it he's thinking underground Hyperloop, you have a tube and on the outside you have air supply. Emergency escape routes. Brakes that automatically engage when they lose power. Emergency overrun to physically bring it to a halt. Bad things could still happen of course, but -5g for 5s and you've gone from 900 km/h to zero in 640 meters. It would be like a nasty roller coaster but really the killer is impact. Hit something really hard (no, even at 900km/h air is not really hard) to stop in fractions of a seconds and you're in deep shit.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    3. Re:Hyper tunnels. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      What could go wrong? (gasp)

      First we build a thin aluminum can. Then we fly it 10000 meters up where there's no air to breathe and if you stop, you drop.

      No and no.

      First, there IS air you can breathe at 30,000 feet.. It is just at such low pressure that the partial pressure of O2 is low enough you will lose consciousness in about 10 seconds without supplemental O2 supplies to raise the partial pressure of O2 to keep you awake. Not to mention that the air inside of that aluminum can you are in came from outside, was compressed by the engines and piped in. Loss of pressurization is easy to deal with, you descend below 10,000 FT as fast as you can, which can be done safely and quickly by properly trained pilots.

      Second, there is no way to stop an airplane at altitude no matter what you do short of blowing the thing up. Of course if you stop the thrust from the engines you are going to descend (glide), but not "stop and drop" as in like a rock for anything short of a major structural failure.

      Sure the problems are solvable, but there are a few unique dangerous issues that trying to pull a vacuum on a large volume then traveling through it presents which I'm not sure are immediately obvious, or easily solvable. The very least of which is dealing with the internal apparent altitude of the vehicle and maintaining it in a safe range, or providing supplemental O2 on failures long enough to know you can restore the pressure.. My next concern is fire and getting the passengers into a safe place when you cannot just jump out of the emergency exit and walk away from the fire, both because of the vacuum and because you are in a tunnel...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re:Hyper tunnels. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My next concern is fire and getting the passengers into a safe place when you cannot just jump out of the emergency exit and walk away from the fire, both because of the vacuum and because you are in a tunnel...

      If the passengers can walk away from the fire in the first place, they can also use the fire extinguishers and/or move to the other cars. Once out of the fire car, they can depressurize it until it isn't on fire anymore, since very few things continue to burn in a partial vacuum. Any conflagration big enough to where those options aren't possible would also be big enough that passengers wouldn't be able to just walk away from it.

      The bigger issue to solve is sudden depressurization of the cabin, since the air density of the Hyperloop tube would be equivalent to an altitude of 50km. This is well beyond the Armstrong limit, which is the altitude at which non-vascular blood boils at body temperature (~19km), so unless you have a pressure suit handy your last moments of consciousness will not be particularly pleasant.

    5. Re:Hyper tunnels. by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      Hit something really hard (no, even at 900km/h air is not really hard) to stop in fractions of a seconds and you're in deep shit.

      A lot of people around here seem to think that regular subsonic air is super compressible or something... no, air is heavy enough and dense enough to be a very serious issue.

      However, fluid dynamics are such that it wouldn't be an issue miles away from the site of the breech.

      Hyperloops in their current proposed forms are still dumb, though. It's not a matter of "going wrong ==> deathtrap" so much as "going wrong ==> hey, after we've fixed all of this stuff this really isn't terribly convenient or cost-effective at all!"

  13. Tunnels are dandy but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we skip the tunnels for cars and go straight to pneumatic tubes al a Jetsons?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhxsD5uA7vs

  14. Good luck man by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask Seattle how their tunnel is coming along.

    Elon, a man with too much money. A fool is easily parted with his money.

    1. Re:Good luck man by bobbied · · Score: 1

      He doesn't have enough money for this, trust me...He's joking..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  15. F*&k Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Musk is yet another "do as I say not as I do" elitist. Elon Musk claims global warming is a problem, yet contributes more pollution by himself than a small city. Personal flights, multiple multi-million dollar HVAC controlled mansions, luxury Hotel stays, and now he wants his own personal travel system underground so he does not have to tolerate the peons on the Freeway. Don't think that _YOU_ will ever see the inside of any of his personal tunnel systems you piss ants!

    While the rest of us are told we need to have controlled Freeways so that we can't commute without the nanny state telling us we can, Musk and his ilk (Gore, Clinton, and yes even Sanders) fly around to their various mansions instead of doing what they tell us we have to do. Teleconference and be "Green".

