Skip to main content
Worldbuilding

Return to Answer

added 844 characters in body
Source Link
Joe Bloggs
Joe Bloggs
  • 66.5k
  • 25
  • 167
  • 273

5: Acceleration cushioning.

If you suspend living quarters or sensitive machines in a body of water then when the spacecraft begins braking the water will provide a g-force cushion, aiding in survivability. I assume that (like Rama) the acceleration is down the axis of the cylinder. If the body of water is large enough, the acceleration small enough and you're in the centre of the ocean you may not even notice the deceleration (even though the surface might 'slosh' quite alarmingly). In a closed tank the 'sloshability' of such a large body of water is greatly reduced, which translates to more of the acceleration making it's way to whatever you have suspended. If you have a large tank of water being accelerated with an open 'sloshable' top then you may as well use it as an ocean and gain some of the other benefits noted.

All told I think that having such an ocean wouldn't be down to any one benefit: It would be a combination of smaller benefits and design considerations that, when taken together, would lead the engineers to the solution of 'sod it, lets put it in one place'. However: as I've noted in an answer to another question such an endeavour does add complexity. It would very much be a balancing act between the various engineering complexities, political expediencies and mission requirements.

All told I think that having such an ocean wouldn't be down to any one benefit: It would be a combination of smaller benefits and design considerations that, when taken together, would lead the engineers to the solution of 'sod it, lets put it in one place'. However: as I've noted in an answer to another question such an endeavour does add complexity. It would very much be a balancing act between the various engineering complexities, political expediencies and mission requirements.

5: Acceleration cushioning.

If you suspend living quarters or sensitive machines in a body of water then when the spacecraft begins braking the water will provide a g-force cushion, aiding in survivability. I assume that (like Rama) the acceleration is down the axis of the cylinder. If the body of water is large enough, the acceleration small enough and you're in the centre of the ocean you may not even notice the deceleration (even though the surface might 'slosh' quite alarmingly). In a closed tank the 'sloshability' of such a large body of water is greatly reduced, which translates to more of the acceleration making it's way to whatever you have suspended. If you have a large tank of water being accelerated with an open 'sloshable' top then you may as well use it as an ocean and gain some of the other benefits noted.

All told I think that having such an ocean wouldn't be down to any one benefit: It would be a combination of smaller benefits and design considerations that, when taken together, would lead the engineers to the solution of 'sod it, lets put it in one place'. However: as I've noted in an answer to another question such an endeavour does add complexity. It would very much be a balancing act between the various engineering complexities, political expediencies and mission requirements.

Source Link
Joe Bloggs
Joe Bloggs
  • 66.5k
  • 25
  • 167
  • 273

Depends on your definition of benefit. In the case of Rama the lake wasn't just a lake, it was also a machine reclamation (and presumably construction) yard where machines from anywhere in the habitat could take advantage of 3d space, and if I remember correctly also had something to do with energy storage. Anyway..

By body of water I'm going to assume you mean un-tanked and visible. This immediately opens up some possibilities:

1: Passive temperature/humidity control.

Our ocean is a brilliant storer of heat. It's warm in winter and cold in summer as the thermal mass of the ocean slowly absorbs/releases temperatures. In your ship the designers would (presumably) work out the ideal heat and water vapour transfer/storage ratios (IE the surface area of the ocean to it's volume) and build accordingly. If it turns out the easiest way to achieve such a ratio is one big lake, then so be it. Arguably they could make a series of smaller lakes or actively controlled heating, but they might not want to have to duplicate the systems that allow control of the body of water, or may need a very large ratio of volume to surface that's easier to create by having one or two huge obstructive lakes rather than a series of small ones. It might even be that to conserve power they're pouring all their effort into making one large, stable body of water that then maintains the environmental conditions of the rest of the ship almost entirely passively in the same way that you can build buildings that passively control their own climate as long as a large enough body of air is available.

2: As an ecosystem.

You can't keep a whale in a duck pond for any length of time. Deep biodiversity of the kind you'd want to maintain an ecosystem requires space, but also requires interaction. If you want to bring along a heap of ocean species then you need something approximating an ocean to put them in including depths, large surface and shoreline.

3: People like oceans.

I'm not talking a recreational lake here and there: I mean a big, open expanse of water that people can go 'deep sea' fishing on. Perhaps a mandate from a senator or a populist cry from those destined to board your ship requires that there be an ocean. In that case you may as well put all the water in one place.

4: Counterweights.

I'll concede this requires two oceans, one at either end, but with creative plumbing and some undersea turbines (to transfer momentum from cylinder to ocean) you can use oceans such as this to counteract unwanted tumbling. Such a system would be more controllable in isolation, but if you need to have an oceans worth of water and all you're doing is occasionally moving momentum into/from it it may as well serve a second purpose

All told I think that having such an ocean wouldn't be down to any one benefit: It would be a combination of smaller benefits and design considerations that, when taken together, would lead the engineers to the solution of 'sod it, lets put it in one place'. However: as I've noted in an answer to another question such an endeavour does add complexity. It would very much be a balancing act between the various engineering complexities, political expediencies and mission requirements.