/sci/ - Science & Math

Most of /sci/ already lives underground, in their parents' basement.

(captcha: 1983. alturds)

For energy, small-scale nuclear reactor to put the engineers and some physicists to work. Put the biologists and chemists to work by making sustainable and well-growing crops. Definitely have to grow weed, wheat and barley (wheat and barley for alcamahol). Politics wise, in a small population, I think left-wing ideologies would be best, especially among a science community.

>>3621196

The problem with nuclear is that even a small reactor like the ones Hyperion sells for applications exactly like this cost $15 million, ten times the cost of the complex itself.

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/

>>3621174

This is from a different thread however i believe it would apply to your instance as well Op.

This is the infrastructure of a Country/Civilization:

Social System
Economic System
Justice System
Political System
Administrative System
Distributional System
Health System
Military System
Residential System
Educational System
Commercial System
Industrial System

Now just attach your preference to each of these categories and you have your own Utopia!

For a cheap transportation solution, something like this seems sensible. It's electric, since we couldn't use combustion engines in an enclosed subterranean environment. It's compact, so driving around the hallways in these wouldn't be dangerous. I don't believe they're sold anymore but a new version is on the way for around $980.

Stop making me want things, you dick. I was enjoying not knowing about this/RC forest cameras/ hamsters in space.

>>3621225
Why not use bikes?

>>3621225
No. You use your damn feet, and bicycles.

Power consumption needs to be at a minimum.

>>3621238

That works too. I just like the idea of scooting around a subterranean complex in little pod cars. Very Bond villainesque.

That, a terrible missile complex, you can see everything and half the walls are missing.

>>3621242
Why not go the whole hog and install futurama style pneumatic tubes?
Also, what kind of network does the place have? does it have a runway

>>3621249

>Why not go the whole hog and install futurama style pneumatic tubes?

Nobody sells those. This is the closest thing I can find to that, the Schweeb. It's pedal powered, so the guy pushing for energy conservation should be happy with it.

If we mounted the rails on the roof of the main tunnel I could totally see these things zipping up and down the main corridor carrying people and supplies.

Is the land on top of the complex included in the deal? If yes, there's nothing stopping us from developing it. Even if we just paved it with solar panels, that would certainly help with power consumption.

>>3621257
The other reasoning isn't just energy conservation, but our scientists need to be soldiers capable of defending the facility as well. Means we've got to have exercise in all of our regular activities to stay fit.

>>3621247
plus it's about 10,000km high but only has 2 or 3 floors, fucking waste. Looks like it's in space though so we could use planes.
>>3621257
I have an incredibly relevant captcha
also, we could totally make them.
>>3621258
Temperamental, I say we buy some plutonium from the libyans and rustle up a good old fission plant.

>>3621258

We could cut a deal with Google. They recently started building heliostats, a type of uninterrupted solar power plant using mirrors and molten salt heat storage. We'd let them use the land for free, in exchange for a cut of the energy from the tower. Their output is in the hundreds of megawatts, we'd be a drop in the bucket.

>>3621279
If we could combine this with some kind of pumping hydro-electric station we could get a pretty reliable power source.

Can we have a magnetically suspended flywheel? Always wanted one of those.

>>3621289

Or, you know, geothermal. Since we live underground.

you are all roody poo faggots!

Also, see the two domes? I say we rip out the upper floor on both and turn them into simulated natural landscapes. Trees, grass, the whole shebang.

>>3621303
I doubt any titan complexes were built in interesting areas, but it's worth a shot. Have to say, I've always been more of a seasteading chap.

>>3621321

>Seasteading

Imagine that boat is your city.

>>3621311
Cover it in LCD screens, attach a shit-ton of cameras to a big RC helicopter, and go exploring. Potential platform with obligatory cold war music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLZHjdY6i3s

>>3621339
Then try to be less stupid when locating it. Stick it in the irish sea or something, I don't know,.

>>3621345

There is nowhere in the ocean you can go where storms simply don't occur. I hear that a lot from seasteading guys, along with "We can move the city to avoid the storm", as if it were fast enough or as if there's always advanced warning.

You're welcome to pursue seasteading, I think it'll be a neat experiment, but look into the history of oil rig operation. They get beat down pretty bad by storms. They're mostly metal and hardened, if you wanted to build something livable like in the picture it'd fare much worse.

>>3621368
How about some rigidly connected waterproof pods? Fibreglass/polymer spheres about 5M in diameter connected by snappable poles. Virtually unsinkable and easy to repair after storms, as well as pretty gosh darn futuristic.

The english channel is also a possibility, look at the principality of sealand.

>>3621382

>How about some rigidly connected waterproof pods? Fibreglass/polymer spheres about 5M in diameter connected by snappable poles. Virtually unsinkable and easy to repair after storms, as well as pretty gosh darn futuristic.

At that point why not put them underwater?

>>3621392
Ya, I'm surprised the sea-steading guy didn't come to that conclusion sooner.

I'd imagine that ideally, you'd want them shallow enough under water to be exposed to light, but deep enough to be capable of weathering violent tides.

>>3621392
Because they're much easier to access on the surface, and to stay below they'd need to be tethered, as air filled spheres are buoyant as fuck.

>>3621408

>I'd imagine that ideally, you'd want them shallow enough under water to be exposed to light, but deep enough to be capable of weathering violent tides.

Clever guy. That's exactly where Challenger Station is going to be built. 12 miles from shore, 250 feet deep, plenty of sunlight but just barely beyond the influence of surface storm action. It's also near a seamount (excellent food source) and on the edge of the gulf stream, we plan to generate enough uninterrupted clean energy using a single commercial tidal turbine to supply the entire colony.

>>3621423
Is there any shallow water >200 miles from claimed land? if so, I can see it being a plausible option for seasteaders.

>>3621413

>Because they're much easier to access on the surface

For Somali pirates, you mean? :3

>>3621435
For everyone. Plus, it's common knowledge that you never enter NE african water if you want to live.

>>3621433

Only partway up seamounts. If you wanted a subsea colony that far from land it could still be on the continental shelf as there's a thin band of it that's outside of the EEZ, but you might be better off making it neutrally buoyant so it hovers as if in space. This would help insulate it against earthquakes.

>>3621448

Sealand was not in African waters, yet it was attacked several times. Seasteads are an invitation to piracy.

>>3621454
Because it was a stolen english pirate radio station owned by a man with grudges and dodgy friends. It's now safe.

>>3621368

I like the spar design they have in and of itself, but I hope they don't go with something like that for what to put on top of it. Hopefully they take the "scale up slowly" idea they have as seriously as the guy behind the website was when I was checking it out.

As for living underground, one thing I'd like for living in an odd, science-y place is to have a place full of huge machines where I just go to stand around and be in awe of them.

>>3621461

But it was attacked. The point is made. When you position yourself out to sea on a platform inhabited by people trying to build something nice, it's an invitation to anyone with boats and guns who wants to come take those nice things for themselves.

Not so in even shallow water; Submersibles are not cheap or common, and protecting against depth charges is as simple as erecting a net over the colony, like the one that protects flexblue subsea reactors (pic related)

Living underwater has challenges too. If you're deeper than 100 feet the habitat must be 1atm or you wind up using heliox for breathing gas which gets expensive fast. And a 1atm colony will be exponentially more expensive than an ambient pressure one. So really, the only affordable way to build a subsea community today is to make it ambient pressure and no deeper than 100 feet. So really, we'd both have trouble with storms unless some wealthy benefactor decided to dump money on construction of a true 1atm colony that could be situated beyond the depth storms can affect, and use a normal air mixture.

There's a ways yet to go for both approaches. Seasteads have to move past the oil rig design to be truly safe at sea, and subsea colonies need cheaper, stronger materials so 1atm structures don't cost so much or a new breathing mixture for ambient living structures that can be used below 100 feet like heliox but without the expensive helium.

The ideal solution might wind up being a combination of seasteads and undersea colonies which are inherently stable due to an upright design and which can circulate air directly from the surface without an umbilical. Pic related.

>>3621499
You have to make big mistakes to get attacked. I don't see any reason to expect to be in waters like the ones I'm suggesting unless you have existing enemies. I'd also like to point out that sealand defended itself with a rifle, successfully.
Logistically, the sensible choice is clear. I don't see any reason to believe the people who come after you armed in boats will not also come after you armed with scuba gear.

>>3621527

>I don't see any reason to believe the people who come after you armed in boats will not also come after you armed with scuba gear.

