> 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.
Bad idea. Given the velocities implied by an underground ballistic
trajectory between distant cities, the alternative to "absolutely
perfect curvature" is "extremely loud bang".
> 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+)
That is extremely *slow* compared to what is being discussed.
Consider that the fastest manned military aircraft cannot fly fast
enough to stay directly under a low-orbit satellite, and the
satellite is going much faster than such an aircraft would need to
go; and something down at ground level must go considerably faster
to be considered orbital. Heck, the main reason for evacuating the
tube is that at that speed, simply running into air would be a
serious problem.
>
US$500 fee for receipt of unsolicited commercial email. USC 47.5.II.227