Rio Grand Expansion Idea [Discussion]

Economy
1

I had a crazy idea to expand the Rio Grand to where ships could pass from one ocean to another. We can use water to naturally and easily expand the river. This will allow naval ships and commercial vessels to pass from one side to the other. This is only an idea for the sake of discussion. How crazy does this idea sound?

d1174e53c5ca633cda693ae4e15f38c6
d1174e53c5ca633cda693ae4e15f38c6736×742 59.7 KB

:: Here is my unapologetically insane pitch: ::

To me, I feel like it could be the panama canal of Texas and the US. We can expand the canal to the Gulf of California through New Mexico and Arizona, It would create a lot of jobs and we could tax commercial vessels who take the long voyage through Texas and Mexico and all the other US states. Its coasts would be a great source of revenue and business for stopping ships. New Mexico and Arizona can also have a source for buisness and trade in import-export. It goes along the president’s plan for US based manufacturing. Mexico could also get a cut of the profits and the US can strengthen its relationship with Mexico. Texas can create ports a long the canal to increase import-export trade and business with crossing vessels. The Texas Coast Guard and Navy can also increase their naval power with military ports and bases. The US can also demonstrate its construction pride with elaborate bridges. It would also make vehicle smuggling a lot more difficult and criminal migration more difficult and improve the US’s national security.

6 Likes
2

I think it is a good idea, at least worth discussing. :+1:

5 Likes
3

I think it can be a good idea. (I moved this post to the main post).

2 Likes
5

If we can convince or form an agreement with the indian reserves, they can benefit from the project by having businesses along the canal.

2 Likes
7

You will be bringing salt water to the desert southwest where you have a lot of sun and hot weather. Sounds like an excellent place to put a GREEN water desalination solution. The Colorado river is overburdened with the large population in the area and this could provide clean water for the area.

“Boris Liberman, vice president and chief technology officer of IDE Technologies, the Israel-based company responsible for the design and construction of that county’s giant new seawater desalination plants, including the largest such plant in the world, said that those plants have now demonstrated that with proper design and operation it is possible to operate efficiently even with power supplies that ebb and flow. The key, he said, is to maintain constant pressure inside the system while allowing the flow rate and freshwater output to rise and fall. The company’s largest plant, called Sorek, which produces 150 million cubic meters of water per year, “has worked for two years with no fouling,” he said."

(150,000,000 cubic meter = 39,625,807,854 gallon (US).)

As for the left over salt, I am sure MORTON SALT could process it for sale.

IDE Technologies is an Israeli based company and world leader in sustainable water treatment and desalination solutions for municipal and industrial customers. They already have plants in the US.
https://ide-tech.com/en/

3 Likes
8

I think that’s a great idea. Bring more water to areas that have no or little water. Desalination could work. The idea could also perhaps expand cities and towns and increase agriculture and livestock around the regions which helps with food production.

3 Likes
10

From the original post:

And the Panama Canal has massive pumps at ever lock on the canal to change the level of the ships.

1 Like
12

I used Grock AI to answer some questions about the Rio Grand extention idea. Here are my questions:
1 What are the best methods for carving a canal to the Gulf of California?
2 How much will it cost?
3 How does this benefit the US?
4 How does this benefit trade and military?
5 How many miles would need to be carved for this plan?
6 what is the total miles the Rio Grand and the canal reaching to the Gulf of California?
7 How long would it take to build?
8 What conflicts could arise from this project?
9 how many jobs could be estimated for the project?
10 how does it benefit the states its connected to?
11 What are the biggest challenges?
12 what technology exists that can shorten the time it takes to build this project? Can we carve the canal with pressurize water?

Here is what Grock AI wrote:

Your idea to transform the Rio Grande into a canal akin to the Panama Canal, extending through Arizona and New Mexico to connect with the Gulf of California, is ambitious and complex. Below, I address each of your questions with available information, critical analysis, and estimates where data is limited. Given the unprecedented nature of this proposal, some answers rely on analogies to existing canal projects (e.g., Panama, Suez) and general engineering principles, with gaps noted where specific data is unavailable. I’ll aim to be concise while covering the breadth of your queries.

