Transatlantic Tunnel - Possible?

[Whistler40145]

Has someone been sniffing the Sherry?

 

[HSTEd]

When you have the technology to build a transatlantic tunnel, the technologies to make a floating factory aren't going to be that far-fetched.

We have the technology to build it today.
It is really a question of scale more than anything else.
It would just cost some absurd amount of money.

Yes, it is going to be the most significant cost of any land-based tunnel. Tunnelling is expensive and always will be.

Its not really a tunnel - its just digging a trench and laying the foundations for it.
You seem to be livnig in this fantasy that you will be able to lay things at sea at zero cost - the installation of all the tension anchors on the seabed will cost some enormous amount.
Thousands of properly secured anchors with vast amounts of cable, all having to be installed remotely in one of the most hostile known environments.

It's exactly the same then as supersonic, hypersonic or space-based intercontinental travel. To make the tunnel worth building, the air pressure inside would need to be low enough that any rapid decompression would kill all the passengers before it would be possible to slow down from the very high speeds (measured in kilometres per second) that the vehicles would run at.

Why do we have to move at thousands of metres per second?
Aircraft potter along at below 300.
Electricity is also cheap - air resistance is not a huge loss really.

Charlottetown, Labrador to New York is 2480km, Charlottetown to London is roughly 3200km.
That takes us to ~5700km

Even with conventional rail technology that is not terrible - with atmospheric pressure maglevs you could get a journey time of eight or nine hours. Which is close to competitive with air travel, and you will get shorter journey times to positions further north that your straight shot trajectory will not be able to manage.

 

[Haydn1971]

Not sure if these show up correct, please let me know if they don't....

London - New York

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/16/01/02/433eadad9e26f3f905e6fbe6131aa6d7.jpg

London - Houston

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/16/01/02/bebe5a637fa30f57220dfce696f8495c.jpg

London - Seattle

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/16/01/02/ec3e3032aed96c2a32154ae281d2897b.jpg
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And for fun...

Moscow - Seattle

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/16/01/02/223613ef77c3a040e5245b25a71c2a03.jpg

Moscow - New York

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/16/01/02/5855aabb067e2898b05f2d69d4eb4edb.jpg

 

[miami]

Charlottetown, Labrador to New York is 2480km, Charlottetown to London is roughly 3200km.
That takes us to ~5700km

Even with conventional rail technology that is not terrible - with atmospheric pressure maglevs you could get a journey time of eight or nine hours. Which is close to competitive with air travel, and you will get shorter journey times to positions further north that your straight shot trajectory will not be able to manage.

Err, it might work for the east coast (as the jetstream doesn't really help with the overnight flights -- 8 hour sleep overnight would be better than 6 hours IMO. I'd rather board a train at JFK at 2100 and be in London by 1000 than get a 2100 flight and be in London at 0800 (and woken at 0630 when they start serving breakfast))

However if you're talking west coast, your trip suddently requires a maglev over the states (not neccerserilly a terrible thing), but ups the journey. It's 10-20% longer via your route

Seatle: 37% longer via Newfoundland/JFK/Chicago/Vegas
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-sea,lhr-snn-YQX-jfk-ord-las-sea

LA: 9% Longer
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-lax,lhr-snn-YQX-jfk-ord-las-lax

San Francisco: 14% longer
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-sfo,lhr-snn-YQX-jfk-ord-las-sfo

Miami 3%
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-mia,lhr-snn-YQX-jfk-mia

Dalas 5%
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=lhr-dfw,lhr-snn-YQX-jfk-ord-dfw


A tunnel might work for the east coast, Boston-Washington, and Chicago, Toronto and Montreal, but you'll still fly to the center and west coast

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The proposals would be for an Archimedes Bridge.
The tube would be submerged at a depth of 50-100m [so 5-10 atmospheres] and would be constantly attempting to float to surface but would be held in place by tethers attached to the seabed using some form of vacuum anchor.

So not particularly deep.

Looking at the North Atlantic and the usual crop of large icebergs, there surely will be some of these large enough to then cause damage at those depths you have quoted.

 

[Haydn1971]

Looking at the North Atlantic and the usual crop of large icebergs, there surely will be some of these large enough to then cause damage at those depths you have quoted.

Surely the tunnel structure would be of titanic proportions and not at all impacted by a pesky little iceberg ? What could possibly go wrong

 

[450.emu]

Has someone been sniffing the Sherry?

I think they've had the whole bottle:roll: