/sci/ - Science & Math

Meh, never gonna happen, you would need protection against the radiations of the sun, you would be subject to all sort of weather danger, a shitton of insects can transmit diseases...

Enjoy dreaming op, because it's never gonna happen, never.

>landbro
>not living underground or in a cave.
>2011

>You will never live on dry land

Fiscally irresponsible.

Also, what about the starving children of Africa?

>>4087917

How about all the insects and plants used for medicine?

Lol

>>4087786

DON'T you IGNORANT APES REALIZE that CHEAP OIL is running OUT and that WHEN THAT HAPPENS all life on land will be DESTROYED by an unstoppable BLOOD FRENZY of GIGAULTRADEATHS in the FINAL RESOURCE WARS OF THE END TIMES??

JEW BANKERS won't allow ANYONE to live on land because THEY don't want you to have all that space and access to CHEAP, ENERGY DENSE, CONVENIENT OIL

GIGADEATHS RESOURCE WARS ENERGY DENSE JEWS JEWS JEWS YOU WILL NEVER RUN CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ON ELECTRICITY JEWS MEGADEATHS OIL OIIILLLLL

(Did I do that right?)

>>4087971

Lol U mad. Seatard.

>>4087971
You must have, I didn't see your trip and I was convinced until "JEWS JEWS JEWS"

"Boy I sure am glad we live on land instead of underwater. What could go wrong here, safest of all places?"

Amazing Developments in the field of habitation high above the ground

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_nine_%28Tensegrity_sphere%29

http://books.google.com/books?id=iOhrizYNIjQC&pg=RA2-PA190&dq=cloud+nine+tensegrity+sphere#v
=onepage&q=cloud%20nine%20tensegrity%20sphere&f=false

Benefits of living in the air:
-No need to withstand 9001 jiggapascals of pressure
-Plenty of free air available. A very large portion of Earth's atmosphere is large uninhabited
-A Cloud 9 floating arcology could be made a comfortable temperature year round due to the passive solar heating necessary to maintain buoyancy.
-You can drop trash on people on the ground.
-No risk of getting trash dropped on you.
-The next Bioshock game takes place in the air

>>4087995

You don't have to live that close to the coast.

Besides, do you propose that the poor south-asians move to an underwater habitat instead?

>>4087971
You got a chuckle out of me.

This thread is gold.

>>4087907

>- No need to withstand 9001 JiggaPascals of pressure

Nor is there anywhere close to that pressure 250 feet down, where a colony would be.

>- Plenty of free land available. Literally tons of entire continent-sized areas that are largely uninhabited

Where there is nothing to eat and little in the way of resources.

>- The Sahara desert can be terraformed for less effort than living at the bottom of the fucking sea

No, it actually can't. And you're missing the point; The ocean floor is already rich in minerals and edible biomass. You'd go to live there for the same reason people have historically gone to live anywhere; To be where the food and other resources are, as well as to work for emerging industries that can benefit from having people live near or at the worksite.

>- No risk of drowning in your living room

Nobody has ever drowned in any habitat in history. They were ambient, the physics of ambient pressure habitats prevents leaks from admitting water. One 1atm habitat has existed and had a perfect safety record (Hydrolab) and every research submersible has been 1atm without any fatalities.

In conclusion, you have shit for brains, your brain is made of shit and your hands are also made of shit so that when you punch yourself in the face for being a shitbrain you get shit from your fist all over your face which is also made of shit.

>>4087996

>>4088009

This is what seatards actually believe.

Landbro master race reporting in

Actually I'm hoping for self contained arcologies with residential, commercial, recreational, power production, waste management and most other things needed for day to day life all in one massive building or collection of interconnected buildings. Even food production could occur on site with the use of hydro/aeroponics and artificial lighting. Transportation would be mostly by foot with elevators, motorized walkways and electric trams providing assistance.

>>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.

>>4088018
>>4087996

I am totally for these, btw. I dunno if arcologies will ever exist on that scale, but the gradual consolidation of cities into single contiguous indoor structures by way of underground levels and skyways is already happening and seems like one of the better ways to protect people in the city from increasingly extreme weather and some of the worst case scenarios of climate change.

As for the cloud 9 cities, I am all about Buckminster Fuller and I am shocked that one doesn't exist if only as a novelty resort. The potential of geodesic construction is amazing.

>>4087996
>mfw cloud nine air-cities

Amazing developments in the field of habitation in SPACE!
http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/life/russians-unveil-space-hotel-678591

Benefits of living in SPACE!
-Hard vacuum is a lot easier to deal with than 9001 jiggapascals of pressure.
-Plenty of free space available. Space is fucking huge, there are astronomical units of inhabited volume.
-You can have clean solar energy 24 hrs a day every day of the week all year round, and you can even beam excess solar power to Earth, so Earth can have clean power
-You aren't destroying Earth's environment
-Your biosphere doesn't have the "tragedy of the commons problem"
-You'll be able to survive an extinction level event happening on Earth
-There are TERABUCKS of untapped space resources in space
-Micro-gravity access all the time.
-The view is fucking amazing

With all these benefits who wouldn't want to live in SPACE!!

