Colonise The Ocean!

[Till]

And, why not colonize the deserts? wouldn't it be cheaper and less technology challenging?

What would you do in the ocean for a living?

Colonizing deserts is not half as cool. Besides, climate change might just turn our recently colonized desert into arable land and make our efforts look stupid!

 

[Sidhe]

Edit: I realized that I misspelled colonize in the title Could a moderator please fix colonise to colonize?

The English spell it both ways, fear not we're not bothered honestly

I agree with Perfection, why limit exploration to one direction?

 

[Tycoon101]

I agree with Perfection, why limit exploration to one direction?

I'm talking in regard to funds. It would be a nice idea to do both, but just you try that with a limited budget.

 

[Kozmos]

I hardly call it a stroke of genius. With new technology we might be able to pull it out. You can already guess what tech I'm reffering to.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm talking in regard to funds. It would be a nice idea to do both, but just you try that with a limited budget.

True but then there are a deal of funds world wide, try not to think in terms of the financial giants of today, but in developing funds as time progresses.

The US puts the most funds into fusion of any nation by a huge margin, but it also has the funds to develop a space program.

Nations that will develop wealth such as India could also begin to contribute if it get's over it's own internal problems, as could many countries.

China's growing capital could do the whole sea thing on it's own, plus the space thing, be better if they pooled resources with others, but that is a very political issue.

Maybe if we focused less on getting what everyone else has, we could blow a few millions on getting what no one has ever had?

 

[skadistic]

I'd much rathe pollute space and leave the seas clean.

 

[Chieftess]

I think it's been an idea since the 70s. In fact, there is one underwater lab that I know of.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

there's just so much more space than there is sea. besides, i think i saw this earlier on, but if the earth gets screwed, so do we if we go underwater

 

[Tycoon101]

there's just so much more space than there is sea. besides, i think i saw this earlier on, but if the earth gets screwed, so do we if we go underwater

There is such a low chance of a metorite hitting Earth that we shouldn't even worry about it. And nuclear fallout shouldn't reach the greatest depths of the seas. But if you think that a space catastrophe happens which destroys Earth, then the is a snowball's chance in Hell that a space colony will survive.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

it only has to happen once, though

 

[sanabas]

1. Expand downwards, not upwards. Terraforming the planets will be very tough, thus shouldn't we try to find a way to live under the sea? Not only will the trips be much shorter, but a safe haven will only be hours away, NOT days away. Also the getting of food will be easier due to the shorter travel times.

In the short term, food supply would be easier. But how do you make a colony like that self-supporting? In the long term, if you can't grow enough food yourself, it's not easier anymore.

2. Cheaper. You know that space travel is hard, but why don't we make airtight vessels for underwater use? Conditions are nicer underwater than in space, and we won't have make multi-million dollar shipd that could end in disater!

Conditions are nicer underwater? In space, you have to deal with a pressure differential of 1 atmosphere between the inside and the outside. 100 feet underwater, you have to either pressurise the inside, or deal with a pressure differential of 3 atmospheres. Every ~33ft further, add another atmosphere. Airtight at the surface is easy, something that stays airtight with multiple atmospheres of overpressure outside is much, much tougher. There's a reason that we've explored more of the upper atmosphere, moon, etc than we have of the deep oceans.

3. Isn't it better to know your own planet, than to try to know other planets?

Learn about both.


Instead, let's turn obsolete aircraft carriers and other warships into floating slums, and colonise the oceans that way.

 

[odintheking]

No. It would be expensive and dangerous, and there would be way too many obstacles and dangers (pressure, oxygen, holes in the underwater cities, etc.) It would be better to colonize Mars. If we artificially warmed Mars enough (through global warming) we could melt the polar ice caps, and plants would grow through the help of greenhouses. Then, in a few years, the percentage of oxygen would rise, and Mars would be habitable. It used to be just like Earth; millions of years ago. We could do that again.

 

[Kozmos]

Few years? Try about hundred.... or ten thousand years.

 

[odintheking]

It was an estimate, .

 

[Urederra]

If we artificially warmed Mars enough (through global warming) we could melt the polar ice caps, and plants would grow through the help of greenhouses.

Mars polar caps are made of CO2, not water, and your are putting too much faith in the greenhouse effect. One of Mars many problems is its size, too small, it cannot retain gases, that is why Mars' atmosphere is so thin. A colony in Mars must be under a dome.

Then, in a few years, the percentage of oxygen would rise, and Mars would be habitable. It used to be just like Earth; millions of years ago. We could do that again.

It is too far away to be warm enough for us to live in the surface. And oxygen would scape from Mars gravity.

BTW, where is El_machinae?

 

[Masquerouge]

Mars polar caps are made of CO2, not water, and your are putting too much faith in the greenhouse effect. One of Mars many problems is its size, too small, it cannot retain gases, that is why Mars' atmosphere is so thin. A colony in Mars must be under a dome.

I know that the size of Mars was ultimately its doom, but supposing that we can manage to give it an atmosphere, I'm not sure it would dissipate instantly. My understanding was that it would take thousands of year for that process, meaning it would be perfectly manageable (because if we can provide Mars with an atmosphere, there's no reason why we couldn't fill in what's lost in space).

But I would love to hear a knowledgeable opinion on that matter.

 

[Urederra]

You are right, It wouldn't dissipate instantly, but I am afraid quicker than it will take us to generate a 700 milibar pressure atmosphere in Mars. I was simplifying. And, BTW, do you know how much N2, O2 Argon, CO2 and water would we need to increase Mars' atmosphere to roughly the same pressure as the one we have on Earth? Tons. (It took millions and millions of years to raise O2 levels on Earth to the ones we have now)

Right now, water cannot exist in Mars surface in liquid state, The pressure is too low, If there is some, It would be as ice, and at such low pressure, ice doesn't melt, it sublimates and, very slowly, scapes from Mars.

 

[Urederra]

Apparently, there is plenty of water under some zones of Mars surface:

The new maps combine images from the Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) on the Mars Global Surveyor with Mars Odyssey spectrometer data through more than half a Martian year of 687 Earth days. From about 55 degrees latitude to the poles, Mars boasts extensive deposits of soils that are rich in water-ice, bearing an average of 50 percent water by mass. In other words, Feldman said, a typical pound of soil scooped up in those polar regions would yield an average of half a pound of water if it were heated in an oven.

Which is great, but I wouldn't waste it by trying to recreate an atmosphere, I think the dome approach would be more feasible.

Plus there is the N2 problem. There is not enough in mars, I'm affraid.