Design Noah Ark

[PainRack]

Is it possible to design something equivalent to Noah ark, using modern day technologies?
For design parameters, let's play with something feasible. Like say a seed supply of agricultural food plants, a family of seven and a viable population of food animals ranging from the common(cows, pigs, chickens, sheep) to the exotic(crocodiles and emu). You then have to sustain this population out in the Atlantic for a year with miminal resupply.(say once every 3 month or so)

[Darth Raptor]

Ark designs are helped by the fact that they don't actually have to go anywhere, i.e., they're not a ship so much as a big, seaworthy container. So you won't need engines, propellers or huge exhaust openings.

I'm not a naval engineer, obviously, but you'd want to use techniques that keep the thing upright as that (along with ventilation and sanitation) is going to be your biggest problem. Provided sufficient victuals, maintaining the passengers and animal cargo won't be as problematic as dumping the waste and letting fresh air into a vessel that will almost always (for the first month or so, anyway) be buttoned up tight.

[Eulogy]

For some weird reason, I immediately envisioned a cryostasis chamber the size of Australia.

[Nephtys]

Is it possible to design something equivalent to Noah ark, using modern day technologies?
For design parameters, let's play with something feasible. Like say a seed supply of agricultural food plants, a family of seven and a viable population of food animals ranging from the common(cows, pigs, chickens, sheep) to the exotic(crocodiles and emu). You then have to sustain this population out in the Atlantic for a year with miminal resupply.(say once every 3 month or so)

Wouldn't oceangoing sailing ships have something like this, but for a far larger crew, even with a shorter duration? If somehow a wooden galleon can stay afloat and run with seven people, instead of seventy or several hundred, I think it'll be able to pack enough provisions and space for some animals.

[LadyTevar]

I point out the Ark only had to last 40 days & nights

[Patrick Degan]

Is it possible to design something equivalent to Noah ark, using modern day technologies?
For design parameters, let's play with something feasible. Like say a seed supply of agricultural food plants, a family of seven and a viable population of food animals ranging from the common(cows, pigs, chickens, sheep) to the exotic(crocodiles and emu). You then have to sustain this population out in the Atlantic for a year with miminal resupply.(say once every 3 month or so)

Wouldn't oceangoing sailing ships have something like this, but for a far larger crew, even with a shorter duration? If somehow a wooden galleon can stay afloat and run with seven people, instead of seventy or several hundred, I think it'll be able to pack enough provisions and space for some animals.

The problem with that idea is that wooden vessels sort of depended upon the topweight of the sails and masts to aid in stability. Dismasted vessels tended to roll in heavy seas.

[Frank Hipper]

The problem with that idea is that wooden vessels sort of depended upon the topweight of the sails and masts to aid in stability. Dismasted vessels tended to roll in heavy seas.

Uh...

More details, please?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I point out the Ark only had to last 40 days & nights

No, that was just how long the rain lasted. It was a year before they could land.

As for the OP. It is possible by definition. As you specified that for the purposes of design parameters that the number of organisms was itself "feasible" and consisted only of food animals, plus resupply. In other words, you asked if it was possible to build a ship using modern technologies that could be used by an animal import/export business that could last a while if disabled with comms destroyed

[Rahvin]

I point out the Ark only had to last 40 days & nights

Slight correction: the rain lasted forty days and nights. The Flood itself lasted a fair bit longer:

And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

From the Skeptics Annotated Bible.

So, it had to last 40 days of some pretty freaking nasty weather, and still remain afloat for another 150 beyond that.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ark designs are helped by the fact that they don't actually have to go anywhere, i.e., they're not a ship so much as a big, seaworthy container. So you won't need engines, propellers or huge exhaust openings.

I'm not a naval engineer, obviously, but you'd want to use techniques that keep the thing upright as that (along with ventilation and sanitation) is going to be your biggest problem. Provided sufficient victuals, maintaining the passengers and animal cargo won't be as problematic as dumping the waste and letting fresh air into a vessel that will almost always (for the first month or so, anyway) be buttoned up tight.

Providing food for a viable population of animals of at least dozens, if not hundreds of species will be impossible on a crew of eight people. Cleaning up after them and maintaining sanitation will also be impossible. As will maintaining their environments, maintaining filtration systems, etc.

[Patrick Degan]

The problem with that idea is that wooden vessels sort of depended upon the topweight of the sails and masts to aid in stability. Dismasted vessels tended to roll in heavy seas.

Uh...

More details, please?

Topweight of masts is essential in balancing a sailing vessel's centre-of-mass so that she neither rides too low in the water nor would tend to be "crank", i.e. carrying so much sail that she would roll in moderately rough weather. But once this balance is lost by dismasting, a vessel generally becomes uncontrollable as well as unmanoeuverable and will be taken by the swells in the water.

One notable example of this principle was the behaviour of HMS Guerriere after she was dismasted by USS Constitution in their famous battle, as that ship rolled and pitched uncontrollably after losing her topweights.

As Commander J. C. Hoseason R.N. wrote in his article "Changes To Be Effected In The Great Britain" for the 1846 shipbuilding periodical Iron: An Illustrated Weekly Journal:

It is curious that engineers seem entirely ignorant of the very simple fact that a dismasted ship rolls most dangerously; so much so that, after a general action, it has been hardly possible to stand upon the vessel's deck

This tendency was also evident in the behaviour of the frigate Ariel, which nearly foundered in a gale off the Bay of Biscay in October 1780 and only survived when her illustrious captain, John Paul-Jones, had his crew cut away the masts to keep the wind from tipping her completely (as noted in Evan Thomas' John Paul-Jones; Sailor, Hero, And Founder Of The American Navy).

The details which were involved in the crafting of a stable sailing vessel are a most fascinating subject to say the least.

[Frank Hipper]

Topweight of masts is essential in balancing a sailing vessel's centre-of-mass so that she neither rides too low in the water nor would tend to be "crank", i.e. carrying so much sail that she would roll in moderately rough weather. But once this balance is lost by dismasting, a vessel generally becomes uncontrollable as well as unmanoeuverable and will be taken by the swells in the water.

One notable example of this principle was the behaviour of HMS Guerriere after she was dismasted by USS Constitution in their famous battle, as that ship rolled and pitched uncontrollably after losing her topweights.

As Commander J. C. Hoseason R.N. wrote in his article "Changes To Be Effected In The Great Britain" for the 1846 shipbuilding periodical Iron: An Illustrated Weekly Journal:

It is curious that engineers seem entirely ignorant of the very simple fact that a dismasted ship rolls most dangerously; so much so that, after a general action, it has been hardly possible to stand upon the vessel's deck

This tendency was also evident in the behaviour of the frigate Ariel, which nearly foundered in a gale off the Bay of Biscay in October 1780 and only survived when her illustrious captain, John Paul-Jones, had his crew cut away the masts to keep the wind from tipping her completely (as noted in Evan Thomas' John Paul-Jones; Sailor, Hero, And Founder Of The American Navy).

The details which were involved in the crafting of a stable sailing vessel are a most fascinating subject to say the least.

Patrick, I strongly suspect you're confusing the steadying effect of canvas with topweight.

Adding weight above a ship's center of mass lowers it's metacentric height, and reduces stability. A ship with a metacentric height that's too high bobs like a cork; one with a metacentric height that's below the waterline capsizes.

A suite of fore-and-aft rigged sails, when handled correctly, provides a constant force to leeward, helping to reduce roll. Staysails between the masts provide this force in square rigged ships like Guerriere.

BTW, that RN commander who wrote that letter you cited was either an idiot or worked for someone with a stake in manufacturing paddle-driven steamships; his criticism of Great Britain's bilge keels is hilarious, as is his condemnation of a 800 ton screw-steamer being unable to proceed into a storm with 260 horsepower.
Not to mention his argument for paddle wheels adding stability...

[PainRack]

I point out the Ark only had to last 40 days & nights

No, that was just how long the rain lasted. It was a year before they could land.

