Transoceanic Train Construction (split from airplanes thread)

[jake williams]

You do realize that building train bridges across the ocean would be a virtually impossible ask, right?
Nope.

http://www.thevenusproject.com/

http://americanbuilt.us/images/jacque-fresco/maglev-train.jpg

They have concept art dude. Concept art.

[praxis1966]

lol Yeah? What happens when a category 5 hurricane hits those tracks?

[Dr Mindbender]

lol Yeah? What happens when a category 5 hurricane hits those tracks?

This is why we need no frills space flight.

I cant even begin to think about the enormous moment forces exerted on that thing around the centre...


Enough is enough, ive had it with these motherfucking classes on this motherfucking plane.

..im about to open some windows .

Quality, wish i spotted that Samuel L reference opportunity :D

[Dr Mindbender]

Yeah, tunnels would be a better choice.

I see 2 engineering problems with this-

1- first and foremost, the ENORMOUS pressure exerted by ocean bodies and the ocean floor upon which they reside. Look how long it took to tunnel under the English channel. What more if we're talking about the atlantic?

2- Techtonic plate movements. How can you build a tunnel across 2 bodies that dont remain static relative to each other?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I see 2 engineering problems with this-

1- first and foremost, the ENORMOUS pressure exerted by ocean bodies and the ocean floor upon which they reside. Look how long it took to tunnel under the English channel. What more if we're talking about the atlantic?

I wasn't aware that pressure was the issue per se, it was more a case of the surrounding rock/soil/whatever not being strong enough to support channel tunnel-sized holes in it.

In any case, the tunnel doesn't always have to be underground, some designs call for a tunnel floating under the water far enough not to get hit by ships or subs, but tethered to the sea floor to prevent undue drift and flexing.

I'm not sure which design has a better "failure mode", in other words what kind of design fares better when they go wrong.


2- Techtonic plate movements. How can you build a tunnel across 2 bodies that dont remain static relative to each other?

The tectonic plates may move, but they move predictably. This can be accounted for in design; just multiply the average distances that a tectonic plate is expected to move relative to the other (wiki tells me 2.5cm) by the expected working lifetime of the project (100 years? 200 years? I'm completely guessing), and that gives us a maximum distance of 5 metres. I think that kind of stretching can be incorporated into a design that going to be thousands of kilometres long at least.


Whoa that plane design is pretty cool. Thing is though plane flights dont last as long as ship voyages so you're not really gonna need a gymnaseum barbershop etc are you.. unless you wanted it to stay flying round the world for weeks at once, but that would just be fucking decadent lol

42 hours is nearly 2 days, that's plenty long enough to get a haircut, go to the gym, and see a movie. That's also just for an Atlantic crossing, it could take twice as long to cross the Pacific from say, Tokyo to Los Angeles.

[Comrade J]

I see 2 engineering problems with this-

1- first and foremost, the ENORMOUS pressure exerted by ocean bodies and the ocean floor upon which they reside. Look how long it took to tunnel under the English channel. What more if we're talking about the atlantic?

2- Techtonic plate movements. How can you build a tunnel across 2 bodies that dont remain static relative to each other?

And #3 - Even if you found a way to combat the fault line (maybe a very wide chamber as has been suggested for other, shorter tunnels across fault lines), if you wanna build under the Atlantic then you'd have to start the tunnel off at ground level in each country, and then tunnel about 13,000 feet because down because the Atlantic is extremely deep. It'd be an immense pressure change to deal with in such a short space of time.

Basically it is impossible. The tunnel would have to be just phenomenally thick to withstand the pressure as you said, it would take a century to build and cost trillions. It would also take several days to drive from Europe to the US so you'd have to have rest stops. A bridge or sub-surface tunnel would be more feasible, but even then it's ludicrous, as you'd have to have support structures which drop several miles down.

[Dr Mindbender]

Basically it is impossible. The tunnel would have to be just phenomenally thick to withstand the pressure as you said, it would take a century to build and cost trillions. It would also take several days to drive from Europe to the US so you'd have to have rest stops. A bridge or sub-surface tunnel would be more feasible, but even then it's ludicrous, as you'd have to have support structures which drop several miles down.

i was thinking rather than users driving through in their own cars, the tunnel would host a super fast bullet train that can travel super fast. The problem with that is a surface based vehicle travelling across thousands of miles in any sort of reasonable time would undergo tremendous g-forces. Far more than the average person could endure. So any bullet train tunnel would only be suitable for experienced astronauts and fighter pilots.

[Dr Mindbender]

Only way i can see this atlantic tunnel working would be to build it to avoid the deep trenches.. So from Scotland, to Iceland to Greenland to Canada. I guess that solves the 'rest stops problem' however i dont think that solves the tectonics problem. Either way, i'm left asking would you really want to be stuck in one of these things during a tsunami?

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d139/subzero2006/natlantc.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And #3 - Even if you found a way to combat the fault line (maybe a very wide chamber as has been suggested for other, shorter tunnels across fault lines), if you wanna build under the Atlantic then you'd have to start the tunnel off at ground level in each country, and then tunnel about 13,000 feet because down because the Atlantic is extremely deep. It'd be an immense pressure change to deal with in such a short space of time.

That really depends on how steeply and how quickly one is going down.


Basically it is impossible.

I hate it when people say things like this without showing their work.


The tunnel would have to be just phenomenally thick to withstand the pressure as you said,

The thickness required would depend on the material strength as well as other factors. Let's not forget that a tube is a self-reinforcing structure, so the requirements might not seem as bad as they at first appear.


it would take a century to build and cost trillions.

You know this because... ?


It would also take several days to drive from Europe to the US so you'd have to have rest stops.

I've always understood that the tunnel would be high-speed rail (possibly maglev) only.


A bridge or sub-surface tunnel would be more feasible, but even then it's ludicrous, as you'd have to have support structures which drop several miles down.

Or you could design the bridges/tunnels to float or have neutral buoyancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_buoyancy) and then tether them in place. Each segment would be held in place by multiple redundant wires/cables/chains anchored to the ocean bottom. Such a design can deal with much deeper depths than solid arches or columns, and would serve to give the whole structure the flexibility it needs to survive in a constantly moving ocean environment - you can think of it as building in a constant earthquake zone.


i was thinking rather than users driving through in their own cars, the tunnel would host a super fast bullet train that can travel super fast. The problem with that is a surface based vehicle travelling across thousands of miles in any sort of reasonable time would undergo tremendous g-forces. Far more than the average person could endure. So any bullet train tunnel would only be suitable for experienced astronauts and fighter pilots.

The entire tunnel would be thousands of kilometres long - this is plenty of distance to accelerate and decelerate at comfortable rates.


Only way i can see this atlantic tunnel working would be to build it to avoid the deep trenches.

Why not just extend the tunnel over the gap?


So from Scotland, to Iceland to Greenland to Canada. I guess that solves the 'rest stops problem' however i dont think that solves the tectonics problem.

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d139/subzero2006/natlantc.gif

The tectonics should be a non-issue because Iceland is on the plate boundary and your tunnel entrances should be on opposite coasts to take advantage of that fact.

[Dr Mindbender]

Why not just extend the tunnel over the gap?


2 reasons-

Firstly the work team would be subject to the enormous pressure involved in a deep ocean environment , and secondly so would the tunnel itself, over extended periods of time it would eventually succumb to fatigue. At present there is only a handful of submersible craft even capable of VISITING the bottom of the ocean for a modest period of time let alone doing any serious engineering work down there over an extensive period of time.
If we're talking about tethering the tunnel to the ocean floor with chains or cables The task of engineering the craft and extra vehicular suits for the task will be as momentous a feat as the task itself.

Lest we forget the cost of this project. I would rather see the money being spent on space, putting a permanent colony on the Moon and Mars.

[praxis1966]

It would also take several days to drive from Europe to the US so you'd have to have rest stops.

Meh Maglev trains like the one pictured up above go pretty frickin' fast... They have one in Japan IIRC that goes about 200 MPH (320 KPH).


A bridge or sub-surface tunnel would be more feasible, but even then it's ludicrous, as you'd have to have support structures which drop several miles down.

That'd have to be the way to go. It's the way the Transbay Tube, which provides rapid mass transit to between San Francisco proper and the East San Francisco Bay Area, is constructed. We're on one hell of an earthquake zone out here and the tube fastened to the bottom of the bay rather than actually bored into bedrock seems to have worked OK. Of course, compared to the pressure in the Atlantic Ocean, the pressure in San Francisco Bay ain't shit. At any rate, I think the good people over at the Venus Project would say that we have yet to conceive of the improvements in alloys and such which would provide the structural integrity necessary to withstand the kinds of surface pressure we're talking about here.

BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) System Map:

http://www.bart.gov/images/global/system-map29.gif

Info on the Transbay Tube: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Tube



Also, since this is now waaayyy off topic, I think I'm going to split it from the original thread. Any objections?

[∞]

So I see everyone here has had their BA in engineering...

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

2 reasons-

Firstly the work team would be subject to the enormous pressure involved in a deep ocean environment,

You've never heard of submarines? Or robots?

That's part of what I think should be the whole point of Überprojekts such as this. Figuring out the challenges involved in deep-ocean construction with such an ambitious design that we can be justifiably proud, should be one of the signatures of a materially wealthy post-capitalist society. It would be a very public and powerful demonstration of the wealth and skill engendered by human unity.


and secondly so would the tunnel itself, over extended periods of time it would eventually succumb to fatigue.

Maybe the joints would need repair/replacement as they wear out, but the tunnel sections themselves would be experience more or less constant pressure.


At present there is only a handful of submersible craft even capable of VISITING the bottom of the ocean for a modest period of time let alone doing any serious engineering work down there over an extensive period of time.

Maybe that can be our first project?


If we're talking about tethering the tunnel to the ocean floor with chains or cables The task of engineering the craft and extra vehicular suits for the task will be as momentous a feat as the task itself.

And a transatlantic tunnel would not be the only kind of engineering task to benefit from such developments. It's not like the Apollo project provided mountains of scientific data and practical experience or anything.


Lest we forget the cost of this project. I would rather see the money being spent on space, putting a permanent colony on the Moon and Mars.

We have a potentially infinite supply of money. What matters is, do we have the resources? This includes the requisite skills as well as raw materials. If not, how do we go about acquiring them?

I'm certainly willing to wait until our supply lines extend beyond the surface of the Earth before embarking on projects of this scale, but depending on the trajectory of extraterrestrial development, that may come before permanent and/or self-sufficient extraterrestrial settlement.


Also, since this is now waaayyy off topic, I think I'm going to split it from the original thread. Any objections?

None.

[Rooster]

Wouldn't it just be easier to dig a tunnel and use gravity to fall down it and then use it again to slow you down from the other side?

[praxis1966]

Wouldn't it just be easier to dig a tunnel and use gravity to fall down it and then use it again to slow you down from the other side?

I don't have the training to even begin to calculate whether or not something like that is feasible, but my instinct tells me that you'd need at least some sort of propulsion system given the vast distances we're talking about covering.

[Rooster]

I don't have the training to even begin to calculate whether or not something like that is feasible, but my instinct tells me that you'd need at least some sort of propulsion system given the vast distances we're talking about covering.

I'm sure I read this in a paper. If you're cutting through the circumference of the earth, especially if you're talking like London to New York, you would be falling down at one end and then up the other. If that makes sense. I'll look this up to see if I actually read it or just day dreamed it.

[Rooster]

Yup, I didn't just imagine it (if I did then that might make me a genius).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842469,00.html

Hmm, that was a pretty interesting thought experiment. Although I think a Vactrain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vactrain) might be a better option (which I think the article was expressing but in a more theoretical tone), even if it's still ludicrous.

[Comrade J]

Haha this definitely needed splitting into a new thread. Only on Revleft can a thread about classes on planes then lead into an alternative of a tunnel across the ocean. :lol:


That really depends on how steeply and how quickly one is going down.

And one would be going down pretty quickly and pretty steeply. Even if you avoid the mid-Atlantic range and come up in Canada as proposed in the map Dr Mindbender posted, you'd have have several massive problems.

1. You'd have to go over Greenland, which is covered in ice-sheets. Do you realise the impracticalities of building a railway on an ice-sheet? It grows, melts, changes flow etc.
2. Off the East coast of Canada is the Laurentian abyss, it's thousands of metres deep and hot at the bottom, so the tunnel would have to plummet severely downwards out of Greenland and then up again after it's passed under the abyss.
3. Nobody wants to go to Canada or Scotland. With all due respect to these remarkable places, the idea of any such tunnel would be to get people quickly between massive population zones in Europe and the US Eastern seaboard. People might as well fly rather than drive from London to Scotland and then Newfoundland to New York.


I hate it when people say things like this without showing their work.I'd accept this as a valid criticism if you'd actually shown how it was possible first.


The thickness required would depend on the material strength as well as other factors. Let's not forget that a tube is a self-reinforcing structure, so the requirements might not seem as bad as they at first appear.With all due respect Noxion (I like a lot of your posts so none of this is personal), that is an immensely vague statement. The pressure of the water in the hadalpelagic zone, the very bottom of the Atlantic where the trenches lie is around 8 tonnes per square inch. That is an incredible force on the seabed, and even then you're having to dig several hundred metres under that, imagine how compacted that rock is going to be, not to mention the fact that it's volcanic with various magma vents and chambers.


You know this because... ?Even a half-arsed assessment would show this to be the case. We are talking a tunnel MILES under the surface of the Atlantic ocean, that is about 3500 miles long, with the pressures I just mentioned. Comparibly, the channel tunnel from England to France is a mere 250 feet deep and is just 24 miles long, yet it took 6 years to build and cost (in today's currency) £11 billion. Also it was built by humans who could actually go down there and do it (10 of whom died) - with robots it would take such a long time that I can't even calculate how long, I don't think a century is even close to being over-ambitious. Even in a post-capitalist society, such a tunnel under the Atlantic seabed is just out of the question.


I've always understood that the tunnel would be high-speed rail (possibly maglev) only.Fair point, and I can accept that a sub-surface tunnel is more feasible in that it is actually possible in some way, but there is still the issue of currents in opposite directions, and you would still need maintenance sections along the way, as well as stations to monitor pressures and the electronics involved to control sealed doors along the route. The reason for this would be if there was a collision/leakage at any point, to seal the doors behinds the train. The problem would be if this happened in front of the train, in which case it would never be able to slow down on time and would slam into the barrier at Mach 4 or whatever speed it would travel at.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

And one would be going down pretty quickly and pretty steeply.

How steeply? How quickly? Remember that you're crossing an entire ocean, so it's not like you've not got a lot of space to play with.


Even if you avoid the mid-Atlantic range and come up in Canada as proposed in the map Dr Mindbender posted, you'd have have several massive problems.

I'm not so fond of that plan. It takes what I feel to be an unnecessary detour, and the prospect of driving over Iceland, Greenland and Canada in winter breaks me out in a cold sweat.


I'd accept this as a valid criticism if you'd actually shown how it was possible first.

What physical laws would a transatlantic tunnel break? None so far as I can tell. It's entirely a matter of engineering. We know all the basic principles involved and what kind of materials we would need, all that is lacking is the resources and impetus.


With all due respect Noxion (I like a lot of your posts so none of this is personal), that is an immensely vague statement.

So is, and I quote, "phenomenally thick".


The pressure of the water in the hadalpelagic zone, the very bottom of the Atlantic where the trenches lie is around 8 tonnes per square inch. That is an incredible force on the seabed, and even then you're having to dig several hundred metres under that, imagine how compacted that rock is going to be, not to mention the fact that it's volcanic with various magma vents and chambers.

Pressure is definately an issue, but I fail to see how this makes the task "impossible", any more than the 19th century's lack of a liquid-fueled chemical rocket made it impossible to land on the Moon. Not to mention it's also a problem with graduations - if technology is insufficient to provide tunnels capable of withstanding 8 tons of pressure per square inch, but everything else is sufficient, then you go for the neutrally-buoyant tethered-tunnel design, which can be deployed at much higher depths than the completely-underground design.

This also happens to deal with the "magma" problem quite nicely as well.


Even a half-arsed assessment would show this to be the case. We are talking a tunnel MILES under the surface of the Atlantic ocean, that is about 3500 miles long, with the pressures I just mentioned. Comparibly, the channel tunnel from England to France is a mere 250 feet deep and is just 24 miles long, yet it took 6 years to build and cost (in today's currency) £11 billion. Also it was built by humans who could actually go down there and do it (10 of whom died) - with robots it would take such a long time that I can't even calculate how long, I don't think a century is even close to being over-ambitious. Even in a post-capitalist society, such a tunnel under the Atlantic seabed is just out of the question.

