Transatlantic Tunnel

[diankra]

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.

And if terrorist want to hit a space elevator, all they have to do is read Red Mars to come up with a plan. Talk about massive destruction.

Yep (and I've lost count of the number of other SF books that have used the idea since - Veteran, moiost recently).

But you can always find the sabotage ideas there in fiction: I was blackly amused after 9-11 when Tom Clancy was saying that no-one could have predicted the use of planes as missiles, when his Debt of Honor ends with someone doing exactly that.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I admit that my attitude towards this tunnel is influenced by the fact that I am obsessed with trains (and, to a lesser extent, with all mass transit). I view mass transit as the birthright of everyone who lives in a major city. The thought of being able to take a train - a TRAIN! - from New York to London is just too appealing to pass up.

Especially since air travel is such a pain in the ass. Think of it this way: Do you enjoy flying? Probably not. Flying sucks these days. It's a lot more of a hassle than just getting on a train or subway car, innit? Travelling by train, OTOH, is a lot easier. You just get on the train and go. Wouldn't you prefer a transatlantic trip to be as convenient as train travel? Think about it.

 

[Canadave]

^ Speaking personally, I love flying. Sure it's a little more of a hassle at the airport than at the train station, but it's really not that bad. And while I love travelling by train, as well, it's not quite the same as being 35,000 feet up in the sky.

And while I'm a big supporter of train travel (I've been talking for years about the fact that Canada needs to build HSR), the Transatlantic Tunnel just doesn't make sense. Consider how many billions of dollars it costs to carve out a new subway line in most major cities; now how do you make that work for a 6,000 km tunnel under the ocean?

 

[chardman]

It's a nice dream, but a sub-orbital passenger spaceplane would capture the market for fast transatlantic travel better, and would be less technically difficult and less expensive (though still very pricey) to develop.

It's kind of surprising that Richard Branson hasn't realised the potential of that option rather than the billionaires' fairground attraction that he and Burt Rutan are building. I expect the old objections from Concorde's early days against sonic booms would kill that use case stone dead.

I've got a feeling that the notion of the sub-orbital transatlantic craft is probably the first and foremost reason Branson had for investing in Rutan's spacecraft in the first place. The whole Space Tourism gig is just a way to finance future research in that area.

 

[ConRefit79]

I admit that my attitude towards this tunnel is influenced by the fact that I am obsessed with trains (and, to a lesser extent, with all mass transit). I view mass transit as the birthright of everyone who lives in a major city. The thought of being able to take a train - a TRAIN! - from New York to London is just too appealing to pass up.

Especially since air travel is such a pain in the ass. Think of it this way: Do you enjoy flying? Probably not. Flying sucks these days. It's a lot more of a hassle than just getting on a train or subway car, innit? Travelling by train, OTOH, is a lot easier. You just get on the train and go. Wouldn't you prefer a transatlantic trip to be as convenient as train travel? Think about it.

Yes the security has been checks are low. But the recent terror threats have NY talking about searching Sub passengers. All it will take is a major subway hit and the idiots in DC will have a TSA for them too.

BTW, I rode some bullet trains in Japan in 2009. I was shocked how expensive they were for a guaranteed seat.

 

[diankra]

I admit that my attitude towards this tunnel is influenced by the fact that I am obsessed with trains (and, to a lesser extent, with all mass transit). I view mass transit as the birthright of everyone who lives in a major city. The thought of being able to take a train - a TRAIN! - from New York to London is just too appealing to pass up.

Especially since air travel is such a pain in the ass. Think of it this way: Do you enjoy flying? Probably not. Flying sucks these days. It's a lot more of a hassle than just getting on a train or subway car, innit? Travelling by train, OTOH, is a lot easier. You just get on the train and go. Wouldn't you prefer a transatlantic trip to be as convenient as train travel? Think about it.

See what you mean, but I tend to prefer air travel to rail travel.
That's probably because my dozen or so flights have been rare treats, whereas I spent 10 years commuting into London on over-crowded, over-priced endlessly-delayed cattle track rail services. I'm sure if I'd spent more time on RyanAir, and all trains were as pleasant as the Amtrak I took from New York to Rhode Island, I'd feel differently!

 

[Lindley]

Do you enjoy flying? Probably not. Flying sucks these days.

The major airport experience sucks a bit. That's different than flying itself sucking.

If I could afford to buy my own plane and hangar it at a small GA field with no security beyond a lock on the door, I'd do it in a heartbeat and go everywhere that way. (Well, everywhere nearby----transcontinental I'd still go commercial, because the odds of me being able to afford a bird with that kind of fuel capacity are nil.)

 

[Gary7]

Never going to happen.

I'm not an engineer/architect/whatever, but I highly suspect that it's impossible to build a tunnel across the Atlantic because of the continental plates drifting away from each other. 2cm per year. 20cm in ten years. Vulcanic activity everywhere across the mid-oceanic ridge. 500 degree hot water.

