Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

Grypd · 2004-10-25 11:06:22

An Ocean colony would first of all have to have a reason for existing. Pure science is not a reason. We can do research using surface vessels and ROVs. There is also international treaties that restrict developments that can be done. Many of the prime sights for creation of such a colony is also home to sites of special scientific interest

Palomar · 2004-10-25 11:38:27

A sea colony could also act as a nuclear attack safe haven for humanity in the event it should ever happen.

*Would it? Sincere question. I'm not so sure. No place on Earth would be spared some sort/degree of consequence (contamination, radiation poisoning) resulting from a nuclear war, would it?

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2004-10-25 11:43:13

*Would it? Sincere question. I'm not so sure. No place on Earth would be spared some sort/degree of consequence (contamination, radiation poisoning) resulting from a nuclear war, would it?

At least it could survive the nuclear winter. As far are radiation goes have lots of children and improve medicine. I see torpedoes as more of a threat but are people really going to be so crazy as to level everything?

SpaceNut · 2004-10-25 12:54:45

But the same fear factored attacks can occur but in a different form in intercontenetal missiles. But that still does not stop the colonization of the oceans. Since no nation will actually be say that it is soveriegn soil inside each and the community would have control over its own personel.

So far the only stopper other than funds has been that in the open sea commercial use is open to every one and that you can not lay claim to it. The only area that is not true is within any nations sea border limitations.

This is no harder to create sea colonizes do than to colonizes for that same reason on the moon for the laws forbid national or corporational ownership of the moon as well.

Grypd · 2004-10-27 18:08:07

It will be easier to build a colony under the sea than any space colony just there is little point too. It will be cheaper too but again there has to be a point. Pure science is never a reason to make anything like a colony in the sea or in space. In these days and times there has to be a good commercial reason for such a structure to be made. We have never yet found one. Those people who would wish to withdraw from the world do not and will likely never have the money to be able to create such structures, Goverments have no need for them, and buisness well frankly considers them a no brainer.

And frankly as a bastion against a nuclear war im sorry to say there are such things called nuclear depth charges. designed to take out large areas to kill a Boomer sorry a nuclear missile armed submarine it would do a very very effective job on any undersea colony. In water force is magnified.

sethmckiness · 2004-10-27 23:35:19

I guess this is what I meant to say with my first comment. I scratched my head at this and said WHY. As stated there is no economic reasons to live on the Ocean floor. I also see no Scientific reasons. With Alvins replacement on the horizon and continues research into ROV design, I think this a moot point.. or more common sense to myself. Plus, I don't we are really capable of doing something much beyond 'Abyss' Style living..

that, and it would/could/might take money away from a Mars mission, so I am a bit biased. Band Aids won't fix the space program, and this would hurt it more.. we are in the territory of the straw that broke the camels back.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-28 06:09:33

Both have expressed why a sea colony will not be done but when you look at the reasons for a moon or mars colony all I see from some are those same exact reasons for why we will not. I look at why we as a nation decided to expand beyound the missisippi west ward and why those people did so. It was not about science and cost was not in the picture either. It was about land, riches and of freedom of ownership a chance for a new beginning and so much more.
These are the same reason we will use to do any colonies in my mind even here within earths oceans or on our journeys to the stars setting bases as we go.

dsmmmzk · 2004-11-08 14:21:16

http://www.poseidonresorts.com/overview.html

John Creighton · 2004-11-08 15:01:53

http://www.poseidonresorts.com/overview.html

Awsome, exciting stuff. I guess ocean tourism is ahead of space tourism. I wonder what kind of life support systems this has. I wonder how it is powered. I wonder if all the food will be shipped in or if some will be grown on site. Exciting stuff!

John Creighton · 2004-11-08 15:06:35

Will you have to be a SCUBA diver to use the Poseidon Undersea resort?
No, the Poseidon Undersea Resort is entered through a tunnel and the interior of the resort is constantly at one atmosphere, meaning there is no difference between the pressure inside the resort and atmospheric pressure at the surface. Anyone can use the resort. Access is simple and the interior is completely air conditioned and humidity controlled.