Even if your back-of-the-envelope calculation were close to the mark, "expensive" is not the same thing as "impossible". Also like I mentioned, I think measuring things in dollar cost isn't exactly helpful considering the infinite elasticity of money itself.


Fair point, and I can accept that a sub-surface tunnel is more feasible in that it is actually possible in some way, but there is still the issue of currents in opposite directions, and you would still need maintenance sections along the way, as well as stations to monitor pressures and the electronics involved to control sealed doors along the route. The reason for this would be if there was a collision/leakage at any point, to seal the doors behinds the train. The problem would be if this happened in front of the train, in which case it would never be able to slow down on time and would slam into the barrier at Mach 4 or whatever speed it would travel at.

That's why you have multiple diverse points of failure, so that the kind of catastrophic accidents like you mention don't happen, except possibly through deliberate sabotage (I include the withdrawal of adequate maintenance under that rubric).

[Salyut]

Suborbital would be cheaper and require less investment; and would lead to the development of an aerospace infrastructure that'd make space access a hell of a lot cheaper.

FedEx and UPS have apparently run internal studies on suborbital package delivery. Just sayin'.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I've always thought that they should build a big bridge from Alaska to the Diomedes to Siberia, so then you could (theoretically) take a train from Europe all the way to Chile.

[praxis1966]

Suborbital would be cheaper and require less investment; and would lead to the development of an aerospace infrastructure that'd make space access a hell of a lot cheaper.

FedEx and UPS have apparently run internal studies on suborbital package delivery. Just sayin'.

I think that's why Noxion started talking about a post-capitalist society as a necessity for this sort of thing. That would obviously eliminate monetary concerns.


Haha this definitely needed splitting into a new thread. Only on Revleft can a thread about classes on planes then lead into an alternative of a tunnel across the ocean. :lol:

Yeah, and I'm partially to blame as well. I was the one that addressed the original comment about trains... Some fucking mod I am, lmao.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Wouldn't it just be easier to dig a tunnel and use gravity to fall down it and then use it again to slow you down from the other side?

Ah yes, the Gravity Express (http://www.damninteresting.com/the-gravity-express/). Somehow I think the challenges involved in maintaining a stable tunnel that goes through the even more extreme pressure and heat of the Earth's mantle are far more significant than that of a transatlantic tunnel.

On the other hand...


Suborbital would be cheaper and require less investment; and would lead to the development of an aerospace infrastructure that'd make space access a hell of a lot cheaper.

I can definitely understand sub-orbital airliners that make the Concorde look like a boxkite being built before any transoceanic tunnel.


FedEx and UPS have apparently run internal studies on suborbital package delivery. Just sayin'.

I wonder what provisions they made for an object's delicacy?


I've always thought that they should build a big bridge from Alaska to the Diomedes to Siberia, so then you could (theoretically) take a train from Europe all the way to Chile.

Same here. It could be part of something larger, such as the Trans Global Highway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_Global_Highway), but for high-speed trains.


I think that's why Noxion started talking about a post-capitalist society as a necessity for this sort of thing. That would obviously eliminate monetary concerns.

That's actually given me an idea for another reason why it would take a post-capitalist society to build something like that; the payoff is propagandistic and empirical rather than monetary.

[Comrade J]

How steeply? How quickly? Remember that you're crossing an entire ocean, so it's not like you've not got a lot of space to play with.

It drops pretty swiftly on the UK side; also as I said there is the abyss by Canada, though on the other hand they have more free surface to begin the tunnel's descent in.


I'm not so fond of that plan. It takes what I feel to be an unnecessary detour, and the prospect of driving over Iceland, Greenland and Canada in winter breaks me out in a cold sweat.Well it's very much a necessary detour - otherwise you're going under the mid-Atlantic range, which is constantly being thrusted upwards by volcanic and tectonic activity. Good luck and goodbye to anybody who tries to build a tunnel there.


What physical laws would a transatlantic tunnel break? None so far as I can tell. It's entirely a matter of engineering. We know all the basic principles involved and what kind of materials we would need, all that is lacking is the resources and impetus.Go on then, what sort of materials do we need to support 8 tonnes per inch of pressure? Also, what robot technology is there that can actually dig such a distance whilst under this pressure, as well as install said materials accurately? No humans could do this, and we're not even close to any such technology, it's all purely hypothethical. It's so easy to say "one day technology-X will be developed" but then you can use the same argument to talk about how we could then build a ladder to the sun.


So is, and I quote, "phenomenally thick".I actually choked on my fag laughing :lol: Fair point well made.
What I meant is that it'd have to be very thick and well-supported to support such pressure, but I'm not a mathematician so cannot calculate how thick a certain material would have to be to support it. But it is immediately obvious that it'd have to be considerably so.


Pressure is definately an issue, but I fail to see how this makes the task "impossible", any more than the 19th century's lack of a liquid-fueled chemical rocket made it impossible to land on the Moon. Pressure is definitely an issue, and moreso than the 19th century's lack of rocket fuel as a barrier to going to the moon. Pressure here is the principle issue. It's not just something we can work around really, it is just a physical impossibility that a human being - or in fact any animal with bones and internal gases - could descend to such depths, unless in a vessel and even then that technology is currently very "basic". Water is 1300 times denser than air, and for every 10 metres of depth you descend, that is the equivalent of one atmosphere. In A Short History of Nearly Everything, an absolutely wonderful history of science by Bill Bryson, he writes that if you were to climb the ~150 metres to say, the top of the Cologne Cathedral or the Washington Monument, you're of course fine. However, do the same distance downwards into the ocean and "your veins would collapse and your lungs would compress to the approximate dimensions of a coke can".


Not to mention it's also a problem with graduations - if technology is insufficient to provide tunnels capable of withstanding 8 tons of pressure per square inch, but everything else is sufficient, then you go for the neutrally-buoyant tethered-tunnel design, which can be deployed at much higher depths than the completely-underground design.

Indeed, like I said it's the only remotely feasible option.


This also happens to deal with the "magma" problem quite nicely as well.Why the quotation of "magma"?


Even if your back-of-the-envelope calculation were close to the mark, "expensive" is not the same thing as "impossible". Also like I mentioned, I think measuring things in dollar cost isn't exactly helpful considering the infinite elasticity of money itself.Sure, but even in a post-capitalist society, it can't just be a free-for-all on building stuff because there is no need for capital expenditure. It is still decade after decade after decade of work hours of the world's greatest engineers, fuel usage for the extremely robust yet somehow easily manoeuvrable robots that can dig tunnels under extreme pressure in hard rock and then accurately install the materials, and so on. Also there is the practicality of it - nobody really needs such a tunnel, especially from Scotland to Canada. But even if they did, like I said it's just not possible, or the risk assessment of something going wrong in terms of tectonic shift or magma eruption etc would mean it could not even be attempted.


That's why you have multiple diverse points of failure, so that the kind of catastrophic accidents like you mention don't happen, except possibly through deliberate sabotage (I include the withdrawal of adequate maintenance under that rubric).Sabotage, unusual vibration frequencies, submarine crashes, tidal waves, volcanoes. You would definitely have to have sealing points along the route that could prevent water rushing in to the entire tunnel if there was a leak.

[jake williams]

I should probably clarify that of course I don't think transoceanic trains are impossible in principal, and in the long run we'll probably have them, unless we find some much better way to do air travel, which we could.

But in the short/medium term they pose pretty massive engineering barriers, not to mention the costs.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It drops pretty swiftly on the UK side; also as I said there is the abyss by Canada, though on the other hand they have more free surface to begin the tunnel's descent in.

I realise that Google Maps may have limitations, but bear with me here.

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/2930/atlanticcrossing001.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/43/atlanticcrossing001.png/)

This was the straightest, shortest route I could find that was reasonably close to civilisation on both ends , and which didn't careen straight over the tallest edges of the continental shelves. Also, assuming the tethered design, the descent of the tunnel does not have to exactly follow that of the seafloor.


Well it's very much a necessary detour - otherwise you're going under the mid-Atlantic range, which is constantly being thrusted upwards by volcanic and tectonic activity.

Upwards? If that were true, then there'd be a long skinny island down the middle of the Atlantic.

In any case, I've already addressed the tectonic movement issue (it is minor). A kink in the route can be added if it turns out my proposed one passes through an aggressive volcano patch.


Good luck and goodbye to anybody who tries to build a tunnel there.

Saying stuff like that just makes me more enthusiastic. If enough people say it, I might actually consider trying to become an engineer.