    Yes, I'm tired of the hypocrisy from these elitist egomaniac control freaks.

    1. Re:F*&k Musk by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Musk donates to Republicans and Democrats about equally, or if anything slightly favors the Republicans with his donations.

    2. Re:F*&k Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still better than you people.

    3. Re:F*&k Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you care so much about your jerbs, why are you still buying computers and cheap electronics. Stop it you hypocrite.

    4. Re:F*&k Musk by zlives · · Score: 1

      you sir are a clear example of fake news media.
      alt-fact rules

    5. Re:F*&k Musk by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      , Musk and his ilk (Gore, Clinton, and yes even Sanders) fly around to their various mansions instead of doing what they tell us we have to do.

      The above is entirely unfair. His net worth is something like half a million bucks, which is at the level of "moderately successful professional" as opposed to "Fuck You Money" which is what the other two on your list have (in the hundreds of millions each). Frankly, I respect the man far less than I did before he went into full on "shill for Hillary" mode, but I respect him for living the way his ideals dictate rather than being the hypocrite you're accusing him of being--and I say this as someone who is NOT at all in favor of his politics.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    6. Re:F*&k Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sanders isn't a millionaire much less a billionaire. Have you not seen all the photos of him flying economy class or shopping at Costco? So many people think because he and his wife have acquired three houses, one in DC, one in Burlington, and one lakeside summer home that he is somehow crazy rich like the rest. The guy is something you haven't seen before clearly.

      As a Vermonter I grew up with him in the political landscape. Once he finally got Vermonters to give him a chance he helped turn Burlington around in rather drastic fashion. So much of his political life was spent fighting for that chance that its a shame he got to where he is so late in life. This is very much due to his ideals though and they prevent him from taking money for all sorts of people that have tried over the years.

    7. Re:F*&k Musk by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      Hmm, how much carbon has he offset with Tesla? Enjoy your Trump.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    8. Re:F*&k Musk by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      that they will not be as stupid and ignorant as the far right?

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    9. Re:F*&k Musk by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Elon Musk claims global warming is a problem, yet contributes more pollution by himself ...

      This is a silly argument. His personal pollution is an infinitesimal portion of the total. It is far better for him to optimize his time to focus on solving global problems rather than pointlessly trying to set a personal example.

    10. Re: F*&k Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With three homes, including a vacation home, he's still far wealthier than the middle class he'd likely destroy.

    11. Re:F*&k Musk by wyHunter · · Score: 1

      No, that isn't going to happen.

    12. Re:F*&k Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None, he is still a net carbon producer big time.

    13. Re:F*&k Musk by s.petry · · Score: 1

      bah.. s/Must/Musk/

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    14. Re:F*&k Musk by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      No, sir, I'm not. Here's a citation to back up the actual (not alternative) fact I stated: http://individual-contributors...

    15. Re:F*&k Musk by zlives · · Score: 1

      /woosh

    16. Re:F*&k Musk by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      If you think that woosh-worthy, you need to recalibrate your sarcasm. I'm a Brit, I know actual sarcasm when I see it and that wasn't it.

    17. Re:F*&k Musk by zlives · · Score: 1

      nah woosh just means you didn't get it, not an actual comment on the hilarity or my said sad joke.

    18. Re:F*&k Musk by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      There has to be something to actually "get". In this case, there wasn't. (Or if there was, you failed to translate it into words on-screen, and it lives only inside your own head.)

  16. Perhaps.... by NEDHead · · Score: 0

    He will call it the 'iTunnel' and get the Apple fanboys to pre-order seats

    1. Re:Perhaps.... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      He should only just dig enough to make it look convincing then seal the open end after they've started down it.

  17. Well, it's happened. by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

    Musk has gone full supervillain.

    1. Re:Well, it's happened. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. Folks are saying that this is infeasible because of the enormous expense of regulatory compliance, but they are wrong. Any spook that goes poking around this operation will be liquidated. Don't bring a clipboard to a killer-robot fight.

  18. I am not a Rocket Scientist but, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a place that experiences earthquakes daily, drilling tunnels under the city sounds like a really bad idea.

  19. No mention yet... by Nutria · · Score: 1

    that tunneling through earthquake zones is never cheap nor easy.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:No mention yet... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      It's a lot easier to tunnel if you do it while the ground is still shaking.

  20. Tunnels Are Extremely Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are far more cost effective ways to address traffic. The best solution is clearly to mandate that all cars be driverless by a set year and then come up with a standardised system so that cars can communicate to optimise traffic flow.

    This could be done for a tiny fraction of the cost of building tunnels, in substantially less time and with considerably less environmental impact.

    1. Re:Tunnels Are Extremely Expensive by tsqr · · Score: 1

      There are far more cost effective ways to address traffic. The best solution is clearly to mandate that all cars be driverless by a set year and then come up with a standardised system so that cars can communicate to optimise traffic flow.

      Clearly a mandate like that would be more likely to result in all drivers being carless than all cars being driverless.

  21. Musk == The Underminer by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Remember the villain from The Incredibles ?

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  22. Nope by watermark · · Score: 1

    He and I just had lunch yesterday. He is joking, but remains mildly annoyed with his commute length. Self driving cars are another solution he has proposed to ease traffic congestion.

    1. Re:Nope by Topwiz · · Score: 1

      There is a residential neighborhood a half mile south of the SpaceX building. He could buy a house there and walk to work. Even if he bought several houses, demolished them, and built one new house, it would be cheaper than a tunnel.

    2. Re:Nope by EvilSS · · Score: 1

      Hell, he could build a residence on the SpaceX campus! I'm sure getting that zoning variance would be easier than getting permits for a giant tunnel.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    3. Re:Nope by llZENll · · Score: 1

      How about simply hiring a full time on call helicopter? UberRotors VerticalLyft TelsaZoom

    4. Re:Nope by starless · · Score: 1

      Self driving cars are another solution he has proposed to ease traffic congestion.

      My suspicion is that self-driving cars will not ease traffic congestion at all, and may make it worse.
      i.e. they won't reduce the number of car trips but could increase them.
      Self-driving cars may reduce parking problems - which could therefore result in the increased car usage/congestion.

    5. Re:Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self-driving cars won't ease congestion in SoCal if they obey traffic laws. Google maps frequently lead me to impossible left turns during rush hour, especially near downtown L.A. No self-driving car can make those turns in a reasonable amount of time, because you have to aggressively cut into traffic, which a self-driving car (hopefully) should consider a dangerous move. Non-aggressive drivers get stuck in these positions all the time, and hold up traffic.

  23. Maybe solving traffic isn't his actual goal by d0rp · · Score: 1

    Digging tunnels to help alleviate traffic congestion seems pretty unrealistic; the logistics of getting permission and avoiding any existing underground infrastructure seems like it would be a nightmare.

    On the other hand, being able to efficiently dig tunnels seems like something that would be vital to building a colony on Mars...

    1. Re:Maybe solving traffic isn't his actual goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It isn't. If he built a short tunnel to where he wants to go he could then put in a test Hyperloop installation and see how it works.

    2. Re:Maybe solving traffic isn't his actual goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This. Everything he does is all about Mars. Electric car with hermetically sealed doors and windows and bio-hazard filtering mode? -> Mars Rover. All the technology that comes with the development of the Tesla cars, SUVs and trucks, and the Tesla super charging network are all directly applicable to the Mars colony: solar arrays, industrial scale battery packs, the world's most efficient and most capable DC/AC inverters and chargers. Hyperloop + Tunnels = transportation _and_ living space. And I'll bet you they are well underway with in-situ resource utilization; SpaceX will have the world's smallest, lightest and most efficient mobile processing system for the generation of water, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen and the synthesis of methane, petrol (methanol) and other industrial chemicals.

  24. Is not it a government prerogative? by mi · · Score: 1

    Is not building roads/bridges/tunnels something, only a government can do? Crazy Libertarians may disagree, but we know, they are wacko...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Is not it a government prerogative? by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Yes. Confirmed. Randians and Ancaps are wacko.

    2. Re:Is not it a government prerogative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Private roads are definitely around, although usually wholly within private property. In northern Maine, for example, there is an extensive network of logging-company owned roads that are available to the public but not government jurisdiction, and I'm sure the same is often the case out west.

      Also, plenty of public road are built/maintained by private companies (i.e. toll roads and bridges and tunnels) contracted by governments.

    3. Re:Is not it a government prerogative? by Kagato · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. when Trump says he's going to put a Trillion Dollars into infrastructure he's not going to do it with tax payer dollars. He'll sell the roads to private interests who will use them as toll roads.

