The European Organization for Nuclear Research, more commonly known as CERN, recently published an ambitious proposal to build what could only be described as a mammoth accelerator that’s nearly four times as long and up to six times more powerful as its 27-km Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which studies the tiniest particles that make up all matter, dark matter, and infamously, black holes. The project is yet to be greenlit, but if a recent tweet from SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk is any indication, The Boring Company could play a part in the construction of the ambitious project.
In a tweet on Monday, Musk noted that the director of CERN had been quite interested in the tunneling technologies of The Boring Company, which could play a part in saving costs for the construction of the agency’s next-generation particle collider. Musk noted that by using The Boring Company’s tunnels, the project would likely save “several billion Euros.”
Director of CERN asked me about Boring Co building the new LHC tunnel when we were at the @royalsociety. Would probably save several billon Euros.
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 21, 2019
The particle physics laboratory, which operates in a site near Geneva, Switzerland, outlined its plans for the 100-km LHC successor, dubbed as the “Future Circular Collider” (FCC), last Tuesday. The FCC is expected to replace the LHC, whose most notable success so far has been the discovery of the Higgs boson, a previously-theoretical particle that gives mass to all matter. Since the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, though, CERN’s Large Hadron Collider has not been able to discover any new particles of the same significance. This, according to Gian Francesco Giudice, CERN’s theory department head, highlights a need to push collider technologies forward.
“Today, exploring the highest possible energies with bold projects is our best hope to crack some of the mysteries of nature at the most fundamental level,” he said, according to Nature.
The possibilities that could be unlocked by a project as ambitious as the Future Circular Collider could easily come from a sci-fi tale. It would not be an exaggeration to state that the FCC would enable physicists to open the door to as-yet-unknown physics, while helping answer a number of notable questions about the universe. First off, the FCC would help CERN scientists study the Higgs boson more extensively — something that is not possible with the LHD. The project is also expected to allow scientists to explore topics such as dark matter and antimatter.
-
- The size of the FCC compared to the LHD. (Photo: CERN)
-
- An artist’s image depicting particles colliding. (Photo: CERN)
CERN’s Future Circular Collider is expected to be four times as large and up to six times more powerful than its predecessor. (Photos: CERN)
While the possibilities presented by CERN’s proposed 100-km particle collider are vast, the Future Circular Collider does have its fair share of drawbacks — the most notable of which is the cost of the entire project. CERN’s report on the FCC estimates that the project’s tunnels alone would cost €5 billion ($5.7 billion) to build. Another €4 billion ($4.6 billion) is expected to be required for the first collider (which will collide leptons), while €4 billion ($4.6 billion) would likely be needed for the final collider (which is designed to collide protons). Provided that the ambitious project does not meet any substantial difficulties in its construction, the FCC could be operational by 2040.
This is where The Boring Company’s technologies could come in. The tunneling startup, after all, aims to reduce the costs of tunneling through optimizations in the digging process. So far, The Boring Company is only involved in projects involving transportation, such as the construction of the high-profile downtown Chicago-O’Hare high-speed transport line. The cost savings presented by The Boring Company’s tunnels were particularly evident when Elon Musk revealed the cost of the startup’s mile-long test tunnel in Hawthorne, CA last December. During his presentation, Musk noted that the Hawthorne tunnel cost $10 million to construct. This is far more affordable than traditional tunneling costs, which cost most U.S. local and state governments an average of $200-$500 million dollars per mile.
Granted, the requirements for CERN’s 100-km tunnel would be far more than demanding than the otherwise straightforward tunnels that The Boring Company will construct in the immediate future. That said, the rather generous timeframe for the Future Circular Collider would also give The Boring Company some time to further refine and optimize its tunneling technologies. For now, though, the prospect of CERN’s next-generation LHD’s tunnels being dug by The Boring Company would remain an idea that would only get more plausible over time.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
