Plus it would be way cooler looking.
Just watch out for space warps.
Transatlantic Tunnel
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
Just watch out for space warps.
They would be if we had anything near the rail system Europe has, but unfortunately, we don't. That means a journey of any significant distance by train is both going to be about 3x longer than the same trip by plane, and God help you if you ever need to *change* trains----layovers of 10 hours are all too common.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
If we took all the worlds bulk carriers, dry cargo vessels, MPP's, container vessels, tankers, LPG's, LNG's and cruise ships and connected them all end to end would they reach from Penzance in Cornwall to New York City?
It would create a spectacular bridge.
It would create a spectacular bridge.
A) The terrorists only need to get a bomb aboard the train. Just like an aerospace plane.
B) Didn't you hear about the chaos on the Channel Tunnel last year when there was a fire on one train, and the evacuation procedures for the other trains caught in the tunnel totally collapsed? In terms of competence in an emergency, it was rougkhly on the same level as the Katrina effort.
Suborbital transport maybe closer than you think..
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1118/1
and a LOT cheaper to develop and build..
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1118/1
and a LOT cheaper to develop and build..
How deep is this thing supposed to be? Water pressure doubles every 33 ft. It's hard enough to build a pressurized shell to withstand this pressure, let alone one with a near vacuum.
No, sorry, the pressure increases by 1 atmosphere for every 10 metres of depth. If it doubled, I think we'd find neutronium in Davy Jones' Locker. So, at 5000 metres, the external pressure would be 500 atmospheres -- the engineering problem would be pretty much the same whether the tube were pressurised to 0 or 1 atmosphere.
And I repeat the length of such a tunnel: 6000 kilometers.
The transatlantic tunnel is - just like Atlantropa or the Space Elevator (or even better, the Earth-Moon Elevator!) - a silly scifi concept that will never be realized, simply because it's much more expensive and impractical than other solutions. I'm pretty certain of that.
The transatlantic tunnel is - just like Atlantropa or the Space Elevator (or even better, the Earth-Moon Elevator!) - a silly scifi concept that will never be realized, simply because it's much more expensive and impractical than other solutions. I'm pretty certain of that.
Last edited:
You're right, it does not double. But I don't think it's 10m. Trying to remember where I got double. I guess I remember from my SCUBA diving class that 33' was 2 atmospheres(atm) and thought it continued to double instead of increase by 1atm / 33' of water. So 0' is 1atm, 33' is 2atm 66' is 3atm.....
Not when you're spanning a whole continent. Trains are most effective in trips of a few hundred miles. After that, the speed advantage of aircraft overtakes any convenience you get from shorter check-ins.
However, I'd debate that a check-in on a train like this would be dramatically shorter than an equivalent flight, since you're going to have to enforce the same kind of customs and security provisions common in airports. About the only thing you're going to get rid of is weather delays.
Right, just as an airplane 20,000 feet up in the air is equally invincible. I mean no terrorist has ever, or will ever take down a flying aircraft in any way.
^ If the Tunnel shouldn't be built just because of the terrorism danger, then by that logic, all planes should be grounded, all skyscrapers should be deconstructed, and all cars should be mothballed. 
Wow, you totally missed the point there. The argument was clearly "neither is safer as both have the same security problem." It also ties into the "you're not going to save time, because TSA will still grab your balls looking for detonators" argument as well.
A space elevator is probably about as costly as continually shooting up chemical rockets at a certain level of payload and cheaper beyond. Neither is very efficient, but the elevator actually has the benefit of using more conventional (and less explosive)ways of motoring things into orbit because it can do it more slowly. Having said that, I don't think there's a material in existence, real or theorized, that can truly hold that kind of stress.
A transatlantic tunnel is just an expensive proposition that delivers no/little benefit over what already exists. It's simply a bad idea.
A space elevator is probably about as costly as continually shooting up chemical rockets at a certain level of payload and cheaper beyond. Neither is very efficient, but the elevator actually has the benefit of using more conventional (and less explosive)ways of motoring things into orbit because it can do it more slowly. Having said that, I don't think there's a material in existence, real or theorized, that can truly hold that kind of stress.
A transatlantic tunnel is just an expensive proposition that delivers no/little benefit over what already exists. It's simply a bad idea.
^Which was why I was pretty vague. Space Elevators are in the "maybe" column. IF we can find a material, and IF it can be produced cheaply, then at X level of space activity (X being proportional to cost of material) an elevator is more economical than rockets. It's possible due to the extreme cost ineffectiveness of rockets. Airplanes and ships, however, are extremely cost effective (they are, in fact, the most cost effective methods of travel man has developed) and compared to a tunnel require a lot less infrastructure made from a lot less exotic materials.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I was under the impression that carbon nano-tubes (which do exist) would be strong enough to build a space elevator. At least that's what "they've" been telling us in news articles.
No way to tell how well nanotubes will hold up when scaled to macroscoptic sizes, or how much it will cost. Not to mention how well macroscopic materials would hold up in a high radiation environment like the van allen belts.
They're also, like all nanotechnology, hella toxic.
Honestly, an airship first stage would probably be more feasible, and just as cost effective as an elevator, and could be built with conventional materials.
They're also, like all nanotechnology, hella toxic.
Honestly, an airship first stage would probably be more feasible, and just as cost effective as an elevator, and could be built with conventional materials.
^ If the Tunnel shouldn't be built just because of the terrorism danger, then by that logic, all planes should be grounded, all skyscrapers should be deconstructed, and all cars should be mothballed.
Ratio of eggs to baskets: if you destroy a plane, the other planes in the air aren't affected and can get to safety, though they might be grounded until the authorities decide on a response.
Blow up the tunnel, and you, at best, have to evacuate the queue of trains already en route (again, see the Eurotunnel fiasco last year), and at worst, you lose the tunnel and every vehicle in it (again, check out the problems caused by a fire in the main tunnel under the Alps a few years ago. THe closure was econimically devastating for the region).
Similar threads
