Underground Tunneling
Machines
Source: From the book "Underground Bases and Tunnels
The nuclear subterrene (rhymes with submarine) was
designed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico. A
number of patents were filed by scientists at Los Alamos, a few
federal technical documents were written -- and then the whole thing
just sort of faded away.
Or did it?
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 (Celcius? - SW) 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.
The 1972 patent makes this clear. It states:
"... (D)ebris may be disposed of as melted rock both as
a lining for the hole and as a dispersal in cracks produced in the
surrounding rock. The rock-melting drill is of a shape and is
propelled under sufficient pressure to produce and extend cracks in
solid rock radially around the bore by means of hydrostatic pressure
developed in the molten rock ahead of the
advancing rock drill penetrator. All melt not used in glass-lining the
bore is forced into the cracks where it freezes and remains ...
"... Such a (vitreous) lining eliminates, in most cases,
the expensive and cumbersome problem of debris elimination and at the
same time achieves the advantage of a casing type of bore hole liner."
(US Patent No. 3,693,731, 26 Sep 1972)
There you have it: a tunneling machine that creates no
muck, and leaves a smooth, vitreous (glassy) tunnel lining behind.
Another patent three years later was for:
A tunneling machine for producing large tunnels in soft
rock or wet, clayey, unconsolidated or bouldery earth by
simultaneously detaching the tunnel core by thermal melting a boundary
kerf into the tunnel face and forming a supporting excavation wall
liner by deflecting the molten materials against the excavation walls
to provide, when solidified, a continuous wall supporting liner, and
detaching the tunnel face
circumscribed by the kerf with powered mechanical earth detachment
means and in which the heat required for melting the kerf and liner
material is provided by a compact nuclear reactor.
This 1975 patent further specifies that the machine is
intended to excavate tunnels up to 12 meters in diameter or more. This
means tunnels of 40 ft. or more in diameter. The kerf is the outside
boundary of the tunnel wall that a boring machine gouges out as it
bores through the ground or rock. So, in ordinary English, this
machine will melt a circular boundary into
the tunnel face. The melted rock will be forced to the outside of the
tunnel by the tunnel machine, where it will form a hard, glassy tunnel
lining (see the appropriate detail in the patent itself, as shown in
Illustration 41). At the same time, mechanical tunnel boring equipment
will grind up the rock and soil detached by the melted kerf and pass
it to the rear of the machine for disposal by conveyor, slurry
pipeline, etc.
And yet a third patent was issued to the United States
Energy Research and Development Administration just 21 days later, on
27 May 1975 for a machine remarkably similar to the machine patented
on 6 May 1975. The abstract describes:
A tunneling machine for producing large tunnels in rock
by progressive detachment of the tunnel core by thermal melting a
boundary kerf into the tunnel face and simultaneously forming an
initial tunnel wall support by deflecting the molten materials against
the tunnel walls to provide, when solidified, a continuous liner; and
fragmenting the tunnel core circumscribed by the kerf by thermal
stress fracturing and in which the heat required for such operations
is supplied by a compact nuclear reactor.
This machine would also be capable of making a
glass-lined tunnel of 40 ft. in diameter or more.
Perhaps some of my readers have heard the same rumors
that I have heard swirling in the UFO literature and on the UFO
grapevine: stories of deep, secret, glass-walled tunnels excavated by
laser powered tunneling machines. I do not know if these stories are
true. If they are, however, it may be that the glass-walled tunnels
are made by the nuclear subterrenes described in these patents. The
careful reader will note that all of these patents were obtained by
agencies of the United States government. Further, all but one of the
inventors are from Los Alamos, New Mexico. Of course, Los Alamos
National Lab is itself the subject of considerable rumors about
underground tunnels and chambers, Little Greys or "EBEs", and various
other covert
goings-on.
(It may also be that the some of the tunnels are made by
these machines, while other subterranean tunnel systems were made by
other civilizations, both ancient and modern. --SW)
A 1973 Los Alamos study entitled "Systems and Cost
Analysis for a Nuclear Subterrene Tunneling Machine: A Preliminary
Study", concluded that nuclear subterrene tunneling machines (NSTMs)
would be very cost effective, compared to conventional TBMs. It
stated:
Tunneling costs for NSTMs are very close to those for
TBMs, if operating conditions for TBMs are favorable. However, for
variable formations and unfavorable conditions such as soft, wet,
bouldery ground or very hard rock, the NSTMs are far more effective.
Estimates of cost and percentage use of NSTMs to satisfy U.S.
transportation tunnel demands indicate a
potential cost savings of 850 million dollars (1969 dollars)
throughout 1990. An estimated NSTM prototype demonstration cost of
$100 million over an eight-year period results in a favorable
benefit-to-cost ratio of 8.5.
...Was the 1973 feasibility study only idle speculation,
and is the astonishingly similar patent two years later only a wild
coincidence? As many a frustrated inventor will tell you, the U.S.
Patent Office only issues the paperwork when it's satisfied that the
thing in question actually works!
In 1975 the National Science Foundation commissioned
another cost analysis of the nuclear subterrene. The A.A. Mathews
Construction and Engineering Company of Rockville, Maryland produced a
comprehensive report with two, separate, lengthy appendices, one 235
and the other 328 pages.
A.A. Mathews calculated costs for constructing three
different sized tunnels in the Southern California area in 1974. The
three tunnel diameters were: a) 3.05 meters (10 ft.); b) 4.73 meters
(15.5 ft.); and c) 6.25 meters (20.5 ft.). Comparing the cost of using
NSTMs to the cost of mechanical TBMs, A.A. Mathews determined:
Savings of 12 percent for the 4.73 meter (15.5 ft.)
tunnel and 6 percent for the 6.25 meter (20.5 foot) tunnel were found
to be possible using the NSTM as compared to current methods. A
penalty of 30 percent was found for the 3.05 meter (10 foot) tunnel
using the NSTM. The cost advantage for the NSTM results from the
combination of (a) a capital rather than labor
intensive system, (Reducing the number of personnel required is
especially important in black budget projects for security
reasons. --SW) and (b) formation of both initial support and final
lining in conjunction with the excavation process. (Leaving a
glass-like lining, which could be *air-tight*, allowing the use of
high-speed, superconducting mag-lev trains operated in a virtual
vacuum in a tunnel deep underground. --SW)
This report has a number of interesting features. It is
noteworthy in the first place that the government commissioned such a
lengthy and detailed analysis of the cost of operating a nuclear
subterrenes. Just as intriguing is the fact that the study found that
the tunnels in the 15 ft. to 20 ft.
diameter range can be more economically excavated by NSTMs than by
conventional TBMs.
Finally, the southern California location that was
chosen for tunneling cost analysis is thought provoking. This is
precisely one of the regions of the West where there is rumored to be
a secret tunnel system. Did the A.A. Mathews study represent part of
the planning for an actual covert tunneling
project that was subsequently carried out, when it was determined that
it was more cost effective to use NSTMs than mechanical TBMs?
by Richard Sauder, Ph.D.
ISBN 0-9644979-0-5: