CHICAGO: Transit Developments

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by left of center

Two of Musk's big risky endeavors were Tesla and SpaceX, and people in the media crapped all over him and his supposed attempts to reshape from scratch the automotive and space launch industries. Now, every single legacy auto manufacturer cant make or plan electric vehicles fast enough, and SpaceX is literally NASA's go to for getting payloads into space.

Car companies didn't build electric cars in the past because they are unprofitable. The only thing Tesla has demonstrated is that there is a niche market out there for luxury electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the Model 3 has proven to be wildly unprofitable and the company is burning millions of dollars each day.

Traditional car companies can't do that because their stockholders and board won't tolerate that. Musk has created an aura of hype around himself that has motivated a bunch of suckers to throw large sums of cash at his adventures.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by left of center

and SpaceX is literally NASA's go to for getting payloads into space

SpaceX is not making money. They are losing money on each mission. So NASA is saving money by paying a company that burns up investor cash to do its work.

Again, Musk's talent isn't technological innovation, it's getting people to endlessly throw money at his unprofitable activities. It's like the old saying about how the real talents in Hollywood are the accountants.

[Chi-Sky21]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

SpaceX is not making money. They are losing money on each mission. So NASA is saving money by paying a company that burns up investor cash to do its work.

Again, Musk's talent isn't technological innovation, it's getting people to endlessly throw money at his unprofitable activities. It's like the old saying about how the real talents in Hollywood are the accountants.

Isn't tech innovation? I didn't see any rockets relanding themselves before did you?

[rlw777]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

SpaceX is not making money. They are losing money on each mission. So NASA is saving money by paying a company that burns up investor cash to do its work.

Again, Musk's talent isn't technological innovation, it's getting people to endlessly throw money at his unprofitable activities. It's like the old saying about how the real talents in Hollywood are the accountants.

Nonsense. Musk isn't just super lucky to be able to find the richest suckers in the world. The large investors in his companies are crunching the numbers and assessing the value of the company. It's 2018!! This is how capital investment in tech companies works!

You're acting like he's swindling people because he's doing tech style investment in markets where that's not the norm. So SpaceX isn't profitable yet that's hardly a case for not investing in a company. I mean Salesforce has been around for 15+ years and it's still not profitable but pretty much anyone that knows about these things will tell you it's a good company to invest in!

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Chi-Sky21

I didn't see any rockets relanding themselves before did you?

Actually, yes. It's old news. Plus, the solid rocket boosters from the Space Shuttle were re-used many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

This Chicago proposal is not "tech". It's not a subsonic vehicle operating in a vacuum tube, ala the hyperloop. This is just going to be a rail vehicle in a tunnel running on batteries instead of overhead power or a third rail.

There are already many examples of trains operating at very high speed in tunnels. In Japan, France, China, and soon in California, trains will travel through tunnels at 200mph. The Chicago Muskpipe is only going to go 125mph.

What, exactly, is innovative about this project, other than its murky financing?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by rlw777

Nonsense. Musk isn't just super lucky to be able to find the richest suckers in the world. The large investors in his companies are crunching the numbers and assessing the value of the company. It's 2018!! This is how capital investment in tech companies works!

Theranos.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...-idUSKCN1GR34N

You're acting like he's swindling people because he's doing tech style investment in markets where that's not the norm. So SpaceX isn't profitable yet that's hardly a case for not investing in a company. I mean Salesforce has been around for 15+ years and it's still not profitable but pretty much anyone that knows about these things will tell you it's a good company to invest in!

This is a repeat of Theranos. Muskrail is not tech just like how Theranos wasn't tech but it masqueraded as such. There is nothing technologically innovative, and it cannot be easily scaled like software or phones or laptop computers. It's a permanent, site-specific structure.

What it is is a privatization effort. Musk's partner at PayPal was Peter Thiel, who is *huge* on creating companies that look innocent but are in fact monopolies. In his own words, the mission of a monopoly is to deny that it is a monopoly. What is a monopoly more than a privately-owned railroad?

[Baronvonellis]

It took Amazon years before they made a profit too. Now Amazon is everywhere, and taking over every business it goes into.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by Dblcut3

Musk's whole Boring Company and Hyperloop raises red flags to me. He seems to know nothing about transit, yet he has all these plans nationwide.

Same was said about SpaceX especially grand claims of reusable rockets and heavy lifters and look where we are today. Same was said about Tesla when it was still hand assembling vehicles using Lotus chassis's and look where it is today.

This might work or it might not but I'm willing to let him try. He's earned that much.

[JK47]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This is a repeat of Theranos. Muskrail is not tech just like how Theranos wasn't tech but it masqueraded as such. There is nothing technologically innovative, and it cannot be easily scaled like software or phones or laptop computers. It's a permanent, site-specific structure.

