Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I would love to agree but it's simply not correct. They are buying existing tunneling machines and there is nothing yet to suggest a step change.

The radical proposals in terms of stripping out safety equipment for operational tunnels may prod some development, but ultimately any gains here are not going to be captive and will just result in revised client expectations (outside Boring funding & delivering projects worth $10bn+ individually themselves, with no public involvement).



> They are buying existing tunneling machines and there is nothing yet to suggest a step change.

That is incorrect. That is how they started, but they are now using Prufrock 2, which is both designed and built by The Boring Company, though I agree there has yet to be much of a step change in technology. Prufrock 2 is not the fastest tunnel boring machine in the world, and its porpoising feature has had some setbacks, needing to be dug out.

But all of this kind of misses the point. It ultimately doesn't matter if the tunnel boring machine is extraordinarily better. The Boring Company is applying the exact same philosophies that has made Tesla and SpaceX successful: extreme vertical integration and rapid iteration.

What matters is that TBC controls the boring machine. They control the design, they control the manufacturing process, and they have a willingness to experiment and iterate. The company is 5 years old and is now on its fourth tunnel boring machine.

And given the design of TBC transportation systems, there's no reason you can't have a dozen tunnel boring machines running simultaneously.

There was nothing remarkable about Falcon 9 when it launched. It was old tech, with a few good ideas, and one killer feature: extraordinary cost savings.

Ultimately what matters in tunneling is the cost.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: