“I don’t think Brunel was the greatest engineer of the 19th century. I would rate both Edison and John Ericsson above him. Ericsson, in particular, had much more long-term influence on the evolution of both commercial and military ships than did Brunel.”

See, I think there’s a way to see both of our statements as true and not contradictory. Ericsson pretty arguably *did* have a much bigger influence on the evolution of maritime technology ( mainly in naval design) than Brunel did; but a big reason was longevity, along with focus. Brunel died at just 53, of a stroke; Ericsson made it deep into his 80s and his big breakthroughs came late in life. (A similar observation about Edison springs to mind here, too, I might say.) Brunel also ended up devoting a lot of his career to infrastructure on land (bridges, tunnels, etc.) whereas Ericsson was a more purely naval being.

“Greatest” is, just the same, one of those terms with a lot of subjectivity. I’m not sure there’s a way to ever resolve a debate like this. Each was a genius in his own way; in breadth and scale of achievement, Elon Musk has blown past both, though he does stand tall on their broad shoulders, among others. We are very lucky to have him.

He started SpaceX not for the money — he anticipated losing that investment. He started Tesla not for money — he points out that no new car company had survived for the last century. Rather, making money was the necessary means to achieving the above-stated goal. Even about Starship, he stated that, even if they failed, he hoped that they would advance the technology as far as they could.

He chose not to dedicate a lot of his time on ventures he felt good but not essential to the survival of the human species — Hyperloop, Boring Company, electric jets, & X.com banking.

His entry into politics (Twitter, Trump, DOGE) was only to ensure that technologic civilization would not be stagnated by uni-party rule & suffocating regulation. I discussed all of this on a recent Space Show appearance.

Ah, the Victorian Age, when the whole world changed. What a time that was, with the freedom to innovate and invent, with very little government interference, which is why we got so many creative inventions. Power was a major driver, from the implementation of steam, invented only a century before, to electricity, discovered about a century earlier, to tunneling, to steel structures, to … what the heck, let’s include powered and controlled manned flight in that era.

The railroad was the invention that allowed goods and people to travel across all lands for very little cost, both in time and money, spreading civilization across continents faster than sailing ships spread it around the world. In the late 19th century, people expected everything would soon run on electricity, and so it has, except for ships, airplanes, and rockets — with light airplanes now beginning to be electrified, and some spacecraft thrusters being electrically powered, too.

So, I vote for the railroad man as the Victorian Age Elon Musk, edging out our heavy reliance upon NikolaTesla’s research and inventions, which are the basis for so much of our electrical systems.

“For Tesla he relied on government subsidies.”

It was less a reliance as it was an imposition. Congress wanted electric vehicles (EVs), but the auto industry was reluctant to produce what was not desired by their customers. Musk, on the other hand, made sure that Tesla’s EVs were desirable. The “subsidies,” which were really only tax credits for the buyers, only covered a limited number of EVs from the manufacturers, so Tesla did not receive as much money per car, on average, as virtually everyone assumes. The tax credits did not make Tesla’s competitors’ EVs much more desirable, which is something else virtually no one takes into consideration.
__________
Jeff Wright wrote: “ People had no fear of size then… something space launch had an issue with until recently. ”

Space launch did not have much need for large launch vehicles until recently, and even now it is mostly for getting to Mars, just as the previous super heavy launch vehicle, the Saturn V, had the purpose of getting to the Moon.

“For the longest time in the USA, our philosophy was to miniaturize the payload.”

It still is. This is why smallsats are making such a rapid comeback.

But the statement is not entirely correct. From the 1980s (or earlier) the philosophy was to maximize the number of payloads, or instruments, on a satellite, because the cost of launch was so high and the launch cadence so low that it was better to have large satellites with a multitude of payload capacity or capability. The instruments themselves were generally made smaller and miniaturized. It wasn’t until the 1990s that NASA decided to change its Mars mission philosophy to “Faster, better, cheaper,” which required smaller satellites to do the faster and cheaper parts. This philosophy didn’t work out as well as expected.

“To this day, there are folks even in NewSpace that still balk at the SHLLV concept.”

To this day, there is no demand for a super heavy lift-launch vehicle. Without demand, nobody wants to invest in one.

Even Starship has yet to inspire many ideas for large-sized payloads that fit only inside its body, and it has not yet inspired ideas for heavy payloads that require such a capable launch vehicle. Starlab is counting on Starship to launch its space station module(s), but off the top of my head I cannot think of anyone else.

“Trucks, ships and planes have increased in size–but for the longest time, rockets stayed in the Delta family payload range.”

There is a maximum reasonable size for everything. We seem to have reached that size for ocean ships, aircraft, and ground vehicles traveling on U.S. roadways. It is possible that Starship is approaching maximum size for an Earth-launched space vehicle.