Hopefully they will also have a high pressure section where you can go to prepare for a scuba diving excursion.

I've heard of undersea habitats. What's the difference between the Poseidon Undersea Resort and an undersea habitat? A typical undersea habitat, of which some 70 have been built over the last 40 years, is basically a research facility for divers. The occupants are exposed to the pressure of the ocean corresponding to the depth of the habitat and so they are subject to certain physiological restrictions and often require decompression. The Poseidon Undersea Resort is completely different, like a submarine, the pressure inside the structure never changes from surface pressure regardless of depth. People can enter the resort and stay as long as they like and relax as if they were in their living rooms at home.

I had no idea there was already 40 under water habitats. cool!

Grypd · 2004-11-08 18:16:43

There have been plans and plans for such structures to be made and all have failed in the end. The problem there is not enough commercial backing of such untested technology as the banks call it. You will notice that the Poseidon technologies website is over a year and a half old with no updates.

There have been over 70 underwater structures made but they tend to be research studies and or attempts to prolong commercial diving facilities. Only one has proven to be a longstanding commercial/scientific success. The telerobotic doctor NEEMO was just tested there. The rest have been expensive scientific stations or proved to be not too successful.

We can build underwater such a structure as the poseidon hotel and we could build a lot better actually but it would cost money and has no hope of a commercial return worth doing. As such these projects are doomed unless a major profit making venture needs these kind of underwater colonies or some other driving force promotes them.

SpaceNut · 2004-11-09 06:28:41

Well I can see the direction that they have chosen to market there concept to the people. It is all about glamour, of romance of vacation and to be exotic to feel. The same approach is given to the great big ocean going cruise lines. But you seem to be onto something thou with the updates. The also is no project cost for such a vacation and the only off shut item is the sub needed to bring you there, which followed a year later. Structuraly I think the sub is the harder of the two to build and design versus the under water bubble but we will have to wait and see if anything does develope from it. They might be able to use a decommision sub as a starting point from design or for even there first active taxi if they were able to build it.

SpaceNut · 2007-01-15 23:13:13

Wow it took about an hour to find this thread....

Hydropolis Underwater Hotel

It will include three elements: the land station, where guests will be welcomed, the connecting tunnel, which will transport people by train to the main area of the hotel, and the 220 suites within the submarine leisure complex. It is one of the largest contemporary construction projects in the world, covering an area of 260 hectares, about the size of London's Hyde Park.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-01-16 09:26:00

The problem is not the capacity to create sea colonies we have that now. And with the improvements in structural concrete and as you said dehumidifiers etc they will not really be damp or clammy. The problem is like Space colonies trying to find a real economic reason to create such a structure.
Like the Moon treaty the oceans have a treaty that stops certain economic development further than a countries legal borders. This Treaty is the Law of the sea. Frankly for a binding docuement it is as leaky as a sieve, it stops developed countries from creating anything including mining the sea beds as it puts them open to a legal challenge that could easily be won by any country that has a sea shore.
Again it is not the lack of technology that would allow the creations of cities under the sea its will and a good reason. It also does not help any building in the Sea of an ocean habitat is likely to get you the permanently anchored prescence of the Eco warriors screaming any time you slightly do anything.

Ah yes the formidable UN, it has a big nast army that will stomp on anyone who violates its rules, We saw that in Kosovo, didn't we.

cIclops · 2007-01-16 09:33:32

The Dutch have done the next best thing, they have extended their terrority by reclaiming land, the Japanese, Hong Kong and the Gulf states are doing similar projects. The main driver is financial, if it's cheaper to build into the sea it will be done. Building offshore is way too expensive, there are still many islands that can be used. And there's vast areas of desert, swamps and mountains still uninhabited.