Commercially available scuba gear cannot be safely used at 250 feet. You require a helium/oxygen mixture and specialty equipment/training to reach those depths. This is because below 100 feet, the amount of oxygen present in normal air becomes toxic.

>>3621536
But you're suggesting somewhere that's light enough and shallow enough for ambient pressure.

>>3621187
lol'd

>>3621544

That's my opinion, yes. But the colony that's actually being built will be at 250 feet because the expeditions leader is of the opinion that ambient pressure is an outmoded paradigm that is more trouble than the savings are worth. And apparently he's been approached by the wealthy benefactor I hinted at earlier who is willing to bankroll the 1atm design in the pic.

As a consequence, each new apartment module will cost $150,000 whereas an ambient pressure residence would cost around $35,000. That's the kind of difference ambient vs. 1atm makes. But he believes undersea living only has a future if you can bypass all the decompression and health issues by maintaining a 1atm surface normal environment, and he's the expert, not me.

>>3621578
building a 250 feet would massively constrain space and activity outside the habitat, whereas building on the surface would not. While you'd get security, a single puncture would also be exceptionally fatal, and therefore the thing'd be much easier to take down. Surface colonies would be significantly less likely to be attacked than anything similar on land, be more resilient, and be far cheaper. I like the idea, but in practice I can't see it happening.

>>3621606

>building a 250 feet would massively constrain space and activity outside the habitat

This is true, only technicians and maintinence workers could go outside.

>whereas building on the surface would not.

Surface isn't an option due to storms. I won't budge on that.

>While you'd get security, a single puncture would also be exceptionally fatal, and therefore the thing'd be much easier to take down.

In a 1atm colony, yes. Which is why I'm still an ambient pressure proponent. If you poke a hole in an ambient pressure habitat, do you know what happens? Air bubbles out, water doesn't come in. This is due to the slight overpressure inside. You just put a dab of silicone sealant on the crack and let the pressure push it in.

>Surface colonies would be significantly less likely to be attacked than anything similar on land, be more resilient, and be far cheaper.

Completely wrong, they'd be vastly more likely to be attacked, just as Sealand was, just as cruise ships constantly are. Wait and see, the future will vindicate me on this. Seasteads will be popular targets for criminals.

>I like the idea, but in practice I can't see it happening.

Likewise. Let's have this conversation again in twenty years, I think you'll be singing a different tune or at least have a lot of clever excuses for how things turned out.

>>3621642
>Surface isn't an option due to storms. I won't budge on that.
Any decent seastead wouldn't either
*forced laugh*
Seriously. You can build things big enough to not be affected by anything smaller than a tsunami. And you can predict tsunamis, probably better at sea than on land. The risks are absolutely minimal.
>In a 1atm colony, yes. Which is why I'm still an ambient pressure proponent. If you poke a hole in an ambient pressure habitat, do you know what happens? Air bubbles out, water doesn't come in. This is due to the slight overpressure inside. You just put a dab of silicone sealant on the crack and let the pressure push it in.
So are we talking about one or the other? shallow colonies are vulnerable to divers, and deep are an airbag's worth of fertiliser away from human pate.
>Completely wrong, they'd be vastly more likely to be attacked, just as Sealand was
Like I said, existing grudge holders and nefarious fiends of friends. Not usual.

>just as cruise ships constantly are.
Are they?

Are they in european/american waters/deep ocean?

>Wait and see, the future will vindicate me on this.
NO U
>Seasteads will be popular targets for criminals.
As will underwater habitats. For themselves, as well as for whoever can afford a place on them.

>Likewise. Let's have this conversation again in twenty years, I think you'll be singing a different tune or at least have a lot of clever excuses for how things turned out.
I don't. I just can't see deep see habitation happening beyond prototypes for oil companies.

>>3621722

>Seriously. You can build things big enough to not be affected by anything smaller than a tsunami.

Yes, they look like industrial steel cubes. It's why oil rigs are designed the way they are. It's pragmatic but not livable as far as potential colonists would be concerned.

>So are we talking about one or the other? shallow colonies are vulnerable to divers, and deep are an airbag's worth of fertiliser away from human pate.

