/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4416466
>You implied the colonization of space was qualitatively on par with the colonization of the oceans. I showed you why you were wrong. No amount of arguments about the practicality of colonizing the oceans will change that.

Where did that happen? Scroll up, I think you may be confusing me with whoever you were arguing with before I jumped in.

>IMHO? Because we are in a race against time before our oil fueled civilization collapses. If we don't use the benefit of cheap oil before it runs out to establish a manufacturing foothold beyond Earth then we may never do it.

Except that the development of oceanic resources dramatically pushes back that time limit. It's essentially a second Earth worth of land containing preindustrial quantities of as yet unharvested minerals and fuels.

>>4088000

I propose that had a group of like minded south asians organized to construct their own colony under at least 200 feet of water, they would have survived that tsunami without even noticing it's passage while those living on coastal land died horribly.

Seriously? Terraforming the Sahara? Do you know what that word means? Do you know how much that would cost versus putting 100 families in apartment sized dwellings on the conshelf? This is 1960s technology. You wouldn't even need any materials newer than the mid 80s.

Ain't even mad, just boggling real hard.

>>4061966

>What about in cases of emergencies? WTF fuck are you going to do?

You could actually jump out the airlock and swim up to the surface if you wanted to. If it's a 1atm colony, you never saturated because you were never under pressure. You can swim straight to the surface without any issues. Of course there are two 'elevator' minisubs on tethers to take people to the surface in emergencies and for when they want to visit the shore so that would never be necessary. Even so, you could do it and be fine.

It's one of the big reasons why the Expeditions went with a 1atm design and not a cheaper ambient pressure one. I feel like nearly all of the objections people raise in these threads are the result of very common misconceptions about pressure, saturation and other diving principles. They're apparently not common knowledge.

>>4055105

Only 30 feet or so. I've had rapture of the deep, I do know the difference (had it so bad one time I began to hallucinate.)

It's not limited to just that euphoric effect though; Living under pressure also reduces the barrier to neuronal discharge, increasing brain activity, contributing to the feeling of pleasure and excitement. And the increased oxygen availability in the atmosphere means that wounds heal three times faster, and sleep is incredibly restful.

Being there literally makes you happier and healthier, provided you don't go too deep.

4/??

>>3799464

>because the threat of human extinction increases every day, things like mutating viruses, nuclear waste, even vaccines could compromise the human existence.

Undersea settlements insulate us against those same threats at a lower cost.

I agree we must settle other planets, but we get most of the same benefits at a lower initial expense and with a quicker return on investment by settling the ocean first. It is the logical transitional step.

Savage is one of the few authors who really understands the necessity of undersea development as a technological analogue to colonization of space. It yields immediate return on investment (deep sea minerals and food) while at the same time advancing technologies that directly benefit space exploration. It's like a life support and habitat research program that not only funds itself but turns a profit.

I hope the age where we thought we could fly without first learning to swim is over. Oceanic industrialization and agricultural development will give us the wealth and technology we need to do anything meaningful in space. It's really the last big storehouse of untapped resources we have left, if we don't go after it in a big way, we're not going anywhere.

>>3336006

>>Could I sink a rebar and chickenwire structure around my 20 foot deep ocean house, let the juice flow for a couple months, introduce some coral and have a full, balanced coral reef around my house?

It requires the specific mineral composition of sea water to work but otherwise yes.

>>Not really. If a gamma ray burst strikes the earth, we're all dead if we don't have space colonies.

Actually water is an extremely effective radiation shield.

>>We need to focus on space for the safety of humanity. Plus those glorious resources.

80+ billion worth of rare earth minerals were just discovered on the ocean floor:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-rareearth-japan-idUSTRE76300320110704

These are the specific metals needed for the technologies we require in the near future as oil runs out.

>>Focusing on both at the same time however, allows us to develope the tech to live in both places faster. Same basic principals. Make air, don't have holes.

Also true. Development of modular pressurized habitats, autonomous robots, advanced life support and so on are directly applicable to space exploration.

The resource wealth of the sea will provide the influx of wealth, minerals, food and energy that we need to expand meaningfully into space. It's not a cheap endeavor, and we need to fund while also feeding an expanding population and meeting its energy needs. The ocean is how we'll do that. It is the logical stepping stone to space.

If space is going to be our future, the ocean must be our present.

>>3258083

>>what the fuck mad, i request to be informed of these

Heh. I have no way to get ahold of you.

>>this is a pretty ballin' design. an all-in-one reactor that's stationed offshore instead of requiring a lot of land for an exclusion zone. i rike it

I know, right? Even the hardcore haters have to admit that this is a solid idea. And the construction of any 1atm manned habitat let alone one this large represents progress towards a future where people live and work in the sea.

Simply having these reactors present solves the three biggest issues, air, desalination and power. They can produce air the same way nuclear submarines do, and fresh water as well (via hydrogen and O2 recombination). These two services, plus power, would drastically reduce the overhead expenses for any large subsea community.

And the power compnay benefits as well, since the potential exists to hire locals from the subsea community or relocate employees there, such that they can get engineers and maintinence workers to the reactor in minutes instead of hours.

