/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4662906
>Forget the ocean floor, isn't there somewhere not far below the surface of the ocean that is far enough to not be affected by the weather, but isn't that far down in terms of pressure?

Anywhere below 200 feet. That's where colonies are planed for.

>Having free-floating habitats that don't require land or national boundaries and aren't at the mercy of the weather would be neat.

They don't need to be free floating, there are places that shallow on the continental shelf. But yes, hovering seastations are also a possibility. Pic related.

IMO the best option in terms of pice is to build 50 feet deep so you can use WAY cheaper ambient pressure designs (and normal atmospheric air mixtures) and to brace everything against currents. The Aquarius is only 50 feet down and does fine. It 'feels' the currents much more strongly than if it were deeper but they aren't enough to damage it.

>>4638690

If it uses a rocket motor, even one that can use sea water as half of the reaction, I have a hard time believing the burn time will be anything in excess of 10-15 minutes. It won't even travel 30 miles in that time. Let's be generous and assume a 30 minute "flight time". That's still only 50 miles.

My idea was neutrally buoyant fuel depots in the open ocean at classified locations, 30-50 miles apart depending on the actual declassified endurance. They would be capable of refueling these new subs, acting as jumping-off points to the next supply station, creating highspeed routes through the sea. They would be refilled periodically by much slower nuclear subs, and would also carry food supplies so as to do double duty as food resupply stations for SSGNs, as that is their only current endurance limitation.

Now, the seastation design is not for me. I like oceanfloor terrain, coral and plants. But to float in a seemingly endless abyss like that seems extremely fuckin' serene.

>>4416724
>International waters are not allowed to be claimed

Who says it would be in international waters? Who says it has to be stationary?

Pic related.

>>3798774

>Pretty sure the ocean ground is to unstable to build anything on its soft soil. 7.0-9.0 earthquakes are pretty common down there.

Since when do we have to build on the ground? The ocean has whatever gravity you want it to.

>a kind of hovering deep sea space station

I can find no information on this project online but this is what I imagine it might look like based on good science aka my wildest seabro desires.

>>3582664

>Why so deep, what's wrong with 30 ft?

Wave action. The influence of a wave weakens with depth. In shallow water, when a wave passes overhead it's moving not just water on the surface (up and down, not horizontally for the most part) but an entire layer of the ocean that diminishes in strength the deeper you go.

At 30 feet you have some insulation but not much, at 60 feet the insulation is good enough that a well ballasted structure can reliably weather storms but will still be subject to stresses from it (the Aquarius is at this depth and has weathered many hurricanes without incident) but to completely escape the influence of storms altogether you need to be below 200 feet.