Re: Terraforming the Moon

jimp_at_specsol-spam-sux.com
Date: 02/19/05 

Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:13:49 +0000 (UTC)

In sci.physics habshi <habshi@anony.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 01:55:23 +0000 (UTC), jimp@specsol-spam-sux.com
> wrote:
> >
> BTW, habshi was suggesting underground trains with no concept of the
> realities of building and maintaing massive tunnel systems.<

> China is building a five mile undersea tunnel , and Britain a
> five mail underground rail link south of London . Spain and Morroco
> are discussing a thiry mile undersea rail link , Japan has one of 32
> miles and of course the channel tunnel is 30 miles . India has built
> tens of miles of through mountain rails . So we have the technology to
> build six lane underground rail lines - thousands of miles linking
> every city and port and factory.

Neither I nor anyone else ever said tunnels were impossible to build
or aren't built; tunnels are in fact built all the time.

The point you are totally incapable of understanding is that tunnels
are more costly to build and maintain than surface right of ways and
are not built if there is a viable alternative to the tunnel.

Just look at your examples. Most of them go under water, meaning the
only other alternative would be to build a bridge. Someone sat down
and looked at all the variables and said "In this particular instance
a tunnel makes sense".

Your other example is through a mountain. Trains can't traverse
grades of any consequence, therefore your only alternative is to tunnel.

You are an idiot.

> It would save billions in land aquistion , deaths due to heavy
> traffic overground . Can be built over the next twenty odd years and
> 500 miles a year . All we lack is the will power . From the very first
> year it will be profitable as towns get connected .It will save
> billions in oil imports as we can use nuke power instead of diesel to
> power the locos

All this is utter nonsense.

You still have to pay for the right of way even if it is underground.

Deaths during the construction of the tunnels would far exceed deaths
from an above ground rail system. Railway deaths are for the most
part suicides, not because of heavy traffic overground.

Building and maintaining tunnels is hugely expensive compared to laying
tracks on the surface.

The nuclear reactors to power these electric trains don't exist.

If it were profitable, someone would be already doing it.

You are an idiot. 

-- 
Jim Pennino
Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: interesting article on quantum cryptography
    ... flows to false Ghassan, who's inserting without the experiment's ... photograph. ... It might question quick Seas throughout the hard ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: aes decrypt encrypt
    ... You won't demonstrate me preceding by your political column. ... Edwina convinces the salvation other than hers and carelessly ... but will Corinne struggle that? ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Mars Questions
    ... underground component, sort of cities below the cities where life ... few hours, with air tanks, etc., nice and lightweight. ... could use some sort of incendiary rounds. ... tunnels remain, but most of the breathable air has been expended. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Terraforming the Moon
    ... > five mail underground rail link south of London. ... Neither I nor anyone else ever said tunnels were impossible to build ... or aren't built; tunnels are in fact built all the time. ... Trains can't traverse ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Floodgates on LU
    ... was realised that Londoner's would use the system as air-raid shelters. ... "London's vast underground railway system, many of the tunnels of which are ... Official opinion admitted ultimately that, as in the 1914-18 war, it would ...
    (uk.railway)