    4. Re:Is not it a government prerogative? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is not building roads/bridges/tunnels something, only a government can do? Crazy Libertarians may disagree, but we know, they are wacko...

      No, it's something that the private sector will not do adequately, not something the private sector will not do at all.

      Left to the private sector we'd get roads that are operated like ISPs or cable companies.

    5. Re:Is not it a government prerogative? by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Check your talking points comrade, emoluments are the word of the day. Never mind that most of the people who are absolutely convinced that Trump is receiving such emoluments had never heard of the word before today, it is of little consequence. It doesn't really matter as long the perception of outrage is maintained. It is inconceivable that this will backfire.

    6. Re:Is not it a government prerogative? by Kagato · · Score: 1

      It's not a talking point. Trump had a white paper on this. He plans to offer a $137bn tax credit to incentivize privatization of roads and infrastructure. Corporations aren't charities. Privatization means toll roads and bridges.

  25. Hi tech tunneling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In order to save on costs and provide almost instant travel, Musk plans to build his infrastructure using quantum tunnelling.

  26. Simpsons did it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's building the private tunnel that members of the Stonecutters get to use. It has fancy art to look at and classical music playing throughout.

  27. Go to Mars: more realistic and less expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  28. With lasers on their heads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's hiring a battalion of groundhogs with lasers on their heads (the sharks were already engaged).

    He's been inhaling too much.

  29. He bought the wrong jet by hkultala · · Score: 1

    Hawthorne airfield is 1511 meters.

    His Gulfstream G650 requires about 2000 meters in full load to take off, but can land in less than one km.

    Dassault Falcon 7X needs 1750 meters to take off in full load, and can land in less than one km.

    So Hawthorne airfield is not enough for G650, but Dassault Falcon 7X with tanks filled only to half could propably takeoff from Hawthorne,
    and could still fly to anywhere in North America, only when flying to other continents it would have to be refuelled.

    1. Re: He bought the wrong jet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe then he's got the wrong plane for the short commute https://youtu.be/92ErTsiMwLw

    2. Re:He bought the wrong jet by x_t0ken_407 · · Score: 1

      I sat here trying to research the factuality of GP's statement -- going back to Learjets from my many, many hours of flight time on various MS FS installs and the accompanying nerd-knowledge on takeoff/landing distances I gained during those years. Damn I miss playing that game. Maybe I'll check it out on Steam.

      In short, my inner flight-geek say "thanks for this!" :)

    3. Re:He bought the wrong jet by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Not much of a margin for error there, though, especially if you have a tailwind.

    4. Re:He bought the wrong jet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All he needs to do is develop a JATO booster for the Gulfstream. Fortunately he already owns a rocket company.

    5. Re:He bought the wrong jet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what kind of jets they are, but there are jets that take off and land at Hawthorne airport all of the time.

    6. Re:He bought the wrong jet by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      That's a 5,000 foot runway: https://www.airnav.com/airport/KHHR. That's quite long actually - for comparison, LaGuardia in NYC only has 7,000 foot runways. 5kft isn't enough for a hundred-person passenger jet (well maybe, if you're light) but lots of private jets are just fine.

      Most of the numbers that are immediately available are max takeoff weight (MTOW), you'd have to go into the POH to get the numbers for lower weights. The bigger private jets may need to not take off with full fuel, but they won't normally do that anyway except in rare circumstances - you'd generally only carry enough fuel for the flight and legal reserve, plus a generous safety margin on top, since it costs fuel and speed to carry excess fuel. You'd want full fuel if you were going somewhere far away but that's only a factor if your destination was makeable safely with full fuel, but not makeable without - otherwise you have to land somewhere in the middle anyway and it doesn't matter how much fuel you have as long as you can make it midway (and you'd probably not carry too much extra beyond midway fuel for the above reasons).

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  30. Morlocks by ChrisKnight · · Score: 1

    Do you want Morlocks? Because that's how you get Morlocks.

    --
    -- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
    1. Re:Morlocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better'n Gridlocks.

      Heyooooooooo...

  31. OSI model or tasty dip? you decide. by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    FUCK IT, we're going straight to seven layers!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  32. please by SlashDread · · Score: 4, Interesting

    please PLEASE run for president next time.

    1. Re:please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      please PLEASE run for president next time.

      He can't (at least not US President). Elon Musk was born in South Africa to parents from South Africa and Canada.

      In order to be US President, you have to be a "natural born Citizen" of the US. What exactly that means is a bit unclear on some edge cases, but at the very least it means that you have to be eligible for US citizenship at birth - either through being born on US soil, or being born to US citizen parents. Being born in a foreign country to foreign parents doesn't cut it, even if you get US citizenship later.

    2. Re:please by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      please PLEASE run for president next time.

      Elon Musk cannot be POTUS, as he is not a natural born US citizen.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    3. Re:please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He needs a USA birth certificate. I guess if Obama could find one, he can too.

    4. Re:please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He will never run for president. At least not of Earth. And on Mars the president is called "The Elon". He has stated that being President is like being captain of a really big ship and having a really tiny rudder. He much prefers being the master of his destiny with a very big rudder.
      ""The Martian government was directed by ten men, the leader of whom was elected by universal suffrage for five years and entitled 'Elon.' Two houses of Parliament enacted the laws to be administered by the Elon and his cabinet."
          Wernher Von Braun, The Mars Project, page 177 (1952).

    5. Re:please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that matter? As long as he refuses to release his birth certificate for 5 years the press will ignore it and call anyone who asks for it racist.

      Oh, that's right, he's white.

    6. Re:please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if he could run for POTUS, why would you inflict that kind of a job on someone you like?

    7. Re:please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He will never run for president. At least not of Earth. And on Mars the president is called "The Elon". He has stated that being President is like being captain of a really big ship and having a really tiny rudder. He much prefers being the master of his destiny with a very big rudder.
      "The Martian government was directed by ten men, the leader of whom was elected by universal suffrage for five years and entitled 'Elon.' Two houses of Parliament enacted the laws to be administered by the Elon and his cabinet."
              Wernher Von Braun, The Mars Project, page 177 (1952).

    8. Re:please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She lost! Get over it!

    9. Re:please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that matter? As long as he refuses to release his birth certificate for 5 years the press will ignore it and call anyone who asks for it racist.

      Oh, that's right, he's white.

      He's South African, though. If he got US citizenship he could be an African American and use the "you're racist" defense.

    10. Re:please by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. It's not the "African American" part that is important, it is the brown skin. Get your "it's totally not racist when we do it" racism straight.

    11. Re:please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that matter? As long as he refuses to release his birth certificate for 5 years the press will ignore it and call anyone who asks for it racist.

      Oh, that's right, he's white.

      Exactly. You don't ask white people for their birth certificates. If they don't have an accent then they're all Christian Americans. Only a dirty socialist would ask a white man for proof of his citizenship.

    12. Re:please by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      please PLEASE run for president next time.

      I think he would make a great president. However, I think he carries just as much influence in his current capacity. The man has done what most governments have failed to do, make a viable mass produced electric car, and launch a satellite into orbit.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    13. Re:please by Shane_Optima · · Score: 1

      please PLEASE run for president next time.

      I think he would make a great president. However, I think he carries just as much influence in his current capacity. The man has done what most governments have failed to do, make a viable mass produced electric car, and launch a satellite into orbit.

      Or to put it another way, he privatized NASA talent for profit whilst offering no significant advances in space travel, and he also made some toys for rich people[1]. Oh yes, and he helped create Paypal[2] via the revolutionary method of offering banking services whilst claiming to be exempt from banking regulations.

      Those are the 'revolutionary' things he did, all whilst rambling about trips to Mars and other assorted pipe dreams (a phrase I use advisedly) instead of focusing on the technologies that very well could change the world.

      The man is at best Steve Jobs 2.0, but for some reason geeks still love him. As far as I can tell, the most important thing he's championed so far is Autopilot. Getting computer-assisted cars on the road ASAP is a big step. He deserves a place in history for that, albeit not an exclusive place. But holy hell, the man is a businessman, not a revolutionary inventor.


      1. He's yet to build the cheap mass market electric car that will change the world, even though electric cars easily have the potential to be cheaper and sturdier than ICE cars. I still maintain that this is due to his comparative lack of emphasis on next-generation batteries. I've been hearing about nanowire batteries that could last for many thousands of discharge cycles for 10+ years now, but the man would rather hold press conferences about his pipe dreams.

      2. He lost his role at the helm of Paypal because he strongly wanted to change their infrastructure from UNIX to Windows (at around the same time Linux was beginning to take off.) Hooray for the Geek God, amIright?

