• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Elon Musk wants to rebuild the Baltimore bridge with the damaged steel trusses

So Elon, you do realize that every truss will have to be examined for internal stretching, stress and structural integrity for any one of them to be used.
Yeah, it sure seems like a really dumb thing for him to say. Trumpian, almost.
 
Actually, while we're at I, save the piers too. Even the struck one.
Just call Phil Swift, he'll fix it right up with his family of fine products.
 
It would be more headache and just as costly(or more) to retrieve, dismantle, inspect and try to reuse any of it.
Then there is the risk of unseen stress/fatigue on a peice deemed 'good'.
Just dumb.

His heart's in the right place, but his head is up his ass.
 
I wanted to reply that he should worry more about how to get Twitter functioning after its collapse, but I can't find the post.

This has been predicted for well over a year to 18 months. When will it be collapsing?
 
I’m not so sure. Most of these large container ships have no redundancy of power, screw or rudder. While surprising on the surface, if you consider how infrequently something like this event occurs, and the degree to which the risk can be mitigated by tugs, it seems unlikely that we will see a major migration toward redundant propulsion and rudder control. It would take several more bridge collapses or other prominent events for that to happen.

This isn’t to say that I’m not in support. I find it shocking how something so large has so little redundancy. It’s just that there aren’t many, if any industries so cut-throat on cost as transoceanic shipping.
It isn't necessary to have that much redundancy, just in the control systems that govern power, screw and rudder, that's all.
So if a two dollar relay fails, onboard logic will query at the hardware level and engage a backup control system.

Think of it as being vaguely similar to when automotive manufacturers switched from single pot brake master cylinders to dual pot, so if a front brake hose bursts, at least you have all of the rear and a fraction of the front or if the rear fails you have all of the front and a fraction of the rear, enough to slow the vehicle safely and eventually come to a stop.
Prior to that your foot hit the floor with nothing but a skinny cable tapping the emergency brake, and Fred Flintstone, and prayers.
 
I hope that he never builds airplanes.

Oh come now. I would bet you did not know that most of Boeing's and Airbus's planes are made up of parts recycled from previously-crashed airplanes?
 
never forget that this is a guy who has giant United States government contracts and appears to be influencing the Ukrainian war against Russian invasion.
 
Oh come now. I would bet you did not know that most of Boeing's and Airbus's planes are made up of parts recycled from previously-crashed airplanes?
Metal fatigue is a myth.
 
Poor guy has the best selling car on the planet, and several hundred rocket launches per year, as well as kicking Russian ass off of the US S
space program and supplying whatever mission NASA asks for...

He for sure don't have time to know about bridges. Don't listen to him.
 
never forget that this is a guy who has giant United States government contracts and appears to be influencing the Ukrainian war against Russian invasion.
He has been instrumental in supplying Ukraine and shitting on Russia, from a tactical communication point of view.

Ukraine has been just thirsty for Starlink...
 
We have plenty of 2x4s. Let’s build it using them! We’d have the bridge built in 2 weeks!
 
I want to see the comments here for this one.



Image
My first thought at seeing the title, was to melt the steel down and reforge it. Any structural damage would be erased. Looking at the tweet, there is some logic there. If you are going through and find undamaged beams and such, and check them out to ensure no damage, assuming that they meet the standards of the new bridge going up, why not? It wouldn't be any different than reusing the same attaching screws or other hardware that were in something that you replaced a component on.
 
Yes but at that point it is no longer "the steel" from "the former bridge".

The answer to that question is NO. Vessels are much larger, carrying much more tonnage of material than they did in the 1970's. While I would not suggest they build a 1970's style bridge in 2025, what was truly lacking was tug boats to guide the vessel that had lost propulsion and steerage. That is not to blame the harbor's navigation system for the failure. The failure will likely turn out to be a maintenance failure. However it does not take a rocket scientist to consider the usefulness of tugs to aid vessels leaving port.
I agree with this 100%. There's an old saying that we've all heard; Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. In short, Murphys Law. Taking it for granted that a ship of that size and weight will make through any port of entry without mishap is just plain stupid. Getting lucky for all those years doesn't compensate for all those lives lost or lost revenue.
 
My first thought at seeing the title, was to melt the steel down and reforge it. Any structural damage would be erased. Looking at the tweet, there is some logic there. If you are going through and find undamaged beams and such, and check them out to ensure no damage, assuming that they meet the standards of the new bridge going up, why not? It wouldn't be any different than reusing the same attaching screws or other hardware that were in something that you replaced a component on.
Because it's faster and cheaper to use new steel beams that are known to be safe, while scrapping the old ones to be reused somewhere else.

I don't imagine the new bridge will be identical to the old one - why would it be?

Elon was thinking exactly like yourself, IMO - but it is so unlikely to work, and saves so little time and money after the inspection process, that it is a not a great idea.
 
My first thought at seeing the title, was to melt the steel down and reforge it. Any structural damage would be erased. Looking at the tweet, there is some logic there. If you are going through and find undamaged beams and such, and check them out to ensure no damage, assuming that they meet the standards of the new bridge going up, why not? It wouldn't be any different than reusing the same attaching screws or other hardware that were in something that you replaced a component on.
It would take longer than just ordering new steel.
 
Because it's faster and cheaper to use new steel beams that are known to be safe, while scrapping the old ones to be reused somewhere else.

I don't imagine the new bridge will be identical to the old one - why would it be?

Elon was thinking exactly like yourself, IMO - but it is so unlikely to work, and saves so little time and money after the inspection process, that it is a not a great idea.
Keep in mind that for the first part I did say I was working off the title only.

As to the second, I'll admit to failure to note that I didn't think it would be as fast as he claimed it to be reusing undamaged parts (the damaged aspect was the OP, not Musk). I had been focused on the material and neglected to mention the time aspect. Or the money really. I agree that inspection costs could exceed getting new.
 
It would take longer than just ordering new steel.
Granted, and as I noted in the previous post, I wasn't focusing on the time aspect. Ultimately I think we need to reuse all that material, just not necessarily on this bridge. The idea itself isn't bad. It just doesn't work well with other factors to consider.
 
Keep in mind that for the first part I did say I was working off the title only.

As to the second, I'll admit to failure to note that I didn't think it would be as fast as he claimed it to be reusing undamaged parts (the damaged aspect was the OP, not Musk). I had been focused on the material and neglected to mention the time aspect. Or the money really. I agree that inspection costs could exceed getting new.
No worries! If you are on the same thought train as the richest person in the history of humanity, who has a track record of "turning the impossible into 'late'"... you might have both good instincts and intentions.

But in this case there might be more to the story.
 
Oh come now. I would bet you did not know that most of Boeing's and Airbus's planes are made up of parts recycled from previously-crashed airplanes?
Boeing and Airbus have teams of engineers instead of control freaks who don't know what metal fatigue is and probably use 90s video games as design inspiration. Granted, Boeing has had a lot of problems in recent years.
 
Back
Top Bottom