Hi, I'm working on creating a background for a RPG set on a waterworld and I
have the fallowing questions: 1) What is the maxium practical speed for under
water transporation? 2) What does a person need to live and what should be in
the under sea comunites? 3) Is there a detailed design system for Submarine
design? 4) Would a submarine fighter (like from Sea Quest or Archemdian
Dynasty) be practical? 5) What is the best shape for a lander desgined to move
though the air and go into the water? 6) What would be the best simulater for
underwater combat be? 7) Would "cralwers" be usable? 8) What does it take to
do under water mining? 9) What would be the normal shapes that buildings be
based on? 10) What type of weapons would work (lasers are out, but what about
Sonic weapons)?
-Stephen
G'day Stephen,
> I'm working on creating a background for a RPG set on a waterworld and
I'm only guessing (I'm not an engineer), but I'd say it'd be a lot less than
the top speed possible in air (water has a lot more viscosity than
air).
> 2) What does a person need to live and what should be in the under sea
> comunites?
Some form of plant to desalinate water, another to extract oxygen from the
water and unless your in very shallow water you're going to need a very good
light source and lots of them as light will be attenuated very fast. You'll
also need atmospheric pressurisation or a whole mega series of stop points
going from one depth to another.
> 4) Would a submarine fighter (like from Sea Quest or Archemdian
Small subs already exist for research, thought they are quite often remote
control and slow, so theoretically one could, but there's a lot of design
hiccups to get over first I'd guess.
> 5) What is the best shape for a lander desgined to move though the air
Hydrodynamics and aerodynamics share an awful lot in common due to the basics
of fluid dynamics. Just remember to give it stabilisers so it doesn't go into
a spin once in the water.
> 6) What would be the best simulater for underwater combat be?
Underwater hockey....;)
> 7) Would "cralwers" be usable?
Depends, how deep are you planning to be? They'd be fine for a lot of
continental margin areas where the substrate is fairly firm
(rocky/coarse
sand). Though obviously they're not going to be so crash hot on reefs
themselves. However, once you get into the abyssal stuff you'd want walkers
(stilts) not crawlers or you're going to send up a choking silt cloud that
will clog EVERYTHING!!! I'd also watch out for the continental shelf drop
offs, falling off one of those would be a $^%!&!
> 8) What does it take to do under water mining?
Usually a lot of lubrication muds (i.e. do it from the surface with long
drills), but there is some undersea stuff using dredges and grabs etc (though
most of that is still surface based I think).
> 9) What would be the normal shapes that buildings be based on?
Something that distributes its load very well so as not to be crushed. I'd
also avoid building anything in the range of the thermocline (about 50m
down) for navigation/camouflage reasons - either stay above it or below
it. By the way if you're above it and using diffused light then I'd watch out
for the seasonal phytoplankton blooms as they could mess things up big time.
> 10) What type of weapons would work (lasers are out, but what about
Sonic weapons would, but they'd be a two edged sword you'd have to have very
good focusing and receiving blocking equipment if you didn't want to
stun/hurt your own troops. It would also be good for confusion (bit like
a smoke screen effect) as humans can't determine directions from sound
underwater as its moving too fast for our ears to discern differences as they
can in the air. You could potentially use it for long range
communication or jamming via bouncing it off the thermo-, pycno- or
salocline - it'd be a pretty neat trick though as whales are really the
only things to have figured out exactly how to do that yet.
Plain old explosions and projectiles would work fine too, with a couple of
provisos. 1) Make sure your troops are either inside a structure or have
some pretty amazing armour/cushioning mechanism before letting off an
explosive (believe me suddenly feeling water trickle down your throat because
your eardrums are busted is NOT nice). 2) Make the projectiles
bigger than 2-3cm otherwise they're going to be effected by the water
viscosity (very small things moving through water, would be like us swimming
through honey).
Hope that helps
Beth
> 1) What is the maxium practical speed for under water transporation?
about 30 knots, this is what the fastest russian attack subs could get up to
with high yeild reactors
> 2) What does a person need to live and what should be in the
air, water, food, a place to reproduce. Basically if you have energy such as
fusion plnats you could manufacture or grow all you require, like the
biosphere projects that are running now.
> 3) Is there a detailed design system for Submarine design?
Basically the albacore project found that the best shape is a fat cylinder. If
you mean xisting game system, I don't know of one.
> 4) Would a submarine fighter (like from Sea Quest or
If you had small enough power plants, yes but likely to be more dolphin shaped
than aeroplane shaped.
> 5) What is the best shape for a lander desgined to move
In air how is it propelled? If it has anti grav then a fat cylinder it it has
to fly then something like voyage to the bottom of the seas flying sub which
is based on a manta ray.
> 6) What would be the best simulater for underwater combat be?
Do you mean game system, full thrust depth factor/aquazone variants
would be pretty good for underwater dog-fights.
> 7) Would "cralwers" be usable?
depends on depth and sea bed composition, but yes on the continental shelf
where the sediment wasn't too deep.
> 8) What does it take to do under water mining?
Depends if you are extracting nodules or sinking shafts. Nodule miners would
be large sleds or air lifts. Shafts would have to have cassions sunk over the
sea bed and facilities for waste extraction.
> 9) What would be the normal shapes that buildings be based on?
Domes or spheres as they resist pressure the best
> 10) What type of weapons would work (lasers are out, but what
I would think mostly guided weapons such as torpedoes are going to be the most
effective, these would be smaller and faster and have various guidance
systems. Projectile weapons would have hopeless ranges compared to guided
weapons but could be used for close in fighting as well as mechanical arms or
boring weapons.
depth charges, mines and hedgehogs as well.
Sound would be difficult to focus and enegry weapons would be dissipated too
easily.
> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
There are places on the ocean floor littered with "manganese nodules", which
can be scooped up.
> 9) What would be the normal shapes that buildings be based on?
Spherical. Pressurized tanks. They will look much like an oil refinery with
lots of storage tanks.
> 10) What type of weapons would work (lasers are out, but what about
Sonic weapons are problemantic. Tiny homing torpedoes would be useful, with a
variety of warheads (explosive,
high-voltage electrical discharge, etc.)
Excerpts from mail: 2-Nov-99 Re: Underwater questions [ot] by Beth
Fulton@marine.csiro
> >5) What is the best shape for a lander desgined to move though the
Yes and no.
Water differs from air in two major ways that impact what you're discussing:
-Buoyancy
-Density/viscosity
In air, a plane must support itself through lift. This means that the plane
must be light, strong, and have a large wing surface.
In water, a vehicle is supported vertically through buoyancy. In order to move
through the water at a reasonable speed, it needs to have a
small cross-section with nothing that will snap off due to the drag on
the vehicle (like wings).
Thus airplanes and submersibles are fundamentally different, and I doubt you
could make a very effective vehicle that operated both in the air
and the water unless you've got exotic technology (like anti-grav).
Yes, I'm a mechanical engineering student; no, I don't like fluid mechanics at
all.:)
In a message dated 11/2/99 12:00:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk writes:
> >1) What is the maxium practical speed for under water transporation?
Okay, so the comunities would be close together.
> >2) What does a person need to live and what should be in the
Okay.
> >3) Is there a detailed design system for Submarine design?
Okay, altho a little boring.
> >4) Would a submarine fighter (like from Sea Quest or
Okay, would high enfinshancy (sp?) fuel cells work?
> >5) What is the best shape for a lander desgined to move
I was thinking of an Aerobraking based insertion, would it work to have
lateral movement when it hit the water?
> >6) What would be the best simulater for underwater combat be?
I think that's going to be the best way to go.
> >7) Would "cralwers" be usable?
Okay, as the planet would be young I think that it would be hard enough to
work.
> >8) What does it take to do under water mining?
Okay.
> >9) What would be the normal shapes that buildings be based on?
Okay.
> >10) What type of weapons would work (lasers are out, but what
Would a KEP type weapon be practical?
> depth charges, mines and hedgehogs as well.
Hedgehog?
> Sound would be difficult to focus and enegry weapons would be
Okay, thanks.
-Stephen
In a message dated 11/2/99 6:33:48 AM Pacific Standard Time,
gromit+@CMU.EDU
writes:
> > >5) What is the best shape for a lander desgined to move though the
Would an Aerobraking system work?
-Stephen
In a message dated 11/2/99 3:31:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
nyrath@clark.net writes:
> > 8) What does it take to do under water mining?
That seems simple enough.
> > 9) What would be the normal shapes that buildings be based on?
Okay.
> > 10) What type of weapons would work (lasers are out, but what about
Okay.
> See if your library has a copy of THE MILLENNIAL PROJECT
I'll do that, thanks.
-Stephen
> Okay, would high enfinshancy (sp?) fuel cells work?
Assume fusion power as in Hammers Blowers - basically limitless
you could then envisage some sort of caterpillar drive as in Hunt for Red
October. A mini version could power the torpedoes.
> I was thinking of an Aerobraking based insertion, would it
VTTBS flying sub would be the way to go, this is SF.