Theranos was fraud. They never actually produced a working version of their system, misrepresented third party data as their own, and falsified demonstrations when they were challenged by investors.

For this to be "like" Theranos we'd 1) never be able to see a working version of the hyperloop 2) when demonstrations take place the departure & arrival times as well as speeds would be doctored to appear consistent with technological claims and 3) all components would be manufactured by a third party like GE who provided them to Musk under the auspices of testing & validation of Musk's proprietary system.

So really the two things are nothing alike. Which calls into question your truthfulness.

[bnk]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Actually, yes. It's old news. Plus, the solid rocket boosters from the Space Shuttle were re-used many times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

This Chicago proposal is not "tech". It's not a subsonic vehicle operating in a vacuum tube, ala the hyperloop. This is just going to be a rail vehicle in a tunnel running on batteries instead of overhead power or a third rail.

There are already many examples of trains operating at very high speed in tunnels. In Japan, France, China, and soon in California, trains will travel through tunnels at 200mph. The Chicago Muskpipe is only going to go 125mph.

What, exactly, is innovative about this project, other than its murky financing?

Wat? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X


Stages

1

Launch history

Total launches
12
Successes
8
Failures
1
Partial failures
3

Status

Retired

Never happened and was canceled. I have no Idea why you even included a link to that failure. Agenda? Why you would even link to something that is over 20 years ago retired is beyond my comprehension.

First flight
18 August 1993

Last flight
31 July 1996



That really weird IMO.


I was alive during the time men walked on the moon and I don't link to that. There are some members that were around in 1993 in their dippers. It does not change the fact that your link to a self landing rocket was even doable or even successful. I said enough for now. If you post BS again than I will really call you out on the mat.


jmecklenborg

Has an agenda, much?

Most of the hard right hates Musk for almost every reason under the sun.

I have been browsing right leaning websites and all they have for Tusk is pure vile. I think it has something to do with electric cars or he is progressive or libertarian in his politics and the far Right wants nothing to do with the guy unless they can destroy him.


Someone is on an agenda.


jmecklenborg has Been around for 15 years and posts once every few years on topics that flair him up.


Humm, a paid bot? Russian HRC spy? You be the judge.

He seemed to haved bubble up from WKRP in Cinci.

Perhaps he moved. Perhaps he only hates Musk and not Chicagoland.


Inquiring minds would like to know.

[left of center]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This Chicago proposal is not "tech". It's not a subsonic vehicle operating in a vacuum tube, ala the hyperloop. This is just going to be a rail vehicle in a tunnel running on batteries instead of overhead power or a third rail.

It doesn't have to be "tech" as you put it. A ton of new and huge companies are simply finding a new and better method of doing the same old thing.

Streaming isn't new, but Netflix is worth billions because it found a way to get content to consumers using that platform and allowing them to ditch established methods like cable and satellite tv.

Lyft and Uber are essentially just cab companies, and yet they too are worth billions because they found a better method of getting rides to consumers.

GrubHub, DoorDash, TaskRabbit are all competing with an already well established and low tech business: food delivery. Yet they have streamlined it and lowered the costs for consumers and allowed restaurants that did not want to have the associated cost of delivery (having extra employees as drivers, POS/register system for coordinating orders, additional insurance for the driver's vehicles, etc.) be able to compete with pizza and Chinese joints that do.

A lot of these companies I mentioned (plus innumerable more that I haven't) have lost or are currently losing BILLIONS. They still have incredible value though, because of the massive potential future cash flow. Facebook wasn't making any money for almost a decade when it first came out, and now its revenues are in the billions. Amazon barely makes a profit, but its one of the most valuable companies in the world, and has completely upended how people shop. You cannot look at a brand new company and compare its P/E ratio, P/L & balance sheets to a company like Proctor and Gamble and say, well, its not earning anything at the moment, "shut 'er down, Bob!" That's completely asinine, and clearly not the way the business world works. (thankfully)

You need to approach the Boring Company from this same perspective. Currently, tunneling for transportation is incredibly expensive, and Musk knows this. That is why he is attempting to turn all we know about that upside down by doing it far faster and far cheaper than anyone else has before. You claim it can't be done. I ask you then, give me the project blueprints and show me the exact technology and methods Musk is using for you to make such a claim, because clearly you have access to them and have reviewed them in depth to know with such certainty that it cannot be done. Unless you know something that none of us don't, I really don't think its fair for you to say that what Musk is proposing is neither possible nor financially prudent.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

What, exactly, is innovative about this project, other than its murky financing?