Go on then, what sort of materials do we need to support 8 tonnes per inch of pressure?

Cheap diamondoid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamondoid)-based materials. These are also the subject of study in relation to molecular nanotechnology (http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=2546). Diamondoids are made from common carbon, so it's a matter of getting good enough at the techniques to mass manufacture them to specific shapes, rather than material scarcity like titanium.


Also, what robot technology is there that can actually dig such a distance whilst under this pressure, as well as install said materials accurately? No humans could do this, and we're not even close to any such technology, it's all purely hypothethical. It's so easy to say "one day technology-X will be developed" but then you can use the same argument to talk about how we could then build a ladder to the sun.

Would it be beyond the pale to suggest a specialised digging machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boring_machine) that lays tunnel as it goes? It might make more sense if we were planning to build more than one tunnel, but otherwise I will admit that might be one extra sub-project too far (but then again, that depends on how good we are at tunnelling by the time we get around to it, if we do).

As for the ladder to the sun, I don't see why one would want to take such a slow route there. A maglev bridge to the Moon, however....


I actually choked on my fag laughing :lol: Fair point well made.
What I meant is that it'd have to be very thick and well-supported to support such pressure, but I'm not a mathematician so cannot calculate how thick a certain material would have to be to support it. But it is immediately obvious that it'd have to be considerably so.

Or the material could be highly resistant to compression, like diamondoids.


Pressure is definitely an issue, and moreso than the 19th century's lack of rocket fuel as a barrier to going to the moon. Pressure here is the principle issue. It's not just something we can work around really, it is just a physical impossibility that a human being - or in fact any animal with bones and internal gases - could descend to such depths, unless in a vessel and even then that technology is currently very "basic". Water is 1300 times denser than air, and for every 10 metres of depth you descend, that is the equivalent of one atmosphere. In A Short History of Nearly Everything, an absolutely wonderful history of science by Bill Bryson, he writes that if you were to climb the ~150 metres to say, the top of the Cologne Cathedral or the Washington Monument, you're of course fine. However, do the same distance downwards into the ocean and "your veins would collapse and your lungs would compress to the approximate dimensions of a coke can".

You seem to be under the impression that the tunnel's interior won't be pressurised, or in this case depressurised relative to the surrounding environment. Whatever gave you that impression?


Indeed, like I said it's the only remotely feasible option.

Why the quotation of "magma"?

Because I doubt your implication that the entire length of the mid-Atlantic ridge is a smouldering hive of vulcanological activity. Sure there are hot spots (one of them's called Iceland), and if you dig too deep around there you have a greater chance than anywhere else of getting a faceful of molten rock, but my general impression of mid-oceanic trenches like the one running down the Atlantic is that what emerges is mainly solid rock. Moving very slowly.


Sure, but even in a post-capitalist society, it can't just be a free-for-all on building stuff because there is no need for capital expenditure. It is still decade after decade after decade of work hours of the world's greatest engineers, fuel usage for the extremely robust yet somehow easily manoeuvrable robots that can dig tunnels under extreme pressure in hard rock and then accurately install the materials, and so on.

That's why I didn't suggest we build such a thing until we had reliable supply lines to the rest of the Solar system. Just because I'd like a thing done doesn't mean I don't recognise the sort of thing we need to do first.

As an expression of our surplus wealth it would serve us pretty poorly if we were to impoverish ourselves in the attempt.


Also there is the practicality of it - nobody really needs such a tunnel, especially from Scotland to Canada. But even if they did, like I said it's just not possible, or the risk assessment of something going wrong in terms of tectonic shift or magma eruption etc would mean it could not even be attempted.

I'm sorry, but I really have a problem with your use of "impossible" or "not possible", at least without suitable qualifiers.

I accept that a profit-oriented society would look at the costs and pale. I accept that we do not (yet) have the technology to even begin something like this. I also accept the possibility that a more risk-averse society, no matter the economics, would also shrink back.

What I can't accept is that a high-tech, materially abundant classless society, who've perhaps solved some serious problems along the way, with all the time in the world to go with it, would not have a shred of magnificence in its collective soul.


Sabotage, unusual vibration frequencies, submarine crashes, tidal waves, volcanoes. You would definitely have to have sealing points along the route that could prevent water rushing in to the entire tunnel if there was a leak.

I always imagined the design to be inherently segmented, with sealing doors at each end, at least the tethered part. That would lend itself well to compartmentalisation, and the parts needed could be manufactured in bulk.

[Manic Impressive]

When we abolish money it won't be a problem ever again. I'm not really qualified to speak about this but I think it would work but only with some form of rail. I don't see why it would have to be a tunnel underground. It could be suspended in mid ocean with buoyancy aids or just above sea level with wind breakers built either side to counteract the effects of strong winds. I know Noxion has said most of this but i thought I'd add my two pence worth.

[praxis1966]

It could be suspended in mid ocean with buoyancy aids or just above sea level with wind breakers built either side to counteract the effects of strong winds.

To me that seems like the most logistically feasible. The problem is I would have to wonder how much it would affect a gravity based propulsion system (basically, think of the way a roller coaster works and you're in the ballpark). Would there be enough down slope to maintain momentum? Or would some kind of auxiliary system need to be installed, like maglevs or vacuum?

As an aside, I was just musing about what form such a buoyancy system might take. The obvious comes to mind in the form of external flotation devices of some kind firstly. However, I'm not so sure that would be the most workable solution what with whales, icebergs and other random shit floating around out there... So I suppose my little contribution to Noxion's grand vision would be that the tubes be maintained in a state of "neutral buoyancy" in the same way submarines do through the use of ballast and trim tanks... Of course, a submarine's ability to stay level at cruising depth is motion dependent, but there's no reason intake turbines couldn't be installed in order to keep an influx of water into the trim tanks.



To control its buoyancy, the submarine has ballast tanks and auxiliary, or trim tanks, that can be alternately filled with water or air (see animation below). When the submarine is on the surface, the ballast tanks are filled with air and the submarine's overall density is less than that of the surrounding water. As the submarine dives, the ballast tanks are flooded with water and the air in the ballast tanks is vented from the submarine until its overall density is greater than the surrounding water and the submarine begins to sink (negative buoyancy). A supply of compressed air is maintained aboard the submarine in air flasks for life support and for use with the ballast tanks. In addition, the submarine has movable sets of short "wings" called hydroplanes on the stern (back) that help to control the angle of the dive. The hydroplanes are angled so that water moves over the stern, which forces the stern upward; therefore, the submarine is angled downward.


To keep the submarine level at any set depth, the submarine maintains a balance of air and water in the trim tanks so that its overall density is equal to the surrounding water (neutral buoyancy). When the submarine reaches its cruising depth, the hydroplanes are leveled so that the submarine travels level through the water. Water is also forced between the bow and stern trim tanks to keep the sub level.


By the way, there's a neat little flash animation on the site that I got this from which demonstrates the principle nicely... Check it out: http://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/engines-equipment/submarine1.htm

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

To me that seems like the most logistically feasible. The problem is I would have to wonder how much it would affect a gravity based propulsion system (basically, think of the way a roller coaster works and you're in the ballpark). Would there be enough down slope to maintain momentum? Or would some kind of auxiliary system need to be installed, like maglevs or vacuum?

The train would need to be propelled with something other than gravity. You're thinking of the Gravity Express. Despite the massive depths involved, relative to the rest of the Earth a transoceanic tunnel would pretty much follow the curvature of the Earth, whereas a Gravity Express train would actually have to intersect with the Earth's mantle.

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/Image2.jpg

The oceans are deep, but not that deep.


As an aside, I was just musing about what form such a buoyancy system might take. The obvious comes to mind in the form of external flotation devices of some kind firstly. However, I'm not so sure that would be the most workable solution what with whales, icebergs and other random shit floating around out there... So I suppose my little contribution to Noxion's grand vision would be that the tubes be maintained in a state of "neutral buoyancy" in the same way submarines do through the use of ballast and trim tanks... Of course, a submarine's ability to stay level at cruising depth is motion dependent, but there's no reason intake turbines couldn't be installed in order to keep an influx of water into the trim tanks.

Why even go for something as complicated as turbines? There's no big rush, I'd prefer a simpler system (less chance of breaking) even if it means the tube sections have to ascend and descend more slowly during construction. Even if the tethers are adjustable there's no need to do it at warp speed.

[praxis1966]

The train would need to be propelled with something other than gravity.

Right, basically I'm in agreement with you on this point.


Why even go for something as complicated as turbines?