> Would a KEP type weapon be practical?
Do you mean an orbital THOR type weapon?
A rail/gauss gun with a Fin Stabilised round
might work, you could invent a forcefield to keep the water out of the
electrics or have them waterproofed. It would be short range due to friction.
Something like a high energy harpoon gun.
Oher weapons could be invented to foul your opponents engines or
jets - like a cloud of stuff that if ssucked into the vents
disables the sub.
Someone mentioned SUBROC type standoff torpedoes they'd work too.
Rocket boost on surface to target area then - sonar to seek and
destroy.
> Hedgehog?
WWII anti-sub weapon basically a mortar that fires contact fused depth
charges - they only go off if they hit a sub.
Actually, a pretty interesting source for future subfighter-type stuff
is Microprose's Subwar 2050, which is probably in the $4.99 bin at the local
CompUSA. They used sub "carriers" with fighters aboard. One of the interesting
concepts was their torpedoes, which were hyperkinetic weapons fired down a
"tube" of air created by vaporizing water with a laser. They also used
particle wepons, as I recall.
Take care,
Excerpts from mail: 2-Nov-99 Re: Underwater questions [ot] by
DracSpy@aol.com
> Would an Aerobraking system work?
My concerns about whether or not the vehicle would work are based not on how
it enters or exits the water, but on its performance in each medium. I think
you could probably do it if you were determined enough; but I suspect that a
vehicle that is strong enough to plow through the water yet light enough to
fly isn't going to do well at either task. Of
course, if this is sci-fi, you can fudge the details :)
> Steven M Goode wrote:
> > >5) What is the best shape for a lander desgined to move though
...while balloons and airships are supported vertically through buoyancy in
air. They're not particularly fast or able to survive
under-water pressure levels, of course.
> In water, a vehicle is supported vertically through buoyancy.
...or flies through it, eg with hydrofoils. Vertical attitude fins on
submarines and torps tend to generate a non-negligible amount of lift
as well.
'Course, buoyancy and lift both come down to the difference in pressure
between the upper and the lower surfaces of the body in question; if the
difference is large enough to overcome the gravitic pull on the
body it will fly/float. The main difference is the physical mechanism
which creates the pressure difference <g>
> In order
The cross section isn't as important as the general shape of the body,
though. Yes, low-drag bodies are fairly slender, but a thin wire
perpendicular to the flow has a rather high drag :-/
> Thus airplanes and submersibles are fundamentally different, and I
Most vehicles we have today which operate both in the air and under
water are single-journey, but I strongly doubt if they have anti-grav
technology...
There have been some projects on swing-wing submersible flying boats,
too; AFAIK none of them got beyond the "working prototype" stage, but
IIRC at least one of them actually both flew and dived - and survived
<G>
Regards,
> Yes and no.
Could the vehical used vertical ducted fans for lift? Then the sub's shape
could be maximized for underwater use.
G'day Steven,
> Thus airplanes and submersibles are fundamentally different, and I
Actually I was thinking the shapes of animals that work well in both -
I'm definitely not an engineer and thus must rely on what's closer to home,
thus I was very impressed to see that the Japanese engineers have finally
decided to trial subs that act (move) like fish;)
> Yes, I'm a mechanical engineering student; no, I don't like fluid
It has its moments;)
Cheers
Beth
Excerpts from mail: 3-Nov-99 Re: Underwater questions [ot] by Beth
Fulton@marine.csiro
> >Thus airplanes and submersibles are fundamentally different, and I
What animals work well in both air and water? Water and land, sure; but air
and water?
> >Yes, I'm a mechanical engineering student; no, I don't like fluid
A few. Control systems are much more fun (feedback! feedforward!
lag-lead! PID! state-space! woo hoo! :P
G'day Steven,
> What animals work well in both air and water? Water and land, sure;
but
> air and water?
Well seabirds for one, comorants especially! And some fish don't do a half bad
job of gliding for short periods, though whales and mako's tend to just go up
and then plop impressively...;)
Beth
> Steven M Goode wrote:
But, but, the Seaview's Flying Sub can do it! <grin> *sigh* Another nifty
concept run aground on hard reality.
Remember that British TV show UFO? They had a most amusing interceptor:
SkyDiver. It was a high tech rocket plane interceptor (Sky)
> Steven M Goode wrote:
but
> air and water?
Flying fish.
Excerpts from mail: 2-Nov-99 Re: Underwater questions [ot] by Nyrath the
n. wise@clark
> Flying fish.
Those two just leap out and in again, right?