As for the OP. It is possible by definition. As you specified that for the purposes of design parameters that the number of organisms was itself "feasible" and consisted only of food animals, plus resupply. In other words, you asked if it was possible to build a ship using modern technologies that could be used by an animal import/export business that could last a while if disabled with comms destroyed

True... I was interested in what kind of technologies we have available that could replicate Noah Ark. It isn't as simple as taking a container ship and sticking it out in the middle of nowhere after all........ the ship has to be able to move to avoid bad storms that will probably kill off animals and considering the large numbers and variety of animals, you're going to need expert medical and zoological expertise on board.

That reminds me.... I should had edited my post such that the "family" was cargo and not the max crew requirements:D

[Flagg]

Wouldn't a number of barges lashed together do the trick?

[Androsphinx]

You mean that none of you have read Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study?

I'm appalled.

[DavidEC]

What I never could understand with the original plan: Once you got back to land and started repopulating, can you say, 'inbreeding into oblivion'?

[Frank Hipper]

You mean that none of you have read Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study?

I'm appalled.

I got as far as "by John Woodmorappe".

[Androsphinx]

You mean that none of you have read Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study?

I'm appalled.

I got as far as "by John Woodmorappe".

I guess in this case, you -can- judge a book by its cover.

[Frank Hipper]

You mean that none of you have read Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study?

I'm appalled.

I got as far as "by John Woodmorappe".

I guess in this case, you -can- judge a book by its cover.

Don't rely on the cover only, please.

[Patrick Degan]

Topweight of masts is essential in balancing a sailing vessel's centre-of-mass so that she neither rides too low in the water nor would tend to be "crank", i.e. carrying so much sail that she would roll in moderately rough weather. But once this balance is lost by dismasting, a vessel generally becomes uncontrollable as well as unmanoeuverable and will be taken by the swells in the water.

One notable example of this principle was the behaviour of HMS Guerriere after she was dismasted by USS Constitution in their famous battle, as that ship rolled and pitched uncontrollably after losing her topweights.

As Commander J. C. Hoseason R.N. wrote in his article "Changes To Be Effected In The Great Britain" for the 1846 shipbuilding periodical Iron: An Illustrated Weekly Journal:

It is curious that engineers seem entirely ignorant of the very simple fact that a dismasted ship rolls most dangerously; so much so that, after a general action, it has been hardly possible to stand upon the vessel's deck

This tendency was also evident in the behaviour of the frigate Ariel, which nearly foundered in a gale off the Bay of Biscay in October 1780 and only survived when her illustrious captain, John Paul-Jones, had his crew cut away the masts to keep the wind from tipping her completely (as noted in Evan Thomas' John Paul-Jones; Sailor, Hero, And Founder Of The American Navy).

The details which were involved in the crafting of a stable sailing vessel are a most fascinating subject to say the least.

Patrick, I strongly suspect you're confusing the steadying effect of canvas with topweight.

No, I am not.

Adding weight above a ship's center of mass lowers it's metacentric height, and reduces stability.

As I am well aware of —one of the reasons why the American attempts at line-battleships were failures.

A ship with a metacentric height that's too high bobs like a cork; one with a metacentric height that's below the waterline capsizes.

The former is exactly the effect rendered with a dismasted vessel that has lost the topweight of her rig.

BTW, that RN commander who wrote that letter you cited was either an idiot or worked for someone with a stake in manufacturing paddle-driven steamships

I presume you have something in the way of evidence to back the implied Appeal-to-Motive on Capt. Hoseason's criticisms.

As for the former, keep in mind that the Great Britain was something entirely new in shipbuilding technology for the time. The vessel was in fact originally conceived as a paddle-wheeler design before I.K. Brunel altered her plan to accomodate the then-new innovation of screw propulsion. To conservative shipwrights and naval officers, such a departure from the tried-and-true pathway of construction would have engendered much criticism and doubt (as the number of naysaying experts similarly said about the USS Monitor when she was first proposed). Also, Capt. Hoseason spoke mostly from his own experience of war at sea with all-sail fighting vessels.

[Frank Hipper]

Patrick, I strongly suspect you're confusing the steadying effect of canvas with topweight.

No, I am not.

You cite one instance of a ship having to cut her masts away in a storm, and another of a ship being unsteady after a dismating.

You provide nothing in either example that illustrates why loss of topweight detracted from stability when the loss of canvas in one instance, and presence of canvas in the other is the most likely explanation.

