Submarine Liner

[chardman]

The real reason i'm asking this is because in the event of a mass extinction in the year 2012

So is it possible? how much might it cost? what would be the best way of re-inforcing it? what would the best systems be for it? should it have some weapons?

Smiley be damned. The specificity of the questions pretty much establish that this is a fairly serious inquiry, and more than mere conjectural speculation.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

The real reason i'm asking this is because in the event of a mass extinction in the year 2012

So is it possible? how much might it cost? what would be the best way of re-inforcing it? what would the best systems be for it? should it have some weapons?

Smiley be damned. The specificity of the questions pretty much establish that this is a fairly serious inquiry, and more than mere conjectural speculation.

Is that so.

 

[chardman]

Judging by many of your posts in TNZ, I'd say: Likely.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Judging by many of your posts in TNZ, I'd say: Likely.

What the hell do any of my TNZ posts have to do with any of this?

 

[chardman]

Directly answering that question in this forum would probably earn me at least a warning, which I'd prefer to avoid. So I won't answer it.

However...

Suffice it to say that a lot of harebrained asshatery and stupid opinions are often expressed in TNZ, and there are those (not necessarily me) who perceive that you may well have been involved in at least some of it... or perhaps not. Put it this way: I'd never call you a paranoid, drooling idiot, nor insult or attack you in any way. That, at least as far as this forum goes, is my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Directly answering that question in this forum would probably earn me at least a warning, which I'd prefer to avoid. So I won't answer it.

However...

Suffice it to say that a lot of harebrained asshatery and stupid opinions are often expressed in TNZ, and there are those (not necessarily me) who perceive that you may well have been involved in at least some of it... or perhaps not. Put it this way: I'd never call you a paranoid, drooling idiot, nor insult or attack you in any way. That, at least as far as this forum goes, is my story, and I'm sticking to it.

You accuse me of something falsely, you then mention me and my posts in TNZ which is supposed to STAY in TNZ and not be brought anywhere else and has nothing to do with this thread anyway and then you say answering my last question would earn you a warning and yet you still called me all those things but disguised it and used a stick out tongue smiley.

So just why ARE you posting in this thread?

 

[chardman]

Wait, I believe it was you who accused yourself of using the mass extinction in the year 2012 as your "real reason" for asking the questions that you did.

The real reason i'm asking this is because in the event of a mass extinction in the year 2012

I accused you of nothing you hadn't already admitted to. And in truth, I didn't even accuse you of this; I accused "somebody" of believing in the 2012 nonsense.

And if you look at my posts, I didn't call you any names at all. In fact, I specifically went out of my way to say that I wasn't calling you any of those names. Examples: "there are those (not necessarily me) who perceive that ..." and "I'd never call you a paranoid, drooling idiot, nor insult or attack you in any way."

And while what happens in TNZ is supposed to stay in TNZ, it's only logical that my knowledge of your posting history in any other forum (TNZ included) would logically impact my perception of your posts in other forums, such as this one. That's just an unavoidable fact of human nature. I'm simply admitting to a limitation that impacts almost all of us.

One more thing: It's a joke. Lighten up.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The real reason i'm asking this is because in the event of a mass extinction in the year 2012 the chances of surviving would be much greater if there was a cruise liner sized submarine capable of dropping people into the lowest depths of the ocean.

Why? Mass extinction events last a terribly LONG time, and unless you're planning on cryogenically freezing the crew for a couple thousand years, diving to the bottom of the sea isn't going to make a lick of difference. I mean, it might make it more interesting when you run out of food in three months and the passengers resort to cannibalism...

You're better off outfitting an oil tanker with some hydroponic gardens and sailing to the opposite end of the planet from where the asteroid's gonna hit (or whatever's going on, put some distance) and just ride it out. Sorta like Battlestar Galactica on the ocean instead of at space. And in a few years, assuming the extinction event isn't an ice age, you should be able to find a plot of fertile land and start fresh.

But a submarine just isn't going to work for that except in made-for-TV movies at three in the morning. The main reason submarines sumberge in the first place is to avoid detection by surface ships, namely with the purpose of destroying them; civilian submarines submerge because there is something under water they want to look at up close. There are easier ways to avoid a natural disaster, and there's nothing under water that survivors would want, so... yeah.

 

[sojourner]

Your missing the fact that a submarine can ride out surface conditions that would sink most ships and do it in relative comfort. The water is always calm 500 feet down.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Wait, I believe it was you who accused yourself of using the mass extinction in the year 2012 as your "real reason" for asking the questions that you did.

The real reason i'm asking this is because in the event of a mass extinction in the year 2012

I accused you of nothing you hadn't already admitted to. And in truth, I didn't even accuse you of this; I accused "somebody" of believing in the 2012 nonsense.

And if you look at my posts, I didn't call you any names at all. In fact, I specifically went out of my way to say that I wasn't calling you any of those names. Examples: "there are those (not necessarily me) who perceive that ..." and "I'd never call you a paranoid, drooling idiot, nor insult or attack you in any way."

And while what happens in TNZ is supposed to stay in TNZ, it's only logical that my knowledge of your posting history in any other forum (TNZ included) would logically impact my perception of your posts in other forums, such as this one. That's just an unavoidable fact of human nature. I'm simply admitting to a limitation that impacts almost all of us.