>>4088022

>Sahara is only big enough for a 100 families

>>4088032

I WANT!

>>4087907
>Literally tons of entire continent-sized areas that are largely uninhabited

There's a reason for that.

>You'll be able to survive an extinction level event happening on Earth

Not for very long though, you cant produce water nor food up there

>>4088048

>shit>plants eat shit>cattle eats shit-eating plants>man eats his own shit in meat form

Repeat for infinite food supply

>>4088032
>-Hard vacuum is a lot easier to deal with than 9001 jiggapascals of pressure.

Radiation, however....not to mention micrometeorites.

>-Plenty of free space available. Space is fucking huge, there are astronomical units of inhabited volume.

None of which is worth inhabiting as it's nowhere near the resources you need to sustain human life.

>-You can have clean solar energy 24 hrs a day every day of the week all year round, and you can even beam excess solar power to Earth, so Earth can have clean power

Likewise, you can use OTEC and gulf stream turbines to send energy generated in the ocean back to land as well as power colonies.

>-You aren't destroying Earth's environment

Colonizing the sea enhances the environment by virtue of providing artificial reef and employing battery electric vehicles charged from renewable energy by necessity as internal combustion engines don't work underwater and all power will be coming from the gulf stream turbine/OTEC.

>>4088052
Entropy

>-Your biosphere doesn't have the "tragedy of the commons problem"

Living in the sea on a large scale would prevent trawling and other practices that destroy the oceanic ecosystem by way of the NIMBY effect. Put wealthy people in the ocean and suddenly they'll go crying to congress when someone tries to trawl in their backyard.

>-You'll be able to survive an extinction level event happening on Earth

If it's a plague, a gamma ray burst, a nuclear exchange or anything short of an asteroid impacting in the ocean, the same is true for an undersea colony.

>-There are TERABUCKS of untapped space resources in space

None of which can be mined at a profit, all of which require TERABUCKS of investment to access, and seven moons worth of minerals reside on the ocean floor with far lower access costs. Hence why people are mining the ocean floor in reality, while the only place anyone mines asteroids is in your scifi fantasies.

>-Micro-gravity access all the time.

Bone density loss and inability to return to Earth or any other planetary body as well as an inability to reproduce over time.

>-The view is fucking amazing

I think we're on pretty even ground there bro.

>>4088057

The sun will be adding energy.

>>4088052

what is the skeleton holding?

>>4088046
Ah yes, the old orbital ring concept. Expensive, but has high throughput and is impressive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring

Although I would like to try living in the sea some time, I am not worried about running out of land to live on. I am however worried about Violent Simian using up our nation's precious supply of capital letters.

posting in an anti-seabro thread

LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE MISSING FUCKING DOLPHIN HELPERS IN SHIT HOLYSHITNIGGA THAT SHIT IS AWESOME!

pic related

>>4088048
It's a closed system. You produce your own food and recycle your water. Though there is some associated loss of volatiles over long time periods. For this, you mine asteroids or comets for volatiles every so often.


>>4088055
>>Radiation and micrometeorites
Not much of a problem for a large space colony.

>>it's nowhere near the resources you need to sustain human life.
Wrong. All you need is volatiles like C,H,N, F, etc and you're in business. You can process CO2, H2O, etc into plants, which you can process into humans.

>>OTEC and gulf stream turbines to send energy generated in the ocean back to land as well as power colonies

Wouldn't large scale adoption of gulf stream turbines slow down the gulf stream and mess up the climate?
You can't move up the kardashev level much using gulfstream turbines and OTEC.

It's also difficult to pipe energy from such sources to the land. With space based solar power, one can build a receiver anywhere on Earth and receive power 24 hrs a day.

>>4088000
ch-ch-ch-chex mate!

>>4088060
>Space isn't practical
>Lets live on the ocean floor!

>>4088109
>>Radiation and micrometeorites
Not much of a problem for a large space colony.


I'm sorry but this is simply wrong. Radiation would be a huge problem unless your space station was built deep in a large asteroid or something like that.

>>4088163
heavy water lined inflatable walls

>>4088167
Giant space station with several meter thick walls filled with heavy water. Yeah that sounds entierly practical.

>>artificial reef
Is dumping old tires into the ocean good for the environment?

>>employing battery electric vehicles charged from renewable energy by necessity
What about the environmental impact from making said vehicles from resources on Earth?

>>internal combustion engines don't work underwater
Well given that most colonies are located at relatively shallow depths, it shouldn't be much of an issue to pipe air down to underwater combustion engines.

>>Living in the sea on a large scale would prevent trawling and other practices that destroy the oceanic ecosystem by way of the NIMBY effect.
Well given that much trawling
You still have the tradgedy of the commons problem with your biosphere.
Also, isn't much trawling done in the aphotic zone, where the poor people would likely live?
>>anything short of an asteroid impacting in the ocean
and much much more. An asteroid impacting the ocean is unlikely to take out a bunch of space colonies located at various lagrange points.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#Sea-level_falls

>>require TERABUCKS of investment to access,
However, the cost of gold($56,030.39/ kilogram) on a per mass basis is more than the cost of putting something into orbit on a per mass basis($22,000/kilogram at the very most)

Also check out this data here on cost per kilogram:
http://www.marspedia.org/index.php?title=Financial_effort_estimation

Falcon 1e supposedly got down to $1010 per kilogram to LEO

>>seven moon's worth of minerals
citation needed, also what moons?

>>Bone density loss and inability to return to Earth or any other planetary body as well as an inability to reproduce over time.
Not if you have a big colony or centrifuge regularly.

>>view amazing
average ocean depth is 3,790 metres which lies well within the Aphotic zone, in other words, a large portion of the ocean is dark.

>>4088057
>Entropy
>Talking about numbers of particles inside a closed system

>>4088189
>>4088167
>>4088163
Well one can just use lunar or asteroidal regolith for much of the radiation shielding. One doesn't build a space colony from resources launched from Earth alone.

Amazing developments in the field of habitation on the moon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon

Benefits of living on the moon:
- No need to withstand 9001 JiggaPascals of pressure
- Plenty of free land available. Literally tons of entire continent-sized areas that are largely uninhabited
- The moon can be terraformed for less effort than living at the bottom of the fucking sea
- No risk of drowning in your living room
-You'll be able to survive an extinction level event happening on Earth
-There are TERABUCKS of untapped moon resources on the moon.

>>4088194

>Is dumping old tires into the ocean good for the environment?

That isn't what is being proposed.

>Well given that most colonies are located at relatively shallow depths, it shouldn't be much of an issue to pipe air down to underwater combustion engines.

But it is, which is why that isn't done.

>Falcon 1e supposedly got down to $1010 per kilogram to LEO

Supposedly. On paper. It would still take a thousand years and millions of launches using such a rocket to put the materials space colony in your picture into orbit.

>citation needed, also what moons?

Citation: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/10/private-subs/all/1 (scroll down to the Graham Hawkes interview)

Our moon. Earth's moon. Seven of that, worth of minerals. You're confused. I am not suggesting there are moons underwater. I am using our own moon as a unit of measure.

>average ocean depth is 3,790 metres which lies well within the Aphotic zone, in other words, a large portion of the ocean is dark.

That's why you don't build a colony there. Hurr.

>>4088109

>Not much of a problem for a large space colony.

Yes it is.

>Wrong. All you need is volatiles like C,H,N, F, etc and you're in business.

In other words you need to bring everything with you. Zero in-situ resource utilization apart from solar. Yeah, that's real smart.

>Wouldn't large scale adoption of gulf stream turbines slow down the gulf stream and mess up the climate?

No. Do the math, it's like worrying about wind turbines stopping wind.

>You can't move up the kardashev level much using gulfstream turbines and OTEC.

That was never suggested. You're arguing extremely dishonestyl, lying outright, moving the goalposts, etc.

It's about time we smacked those seabros around like the little children they really are. VIOLENT SIMIANS GUY APPROVES.

>>4087971
You're just MAD BRO that I'm so fucking right.

At any rate, none of you seabros live in the ocean. But most of you live in basements, provided for by parents.

The reason none of you live in the ocean is that Humans don't live in the fucking ocean. Humans live on DRY LAND.

LANDBROS ARE RIGHT. The seabros are total FAGGOTS.

>>4089060
>Humans don't live in the fucking ocean.

Then is this picture just photoshopped or something? Because it really looks like they are living in the ocean.

In fact from what I've been reading in those threads it looks like many thousands of people lived in the ocean over about three decades, in 70 undersea labs. Many times more than have ever lived in space, and that's far more sealabs than the space stations that have existed.

Yet for some reason you seem to be arguing that it's easier to live in space than the ocean.

>>4089718

A few retards put into the ocean by immense corporate investments? Why is it that /sci/tards can't do economics?

99.999% of humanity won't live in an expensive canister under the ocean. PERIOD. We're dry land animals, and we don't have the wealth to just live in extraneous environments. That's why most people live in properties owned by a ruling class.

>>4089748

Several thousand is not "A few".

517 is a few. That is the total number of human beings who have ever been in space.

>99.999% of humanity won't live in an expensive canister under the ocean. PERIOD.

Most people on Earth also don't live in New York. Or Seattle. Or any particular place.

Most will live on land. Some will live in the ocean because it's possible, they are willing to pay for it, and the experience is cool. I don't see why that makes you so mad.

>>4088385
landbros are mad jelly over moonbros
it's pretty much like land, except better in every part

>>4089762
> Several thousand is not "A few".

It's not even worth mentioning when you propose they REPRESENT A LIFESTYLE THAT HUMANITY IN GENERAL CAN ADOPT.

You seabros are FAGGOTS. Why aren't you all living in the ocean? OH YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S RIDICULOUSLY EXPENSIVE AND YOU CAN'T GET ENOUGH CHEETOS SHIPMENTS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ATLANTIC.

mfw this thread is still alive

seabros mad

>>4089762
>Most people on Earth also don't live in New York. Or Seattle.

Over 50% of the world's population live in urban areas now.

>Provoking "seabros"

You do realise that mad scientist is a mentally ill graphic designer, right?

This is like tormenting a quad amputee cat with a stick. Stop being cruel.

>>4089869
>It's not even worth mentioning when you propose they REPRESENT A LIFESTYLE THAT HUMANITY IN GENERAL CAN ADOPT.

Oh, I see the misunderstanding. I never actually proposed that this would be a lifestyle suited for humanity in general. I've actually said very clearly and very many times that it's a niche lifestyle that will be enjoyed by probably no more than a few hundred.

>>4090382

Semantics, you understand what I meant.

>>4090388

I'm actually neither of those things. But you're the same guy you're replying to, so whatever.

>You seabros are FAGGOTS. Why aren't you all living in the ocean?

It's 2011. The colonies haven't been built yet. Why are you so mean? I'm actually open to being friends with you, same as anyone else, but you seem needlessly and joyfully cruel. Are you just deliberately a horrible person? Is that who you want to be for your entire life? :-\

Amazing developments in the field of habitation in your parent's basement:

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/10/21/new-world-or-warcraft-expansion-on-the-way.asp
x

Benefits of living in your parent's basement:
- No need to withstand 9001 JiggaPascals of peer pressure
- Plenty of free space available. Literally a whole room is available for you to set up your gaming battle station/cheetos eatery
- The old bed can be transformed into a cheap couch for when that one friend of yours might visit
- No risk of having to exert yourself

Gee, with all these benefits, who WOULDN'T want to live the rest of their lives in their parent's basement?

>>4090424

What have I done to make you angry? Obviously you hate me for some reason. I don't recall ever having been unkind to you. If I was, please tell me about it. Jog my memory and if I was in the wrong which is entirely possible I'll apologize sincerely for it. There's no good reason to keep being hostile like this. It's unpleasant for everyone and destroys the atmosphere of open and interesting discussion on /sci/.

If your beef is that you would prefer I post about other things, I would be happy to. I often do make those threads without my trip since people have come to associate it with oceanic technology threads. If you'd like me to stop posting altogether I'd much rather simply post about other topics and without a trip; it would be functionally indiscernible from my absence except that I would continue adding worthwhile content to the board.

What are your grievances, what can I do to atone for them, and how can we get along more harmoniously and productively in the future? Is there any way we can simply coexist and both enjoy this board such that you don't feel compelled to behave this way?

this isn't science..

these 'landbros' and 'seabros' need to go to /diy/

>>4090418
> Why are you so mean?

Why are the seabros so fucking delusional?

And stop with the vaporware. Undersea living technology has been pervasive since the 1960s. Like commune living, it always ALWAYS turns out to be unsustainable. FADS are not TRENDS.

So just shut the fuck up and START DIGGIN' IN YOUR WALLET FOR HUGE AMOUNTS OF CASH. You're gonna need that cashola for your seabro-esque project. I'm not stopping you, pal. JUST FUCKING DO IT.

(Of course, you won't. You need to rob people via taxes or investment or something like that, to get the real money together so that you will benefit. That's all you're doing here; lookin' for suckers.)

Amazing developments in the field of physics:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/02/why_do_physicists_think_they_a.php

Biologists confirmed for:
-Morons
-Faggots
-Studying a subject that isn't hard or rigorous
-Cannot into math

Gee, with all these reasons, who WOULDN'T call biology a soft science?

>>4090444
> these 'landbros' and 'seabros' need to go to /con/

FIXED. 4chan needs a new board for con artists looking to scam money from people for their private fantasies. That's what being a seabro is all about. And ultimately that's what being a spacebro is all about. BOTH are con jobs to get money from the majority so that a minority can take the next step in living in a fantasy world.

seabros = autists

>>4090456
>Why are the seabros so fucking delusional?