The Ariel example contradicts your topweight assertion.

Adding weight above a ship's center of mass lowers it's metacentric height, and reduces stability.

As I am well aware of —one of the reasons why the American attempts at line-battleships were failures.

Patrick, six thousand years of shipbuilding demonstrates the lesson learned of avoiding topweight wherever practical; it's presence has been accepted only because of percieved, or valid, need.
Whether that need has been for masts and yards to bend canvas to, provide habitable accommodation, or to provide a vantage point to extend visibility, topweight is added only at the compromise of other charateristics, such as increased beam or decreased freeboard.

A ship with a metacentric height that's too high bobs like a cork; one with a metacentric height that's below the waterline capsizes.

The former is exactly the effect rendered with a dismasted vessel that has lost the topweight of her rig.

A ship that has a quick, "lively" action in a seaway is not neccessarily unstable, depending on usage:

Do you use "unstable" to mean "not steady" or "in danger of capsizing"?

The importance of that distinction cannot be overstated; one is uncomfortable, the other is dangerous.

The WWII Flower class corvettes are a prime example of a ship built with an uncomfortably high metacentric height, yet whose seaworthiness made them indispensible at a critical time.

BTW, that RN commander who wrote that letter you cited was either an idiot or worked for someone with a stake in manufacturing paddle-driven steamships

I presume you have something in the way of evidence to back the implied Appeal-to-Motive on Capt. Hoseason's criticisms.

Am I required to to demonstrate something beyond the the fact that his arguments for the paddle wheel were recognised as transparently false at the time, and have been completely refuted with 160 years of experience?

As for the former, keep in mind that the Great Britain was something entirely new in shipbuilding technology for the time. The vessel was in fact originally conceived as a paddle-wheeler design before I.K. Brunel altered her plan to accomodate the then-new innovation of screw propulsion. To conservative shipwrights and naval officers, such a departure from the tried-and-true pathway of construction would have engendered much criticism and doubt (as the number of naysaying experts similarly said about the USS Monitor when she was first proposed). Also, Capt. Hoseason spoke mostly from his own experience of war at sea with all-sail fighting vessels.

Then you accept that he offered no valid criticism of the propellor, no valid proposal for the paddle-wheel, and is arguing for tradition while ignoring ration?

The man comes out states his baldfaced anti-science bias in no uncertain terms, after all.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I point out the Ark only had to last 40 days & nights

No, that was just how long the rain lasted. It was a year before they could land.

As for the OP. It is possible by definition. As you specified that for the purposes of design parameters that the number of organisms was itself "feasible" and consisted only of food animals, plus resupply. In other words, you asked if it was possible to build a ship using modern technologies that could be used by an animal import/export business that could last a while if disabled with comms destroyed

True... I was interested in what kind of technologies we have available that could replicate Noah Ark. It isn't as simple as taking a container ship and sticking it out in the middle of nowhere after all........ the ship has to be able to move to avoid bad storms that will probably kill off animals and considering the large numbers and variety of animals, you're going to need expert medical and zoological expertise on board.

That reminds me.... I should had edited my post such that the "family" was cargo and not the max crew requirements:D

If you gut the original scenario the way you have, then barring the size of the vessel, it would then be rather easy to do. Refrigeration, environment chambers, the technology is easy if you have such a limited number of species on board with sufficient crew. You could literally lash barges together.

[Vendetta]

Just strap together a few aircraft carriers, they'll do the trick.

[PainRack]

If you gut the original scenario the way you have, then barring the size of the vessel, it would then be rather easy to do. Refrigeration, environment chambers, the technology is easy if you have such a limited number of species on board with sufficient crew. You could literally lash barges together.

Limited number of species? Aren't there something like 40 species of food animals?

[Alyrium Denryle]

If you gut the original scenario the way you have, then barring the size of the vessel, it would then be rather easy to do. Refrigeration, environment chambers, the technology is easy if you have such a limited number of species on board with sufficient crew. You could literally lash barges together.

Limited number of species? Aren't there something like 40 species of food animals?

Yeah. You can support them on barges lashed together. Makes it even easier because MOST of the animals used for food have been selectively bred to be able to live in the most unpleasant environments possible.