  33. Helicopter? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Though they ain't cheap but I think Elon can buy one, or lease. I'm sure these are relatively safe as police and media regularly fly these things around the LA area. I haven't RTFA (who does?). This reminds me an article from Flying magazine in 1970s, "Fastest Way Around Town on the Slowest Thing Flying" about an air service using a Bell 47J (a variation of the famous "MASH" bubble helicopter) that has three passenger seats behind the pilot. This ferrys people between LAX to other spots around the area. Not sure if this is in place anymore, maybe they done away with things like this. i.e. back in the days Boeing Vertol flying to and from the Pan Am building in NYC. I haven't read comic books lately but what does Tony Stark use when not as Ironman to get around town?

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:Helicopter? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      I haven't read comic books lately but what does Tony Stark use when not as Ironman to get around town?

      I haven't read comics in a while either, but in the late 2000s, Tony Stark basically never took the suit off. He went to meetings in the suit. He would have fairly long conversations (by comic book standards) without ever lifting his face mask. They even used his "wearing the mask" lettering style for the dialog. Even though it was... a meeting. No fight, before or during or after. So getting around town was never an issue. He was always suited up. Basically Robert Downey Jr. Civil War Ironman is very little like comic book Civil War Ironman.

  34. Grammar by XXongo · · Score: 1

    , Musk and his ilk (Gore, Clinton, and yes even Sanders) fly around to their various mansions instead of doing what they tell us we have to do.

    The above is entirely unfair. His net worth is something like half a million bucks

    Without a reference for the pronoun, the word "he" will refer to the subject of the previous sentence.

    Musk's net worth is half a million bucks?

    1. Re:Grammar by aicrules · · Score: 1

      I too was confused by how the post was written, but knew it was wrong if meant about Elon Musk--who has a net worth in the tens of billions. Given the '"shill for Hillary" mode' comment I assumed he meant Sanders and a short google search later confirmed. Sanders has a net worth of just over half a million dollars.

    2. Re:Grammar by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Sanders has a net worth of just over half a million dollars.

      Wow. Just by regular 401k contributions and paying my mortgage on time, I have managed to accumulate way more than that. If he can't even manage his own finances, how can he manage a 17 trillion dollar economy?

      I was not a Sanders supporter because I think his brand of zero-sum cargo cult economics would be a disaster. But nonetheless it is admirable that he applies the same no-growth philosophy to his own finances.

    3. Re:Grammar by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I was referring to Sanders.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    4. Re:Grammar by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Wow. Just by regular 401k contributions and paying my mortgage on time, I have managed to accumulate way more than that. If [Sanders] can't even manage his own finances, how can he manage a 17 trillion dollar economy?

      He's never held a proper job in the private sector. He's always sponged off the taxpayers, whether as a welfare leech or a politician.

      His lack of familiarity with how wealth is created explains much about him.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
  35. Just move the company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez, simple solution. Just move the company to someplace away from all the traffic.

  36. funniest thing I've read all week by SethJohnson · · Score: 1

    It's tunnels all the way down!

    With all the triumph of tyranny I've been watching since the 20th, this really made my day. Thanks.

    1. Re:funniest thing I've read all week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With all the triumph of tyranny I've been watching since the 20th

      Dramatic much?

  37. Tunnel to LAX? by Keick · · Score: 1

    Talk about the wrong solution. This is Elon Musk we are talking about here. If he has problems getting to and from LAX, then the solution is to NOT go to LAX. Surely purchasing his own private Jet and flying from a more local airfield is an order of magnitude cheaper than digging a tunnel.

    1. Re: Tunnel to LAX? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build a launch pad at Hawthorne and use a falcon 9 to get anywhere on earth ASAP.

  38. Good solution for electric vehicles only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Electric vehicles have no issues in tunnels. Due to the level of pollutants emitted, ICE powered vehicles, not so much.

  39. What is the legality of this? by NoSalt · · Score: 1

    Can people and companies just start digging under towns, businesses, houses, government buildings, airports, etc.? Is there any law preventing people from tunneling under the United States?

  40. Tunnels in an earthquake zone! Brilliant! by CyclistOne · · Score: 1

    Tunnels in an earthquake zone! Brilliant!

    1. Re:Tunnels in an earthquake zone! Brilliant! by bjamesv · · Score: 1

      Tunnels in an earthquake zone! Brilliant!