See, that's a horribly mean thing to say. I don't think I am, and I don't think others like me are. You appear to have completely misunderstood what I am actually promoting and you've filled in the gaps in that incomplete understanding with your own assumptions, like that I am suggesting humanity in general should live in the sea.

I am not. I am suggesting a small niche exists for perhaps a few hundred total to live in the sea. Enthusiasts with the money to make it happen.

>So just shut the fuck up and START DIGGIN' IN YOUR WALLET FOR HUGE AMOUNTS OF CASH. You're gonna need that cashola for your seabro-esque project. I'm not stopping you, pal. JUST FUCKING DO IT.

I don't need to, we're fully funded. Multiple crew members are millionaires and we have sponsorships from scuba and submersible companies. That's where the money is coming from. You seem to have this extreme ADHD where you believe that because it hasn't already happened it's proof that it isn't ever going to happen when in fact it's in the process of happening right now.

>Of course, you won't. You need to rob people via taxes or investment or something like that, to get the real money together so that you will benefit. That's all you're doing here; lookin' for suckers.)

Investment is theft? That's news to me. Our major benefactors aren't being suckered into anything. They know exactly what they are getting. Most are avid scuba enthusiasts and simply want very badly to realize the science fiction fantasy of an actual underwater community so that there's someplace people like them can live that out. That's why I say it's a niche thing and not something for humanity in general.

Why? Why are you being like this? We don't even seem to disagree on the particulars, you just seem pointlessly insulting and hostile. :(

>>4090442

>What have I done to make you angry?

Actually nothing, I was just screwing around. I have nothing against you really and I think an undersea colony could be pretty swell.

>>4090467
>criticizing biostatistics
>physicists repeat neutrino experiments with same equipment, get same results, claim it means anything
>physics cannot into pseudoreplication

>>4090486
He is. Literally the only reason he is here is to scream and be as obnoxious as possible.

>>4090486
>I don't think I am

Isn't that like proof of your delusional state?

>>4090500

Please, please stop it. It's incredibly unpleasant. I really enjoy posting here. I enjoy the comradery of likeminded regulars who show up for the various threads. It's something that brings a lot of happiness for me and when you drop into those threads and foul them up with such incredible intense ugliness and hatred it hurts. It ruins my day. It's something I like a lot and care about and you're making it impossible for me to enjoy it. Please please stop. If there's anything in particular I can change about how or when I post that would appease you such that you'd stop doing this I am receptive to making those changes.

>>4090501
>he thinks biostats can accurately depict biological systems with 99.99% certainty of accuracy
>he thinks the neutrino experiments were repeated without tuning equipment and checking for false positives
>he thinks CERN would release garbage to the press if they didn't find anything
>he thinks that new discoveries in physics do not require insane testing before they are classified as 'real' to shatter experimental error
>implying biology does this

>>4090511
Check the names, Mad. That's not violent simian guy. As far as I can tell, Neckbeard only posted once.

>>4090486
you know damn well you and your seabros argue that there is some point to living underwater other than that its cool, and thats just so, completely retarded it's annoying to see people actually believe in it.

this cancer isn't even close to 'bro'.

stop this. you aren't in the industry accomplishing anything, mad scientist. you aren't involved in the production/fabrication of any of the material being used and tested. appreciation is nice, but you take it to another level arguing with people and starting threads every day to the point of the trolling present in this thread.

>>4090518
>tuning equipment
>still same equipment
>mentions false positives
>obviously doesn't understand pseudoreplication

>implying biostatistics can't provide 99% confidence
>obviously doesn't understand alpha's role in statistical analysis

>>4090522

There are factually many useful applications for a subsea living structure. But none that, by itself, justifies the expense. The argument is not that they are so incredibly useful that we'll inevitably all move into the ocean. obviously not. I never meant to convey that. I've only ever said that provided a group of enthusiasts builds such a structure in the first place, after that is done, there are things you can do with it that are useful and profitable which help cover the operational costs.

If you were just getting mad because you thought it was some attempt to misrepresent the potential of living undersea and oversell it that's understandable. But all of that is what you inferred, not what I actually said and not what I believe.

>>4090530

I'm actually trying to prevent trolling at the moment. I have no delusions of importance; that's another weird misconception I've had to address twice now. I don't think much of myself. I recognize full well I am a nobody. I am tremendously lucky to be a part of two wonderful and important programs organized by two excellent and visionary organizations and it was never my intention to posture as though I was a crucial member of either or as though I have the potential to accomplish anything important. My primary intention while here is to entertain and inform if you'll allow it.