1. What are the best methods for carving a canal to the Gulf of California?

Methods for Canal Construction:

  • Excavation with Heavy Machinery: Use of bulldozers, excavators, dredgers, and draglines to remove earth and rock. This is standard for large-scale canals like the Panama Canal. Suitable for softer soils and sedimentary rock in the Rio Grande Valley.
  • Blasting and Drilling: For harder rock formations (e.g., in Arizona’s mountainous regions), controlled blasting with explosives followed by drilling and mechanical removal is effective. Used in the Panama Canal for the Culebra Cut.
  • Dredging: For sections near the Gulf of California or along the Rio Grande, hydraulic dredgers can remove sediment and deepen channels. This is critical for creating navigable depths (e.g., 40–50 feet for large ships).
  • Tunneling: If the canal must pass through significant elevations (e.g., the Continental Divide), tunnel boring machines (TBMs) could be employed, though this is costly and time-intensive.
  • Pressurized Water (Hydraulic Mining): While not a primary method for modern canals due to environmental damage and inefficiency for large-scale projects, high-pressure water jets could assist in softer soils or for initial clearing. However, it’s impractical for deep, wide canals or rocky terrain due to limited cutting power and massive water requirements.
  • Lock Systems: To manage elevation changes (e.g., from the Rio Grande Valley to sea level), locks are essential. These require precise engineering to handle water flow and ship passage, as seen in the Panama Canal (6 locks).

Best Approach: A combination of excavation, blasting, and dredging, tailored to the terrain (sedimentary basins vs. rocky uplands). Locks would be needed to navigate elevation changes. Pressurized water is not viable as a primary method but could supplement in specific contexts.

2. How much will it cost?

Cost Estimation:

  • Historical Analogies: The Panama Canal (50 miles, completed 1914) cost ~$488M (1939 dollars, ~$10B in 2025 dollars). The Nicaragua Canal proposal (173 miles) was estimated at $722M in 1939 (~$16B in 2025).
  • Scale of This Project: Your canal would likely span 1,000+ miles (see Q5/Q6), traversing diverse terrains (deserts, mountains, urban areas). Modern costs for large infrastructure include:
    • Excavation: ~$1M–$5M per mile for basic canals, higher for rocky terrain.
    • Locks: $100M–$500M per lock system (6–12 locks estimated).
    • Dredging: $10M–$50M per mile in riverine or coastal areas.
    • Environmental Mitigation: Billions due to ecosystem impacts (e.g., Rio Grande bosque, Gulf of California wetlands).
  • Rough Estimate: Assuming 1,000 miles at $5M–$10M per mile, plus 10 locks at $300M each, and $5B–$10B for environmental and ancillary costs (ports, levees), total costs could range from $15B to $30B. Urban relocation (e.g., El Paso, Tucson) and water rights disputes could push this to $50B+.
  • Uncertainties: Lack of specific geological surveys and urban impact assessments makes this a rough estimate. Costs could escalate with delays, legal challenges, or unforeseen geological issues.

3. How does this benefit the US?

Potential Benefits:

  • Economic Growth: New ports and trade routes could boost GDP, especially in the Southwest, by facilitating exports (e.g., agricultural goods, manufactured products).
  • Job Creation: Construction and operation would generate thousands of jobs (see Q9).
  • Water Management: The canal could integrate with irrigation systems, potentially alleviating water scarcity in arid regions (though this conflicts with navigation goals).
  • National Security: Enhanced military mobility (see Q4) and reduced reliance on Pacific/Atlantic routes.
  • Climate Adaptation: If designed for water storage, it could mitigate drought impacts in the Southwest.