Absolutely everything. You either have an inability to see that, or are at this point simply deriving joy out of being a contrarian.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by left of center

Two of Musk's big risky endeavors were Tesla and SpaceX, and people in the media crapped all over him and his supposed attempts to reshape from scratch the automotive and space launch industries. Now, every single legacy auto manufacturer cant make or plan electric vehicles fast enough, and SpaceX is literally NASA's go to for getting payloads into space. While Musk may not know all of the exact specifics of transportation now, I think he has proven himself an adept learner and one that quickly becomes proficient in the industry he is looking to turn upside down.

TL;DR: This isn't his first rodeo, and his naysayers typically end up eating their own shoe in the end.

I agree wholeheartedly, left of center. Honestly, I see absolutely no reason why everyone seems to be shitting all over this proposal, insulting Musk, Tesla, everything about him and his companies, etc... etc... Sure, some of his plans don't always work out the way he had hoped (whether measured in cost, time, or some other metric), but damn it, he's pretty much the real-life Stark, if you will. Yes, I just brought Ironman into the discussion.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Car companies didn't build electric cars in the past because they are unprofitable. The only thing Tesla has demonstrated is that there is a niche market out there for luxury electric vehicles. Meanwhile, the Model 3 has proven to be wildly unprofitable and the company is burning millions of dollars each day.

Traditional car companies can't do that because their stockholders and board won't tolerate that. Musk has created an aura of hype around himself that has motivated a bunch of suckers to throw large sums of cash at his adventures.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

SpaceX is not making money. They are losing money on each mission. So NASA is saving money by paying a company that burns up investor cash to do its work.

Again, Musk's talent isn't technological innovation, it's getting people to endlessly throw money at his unprofitable activities. It's like the old saying about how the real talents in Hollywood are the accountants.

Seriously jmecklenborg, what in the ever loving hell is your problem??? You're behaving like a freaking troll right now, and I for one find it to be completely out of line. It's one thing to have doubts about a particular project or proposal's success, it's yet another to continually crap all over every single freaking thing someone does.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Rizzo]

No one will ever be satisfied with any project. This is one that generates the least friction in my opinion. It’s not mired in politics, property disputes, and layers of public financing.

Oh look, it might get done sooner than the navy pier flyover. Shocker.

You’d think all of Chicago would be talking about this? They aren’t or it’s just “yeah it sounds really cool.” Meanwhile people will pontificate over the social impacts and excessive spending for weeks over a single CTA station. The fact that the public seems mum on this project is a good thing. If it gets built it will be a glorious surprise.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Rizzo

No one will ever be satisfied with any project. This is one that generates the least friction in my opinion. It’s not mired in politics, property disputes, and layers of public financing.

Oh look, it might get done sooner than the navy pier flyover. Shocker.

You’d think all of Chicago would be talking about this? They aren’t or it’s just “yeah it sounds really cool.” Meanwhile people will pontificate over the social impacts and excessive spending for weeks over a single CTA station. The fact that the public seems mum on this project is a good thing. If it gets built it will be a glorious surprise.

When it comes to big public projects, usually it's a situation of too many cooks spoil the broth. Same for major development proposal meetings. Honestly, there's something to be said for the mayor or a particular alderman just saying something is going to happen, period, no questions asked. People can be too freaking self-absorbed and, frankly, too stupid to have an informed opinion on any given topic, especially something that can be as involved as a transit line or a major development of some sort.

(And now I'll let myself out before my asbestos underwear begins to melt from the attacks I'll be facing from everyone shortly! )

Aaron (Glowrock)

[ChickeNES]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

SpaceX is not making money. They are losing money on each mission. So NASA is saving money by paying a company that burns up investor cash to do its work.

SpaceX is a private company, how would you know if they are making money or not? Go away troll.

[jtown,man]

Two quick points:

I find it really odd and perplexing that so many of you guys are against this so strongly. Its like you'll be for California spending like 60 billion(it will be much more) on a rail system that will take two decades to build and will be 100% funded by tax payers but seem outraged at the idea of a private business doing something innovative. Please excuse me when I assume your volatility against the free market may have more to do with your opposition than anything else?

Second, wouldn't you guys be afraid of the blue line losing some passengers?


Also, I find a lot of small thinking here. He cant do this or that. He has a company that goes to space, yet digging a damn tunnel which we have been doing for centuries seems impossible to some.

[Mr Downtown]

I don't think anyone here opposes the project. We just have really severe doubts that it can be accomplished as promised.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by Mr Downtown

I don't think anyone here opposes the project. We just have really severe doubts that it can be accomplished as promised.

No, there's some flat-out opposition to Musk and this project, Mr Downtown. Why that is, I have no idea. There's no money coming from the city, there's literally no loss whatsoever for Chicago, so why not let Musk/Boring give it a shot?

Aaron (Glowrock)

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by glowrock

There's no money coming from the city

Well, I wish we knew for sure that was the case. But this city has quite the history of getting roped into bailing out "no public money will be needed" projects. I suspect that's the real reason behind some of the opposition.