As a side note, please check out USSubmarines.com on the window issue. It's Phoenix 1000 submarine yatch has special hemispheric aclyic bubble windows.
Submarine Liner
- Thread starter All Seeing Eye
- Start date
You know, I can't stand the guy half of the time and I think he's full of hair-brained scientific ideas, but I never considered this any more than a perfectly valid hypothetical. Chill.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
What I want is for you to stop accusing me of coming up with an idea that's no good and forcing it on others when it's not even my idea in the first place, Semantics has nothing to do with it and sticking a K into the shortened version of my name is just a sly way of being cheeky.
As for the thread in general I just asked some questions about the concept of building something like this. I'm not here to argue the toss out of it trying to claim it would definitely work. I asked a few questions and got some answers for them.
I'm not sure what more you are wanting from me now? You answered the questions I asked, that basically means end of thread I suppose.
I just don't like being accused of "forcing my ideas on others" when the ideas aren't even mine and I haven't done any forcing, i've done nothing more than discuss how it may be possible. I saw the concept on the 2012 trailer, I was interested in the views of others on such a vessel being built. I asked questions, I got answers. There's really nothing more for me to add.
Last edited:
And another thought: aside from multiple places for humans (to avoid all eggs in one basket), we are a land based species, so deep underground, and I do mean deep, would be the way to go. If things go pear shaped there would be a chance of digging a way out, where as if that happens at sea, chances are we'd drown.
I can see the attraction of there being only one target rather than multiple, but if that one target gets hit, it's all over.
I can see the attraction of there being only one target rather than multiple, but if that one target gets hit, it's all over.
Taccy, with all due respect, look at your posts. They are consistantly these over the top gianormous projects that pay no heed to the natural laws of the universe. They are the kinds of things I would scribble on paper when I was 7 or 8 and had no knowledge of how things really worked. (Personally I think my electromagnetic sub was a masterpiece, but now that I at least have a partial grasp on things, I know it could never have worked. Then I had the idea for a robot that operated via timer cam actuated switches, and my juvenile dream of robbing a bank with said robot. I just have to laugh at my childhood ideas sometimes.)
Instead of posting these here, I strongly recommend that you invest some time learning about physics, engineering principles, and perhaps some basic electricity and electronics education. Armed with those tools, you'd have answers to many of the questions that you so often post here. Who knows, maybe with the right knowledge you'll come up with an idea, build a working model, and manage to bring some revolutionary device to the world.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Name one.
Pretty much all of them.
It may not exactly violate the laws of physics in theory but one of my favorite over-the-top threads was the one where he wanted to put a 100,000 ton aircraft carrier into orbit.
Robert
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Actually the conveyor belt was in humour, the underwater Pipe from the south pole to Australia though wasn't, and is viable and would cure Australia's water problems and IMO would be cheaper and less damaging than desalination plants.
I wasn't giving it out as an idea, I was just curious as to what would be needed to get something that large into orbit using current tech.
There is a more efficient irrigation method possible in Australia, God alone knows why they aren't implementing it.
We're having terrible droughts her, as you probably know. What you probably don't know is that the rainfall for ALL of Australia has actually gone up slightly, and the slightly out of skew weather cycle means all that rain is falling in the North, as monsoonal rain, instead of the South. Dams in the North an pipelines to the South would fix that, but there's WAY too much wrangling over funding to even consider it.
We're having terrible droughts her, as you probably know. What you probably don't know is that the rainfall for ALL of Australia has actually gone up slightly, and the slightly out of skew weather cycle means all that rain is falling in the North, as monsoonal rain, instead of the South. Dams in the North an pipelines to the South would fix that, but there's WAY too much wrangling over funding to even consider it.
We've had the technology for a long time but we could only use it under the most dire circumstances -- nuclear pulse propulsion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#Sizes_of_Orion_vehicles
The proposed "Super Orion" would weigh 8 megatonnes (city sized) and need 1080 nukes. That would allow you to build an interstellar ark.
Last edited:
Several of your perpetual-motion/free energy devices involving things like magnets, mirrors and LASERs.
That's actually not a bad idea.
That's actually not a bad idea.
He didn't mean a space ship the size of an aircraft carrier - he meant LITERALLY an aircraft carrier, was a bit surreal, worth a search though.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
That's actually not a bad idea.
He didn't mean a space ship the size of an aircraft carrier - he meant LITERALLY an aircraft carrier, was a bit surreal, worth a search though.
I think you should go re-read the thread. The idea was for the aircraft carrier to undergo a "refit" so it would become a space ship. The runways on top would be covered over with a hanger to keep out the vacuum of space and the inside of the vessel would be altered to allow for different rooms within a rotating inner section for artificial gravity and also it would be altered to fit a large propulsion engine such as a nuclear pulse drive.
The main reason for the thread was to ascertain whether something of that mass and weight could be put into orbit using current tech.
The conclusion was that the number of rockets required would make it impossible to achieve.
rockets weren't the only problem. Familiarity with how things are built would have also stopped you dead in your tracks. For example, you wanted to hollow out the ship, so you can have an inner, spinning layer for AV, right? They don't build them with an inner section and an outer section, or even in room sections usually. It's a bunch of small pieces welded together. Start removing them, there's no ship.
You'd have been better off asking if a spaceship that size could be launched, and leaving the carrier out of it, because it made no sense, at any level...
You'd have been better off asking if a spaceship that size could be launched, and leaving the carrier out of it, because it made no sense, at any level...
Split your hairs that thin and you are going to go bald, besides I said your thread was worth searching for, so knock off the defensiveness.
Sort of like... what it would take to make the tallest building in history and then trying to remake it into a train? 
Similar threads