I wasn't suggesting that as a way of getting the tubes to depth. I was saying that the same principle could be applied in order to maintain neutral buoyancy once they're down there and affixed to the ocean floor. (This is operating under the assumption that the tubes would be best served suspended off the seafloor.) That way, the whole unit could be self contained once it's down there and it doesn't have a bunch of shit (buoys) hanging off the sides of it. The turbines wouldn't have to be big, just large enough to induct water into trim tanks.

Obviously, you wouldn't need to "propel" them downward during the construction process.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Will it have freight cars we can jump on

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Right, basically I'm in agreement with you on this point.

Cool.


I wasn't suggesting that as a way of getting the tubes to depth. I was saying that the same principle could be applied in order to maintain neutral buoyancy once they're down there and affixed to the ocean floor. (This is operating under the assumption that the tubes would be best served suspended off the seafloor.) That way, the whole unit could be self contained once it's down there and it doesn't have a bunch of shit (buoys) hanging off the sides of it. The turbines wouldn't have to be big, just large enough to induct water into trim tanks.

Obviously, you wouldn't need to "propel" them downward during the construction process.

Fair enough, I was just thinking there might be a better way of selectively admitting water in and out of the trim tanks. I'm not sure whether traditional turbine designs would cut it at the kind of depths the tube might be submerged at.

[praxis1966]

Fair enough, I was just thinking there might be a better way of selectively admitting water in and out of the trim tanks. I'm not sure whether traditional turbine designs would cut it at the kind of depths the tube might be submerged at.

Now that I'm forced to think about it, wouldn't the exterior water pressure enough? Some kind of computer controlled, beefed up two-way valve might be sufficient. Turbines were just a first thought since as I understand them, the trim tanks on submarines are passive. They only function as a result of the ship's outboard propulsion system.


Will it have freight cars we can jump on

lol I don't see why freight wouldn't be moved by such a system... Of course, a lot of this discussion is revolving around the assumption of a post-capitalist society, so I don't see the reason for "hoboing." :lol:

[Comrade J]

I realise that Google Maps may have limitations, but bear with me here.

This was the straightest, shortest route I could find that was reasonably close to civilisation on both ends , and which didn't careen straight over the tallest edges of the continental shelves. Also, assuming the tethered design, the descent of the tunnel does not have to exactly follow that of the seafloor.

Ok, wonderful.... if we're talking about a buoyant tunnel that is - the underground one won't work as I pointed out.


Upwards? If that were true, then there'd be a long skinny island down the middle of the Atlantic.The mountain range at the bottom of the Atlantic is the tallest mountain range in the world... it just so happens that the Atlantic is deep enough to hide most of them. There are exceptions though - the Canary islands for instance are just the tops of mountains. The range is continuously being thrusted upwards as the upper mantle - the asthenosphere - pushes into the lithosphere and crust as the plates fall, which allows magma to escape in many places. This is why the sea bed is relatively new, which confused geologists until only the latter half of the last century.

This diagram shows how new oceanic crust is formed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Oceanic_spreading.svg/300px-Oceanic_spreading.svg.png


In any case, I've already addressed the tectonic movement issue (it is minor). A kink in the route can be added if it turns out my proposed one passes through an aggressive volcano patch.It is anything but minor. I'm with you on the major volcanoes, I think your route on google maps only crosses under one major volcano, so a small adjustment would be necessary, but they are spontaneous in their arrival, it's not like we can predict where the next hot spot will form as the ocean ridge forms.

However, if you build a tunnel under the mid-Atlantic range, both sides (on opposite sides of the range) will be continuously pulled away from each other. Even some kind of slip mechanism would generate massive heat from friction.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Tectonic_plate_boundaries.png


Saying stuff like that just makes me more enthusiastic. If enough people say it, I might actually consider trying to become an engineer.Go for it, but you won't be building a tunnel under the Atlantic. Study geology instead and see if you can solve the problem of tectonic plates grinding against each other. There are 5 in the Atlantic where you propose your tunnel - the Eurasian, the African, the Caribbean, the N.American and the S.American. We don't even know exactly what causes it, but the currently accepted theory is the 'slab pull' effect, the theory that under the ocean ridges (where your tunnel is going to be) the plates sink into the asthenosphere. Also as well as the slab-pull effect, hot magma heats rock around it in the mid-Atlantic range, which causes the lithosphere and the asthenosphere to rise continuously as the lithosphere is pulled under, creating the mountain chain.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/SubZone.jpg



As for the ladder to the sun, I don't see why one would want to take such a slow route there. A maglev bridge to the Moon, however....Topic for another day ;)


You seem to be under the impression that the tunnel's interior won't be pressurised, or in this case depressurised relative to the surrounding environment. Whatever gave you that impression?Not at all, I was talking mostly about constructing the tunnel. You can't pressurise it until it's in some way completed. Also there is the pressure of thousands of tonnes of force in tectonic plates, and the pressures exerted by a sinking lithosphere.


Because I doubt your implication that the entire length of the mid-Atlantic ridge is a smouldering hive of vulcanological activity. Sure there are hot spots (one of them's called Iceland), and if you dig too deep around there you have a greater chance than anywhere else of getting a faceful of molten rock, but my general impression of mid-oceanic trenches like the one running down the Atlantic is that what emerges is mainly solid rock. Moving very slowly.Sorry to fuck with your general impression then. ;)

[Tifosi]

If they did make this tunnel it would be a horrible place to be in. You would be stuck in a metal tube with only artificial light for days. You would need to have air condiotion on for the entire journey to combat the heat from the Earths core. Nothing but black out the windows. Oh, and imagine the shity air getting pumped down there.

Look at the Mont Blanc tunnel, only 10 or so miles long yet when you get near the middle the air is pretty unpleasent to breath. Warm and dry. I can't imagine what the air a 1000 miles in would be like.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm not so fond of that plan. It takes what I feel to be an unnecessary detour, and the prospect of driving over Iceland, Greenland and Canada in winter breaks me out in a cold sweat.
Just a point, but it doesnt necessitate that it has to be a publically accessible car tunnel (but ideally should be a dual tunnel comprising of both services) or that the tunnel needs to be exposed to the Canadian tundra. It could still be a continuous line, utilising the advantages of the maglev train and the reduced distance between the Scottish Highlands and newfoundland. Then theres the added bonus it could provide transport to commuters to and from Reykjavik. I think the northern route is the most practical and likely for these reasons.

This isn't specifically addressed to yourself but as for the argument about centres of population, who's to say the line couldnt still run from London to New York, albeit overland? If it can service as many towns and cities as possible then all the better. If the technology is to be maximised, then it ought to not be just the domain of holiday makers and commuters but also of the logistics and haulage industry. I think that is why the straight floating tunnel would be the lest cost effective option.


I've always thought that they should build a big bridge from Alaska to the Diomedes to Siberia, so then you could (theoretically) take a train from Europe all the way to Chile.
Im pretty sure that part of Russia is basically a huge military base so its probably not a good idea unless you like dodging bullets. Even ignoring that, it would take days to drive anywhere of any consequence. Some parts of east asia are notorious for road bandits so if the Russian army doesnt get you then Mongolese gangs might.

Also shouldnt this thread be in S&E?


If they did make this tunnel it would be a horrible place to be in. You would be stuck in a metal tube with only artificial light for days.
I think what people are proposing here is an accelerating magnetic train that could complete the journey faster than current conventional methods. Not driving through in a car.

[Sentinel]

When it comes to making a tunnel under the seabed, I'm not convinced that would be a realistic option, at least not with current techology and especially not after Comrades J:s last very convincing post. As for a tunnel that would actually be some kind of floating tube over the surface of the earth but below that of the water of the ocean, perhaps.

But when it comes to both of these options, I think that even if they were possible they would be impractical, as flying surely is faster and more efficient when it comes to many forms of transport.

[Dr Mindbender]

But when it comes to both of these options, I think that even if they were possible they would be impractical, as flying surely is faster and more efficient when it comes to many forms of transport.

Very few individuals are fortunate enough to afford their own aircraft. The advantage with roadways and railroads is that it gives people the freedom to move with their own vehicles and it enables us to move resources in greater quantities at a greater rate. Convoys of trucks can haul things faster than single aircraft.

[Sentinel]

Very few individuals are fortunate enough to afford their own aircraft. The advantage with roadways and railroads is that it gives people the freedom to move with their own vehicles and it enables us to move resources in greater quantities at a greater rate.