Critical View: Benefits depend on trade volume and military utility outweighing costs. The US already has robust coastal ports (e.g., Los Angeles, Houston), and existing canals (e.g., Gulf Intracoastal Waterway) serve similar purposes. Environmental and diplomatic costs could offset gains.

4. How does this benefit trade and military?

Trade Benefits:

  • New Shipping Route: A canal connecting the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of California would shorten trade routes between the US interior (e.g., Texas, Midwest) and Asia, bypassing the Panama Canal. For example, the Nicaragua Canal was projected to save 75 days from New York to San Francisco.
  • Port Development: New ports in Arizona, New Mexico, and near Baja could handle container ships, reducing congestion at Los Angeles or San Diego.
  • Regional Trade: Enhanced access to Mexican markets and Central America, boosting cross-border commerce.

Military Benefits:

  • Strategic Mobility: The canal would allow rapid naval redeployment between the Atlantic and Pacific without navigating around South America or relying on the Panama Canal, which is vulnerable to attacks or congestion.
  • Border Security: Infrastructure could double as a militarized zone, though this risks escalating tensions with Mexico.
  • Logistics: Ports and canals could support military supply chains, especially for Pacific operations.

Challenges: Trade benefits require significant ship traffic, which may not materialize if global routes favor existing canals. Military utility is limited by the canal’s inland location and potential vulnerability to sabotage or environmental disruptions.

5. How many miles would need to be carved for this plan?

Estimation:

  • Rio Grande Path: The Rio Grande runs ~1,255 miles from the Gulf of Mexico to El Paso, TX, following the US-Mexico border. Much of this could be widened/deepened rather than carved anew.
  • New Canal Path: From El Paso, a new canal would need to extend through Arizona and New Mexico to the Gulf of California. A plausible route might follow:
    • El Paso to Tucson, AZ (~270 miles).
    • Tucson to Yuma, AZ (~240 miles).
    • Yuma to the Gulf of California near San Felipe, Baja California (~150 miles).
  • Total New Carving: ~660 miles, assuming a direct route. Terrain (e.g., Sonoran Desert, Gila Mountains) may require detours, increasing this to ~700–800 miles.
  • Widening Existing River: The Rio Grande’s 1,255 miles would need dredging and straightening (e.g., Rio Grande Rectification Project shortened 155 miles to 85.6 miles). Assume 50% of the Rio Grande (600–700 miles) requires significant work.

Total Carved/Widened: ~1,300–1,500 miles (600–700 miles widened, 700–800 miles newly carved).

6. What is the total miles of the Rio Grande and the canal reaching to the Gulf of California?

Total Length:

  • Rio Grande: From its source in Colorado to the Gulf of Mexico, the Rio Grande is ~1,896 miles. The border section (Gulf to El Paso) is ~1,255 miles.
  • Canal Extension: From El Paso to the Gulf of California, ~700–800 miles (see Q5).
  • Total: If using the border section only, ~1,955–2,055 miles (1,255 + 700–800). If including the full Rio Grande, ~2,596–2,696 miles (1,896 + 700–800). For navigation, the shorter border-to-Gulf route is more relevant, so ~2,000 miles.

7. How long would it take to build?

Timeline Estimation:

  • Historical Benchmarks: The Panama Canal (50 miles) took 10 years (1904–1914). The Central Arizona Project (336 miles) took ~20 years (1973–1993).
  • This Project: At ~2,000 miles, with modern technology but complex terrain (deserts, mountains, urban areas), construction could take:
    • Planning/Permitting: 5–10 years, given environmental reviews, treaties, and land acquisition.
    • Construction: 15–25 years, assuming parallel work on multiple segments (e.g., Rio Grande dredging vs. Arizona carving). Locks and ports add complexity.
  • Total: 20–35 years, barring major delays from legal, diplomatic, or financial issues.

Acceleration: Modular construction, advanced automation (see Q12), and significant funding could reduce this to 15–20 years, but this is optimistic.