>>4090538
>thinking billion dollar equipment can just be replaced
>still thinks biostatistics can
>he argues babby's first statistics

>>4090554
>thinks expensive equipment magically generates true replicates
>still doesn't understand alpha, probably thinks it's always .05
>neonatal-tier statistics

>>4090511

Mad Scientist ... uahahahaha

>>4090560
>implying i stated that
>implying the equipment isn't accurate
>doesn't know what a type I error is or how it correlates to this situation

>>4090571
>"accurately depict biological systems with 99.99% certainty of accuracy"
>Lower alpha means lower chance of false positives
>False negatives/beta irrelevant in this situation

>that feel when Mad Sci will be on the Utah Mars Mission Simulation and an underwater expedition and people still think he's a nobody

>>4090553
> The argument is not that they are so incredibly useful that we'll inevitably all move into the ocean. obviously not. I never meant to convey that.

OK, there will always be niches and fads and other sorts of things. But what you're proposing still doesn't have longevity. There is no long-term underwater society. The costs and problems of living underwater fully relegate such living to corporate side effects, when they must provide such living conditions for workers in specific instances.

In other words, if you want to have a sea village, you have to locate a CORPORATE NEED for some underwater economic activity. Otherwise there's no point. Hobbyists are notoriously fickle. And no commune ANYWHERE has ever survived. That's the failed model that you're seemingly basing your hopes on.

Let's go over that again: MAKE MONEY FIRST, then contrive ways within that money maker to create your undersea society.

>>4090586

I am a nobody. I am really excited to take part in both of those but I don't feel that I deserve to. I'm just going to do my best to offer as much utility as possible. I happen to have a robust understanding of the specific type of electrical system used by the MDRS and the simsuits by virtue of having built electric vehicles of various kinds as a hobby and small business for several years, and similar hobby projects like the diving helmet and algae bioreactor got my foot in the door for the undersea colony project. I don't have a degree in anything related to marine science or spaceflight and while most of the others don't either they at least have tangentially related degrees like medicine and agricultural engineering.

I mean I am not going to turn down either opportunity, that would be nuts, but it doesn't hurt to maintain an appropriate degree of humility and understanding of where you rank next to other crew members in terms of applicable experience. Just going to be as helpful as I possibly can, write a lot about both experiences and try to bring as much to the table as I am capable of. :I

>>4090586

None of those things are long-term residential sea living.

Isn't it past your bedtime, little boy?

>>4090606
>OK, there will always be niches and fads and other sorts of things. But what you're proposing still doesn't have longevity. There is no long-term underwater society. The costs and problems of living underwater fully relegate such living to corporate side effects, when they must provide such living conditions for workers in specific instances.

Actually, while I respect your opinion, I think it's mistaken. I can see why you might take that view as someone new to the topic, but there's a lot you don't know, especially developments in materials and technology that make this project possible to accomplish and sustain today. I realize you will react with hostiliy to the suggestion that you are not already an expert on the subject but please read the books "Living and Working in the Sea by Ian Koblick, "Ocean Outpost" by Erik Seedhouse and "Undersea Colonies" by Dennis Chamberland, in that order. It nicely brings one up to speed on how it was done in the past, what has changed, and how it can be done better and more cheaply.

>In other words, if you want to have a sea village, you have to locate a CORPORATE NEED for some underwater economic activity. Otherwise there's no point. Hobbyists are notoriously fickle. And no commune ANYWHERE has ever survived. That's the failed model that you're seemingly basing your hopes on.

What you seem to be asserting is that initial investment can build the community but you need an ongoing business activity to sustain it. That is correct and has already been planned for from the start. As I have said many times we already have the funding to build it and are moving forward with the project. There is an independent project moving forward to put an already constructed tidal turbine in the gulf stream. We will be buying power from them which ENORMOUSLY reduces the operational costs of supplying things like air and fresh water to the habitat, and modules of the colony will be set aside as hotel rooms, restaurants and science labs for lease. Plans are already in place and have been from day 1 for how to sustain the colony financially. Again you seem to feel you are an expert, even as an outsider not privy to the details and not interested in learning about them, but Dennis knows what he's doing.

>Let's go over that again: MAKE MONEY FIRST, then contrive ways within that money maker to create your undersea society.

That's already taken care of. We already have the money to construct it. Stage 1 is about 85% complete already. And it's not as if we need to pay for it to be built over and over. Once it is built, it is built. That is a one time expense. It can then be used in many different ways to recoup that investment even though its primary purpose is simply to exist, be awesome and delight the people who worked hard to make it a reality.

You really seem to have waltzed in out of nowhere and started lecturing people who have put a lot more time into studying the matter than you have in how to accomplish these things while at the same time viciously insulting them and their dreams. Please imagine how you look to someone who is on the receiving end of your arrogance and abuse. There is much you don't know on the topic, be willing to admit that, willing to read about it and concede that perhaps you aren't an authority on the matter and it's not your place to go around shouting people down and presuming to tell them how to do these things or when/how they can/should be done. In some cases you're stating things already obvious and included in the plans and in other cases you're presenting things as damning facts which in fact are common misconceptions. Just cool it, stop acting like a bigshot, and be willing to learn from other people instead of presuming to force your own opinions on them when in many cases those opinions are based on incomplete knowledge.

