/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3231834

So long as the habitat is at a depth where the hatch you use to enter it is NO DEEPER than 21 feet, you won't require any decompression. You can swim straight to the surface.

It's why some newer designs like Seabase 1 (Pictured) put the moon pool on top. This way the rest of the base can be deeper, and the interior pressure stays at 1.6atm. basically wherever the interior air is exposed to outside water needs to be at 21 feet or less.

>>2292941

>> so we would have to make it attractive for investors but not in a way that would disrupt research.

Actually a number of new undersea bases are in the works for the simple reason that the US government owns the only one (Aquarius) and very few people get to use it.

Seabase 1 will subsist on rental fees paid by marine biologists who want to use it to study the reefs.

>>2233281

>>Just in time for the Bigelow space stations.

Imagine a video call between Atlantica and the bigelow space hotel. It would be the civilian equivalent of the radio conversation between Scott carpenter in Sealab I and an astronaut aboard Skylab that blew everyone's minds in the late 60s.

This guy's also being built right now. The funding's there, courtesy of sponsors, but there's a bit of a dispute over the preferred site.

http://www.seabase1.org/

If they can settle everything quickly they should begin laying the foundation shortly.

Pictured is Seabase 1, in the Carribean sea. Lloyd Godsons' Biosub 2 will be stationed by the Great Barrier Reef. Chamberland's colony will be stationed in the Gulf Stream and open to researchers as of 2014. Finally, there's a successor to Aquarius in the design phase.

Is it a waste to focus on the reefs? Why no deep sea base on the edge of the Challenger Deep? If you were in charge of funding, where would you put the next generation of undersea science outposts, and what would you have them study?

If the angular look is startling, realize it's the product of modern materials tech. All older undersea bases used steel cylinders because it was necessary to withstand the water pressure, but the advent of newer materials, particularly composites and high strength plastics has made it possible to build structures which are rectilinear and make better use of space.

Pic related, Seabase 1, open to scientists and "eco tourism": http://www.seabase1.org/

I mean, you go ten feet near a hydrothermal vent and you suck ten new species into your impellers. They're everywhere down here. We're running out of names. You know what I just found on my last coffee break? "Boneria Scrotiosis." Named that myself. Discovered it by looking out a fuckin' window. Easiest grant money I ever earned.

Here's Seabase 1. Designed to accommodate 25 divers, scientists and tourists.

www.seabase1.org

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEWwDsHXG9I

One thing you'll notice about habitats constructed between1962-1990 is their cylindrical design. This is because the strongest materials available for this use at the time were steel and glass. Hence, lots of cylindrical enclosures and bubble windows.

The next wave of habitats like this one are funding mainly by private institutions rather than governments and while they retain the bubble windows (as they permit you to stick your head a ways out and look around with a better field of view) they mainly make use of flat walled structures. This is because material science has given us stronger, lighter substances to make them from. Some habitats now use hulls made from kevlar, ceramic composites, carbon fiber and titanum to name a few.

There's no longer any need to use geometrically strong shapes to hold out water pressure unless you want to go very, very deep in which case a habitat would require a more traditional spherical or cylindrical shape.