> Cormorants.
As I said in an earlier post, I'm unfamiliar with their behavior. Sounds
promising, though.
> Actually, I wonder if some kind of lifting body would
Maybe. Also, a helicopter type vehicle might be good - no wings. You'd
need a secondary (water) propulsion mechanism, though.
Excerpts from mail: 3-Nov-99 Re: Underwater questions [ot] by Beth
Fulton@marine.csiro
> >What animals work well in both air and water? Water and land, sure;
but
> >air and water?
Since I'm totally ignorant of the avian world, you'll have to excuse this
question: Do seabirds dive through the water?
Of course, they've got foldable wings, which is tricky to copy for
vehicles (for various reasons - the cube/squared law and the speeds at
which airplanes move, for example). I'm not saying it's impossible -
and certainly there are some jets with limited wing-folding ability -
but it's tricky.
G'day Steven,
> Flying fish.
The squid do, but the fish can actually glide a reasonable distance (for a
fish) before returning to the water.
> Cormorants.
They tend to make themslevs dart shaped and use their wings for sharp pulses
(i.e. occasional sharp flap) and some steering (adjustment of direction etc)
rather than the big flapping of the air (though they take on their "diving'
mode when dropping in altitude at any fast rate, but apart from the way the
wings sit the rest of the body is in the same postion whether in air or water.
> Actually, I wonder if some kind of lifting body would
You'd
> need a secondary (water) propulsion mechanism, though.
What if you just had the blades slip behind you instead to give a propeller
kind of set up?
Cheers
Beth
Excerpts from mail: 3-Nov-99 Re: Underwater questions [ot] by Beth
Fulton@marine.csiro
> >Maybe. Also, a helicopter type vehicle might be good - no wings.
You'd
> >need a secondary (water) propulsion mechanism, though.
Well, then you've got to have space for the blades (meaning the tail of the
'copter has to move out of the way or something). And while air and water are
both fluids, the density difference means that you need different kinds of
rotors to move through different fluids.
Reconfiguration in general is a hideously difficult task. We all see
transformable robots, etc. in the media and think that it's plausible; but
it's really not easy to make things reconfigurable and robust simultaneously.
It's especially difficult when you're dealing with something moving at the
speeds (and experiencing the stresses) that an airplane does. As an example,
there are several projects at Carnegie Mellon (my school) dealing with
reconfigurable or modular robots. They haven't gotten very far, because what
you gain in articulation you lose in strength, so modular robots of any size
have a tendancy to fall apart under loading (or even under their own weight).
I guess what I'm stressing here is the incompatability of rigid structural
members and reconfigurability. If you had exotic materials
(pneumatically inflated wings made of efficient and cheap shape-memory
alloys, maybe), then you might be able to do a lot more reconfiguration. But
the basic tradeoff is still there.
A manta-shaped lifting body with some "flapping" ability is probably
your best bet if you don't want to have two unrelated movement setups
(helicopter rotor plus submarine screws, for example).
Again - this *is* science fiction, so you *can* just wave your hands :)
> Since I'm totally ignorant of the avian world, you'll have
Be interesting to watch a plane try to fold its wings _while
in flight_ diving for the water.
Try a Heron.
Lifting body Sounds like the flying sub from Iriwn Allan's "Voyage To The
Bottom Of The Sea"
[quoted original message omitted]
> At 9:30 PM -0500 11/2/99, Laserlight wrote:
That gets back to the whole transforming mecha thing again, which I'm for come
to think of it.
In a message dated 11/2/99 8:36:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> Tim.Jones@Smallworld.co.uk writes:
> >Okay, would high enfinshancy (sp?) fuel cells work?
I think I can do that, altho I would like to keep things as near future as
posible.
> >I was thinking of an Aerobraking based insertion, would it
VTTBS?
> >Would a KEP type weapon be practical?
I was thinking more of a High Aspect (is that even the right term?) weapon
that is kind of like a rocket assisted gun. I think that there was some talk
of using this for the F-22, about 2 feet long and about 2" across it was
basicaly a long range gun.
> A rail/gauss gun with a Fin Stabilised round
I think'll stick with Bear Waterproofing, no need to get a forcefield into the
picture, to many other things you can do with them.
> Oher weapons could be invented to foul your opponents engines or
I already working on that.
> Someone mentioned SUBROC type standoff torpedoes they'd work too.
That would work, altho I think that based on other things I've set up about
the planet that it will have STRONG winds, fast rotation, close to the sun
(G8) I think would get things realy moving in the atmosphere.
