/sci/ - Science & Math

These days people are familiar with undersea habitats only via pop culture references as that's the only place they see them anymore, but most (like the Looking Glass station in LOST) are inspired by actual, historical science labs such as the TEKTITE II (pictured)

The largest so far was the Conshelf III station, designed by Jacque Cousteau. Along with Starfish House it had more interior space than a moderately sized house and had a separate garage for the minisub.

>>1739995
>mfw Gandhi worked at an undersea lab.

A few of these habitats still exist, although not in their original capacity. Some have been preserved in musems, others are still underwater and have been repurposed as hotels.

One such hotel is the Jules Undersea Lodge in Key Largo, Florida. About $400 per night, or $125 for a three hour visit, it's roughly 30 feet underwater and was previously a science lab called 'La Chalupa".

Here's Starfish house, couldn't find an exterior shot as the only footage of it is part of a Cousteau documentary (Le Monde Du Soleil) and as such copyrighted.

This was the closest I could find, a diver swimming outside of one of the windows seen here: >>1739995

>But issues plaguing undersea living (humidity, heat, exotic atmospheric mixtures made conditions miserable) and competition for state money with the space program slowly killed the dream.

Obviously. In terms of resources and actual physical results, NASA has been a gigantic waste of funding, dominated by a single government organization.
If we concentrated on underwater exploration after we won the space race, instead of landing on the moon over and over again and getting bored of it, we would be in a much better position to solve our resource and energy problems today. Geology, seismology, petroleum studies, and meteorology would all have improved.

Knowing that certain stars that we'll never reach have giant diamonds in their cores does nothing for the person who lives in the real like. But being better able to understand weather patterns and undersea earthquakes would do something for everyone.

>>1740026

>>If we concentrated on underwater exploration after we won the space race, instead of landing on the moon over and over again and getting bored of it, we would be in a much better position to solve our resource and energy problems today. Geology, seismology, petroleum studies, and meteorology would all have improved.

Actually, although the energy part is true (hydro/tidal energy) petroleum exploration can be done with robots. The only thing they need men down there for is to maintain drilling installations, which is why Cousteau's funding (originally supplied by the French oil industry) dried up. Divers from the surface can stay down for only an hour, versus 8 hours for divers from a habitat, but 1 hour was usually enough for the highly trained.

Science is the real draw; we spend billions to explore cold dead rocks in the sky in the hopes of finding a microbe when we dredge up bizarre unknown lifeforms from the sea every other month. Part of the problem is that they dessicate due to pressure difference on the way up. Habitats at depth allow scientists to observe and dissect deep sea creatures at the pressure to which they are accustomed.

Moar undersea habitat pics...

Another pic of the Aquarius exterior to give a sense of scale.

http://aquarius.uncw.edu/

Here's a video tour of the interior:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSVYO8dx8LM

Ah, amateur/recreational diving. A noble hobby. Worthy of a /sci/entist, for sure.

>>1740026
>implying the "practical results" attitude of society isn't everything that's wrong with modern society
>implying that attitude isn't what's paralyzing the development of science, as investors are only willing to put money into projects that seem safe bets

I'm all for new inventions and medicines, but focusing too heavily on the immediate and short-term hurts all of us.

>>1740131

>>Ah, amateur/recreational diving. A noble hobby. Worthy of a /sci/entist, for sure.

Heh. Did you read the OP? Or see that structure in the background?

Pic: Poseidon undersea resort

>>1740140

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I meant diving in general. Not those projects that OP posted about.

>>1740138

>>I'm all for new inventions and medicines, but focusing too heavily on the immediate and short-term hurts all of us.

Okay, let's think in the long term. Suppose we ever do find intelligent alien life? They're likely to be advanced far beyond us, technologically. Our only hope of having an edge is to develop, technologically, in a direction that exploits the unique properties of our planet. It's likely that they will not come from a water world and will not have developed the technologies related to deep sea habitation/energy extraction.

It will give us something to offer them that they don't already have, make us novel and interesting, perhaps worthy of trading with.

More pics of the Poseidon undersea resort. $1500 per person, for a one week stay, two days of which are spent underwater.

It's kind of a shame that the first colonies will probably be old resorts like this one, resold to collectives interested in living in them after the novelty has worn off and the super-wealthy stop paying to stay in them. But so long as we start learning to live self sufficiently beneath the sea, I'm happy.

>>1740155
In a similar vein, we are completely useless to a hypothetical alien race if we're all dead in the semi-distant future due to atmospheric pollution/overcrowding. If we're going to take a challenge to research for long-term benefit to that extreme, it's far more valuable to research the theoretical an build a foundation of knowledge that will last for generations, than to examine different types of deep sea creatures, interesting as it is.

Calling NASA's research into the composition of stars "useless" is so incredibly short sighted it's almost not worth addressing.

