Space Cadet
SOC-12
A Layer of water would shield most radiation, Have two layers of transparent ballistic cloth and say, 3 meters of water in between, most of the dangerous radiation would be blocked by that water.
arcologies and urban combat
- Thread starter atpollard
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
And antigravity modules to keep it all from falling down, and heaters to keep the water from freezing, and pumps to circulate it so you don't get temperature differences, and hundreds of spider bots to patch all the micrometeor holes on the outside, and a regular replacement program as the clear panels become cloudy from exposure, and shade panels for when the sun is too hot and/or to create a reasonable day/night approximation, and...
Why not just go underground and create a virtual sky? So much safer, cheaper, easier and every bit as "real" as living on a real world.
The probable solution to the radiation problem for the small farm is to have enough shielding (solid or magnetic) to stop the sleet of low energy particles, and then simply grow crops that can ignore the fairly low dose of high energy particles, while burying the living quarters underground.
As for the problem of radiation damage to the ballistic cloth, I'd probably use something more radiation resistant, such as glass.
As for the problem of radiation damage to the ballistic cloth, I'd probably use something more radiation resistant, such as glass.
I was thinking about a world with a magnetic field and a non-breathable atmosphere for the 'cloth' domed farm.
For very harsh worlds, like the classic airless rockball, I would build underground. Fusion tunneling rock at 1000 cr per dTon is cheap. I would start with a 30 dton module (from a 50 dTon modular cutter) fitted with temporary living quarters and some mining equipment and start tunneling down, then out. Every year you add another cave and your farm complex grows. The module becomes your own private landing pad/spaceport (fitted with an old pulse laser salvaged from a scrapped ship to discourage uninvited visitors). People who dream of living alone, underground, on a lifeless planet are probably not 'people' persons.
For very harsh worlds, like the classic airless rockball, I would build underground. Fusion tunneling rock at 1000 cr per dTon is cheap. I would start with a 30 dton module (from a 50 dTon modular cutter) fitted with temporary living quarters and some mining equipment and start tunneling down, then out. Every year you add another cave and your farm complex grows. The module becomes your own private landing pad/spaceport (fitted with an old pulse laser salvaged from a scrapped ship to discourage uninvited visitors). People who dream of living alone, underground, on a lifeless planet are probably not 'people' persons.
And THAT boild down the issue of "Arcology or Not Arcology" to it's simplest element!
The only REAL reason to build an Arcology, over a cheaper & safer underground complex, is one of VIEW. With an Arcology you can have easier access to natural sunlights and natural vistas. While this stuff CAN be "pumped" into an underground facility, it's just not the same.
So, to get back to the original point, the two significants points to Urban Combat in an "Arcology/Closed Structure" vs. combat in an "open" City, is that in the Arcology there is a solid roof over your head -- SOMEwhere! -- and that in the Arcology, collateral damage has a greater chance of affecting the ENTIRE City.
In an "open" City, street fighting might affect the power/water of a single building, or maybe a block. This risk is also there with an Arcology, but with an Arcology's more centralized distribution of power/water/air/etc., there would ALSO be a risk to shutting down a whole section of the City, and maybe even shutting down the whole grid.
The only REAL reason to build an Arcology, over a cheaper & safer underground complex, is one of VIEW. With an Arcology you can have easier access to natural sunlights and natural vistas. While this stuff CAN be "pumped" into an underground facility, it's just not the same.
So, to get back to the original point, the two significants points to Urban Combat in an "Arcology/Closed Structure" vs. combat in an "open" City, is that in the Arcology there is a solid roof over your head -- SOMEwhere! -- and that in the Arcology, collateral damage has a greater chance of affecting the ENTIRE City.
In an "open" City, street fighting might affect the power/water of a single building, or maybe a block. This risk is also there with an Arcology, but with an Arcology's more centralized distribution of power/water/air/etc., there would ALSO be a risk to shutting down a whole section of the City, and maybe even shutting down the whole grid.
it won't be centralized, it will be distributed, and with multiple delivery systems. if everyone's life depends on these then they won't be set up so that a single point of failure brings down the main lines. furthermore there'll be backups, reserves, auxiliary remote control, local manual control, and designated safe rooms. not saying it'll be indestructible, but it'll be as close to that as they can make it.
BetterThanLife
SOC-14 1K
You are still likely to cause nasty things with collateral damage. Further many of the more powerful weapons will bring down sections of the roof on your head or break the environmental seal. Further in many of these environments there will, be a tendency to limit vehicular access. After all if you can walk, take a slide walk or Turboshaft, why move vehicles about through most of the structure. Remember that cubbage will be at a premium, just like it is on a starship. So why make all your access nice big wide and high streets? Not having all your access nice big high streets, also helps with defense of the City.
