Why don't we have mobile cities in real life?
They could move from one place to another and find resources much more easily, why isn't this done, at least a floating city could be easily built with today's technology...
shareThey could move from one place to another and find resources much more easily, why isn't this done, at least a floating city could be easily built with today's technology...
shareWe do.
https://www.cnn.com/travel/amp/worlds-biggest-cruise-ships/index.html
Yeah, but those are for tourists, I'm talking about a real floating city where people would actually live and work. There are lots of people who tried to start their own country without success, a floating city in international waters seems to me the best idea, no other country will be able to interfere with your city....
shareDude, people live on cruise ships...
shareSince the Titanic sounds like ancient history to some of us, here are some modern cases where passengers would pray for stable ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmmSWWQox_A
shareObviously you've never heard of pirates.
Oh sure, you re going to say that no group of pirates us going to be large enough to attack as whole city, but I say that if theres enough money to be made theyll get a large enough group together!
And since you're in international waters, no country is obligated to help.
There aren't many pirates in this day and age and they usually don't live in international waters, they just attack ships there.
shareOh, theres enough pirates out there today to give plenty of trouble!
And if you put a great big wealthy target out in the middle of the ocean, more will appear.
I think it can be done. Just no one crazy enough to do it yet. Remember, we went to the moon and back.
shareOr..you could live at one place and transport the resources to where you live? And in case your being serious.. the fuell cost to constantly move a whole city? plumming?? electricity??
shareUm, are you aware of just how large such structures would be? We have trouble moving space shuttles and aircraft carriers, never mind an entire CITY on gigantic treads. You really need to study the physics of movement and kinetics. The math alone would warp your brain, never mind what it would actually take to move an entire city across land. It's a huge waste of resources and extremely impractical, particularly when dealing with natural barriers like rivers, gorges, and mountains.
First off, such a city would be limited in how many buildings it would have, how it would be set up, and how many people and resources could be carried on it. Second, the fuel consumption would be astronomical.
If you're thinking of floating cities, you really don't seem aware of just how limited our technology truly is, even in this age. We haven't really invented hover-technology yet, and even water-based tech is still limited. The closest you can have to a floating city is an aircraft carrier, and even having those is a huge investment in resources, which is why only the navy has them.
There's a reason I did not watch this movie. It was so ridiculous that you could only enjoy its wacky concepts while drunk or high.
A nuclear reactor could provide all the energy required for moving and powering the city.
shareWhat kind of nuclear reactor?
shareLead-cooled fast reactor - they can be made in all sorts of sizes and can be cooled by natural convection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-cooled_fast_reactor
um , cos you cant have a country made entirely of city.
every city needs acres of greenery around it to grow food.
They've been trying for a while, if the economy hadn't collapsed like it did in the mid 2000s, it might be done. It's still ongoing it seems.
http://freedomship.com