In order to back up my assertion that there are things you don't know about the design and operation of subsea living structures which have caused you to take as fact opinions which are in actuality misconceptions I'll now give a brief history of how subsea habitats have evolved towards simplicity and cheapness by gradually eliminating one overhead expense after another.

The earliest habitats were extremely involved because we simply hadn't done it before and didn't know any better way; Diogenes, or Conshelf 1, was the first true ambient pressure habitat and had a fully crewed support barge overhead which had to run gasoline generators 24/7.

That model evolved slightly when it occurred to habitat engineers that if you used an autonomous overhead buoy to run the generators and air compressors you could eliminate the expense of having a support barge onsite all the time, and by putting a large bank of air cylinders just outside the habitat you could run the air compressors only occasionally to top up the air supply instead of running them all the time, which wasted gasoline.

So the biggest expenses at that point didn't include the construction of the habitat so much as providing electricity and oxygen. That remains the case for Aquarius. One expense it still hasn't eliminated is that of Sodasorb; A CO2 absorbant powder that has to be used in large quantities and each container lasts only around 8-10 hours before it has to be swapped for a fresh one. Aquarius also still uses gas powered generators on the buoy and consumes thousands of dollars worth of gasoline to provide power and air for the habitat.

>>4090628
> It nicely brings one up to speed on how it was done in the past, what has changed, and how it can be done better and more cheaply.It nicely brings one up to speed on how it was done in the past, what has changed, and how it can be done better and more cheaply.

Oh, I'm plenty up to speed on scams and vaporware. The point is, materials technology keeps advancing and yet nobody forms an undersea society. Since our Petroleum Inheritance is now almost over, tech advancements will stall out, forever. So that's IT for the seabros.

Like I said, if you have the advantage, then stop blowing your horn here AND JUST DO IT. But you can't do it, can you? No, you need lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of other people's MONEY to do it... which makes the situation nothing other than the way that IT'S ALWAYS BEEN: Uneconomic.

I must repeat in other words: I'm nowhere in your SUPPLY CHAIN. Nothing you want has anything to do with me. So I'm not the problem here. JUST DO IT and stop wasting time con(vi)n(c)ing somebody like me that somehow we're wrong. THE ONUS IS ON YOU, SO GET TO WORK. (Don't forget to bring PILES OF CASH.)

You solve the sodasorb problem with new, reusable CO2 removal powders. Made from salt, sugar, alcohol and water they are cheaper by far than baralyme or any other CO2 absorbant and most importantly it's reusable, over and over, so it is a one time expense and not a recurring one:

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2011/09/edible-carbon-dioxide-sponge.html

The power/air problem is solved even more simply; You just need to have a potent source of power out in the open ocean. Not a generator that consumes enormous amounts of gasoline which is rapidly increasing in price, but something renewable. That exists now in the form of the gulf stream turbine and OTEC. Without them a project like this would not be economically possible. You could not make enough money to keep the thing running. Aquarius, for instance, houses only six and yet costs tens of thousands of dollars for a 14 day mission. Less than space exploration but beyond the means of a civilian organization.

The secret to living in the ocean is that it contains everything you need to survive on-site. From the ocean currents or thermal gradient you can generate ample electricity. From electricity you can make heat and light, regulate pressure/humidity and recharge vehicles. From electricity and ocean water, you can produce oxygen to replenish the air, hydrogen fuel for long range undersea travel and potent portable energy, and fresh drinking water by recombining some of the oxgyen and hydrogen.

So you see, it's more sensible than it first appears. It employs the same in-situ resource utilization principles as a bade on Mars but instead of having to endlessly process soil and ice for water, air and so on, you simply process the surrounding water. Add to that the fact that you're also surrounded by food, uninterrupted renewable energy sources and minerals and it's self evidently a good idea. Not for everyone, and not strictly for practical business reasons, but it can be done, it can be done in a way that is economically sustainable, and for some it will become a valid way of living.

I'm a skeleton. <span class="math">\smash{~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ ~\atop{ \mathbf{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OH~GOD~HOW~DID~THIS~GET~HERE~I~AM~NOT~GOOD~WITH~COMPUTER} }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}[/spoiler]

>>4090638
> As I have said many times we already have the funding to build it and are moving forward with the project.

No you aren't. You're here flapping your fucking gums. Such huge and civil-eng projects really consume time from all participants. You should be ON SITE running tests and pulling lines or something. Instead, you're here on 4chan wasting time with all the rest of us.

Don't post again. Get out there AND FUCKING GET IT DONE. Because if you aren't out there workin' the project, you're only workin' our wallets, here.

>>4090719

>Oh, I'm plenty up to speed on scams and vaporware.