8. What conflicts could arise from this project?

Potential Conflicts:

  • US-Mexico Relations: The Rio Grande is an international boundary governed by treaties (e.g., 1848, 1944, 1970). Altering its course or flow violates these, risking diplomatic fallout. Mexico relies on Rio Grande water for agriculture (e.g., Mexicali Valley).
  • Water Rights: US states (TX, NM, CO) and Mexico have complex water-sharing agreements. A canal could disrupt irrigation, sparking legal battles. Texas farmers already face water shortages.
  • Environmental Impact: Destruction of the Rio Grande bosque, Gulf of California wetlands, and wildlife habitats (e.g., endangered species) would face opposition from environmental groups.
  • Indigenous Communities: Tribes (e.g., Tohono O’odham, Navajo) in Arizona and New Mexico could oppose land disruption, as seen in border wall protests.
  • Local Communities: Urban relocation (e.g., El Paso, Tucson) and flooding risks could lead to public backlash.
  • Operation Lonestar: Texas’ border enforcement (e.g., buoys in the Rio Grande) shows state-federal tensions, which could complicate project governance.

Critical View: The project’s scale ensures multi-front conflicts, with Mexico’s objections and environmental lawsuits being the most immediate hurdles.

9. How many jobs could be estimated for the project?

Job Estimation:

  • Construction Phase: Large projects like the Panama Canal employed ~40,000 workers at peak. The Central Arizona Project created ~10,000 direct jobs. For a 2,000-mile canal:
    • Direct jobs (engineers, operators, laborers): ~50,000–100,000, based on scale and automation.
    • Indirect jobs (supply chain, logistics, services): ~100,000–200,000.
  • Operational Phase: Ports, maintenance, and shipping could sustain ~10,000–20,000 jobs, similar to the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway’s 145,000 jobs.
  • Total: 150,000–300,000 jobs during construction (20–35 years), dropping to 10,000–20,000 post-completion.

Note: Automation (see Q12) could reduce labor needs, but political pressure for job creation might prioritize human labor.

10. How does it benefit the states it’s connected to?

Benefits to States (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona):

  • Texas:
    • Economic boost from ports and trade, especially in the Rio Grande Valley.
    • Potential water storage for agriculture, though navigation may conflict with irrigation.
    • Job creation in construction and shipping.
  • New Mexico:
    • New ports could diversify the economy beyond agriculture and energy.
    • Infrastructure investment (e.g., roads, utilities) tied to the canal.
  • Arizona:
    • Access to maritime trade, reducing reliance on California ports.
    • Economic hubs around new ports (e.g., Tucson, Yuma).
    • Potential water management benefits, though the canal’s saline water may limit irrigation use.

Critical View: Benefits hinge on trade volume and infrastructure integration. Water scarcity and environmental costs could negate gains, especially in arid New Mexico and Arizona.

11. What are the biggest challenges?

Major Challenges:

  • Environmental Impact: Altering the Rio Grande and Gulf of California ecosystems risks biodiversity loss, water quality degradation, and red tide blooms.
  • Diplomatic Tensions: Violating US-Mexico treaties could lead to sanctions or trade disputes.
  • Geological Complexity: Carving through Arizona’s mountains and deserts requires costly blasting and tunneling.
  • Water Scarcity: The Rio Grande and Colorado River are over-allocated; diverting water for navigation exacerbates droughts.
  • Urban Displacement: Relocating parts of El Paso, Tucson, or smaller towns is logistically and politically fraught.
  • Funding: $15B–$50B+ requires federal, state, and private investment, with uncertain ROI given existing trade routes.
  • Legal Battles: Environmental, indigenous, and water rights lawsuits could delay or halt the project.

Critical View: The diplomatic and environmental hurdles are likely insurmountable without unprecedented bilateral cooperation and technological breakthroughs.

12. What technology exists that can shorten the time it takes to build this project? Can we carve the canal with pressurized water?