>>1740193

>>If we're going to take a challenge to research for long-term benefit to that extreme, it's far more valuable to research the theoretical an build a foundation of knowledge that will last for generations, than to examine different types of deep sea creatures, interesting as it is.

Look at the big picture; We have existed for only the blink of an eye in geological time. The planet's climate changes, naturally, such that species come and go. Earth will not remain habitable by human beings, regardless of global warming, for much longer than a million years or so.

What does this mean? It means if we hope to persist as a species we must become experienced at creating our own living space; habitats designed around our needs. Whether in the sea or in space. Developing these habitats underwater and learning the related lessons is cheaper than doing so in space.

>>Calling NASA's research into the composition of stars "useless" is so incredibly short sighted it's almost not worth addressing.

I didn't call it useless. It's just trying to learn to run before we've learned to walk. Let us colonize the sea, and in doing so, become experienced in the construction of modular habitats.

>>1740211
>I didn't call it useless. It's just trying to learn to run before we've learned to walk. Let us colonize the sea, and in doing so, become experienced in the construction of modular habitats.

What is your opinion about NASA's Constellation program?

>>1740252

>>What is your opinion about NASA's Constellation program?

The Ares V platform is deeply flawed, according to all of the engineers involved, who have redesigned it under the name "Direct Launch" (google it)

Had we built it, I think it would have been asking for trouble. The new plan is apparently to build an alternative heavy lifter design, presumably one built with the approval of the engineers rather than forced ahead by Mike Griffin for political reasons.

>>1740138
Anything beyond the moon is too far off in the future to worrk about, especially in the wake of the global economic crisis

>>1740274

>>Anything beyond the moon is too far off in the future to worrk about, especially in the wake of the global economic crisis

The influx of wealth if we were to mine asteroids would provide a lasting solution to such concerns

Atlantis; where did it go?

>>1740332

>>Atlantis; where did it go?

Nowhere, most likely. Ancient Greek explorers had all sorts of names for what we now know were other cultures of the period, like the celts, the nordic peoples, etc. and myths about them we know to be untrue. Odds are that like the Hyperboreans and other exaggerations of contemporaneous cultures, the Atlanteans were just some other culture, maybe pacific islanders or something.

WAS THIS PLACE CALLED RAPTURE?!

>>1740358

>>HURR DURR POP CULTURE REFERENCE

:-\

>>1740281
Too many risks, too many unknowns, the initial cost of investment in time and capital is extremely prohibitive to even rationally expect to occur within the next 40 years.
The only time we would even consider asteroid mining is once we have an established presence in space at either the moon or other Lagrangian points.

We know more about the moon than the deep, and yet humanity lives off its oceans.
The next 20 years will rely on understanding of the sea.

its two doors down from shangrila, cant miss it

take a left at el dorado

>>1740401

I'm the OP. Obviously I approve of oceanic colonization. But I also approve of mining asteroids. And obviously it is not outside of our grasp, as the next manned NASA mission will be to an asteroid.

>>1740420
Its one thing to rendezvous with an asteroid.
Its another thing to land on it.
Its by far another thing to alter its path to bring it into orbit into earth and harvest its resources feasibility and economically without bankrupting the governments of the world or causing a complete disaster.

Before we even try messing with asteroids, we should solve our own problems first by investing in the sea, which provides just as many returns as asteroid harvesting at a reasonable timescale and budget.

>>1740452

grapple gun

>>1740274
When were exploring space and shit with FTL drives. We will have all the recources you would ever need economically. And if were up to me people like you would have no part of it. Need done iron to make buildings? Too bad. Need some oil for your car? Too fucking bad because if you had your way they would be there. Sit there and eat quietly with your family dip shit. SIT THERE AND EAT WITH YOU FUCKING FAMILY BECAUSE THATS WHAT YOU FUCKING WANTED FAGGOT BITCH!!!!!!!!!!
Atlas out.

>>1740452

>>Its one thing to rendezvous with an asteroid.
Its another thing to land on it.

We will be doing both shortly.

Its by far another thing to alter its path to bring it into orbit into earth and harvest its resources feasibility and economically without bankrupting the governments of the world or causing a complete disaster.

We won't alter its orbit, we'll be firing the refined valuable metals towards Earth with a burn-away heat resistant coating such that, with the proper ballistic math, they fall in predefined locations.

>>Before we even try messing with asteroids, we should solve our own problems first by investing in the sea, which provides just as many returns as asteroid harvesting at a reasonable timescale and budget.

I agree, but many don't, and we are not a fascist dictatorship so no one person can decide that we will explore one frontier or the other. So long as some dream of space and others dream of the sea, we will explore both in tandem, even if that is not the best way.

>>1740452

>>Its one thing to rendezvous with an asteroid.
>>Its another thing to land on it.

We will be doing both shortly.