No, you're not. I know for a fact that you're new to the topic because many of your arguments betray a lack of knowledge about the subject. Very basic, beginner level stuff.

>The point is, materials technology keeps advancing and yet nobody forms an undersea society.

That is an invalid point because in fact someone IS forming an undersea society. I am a crew member with that very organization. My existence is proof that you're wrong about this.

>Since our Petroleum Inheritance is now almost over, tech advancements will stall out, forever. So that's IT for the seabros.

This is completely false in general and especially with regards to oceanic colonies. We won't be using oil. Our power will come from a massive tidal turbine. Our vehicles are all battery electric. No part of our survival there requires oil. It used to, when compressor buoys ran on gasoline, but that's something we've done away with and part of why it's now a lot cheaper to sustain human life underwater.

>Like I said, if you have the advantage, then stop blowing your horn here AND JUST DO IT. But you can't do it, can you? No, you need lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of other people's MONEY to do it... which makes the situation nothing other than the way that IT'S ALWAYS BEEN: Uneconomic.

That makes no sense. Every project requires money. When you want to get something big done, you seek out investors. That doesn't mean it's somehow invalid or pointless, or all of Capitalism would be fraudulent. The fact that it can't be done from the ground up by a single person with no investors doesn't say anything about its feasibility, that's just a stupid argument.

>I must repeat in other words: I'm nowhere in your SUPPLY CHAIN. Nothing you want has anything to do with me. So I'm not the problem here. JUST DO IT and stop wasting time con(vi)n(c)ing somebody like me that somehow we're wrong. THE ONUS IS ON YOU, SO GET TO WORK. (Don't forget to bring PILES OF CASH.)

It's happening now. I've said that three times. I cannot make it happen any faster. There is nothing I, personally, can go do to accelerate the effort. Telling me to GO DO IT is nonsensical. It IS being done. I am not the one constructing it, or funding it. Telling ME to go do something or find cash makes no sense because that's not my role in the project and we already have the cash. You're saying pointless, meaningless things.

>Don't post again.

Who are you to order me around? I'll post if I want to. Stop taking on airs. You are nobody with any sort of authority over me, period.

>Get out there AND FUCKING GET IT DONE. Because if you aren't out there workin' the project, you're only workin' our wallets, here.

See above. Not my role in the project, everything that needs doing is being done, and we already have funding. I am only here to discuss a topic of mutual interest with other enthusiasts.

>>4090511

>Please, please stop it. It's incredibly unpleasant. I really enjoy posting here.

Actually Mad Scientist, I was just following OP's post. It was more making fun of it than anything you do.

You are a bit crazy about the ocean to the point that I can understand why you annoy others. But usually /sci/ is shit and you've occasionally produced some okay topics.

The alien topic you made a few days back was pretty good and a nice break from the constant bickering of high schoolers about college majors they won't do anything with.

>>4090745

>You are a bit crazy about the ocean to the point that I can understand why you annoy others.

So far it only seems to be one person. But I have been self conscious about that and made a concerted effort to diversify anyway.

>The alien topic you made a few days back was pretty good and a nice break

Weird, I thought I had my trip off for that. When I make non-ocean threads I usually go without the trip to avoid confusing people who associate me exclusively with ocean stuff. But then that might be why I appear singularly fixated on it. Maybe the right answer is to continue posting diverse threads but to keep the trip on so people know I am into more than just the one topic.

This thread is delicious.
It's like one of those bizarro-opposite-day-meta-threads on /tg/!

I don't personally think we will ever need to live under water, sadly every now and then a catastrophe kills millions and millions plus many occidental countries have huge demographic problems. People make less kids than before, some chose not to make at all so before we become paranoid about lacking space on land we should consider these issues that have direct effect on economy and society.

How about a compromise? We live on the SURFACE of the ocean, instead of trying to live on the bottom for some silly reason.

>>4090740

Just want you to know I enjoy having you around, Mad. You're a good time.

>>4091812

>living underwater
>beautiful expansive landscape filled with life everywhere
>living on the surface
>WOW IT'S FUCKING NOTHING

>>4091815
Anywhere that the water is ACTUALLY clear and brightly-lit (i.e. shallow) enough to experience such a beautiful view would be visible from the surface anyways. In reality, if you put your colony anywhere but the Caribbean, you'll probably look out the window and see nothing but darkness or murky water.

Not to mention, the ridiculous pressure pretty much guarantees your windows will be nothing but tiny portholes anyways.

>>4091825
> the ridiculous pressure
Most colonies will be at about 300 feet deep, which is below the average 200 feet boundary of weather effectations, while still not being so 'heavy' in pressure as to not allow 1atm construction.
In short, you can have whole lounges with giant windows and be fine, though the reinforcement and and strength of the window material will need to be pretty damn good.