Technologies to Accelerate Construction:

  • Advanced Excavation: Autonomous excavators and robotic bulldozers (e.g., Caterpillar’s autonomous fleets) increase efficiency and reduce labor costs.
  • Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs): Modern TBMs (e.g., used in Crossrail) can bore through hard rock at 100–200 feet per day, critical for mountainous sections.
  • 3D Printing: Modular lock and port components could be 3D-printed on-site, reducing construction time.
  • Drones and AI: Drones for surveying and AI for project management optimize logistics and detect issues early.
  • Explosive Technology: Precision blasting with electronic detonators minimizes collateral damage and speeds rock removal.
  • Dredging Innovations: Cutter-suction dredgers with GPS and automation can deepen rivers faster than traditional methods.

Pressurized Water Feasibility:

  • Limitations: Hydraulic mining uses high-pressure water to erode soil, but it’s inefficient for deep, wide canals (40–50 feet deep, 100–200 feet wide). It’s better suited for small-scale clearing in soft soils. The volume of water needed (millions of gallons) is impractical in the arid Southwest, and runoff would cause environmental havoc (e.g., sedimentation, flooding).
  • Alternative: Water jets could assist in dredging soft riverbeds, but mechanical excavation and blasting remain primary methods.

Impact on Timeline: Automation, TBMs, and AI could shave 5–10 years off the 20–35-year estimate, potentially reducing it to 15–25 years, assuming no major delays.

Critical Analysis and Feasibility

This project faces significant barriers:

  • Geopolitical: US-Mexico treaties and water rights are deeply entrenched. Unilateral action risks conflict.
  • Environmental: The ecological cost (e.g., Rio Grande ecosystem, Gulf of California fisheries) could outweigh economic gains.
  • Economic: Existing trade routes (Panama Canal, Gulf Intracoastal Waterway) and ports may render the canal redundant unless it captures significant Asia-US trade.
  • Technical: The scale (2,000 miles, diverse terrain) dwarfs existing canals, requiring decades and tens of billions.

Recommendation: A scaled-down version (e.g., deepening the Rio Grande for smaller vessels, with ports in Texas) might be more feasible, avoiding new carving in Arizona/New Mexico. Even then, diplomatic and environmental hurdles remain.

Conclusion:
Transforming the Rio Grande into a 2,000-mile canal connecting to the Gulf of California would involve excavation, blasting, dredging, and lock systems to carve ~700–800 miles of new canal through Arizona and New Mexico, costing $15B–$50B and taking 20–35 years. It could boost US trade by linking the interior to Asia, enhance military mobility, and create 150,000–300,000 jobs, benefiting Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona economically. However, it faces major challenges: US-Mexico treaty violations, environmental damage, water scarcity, and urban displacement. Technologies like autonomous excavators and tunnel boring machines could shorten construction, but pressurized water is impractical. Conflicts with Mexico, indigenous groups, and environmentalists, plus geological and funding issues, make the project highly contentious and potentially unfeasible.

2 Likes
13

I live in NM. There’s barely enough water in the Rio Grande to irrigate the crops, let alone support a ship. It almost can support the river rafts at certain times of year. Hate being a Debbie Downer, but realism intrudes.

14

Thank you for the reply. I think it would take a lot to make this project work. Having a lack of water to make a canal would be an interesting challenge. It seems the water would be subject to droubts or enviormnetal changes. It would be an interesting challenge to tackle.

15

Isn’t that the reason to do it, or at least try? Today the water in the Rio Grande comes from the surrounding area, a desert. Build the canal and you have access to all of the water from the Pacific ocean or the Gulf of America flowing through.

Three desalination plants in Israel produce over 600 million cubic yards of clean drinking water yearly, in a desert. That’s over 158 trillion gallons, yearly.

Per Paul’s GROK estimate it would take 25-30 years, and cost maybe 50 billion dollars. That’s and average of 2 billion dollars per year. And as we all know, anything concerning the big G Government always cost 10 times more than originally estimated. That’s 20 billion dollars per year average.