I expect both. The Atlantica Expeditions organization is designing a low cost ambient pressure home that is transportable by boat trailer, and deployable via boat ramp. Anyone who wants one can buy it, and large groups of the like minded can establish ambient pressure communities in shallow water. I expect a lot of these, but only a few true 1atm structures, mainly resorts and luxury living complexes. Not because of the dangers you mentioned but the far greater construction expense. An ambient pressure habitat need only be a thin plastic shell with an exoskeleton to restrain the buoyancy forces from deforming it, a 1atm habitat must be thick steel and acrylic.

>Are they?

Yes.

>Are they in european/american waters/deep ocean?

Part of the spiel for seasteads is that they are mobile. Do you plan to keep them within the US EEZ at all times?

>As will underwater habitats. For themselves, as well as for whoever can afford a place on them.

I don't think so. Challenger Station, and the Flexblue reactors (the only two large 1atm habitat projects in the world that I know of) both use proprietary docking rings so that only specific subs can get people inside.

>I don't. I just can't see deep see habitation happening beyond prototypes for oil companies.

Neither can I. Undersea living is a niche, not for everyone, and most who do it will live in shallow water ambient pressure communities. There will be a handful of multi million dollar 1atm resorts and luxury living complexes, few enough to count on one hand. I think oil extraction, deep sea mining, military outposts and aquaculture farm installations on the seafloor will be automated with only small habitable outposts for the rare human supervisor visits.

The bottom line is that all of these considered together, we have a real future in the ocean. Major industrialization is inevitable although it will be automated, ordinary people will be able to afford to live in shallow tropical ambient communities if they want to, and the privileged will enjoy larger, deeper 1atm communities. It's not the fantastical "half of humanity lives underwater" seaquest future but it's more than the cynic in me would have expected ten years ago, before all the mineral resource discoveries and surge of development for subsea tech like in the article. The future will be very interesting, and for some people, it will take place underwater.

For some it will be on seasteads, but I anticipate they will be a short lived experiment plagued by natural disasters. We can agree to disagree on that but I wouldn't bet my life on the idea. For me, the oceanic frontier isn't on the surface, but beneath it.

One thing with this type of structure is that, while we'll have more room due to it being there already, we'll be stuck with what we start out with unless we do some digging. Not sure if that'll be a problem or not.

I like the life dome idea, especially if we try to mix and match organisms form different parts of the world like that island I can't remember the name of.

Having a rail system down the main tube sounds like a great idea, If we really wanted to make transport tubes, though, how hard would it be to manufacture them on-site? At the very least, a set of smaller tubes like the kind used in banks would be nice, especially if junctions could be made to sue machine-readable codes of the capsules to let them be routes like packets in a computer network.

We'd obviously use the legal and economic system of the country we reside in to some extent, though we could make things a bit less capitalistic if you want by forming a worker's cooperative and owning the facility through that.

Forming would mostly be supplementary, I think. On land, in the desert, I think we'd be better off taking advantage of cheap "imports" to focus on research and development.

And that's all I think I have time to mull over before going to bed.

>>3622563

>At the very least, a set of smaller tubes like the kind used in banks would be nice, especially if junctions could be made to sue machine-readable codes of the capsules to let them be routes like packets in a computer network.

Cool idea, and makes a ton of sense for moving around small payloads. Whatever company installs these systems in banks could be commissioned to install one in Subterra.

Also I'm glad someone saw fit to put the discussion back on topic.

>>3621225
yeah yeah. we already know about you glados voiced electric scooter.

>>3622610

His name is Scooty Puff Junior. :3c

>>3622419
Why wouldn't it be livable? It seems fine to me.

Would you mind telling me why not because of the dangers I mentioned? You seem quick to disregard what I say but rarely cite.

>Part of the spiel for seasteads is that they are mobile. Do you plan to keep them within the US EEZ at all times?

Nope, I'd keep it about 400KM from the east coast. Piracy is undertaken near coasts.
>I don't think so.

So instead of sending a sub of their own they have to steal one from a small private port or yacht? besides, seige tactics would be completely feasible in that situation.

>>3622625
yeah.. sure is. anyway, where did you get an electric scooter? i think that might be a very cost efficient alternative to a car, or a motor cycle.

>>3622625

Scooty Puff Junior Sucks!

>>3622717
You suck.

>>3622687

>Why wouldn't it be livable? It seems fine to me.

If you're into bleak industrial aesthetic I suppose. Here's an old oil rig converted into a scuba diver's lodge:

http://www.urbandaddy.com/jt/destinations/11462/Seaventures_Dive_Resort_A_Malaysian_Oil_Rig_Outfitte
d_for_Scuba_Jetset_JT_Hotel

Original plans involved a semisubmersible portion and a topside structure more closely resembling a hotel. They went with the original steel structure because of the design considerations I've been trying to convince you are necessary for any structure at sea that's designed to withstand storms.

>Nope, I'd keep it about 400KM from the east coast. Piracy is undertaken near coasts.

If you create a valuable enough target, they'll make the trip. Part of the problem is that it's easily accessible by sea and far away from any kind of law enforcement. There's just no way around that until you have your own armed defense force.

>Would you mind telling me why not because of the dangers I mentioned? You seem quick to disregard what I say but rarely cite.

I explained earlier that scuba gear will not get you down to the 1atm luxury habitats, and that the ambient pressure ones won't be far from shore. They're in under 100 feet of water and will be in tropical regions. They don't cost much, the people who buy and live in them aren't likely to be wealthy or keep anything of value inside, therefore there's not much in it for thieves.

>So instead of sending a sub of their own they have to steal one from a small private port or yacht?

Just because such an attack is possible doesn't mean it makes the idea unworkable. 9/11 happened but we still build skyscrapers. The idea is to make it difficult enough that it keeps the risk of anyone successfully pulling off such an attack to a minimum. A boat and some guns is a lower purchase barrier to crime against a seastead than a submersible or heliox rebreather is to attacks on an undersea complex.

>>3622695

>yeah.. sure is. anyway, where did you get an electric scooter? i think that might be a very cost efficient alternative to a car, or a motor cycle.

From a company called greenmax. They have a bunch of different distributors in various countries. The model I bought costs something like $2,000 these days, has lithium batteries, and covers about 60 miles at 30mph or 30 miles at 50mph. You can buy an aftermarket controller to bring that top speed up to 70mph, it's just normally limited to conserve battery life.

It's also a very common model, so much to my surprise I was able to find local distributors to do repairs on it when I wiped out on this loose gravel road up in the mountains. I didn't expect to be able to find anyone who services EVs since they are fairly uncommon, but hey, I guess it's the 21st century after all.

>>3622778
I find a utilitarian steel box a lot more attractive than floral wallpaper and hanging baskets.

I'm fine with a semi-submersible unit, it's an underwater setup I have a problem with.
>if you create a valuable enough target, they'll make the trip.
But it won't be any more valuable than the undersea version, and it will if effective easily fund armed protectors. Defence wouldn't even be that hard, all you'd need would be a fishing boat, an RPG, and a high calibre machine gun.
>I explained earlier that scuba gear will not get you down to the 1atm luxury habitats, and that the ambient pressure ones won't be far from shore.
But you know there are alternatives that can get you down that far at that pressure for peanuts compared to the value of the stuff they contain.
>They're in under 100 feet of water and will be in tropical regions. They don't cost much, the people who buy and live in them aren't likely to be wealthy or keep anything of value inside, therefore there's not much in it for thieves.
I doubt they'd serve as much more than a tourist attraction. People either move higher up or don't settle if the environment is too dangerous, and the habitats would be great tourist traps. Brilliantly surreal as it would be, scuba looters would probably become fairly common.
>Just because such an attack is possible doesn't mean it makes the idea unworkable.
The attack is still possible. Presumably the people inside the expensive underwater base thingy would be worth a lot, so there's your incentive. All it would take would be a disgruntled diver and his buddies and they could easily gain control. I don't think there's a good argument in terms of security from this angle.

>we've already gone to the sea

>>3622789
i know that feel. PA has its fair share of gravel roads. i ride this dirt bike sometimes, and ive lost control plenty of times.

>>3622789
If we're going to be moving around in subterranean tunnels, we need golf carts. Segways are ghey, so no segways. If the tunnels are too narrow, then we'll make due with electric scooters.

I hereby declare that electric scooter jousting is the new official past-time of the underground bunker!

>>3622929

I bet you weren't taken to a religious compound further up into the mountain where they treated your wound and tried to convince you to join their weird commune dealie.

(This actually happened. I was offered something to drink many times. I declined and left as soon as I was bandaged up.)

Fuckin' mountain dwellers, how do they work.

>>3622909

That's an older version of the /sci/ sealab btw, here's the last one. It has a few modules that one doesn't plus a much nicer looking dome on the classroom section.

this vid is now relevant

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W50prKHi4RM

Personally, I also like an industrial aesthetic, but I think insisting on only allowing for an oil rig design would just make a small niche smaller.

For the underground base, I'm trying to look up information on the Titan I facility since that's apparently the one we're looking at. I've heard of it being for sale before, but there's some things I don't know/have forgotten about.

Perhaps most important is the number of people who could comfortably occupy it, presuming we divide the cost of buying the facility between us. If we can get even 50 people in there, that's 30 thousand dollars each, which from what I gather about home pricing statistics is reasonable considering how awesome what we're getting is.

I'm more concerned about the specifics of the buildings. From what I read before, the electronics were gutted and the silos flooded. If we drained them, could one of the silos be used and an apartment complex? Would it be feasible to turn one into the launch site for a manned Falcon-9 rocket? Could a communications silo be used as a server room?

>>3623010
hey Mad, what happenned to the /sci/ moonbase, kinda lost it's trace.

>>3625484
>sci
>sea monster
pick one.

>>3625557

It could be a sea monster, or it could be some glowing things that happen to be in a configuration that resembles monster eyes. Most likely, it's an animal that's pretty creepy, but not something that would be a serious threat to humans.

Any millionaires on /sci/? If I had the money, I totally would buy it and share it with you guys, just as a workplace, no living, no economy, no utopia, just the greatest minds working together in one single place, how baffling is that.

>>3625696

But what kind of work would we do? Also, where would we live if not in the facility? I don't know if there's much housing within reasonable distance of the building, so commuting may or may not work. Since you just want a place for us to work together you might want to look at buying a more conventional office complex.

If we went for a fairly conventionally constructed (that is, on land and mostly above ground) research lab, it would actually be a fairly good starting point for an organisation which could later help realise the underground, undersea, and space projects. Though it would probably be cheaper, I would still go for splitting the cost of the building.

Which reminds me, the purchase price of the underground facility probably doesn't include restoration costs, so we'd have to gather up money for that too if we want to actually use it.

>>3625696
There are, but they're not spending money on this. I have enough in property to fund it, but not enough to fund it and still be benefiting from my investment.

How about first we figure out how to sustain a community above ground?

>>3625832

Do you think dividing the cost would be a good way to make it more worthwhile? I'm not sure what kind of stuff we could expect to make, but the results of research can be shared easily enough that pooling resources seems like it would be worth it.

this is Sci+MATH, even with 500 people it will still cost $3,000 each.

Then we all have to agree upon what occurs at the compound, seeing as how most fags here think 'behavioral science and psychology', even 'philosophy' are 'shit tier'; obviously having a weak grasp of reality.

I would use the compound as a underground agronomic factory, producing food and materials for a community of 'natural persons' who 'leave' the social contract and while working on maintaining homeostasis and nutrient intake we would also extract from ancient tomes, pseudoscience circles, metaphysics articles and well establish theory the following potentials:

1. how to win the lotto and allow agents to cripple the 'legal gambling' sham while making the community more powerful

2.unlock the secrets of youth and health so that we may maintain life for longer then expectant ages

3.produce in time a well documented and administrated society capable of being reproduced or modeled for other peoples exodus of earth or earths surface.

4. sex orgies and snake cult

Mad Scientist, what is your obsession with founding new societies? Underground, undersea, whatever, I just don't get this bizarre obsession of yours.

>>3626353
Well I understand the guy. Such societies are awesome. Space/underwater/underground societies/colonies always got me hard as fuck. Scientifically speaking.

Well, a thread made by Mad Scientist was bound to turn into sea/underwater stuff sooner or later...

We could make our own Black Mesa or Aperture science labs in a place like that.

underground complexes have always fascinated me, anyone know of good documentaries?

>>3625484

>hey Mad, what happenned to the /sci/ moonbase, kinda lost it's trace.

Everyone had suggestions, but was too lazy to draw anything.

>>3626353

>Mad Scientist, what is your obsession with founding new societies? Underground, undersea, whatever, I just don't get this bizarre obsession of yours.

Isn't that the natural drive we all share? If we didn't, we'd never have left the trees for caves, then the caves for huts, and so on.

If anything I'm frustrated that our drive to explore seems to have sputtered and died sometime after the 1970s and I'd like to revive it, stronger than before. We have to cultivate a spirit of expansion, of modern frontiersmanship, to get out of this pathetic rut we're stuck in as a species and resume the quest to colonize new worlds of every type.

Would it be possible to have a shallow water complex, but it would be able to dive below storms. It could save on life support due to it only being used when storms warrant it.

>>3627098

>Would it be possible to have a shallow water complex, but it would be able to dive below storms. It could save on life support due to it only being used when storms warrant it.

Sure, but there's no cost benefit, because if it's going that deep at all then it needs a hull capable of it. And if you're going to build a 1atm colony capable of descending to 250 feet during storms, why not just keep it there? No real reason not to, sunlight is almost just as intense there as at 100 feet, it's more secure, etc.

If you mean one that could convert to ambient when at shallow depths, that would be a neat feature, but it would add to the cost not subtract from it.

>>3627147
Well im talking breathable air, I still think a surface complex that is submersible would be pretty damn cool.

>>3627207

>Well im talking breathable air

I don't understand what you mean by this. The topic of life support is large and varied. How does the availability of breathable air relate to your proposed design? Could you elaborate?

>>3626935
>We could make our own Black Mesa or Aperture science labs in a place like that.
Black Mesa and Aperture were very different. One was a cavernous salt mine that bottomed out on an aquifer, the other was an old missile launch site and command center. And both were fictional and much larger than their real world counterparts.

It's being done as we speak

http://survivalcondo.com/documents/the_concept.html

pic related

>>3627261
I think he means the hull could be there but you wouldn't need to continually replenish the atmosphere. That's a moot point, though, because we can generate oxygen with enough energy.

>>3626330

While we can't expect everyone here to be millionaires, I'd like to at least presume a good number of us can get a job and afford to get out of their parents house within the next decade. The point is, pitching in with buying this facility shouldn't be too much more expensive than buying one of the ambient pressure underwater modules Mad Scientist plans to have us use for the sea project. The real problem is how to keep paying for supplies and labor on a regular basis. This means doing something lucrative enough to pay for everything without ruining the science part.

As for "tier levels", I don't think many trolls dedicated enough to change jobs for the purpose of messing with their new boss and fellow employees.

>>3627261

I think >>3627207 means you would save on the use of heliox.

>>3627047


What is that from? "Language so the New Worlds" just gets me a ton of "New World Order" stuff on search engines.

>>3628926

It says League, not language. It's the name of the registered nonprofit that the Atlantica Expeditions is organized under.

>>3628954

I must have been pretty tired to ignore/misread an entire word like that. Thanks for the correction.

>>3621368
Not true. There is almost no storms around the equator at sea. When they do occur they are quite weak.

Mad Scientist.
Contact me.

>>3630849
>Mad Engineer
FTFY

--ETN#Ou8[AZzq

Missed this :/

This.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9ccUvTM5pk

>>3630924
Advice for food, energy...
Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered.

>>3630933
To select who gets to enter into our society...

Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills.

sorry guys, I'm buying it for myself to grow pot. It comes with a built-in missile defense system, can't beat that for security.

>1.5 million dollars
>PCBs, lead paint, zinc, cadmium, mercury, asbestos sitting stagnant for over 40 years

I hear it costs 10 grand just to get a tour of the place, you need to sign a waiver, and need to breath with a special respirator while inside.

Built in the 1950's. Meaning the insulation is probably all going to be asbestos. Unless you want all your populace to get asbestosis/lung cancer, you will need to replace all the insulation.

>>3631024

Which means it's not worth anywhere close to 1.5 million

>>3631114
It'll cost 3 to 5 mill to fix up a small area for living in. To fix up everything I can't even guess how much that'll cost.


The real question is would it be cheaper to build one from scratch?

>>3631133

It probably would be cheaper if you had free plans. That silo complex is tailored specifically for a particular size and shape of uhmmm real estate? I'd hazard a guess and say that each one of those silo complexes is unique and all of the architectural plans are tailored for the unique terrain and plot of land which was acquired.

So yeah I think now that it would be much much cheaper to refurbish everything because you have no architectural plans and expenses and no new materials to acquire either.