There's been a sea colony project in design for ages called worldship it floats around the world in international waters like a town.

GCNRevenger · 2007-01-16 19:19:12

Why would you build under the sea? There is no good reason for it, we have plenty of room up here, and the extreme difficulty of making pressurized livable square footage is not infinitely less difficult than on the Moon.

Grypd · 2007-01-17 14:29:01

Pressurised structures cost depends on the cost of the material it is made of and Steel is very cheap at the moment and if we also use concrete the cheapest building method of all...

The problem comes down to there is nothing that an underwater colony could do that cannot be done as cheap or a little less expensively than surface operations could accomplish.

Ah yes the formidable UN, it has a big nast army that will stomp on anyone who violates its rules, We saw that in Kosovo, didn't we.

Tom, the law of the sea is one treaty that the USA Cannot afford to break. It may not be a member but it relies on it for many things. The law of the sea allows free access and allows the US navy and merchant marine to go anywhere it needs. If it where not for the law of the sea then the US could well be barred from the straits of Hormuz or even have a lot of the Oil rigs in the gulf absorbed as Mexican.

It also allows the US to sail guite close to venezuela even though the US has signed but not ratified the treaty and Venezuela is not a member as it can use the precedent of international law.

RedStreak · 2007-01-17 16:31:27

I don't think colonizing the ocean, despite its vast space, would be particularly wise.

It is the biggest, most interconnected, and least-studied enviorment on the planet. Consider where we live now, on continients and even cities on the fringes of desserts can contribute runoff that already off-balances lord knows what in terra aqua.

...and you're talking about floating cities of a few thousand easy directly out there? Think of the phrase "poop deck" and conceptulaize how the sewer system would work. Then add in oil leakage, garbage, paper wrappers wafting in the breeze and six-pack-rings floating toward breeding grounds of otters and endangered sea birds. The urge to dump all our waste into something seemingly vast would be too easy and powerful for an ocean city. Within fifty years given a few dozen floating New New Yorks and New Londons you'll have the Ocean Thames reaking of dead fish.

Don't count on harvesting the Ocean either - it is NOT as fruitful as people think. Areas the size of the United States are already being swept to the ocean bedrock every year; the ocean's equivellant of the Amazon's hack-and-slash burnings.

May as well suggest Antarctica - fresh penguin eggs and meat waiting to turn giant colonies of those cute lil butlers into colonies of the next dodo bird. (cue the screams of a thousand 'March of the Penguin' and 'Happy Feet' fans imaging penguins getting clubbed like baby seals). And with the ice thawing and sun half the year oooh...sun worshippers and resorts.

SpaceNut · 2007-04-18 20:58:34

BioSUB a bright yellow capsule

"The 29-year-old scientist won funding for the project by winning $41,800 contest called "Live Your Dream" sponsored by nature magazine, Australian Geographic."

Scientist emerges from underwater box

Marine biologist spent 13 days at bottom of a lake in bright yellow capsule
Breathing air provided by algae watered with recycled urine, and pedalling a bike for electricity, an Australian aquanaut emerged on Wednesday after 13 days living underwater.
Godson used a system of solar panels and a pedal-powered generator to create electricity and recharge his laptop, and kept an algae garden to absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen for breathing.
Godson had to recycle his own urine and waste, but a team of divers delivered food and drinking water to the sub, including fruit, nuts and a homemade lasagna.

X · 2007-04-21 11:10:09

Why not aquaculture? Maybe you'd only have a few town sized environments, but you could likely have a lot of stations crewed by a dozen or so folks. Raise aquatic plants that need some substrate out in the open ocean with a structure permanently subrmegered a few meters down. The same concept could be applied to fish farms with sharks providing perhaps the best return at least in the near future given the high price of shark fins on the world market. Even with speices that aren't dangerous to humans I can imagine announcing you're going to raise sharks in your fish farm would destroy any such operation's chances of success near to shore as outraged locals would demand the government shut it down, but in the open ocean the only folks you'd possibly get complaining are environmentalists. The near surface seems to me the best opportunity for sea colonization as aquaculture expands you can have folks constantly on site, and being just underwater protects you from the weather while not raising the costs too much.