After all an invader can't roll tanks, in general through the city except in areas where you allow it, in the design, and that also means you can set up defensive positions accounting for that, that helps with the defenses. Rendering armored vehicles of extremely limited utility in this type of environment.
After all an invader can't roll tanks, in general through the city except in areas where you allow it, in the design, and that also means you can set up defensive positions accounting for that, that helps with the defenses. Rendering armored vehicles of extremely limited utility in this type of environment.
The winds of a tornado can exceed 400 mph, yet it is possible to construct buildings to withstand these winds. Such a structure would also offer protection from Hurricanes, crashing aircraft and would be a boon in defending our cities against an invading army. Unfortunately, most people do not want to spent 10 times as much for a windowless house with concrete walls burried under earthen mounds - in spite of the listed advantages.
Be carefull not to forget that an arcology is first and foremost a place for people to live and work. Combat in an arcology could be similar to combat in a starship to the extent that the structural 'shell' could be very strong (like a starship hull) and the ineterior partitions could be very weak (like a stateroom door/wall). This would make it possible to fight within an arcology using weapons that could penetrate simple walls and personal armor, but not destroy the structure (for the protection of your soldiers not a concern for the enemy).
Fusion guns are bad, but gauss to your heart's content.
Be carefull not to forget that an arcology is first and foremost a place for people to live and work. Combat in an arcology could be similar to combat in a starship to the extent that the structural 'shell' could be very strong (like a starship hull) and the ineterior partitions could be very weak (like a stateroom door/wall). This would make it possible to fight within an arcology using weapons that could penetrate simple walls and personal armor, but not destroy the structure (for the protection of your soldiers not a concern for the enemy).
Fusion guns are bad, but gauss to your heart's content.
Wow, how did I pass up this discussion?
I've been interested in Soleri's Arcology concept from an asthetic point of view since 6th grade or earlier; i.e. I think the visual appearance of the architecture is interesting, but I've doubts about its viability.
Having gone through his primary book (many years back, which is tucked away in some dark corner of my book and gaming closet) I can state that an arcology is, with all due respect to aptollard's obsercation, not unlike a "big apartment building", but is more than such. Instead it rises more to the definition of expansive "hotel" with shops or shopping mall with living quarters, but on an "industrial" scale so to speak.
Arcologies are designed around a set pattern to more efficienty compartmentalize and thus place for the sake of ease and comfort manufacturing, processing and other industrial activities (as well as commerce) conveniently and accesible to the people who should ideally live near them, without bringing about all the negative attributes associated with living near an industrial or commercial district. In theory, essence, and practice an arcology is a giant zoning project where the zoning is created by virtue of the architecture, and not by some form of regulation.
Arcologies have living, commercial, residential and industrial sections of the structure. Not unlike a hospital, college campus, or, as I stated, large luxury hotel with shops, or a shopping mall. The difference is of course in the so-called logical placement of where the industrial, commercia, living (recreational) and residential areas go (as well as administrative apparatus).
Soleris concern was that the blight experienced in contemporary (American) urban centers was caused by people not feeling good about their surroundings. As with anything there's certainly a strong element of truth to that, but, as with many social theories, it's not a complete thought, and Soleri has some rather odd and quirky artistic reasoning to arrive at his conclusions.
I've seen a lot of his stuff rendered into computer models, including his "space city" which is designed for a zero-g environment. It's itneresting stuff, and makes for some good Traveller fodder, but I think there's some misunderstanding on both sides of the equation as to how arcologies are meant to function. Foremost is the concept that most traffic within the structure will be foot traffic, and that automotive transportation will be used mainly to connect arcologies and cities to one another. The other is the assumption that people will want to live in such structures which amount to little more than over designed apartment buildigns (albeit with more frills, but apartments nonetheless). Third is the notion that helecopters and vertical take off aircraft will be the mainstay of air transport (which has proven to be untrue).
The list goes on.
Soleri has financed with endeavor with a number of efforts, notably selling "Soleri Bells", wind chimes and, on at least one occasion, rented his arcology in New Mexica (or some southwestern state) as a location for a ⌧ flick (my buddy used to get the Playboy channel back in the 80s
).
I think the idea is that the living quarters will not be sparten, but nor will they be overly opulant as to be wasteful, and that this concept will balance with the interior parklands and access to the surrounding "prestine" landscape surrounding the structure (ocean, desert, forest, mountain, what-have-you). But people typically want more because it's who we are as a species.