I think there is not a single 19th-century figure comparable to Elon Musk. Combine Vanderbilt with Edison and you’d at least be in the neighborhood, though you would still be short of the mark.

I don’t think Brunel was the greatest engineer of the 19th century. I would rate both Edison and John Ericsson above him. Ericsson, in particular, had much more long-term influence on the evolution of both commercial and military ships than did Brunel. Our resident blind squirrel, Mr. Wright, has found a rare nut by noting Brunel’s signal violations of Musk’s “the best part is no part” design principle anent the Great Eastern.

wayne,

There was – and still is – a Carnegie Library in my hometown, which was founded as an iron ore transshipment port during the Civil War. Carnegie prioritized towns and cities with connections to the steel industry for his bibliothecaen largesse. The town had a local lumber baron or two, but Carnegie ninja-ed them all anent the library.

Yellowstone was the first park in 1872, then we get a few in the 1890’s, turn-o-century the floodgates were open on “national parks.”
Vanderbilt dies in 1877.
-Railroads were in the process of being over-built when Vanderbilt built his rail empire, and to Robert’s point in his comments, rather than shutter good rail he was determined to find more cargo to fill all his trains. (and then we get JD Rockefeller shipping kerosine by rail which fills the bill until he squeezes Vanderbilt et al by building oil pipelines and by-passing the railroads.)

-National Parks and railroad tourism:
That’s more of a “western thing,'” and I can’t speak too deeply on that, other than to note that the
only cross-country route (of 3) that was constructed without government subsidy, was the Empire Builder route (JHill,)
———-
We do not have a Carnegie Library in my town, only because our Local Lumber Barron(s) had already donated a Library, Hospital, and a School. The town adjacent, does have a Carnegie Library, and their “Local Fruit Barrons” donated the Hospital.
————
Rockefeller court speech
from The Men Who Built America
https://youtu.be/DBrz57sNAc4
2:41

“You call it monopoly; I call it Commerce.”

I despise the one thing railroad barons were praised for—over-extensive parks
https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2017/08/10/railroad-magnates-philanthropists-helped-launch-our-national-parks.

The Audubon types thought it was great–but we need resources locked up away from industry.

It is like Nixon going to China…the one thing he did that met with approval to me is the worst thing he did.
I didn’t care a jot about Watergate. Instead of lying to protect his friends–Clinton had his friends lie to protect himself

“Out of the turmoil of the Civil War, America enters an age of enlightenment that will change the landscape of the country. The growth is driven by five insightful men who will change the world forever.”

“Unless you were home-schooled, you were taught to hate these men based on dubious economic theories expounded by so-called experts who all hated capitalism.”

Brunel’s Great Eastern was the Starship of its day and then some….but that ship was based on the opposite of “the best part is no part” since it had paddlewheels propellors and sails…so more B-36, I suppose.

I think Brunel was the most brilliant engineer of the 19th century (and I am not alone in thinking this!), but I think the problem he ran into with Great Eastern is that he was entering a transportation field (maritime steam propulsion) that was much less mature in 1854 than orbital rocketry was in 2002. Worse, he went in “big,” with the largest vessel ever built, so the risk was even higher. The immaturity of that technology meant that he felt compelled to use two propulsion systems (one screw propeller and two paddle wheels), and using sails as auxiliary power, which was common practice at that time with sea-going steam vessels.* No one had ever made twin screws work consistently yet, let alone at scale.

I think he would have worked it out with screw propulsion even after Great Eastern failed, but his tobacco habit cut his life tragically short before he had the chance.

* For context, the US Navy and Britain’s Royal Navy were just starting to get seriously into steam propulsion at this point in time; but warships which they had built or converted to have steam power plants all used single screws, and they only used the screws as *auxiliary* propulsion, with sailpower still their mainstays. With Great Eastern, it was the other way around.

People had no fear of size then… something space launch had an issue with until recently.

For the longest time in the USA, our philosophy was to miniaturize the payload. The Soviet Chief Designers were actually closer to Brunel in that their approach was “make the rocket bigger.”

R-7 was the result…and now available as an Estes rocket.

To this day, there are folks even in NewSpace that still balk at the SHLLV concept.

Now while I must have my little jokes at Elon’s expense from time to time, I truly appreciate the fact that he understands the need for LV growth.

Trucks, ships and planes have increased in size–but for the longest time, rockets stayed in the Delta family payload range.

This small-mindedness still lives in the heads of many… something hard for Brunel and Elon to overcome.

Vanderbilt was perhaps more of a Warren Buffet of his age, with Brunel more of a visionary like Musk.

But there are a handful of men who anticipate certain aspects of Elon in different ways. Cornelius Vanderbilt is most certainly one of them. He was a great American success story, one who contributed in a very meaningful way to America’s success, too. He deserves to be remembered more than he is.