/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3621606

>building a 250 feet would massively constrain space and activity outside the habitat

This is true, only technicians and maintinence workers could go outside.

>whereas building on the surface would not.

Surface isn't an option due to storms. I won't budge on that.

>While you'd get security, a single puncture would also be exceptionally fatal, and therefore the thing'd be much easier to take down.

In a 1atm colony, yes. Which is why I'm still an ambient pressure proponent. If you poke a hole in an ambient pressure habitat, do you know what happens? Air bubbles out, water doesn't come in. This is due to the slight overpressure inside. You just put a dab of silicone sealant on the crack and let the pressure push it in.

>Surface colonies would be significantly less likely to be attacked than anything similar on land, be more resilient, and be far cheaper.

Completely wrong, they'd be vastly more likely to be attacked, just as Sealand was, just as cruise ships constantly are. Wait and see, the future will vindicate me on this. Seasteads will be popular targets for criminals.

>I like the idea, but in practice I can't see it happening.

Likewise. Let's have this conversation again in twenty years, I think you'll be singing a different tune or at least have a lot of clever excuses for how things turned out.

>>3474011

>I want to build an underwater base because I want to build an underwater base, even though it's completely pointless.

That's the best reason to do anything. And as long as there aren't many underwater bases, wealthy people will pay big bucks to visit yours. Presto, business model. We need cheaper ballast and hull materials, plus cheaper, lower energy ways to make fresh air and water if it's going to become something that's not just for the rich.

Pic related, no shortage of underwater destinations for wealthy tourists. The trick is expanding it beyond that narrow market.