> >Hedgehog?
Hmm, those could be usefull, maybe changed into more a cluster torp.
-Stephen
In a message dated 11/2/99 9:13:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> info@thewayfareronline.com writes:
> Actually, a pretty interesting source for future subfighter-type stuff
I guess they wern't into stealth.
-Stephen
Excerpts from mail: 3-Nov-99 Re: Underwater questions [ot] by
DracSpy@aol.com
> > local CompUSA. They used sub "carriers" with fighters aboard. One
That's a really cool idea. I assume that the covering of the laser, the walls
of the tube, and the end of the torpedoes were all mirrored? That way, the
beam would keep bouncing around and heating up the air.
Of course, this probably requires enormous amounts of power (enough energy to
vaporize a lot of water in a very short time) and it has other problems (the
amount of power you need depends on the temperature of the water, a laser is
probably not the best way to boil water, etc.) but it's so damn *cool*:)
In a message dated 11/2/99 11:37:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> hosford.donald@acd.net writes:
> Could the vehical used vertical ducted fans for lift?
I think that wouuld work, altho they would have to be retractable.
-Stephen
In a message dated 11/2/99 2:41:38 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au writes:
> Actually I was thinking the shapes of animals that work well in both -
MIT did something along those lines too, very interesting, something to keep
in mind.
-Stephen
> On Tue, 2 Nov 1999, Steven M Goode wrote:
> Thus airplanes and submersibles are fundamentally different, and I
There are vehicles that operate in both environments. Take a look at the
Anti Submarine weapon Subroc. It launches out of the tubes of a sub, moves to
the surface, becomes effectively a rocket power missile, then drops the
booster and drops into the water as a guided torpedo.
The difficulties are there, but not insurmountable. What about a WIG that is
submersable? It would look like your manta ray thingy and still operate fine
underwater. If its science fiction, give it an ion drive underwater and some
sort of turbo fan up top. The Turbo Shaft would provide lots of horses for
your ion engine's magnetic accellorators underwater...
> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/2/99 11:37:53 AM Pacific Standard Time,
I was thinking, maybe the ducted fans could be built into the body. With these
hatchs that would slide over the various openings when it landed on the water.
Either they would compleatly seal the ducts, or
just "streamline" them. So that way it would have it's air engines/lift
ducts nice and dry. I think the ducts would have to be tall enough for
the fans/engines to be above the water line while it was floating.
Other than the position/shape of the ducts/propulsion engines/control
surfaces, the craft could be almost any shape.
BTW, I always thought the flying sub from VTTBOTS was built like this...though
they never did discribe it.
In a message dated 11/2/99 11:33:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> hosford.donald@acd.net writes:
> I was thinking, maybe the ducted fans could be built into the body.
I think it would work, altho the idea of cutting holes in a heat shield would
not be good.
-Stephen
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> Donald Hosford wrote:
Sounds interesting!
> DracSpy@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/2/99 11:33:21 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Just have the crew slip on their abestos undies....8D
In a message dated 11/3/99 11:11:45 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> hosford.donald@acd.net writes:
> Just have the crew slip on their abestos undies....8D
Hmm, I think that it would be best not to punch a hole in the heat shield.
-Stephen
> Donald Hosford wrote:
Oh, it gets better. The evil sub-ocean dwelling
inhabitants of sunken Lemuria are attacking all us surface dwellers with their
flame thrower equipped submarines, and their pet: Manda the giant sea monster.
> At 07:54 PM 11/3/99 -0500, Nyrath wrote:
> There was a weird Anime version (Super Atragon) which had
Speaking of submarine combat and anime, those interested should check out
Blue Sub No. 6, a four-part OAV that came out a few years ago. The
setting is interesting and the series takes place in the near future. Most of
the world is devastated and underwater, apparently due to the misdeeds of a
shady genetic engineer and his legion of mutant critters. Apart from being a
great show, Blue Sub also makes for good game source material. It
features fighter mini-subs, big submarines, and a host of weird
bioengineered aquatic critters.
The animation is gorgeous and completely CG. Most of the character scenes
are done in 2-D computer graphics (which is visually indistinguishable
from
the cell-drawn anime we're used to), while the action / mecha scenes are
done in 3-D (a la, the recent Starship Troopers show). This mixing of
animation styles may sound strange but it looks great in the show.
Here's a website I dug up on the series:
http://www.amotokyo.com/ao6/index.htm
I thought I was the only one to remember Atragon! Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
> Oh, it gets better. The evil sub-ocean dwelling
I'm gonna have to look up a copy...thanks for the info!