The Hoover dam cost 690 million dollars in 2008 dollars, and took 4 years to build.

The Three Gorges Dam in China cost around 1.4 trillion dollars, took 9 years to complete, and was finished in 2003.

Dubai is turning the desert green.

It’s does not matter what the Rio Grande has in it today, what matters is what the Rio Grande Canal will have in it in the future.

1 Like
16

The Rio Grande river headwaters originate in Colorado, high in the San Juan Mountains. Are you proposing to somehow move sea water from the Pacific coast over the various mountain ranges and through what you call desert land (there isn’t that much of it that isn’t bespoke) and into the Rio Grande at some midway point? You’re right that would be a big project. The toopography has little in common with the examples you give. It’s even kinda funny.

17

Challenge would be the operative word. The Rio Grande flows through narrow gorges with high walls. I suggest you google, say, the Rio Grande Gorge. Maybe you’ll see a photo.

18

Thank you for the topographic map. Maybe these folks will see the reality of what they suggest. I’m 83. I’ve lived in Northern NM for 52 of those years. It does sort of tickle me though.

19

Well, everything in our lives was at one time “impossible”, so I guess since this is “impossible”, we should give up the idea, right?

Quotefancy-7843516-3840x2160
Quotefancy-7843516-3840x21601920×1080 312 KB

20

I didn’t say it was impossible, I just said it’s pretty funny. Your word absurd is a good one, though.

21

The Panama Canal was built when the US had a much smaller and more efficient government. We’d simply never be able to do it today. And this proposal is roughly ten times that size.

To keep it in modern perspective, the California high-speed rail project has costed the state $128B so far with zero miles of track laid. Grok’s estimate of cost for the American Canal Project primarily takes into account practical cost estimates of labor, technology, and physical capability, but ignores bureaucratic red tape, the inevitable unending legal battles, and hundreds if not thousands of hands in the cookie jar throughout the entire process. Though, to be fair, Grok does at least mention some legal hurdles.

So, yes, it can be done, and maybe it could be done for around $50B as Grok projects. But realistically, our government is far too boated get any of the actual work done.

This would be a great idea perhaps in an alternate universe. I do like the idea; it’s simply not feasible for our modern government’s undertaking.

22

No one said it would be easy. If it was easy, maybe someone would have done it already. What technology will be invented and developed in the next 10 or 20 years that would make it easier? No one knows.

Sixty years ago President Kennedy gave the country a vision. land on the moon by the end of the decade. Did we do it? I believe so, but others don’t. But the outcome of that vision is in things you see and use today. Here are just a few:

https://spinoff.nasa.gov/

Spinoff highlights NASA technologies that benefit life on Earth in the form of commercial products. We’ve profiled more than 2,000 spinoffs since 1976 — there’s more space in your life than you think!

Inventions we wouldn’t have without space exploration

  1. Camera phones

a) In the 1990s, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) created a camera small enough to fit on a spacecraft while maintaining scientific quality, and today one-third of all cameras use this technology.

  1. CAT scans

a) Developed from a need for high-quality digital images, the JPL invented technology that in turn created CAT scanners and radiography.

  1. LED lights

a) LED technology used by NASA has contributed to the development of medical devices such as WARP 10.

  1. Athletic shoes

a) A former NASA engineer first pitched the idea of lightweight runners – meaning Nike Air sneakers wouldn’t exist without the aeronautics agency.

  1. Water purifiers

a) Now widely used to kill bacteria in recreational pools, electrolytic silver iodizer was developed by NASA to purify astronauts’ drinking water.

  1. Dustbusters

a) What was first created as a way to collect samples on the lunar surface turned into the popular cordless miniature vacuum cleaner in 1979?

  1. The Jaws of Life

a) Used to free people trapped in car accidents, the Jaws of Life is a smaller version of the machinery used to separate devices on the Space Shuttle.