All in all arcologies are interesting, and I'm sure we'll eventually see a few in human history, but I doubt they'll become mainstays.
linky; http://www.arcosanti.org/
I've been interested in Soleri's Arcology concept from an asthetic point of view since 6th grade or earlier; i.e. I think the visual appearance of the architecture is interesting, but I've doubts about its viability.
Having gone through his primary book (many years back, which is tucked away in some dark corner of my book and gaming closet) I can state that an arcology is, with all due respect to aptollard's obsercation, not unlike a "big apartment building", but is more than such. Instead it rises more to the definition of expansive "hotel" with shops or shopping mall with living quarters, but on an "industrial" scale so to speak.
Arcologies are designed around a set pattern to more efficienty compartmentalize and thus place for the sake of ease and comfort manufacturing, processing and other industrial activities (as well as commerce) conveniently and accesible to the people who should ideally live near them, without bringing about all the negative attributes associated with living near an industrial or commercial district. In theory, essence, and practice an arcology is a giant zoning project where the zoning is created by virtue of the architecture, and not by some form of regulation.
Arcologies have living, commercial, residential and industrial sections of the structure. Not unlike a hospital, college campus, or, as I stated, large luxury hotel with shops, or a shopping mall. The difference is of course in the so-called logical placement of where the industrial, commercia, living (recreational) and residential areas go (as well as administrative apparatus).
Soleris concern was that the blight experienced in contemporary (American) urban centers was caused by people not feeling good about their surroundings. As with anything there's certainly a strong element of truth to that, but, as with many social theories, it's not a complete thought, and Soleri has some rather odd and quirky artistic reasoning to arrive at his conclusions.
I've seen a lot of his stuff rendered into computer models, including his "space city" which is designed for a zero-g environment. It's itneresting stuff, and makes for some good Traveller fodder, but I think there's some misunderstanding on both sides of the equation as to how arcologies are meant to function. Foremost is the concept that most traffic within the structure will be foot traffic, and that automotive transportation will be used mainly to connect arcologies and cities to one another. The other is the assumption that people will want to live in such structures which amount to little more than over designed apartment buildigns (albeit with more frills, but apartments nonetheless). Third is the notion that helecopters and vertical take off aircraft will be the mainstay of air transport (which has proven to be untrue).
The list goes on.
Soleri has financed with endeavor with a number of efforts, notably selling "Soleri Bells", wind chimes and, on at least one occasion, rented his arcology in New Mexica (or some southwestern state) as a location for a ⌧ flick (my buddy used to get the Playboy channel back in the 80s
I think the idea is that the living quarters will not be sparten, but nor will they be overly opulant as to be wasteful, and that this concept will balance with the interior parklands and access to the surrounding "prestine" landscape surrounding the structure (ocean, desert, forest, mountain, what-have-you). But people typically want more because it's who we are as a species.
All in all arcologies are interesting, and I'm sure we'll eventually see a few in human history, but I doubt they'll become mainstays.
linky; http://www.arcosanti.org/
P
Pickles
Guest
Depending on climate or available land, quite a lot of people might prefer arcologies to the open-air-world. For instance, my journey to work takes about an hour, of which I spend less than 5 minutes outside - and even those are mainly through choice and because the ferry pier is not directly connected to any malls. The rest of my commute is on air-conditioned transport, through underground passages and inter-connected shopping malls and office complexes.
Many people here never have to go 'outside' if they don't want to, and believe me, in summer many don't want to.
Anyway, this is just a roundabout way of saying that people may actually like to be divorced from nature. Our current (mainly Western) regard for the latter is only a little over a century old, after all - for the rest of our existence on the planet we've been trying to tame it. I can easily imagine a far future where people would rather be fully protected from the 'red in tooth and claw' stuff.
Many people here never have to go 'outside' if they don't want to, and believe me, in summer many don't want to.
Anyway, this is just a roundabout way of saying that people may actually like to be divorced from nature. Our current (mainly Western) regard for the latter is only a little over a century old, after all - for the rest of our existence on the planet we've been trying to tame it. I can easily imagine a far future where people would rather be fully protected from the 'red in tooth and claw' stuff.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
The VAB has the same problem.
This conceptual development of a hotel in China could easily be turned into an arc. The design blew my socks off. More info here (which is an excellent site worth exploring):
http://www.thecoolhunter.net/architecture/
http://www.thecoolhunter.net/architecture/
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
P
Pickles
Guest
Yeah, but it's a China project ... meaning it won't ever get built. Or, on the off chance that it does, it will look like a square lump of concrete. With pink wall tiles.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
I think we need to change your medication...
