PDA

View Full Version : Could the city have been built in secret in the 1960s?


Habeed
04-30-2007, 04:00 AM
Yes. The backstory is that our character arrived via plane crash. That means that the dome is located at less than 100 feet beneath the ocean. (well, at least the top portion...maybe the character's cockpit happened to sink near a lock at the top of the dome)

The city could be pressurized to the air pressure at about 100-200 feet under the ocean. Scuba divers can handle this all the time, and I think you can be rapidly compressed to the pressure at 50-100 feet without too severe a case of the bends. I know after a sudden pressurization, coming back to the surface could be fatal, but the character could plausible survive.

The water conditions are described as icy, so the city could be on the seabed somewhere in the arctic. There's literally millions of real world possible locations, where the water is murky enough that no-one could see it from above.

As for secrecy, I estimate a domed city half a mile across might cost about what a nuclear powered aircraft carrier costs. The Ronald Reagan cost about 4 billion dollars. According to Forbes.com, 200 billionaires have the net worth to afford this in the present day. I am sure there were lots who could have afforded it in the 1950s and 60s.

Even if the city leaks, it does have a working power source. The lights work in the screenshots. An automated nuclear reactor or a geothermal engine could supply this power. I'm sure near iceland there are lots of suitable underwater locations. If the power source is working, then an automatic pump could be adding more air to the city's dome and pumping the water out. There could be a snorkel somewhere on the surface (Sealand is a real life offshore platform made during WW2) hidden in the structure of an offshore platforn.

In terms of building materials, to withstand the water pressure at 100-200 feet the city would have to be built about as well as the hull of an aircraft carrier or Liberty ship (a cheap type of ww2 freighter). Easily doable in the late 50s, early 60s.

The place could have been built by the Soviets, perhaps in return for a European billionaire's fortune. They would have built an entire town in secret, full of workers who are not allowed to leave. In a giant dry-dock they would have built the dome, then flooded it and towed it underwater to the installation point. A nuclear "test" could have then obliterated the evidence on the surface.

The soviets would then have murdered the workers. Both secret towns and mass murders like this actually happened. The soviets detonated hundreds of nuclear warheads during their reign.

So, while it is UNLIKELY that something this big could be kept a secret, it is definitely possible. It is a difficult engineering challenge, but still quite doable even with 1960s technology. It might not be a very GOOD solution (the city has rusted and leaks in the game), but it would work for a while. It's also not likely that the game's protagonist could survive a crash into deep arctic water in just the right location...but also possible.

The reason underwater cities do not exist in the modern day has nothing to do with engineering, but because they would cost far too much to be practical. You could never gain enough dry 'land' underwater to make up for the construction costs. (MUCH cheaper to get more usable land almost ANY other way, from artificial islands like in Hong Kong and Japan, to irrigating a section of desert (Los Angelos) )

splicer
04-30-2007, 05:47 AM
A fascinating read,but a rather rhetorical question;)

Raveness
04-30-2007, 07:33 PM
Thanks for the insight :) You sound like you have an engineering background or at least a keen interest in superscalar construction. I wouldn't know how to apply half the systems, or what backup or tech was available, but I don't think it's a far stretch to imagine such an engineering feat was not possible in the 60's given loads of money and talent was thrown at it.

OTOH construction techniques are always being refined, and if using those from the 50's, it would probably require Rapture to be constantly maintained from leaks, failures in power distribution, and above normal wear & tear.

bfollowell
05-03-2007, 07:31 PM
That was a great read but I don't think the city was built in the 60's. I think it was built in the 30's. Here are a few things I noticed around the website. The premise is that you are from a plane crash, yes, but you make for lighthouse in the distance where you find a bathysphere. You get in and take a ride down and find the city. From that, I get the impression the city is much deeper than 100 feet.

The restaurant Kashmir is well known for its long history of New Year's Eve bashes. In the ruins of Kashmir is a banner for New Year's 1959. That leads me to think it had been around since way before 1959, maybe as far back as the 30's.

Also, look at the various trailers and screenshots. Everything has a 1930's art deco look to it. Now, maybe the original builders were just inspired by that time period but I doubt it. I have a strong feeling that most of what we see pre-dates WWII and any Soviet concerns.

Those are my thoughts and observations at any rate. I could very well be way off base as well.

