Re: Plane crashes and other accidents

Fri, 17 Apr 1998 13:44:52 EDT

In a message dated 98-04-17 12:22:35 EDT, you write:

<< One thing that is problematical is how to transverse fault lines such as in
California. Large caverns with articulated guide tubes have been mentioned.
I read about this a few years back, but i don't remember where.

Chuck Kuecker >>

It seems it would be a lot safer and cheaper, and cooler(to look at) if it
were above ground. Underground has problems with earthquakes and oceans and
whales in the oceans. I was just thinking about a transportation device
similar a couple weeks ago, using big strong, cheap plastic tubes (clear tubes
would be really cool, especially if you're going fast (300+), with super-
lightweight crafts, and just use air to blow them. It would require stations
every few miles (maybe 1 or 50) to add additional charges. But these could go
super fast if they were light weight. The charges wouldnt require too much
energy im sure if they were built right.

>For a vehicle in orbit, whether it's above or below ground, there is no
>force on it that would require rails, etc. for guidance. In reality, some
>sort of maglev would probably be used to ensure the car remained centered
>inside the tube.

what is a maglev? Like magnets? I had thought about that in middle school,
tubes with crafts suspended with magnets, then I heard they use it in Japan
kinna, for their trains, I guess the trains float on the rails.

Also, how long would it take fo a craft to get into orbit in a tube? could it
be bursted into orbit like within a few miles?