/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3551251

>Living underwater for extended periods of time would suck.

This really repulses you?

I'm thinking of starting a coral garden.

>>3258015

>>All of them have good reasons, but are ultimately impractical.

For everyone, yes. But I'm not claiming this is for everyone. It will be for a particular niche.

>>You're advocating people just go out and build cities out in the middle of the ocean.

No, I am not. That would be unwise. First of all, the abyssal plain is 2.5 miles deep. The pressure is too great to build large habitats using existing materials. Moreover, at that depth it's extremely dark and the landscape is barren. Nobody would want to live there.

Civilian colonies will be on the Continental shelf well within the photic zone where ample light reaches the colony and coral reefs and the associated fish species are plentiful. This particular colony will be in the Gulf stream so as to take advantage of the constant flow to drive a tidal turbine, which will offer reliable uninterrupted power without pollution.

>>Why? Nobody likes the idea of being in a cramped tin can with limited air and supplies. Unless you make an entire city, the commute is going to take forever

You're assuming again that it will be in the middle of the ocean. It won't be. It's planned for just a few miles offshore.

You describe it as living in a tin can. Is your home a tin can? Why couldn't a subsea colony be as nicely furnished and decorated as your home? And easy access to the ocean means you're not confined at all once you get past thinking of the ocean as a hostile, inaccessible place. It is instead a new wilderness to explore and a new frontier to settle.

Pic related: Is it so ugly that nobody will want to live there?

>>2402894

Well, you're not necessarily on the bottom of the ocean. You can build three dimensionally in the ocean because a structure can hover in place if neutrally buoyant without expending energy to do so. Nothing prevents a sea colony from hovering halfway between the surface and sea floor, like a space station.

Of course you could also just build someplace where the water's 100-300 feet deep and save yourself the design complications.

>>2265659

>>But why live underwater?

Same reason some choose to live in the mountains or the desert despite the impracticality of it. Why underwater, specifically? Well, for one thing it's very pretty. Pic related.

>>Is there some advantage to resource gathering that I'm missing?

Other than being surrounded by free food that's naturally attracted to the lights and safety of your structure, and thus easily harvested with no effort by means of traps affixed to the exterior of the habitat?

Who wouldn't want to live here? Mind your neighbors though. One of the obvious uses for these little modules would be transient locations for illegal activities to take place. That's acknowledged in his book although he affirms that it's not his concern what people do with them.

>>2092690

Sure, but you're not down there to take in the sights. You're down there to capture and study deep sea organisms. You'd only really need (sapphire) viewports overlooking the outside experiment "tray" and adjacent live specimen cages.

Shallow water habitats are valuable too, mainly for studying reefs and developing ways to reverse their current decline (as Aquarius is doing) and with advances in material tech I expect Aquarius' successor will be a lot roomier and more attractive, with plentiful acrylic windows/domes.

I'm always kinda confused when people ask why anyone would want to live underwater. Have they seen underwater landscapes? Coral reefs? Seagrass meadows? The shimmering surface as a sort of "sky" overhead? What's not to like?