Perhaps but taking into account the enormous cost of the hypothetical transoceanic road/railway I still think it would be easier to have a strategy of expanding and developing air travel.

[Dr Mindbender]

Perhaps but taking into account the enormous cost of the hypothetical transoceanic road/railway I still think it would be easier to have a strategy of expanding and developing air travel.
Hypothetical maglev trains that can get to and from London and New York in under 2 hours would make it possible to live and work on opposite sides of the atlantic. That alone would make such a structure worth building IMO. Its a matter of speculation and accumulation. The tunnel could pay for itself through the increased trade that it brings.

[Revy]

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/manned-cloud.jpg

The Manned Cloud, a concept design for a flying hotel (http://www.dezeen.com/2008/01/10/manned-cloud-by-jean-marie-massaud/), could make it around the world in three days with 40 guests and 15 staff. The Manned Cloud and other lighter-than-air craft could usher in a Second Golden Age of Airships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship), not seen since before the Hindenberg disaster in 1937. The Manned Cloud would cruise at 80 mph, with a top speed of 105 mph. It would contain numerous on-board amenities, including a restaurant, a library, a fitness suite, spa, and even a sun deck. Its purpose would be to take passengers to exotic locales while eliminating the need for ecologically damaging hotels. With dimensions of 210 x 82 x 52 m (690 x 270 x 170 ft), the Manned Cloud would be spacious indeed. The craft was designed by Jean-Marie Massaud in cooperation with ONERA (http://www.onera.fr/), the French aerospace lab. Similar designs include the Strato Cruiser (http://www.dezeen.com/2007/10/08/strato-cruiser-airship-concept-by-tino-schaedler-and-michael-j-brown/) and Aeroscraft ML866 (http://www.dezeen.com/2007/12/11/aeroscraft-ml866/).

http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2008/03/five-futuristic-forms-of-air-travel/

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

As far as I know, the fastest train in existence right now capable of carrying passengers is a maglev in Japan that set a high speed of 361 miles per hour (MPH) a few years ago.

The distance between New York and London is 3459.34 miles. Supposing a train went that speed (and forgetting about acceleration and deceleration for simplicity's sake), the trip would take around 9 and a half hours.

It currently takes around 7 and a half hours to fly.

This is meant to put things in perspective... not to say that it's impossible to develop better technology, as we know that's not the case; especially in a post-capitalist global society.

[Dr Mindbender]

As far as I know, the fastest train in existence right now capable of carrying passengers is a maglev in Japan that set a high speed of 361 miles per hour (MPH) a few years ago.

The distance between New York and London is 3459.34 miles. Supposing a train went that speed (and forgetting about acceleration and deceleration for simplicity's sake), the trip would take around 9 and a half hours.

It currently takes around 7 and a half hours to fly.

This is meant to put things in perspective... not to say that it's impossible to develop better technology, as we know that's not the case; especially in a post-capitalist global society.

My understanding is that if allowed to go in a relatively straight path undisturbed, the maglev train can accelerate indefinitely allowing it to approach phenomenal hypersonic speeds. Its a similar concept to railgun technology.
The reason the Japanese train is slower is because it has to bend around curves, causing a trade off in speed.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

The Manned Cloud, a concept design for a flying hotel, could make it around the world in three days with 40 guests and 15 staff. The Manned Cloud and other lighter-than-air craft could usher in a Second Golden Age of Airships, not seen since before the Hindenberg disaster in 1937. The Manned Cloud would cruise at 80 mph, with a top speed of 105 mph.:confused:

Am I missing something here?

24901.5 miles / 80 mph = 311.26875 hours (around 13 days)

24901.5 miles / 105 mph = 237.157143 hours (around 10 days)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

My understanding is that if allowed to go in a relatively straight path undisturbed, the maglev train can accelerate indefinitely allowing it to approach phenomenal speeds. Its a similar concept to railgun technology.
The reason the Japanese train is slower is because it has to bend around curves, causing a trade off in speed.

But then you have to deal with sound, pressure, the ability to stop in case of emergency, etc.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Here's fascistic sect leader Lyndon LaRouche's plan:

The Road to Peace: LaRouche's Eurasian Land-Bridge development proposal (http://www.rolf-witzsche.com/peace/landbridge/index.html)

[Dr Mindbender]

But then you have to deal with sound, pressure, the ability to stop in case of emergency, etc.
Sound is easilly insulated against, and i think Noxion covered the pressure issue with his diamondoid structures. I am not sure what sort of emergency could take place that would require such an abrupt stop.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Debris on tracks, damage to tracks, inclement weather, natural disasters, fire, explosions, etc., etc., etc,.

[Manic Impressive]

If they did make this tunnel it would be a horrible place to be in. You would be stuck in a metal tube with only artificial light for days.
As far as I know it's roughly 3000 miles from London to New York near enough the same distance from NY to LA. Except I would expect a trans-atlantic tunnel to run straight-ish so it would be much quicker and with better technology.


But when it comes to both of these options, I think that even if they were possible they would be impractical, as flying surely is faster and more efficient when it comes to many forms of transport.
I would say that with the current technology the current flight system that we are using may not be sustainable in the long term due to the amount of fuel that jet planes use, as well as their carbon emissions.

Perhaps but taking into account the enormous cost of the hypothetical transoceanic road/railway I still think it would be easier to have a strategy of expanding and developing air travel.
You're thinking in current terms, under capitalism a tunnel like this is highly unlikely due to many reasons but not just the cost. If we were in a society without money and without national borders then a trans-atlantic tunnel would be very cost effective. If the only cost is labour time and resources.

[Manic Impressive]

Debris on tracks, damage to tracks, inclement weather, natural disasters, fire, explosions, etc., etc., etc,.
accidents will always happen but I'm sure there were always a few people who had the same fears over flight and then space flight.

[Dr Mindbender]

Im thinking maybe a better project would be a maglev train connecting western europe with the far east. At least this wouldnt invoke the problems of constructing several miles underwater.

[Comrade J]

You're thinking in current terms, under capitalism a tunnel like this is highly unlikely due to many reasons but not just the cost. If we were in a society without money and without national borders then a trans-atlantic tunnel would be very cost effective. If the only cost is labour time and resources.

You can't build under the Atlantic seabed. But if you're talking a sort of 'floating' tunnel under the surface then that is still a hell of a lot of resources and time. But still, as you said, it may be an option when oil resources are too far depleted, which won't be long now. Or they may make better electric/solar aeroplanes, which will be more effective as they are of course exposed to sunlight more often, being above clouds.


Im thinking maybe a better project would be a maglev train connecting western europe with the far east. At least this wouldnt invoke the problems of constructing several miles underwater.

Well there is already the Berlin-Baghdad railway, so the route is already cleared out at least. I guess it would need widening for a Maglev train though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Im thinking maybe a better project would be a maglev train connecting western europe with the far east. At least this wouldnt invoke the problems of constructing several miles underwater.

I prefer a different idea for that. I think a nuclear-powered triple-decker double-wide monstrosity, like the one below, would be a better idea:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/Nuclear_Train_by_Doc_Evilonavich.png

You can think of it as a hotel on extra-large rails.


You can't build under the Atlantic seabed. But if you're talking a sort of 'floating' tunnel under the surface then that is still a hell of a lot of resources and time. But still, as you said, it may be an option when oil resources are too far depleted, which won't be long now.

Well, a transoceanic maglev would be able to run "on the grid" so to speak and thus could be powered by nuclear and renewables.


Or they may make better electric/solar aeroplanes, which will be more effective as they are of course exposed to sunlight more often, being above clouds.

The problem I think with solar power for flight is the pathetic power-to-weight ratio. Since there is an upper limit to how much energy a square metre of solar panel can gather, one needs more surface area in order to get more power. This results in massive planes with tiny cargo limits.

Solar-powered dirigibles, on the other hand...


Well there is already the Berlin-Baghdad railway, so the route is already cleared out at least. I guess it would need widening for a Maglev train though.

I'd say it definitely needs widening.

[Comrade J]

The problem I think with solar power for flight is the pathetic power-to-weight ratio. Since there is an upper limit to how much energy a square metre of solar panel can gather, one needs more surface area in order to get more power. This results in massive planes with tiny cargo limits.

Solar-powered dirigibles, on the other hand...

