>this will never exist
Why does the real world have to suck so much?
>>931842
Because that is a fucking retarded concept, technically unfeasible and not worth the cost for a variety of reasons.
>>931842
>Why does the real world have to suck so much?
Because you touch yourself at night and make the baby Jesus cry.
>mfw with global warming that's probably how we're all going to end up living
>>931842
imagine a rogue wave broadsiding that plate-glass facade
With the way cruise ships keep growing we'll get there eventually.
>>931842
You do realise that the passengers would be living underneath an airport? Those places have noise-pollution problems...
>>931842
>jet loses power / hits microburst
>falls below glide slope
>plows through 2 city blocks
I guess we know where the blacks are gonna live, amirite?
>>931842
>seasteading
you should google this concept, it might interest you.
Actual floating cities, those would be interesting not far from shore, but probably not the middle of the ocean.
And then there's the story of Stiltsville.
The problem with this kind of concept is what you do with the huge space inside. There's no windows so nobody wants to live there and you don't really need that much storage space to contain all the provisions the ship needs. I suppose you could turn it into hydroponics, but even then you'll need a lot of power to keep it all lit and maintained, which will all have to be generated someone on the ship.
>>932650
You have nuclear reactors for reason.
>wobbly plane landing on wobbly surface
That's why
>>932651
I imagine that nuclear engines would be tricky to refuel on a ship that couldn't enter ports.
>>932650
Ideally it would be like some sort of seaborne kowloon walled city. Cyberpunk as fuck.
>>931844
/thread
>>932668
>I imagine that nuclear engines would be tricky to refuel on a ship that couldn't enter ports.
Provided you've got a way to get containers on and off - which won't be by air, some sort of dock will be mandatory - you can probably figure out how to get reactor fuel rods sorted.
The big problem comes when you've been running for a decade or two and need to go for a more extensive refit. You'd need that even without the need to replace the reactor.
>>932944
Anon alludes to the fact that Savannah was banned from ports all over the world because nuclear sounds scary.
Seems like a much flatter design would work better... If there's going to be any height to the thing it should be downwards, underwater... Probably fairly narrow cause who wants to live within, without windows? From the bottom tip I'd imagine you would run anchor cables to the sea floor depending on depth. And what about turbines or whatever to take advantage of the current? Attached to the stem, or on the sea floor. Seems like a reasonable energy source. Additionally I'd imagine you could get a ton of solar if you set up a nice spread. Other than that there would be large swaths of open ocean corralled off for fish or sea vegetable farming. Hell, you could do algae farming to for conversion into liquid fuel.
>>931842
Ya everyone's gonna love living under a fucking runway
>>931842
It's probably one of the worst ideas on n, right up there with the balloon train
>>932396
Basically a fancy Aircraft Carrier?
(pic 200% related, my favourite CVN, USS Enterprise)
>>932978
>banned from ports all over the world
There are plenty of ports that handle nuclear material. Not all of them, but you don't need all of them. Remember, it's much longer lasting than normal fuel.
>>935085
Not a matter of handling the fuel. Matter of you not even allowed to go to port, at all, because 'zomg nuclear meltdown!1!!!'
Banned, as in banned. Not banned as in unable to refuel. How that's even a ban...
There's a reason Libertarians are drawn to this idea: its a fun fantasy but serves no practical purpose in the real world.
>>933057
Blimp Train is a legit industry you cunt