You brought up many interesting points though and your post was definitely an entertaining and thought provoking read.

Sincerely,
- Byron Followell

Rapture_Survivalist
05-03-2007, 07:48 PM
I do beleive that Rapture was built right after WWII, during 1946.

Interesting post though.;)

MF9000
05-03-2007, 07:54 PM
Go back and read the info on Rapture and listen to the podcasts. The city was suppose to have been created in the late 1940's (i.e. after WWII). World War 2 essentially ended in 1945. In Europe it was in May. In the Pacific theater it was a little after the August bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course I'm not including all the treaty negotiations and minor engagements, just major combat operations. So Rapture wasn't built in the 30's or 60's. It appears that the feces hit the fan in Rapture on New Years Eve 1959. I don't recall if we've been told what year we happen upon Rapture, but I would place it around mid to late 1960's. It depends on how long the civil war went on (the major part).

Rapture_Survivalist
05-03-2007, 08:18 PM
Are we posotive things went to hell on New Years 1959?

(Yay, i'm a "member" now!:D )

Cthulhu
05-03-2007, 08:31 PM
It's definately possible for them to have built an underwater city. I mean the nuclear bomb was built by 1945.

Ryan is probably one of those people who inherited billions from their parents, and he could pretty much do anything he wanted.

Plus, rapture was filled with the most promising scientists and businessmen from all over the world, they could easily have pulled off such feat.

Morovir
05-04-2007, 11:23 AM
I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned that Rapture is essentially "Galt's Gulch" under water - though I did notice a screenshot with "Atlas was right" on it.

The same controversy about when Atlas Shrugged is going on too, and that book was released 50 years ago.

While I'm not a big fan of Rand (cripes - did anyone read those marathon speeches all the way through?), the ideas she presents are intriguing.

This more than explains why the city is at the bottom of the sea. The city would be very hard to find in the first place, and at depth, effectively isolated from the world.

Much like the invisibility shield in Atlas Shrugged, I'm sure the devs have come up with a backstory for how you can create such a large structure under water.

The bigger question remains how Andrew Ryan will be handled. In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt was a "hero" (of sorts). At the very least, he wasn't a bad guy. I get the feeling that Ryan will be portrayed as a villain, though I'm hoping that it will be more complex than that.

From what I've read, I'm really hoping this is handled well, given the focus on morality and ethics in the game. Largely because I suspect that Ryan shouldn't be a bad guy, but an idealist that is watching his dream go down the crapper. I can imagine him being a bit defensive, and perhaps even angry; but I think evil villain would be a bit of stretch.

Damn - I can't wait to play this...

MF9000
05-04-2007, 02:14 PM
I'm a bit surprised no one has mentioned that Rapture is essentially "Galt's Gulch" under water - though I did notice a screenshot with "Atlas was right" on it.

The same controversy about when Atlas Shrugged is going on too, and that book was released 50 years ago.

While I'm not a big fan of Rand (cripes - did anyone read those marathon speeches all the way through?), the ideas she presents are intriguing.

This more than explains why the city is at the bottom of the sea. The city would be very hard to find in the first place, and at depth, effectively isolated from the world.

Much like the invisibility shield in Atlas Shrugged, I'm sure the devs have come up with a backstory for how you can create such a large structure under water.

The bigger question remains how Andrew Ryan will be handled. In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt was a "hero" (of sorts). At the very least, he wasn't a bad guy. I get the feeling that Ryan will be portrayed as a villain, though I'm hoping that it will be more complex than that.

From what I've read, I'm really hoping this is handled well, given the focus on morality and ethics in the game. Largely because I suspect that Ryan shouldn't be a bad guy, but an idealist that is watching his dream go down the crapper. I can imagine him being a bit defensive, and perhaps even angry; but I think evil villain would be a bit of stretch.

Damn - I can't wait to play this...

Actually there was a thread that went through all the different influences including Galt's Glutch and Ayn Rand. The thread if I remember correctly was started by Pariah. Just search for it and you'll find it. It started out interesting then it turned into a flaming turd of a thread. Still interesting for the first few pages.

MF9000
05-04-2007, 03:15 PM
I was just listening to podcast 3 and Elizabeth stated that the game takes place in 1960. Just FYI. It looks like the civil war may not be hot, but it's still warm.