Amazing technology, although the cargo capacity isn't all that spectacular. It's about half that of a Boeing 747, which has a cargo capacity of 248,000 lbs, whereas a dirigible like the one below will have an estimated capacity of 120,000 lb. However, this one will cost about $5 million compared to a 747 which is about $240 million!

http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/04/solarairship-ed01.jpg

There are labs working on increasing solar power efficiency though, so depending on how that progresses it may be possible to build high-altitude aeroplanes that can convert a much higher percentage of solar energy. But that's just surmising to be honest, it's not a technology I'm well-acquainted with.


I'd say it definitely needs widening.I'd say it will need to be phenomenally thick. ;) Also I read that parts of it are out of use, but for the most part it is still intact. However, given that the prime reason for a Europe-Middle East connection is currently for oil, how useful would such a supply line be when oil is exhausted or other fuel technologies have taken over? Currently, the line is used in parts of the Middle East to transport metals, heavy girders etc. between neighbouring/close countries and cities, so a super-fast train with long stopping times might not be practical for industry there.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Amazing technology, although the cargo capacity isn't all that spectacular. It's about half that of a Boeing 747, which has a cargo capacity of 248,000 lbs, whereas a dirigible like the one below will have an estimated capacity of 120,000 lb. However, this one will cost about $5 million compared to a 747 which is about $240 million!

If that's true, then dirigibles have cost-effectiveness going for them, as well as the fact that they spend much less energy keeping themselves in the air.


There are labs working on increasing solar power efficiency though, so depending on how that progresses it may be possible to build high-altitude aeroplanes that can convert a much higher percentage of solar energy. But that's just surmising to be honest, it's not a technology I'm well-acquainted with.

My point was that even with completely efficient solar panels (physically implausible, to say the least), there is an upper limit to amount of sunlight, and thus energy, that falls on a square metre of collector. This sets an upper limit on energy density that other power systems do not share.

You can think of it like this: as an object gets larger, it's surface area (which can be covered in solar collectors) increases by the square. But volume (which constitutes mass) increases by the cube. From this you can see how solar makes sense for a dirigible, which is largely filled with a lighter-than-air lifting gas, but not so much sense for say, a loaded cargo plane, most of its interior volume being denser-than-air solids or liquids.


I'd say it will need to be phenomenally thick. ;) Also I read that parts of it are out of use, but for the most part it is still intact. However, given that the prime reason for a Europe-Middle East connection is currently for oil, how useful would such a supply line be when oil is exhausted or other fuel technologies have taken over? Currently, the line is used in parts of the Middle East to transport metals, heavy girders etc. between neighbouring/close countries and cities, so a super-fast train with long stopping times might not be practical for industry there.

Far East, not Middle East. Although I suppose there could be a branch line connecting the two through central Asia and Iran.

In either case, I was thinking of such a railway as carrying passengers, although I suppose it could be used for freight as well. One would be able to ride in comfort from western European cities like Madrid or London (via an expanded Chunnel), through central and eastern Europe (with a spur going off down through the Balkans and Istanbul to connect to the Middle East), aaaall the way across Russia to Vladivostok, continuing through Pyongyang to the terminus at Seoul, unless a rail tunnel can be built to Japan.

A comfortable and unified passenger rail system that connects major cities across one of the Earth's biggest continents would help us expand our cultural and social horizons to new limits. Travelling along the ground gives one a chance to get from A to Z while still getting a sense of what things are like in between. The journey itself becomes integral the experience of visiting other places.

Of course, if one really is in a hurry then there will doubtless be options along those lines as well.

But I don't think we necessarily need to race around all the time at a white-hot pace - capitalism has us running around like rats in advanced Skinner box experiment.

[Comrade J]

Far East, not Middle East.

Well I was talking about the Berlin-Baghdad railway, I just misread Mindbender's post before.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Something interesting I found:

LINK (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_underground01b.htm)


Nuclear subterrenes work by melting their way through the rock and soil, actually vitrifying it as they go, and leaving a neat, solidly glass-lined tunnel behind them.

The heat is supplied by a compact nuclear reactor that circulates liquid lithium from the reactor core to the tunnel face, where it melts the rock. In the process of melting the rock the lithium loses some of its heat. It is then circulated back along the exterior of the tunneling machine to help cool the vitrified rock as the tunneling machine forces its way forward. The cooled lithium then circulates back to the reactor where the whole cycle starts over. In this way the nuclear subterrene slices through the rock like a nuclear powered, 2,000 degree Fahrenheit (1,093 Celcius) earthworm, boring its way deep underground.

The United States Atomic Energy Commission and the United States Energy Research and Development Administration took out Patents in the 1970s for nuclear subterrenes. The first patent, in 1972 went to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

The nuclear subterrene has an advantage over mechanical TBMs in that it produces no muck that must be disposed of by conveyors, trains, trucks, etc. This greatly simplifies tunneling. If nuclear subterrenes actually exist (and I do not know if they do) their presence, and the tunnels they make, could be very hard to detect, for the simple reason that there would not be the tell-tale muck piles or tailings dumps that are associated with the conventional tunneling activities.

This is the sort of thing that should allow a transoceanic train tunnel to be at least partially under the ground. It depends really on the compressive strength of vitrified rock in a tubular configuration. I'm thinking as long as the vitrified rock holds up long enough for more permanent structures to be put in place, it should be good.

[Dr Mindbender]

aaaall the way across Russia to Vladivostok, continuing through Pyongyang to the terminus at Seoul, unless a rail tunnel can be built to Japan.
Well politically, the DPRK-ROK crossing aint going to happen, I'd suggest the terminus should be in Beijing.

[Libertador]

Well politically, the DPRK-ROK crossing aint going to happen, I'd suggest the terminus should be in Beijing.^ This makes sense.

Paris>Luxembourg>Berlin>Frankfurt>Leipzig>Berlin>Lodz>Warsaw>Hrodna>Minsk>Vitsyebsk>Moscow>[Insert innumerable Russian cities]>Ulan Bator, Mongolia>Beijing>Shanghai>Tokyo

Actually a train underneath the Bering Straight would be easier than trying to go underneath the Atlantic.

[Dr Mindbender]

^ This makes sense.

Paris>Luxembourg>Berlin>Frankfurt>Leipzig>Berlin>Lodz>Warsaw>Hrodna>Minsk>Vitsyebsk>Moscow>[Insert innumerable Russian cities]>Ulan Bator, Mongolia>Beijing>Shanghai>Tokyo
.

Id like to see the channel tunnel utilised and have the western terminus in London.


Actually a train underneath the Bering Straight would be easier than trying to go underneath the Atlantic.
It may be easier to engineer, but i'd be concerned about the journey time. Unless we're using Noxion's nuclear mobile hotel.

Then theres the little matter of that part of Russia being off limits to non Russian military personnel.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well politically, the DPRK-ROK crossing aint going to happen, I'd suggest the terminus should be in Beijing.

Fuck that. Do you really think the DPRK is more politically stable than frigging China? I honestly don't expect the DPRK to still be around by the time anything like this is considered. Although I would not be surprised if the Chinese ruling classes are still around in some form or another, which is why the route explicitly avoids China.

[Dr Mindbender]

Fuck that. Do you really think the DPRK is more politically stable than frigging China? I honestly don't expect the DPRK to still be around by the time anything like this is considered. Although I would not be surprised if the Chinese ruling classes are still around in some form or another, which is why the route explicitly avoids China.

China is pretty much the logistical springboard of Asia. Thats why i suggested for practicality sake it would be the best eastern terminus. Not sure i see the problem either politically or geographically. Do you expect the chinese to somehow curtail access to foreigners?

[praxis1966]

China is pretty much the logistical springboard of Asia. Thats why i suggested for practicality sake it would be the best eastern terminus. Not sure i see the problem either politically or geographically. Do you expect the chinese to somehow curtail access to foreigners?

They already do depending on where you're from. I've been told by people who've been there that if you're an American, travel to certain areas of China can be difficult if you want to do it legally. Primarily, I think that has to do with Tibet, though.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

China is pretty much the logistical springboard of Asia.

Part of the idea is to change that.


Thats why i suggested for practicality sake it would be the best eastern terminus. Not sure i see the problem either politically or geographically. Do you expect the chinese to somehow curtail access to foreigners?

I don't expect that a still-capitalist China would welcome a giant nuclear railroad built by real communists, no.

[Comrade J]

Noxion, are you suggesting that whilst the rest of the world undergoes a communist revolution, China will remain capitalist? What makes you think that?