The Channel tunnel is the longest underwater tunnel in the world, altogether 50 km (FIFTY) long, took 6 years to build and cost 16 billion USD (adjusted to inflation). And you want them to build a SIX T H O U S A N D KILOMETER long tunnel across the Atlantic?!

Agreed. This is a good example. The costs in making such a tunnel would be prohibitively expensive. But even more so, what about tectonic shifts in addition to earthquakes/volcanic activities? And what about maintenance? The depths involved would be far too unrealistic to make any sense. Air travel technology keeps getting better. We'll no doubt come up with even safer/faster modes of transport by air, obviating the need for a tunnel. Tunnels are great for short distances only.

 

[Colonel Midnight]

^ Exactly. Not to mention, think of how much a PITA the routine maintenance on the dang thing would be...

'Hey look, there's an air leak at mile #3287!!'
'Hmmm -- okay, I'll be able to get there to fix it in about, ummm, hmmm... two weeks.'

*oy*

Cheers,
-CM-

 

[Gil T.Azell]

What's the point? Who wants to ride 4000km or whatever it is on a train when you can fly especially when it will be ridiculously expensive to build the thing?

Agreed, why do it what with all the instability etc in the world.
and where would they put all the dirt,rocks etc. they had to pull out?

 

[sojourner]

^They would use the dirt and rocks to build a causeway to Hawaii.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

The only downside I can see to a transatlantic tunnel is that you would still have to fly to one of the entry points (assuming you don't live close to New York or London).

 

[farmkid]

Agreed, why do it what with all the instability etc in the world.
and where would they put all the dirt,rocks etc. they had to pull out?

I wondered about this too. If you're actually digging a tunnel, you have to move all the material out through the tunnel you've already dug, which means at some point you'e going to be transporting every load of stuff a couple of thousand miles.

Such a tunnel just wouldn't work. The Channel Tunnel took 6 years and $21 billion to dig a 30 mile tunnel through chalk. (I'm not too sure about that cost figure, but I think that's the cost adjusted to today's dollars.) We just can't dig a tunnel over 100X as long through much harder materials and through the Mid-Atlantic ridge. Even if started today, it still wouldn't be done by the time your great grandchildren died.

The only feasible way is a tunnel suspended underwater as was mentioned earlier. But even then I can't see any benefit over air travel, for reasons stated above.

Another technical question: how would the train be propelled? As I understand it, the tunnel would be evacuated to a vacuum to reduce resistance, and the train would be a mag-lev train. If the train doesn't come in physical contact with the tunnel, it can't use any sort of wheels or anything. If there's no air, it can't use any sort of propeller. A rocket wouldn't really work either because that would fill the vacuum and would probably damage the tunnel.

 

[sojourner]

Maglev is the propulsion.

 

[JarodRussell]

Maglev is the propulsion.

Indeed. And a maglev train in a vaccum... oh wow, that would go fast.

 

[Shatnertage]

What's the point? Who wants to ride 4000km or whatever it is on a train when you can fly especially when it will be ridiculously expensive to build the thing?

Agreed, why do it what with all the instability etc in the world.
and where would they put all the dirt,rocks etc. they had to pull out?

Simple. They would cut holes in their pockets and shake it out every morning in the exercise yard. No one would notice a thing.

 

[Silvercrest]

Schulz! Sound the alarm! No prisoner escapes from Stalag 13!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Do you enjoy flying? Probably not. Flying sucks these days.

The major airport experience sucks a bit. That's different than flying itself sucking.

If I could afford to buy my own plane and hangar it at a small GA field with no security beyond a lock on the door, I'd do it in a heartbeat and go everywhere that way.≈)

The difference is, most airline passengers aren't pilots. To them, the airport experience IS the same as flying. Almost everyone will need to take a plane at some point, but only a select few can actually fly themselves. In any case, it means that most people's sole experience with air travel is the overcrowded, security obsessed, perverted bullshit that passes for airports these days. Avoiding that can only be a good thing, can't it?

(I have never taken Amtrak itself - only NJ Transit and the NYC subways - but I am going to hazard a guess that Amtrak security is not as borderline fascist as what you get at major airports these days.)

 

[Lindley]

The difference is, most airline passengers aren't pilots. To them, the airport experience IS the same as flying. Almost everyone will need to take a plane at some point, but only a select few can actually fly themselves.

True, and the aviation community is lamenting the falling numbers of student pilots. It's not that hard to become a pilot; just a matter of having the time and money. But for some reason not many people bother.

 

[Bisz]

If this tunnel did exist and you could take a train then you can bet your house that the security to get you on the train would infinitely tighter than it is to get you on an airplane - so much for the idea of just "get on and go".

If an airplane crashes people die and a plane that costs millions of dollars is lost, the next day another plane takes its place and does the same rout. If there was an accident on this train in the middle of the Atlantic people would still die but now you would be out billions upon billions in damage and in lost revenue since no trains could follow for months/years while the thing is repaired.