/sci/ - Science & Math

DAMN THE COLONISTS! IGNORE THEIR PATRONIZING!

Would the overly warm water source have any noticeable effect on local biology besides an increased population of spiny lobsters?

>>2391285

Given that many nuclear reactors already vent warm water into the sea, I don't expect it'll be any worse than that.

Btw, here's the new design for the colony hub. I'm not crazy about it and would prefer a radial layout, but this is what they expect to be able to afford enough steel/acrylic for. The two minisubs are actually used mainly as elevators to the surface, where a boat will take people to and from shore. This saves undue wear and tear on the subs.

lol if meltdown happens? You know how fucked we would be?
Too much risk.

>>2391303

Well at least it's got

>hatches at either end

like any self-respecting 21st century new-frontiers habitat.

>>2391317

>Meltdown

It's like we're in 1986 all over again. Go back to greenpeace you luddite.

>mfw people still think there is any risk of meltdown anywhere

>>2391317

>>lol if meltdown happens? You know how fucked we would be?

It poses a much greater risk to human beings if it happens in the air, actually. And we've tested countless nuclear bombs underwater, yet the ocean isn't devoid of life. A big part of that is the fact that radiation doesn't make it far in water.

>>Too much risk.

Risk is something to be aware of going forward, not a reason why we shouldn't try.

>>2391334
>implying there is zero risk

>>2391339

>implying there is any considerable risk

Pic related it's Robert Zubrin he's an aerospace and nuclear engineer and he doesn't seem worried, doesn't he?

Except about NASA's budget, but that's a given.

>>2391317
honestly, does it have to be placed close to the colony anyway?

>>2391327

Yeah, and the hatch design is very well thought out. The three cones arranged around the docking ring make it so you don't have to align the sub very precisely to still make a clean dock. The subs have hydraulic hooks that connect to those little rings on the ends of the cones, and pull the silicone "o" lining on the sub's docking ring nice and snug against the colony's docking ring.

Putting that shit on the subs rather than every exterior hatch on the colony simplifies the design and reduces cost. Each additional module uses a simplified mechanism that is externally powered as it's unlikely to need to be removed for a long time, if ever.

>>2391338

>>A big part of that is the fact that radiation doesn't make it far in water.

I believe it would be much worse than in the air. Are you saying it would dilute to safe levels? If so how fast, and what of the marine life? Is it not more sensitive to radiation?

>>2391363
Better question is why does there need to be a colony at all?

There's plenty of space on land.

>>2391371

>There's plenty of space on land.

There are also plenty of resources on -- Oh wait a minute.

>>2391371
>implying there isn't overcrowding on land.

>>2391365

Gotta have some sort of international docking standard for undersea habs, no? If space has it then the sea should to.

>>2391371
your right, there doesnt HAVE to be a colony, but god damn it there should be one, because it would be awesome

>>2391345

Earning a degree does not make you a good engineer, in fact it doesn't make you anything except an engineer who is an individual with the capacity to pass a set of tests and examinations over some period of time in university.

>>2391371

>>Better question is why does there need to be a colony at all?

There doesn't need to be a colony. This isn't a solution to any problem. It's not a necessity.

It's like putting condos in Hawaii. Nobody needs to live there. Life would go on if we had never annexed and developed Hawaii. But it's beautiful, people wanted to live there, people would pay to live there, so it happened.

>>There's plenty of space on land.

You're right, this isn't something we HAVE to do because we're running out of space, because we're not.

It's something we WANT to do. Some people want to live in the mountains; It's impractical compared to living in the city, but some want to do it, so they do. Some want to live in the desert, same deal, they do it because it's beautiful to them and they can afford to make it happen.

Not everything we do as a species has to be out of necessity, or we'd never have migrated out of Africa.

>>2391388

>>2391412

I didn't know we used those on this board.

>>2391391
Fair enough. I still don't see any hope in any such project being profitable, however.

Rather dull compared to space colonization as well, but whatever floats your boat.

>>2391425

>>Fair enough. I still don't see any hope in any such project being profitable, however.

How so? It has all the same benefits of colonizing other worlds, but it's cheaper by far. Instead of mining precious metals from asteroids, we can mine them from hydrothermal vents, and we've actually already begun:

http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Media-NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=437932

The deposits are directly exposed, huge and very pure. And instead of sending rockets that expend huge amounts of fuel to escape Earth's gravity well, submersibles need only succumb to it.

We can also farm on the ocean floor. Not by bringing it all with us and building vast enclosures, but by farming species native to the environment via aquaculture, pic related.

>>Rather dull compared to space colonization as well, but whatever floats your boat.

Again, how so? Bizarre new species are found in the sea every day, compared to....well, never for space exploration. The holy grail of space exploration is to one day discover sentient nonhuman life. We've already found that in the sea.

It only seems dull by comparison if you're overfed on space-centric science fiction and lack imagination.

>>Rather dull compared to space colonization

You sure bout that?

>>2391506

thats not a fair comparison. That is probably the prettiest part of the ocean you chose a photo of, and there are lots of interesting rocks on mars that arent in the photo you picked.

>>2391522

>>lots of interesting rocks

>>2391454
Mining the ocean is fine, doesn't take a colony though. The only reason I'll give you for having a colony in the ocean is because "it's a cool idea". Exploring the ocean and other such activities are more easily accomplished with our cushy lives here at the surface. Colonists would have to worry more about surviving then they would worry about launching some undersea exploration program. Much like it's easier to explore space via probes and telescopes here on Earth.

Also space colonization has one benefit that ocean colonization does not - land grab. Getting to the moon and actively settling a portion is far more valuable in the long run then setting up an ocean colony on already claimed ocean floor. We can do that in the future when population necessitates or new technologies make it relatively simple.

>>Colonists would have to worry more about surviving then they would worry about launching some undersea exploration program. Much like it's easier to explore space via probes and telescopes here on Earth.

But presumably if a colony on the moon or mars were going to be built anyway, you could think of uses for it.

>>Also space colonization has one benefit that ocean colonization does not - land grab. Getting to the moon and actively settling a portion is far more valuable in the long run then setting up an ocean colony on already claimed ocean floor.

But the ocean floor isn't claimed. A few miles from shore, it's free. Anyone can build there. And the land is considerably richer in resources, and more importantly biomass.

>>We can do that in the future when population necessitates or new technologies make it relatively simple.

Colonization of other worlds will never be a solution to population growth because of the cost of getting people offworld, even in small numbers. When we establish an offworld colony, it will be populated by the descendants of the initial crew, with occasional infusions of new crew members to sustain genetic diversity until the gene pool is sufficiently robust.

>>2391533

>>Mining the ocean is fine, doesn't take a colony though.

No it doesn't, but you're thinking about it backwards. If you have a colony anyway, if you assume it's existence as a premise, then you can start asking how it could benefit projects like that.

It's like personal computers. In the early days they had no real use. They were sold as expensive kits to nerds who wanted them for the cool factor. But once they made their way into enough peoples' hands, all sorts of new uses emerged. Opportunities were created for software developers, the internet flourished, etc. etc.

The idea is not to build the colony because we need it to do any of the things I mentioned. The idea is that once the colony is built, it will incidentally facilitate other undersea industries.

>>The only reason I'll give you for having a colony in the ocean is because "it's a cool idea". Exploring the ocean and other such activities are more easily accomplished with our cushy lives here at the surface.

They aren't, though. That's the whole reason the NOAA maintains an undersea lab. Bounce dives from a surface vessel are enormously more expensive because you have to pay the salaries of the crew, and because you can only spend about an hour on the bottom due to the time needed for decompression.

>>lots of interesting rocks

>>2391565

stop saying that, I only said it one time. Theres more life in the ocean but none of it is aliens so who cares. The point is mars is a whole nother planet so its better to colonize.

>>2391623

>>Theres more life in the ocean but none of it is aliens so who cares

Look at this fucking thing. We found it in our own sea, so you don't care. But if we'd found it in Europa's sea, you'd be dancing in the street and demanding more funding for NASA.

What the fuck.

>>lots of interesting rocks

/Sci/: lots of interesting rocks

It seems like a bad idea to leave a nuclear reactor out there where nobody is watching it. Are there at least cameras on it? Nothing containing nuclear fuel should be that vulnerable to theft.

>>2391761
I dunno man, being hundreds of metres underwater is a pretty good deterrent.

>>2391771

Pretty much what I was gonna say. This is a variant on other compact portable reactor designs that would normally sit on land surrounded by barbed wire fence and guards. Being far enough underwater makes it very difficult to get to, as 150 feet is the practical limit of commercially available scuba equipment and to the best of my knowledge Al Quaeda doesn't have any submersibles.

>>2391778
Nah, the main problem is that their watches are only 50M submersible.

>>2391761
I hear there's lots of fusionable materials in the sun why don't you just go steal some of them.

>>2391814

No problem bro, I'll go when it's night so I don't get burnt.

>>2391814
The sun can fuse hydrogen because the sun is huge. We are too small to fuse hydrogen. Even us Americans are not big enough.

>>2391882
Then this is a job for RUSSIA!

>>2391317

also the colony would probably be located near the gulf stream, so all the radiation would flow towards britain anyways. kill two birds with one stone, and one of the birds just happens to be a nation we all hate.

>>2391905

Wh....what is this I don't even....

Radiation doesn't "flow". It's not a tangible substance. It disperses as fallout when a nuclear bomb explodes, but fallout isn't radiation, it's radioactive debris. Irradiated dust kicked up into the atmosphere by the explosion. In the event of a meltdown, irradiated gases can drift down wind for miles, but underwater any contamination would be much more limited because of the way in which water inhibits radiation. Many reactor designs currently in use store waste on-site, at the bottom of a deep pool, for precisely that reason. Pic related, it contains the radiation but keeps the waste accessible when it's time to move it elsewhere.

>>2391919
Not the guy you're responding to, but wouldn't the irridated water flow?

>>2392065
Food is irradiated.
What you're worried about is radioactive particles flowing into the ocean, not irradiation.

>>2392074
Technically the meaning is a lot broader than that, but you can have that one, replace 'irridated' with 'radioactive', the question remains the same. If you're the guy I responded to then you're spending an awful lot of time dithering about precisely how things are phrased and none whatsoever addressing the question of whether radioactive water coming from one of these things would in fact flow along the gulf stream.

If you don't know, that's cool, but spending your whole time correcting phrasing isn't terribly helpful.

>>2392310
The point was that things exposed to radiation don't become radioactive themselves.

>>2392333
I'm sorry, but wut? Surely that can't be right as a blanket statement or there wouldn't be such a thing as background radiation after, I don't know, a nuclear bomb or something.

>>2392376
Not that person, but background radiation after a nuke is caused by the aforementioned fallout and shit; firing x-rays at something (irradiating it) doesn't turn it radioactive, and fallout doesn't spread nearly as much in water as it does in the air (it tends to settle on the ocean floor, and fuck the ocean floor nobody cares about it)

>>2392408
But the fallout is just... matter that got exposed to radiation isn't it? Or is nuclear fallout literally only composed of particles of the original radioactive material?

>>2392414
Pretty much just the bomb itself, certain metals can become radioactive when exposed to neutron bombardments but not things like water, most radioactive things are just regular things with radioactive contaminants is the point

>>2392500
Huh, themoreyouknow.jpg then, thanks for the explanation.

bamp

>>2391303

Isn't this like a pretty big difference of degree, though? Like you said, most reactors have cooling lakes. They don't depend on the sea for all their cooling needs.

Before we could even begin to think of this, we'd have to think of reactors that can exploit more of their heat. As in pretty much all of it.

>>2391750
>>2391565
>>2391532
>>2391522
>>2391506

While biology is important to being self-sustainable, with some effort you can create an artificial ecosystem around you. Fucking over the world's natural reefs isn't necessary. That said, I do think we should create undersea habitats at least for the benefit of overall research and as testbeds for space habitats.

As for the rocks: there are plenty of people who enjoy mountainous or hilly land for their breathtaking/scenic backdrops and advantageous use: defense, minerals, metals, stone, tourism, skiing, etc.

NVM, after reading up on nuclear subs, it seems like it wouldn't raise the ambient temperature that badly. 3-4 degrees would actually be acceptable to me, as long as the water isn't cooking the fish.