China's economy is dependent on exports, much of which they create with resources bought from many nations, particularly those in Africa and also Australia, so if everywhere else underwent a communist revolution, the Chinese market would collapse and the government would likely be overthrown. Also, given our current dependence on Chinese exports, a Chinese revolution would be integral to the success of the revolution elsewhere, otherwise there would be a massive supplies/commodities shortfall in revolutionised nations. This would definitely thwart the spread of revolution across the globe, and perhaps even curtail or even reverse it in the countries that had already had a revolution.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Noxion, are you suggesting that whilst the rest of the world undergoes a communist revolution, China will remain capitalist? What makes you think that?

The possibility of communism is based on material conditions, correct?

Well, given a conscious working class, there currently three areas of the world capable of maintaining the kind of post-scarcity economy needed for a stable communist society:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j99/NoXion604/post-scarcity20areas.png

This is based on current resource estimations, including relevant data such as literacy rates, as compiled by Cult of Reason. Last I checked he had a PDF detailing his findings, but my copy was on my old computer which is now kaputski, and I haven't got around to getting a new copy off him. If you'd like, I'll try and get one off him, or you can contact him yourself.

As you can see, as well as China there is a significant chunk of the world, which are not without their own resources but also lack much needed development. This could provide a market for China.

Having said that, I would not rule out some kind of scarcity communism outside the coloured areas, although I would be concerned about their stability and the policy of the coloured areas should be, in my opinion, to support revolutionaries globally.


China's economy is dependent on exports, much of which they create with resources bought from many nations, particularly those in Africa and also Australia, so if everywhere else underwent a communist revolution, the Chinese market would collapse and the government would likely be overthrown. Also, given our current dependence on Chinese exports, a Chinese revolution would be integral to the success of the revolution elsewhere, otherwise there would be a massive supplies/commodities shortfall in revolutionised nations. This would definitely thwart the spread of revolution across the globe, and perhaps even curtail or even reverse it in the countries that had already had a revolution.

I'm just keeping in mind that feudalism didn't disappear from the world all at once. The Chinese ruling classes are currently a relatively clever and pragmatic bunch, compared to the sclerotic idiocy of US and UK politicians, as well as the shortsighted greediness of their corporate paymasters.

[Rusty Shackleford]

no one here has mentioned the problem of ventilating a trans atlantic submarine tube.


imagine what the entrances would be like.


like a fucking wind tunnel.

[Libertador]

no one here has mentioned the problem of ventilating a trans atlantic submarine tube. Who needs ventilation? :laugh:

[Rusty Shackleford]

Who needs ventilation? :laugh:
at such a depth the atmospheric pressure would be insane. also, heavy gasses would collect there. and with the potentially frigid temperatures, you could see crystallization of weird shit.

[Libertador]

at such a depth the atmospheric pressure would be insane. also, heavy gasses would collect there. and with the potentially frigid temperatures, you could see crystallization of weird ****.Oh that's right. Freezing would be such an issue that any heat generated by the movement of the train would be in danger of condensing water (creating ice rapidly).

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

no one here has mentioned the problem of ventilating a trans atlantic submarine tube.


imagine what the entrances would be like.


like a fucking wind tunnel.

To be honest I imagined that the tunnel(s) would be evacuated (taking any moisture with it) and the train cars would have their own life support systems, thus enabling the whole thing to move faster without that pesky air getting in the way.

[Rusty Shackleford]

To be honest I imagined that the tunnel(s) would be evacuated (taking any moisture with it) and the train cars would have their own life support systems, thus enabling the whole thing to move faster without that pesky air getting in the way.
thus reducing the internal pressure of the entire tunnel under the immense pressure of the ocean?


if anything, you would want to pressurize it right?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

thus reducing the internal pressure of the entire tunnel under the immense pressure of the ocean?


if anything, you would want to pressurize it right?

Perhaps. An alternative might involve keeping the doors between tunnel sections closed by default, and depressurising a section before it opens to enable a train to pass, thus allowing the expanding air in the previous section to expand in the same direction as the train is moving, reducing friction. But to be honest that sounds a lot more complicated and therefore more likely to go wrong.

Also, unless the tunnels aren't water-tight (which they should be), how would the water get in? Also, wouldn't the winds near the entrances have a dessicating effect?

[Rusty Shackleford]

Perhaps. An alternative might involve keeping the doors between tunnel sections closed by default, and depressurising a section before it opens to enable a train to pass, thus allowing the expanding air in the previous section to expand in the same direction as the train is moving, reducing friction. But to be honest that sounds a lot more complicated and therefore more likely to go wrong.

Also, unless the tunnels aren't water-tight (which they should be), how would the water get in? Also, wouldn't the winds near the entrances have a dessicating effect?
i think changing the pressure rapidly in sections would lead to rapid stress wear on the sections.

kind of like bending a tab on a soda can a lot, you bent it repeatedly and then it breaks off.

well, dams on the surface can get fractures and cracks and leaks even with such weak pressures (relative to the bottom of the ocean) so these tunnels would have to be fortresses.

as for keeping it not water tight, that seems like an interesting idea.

just need to figure out whether or not under sea currents and debris buildup would be a problem. also, water friction and possible corrosive effects. these trains would have to be tougher than the most advanced nuclear submarines then lol.


as for the winds, what do you mean?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

i think changing the pressure rapidly in sections would lead to rapid stress wear on the sections.

kind of like bending a tab on a soda can a lot, you bent it repeatedly and then it breaks off.

There is that, and I think it would be a problem even with diamondoid materials.


well, dams on the surface can get fractures and cracks and leaks even with such weak pressures (relative to the bottom of the ocean) so these tunnels would have to be fortresses.

I think dams by the nature of their design are more tolerant than tunnels of leaks. Like I mentioned earlier, tunnel thickness would depend on the materials used.


as for keeping it not water tight, that seems like an interesting idea.

just need to figure out whether or not under sea currents and debris buildup would be a problem. also, water friction and possible corrosive effects. these trains would have to be tougher than the most advanced nuclear submarines then lol.

Erm, I said that the tunnel should be water-tight. Otherwise it's not a tunnel, but simply an underwater guideway.


as for the winds, what do you mean?

You mentioned the possibility of fierce winds at the tunnel entrances, and somebody else mentioned moisture build-up.

[Rusty Shackleford]

[QUOTE=ÑóẊîöʼn;2188117]There is that, and I think it would be a problem even with diamondoid materials.
I think dams by the nature of their design are more tolerant than tunnels of leaks. Like I mentioned earlier, tunnel thickness would depend on the materials used.
[/SPOIL]
absolutely. and you mentioned 'diamondoid'. you you mean in structural shape, or actual diamond like material?


Erm, I said that the tunnel should be water-tight. Otherwise it's not a tunnel, but simply an underwater guideway.

i missed that point :lol:


You mentioned the possibility of fierce winds at the tunnel entrances, and somebody else mentioned moisture build-up.
i was really speculating at the possibility of winds at tunnel entrances. i wouldnt know the dynamics of it. but, since air would be significantly cooler in the tunnel and obviously warmer at the entrances that it may make air rush.



Methinks a project like this would require its own powerplant just to power the thousands of miles of tunnel and probably millions, or at least hundreds of thousands, of miles of wiring. And to keep such a thing pressurized would be a gargantuan effort in and of itself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

absolutely. and you mentioned 'diamondoid'. you you mean in structural shape, or actual diamond like material?

I'm talking about solid structures composed of carbon atoms arranged in a similar way to how they would be arranged in a diamond.


i was really speculating at the possibility of winds at tunnel entrances. i wouldnt know the dynamics of it. but, since air would be significantly cooler in the tunnel and obviously warmer at the entrances that it may make air rush.

I think that depends if the tunnel is travelling through the ground or through the ocean. It gets hotter underground, but at the same time the bits of the tunnel deep in the ocean would be sitting in the planet's largest heat sink. There would most likely need to be some kind of system to deal with the temperature differences.


Methinks a project like this would require its own powerplant just to power the thousands of miles of tunnel and probably millions, or at least hundreds of thousands, of miles of wiring. And to keep such a thing pressurized would be a gargantuan effort in and of itself.

I think maintaining a vacuum would be harder, and require more energy than ventilating the tunnel.

[RedAnarchist]

This video shows a possible underwater link between Russia and the United States - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15387714.

[Nox]

It seems like a very interesting concept, that in my opinion doesn't seem so unrealistic.

What I don't understand, is what's the point of making one?

[EvilRedGuy]

Transportation?

[Nox]

Transportation?

We have planes for that...

[tir1944]

No,bring back the Transatlantic Zeppelins.