6 ms·
Deep underwater colonisation hasn't been properly tried yet and we are thinking of Mercury and Mars. Sounds a bit unreasonable when the best we've tried is this
by muyuu 13y ago
Deep underwater colonisation hasn't been properly tried yet and we are thinking of Mercury and Mars. Sounds a bit unreasonable when the best we've tried is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
- digisign 13y agoNot to mention the moon.
- hcarvalhoalves 13y agoMoon is a meteorite target.
- hfx 13y agoDeep underwater colonisation may be harder to accomplish: > Outer space has -15 psi, extreme temperature swings, and occasional micrometeorite impacts. Five miles subsea has, let's see, 11,800 psi... (http://www.quora.com/International-Space-Station/Given-the-actual-space-station-ISS-would-it-be-cheaper-to-build-the-equivalent-at-3-4-5-miles-deep-underwater-Why/answer/Ryan-Carlyle http://www.quora.com/International-Space-Station/Given-the-a...)
- hartror 13y agoI see it as decoupling our survival as a species from the planet earth. Growing our access to resources and land is a secondary consideration to me.
- luke_s 13y agoWouldn't a self sustaining underwater colony protect us from all but the worst asteroid impacts? If you go even 100m down surely you would be protected from pretty much everything but the earthquakes?
- babby 13y agoTheoretically if said base could hover above the surface of the sea-bed during an earthquake scenario, perhaps it could resist most of the damage, provided it could remain stable.
- luke_s 13y agoHmmm, perhaps if it was sort of tethered to the ocean floor using cables? Using a tethered base would also allow you to build in shallower water, as the flexibility would allow you to withstand some of the effects of a tsunami.
- hartror 13y agoDepends on the size and location of the event just like land. Being underwater didn't protect the water based dinosaurs from the impact that ended the dinosaur's reign over the earth.
- luke_s 13y agoIt would have been the biosphere collapsing, that killed off the water based dinosaurs. But if our hypothetical colony was self sustaining (perhaps as some sort of precursor to space colonies) it should be ok.
- ericd 13y agoWell, access to energy via sunlight is easier in space... otherwise you need some other unlimited source of energy. Also, 1 ATM of pressure is a lot easier to build for than 10 or 100.
- luke_s 13y agoWell, you could use geothermal energy or make use of the temperature gradient between the top of the ocean and the 100m down. Its true the that pressure difference between vacuum and sea level is much greater than between sea level and deep underwater. However you have the advantage of not having to lift everything up to orbit. You you can build a really heavy steel tank using relatively 'simple' construction techniques, then just tow it out to position, before sinking it and anchoring it to the seabed. The more I think about it, the more it sounds like like a self-sustaining undersea colony would be a affordable and useful way both ensure species Survivability and act as a prototype for a space colony.
- ams6110 13y agoIf we're talking about survival of the species after an asteroid impact it seems a lot more feasible to keep a group of people alive on Earth until the surface is habitable again than to pin your hopes on a Martian colony being able to survive absent continual support from Earth.
- shazow 13y agoIncrementing our planetary bus factor, if you will.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- Apocryphon 13y agoWhat about underground colonies, deep within the crust?
- arethuza 13y agoThings get warm pretty rapidly - most places at roughly 25°C per km of depth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient