/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4416191]

Why haven't we colonized the oceans yet, /sci/?

It just seems that the Oceans have so much potential for solving so much of our problems right now. Overpopulation and crowding? Instead of fucking moon bases like Gingrich wants, why not make Ocean cities? I guaran-fucking-tee you that sending a submarine underwater is less expensive than sending rockets up to the moon to give them Oxygen and trying to terraform a planet like Mars. 2/3rds of our god damn planet is covered in Ocean. Considering the Ocean has a far better potential for exploiting multiple leveled structures -- we could fit billions of more people there with plenty of space before we'd feel necessary to move elsewhere.

Not to mention, this would open a new venue. Depleting Fresh Water supplies is a major issue right now in our world. Creating this shit would create a market, converting salt water to fresh water. Right now there is basically no incentive to do it, however, distilling salt to fresh water very well could be a profitable venue once going underwater. Yes, we are selling water (which is stupid in it of itself) but perhaps it's something.

These things could be entirely self sustainable. Massive air farms (which are improving steadily) with massive solar panels above water and submerged (which are improving steadily) along with Geo-Thermal Energy and gaining energy from the movement of the tides, even, which I heard about recently.

So when do you think we'll begin to colonize the Ocean, /sci/? Space may be the Final Frontier, but it is not the current one. 2/3rds of our world is Ocean, over 90% of it is not mapped. Not to mention, with threats of Global Warming -- this could greatly help minimize harmful displacement.

[Anonymous No.4416222]

Bump?

[Anonymous No.4416230]

Ifindthisinteresting.jpg
I have no idea though....
you have a point OP let's see how long it keeps standing...

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.4416233]

>submarine
living on subs is cramped, ascetic, and depressing as fuck.
>desalinsation
super expensive. Plus, it takes space, and space is one thing subs can't afford to spare.
>Geo-Thermal Energy
except that all the geothermal energy is 2-3mi down at the bottom of the ocean.
>solar/wind
what about storms? best case scenario: clouds block the sun. worst case scenario: the wind catches the turbines/panels and flops the sub around (or rips them off)
>tides
tidal movement in the open ocean is slight.

tl;dr nah

[Anonymous No.4416236]

>>4416191
>Why haven't we colonized the oceans yet?
You know very well why we haven't colonized the oceans. We haven't colonized the oceans because of a lack of capability and a lack of incentive.

[Anonymous No.4416240]

>>4416233

I don't mean living on a sub. I mean, sending supplies down underwater on a sub is FAR cheaper than sending a rocket ship up into space with oxygen and supplies.

[Anonymous No.4416243]

>>4416233

Pretty sure OP meant living on giant platforms on the surface/under water, and specifically because of the extended Z axis on the ocean using multi-layered platforms for even more spacial potential.

[Anonymous No.4416245]

Possible?

[Anonymous No.4416250]

>>4416233

I don't really agree with ocean colonization, but shit what are you saying. We shouldn't use Solar Power because it might get cloudy sometimes? We shouldn't use Wind Power because it might get a bit too windy?

[Anonymous No.4416260]

I think the biggest problem would be how to power an ocean community with only the resources available to it. You now have the difficult problem of providing power to a sizable ocean city while running desalination plants with only wind, solar and tidal power. You could you thermal vents, but they are located very deep, and that poses another issue if you decide to exploit them.

Then there are the environmental risks. Tsunamis, hurricanes, anything involving big waves if it's an ocean surface type deal, which it will probably be because not many people would like to live underwater all their lives. These things are fairly easy to endure on land because building don't sink underground if a hurricane hits, and we can move to high ground during a tsunami. In an ocean city you are isolated to a large extent.

[valjean !!4SOyPF0IuOv No.4416264]

>>4416240
>>4416243
you still have to deal with those problems, minus the flipping-the-sub-over one. Space will be extremely valuable because every square inch of the living platform would have to be made from scratch. you realize that living on a giant floating platform would be very similar to living in a spaceship.

[Anonymous No.4416266]

>>4416245

This is exactly what I was thinking.

Yes, at the moment I guess it's not profitable. However, we are progressively moving into an era where sustainable energy is more profitable than non-sustainable energy. Where people are going to be needing to live in better, less crowded places to live. I may be an idealist, but I really think within the next 50 years people will begin opening ocean colonies and begin experimenting with it.

[Anonymous No.4416267]

>>4416245
quebonito.jpg

[Anonymous No.4416270]

You think space is the alternative, but it's really land. Buying land a way cheaper than building underwater or in space. So until incentive increases a lot or cost decreases a lot, neither are happening.

[Anonymous No.4416275]

>>4416245
What will they trade? They will obviously need goods from land, so they need something to trade. Fishing isn't a good option because no one would let a bunch of nautical squatters claim the last fisheries on Earth.

[Anonymous No.4416283]

how about something like this?!

[Anonymous No.4416286]

>>4416275

What do Residency Areas trade? I see where you're coming from, but I would think that these places would be more of a center of commerce and living rather than a production plant.

[Anonymous No.4416291]

>>4416283
Welcome to... THE BUBBLE!

[Anonymous No.4416301]

>>4416291
note the enlarged ceiling fan as well.
ample air circulation.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416310]

We have, but only in an industrial, scientific and agricultural capacity. Only when there is enough equipment in the sea that companies can save money by putting workers on-site will civilian colonization make sense. Until then, there will only be hotels, labs and resorts like the Jules, Poseidon, Coral World Park and Aquarius.

[Anonymous No.4416319]

>>4416286
Oil is running out. Few will have the money to venture far from where they live. The only thing they will have to trade are there services, but the wages they will have to work for to keep their home working would be far less than someone living in a cramped apartment in Bangladesh.

The only people who would live out there are the rich, where then all the sustainability stuff either wouldn't be there or just a gimmick.

[Anonymous No.4416335]

I personally think shit like this won't be profitable until Nuclear Fission or Hydrogen Power comes into play.

[Anonymous No.4416327]

>>4416286
Oil is running out. Few will have the money to venture far from where they live. The only thing they will have to trade are their services, but the wages they will have to work for to keep their home working would be sigificantly more than someone living in a cramped apartment in Bangladesh.

The only people who would live out there are the rich, where then all the sustainability stuff either wouldn't be there or just a gimmick.

[Anonymous No.4416337]

>>4416245
reminds me of larry niven's ringworld. An artificial planet. Perhaps you should read it, you'd find it entertaining.
And yes, it would face some problems.... yet I think it would survive. So long it keeps in touch with the land.

[Anonymous No.4416356]

There is a lot of open ground to fill up before it will become economically necessary to populate the oceans or outer space.

I do wonder about building a deep-sea nuclear reactor power station. No shortage of coolant. building and maintaining it would be a mf.

[Anonymous No.4416365]

Why can't my face hold all these palms?

We don't need to colonize the ocean any more than we need to colonize a coal deposit or the air. The ocean isn't livable for Humans, despite technology. It's too mobile, wet and overall dangerous. So we use it for the only things the ocean is useful for: Salt, fish and transportation medium.

Seabros are just retards who seldom leave their mothers' basements. Ignore them like you would any other crazy loon.

[Anonymous No.4416366]

>>4416335
>implying nuclear fission isn't "in play"

[Anonymous No.4416376]

>>4416366

Nuclear Fusion* rather.

[Anonymous No.4416379]

>>4416365

But colonizing the moon or Terraforming Mars is not loony?

[Anonymous No.4416381]

>>4416356
>implying space people will ever leave Earth because there isn't enough room on the Earth's surface
Getting people into space will never be cheap enough to use space as a means of relieving population pressure.

[Anonymous No.4416383]

>>4416356

>Thousands of Nuclear Reactors underwater
>Change the climate to make the oceans cooler, and with the reactors constantly pumping it keeps it relatively warm all around

Why can't I live in a Type 1 Civilization...

[Anonymous No.4416389]

>>4416379
A) Space offers something that oceans do not, ie another basket for our eggs.
B) Space won't be colonized to get rid of people on Earth. It will be colonized as humans exploit the mineral wealth of the solar system and beyond.

[Anonymous No.4416394]

>>4416383
I wish we were born into a type 1 civ.

[Anonymous No.4416407]

>>4416356
>deep sea nuclear reactor
Why not just build it on the surface and sink it? Seems easy enough.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416408]

>>4416389
> Space offers something that oceans do not, ie another basket for our eggs.

Ocean offers something space does not, near term return on investment and access to the wealth necessary for meaningful expansion into space.

>Space won't be colonized to get rid of people on Earth. It will be colonized as humans exploit the mineral wealth of the solar system and beyond.

Trillions in precious metals and hundreds of billions in rare earths have already been located on the ocean floor, and mining is just now beginning. Why would we go to asteroids for metals that are plentiful and more easily reached on the ocean floor?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416410]

>>4416356
>There is a lot of open ground to fill up before it will become economically necessary to populate the oceans or outer space.

That is not why we will put people in the ocean or in space.

>I do wonder about building a deep-sea nuclear reactor power station. No shortage of coolant. building and maintaining it would be a mf.

Already being worked on by FlexBlue. Pic related, they are basically just nuclear subs stripped of everything except the reactor and life support (for visiting technicians.)

[Anonymous No.4416411]

>>4416407
and then you will still have to maintain it. or did you want to just build another one when the first one shits out?

[Anonymous No.4416415]

>>4416381
The population is increasing somewhat-exponentially. The cost of deep water and space exploration/transportation is decreasing. The earth's surface are remains constant. I don't see the validity of your point.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416421]

>>4416411
>and then you will still have to maintain it. or did you want to just build another one when the first one shits out?

Flexblue reactors have the same docking collar as a normal nuclear submarine hull, although slightly modified so that only proprietary mini-subs can mate to it, permitting technicians to enter and carry out maintenance from inside.

[Anonymous No.4416422]

>>4416191
>I guaran-fucking-tee you that sending a submarine underwater is less expensive than sending rockets up to the moon
Not if it's a rocket sub!

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416423]

>>4416415
> I don't see the validity of your point.

We physically cannot move people off of this planet faster than new ones are born.

[Anonymous No.4416428]

>>4416423
>We physically cannot move people off of this planet faster than new ones are born.

Rail gun maternity wards

[Anonymous No.4416433]

>>4416410
>>4416421
/sci/: Slowing bringing back my hope in humanity.

[sage No.4416437]

Why are you people even talking about this? Overpopulation is not a function of space, it is a function of food, which itself depends on the very finite resources of water and fossil fuels. Building enormous, expensive platforms in the ocean solves none of these problems. OPs idea is a pretty neat setting for a sci fi novel and nothing more.

[Anonymous No.4416440]

>>4416428
Ha. Beautiful.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416448]

>>4416437
>Building enormous, expensive platforms in the ocean solves none of these problems.

It solves the food problem. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.4416449]

>>4416421
these are cool. solves a lot of problems (more political than technical) with ground-based nuclear plants.

[sage No.4416456]

>>4416448
No it fucking doesn't. See, this is my point. Is there food in the ocean? Yes, at least for now. But what is easier, building ginormous floating seascrapers, or harvesting the fish and trucking them to the local Safeway like we have been doing for the last 100 goddamned years!

[Anonymous No.4416457]

>>4416423
I guess I wasn't clear enough. I should have said that not only is the cost of doing so decreasing, but the technology and capacity is increasing. Also, colonizing sets up a system in which people will reproduce and generations will exist entirely in space and/or on other planets/moons.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416458]

Undersea industrial infrastructure is further along than most are aware of, in large part because it isn't advertised, as NIMBYs would probably find some reason to lobby against it even though it objectively benefits the ecosystem it is deployed into by virtue of providing an artificial reef.

Pic related, Siemens undersea transformer stations.

[Anonymous No.4416459]

Im pretty sure this is what op meant

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416463]

>>4416457
>I guess I wasn't clear enough. I should have said that not only is the cost of doing so decreasing, but the technology and capacity is increasing.

But it isn't. We still use rockets. We can't move people into space any more rapidly than we could in the sixties.

>Also, colonizing sets up a system in which people will reproduce and generations will exist entirely in space and/or on other planets/moons.

Absolutely, but this does not help with population growth issues on Earth.

[Anonymous No.4416464]

>>4416448
So if we attach this to this
>>4416245
With one of these
>>4416410
We should be all sweet... Right?

[Anonymous No.4416466]

>>4416408
You implied the colonization of space was qualitatively on par with the colonization of the oceans. I showed you why you were wrong. No amount of arguments about the practicality of colonizing the oceans will change that.

>Why would we go to asteroids for metals that are plentiful and more easily reached on the ocean floor?
IMHO? Because we are in a race against time before our oil fueled civilization collapses. If we don't use the benefit of cheap oil before it runs out to establish a manufacturing foothold beyond Earth then we may never do it. We will be too preoccupied with a maintaining a population and lifestyle of a more prosperous age to "waste" money on space.

We may slowly claw our way back up to a state that makes space exploration politically feasible again if disease and war doesn't break our species' back before then, but it will take quite awhile and every century we spend on this rock is another chance for some nutjob to start a nuclear war. From that we will never recover. After a nuclear war we will just wait out our time on a half dead Earth until a comet ends us like a curtain ends play that has been drawn out too long.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416470]

>>4416456
>No it fucking doesn't. See, this is my point. Is there food in the ocean? Yes, at least for now. But what is easier, building ginormous floating seascrapers, or harvesting the fish and trucking them to the local Safeway like we have been doing for the last 100 goddamned years!

You don't need a seascraper. I agree that things like this: >>4416459 are absurd and impractical. However, at some point when you have enough of these farms and other installations, it becomes more profitable to have workers on-site who can do daily inspections and maintinence for the same amount you used to pay them to be boated out to do the same thing only twice each month.

It's why, when a mining or refining operation grows to a certain point, a town grows around it. Same principle but at sea, and therefore with a higher development threshold before putting workers there becomes a profitable proposition. It hasn't gotten there yet, but it will.

[❤♡❤♡❤♡{Queen of /sci/}❤♡❤♡❤♡ Whiteman !37hv/5ioM. No.4416471]

2/10 OP

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416477]

QUESTION: Why don't we seed oceanic deserts with iron? What harm could it do?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416478]

>>4416466
>You implied the colonization of space was qualitatively on par with the colonization of the oceans. I showed you why you were wrong. No amount of arguments about the practicality of colonizing the oceans will change that.

Where did that happen? Scroll up, I think you may be confusing me with whoever you were arguing with before I jumped in.

>IMHO? Because we are in a race against time before our oil fueled civilization collapses. If we don't use the benefit of cheap oil before it runs out to establish a manufacturing foothold beyond Earth then we may never do it.

Except that the development of oceanic resources dramatically pushes back that time limit. It's essentially a second Earth worth of land containing preindustrial quantities of as yet unharvested minerals and fuels.

[Anonymous No.4416488]

>>4416478
Are... Are those little detachable bubble vehicles?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416502]

The reason is not technological limitations, btw. At the height of the "man in the sea" era, there were 70 undersea labs worldwide. The technology necessary to put human workers in the sea for prolonged periods is very mature and established. It's vastly cheaper today thanks to the commoditization of many of the technologies involved.

That era ended primary due to the ongoing expenses of sustaining life undersea (issues which have since been solved with new technology) the development of very cramped, portable ambient pressure habitats intended for temporary use (aka diving chambers) and ROVs.

There was no practical purpose for putting human beings underwater except science, and the world needs only a small number of undersea labs, which is why it currently only has three. (Aquarius, Baylab and Marinelab).

However, with the advent of new oceanic industries, especially those taking place on the continental shelf like power generation and fish farming, there exists a valid business rationale for putting living space for maintinence workers on-site. It is the same principle behind factory/mining towns. They start out spartan and basic, but as more people work there the town grows to meet their needs and provide a better place to raise their families. There is a higher threshold involved in the oceanic equivalent due to the cost of the living structures, but once it is crossed the same thing will happen.

There are in fact already two colonies in the works, one as a luxury community for the rich and the other for diving enthusiasts, with jobs being provided by a nearby gulf stream turbine and a potential deal with the company responsible for the fish farms posted earlier. Pic related, the turbine.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416510]

This is Dennis Chamberland, ex-NASA bioengineer still working for them in a consulting capacity. He's responsible for one of the two colony projects underway right now. Stage one, a four man modular demonstration habitat, is already fully funded and on track for a 2013 deployment. Full disclosure; I am one of the crew members who will be living aboard it for a short period as part of that demonstration.

Stage 2 is a 16 person permanent colony hub at ten times the depth (250 feet as opposed to 25) it is also modular so that individuals can purchase their own residential cylinders for around $250,000 and have them added on.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416517]

Here is an interior shot of the 1998 prototype for the newer, larger module that will be deployed in 2013. That's James Cameron, one of the participants in the original expedition. He will also be returning for the next one.

[Anonymous No.4416520]

>>4416510
> I am one of the crew members who will be living aboard it for a short period as part of that demonstration.

For reals, brah?

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416522]

>>4416478
> I think you may be confusing me with whoever you were arguing with before I jumped in.
Yep, I missed your trip. Sorry. Guess I'll use my trip.

>Except that the development of oceanic resources dramatically pushes back that time limit.
I disagree. The oceans won't provide the cheap, storable energy that oil does. The oceans are an alternative to space. The cost of minerals will never skyrocket to the levels needed to make space mining profitable if we exploit the seafloor's mineral wealth. By the time we use up the oceans' mineral wealth the oil era will be over.

All I ask is for one little space factory in Earth orbit before we make a concerted effort to exploit the oceans, just one! Give me that. It's all it will take to ensure humanity spreads throughout the rest of the solar system.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416530]

>>4416520
>For reals, brah?

Yes.

>>4416522
>I disagree. The oceans won't provide the cheap, storable energy that oil does.

We get oil from the ocean. There are also alternatives to oil that are abundant on the ocean floor like methane hydrates and clathrates which we MUST harvest, as allowing them to melt as the world warms would release them uncontrolled, into the atmosphere in catastrophic amounts. How's that for irony? A fossil fuel we must harvest and use for the sake of the environment.

>By the time we use up the oceans' mineral wealth the oil era will be over.

By that time robust alternatives will already be in widespread use.

>All I ask is for one little space factory in Earth orbit before we make a concerted effort to exploit the oceans, just one! Give me that. It's all it will take to ensure humanity spreads throughout the rest of the solar system.

Heh. I am not the one in charge of that. But oceanic development has already begun. The upside is that the influx of wealth that will result as oceanic industry matures will create an economic climate in which vastly increasing NASA's budget will be much easier in a political sense than it is right now.

[Anonymous No.4416540]

Hello. I am Andrew Ryan and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his own brow? NO says the man in Washington, it belongs to the POOR. NO says the man in the Vatican, it belongs to GOD. NO says the man in Moscow, it belongs to everyone. I rejected those answers and instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose.... RAPTURE... the city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small, and with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can be your home as well.

[Anonymous No.4416545]

>>4416540
Was just thinking about this.

[Anonymous No.4416555]

>>4416530

Glad to see you're moving up from hamsters.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416581]

>>4416555

>Implying I won't be bringing a hamster lab with me to deploy from the human habitat, like recursively nested Russian dolls

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416587]

>>4416530
>there is oil in the ocean
Only offshore. There shouldn't be any oil on oceanic tectonic plates. The oil that remains will be found and used no matter which course humanity takes.

>There are also alternatives to oil
There are alternative energy sources in space too and, like the alternative energy sources in the ocean, none of them are as good as oil. Humanity will peak not long after oil production, then we will fall. Nothing we can do can stop that. Alternative energy sources will simply soften the blow. Already major cuts are being made to space funding, and science as a whole.

I'm a disheartened man Mad Scientist. I feel like this recent economic crisis is minor drop before the big fall. I feel like our species has missed its window. Perhaps if we hold this rock together well enough and if future generations do the same then we might eventually take another crack at space; but like I said, its a race against time.

You'll likely get your aquatic aspirations for humanity answered Mad Scientist. Civilization will likely forget about space and wet its appetite with the wealth under the water. I guess I should just accept that and spend my life preparing the next generation for their try at our species' immortality.

[Anonymous No.4416597]

>>4416510
> I am one of the crew members who will be living aboard it for a short period as part of that demonstration.
How did you find your way onto something like that?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416608]

>>4416587
>Only offshore. There shouldn't be any oil on oceanic tectonic plates. The oil that remains will be found and used no matter which course humanity takes.

Yes, offshore. If it were onshore, it wouldn't be an oceanic resource. What are you trying to say here?

>There are alternative energy sources in space too and, like the alternative energy sources in the ocean, none of them are as good as oil.

The. Ocean. Contains. Oil.

Also, methane hydrates and clathrates, as well as the largest and cheapest environment in qhich to raise the quantities of algae necessary if ever there were a need for biofuels.

>Humanity will peak not long after oil production, then we will fall. Nothing we can do can stop that.

Yes there is, and we're doing it. Oceanic resource development.

>Alternative energy sources will simply soften the blow. Already major cuts are being made to space funding, and science as a whole.

Don't extrapolate dystopia based on a temporary setback. We made that mistake during the energy crisis of the 1970s. People actually thought we'd have regressed to the stone age by the year 2000, fighting primitive wars over the last sources of potable water. People get kind of crazy when progress hits a snag. They don't have the historical perspective necessary to realize that we never just sit on our hands doing nothing as disaster approaches, we prepare for it and overcome problems as they emerge. It is for this reason that Malthusians will always be left with blue balls, shaking their tiny fists impotently at cornucopians who are vindicated again and again.

[Anonymous No.4416611]

>>4416581

Godspeed sir.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416613]

>>4416597
>How did you find your way onto something like that?

The founder noticed blogs I put up to document projects such as the construction of my own solar powered surface supplied diving helmet and a functioning scale model underwater city inhabited by hamsters.

[Anonymous No.4416619]

>>4416613
An underwater city... Inhabited by hamsters? Please, pics and everything else you got.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416623]

>>4416619

Everything about it can be found here.

http://hampture.blogspot.com/

Pic contains one of several habitats so far. The largest would not fit in the test tank in the picture.

[Anonymous No.4416627]

>>4416623
I think I love you.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416628]

This was the largest of the colony structures. It had to be decommissioned because it is over the size/weight limit for practical, one-man transport and deployment. The new city being built is comprised of many separate structures so that they can be deployed and recovered individually as needed. I may yet build another relatively large habitat once I figure out what the ideal balance is.

[Anonymous No.4416630]

please, we've already shitted up the land.

[Anonymous No.4416635]

>>4416628
How long do you keep them submerged at a time? Were there any prfound psychological effects on the submerged hampsters compared to the surfice dwellers? Did you succeed with Mark VI?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416636]

>>4416630
>please, we've already shitted up the land.

Please explain how living in the ocean will "shit it up". It may seem obvious to you, but there is much that isn't commonly known about oceanic settlement that makes it (counterintuitively) very clean and even beneficial to reef species in particular.

For instance, did you know that internal combustion engines do not work, and are not used, underwater? Underwater vehicles are battery electric by necessity.

[Anonymous No.4416639]

>>4416627
We all love MadSci.

Everyone who yells at him and calls him names are just tsundere.

[Anonymous No.4416640]

>>4416636
batteries release harmful gasses over time which can accumulate in living tissue.
If you believe we can establish an underwater colony without disturbing the delicate balance of the oceans then good for you but historical precedent would indicate otherwise for human civilization, enough so that I believe before we venture fourth we need to prove to ourselves there will be no net impact rather than assuming this to be the case until we discover some reason otherwise.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416641]

>>4416608
>oil
Exploiting offshore oil has has little in common with mining copper and platinum from the seafloor. If my ideal world were to come to pass then we would use up the offshore oil as we currently are on track towards doing and forgo the significant exploitation of the ocean's mineral wealth in favor of exploiting the mineral wealth of space.

>dysotopian
I don't mean to imply a dysotopia. It wouldn't take a dysotopia for space exploration funding to be significantly cut. Just look at the current state of affairs. People won't be willing to give up the lifestyles oil afforded them so they will consolidate the wealth. They will take space exploration funding back and use it to keep off public transportation and to keep their television screens large.

>1970's
The 1970's were no false alarm. That slump took a heavy toll on the state of space exploration. The only differences between the 70's and today is that we have 40 fewer years before cheap oil runs out.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416643]

>>4416635
>How long do you keep them submerged at a time?

Between 24 hours and a month depending on the size of the habitat. I generally don't confine them in a smaller habitat for very long as it would be inhumane, eventually they need to stretch out an exercise. Larger habs contain a running wheel, so it's less of an issue there.

>Were there any prfound psychological effects on the submerged hampsters compared to the surfice dwellers?

Yes, they completely lost their natural fear of water. When I built prototype habitats with moon pools, with the intent of using them to dock with small RC subs, the hamsters casually dove out of them and swam around. It was alarming. They had been conditioned by living underwater to see nothing unusual or dangerous about it and would glady enter and swim in water that unconditioned hamsters avoided like the plague.

>Did you succeed with Mark VI?

It is not yet complete, or the blog would say so.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416646]

>>4416640
>batteries release harmful gasses over time which can accumulate in living tissue.

Lead acid batteries yes. Lithium batteries no.

>If you believe we can establish an underwater colony without disturbing the delicate balance of the oceans then good for you but historical precedent would indicate otherwise for human civilization,

There is a precedent for underwater colonization, the Conshelf II project. It was a multi-structure scientific colony that had no measurable adverse effect on the ecosystem it was placed in.

>...enough so that I believe before we venture fourth we need to prove to ourselves there will be no net impact rather than assuming this to be the case until we discover some reason otherwise.

See above. Pic related, first undersea colony, no ecological damage.

[Anonymous No.4416648]

>>4416643
Enhanced super hamsters incoming.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416652]

>>4416640
I'm an environmentalist to the point it serves humanity. Environmentalism should never be a matter of protecting the environment at all costs. It should be about weighing the pros and cons. I'd bulldoze any habitat if there were enough copper beneath it.

And what serves humanity serves all life on Earth in the long run.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416653]

>>4416641
>Exploiting offshore oil has has little in common with mining copper and platinum from the seafloor.

Not for long: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/8228548/Brazil-to-replace-oil-rigs-
with-underwater-cities.html

>They will take space exploration funding back and use it to keep off public transportation and to keep their television screens large.

There will be an unprecedented explosion of wealth resulting from the development of oceanic industry and agriculture. We are on the cusp. That wealth will create economic conditions ideal for space exploration. Already, the planned future of manned space exploration includes a visit to an asteroid, which will yield information necessary for eventually mining them. Wat we need is an economy sufficiently healthy that NASA can receive full funding again. Oceanic resource development provides that.

[Anonymous No.4416657]

>>4416191
1. Expensive
2. Boring as shit to live in, nobody would want to
3. There is no #3

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416660]

>>4416648
>Enhanced super hamsters incoming.

It was actually very worrisome, as before I had tried habitats with moon pools and their natural hydrophobia kept them from diving through them. A small moon pool serves as an inexhaustible water source, negating the need for a finite water bottle of water filter inlet for the drinking spout (which requires frequent replacement.) It also provides, potentially, a place for radio controlled submersibles modified to deliver food to surface.

I was so excited about the potential for such a design until their direct interaction with that open pool of water acclimated them to it, and soon I caught them diving through, swimming to the surface, or in one instance walking haplessly around on the bottom before surfacing through the pool.

As hamsters cannot understand the dangers of being underwater, it is not safe to provide them free access to it, even if on those few occasions they knew enough to either surface or swim back inside. There is no guarantee they would always remember to, or that they would not become disoriented, lost, etc.

There is also the danger of predation by fish and large frogs who occasionally feed on rodents. As cool as free access to the outside environment would be, a closed habitat seemed more prudent.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416661]

>>4416657
>2. Boring as shit to live in, nobody would want to

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416665]

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416666]

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416667]

>>4416653
>oceanic resources = good for economy = good for space exploration
True, but as I may have outlined in earlier posts, it's all about exploitation of space, not its exploration. The only thing that will start human space colonization is industry in space, and that only happens when minerals become so expensive that it becomes economical to mine them in space. As you have been saying itt and since the dawn of /sci/, there are plenty of minerals in the ocean.

You wouldn't happen to have any estimates on how long it will take humanity to deplete the mineral wealth of the ocean floor as it has the land would you?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416669]

Nobody would want to live there, which is why scuba is a hugely popular sport and people regularly fly to locations like Florida, Hawaii and Cozumel at great expense to dive there.

Yup, people regularly go live in the desert, mountains and forest but they'd never want to live on a coral reef. Makes perfect sense.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416679]

>>4416667
>that only happens when minerals become so expensive that it becomes economical to mine them in space.

Or when we establish industrial infrastructure on the moon for other reasons, like supporting deep space missions.

>You wouldn't happen to have any estimates on how long it will take humanity to deplete the mineral wealth of the ocean floor as it has the land would you?

Centuries. 70+ percent of the Earth is covered in ocean, and we've subsisted on the minerals found on that remaining 30% for the entirety of human civilization to date.

For better or worse, we will follow the path of least resistance. That means exploitation of Antarctica will probably occur quicker than oceanic development (it has been held back until 2015 by a treaty) oceanic development will dominate after that, and space development after that.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416693]

>>4416660
>As hamsters cannot understand the dangers of being underwater, it is not safe to provide them free access to it, even if on those few occasions they knew enough to either surface or swim back inside. There is no guarantee they would always remember to, or that they would not become disoriented, lost, etc.
Surely they have as an innate conception of water as any other animal. Human babies can swim not long out of the womb. There is always the possibility of drowning of course; but I would think the only serious problem they might have is swimming to the surface, not having anywhere to rest, and tredding water until they drown due to exhaustion. It doesn't sound like you have had any actual fatalities.

Then again, I'm just a detached observer more interested in the science than anything else. Their your pets. I could understand you being protective.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416694]

Coloization of the abyssal plain (the "true" ocean floor) is not feasible in my view due to the water pressure. The engineering requirements make even a modestly sized habitat extraordinarily expensive, on par with a space station.

What is being discussed here is colonization of the continental shelf. It is between 100 and 800 feet deep in various places and the ideal depth for colonies is at 250 feet, just beyond the limits of storm influence (200 feet) but well within the reach of sunlight (600 feet). At this depth the colony structure does not have to be so reinforced; Even homemade submersibles can withstand depths in excess of 350 feet, so building a larger enclosure to that same standard would be similarly inexpensive per cubic foot of interior volume. Even amatuers are now building not just submersibles but their own hobby habitats, such as Lloyd Godson's Biosub I and II, and this scuba diver's habitat built by an Italian diving club. It is old technology at this point and everything needed has fallen in price to the point where it is no longer exclusively achievable by corporations or governments; individuals or groups willing to devote a few tens of thousands of dollars can also build habitats to the standards of those employed for science by various developed nations in the 1960s, for a tiny fraction of what they paid.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416696]

>>4416693
> but I would think the only serious problem they might have is swimming to the surface, not having anywhere to rest, and tredding water until they drown due to exhaustion. It doesn't sound like you have had any actual fatalities.

Only because I was present when they swam to the surface. If I had not been there to scoop them out, they would have drowned. Hence my decision not to design habitats with moon pools anymore. They just aren't intelligent enough to know better.

Maybe with a smarter, more trainable species they could be provided with diving helmets supplied by their own separate umbilical for use outside the habitat. Rats, maybe?

[Anonymous No.4416700]

>>4416696
> If I had not been there to scoop them out, they would have drowned

You don't know that. Wait a little longer next time and see if they eventually give up and swim back down to the sea lab. If they can learn to do that, you could put your city out in nature and let them have free access to/from their underwater home.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416711]

>>4416679
>establish industrial infrastructure on the moon for exploration
Maybe, but that is a big upfront cost in the name of discovery. Mankind has never colonized out in the name of discovery. There has always been a major economic incentive for colonization, if not an direct threat to survival.

I'm a pessimist for the sake of practicality and a dreamer out of necessity.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416713]

>>4416696
Domesticated species tend to be dull witted. Perhaps you could try a less domesticated rodent.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416714]

>>4416700

Caution is the friend of the wise. There's no need, strictly speaking, for them to leave the habitat. Everything they need for the sake of survival and comfort is inside.

>>4416711
>Maybe, but that is a big upfront cost in the name of discovery.

We're gunning for a moonbase anyway. Once it's there, we'll need to justify it. Demonstrating offworld industrial capacity is one of the projects that will justify the expense of the base itself.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416718]

>>4416714
>We're gunning for a moonbase anyway
I'd choose the effort over nothing, but I personally don't believe any contemporary attempts will ever see it through to the end.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416722]

>>4416718
>I'd choose the effort over nothing, but I personally don't believe any contemporary attempts will ever see it through to the end.

You're going to be astonished at how quickly we begin sending lunar base modules when the Chinese broadcasts footage of the red flag waving on the lunar surface. Right now we're pretty much just waiting to see if they are really capable of it.

[Anonymous No.4416724]

I would say politically it would be impossible.

International waters are not allowed to be claimed, and it would take the UN assembly and security council changing their charter to allow for colonization of the seas.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416728]

>>4416724
>International waters are not allowed to be claimed

Who says it would be in international waters? Who says it has to be stationary?

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.4416733]

>>4416728
international waters covers non-stationary as well since it covers the 3d space.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416735]

>>4416722
>China
China will have enough problems this century. They are on borrowed time. They had the largest baby boom in human history followed by one of the most successful birth rate reduction programs in history. In 40 years they will be a nation filled with people over 60 years old and no workforce to support them.

In that time, however, I wouldn't mind seeing another space race, this time between The States and China.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416737]

>>4416733

Evidently there is some plan for compliance with UN law as currently proposed floating seastads will operate in international waters.

Ergo, it is not an insurmountable barrier to colonization of the sea, be it the surface, the bottom or somewhere in between.

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4416738]

>>4416711
>>4416667
>>minerals become so expensive that it becomes economical to mine them in space.

Well in some sense, they already are. Getting mass into earth orbit from the Earth's surface is expensive, both energetically and economically.

However, the cost of putting stuff into orbit from the Moon's surface is much lower. Or as scientists say the Delta V, or change in velocity, is much lower.

For example, the Saturn V rocket which took off from Earth's surface, was much much larger than the lunar lander and service module which brought the astronauts home from the moon.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416739]

Mad Scientist, before I leave, I have a quick question. What fish species are generally sustainable to fish for the foreseeable future? I love eating fish, but I don't want to create any more demand for fish stocks that are dwindling.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416744]

>>4416739
>What fish species are generally sustainable to fish for the foreseeable future?

It will depend largely on which existing stocks can thrive in a warmer, more acidic ocean. Some fit this description, some don't. Genetic modification will help with that. We may eventually see non-modified populations die off, leaving only the "livestock" variants. That's not so terrible, you don't exactly see cows or chickens roaming wild these days.

The ocean is going to bear the brunt of climate change and which species survive will depend greatly on our needs. This isn't ideal, but one in four people worldwide rely on seafood as their primary protein source, so careful controlled farming of the fish that make up their diets will be required to continue to meet that demand in spite of mass dieoffs of their non-farmed equivalents.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.4416747]

Have a good one Mad Scientist. It's been a pleasure as always.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416748]

Here's their existing operation, which exclusively raises Kampachi, a carefully bred variant on Kahala, a type of yellowtail native to Hawaiian waters:

http://www.kona-blue.com/ourfish.php

As new farming enclosures like the one in the picture come online they will be able to offer a larger variety, but there are difficulties in raising different species in close proximity due to their different needs, so generally speaking clusters of enclosures in the same vicinity will all farm the same species, with other species being raised in clustered enclosures at the depth and in the location appropriate for their different requirements.

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4416767]

>>4416738
So, why do we want to launch stuff into space cheaply? What resources on the Moon are worth mining?

Well first and foremost, there's oxygen. Which at the very earliest stages could be used to do satellite refueling. As you may know most rockets burn a combination of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. So could cut the weight of satellite or a satellite's orbital transfer stage down by only sending up the hydrogen from Earth and sending the oxygen from the Moon. Cutting down the mass sent in orbit from Earth makes it cheaper to launch satellites.

Another thing one might on the Moon is magnesium, burn this with the oxygen you've mined and you've made a simple, albeit dirty rocket. And by dirty, I mean the rocket would eject clouds of magnesium oxide dust, which might slowly pollute orbits...

[Lunatic !!IE/X7lbCDOY No.4416791]

>>4416767
Now, the ultimate reason to mine the moon is energy.

Using mined lunar materials, one could construct a solar power satellite to continuously beam clean energy to Earth.

It would be very expensive to build a solar power satellite with materials launched from Earth, not so much if you're using materials shot up from the Moon.

Another possibility is to 'mine' the Moon for energy by putting solar cells on the lunar surface. This might be easier than constructing a full-blown solar power satellite in the early stages.

In fact, a process for making solar cells from lunar regolith and paving them on to the moon has been for the most part worked out. pic related

[Anonymous No.4416827]

this sea pod towed by a kite supplied power and air
by a snorkel raft it can meander along the oceans at a safe depth

[Anonymous No.4416830]

forgot pic

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416841]

>>4416830

That design exists today, minus the kite. A surface LSB or "Life Support Buoy" is how the Aquarius gets air, although it is powered by gasoline generators rather than solar panels.

Pic related, Aquarius as seen in Google Earth, showing the LSB floating on the surface above it.

[Anonymous No.4416880]

Would there have to be specific laws regarding space and sea colonization? Would that fially convince humans to form a global movement? Otherwise we could have this epidemic of every country going "hurr durr that planet is mine, this piece of rock is mine blah blah blah"

[Anonymous No.4416888]

because you can't drink ocean water.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416890]

>>4416880

Well, each country used to own the seafloor for three miles from shore. That was the distance a cannonball could be fired. That was increased to 200 miles in the 1970s when we began discovering precious metal deposits underwater, as every nation wanted exclusive rights to whatever mineral wealth lay within their own vicinity. Now we've discovered the richest deposits are all on the abyssal plain, in international waters, which greatly complicates things and may lead us to draw up subsea borders.

>>4416888

>because you can't drink ocean water.

If you have a local source of power like a gulf stream turbine it's a simple matter to desalinate water. Either by reverse osmosis or by hydrolysis and recombination.

[Anonymous No.4416897]

>>4416890
Sea borders? Everyman for himself is so fucking petty. I hate how they think it is so fucking imperative that they have to segregate themselves. Why isn't sharing an option? Why is an international treaty not viable? Why can we not have a single body governing all countries with each country still having it's respective governing system (unless the people no longer wished to be in that type).

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416909]

>>4416897

Because, literally everyone is going to need (not want, need) those resources very soon. And they will want to secure rights to as big a piece of the pie as possible. Actually enforcing those borders will be a pain, I agree, but that will just mean military bases/torpedo emplacements near valuable sites.

Incidentally our Navy now has a six man long range stealth minisub that can be deployed from large airlock hangars being installed in older subs where the missile launch tubes used to be. Those hangars can deploy one sub, or a large number of divers. The sub has an onboard airlock and can, itself, deploy divers one at a time. It can also carry and fire two torpedos.

China is at this moment putting the Jiaolong submersible through it's paces. It is their first sub capable of reaching the entire abyssal plain and I doubt it is intended for purely scientific pursuits.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416913]

Here's the old Navy Seal sub, coming in to dock in it's own external, airlock style hangar. You will notice it is not enclosed, riders wear scuba gear and as such it is limited to the depth at which scuba can be used. It is employed wherever Seal teams need to be sent from a nuclear sub to shore and back.

The development of an enclosed 1atm sub with torpedo tubes suggests that it is intended for some other purpose, in much deeper water.

[Anonymous No.4416914]

>>4416909
Things like this make me cry at night. I can smell another war coming on.
"How dare they enter our portion of sea! How dare they take 10kgs of our precious metals!" Nukes ensue.

[Anonymous No.4416916]

>>4416191

>over 90% of it is not mapped

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416917]

>>4416914
>Things like this make me cry at night. I can smell another war coming on.

We're past the point where it is economically feasible to go to war with any nation developed enough to mine seafloor resources. We all own too much of each others' debt and the collapse of any such nation right now would collapse the world market.

What will happen is that the need to patrol these new borders and protect those resources will mean new jobs building new subsea vehicles, bases, suits and weapons, and eventually after they are obsolete by military standards one of those "mothership" subs capable of deploying submersibles might be donated to the NOAA for scientific use like the first nuclear submarine in history was. And having a sub that can quickly go anywhere in the ocean and deploy one of the next gen full ocean depth capable super-submersibles being developed for the X-Prize Race to Inner Space would be such an enormous leap forward for oceanic exploration I cannot even describe it. Simply being able to deploy submersibles from underwater regardless of surface conditions would be a huge boon as that is a larger issue than most realize.

[Anonymous No.4416918]

>>4416917

Sounds awfully familiar bro.

[Anonymous No.4416919]

>>4416909

>I doubt it is intended for purely scientific pursuits

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416921]

>>4416919

A picture says a thousand words.

[Anonymous No.4416923]

>>4416917
>We all own too much of each others' debt and the collapse of any such nation right now would collapse the world market.

If this is true then why is everyone still at odds with each other? Don't answer this, it's merely me pondering and government is to tedius to discuss in this thread.

>And having a sub that can quickly go anywhere in the ocean and deploy one of the next gen full ocean depth capable super-submersibles being developed for the X-Prize Race to Inner Space

Amazing. I cannot wait for the ocean to be explored. Imagine the new types of flora and fauna that will be discoverd? The potential for the medicine to be developed from such findings. Oh the potential...
Also forgive me but what is this race?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416934]

>>4416923
>Also forgive me but what is this race?

You don't know? Oh boy, will you be excited. Lt me tell you a little backstory first.

Back in the early sixties, two men descended in the Bathyscapher Trieste to the Challenger Deep, the deepest known point in the ocean. The trieste was one gigantic buoyancy tank with a tiny 6 foot diameter pressure sphere slung underneath, five inch think steel. It was in many ways a greater challenge than the moon landing.

After hours of descent, the two men were nearly to the bottom. It was terribly cold inside, they ate chocolate bars to keep their metabolism up. Then, a loud bang reverberated through the hull like the ringing of a great bell. It turned out, the outer layer of one of the two layer windows had cracked, and the sheer force of it had produced that tremendous noise and vibration. Reasoning that this journey would be the greatest accomplishment of their lives, that they would not get a second chance at it and that if the window was going to give it might just as easily give on the way up as on the way down, they said fuck it, and continued their descent.

They spent 20 minutes huddled, shivering, on the bottom of the trench. A cloud of what they believed to be silt, kicked up by their bathyscaphe, obscured their view. They managed to sight a small, pale fish confirming the presence of complex organisms just before they had to release the drop weights and head for the surface.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416935]

Here are the two men who were the first in history to visit the Challenger Deep. But not the last.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416941]

Now, several organizations and individuals are producing next generation, state of the art (and in some cases hydrobatic) submersibles that will take man back to the Challenger Deep and also four other deep oceanic trenches around the world. It's a "race to inner space". Aside from rpize money and prestige, two competitors plan to offer tourist trips to the Challenger Deep; Sir Richard Branson's "Virgin Oceanic", and US Submarines aboard their Triton 36,000. Other competitors include James Cameron, and famous oceanographer Sylvia Earle.

Pic related.

Links:
www.virginoceanic.com
www.race2innerspace.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17041438
http://www.doermarine.com/?page_id=704
http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/txch-today-the-challenger-deep-james-cameron-vs-richard-branson

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416946]

Here's Branson's hydrobatic sub, operating on the same principles as an airplane (it does not use ballast tanks, instead it is near-neutrally buoyant and uses forward thrust plus wing flaps to ascend, descend and maneuver) James Cameron has commissioned one very similar to it from the same designer.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416950]

Here's an infographic speculating about Cameron's sub, the "sister sub" to Branson's. Nobody has seen it yet but it did make news that Cameron's sub has already passed pressure testing, while an unforeseen flaw caused Branson's sub to implode at 1/7th the necessary depth. It's now being redesigned to eliminate that flaw and will probably more closely imitate Cameron's.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416955]

Here's the US Submarines Triton 36,000. As you can see it functions more like an elevator than an airplane and will not have the long distance travel or maneuverability of the other competitors. It will accomplish little more than the Trieste did, but for a small sub dev house it's an impressive effort.

[Anonymous No.4416957]

This makes me feel al warm and giddy inside. Progress excites me like a child in a candy shop. Although 2 rich dudes flying around at the bottom of the ocean isn't exactly what I wanted it still proves that the tech is available. What do they hope to gain out of it? "Hey man, I saw some sweet fish and no giant squid tried to gobble me up. Was pretty cool."

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416963]

>>4416957

Four. For contenders so far. And Sylvia Earle is a legitimate oceanographer. She belongs there even if the rest don't. Pic related, her "Deep Search" submersible.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416969]

>>4416957
>What do they hope to gain out of it? "Hey man, I saw some sweet fish and no giant squid tried to gobble me up. Was pretty cool."

Read the article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17041438

>Dr Alan Jamieson, from Oceanlab at the University of Aberdeen, has been using simple contraptions to explore the bottoms of trenches.

>He uses steel, tripod-shaped landers that are kitted out with cameras and then loads them up with some bait.

>The "supergiant" amphipods were found 7,000m down in the Kermadec Trench
They then drop to to the bottom of the ocean, where they sit for hours recording any creatures tempted by an easy meal.

>"When we started this, we thought that anything we did find would be in relatively low numbers, probably pale in colour and just trying to eke out an existence in the deep," says Dr Jamieson.

>"But we have found lots of activity even at the very deepest sites."

>With this set up, he has been able to record a remarkable array of life, from amphipods - prawn-like creatures that can reach more than 30cm (12in) long - to bright pink, gelatinous fish.

Following this stunt, three of the four subs will be donated or made available to oceanic science organizations like the NOAA and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. They will go from having just one sub capable of barely reaching the abyssal plain to having multiple that can reach the deepest depths of the ocean, staythere longer, travel further horizontally to survey more seafloor, and with a better view that any existing sub due to bubble or dome cockpits using state of the art nanomaterials like rayotek borosilicate glass.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4416973]

A pic of the prototype for Branson's sub in "flight".

[Anonymous No.4416995]

>>4416950

The faggot who made Avatar is going to the challenger deep? He has the balls to challenge Richard Fucking Branson? If he wins, then fuck this gay earth I want off.

[Anonymous No.4417000]

>>4416934
>>4416935

THE GREATEST TALE EVER TOLD BY MAN OR BEAST ALIKE

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4417020]

>>4416995

Avatar was a good movie. There, I said it. And Cameron is a huge supporter of oceanic science, hard to knock that.

[Anonymous No.4417039]

This is fucking awesome

So i cbf reading all this, but can someone tell me when the next attempt on challenger deep is being made?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4417045]

>>4417039

Later this year. Follow the blog here:

www.virginoceanic.com

[Anonymous No.4418137]

>>4416587

You're right. Nuclear Fusion is not nearly as good as Oil.

Hurrrrr.

[Anonymous No.4418203]

Well, ya sort have to start at the bottom which is around... what, half way to the mantle?

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4419470]

>>4418203

Why? Do you know what the continental shelf is?

[Mad Scientist No.4420995]

I am a HUGE faggot

[Anonymous No.4421760]

>>4417045
That's awesome. Would be cooler if they could explore for many days at a time without needing to resurface.

[Anonymous No.4422902]

Bump because interesting discussion.

[Anonymous No.4424839]

>>4416250
not him, but I think he means that the important systems, for surviving, will need power, and if the power fails then that's a problem.

anyways, I think op is onto something

[Anonymous No.4424981]

>Why haven't we colonized the oceans yet, /sci/?
They're just so bloody wet.

[Anonymous No.4425949]

Our time and money would be better used developing a space elevator. Nearly all the technology is present save for sufficient sized nanotubes.
http://www.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm

[Anonymous No.4427532]

>>4425949
Problem: not enough money to build space elevator
Solution: oceanic civilization exporting vast mineral wealth bringing down cost of construction and improving economy so space elevator is politically feasible to fund

[Anonymous No.4428350]

>>4427532

are we talking continental shelf here or what?

[Anonymous No.4428410]

Simple answer, network centric wars and business protectionism have ruined coastal engineers careers like my fathers and now i sit in support of dissidence lost in dissonance.

[Anonymous No.4430616]

Plenty of underwater Hotels and restaurants. That seems like enough. If we go to live there permanently we would just ruin it.