Now if you want the deep we'd need to find some edible species down there and create a market for them. Ginat squid farms perhaps? Otherwise maybe there'd be some regionally supported geothermal power generation facility. around a large vent system.

RedStreak · 2007-04-21 11:35:06

Why not aquaculture? Maybe you'd only have a few town sized environments, but you could likely have a lot of stations crewed by a dozen or so folks. Raise aquatic plants that need some substrate out in the open ocean with a structure permanently subrmegered a few meters down. The same concept could be applied to fish farms with sharks providing perhaps the best return at least in the near future given the high price of shark fins on the world market. Even with speices that aren't dangerous to humans I can imagine announcing you're going to raise sharks in your fish farm would destroy any such operation's chances of success near to shore as outraged locals would demand the government shut it down, but in the open ocean the only folks you'd possibly get complaining are environmentalists.

That may not be a bad idea as long as they keep it eco-friendly; it may even relieve pressure off over-fishing.

cjchandler · 2007-04-21 17:10:12

that might work, I saw a proposel for something like that a couple years ago, but it was unmaned. The main problem I can see with aquaculture in the middle of the ocean is that you need to re-create an entire food chain unless you can afford to import fish food grown on the land. Maybe with some iron fertilizers you could, but it makes it a lot more complex. the other question is, why whould any one what to live out there, when they could live on dry land and just do shifts like they do on oil rigs? The commute is too easy, so to speak, to colonize the oceans.

SpaceNut · 2007-07-24 21:23:04

Next Undersea Exploration Mission Dates and Crew in the NASA Extreme Environment Mission Operations 13

NASA will send three astronauts and a Constellation Program aerospace engineer into the ocean depths off the Florida coast from Aug. 6 to 15. They will test lunar exploration concepts and a suite of medical objectives for long-duration spaceflight.

Similar in size to the International Space Station's living quarters, Aquarius is the world's only permanent underwater habitat and laboratory. The 45-foot-long, 13-foot diameter complex is three miles off Key Largo in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, about 62 feet beneath the surface. A surface buoy provides connections for power, life support and communications. A shore-based control center monitors the habitat and crew.

Mark Friedenbach · 2007-07-27 11:07:07

Why build underwater and deal with the issues of pressure, light, transportation, leaks, etc. when you could live on the surface (artificial islands)?

Just a thought.

SpaceNut · 2007-07-27 21:06:01

Yes and sometimes those little islands are in the wake of such things as huricanes, cyclones and just down right nasty weather...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-10-25 11:06:22

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#27 2004-10-25 11:38:27

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#28 2004-10-25 11:43:13

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#29 2004-10-25 12:54:45

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#30 2004-10-27 18:08:07

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#31 2004-10-27 23:35:19

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#32 2004-10-28 06:09:33

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#33 2004-11-08 14:21:16

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#34 2004-11-08 15:01:53

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#35 2004-11-08 15:06:35

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#36 2004-11-08 18:16:43

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#37 2004-11-09 06:28:41

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#38 2007-01-15 23:13:13

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#39 2007-01-16 09:26:00

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#40 2007-01-16 09:33:32

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#41 2007-01-16 19:19:12

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#42 2007-01-17 14:29:01

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#43 2007-01-17 16:31:27

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#44 2007-04-18 20:58:34

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#45 2007-04-21 11:10:09

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#46 2007-04-21 11:35:06

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#47 2007-04-21 17:10:12

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#48 2007-07-24 21:23:04

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#49 2007-07-27 11:07:07

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

#50 2007-07-27 21:06:01

Re: Earths Oceans Explored - but why not colonized

Board footer