The end of the world is near....... what Yacht will you build?

For us Christians, it's a rite of passage. A boot camp. A test.

But if you try to accomplish something everyday. You justify your existence. The world is a little better because you were here today.

And that's as much religion I'm going to preach.

The boat design forum is a great place. We are all striving to improve boats.

That's a service to mankind. World is nearly 3/4 water.

 

For us? I had a Jesuit education. What's Christian has to do with reality?
And that's as much religion I'm going to preach
I agree for the boat stuff.

 

ALL of our native ancestors fared badly .... As did many of the immigrants.

 

Freight

Have you designed one that will ferry 35 TON? One that will hold a 40' Iso Container or a Truck and 45' trailer?

 

Hmmm... Going about this wrong way.

What an interesting and fun topic. I have read about 60 of the pages in this topic and found no replies from any board survivalists! thought i would kick in a post.
IMO, Most of the replies are going about this in the wrong way. The premise is Global water rise >30m (i think 50m was quoted), breakdown of society and at least temporary reduction to "Mad Max" rules. The first thing to determine is how large your minimum group would have to be to stand a reasonable chance. Generally this is determined by watch standing requirements minimum for me would be four capable people to stand 4on/8off watches. 6-7 people would be preferred and 12-13 would most probably be the max i would consider. the make up would be 50/50 male/female with one extra female (no extra males women make better companions). once the number of people are determined we can proceed. a person requires approximately 2 pounds of food per day, You can survive on 1200 calories per day if no work is being done but that is a starvation prevention ration and you will look "fashionably" skinny in just a few weeks. 2000-2400 calories is a better ration and 3000 allows for periods of hard work. You will need 2gals of water per person per day. Just for food you will need approximately 800# per year per person. for my 7 people for 1 year = 5600#, for 3 years = 16800# of food. personal gear at 150# per person =1050# and @175# body weighht ave = 1225# for the people aboard. = 19075 pounds of food and people. add 1000# for weapons, gear and ammo, 1200# for tools and supplies, 12000 pounds for fuel, lube, parts and ship service supplies and i get a minimum of 33275 pounds for 3 years. that means your vessel must be able to carry nearly 17tons of payload... that pretty much rules out every multi-hull i have ever heard of under 70 feet. using the overly simplistic rule of twice the cargo for vessel weight, the vessel weight will be 34tons and total minimum displacement target is 34+17= 51tons. this is just a starting point. it does not count for the actual variation in construction materials/techniques. for me this rules out any form of multi-hull. Additional factors: shallow draft, easily driven, stable, easy to maintain and repair, affordable and appropriate for intended areas of operation. hull material = Steel, Wood or Ferro-Cement. Engine= old type non-electronic and preferably compression started. Steering = Pure Mechanical (its the only steering system i have experience with that was utterly trouble free and required no special materials to service). Kevlar hull liner (Spalling and fragmentation are more dangerous than bullets in most cases). Maintainable drive train (no exotic shafting/bearings etc.). For the areas i would choose to retreat to or operate within my boat would be... a Steel, diesel or steam driven flat bottom coastal paddle-wheeler! Cause when your chugging up a river nothin says Post-Apocolypse success like a 80' sternwheeler mounting "twin-fifties" and some 2.75" rocket launchers

 

Real world experience? it is VERY difficult to hide a group. Even a trained military squad or platoon.

Submariner veteran friends brag, there are only two types of vessels. Submarines and targets.

Not looking to argue that view, but taking a lesson from it, targets are visible, the sub invisible.
Not desiring to be a target, I elect invisibility. Best invisible group, easiest to hide, is one man and his trained obedient silent dog.
Hide in swamp, not at sea. Food resources more plentiful, cover more plentiful, defence positions (traps) more available. And less worry about submarines!

 

Anyway I have started my "end of the world" survival capsule

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/boat-building/manies-ten-51428.html#post704941

enjoy

 

Make room for a tiny dog, that won't eat or poop much.
Good lookout/intruder alert, too.
If you manage to teach it to mind course and tend sheets, I'll PAY you for the training program details!

 

The man/dog minimalist group is not My minimal group, just the ideal for hiding.
MY group is comprised of my wife, our dog, a nanny goat, two hen geese, 1 gander, and the "cock of the walk", me.
Geese are better "watch dogs" than a dog.
Goats and geese self forage in a variety of terrain, and appear 'natural', especially geese on water.
Milk and eggs are a bigger, more essential, part of our diet than you might think.
Try baking without those ingredients.
Goose is "red" meat, and roasted resembles "roast beef' in flavor. Hence the male/females.
Wife, dog, myself, form the management team and society. Companions.

 

Definitely the wrong way going about it. A slow, heavy and big boat. You just made yourself a target for the pirates in this forum, who are now busily charting your possible routes.

Max water rise if all the ice on the earth melts is 1.1metre, by the way. People fantasise about 30 metres or more, but there's just not that much of ice around. Most of it is already in the water so if it melts, it will hardly make a difference. The ice on Groenland and Antarctica is not sufficient to lift the levels anywhere beyond 1.1 metre. Remember that ice takes greater volume than water, so if it melts, it will actually shrink.

And, I am doing it again...forgetting that most usanians do not go to school, and those few that do, learn no science to understand the basics of chemistry and physics... perfect target group for every sort of calamity brainwash one can imagine.

 

I've been a little chagrined at times at how scientifically illiterate some of my fellow US citizens are, but I do believe that they are MENSA candidates compared to certain Chileans.

Sea Level Changes Through Geologic Time


Sea level change since the end of the last glacial episode. Changes displayed in metres.



Comparison of two sea level reconstructions during the last 500 Ma. The scale of change during the last glacial/interglacial transition is indicated with a black bar. Note that over most of geologic history long-term average sea level has been significantly higher than today.

 

do a little experiment Masrapido.
Take a glass with water and icecubes and mark the water level on the glass, not the ice sticking up, just the water level.
When the ice completely melts, check the level.
It will be exactly the same.

Ice expands, so is greater volume and floats, but it only displaces water equal to it's weight.
That's why some ice will be out of the water, above the water.
when it melts, it's still the same weight and volume of water.

 

That is what I suggested, in an indirect way, if you give it a thought. I said that the ICE would shrink. Not the water, or the levels of the sea once the ice melts.I tried to avoid writing a detailed mathematical analysis and assumed that the readers will have some knowledge of it themselves and see where I am going with the comment

I was wrong...



I still refuse to write complex formulas. There are better things to do for me than that. If someone doesn't get my point, I am happy for them. The time will tell us the final conclusion eventually.

 

Hi,

You may notice that you are talking about the PAST records. I am talking about the FUTURE scenario. No one envisages such a drastic change of the climate that ALL of the ice would melt, but even if that is the case, I still stand behind my comment.

No one actually knows, because no one actually measured precisely the amount of the ice. We only have ESTIMATES. And I can see these estimates being grossly manipulated.

No time now, but I can show you a simple calculation that proves me right, by calculating the needed volume of water to raise the sea level to say 10 metres from today's levels. When converted to ice, the amount turns out way too big to correspond with what we currently ESTIMATE is on dry land.