😎 Wireless headsets

a) NASA created the communication device to allow astronauts to be hands-free without wires.

  1. Memory foam

a) A comfortable night’s sleep is all thanks to NASA which, in the 1970s, developed the memory foam mattress to make an airline pilot’s seat more comfortable.

  1. Artificial limbs

a) Functionally dynamic artificial limbs are the result of the space agency’s exploration into shock-absorption materials paired with robotic and extravehicular activities.

  1. Computer mouse

a) As a way to make computers more interactive, space technicians launched the mouse in the 1960s.

  1. Laptops

a) The first portable computer was a product of space exploration. The hardware was later modified, new software was developed, and it was propelled to the commercial market.

  1. Cochlear Implants

a) Adam Kissiah, a former NASA instrumentation engineer, devised and developed cochlear implants in the mid-1970s. He spent his lunch breaks and other free time at Kennedy Space Center’s technical library studying how to apply engineering principles to improve hearing.

  1. Invisible Braces

a) Invisible braces were jointly developed by Ceradyne and NASA’s Advanced Ceramics Research program. Although today the braces have a relatively benign application (although teenagers worldwide might disagree), they were originally intended for use in military technology. With NASA, Ceradyne was trying to find a material that could be used in infrared radomes to track heat-seeking missiles. Radomes are structures that protect radar equipment. These need to be as transparent as possible to allow radar waves to pass through easily.

  1. LZR Racer swimsuit

a) Speedo’s infamous LZR Racer swimsuit was unveiled in 2008. It was so effective that in 2009 it was banned by FINA from international competitive swimming contests as a form of “technological doping.” The LZR Racer was designed, with the aid of NASA, to be ultra-streamlined and low-friction. It is made from welded seams and multiple woven fabrics that can reduce drag by as much as six percent.

  1. EWT

a) Embedded Web Technology software, or EWB, was first developed by NASA. It was initially created to allow astronauts to operate remotely and monitor experiments on the ISS over the Internet. NASA later released the technology into the public domain, paving the way for the recent explosion in the Internet of Things technology. One interesting example comes from TMIO LLC. They developed EWB technology to create their ‘Connect Io’ smart oven. This oven combines heating and cooling capabilities to both store and cook food on-demand remotely. Many other companies use the same technology to deliver a wide swathe of over-the-internet control and management of devices. Devices like smart thermostats, smart light bulbs, and smart locks have benefited from NASA’s space-age EWB technology.

  1. Insulin Pump

a) Another space-age spin-off is the insulin pump, technically called a Programmable Implantable Medication System (PIMS), which was invented by Robert E. Fischell of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. When implanted into a human patient, this device can deliver precise, preprogrammed amounts of insulin over an extended period. They are, in effect, computerized replacements for the human pancreas. Fischer was, at the time, a staff physicist and chief of technology at APL’s Space Department, which the Goddard Space Flight Center funded. Since its creation, the insulin pump has helped save the lives of many diabetics worldwide.

  1. Emergency Blankets

a) So-called space blankets, also known as emergency blankets, were first developed by NASA in 1964. The highly reflective insulators are often included in emergency kits and are also used by long-distance runners after finishing a race to avoid a large swing in body temperature. They have been incorporated into outdoor clothing and sleeping bags as well.

There was a time, maybe 100 years ago, where if you said I think I can make 3/4 million pounds move at 600 mph, and at 30,000 feet above your head, naysayers would have said you were crazy, or a witch. Yet, that is what the Boeing 747 has been doing for almost 50 years.

Make what we have smaller and more efficient. Not easy, but doable.

And you are surprised? Where did the money go? Who got paid to do a lot on nothing? LA issues just four permits for rebuilding Pacific Palisades after 75 days

https://www.gopusa.com/la-issues-just-four-permits-for-rebuilding-pacific-palisades-after-75-days/

24

How much extra clean water does the area get now?

25

The canal is salt water, just like the Panama and Suez canals, you clean it for the surrounding area.