how much would it cost to build rapture?

Recommended Videos

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
Remeber people it's set in the 50's so you should take inflation into account. Also to the people saying space. We adn't even launched any satellites then.

Anyway, youu're counting beans and sqaubbling over "efficiency" and "I could never afford that", what a bunch of parasites.
 

More Fun To Compute

New member
Nov 18, 2008
4,061
0
0
LWS666 said:
More Fun To Compute said:
Quick research shows a nuclear sub costs about 2.5 billion USD. That is the nearest equivalent I can think.
was the billion a typo or do they really cost that much?
Not a typo.

Eukaryote said:
A silo is hardly the equivalent of a nuclear sub, a sub is mobile.
The only way I can make sense of any underwater city project being built is if it was constructed in parts on the surface in individual submarine type sections then shipped to the bottom. Those sections would have to stay whole while being moved so in a way they would need to be mobile. I didn't go into too much detail on the things an underwater city block would need that a sub doesn't have and vice versa.

Also, I think that if there was a real underwater refuge built by Ayn Rand acolytes with a spare 20 trillion it would be a pretty grim and cramped place compared to Rapture.
 

Chicago Ted

New member
Jan 13, 2009
3,463
0
0
Eukaryote said:
More Fun To Compute said:
Quick research shows a nuclear sub costs about 2.5 billion USD. That is the nearest equivalent I can think.

Wikipedia says that downtown Dubai cost 20 billion USD which is a similar scale and type of project Rapture only on land.

The land equivalent of a nuclear sub might be a missile silo which again, the internet says, costs 3 million USD to make. Cost of constructing a self contained underwater environment is therefore 1000 times more expensive.

My estimate for the cost to construct something like Rapture would be 20 trillion USD.
A silo is hardly the equivalent of a nuclear sub, a sub is mobile.
Yes, but I would like to point out that a sub would be easier to construct then Rapture in the sense of that you could still build the sub on land. Rapture on the other hand, would have to be built underwater to have a proper foundation, so it would cost much more then initial estimates.
 

Acier

New member
Nov 5, 2009
1,300
0
0
TheSeventhLoneWolf said:
Demented Teddy said:
I couldn't tell you.
I think the money would be better spent building a city on the moon though.
Bioshock. In Space!

You should copyright that. Fast.
What you did there...

I see it
 

Daniel Cygnus

New member
Jan 19, 2009
1,700
0
0
I'd say it'd be about the same. The problems would be different, but the costs would still be enormous.
 

Sephychu

New member
Dec 13, 2009
1,698
0
0
Axolotl said:
A man builds, only a parasite counts the cost.
Ooooh, topical.

Is it just me, or do men do all the cool things, while parasites do all the less scrupulous parts?
 

firedfns13

New member
Jun 4, 2009
1,177
0
0
I think instead of Vaults, FO's government should've just moved everyone to Rapture. It'd be safe from nuclear warheads there. Until the mutant sea creatures destroy it.
 

Rock Beefchest

New member
Dec 20, 2008
316
0
0
More Fun To Compute said:
LWS666 said:
More Fun To Compute said:
Quick research shows a nuclear sub costs about 2.5 billion USD. That is the nearest equivalent I can think.
was the billion a typo or do they really cost that much?
Not a typo.

Eukaryote said:
A silo is hardly the equivalent of a nuclear sub, a sub is mobile.
The only way I can make sense of any underwater city project being built is if it was constructed in parts on the surface in individual submarine type sections then shipped to the bottom. Those sections would have to stay whole while being moved so in a way they would need to be mobile. I didn't go into too much detail on the things an underwater city block would need that a sub doesn't have and vice versa.

Also, I think that if there was a real underwater refuge built by Ayn Rand acolytes with a spare 20 trillion it would be a pretty grim and cramped place compared to Rapture.
The one I was on was a little under 5 billion dollars. give or take a few million.
 

xqxm

New member
Oct 17, 2008
226
0
0
Now, the biggest problem involved in building a city like Rapture wouldn't be material costs, but mainly the construction of the huge undersea dome it all resides in. Not to mention the fact that Andrew Ryan saw fit to build it all atop an active undersea volcano, which would have to be managed to avoid overpressure etc.

Now, say he constructed the outer hull on land. I'm going to make a liberal guess here and say that with respect to the size, the structural integrity needed and the absolute minute precision with which it would need to be created, i'd say he'd be set back at least a few billion dollars.

Sinking it would provide the second challenge, but like british naval forts, it's possible to just sink it from the surface and employ a few buffers to be crushed when it lands on the bottom of the ocean, and perhaps use a set of guide-cables attacked to the sea floor by submarine.

If you have a system of cables attaching this blob VERY strongly to the sea floor, a tight seal with the bottom would be redundant, negating the need to place the blob on level ground or rock. Just make sure you maintain those cables daily to adverse the threat of everyone dying instantly when they snap loose.

Then you'd have to pump out all the water, which could prove pretty easy if you had a team of divers in submarines with the equipment needed, carefully monitoring the stress on the cables to avoid the blob resurfacing.

Then, you could start building your city, complete with streets and all. Either you could build from a metal ring that lines the bottom of your blob, maybe even complete with a grid of iron bars to build a net of streets on that was attached prior to submersion, or you could build stuff on the sea floor, up into the blob.

The whole lighthouse elevator thing, i won't go in to.

All in all, i think it could be done for under a trillion, but the maintenance needed would be HUGE, as perfectly demonstrated by BioShock itself.

Superpowered mutants would make the whole construction and maintenance easier though.
 

War Penguin

Serious Whimsy
Jun 13, 2009
5,717
0
0
A lot of money.

Seriously, the most accurate amount is like over the amount of money America has right now... of course, in this economic climate, that's not saying much. :p
 

TheMadTypist

New member
Sep 8, 2009
221
0
0
wasn't it supposed to be a secret project? I would imagine they bought enough for some small section of the Hephestus bit, then used that plus raw materials mined from the seafloor to fabricate a little more, and then used both parts to build the next one, and so on, and so forth.

They had to hide their project from the big governments, after all.
 

Donttazemehbro

New member
Nov 24, 2009
509
0
0
trillions, you would have to design a way to get oxygen in there, and for electricity to work well, then you would have to think about water pressure and sea damage from currents and waves etc. Alot
 

The Ultimate 2

Lord Of Madness
May 13, 2009
299
0
0
Let me think... One billion gagillion fafillion shabadabalo shabadamillion shabaling shabalomillion yen.