>>Its by far another thing to alter its path to bring it into orbit into earth and harvest its resources feasibility and economically without bankrupting the governments of the world or causing a complete disaster.

We won't alter its orbit, we'll be firing the refined valuable metals towards Earth with a burn-away heat resistant coating such that, with the proper ballistic math, they fall in predefined locations.

>>Before we even try messing with asteroids, we should solve our own problems first by investing in the sea, which provides just as many returns as asteroid harvesting at a reasonable timescale and budget.

I agree, but many don't, and we are not a fascist dictatorship so no one person can decide that we will explore one frontier or the other. So long as some dream of space and others dream of the sea, we will explore both in tandem, even if that is not the best way.

Anyway, back to photos. This is the interior of MarineLab. Looks cozy.

Here's an undersea restaurant in Australia, obviously pretty shallow.

Here's an Israeli undersea restaurant, 16 feet deep.

>>1740523

lol aquarium,
ps if you are looking at the aquarium you are not at the desk or in bed or looking at the sea.
somebody needs better feng shuiay

Another Israeli installation, an undersea submarine observatory where visitors can watch submersibles arriving and departing from the harbor.

Here's an undersea spa in the Maldives, a popular location for undersea attractions due to the clear water.

the only good reason to have an undersea habitat would be if you were a fugitive from an oppressive government, like you had been convicted of rape and sentenced to like 30 years or some bullshit, or to escape tax regulations or something.

in that case living undersea would be sweet.

>>1740604

Actually there are many good reasons to build undersea habitats and that isn't one of them, as such habitats are incredibly vulnerable to attack.

Pic: SEALAB, the first Navy undersea habitat.

>>1740615
how are they vulnerable to attack?

the main good thing about them would be that you can hide like mofucker. like they say, more is known about the moon than the oceans, and like 99% of the ocean is unexplored. the oceans probably have like 1000 times the habitble area of the survace of the earth, since the oceans are 3D, while the land is only 2D. also, you can't use satelites to see under the ocean, radio waves can't travel under the ocean, and even visibility is restricted to like 300 feet.

think about it, if you were Osama bin Laden, where would you want to be: hiding in some cave with satelites watching all around, or in a portable underwater house?

HOLY CRAP.

DID ANYONE ELSE SEE THAT CHOPPER EXPLODE?

The very first undersea habitat, "Hydrolab":

>>1740648

>>how are they vulnerable to attack?

Water conducts shockwaves far more efficiently than air, and undersea structures are under enormous pressure. Unlike submarines, these habitats typically consist of multiple capsules joined by docking rings, which would be the likely point of failure if a depth charge detonated anywhere near the structure.

You would indeed be difficult to locate, but if the Navy knew even your general area they could simply pepper it with depth charges and chances are they'd get you.

Pic: Hydrolab diagram.

>>1740662
>The very first undersea habitat.

>implying that 8 sq ft piece of shit is habitable.

>>1740680
metal is cheap. you can easily add a few more feet of metal to make it stronger, so that it is pretty much a bomb shelter.

or you could make your undsea thing somehow flexible, or have some shock absorbers or something.

>>1740710

>>>implying that 8 sq ft piece of shit is habitable.

The first Gemini capsule was smaller. Skylab was about the same size. Pic related

>>1740738
Even better: Mines, reverse depth charges and torpedos.

Then you can eat the crabs that come to scavenge dead sailors dropping to the seafloor too.

Better shot of that Israeli restaurant.

An undersea luxury yacht; shallow water submarine with it's own deployable mini-sub.

>>1740497

Holy shit, where can I read about this?! I didn't know such plans existed!

>>1741026

http://www.space.com/news/asteroid-mission-plans-orion-spacecraft-100830.html

>>1741035

Gracias. This opens up many new opportunities for a geology student...

ORBITAL EXPLORATION GEO-TECHNICIAN, has a nice ring to it, FUCK YEAH.

>>1740762
Do you mean a floating bomb?

>>1740680
If that were true, nailing German U-boats would have been a lot easier for them.

The trouble with the idea is power supply. Nuclear's a good choice if you can harness it, but you can't without a lot of capital, and resupplying would be a bitch. You NEED food.

>>1741026
been a topic in the news for quite a while.

>>1741035
rage-worthy comments are rage-worthy.

>>1740468
Over 9000 Delta V.

Over 9 000,000 to pay for

>>1740497
>with the proper ballistic math, they fall in predefined locations.

A single miscalculation would change the trajectory and risk dropping it in a populated location.

>>1741342

>>A single miscalculation would change the trajectory and risk dropping it in a populated location.

Luckily, computers exist.

>>1740604
>the only good reason to have an undersea habitat would be if you were a fugitive from an oppressive government, like you had been convicted of rape and sentenced to like 30 years or some bullshit, or to escape tax regulations or something.