>>3215193

>>and once we rape the sea of it's resources, then what?

The sea floor is larger in size than all of the continents put together, and it offers preindustrial resource densities as we've been unable to industrialize the seafloor until now. Six nations total have begun seafloor mining operations. Although precious metals like gold, silver and platinum can be found in large, pure deposits around hydrothermal vents, they also contain rare earth minerals which exist in smaller, more spread out pockets on land making them less economical to mine there.

Those happen to be the precise metals we need to build things like wind turbines, solar panels and electric car motors and batteries. Conquering this last terrestrial frontier will solve our immediate ecological problems (at the expense of the natural habitat deep sea vents provide) by making the technologies we need to live in a post-oil world affordable and plentiful.

And living in the sea will promote advances in everything from modular 1atm habitat design to advanced life support systems, technologies that will directly benefit efforts to colonize other planets. Not to mention that with access to those precious metal deposits, we'll be in the kind of economic shape necessary to resume meaningful expansion to the moon and mars.

Starting soon, get in.

Anyways, this thread is now for pics and discussion of Mars/Ocean bases. Proceed.

>>2397306

And if that 80% holds the kind of surprises the first 20% did, the most astounding discoveries of the 21st century will happen in the sea.

>>2292846

:3c

>>2269642

It seems we've interpreted this statement differently;

“Part of my focus in the second film is in creating a different environment – a different setting within Pandora. And I’m going to be focusing on the ocean on Pandora, which will be equally rich and diverse and crazy and imaginative, but it just won’t be a rain forest. I’m not saying we won’t see what we’ve already seen; we’ll see more of that as well.”

>>2175816

>>What about energy? Where from?

The same type of compact nuclear reactor used on Navy submarines. They have a spotless safety record, and with that kind of power you could forcibly split oxygen out of sea water, either by dialysys (how subs do it) or by hydrolysis, which is a bit wasteful but would offer a steady supply of hydrogen fuel for the minisub and newt suits. (the alternative would be to use batteries and simply charge them from the reactor. Cheaper, but you'd have less range for exploration.)

A nuclear reactor for power/fuel and a hydroponic garden for food would make the station completely self sufficient.

>>2105127

That's the spirit!

Think of the ocean as the tutorial stage before space exploration. It requires many of the same technologies, and building bases there is a similar endeavor, but it's much cheaper to get to.

Historically the most rapid progress has occurred either during wars or during the conquest of a new frontier. The surge of resources that will result from the industrial exploitation of the sea will give our species the material push it needs to expand meaningfully into space.

The wealth of the sea will take us to the stars! :3

>>2092200

Hey, thanks. I'm all for the big up and out too, but historically progress has been swiftest during the colonization and exploitation of a new frontier. The influx of previously untapped riches makes enormous, ambitious endeavors possible.

We've harvested all of the resources that are easiest to get at already. It's why we're having to drill in increasingly deep water to get at oil, and why China, Japan, South Korea and the US are now working on deep sea mining programs, mostly robotic sadly although I expect each will have a modest manned outpost in the event that the robots fuck up.

The sea is rich. Incredibly rich, and we haven't begun to tap it because up until now the technology to do so while turning a reasonable profit didn't exist. But we're past that threshhold and a whole new world of natural wealth has opened up to us.

It's the conquest of this blue frontier and the exploitation of the wealth it contains that will send us to the stars.

>>2013232

>>http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-01a.html

By 2040 eh? Around the time that we'll have those flying cars? And just before the singularity, right? ;)

>>I didn't forget it. It's irrelevant to the constraints of the problem.

Hahahaha!

>>It's only relevance would be in selling the solution to the people who have to implement it.

Yes, and the price for which you can do so (and the ROI) is a huge factor in that!

>>Once again, it's not a problem of know how or fundamental capability. It's a matter of will.

Willpower doesn't pay the bills.

>>We halted progress on NASA because we developed the Internet. It became the central focus of scientists and engineers across disciplines. The Internet project has become more important than your aspirations of exploring the Mariana trench and my aspirations of living out among the rings of Saturn.

We halted the Apollo Applications project (which I would've hope you knew the name of) because the Apollo project was only ever intended to be political theater, and the partial test ban treaty signed in 65 prohibited the use of nuclear propulsion, which was necessary for everything we wanted to do beyond low Earth orbit.

>>1957673

>>....the massive implications that alien life would have such as a separate abiogenesis, totally different biology, we are not alone, suddenly humanity looks outward instead of constantly looking inward and bickering with each other like children.

Finding an alien microbe would not fundamentally change human nature. We would accept of ignore the implications at our own convenience. Christians would be divided between denying the authenticity of the find and insisting that their religion is compatible with aliens. Muslims would probably claim the Qur'an predicted the find in advance. Scientologists and Raelians would ve jizzing themselves as if the find completely vindicates their respective worldviews.

Nothing would change. We'd have gone billions of miles to find something any sensible biologist could've told you would be there. And it will probably be very much like the extremophile bacteria already found in our own ocean, around hydrothermal vents.

Besides which, as I pointed out, the technology needed to explore Europa's ocean is best developed in the exploration of our own.