      Tunnels are actually extremely safe around earthquakes, because they are in/move with the earth,

      Imagine the worst-case tunnel scenario, (essentially the only one where any sort of major collapse is possible): A tunnel somehow constructed parallel to & exactly on a faultline, which then shifts by several meters. That sort of shift also levels all but the most high-tech/expensive above-ground civilization (which also probably should not be constructed *exactly* on top of the faultline).

      Modern construction is focused on consideration & compensation for the (relatively minor) damage/danger that could (realistically) occur. Even a tunnel built directly on a faultline but perpendicular to it would likely survive with only localized damage to the meters-long area where the catastrophic shift actually occurred. https://www.researchgate.net/p...

  41. Political Commentary? by jomama717 · · Score: 1

    I can't help but notice that this comes out on the same day (nearly the same moment, in fact) as Trump's "yes I'm serious about the wall" EO (executive order). Even followed up by "we'll begin building the wall within two months." (Musk stated that [they] "Plan to start digging in a month or so") If it is some kind of commentary/joke, I'm not sure I get it... but hey what do I know?

    --
    while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
  42. Sanity check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing like ignoring obvious and easy to find backs to create an invalid opinion. From his Wiki entry:
    As of June 2016, he has an estimated net worth of US$11.5 billion, making him the 83rd wealthiest person in the world.

    My hope is that you apologize for the mistake and make yourself a better person by learning to perform basic research for facts before forming invalid opinions. I have little hope with most people, and assume it you will somehow attempt to paint your mistake into a "facts don't matter" issue.

    1. Re:Sanity check by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I was talking about Sanders, not the guy that builds spaceships as a hobby.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    2. Re:Sanity check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then learn to communicate in the language before participating. I can speak a few words in Russian but would not run around making political statements with generalized statements of "he", "she", "them", etc.. precisely because I don't understand the nuances of the language. My guess however, is that you are an American who is ignorant to your own language. That is a theme with the progressive lefties, who are also ignorant enough to be useful idiots to the communist ideologues they support like Sanders. But hey, "Free Stuff and Legal weed! Down with the man!" right?

    3. Re:Sanity check by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I missed that Musk's name was in the list (I was referring in my statement to the three names in parenthesis, and the fact that I had included him did not register). I will, of course, report to the nearest suicide booth immediately to rectify my grievous error.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    4. Re:Sanity check by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I suspected above you did not apologize and simply attempt to excuse your ignorance away. No! The snark does not count as accountability, it's more "not my problem" shirking of accountability. Typical commie leftist!

    5. Re:Sanity check by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I ambiguously stated something as a result of not paying enough attention to what I copy/pasted. If that's not accepting that the failing was mine, the problem is with you, and not me. I certainly don't owe some random person on the internet an apology for my poor word choice.

      Oh, and by the way: neither progressive nor a lefty, nor do I support Sanders (I thought I made it clear that I wasn't a fan of his politics). Since you're being so damned pedantic, I figured you'd be on my side of this particular argument (suggesting that Sanders is jetting away to his "various mansions" is absurd on its face, and that's the ONLY thing I took issue with). Again, if you've got a problem here, try taking a look in the mirror.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  43. This fits the long term goal by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Consider this in light of Mr. Musk's long term goal: Permanent human colonization of Mars.

    The high cosmic radiation on Mars means that Habitats are very likely to be underground. Today, no-one makes a tunnel boring machine that will fit on a rocket: Boring Inc.

    The lack of fossil fuels means you need a big power source: SolarCity and the battery Gigafactory

    Last but not least, you need a way to get there: SpaceX

    He's building the infrastructure to make his goal a reality.

    1. Re:This fits the long term goal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars is dead. All this hype for a rock with no active core and magnetosphere you may as well colonise a nearby asteroid.

  44. Completion of the Tunnel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure the tunnel will be announced as complete on April 1st.

  45. Obligatory Stonecutters tunnel clip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmEtR17A6ck&t=61

    Homer Simpson predicts Elon.

  46. Get a damn bicycle already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and go pedal your fat arse around instead of bitching about traffic, that's the way they do it at the European space agency, in the Neederlands

  47. I wish I could call him the greatest industrialist by scourfish · · Score: 4, Funny

    But, to be honest, beyond colonizing mars, building electric cars, a solar future, and high-speed, vaccuum tunnels, he is missing the one important part of being a motivated industrialist: storing his urine in jars. I mean, the Spruce Goose flew for sure, but let's face it, Howard Hughes wasn't legendary until he started bottling his urine.

  48. Help Wanted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A tunnel beneath LA would help the people who will be killed by a Falcon-9-Heavy as it careens out of control to destruction on an LA suburb. However, the people taking cover inside the tunnel will be incinerated by the back-splash of the flames from the destruction.

  49. PHT by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

    Or a Personal Hyper Tube, which don't even have brakes. Near the end, the PHT enters a water tunnel to absorb the bulk of the kinetic energy.

  50. Re:I wish I could call him the greatest industrial by Tulsa_Time · · Score: 0

    But, to be honest, beyond colonizing mars, building electric cars, a solar future, and high-speed, vaccuum tunnels, he is missing the one important part of being a motivated industrialist: storing his urine in jars. I mean, the Spruce Goose flew for sure, but let's face it, Howard Hughes wasn't legendary until he started bottling his urine.

    Colonizing mars - Not happening in his lifetime. Building electric cars - With other peoples money. A solar future - debatable (see Building electric cars) High Speed vacuum tunnels - Hardly. Legendary for what ?

    --
    5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
  51. New title: Musk to create earthquakes in SoCal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or at least take the blame for them for the next 50 years...

  52. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please PLEASE run for president next time.

    Concentrate on what you're good at, getting us into space cheaply.

    When you get to Mars, you can run for president of Mars.

  53. Authorizations by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    A tunnel between SpaceX and LAX would be 9.5 km beneath dense urban areas. I wonder how many authorization one would need before starting the thing.

  54. 11 min (6.2 miles) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    https://goo.gl/maps/rUxsDMDqMWv

    I know traffic on the 105 sucks, but 6.2mi?

  55. Wholly lack of Logic Batman! by s.petry · · Score: 1

    The point was that Must was a hypocrite, which you admit is correct. Then you claim his personal contribution is still small so should not count and that he does not need to try to set an example. Anyone, and yes that is ANYONE, can now claim the same right?. Meaning, who gives a shit about Climate and Pollution.

    If not: Unfortunately the Aristotelian "I'm smarter than you so you owe me stuff" mentality never leads to progress. The Serfs may tolerate the Holier than Though Nobles but really do not hold their opinions with any regard and ignore those Noble's calls for rally.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Wholly lack of Logic Batman! by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Anyone, and yes that is ANYONE, can now claim the same right?

      Most people already claim the same right. Guilt induced self-sacrifice is clearly not the solution to the world's problems. Yet you criticize Elon for pursuing viable alternatives.

      Let's look at the scorecard:
      Elon operates a company that has installed millions of solar panels.
      Elon has improved electric car technology.
      Elon has pioneered driver assistance tech that will lead to self-driving cars.
      Elon is building the world's biggest battery factory, to push down the price of portable power.
      Now what have YOU done?
      You fly economy and recycle your trash.
      And you think you are the one making a difference?

  56. Re:Apparently no has head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of the Gibraltar airport and it's runway.

  57. Re:OSI model or tasty dip? you decide. by rpstrong · · Score: 1

    It's tunnels, all the way down.

  58. Sharks. With Laser Beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well good going Elon! I have made one simple request of you. I asked you to get me some frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams on their heads! And what do you do? Dig a tunnel! How does that get me my frickin' sharks with laser beams?

    Now put down the frickin' TBM and get me my frickin' sharks with frickin' laser beams!

  59. Hyperloop demonstrator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not build a short hyperloop run instead? Give it a few stations near parking areas, have it run through/near the SpaceX headquarters. True you're not going to get the real usefulness out of it as it is such a short run but you could at least get some real world experience with running such a system. It would also probably be much cheaper than

  60. Re:I wish I could call him the greatest industrial by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

    Legendary for what ?

    Financing plus detailed hands-on management of the company that has landed the first stage of an orbital rocket intact. Repeatedly. Even if nothing else he ever does pans out, that was a truly spectacular and historical first, and his name will go into history books a few paragraphs away from Goddard for doing it.

  61. Tunnels are pase! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    Why not just focus on Quantum teleportation?!

    That would solve both the SpaceX and the Tunnel thing!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  62. Childish by s.petry · · Score: 1

    I am not a hypocrite telling people to behave one way while I act another. When I am, you can ask "what have YOU done?" and criticize me accordingly. Do try and focus on the topic instead of running around the playground.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.