One more thing: It's a joke. Lighten up.

You're trolling my thread. Leave my thread and don't come back. Thanks.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Your missing the fact that a submarine can ride out surface conditions that would sink most ships and do it in relative comfort. The water is always calm 500 feet down.

Not when the thing you're hiding from is a supersonic compression wave from an asteroid hitting the ocean; in that case, 500 feet down is a good place to be crushed alive.

Of course, most extinction events don't involve asteroids and last for thousands of years. At that rate, 500 feet or fifty feet won't make any difference; if you want to survive, you either need a bigass cave full of provisions, or you're looking for a new planet.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Yes but the truth is it might not be asteroids, the cataclysm could be anything. The cataclysm isn't really the point of this exercise and to be quite honest is moot. The point of this exercise is to determine if such a cruise ship sized submarine COULD be built and what would it's systems be and also what would the problems be other than food (which to me is also a moot point since enough could be stored if it's built specifically to store large amounts of food.). The cataclysm could be a rogue planet passing near to the Earth causing freak weather conditions and Earthquakes so heading on down into the ocean would probably be the best place to head.

Personally I don't see a problem with thinking perhaps enough food for one or two years would suffice and could be stored on the vessel in the form of rations.

Take a look at THIS. Each of those compartment could hold several people and the area shown in the middle could for this type of vessel be used for food storage.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yes but the truth is it might not be asteroids, the cataclysm could be anything. The cataclysm isn't really the point of this exercise and to be quite honest is moot. The point of this exercise is to determine if such a cruise ship sized submarine COULD be built and what would it's systems be and also what would the problems be other than food (which to me is also a moot point since enough could be stored if it's built specifically to store large amounts of food.). The cataclysm could be a rogue planet passing near to the Earth causing freak weather conditions and Earthquakes so heading on down into the ocean would probably be the best place to head.

In any case, anything disasterous enough to wipe out humanity isn't going to be over in one or two years and a submarine would not be at all helpful. An underwater CITY would be required here; try building a structure the size of Greater Chicago under a series of domes somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico.

I'll say it again, incase you're still not getting it: extinction events tend to last THOUSANDS of years. Even a single cataclysmic event that causes it all would leave its immediate effects for centuries; a "Noah's Ark" scenario just isn't feasible in the face of the way these things actually happen.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Look, dude, I just wanna know if we could build one of these things and if it would function. The reason for using it and the level of an extinction wide event is a moot point and not a requirement of the scenario.

As of this moment just run a line through anywhere where extinction level event or anywhere where a cataclysm is mentioned. BTW a cataclysm does not necessarily mean and extinction level event.

 

[Jadzia]

Would it be possible to build a submarine the size of a cruise liner? or bigger? this would not be a military vessel but sort of a vessel capable of carrying a LOT of people and families on-board. [...] capable of dropping people into the lowest depths of the ocean.
It wouldn't have windows and it would be heavily re-inforced, nuclear powered and with an enormous (several years) stockpile of food.

So is it possible? how much might it cost? what would be the best way of re-inforcing it? what would the best systems be for it? should it have some weapons?

We'd need to estimate some numbers to answer the question: How many people? How many years are they going to be down there? How deep is the sub going to be under the ocean?

Problems that will need addressing: adequate drinking water, adequate oxygen and air conditioning, an adequate power plant, adequate storage space for food and other consumables, and adequate living space.

 

[Alpha_Geek]

Look, dude, I just wanna know if we could build one of these things and if it would function.

..and we answered that question, you merely refuse to accept the answer.

 

[MANT!]

Why do a submarine..when a CITY beneath the Sea would probably do much better...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNH_q0qXSHw

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Look, dude, I just wanna know if we could build one of these things and if it would function. The reason for using it and the level of an extinction wide event is a moot point and not a requirement of the scenario.

As of this moment just run a line through anywhere where extinction level event or anywhere where a cataclysm is mentioned.

Yes, we could build one. Yes it would function. The point is it would not function WELL, because it is designed to do something incredibly stupid.

BTW a cataclysm does not necessarily mean and extinction level event.

In which case a submarine is doubly useless and it would be much more cost effective to just build a shelter in a cave somewhere.

 

[All Seeing Eye]

Look, dude, I just wanna know if we could build one of these things and if it would function.

..and we answered that question, you merely refuse to accept the answer.

Erm, where have I refused to accept an answer and what answer where was the one I was refusing?

You will have to be a bit more specific.

As for the boat/submarine thing not working and being stupid then I guess the film 2012 is REALLY going to suck when it comes out then. I guess it's going to get some majorly crap reviews about the fact they build one of these things to save peoples lives from the cataclysms. I guess the SFX might make people forgive the writers and producers.

 

[Silvercrest]

Look, dude, I just wanna know if we could build one of these things and if it would function. The reason for using it and the level of an extinction wide event is a moot point and not a requirement of the scenario.

As of this moment just run a line through anywhere where extinction level event or anywhere where a cataclysm is mentioned. BTW a cataclysm does not necessarily mean and extinction level event.

Well, to be practical, are we talking about an event where the oceans are still livable? If they were, you could plan to harvest fish, plankton etc. and desalinate drinking water. If they weren't livable, all your food stores would have to be self-contained. Maybe your water too, unless you planned for some serious decontamination. Much harder to put into practice, or maintain for long.