To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Under sea cities
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Technology > Technology

snelson5871
11th January 2006 - 06:04 AM
The earth is mostly ocean and there are a lot of people worried about overpopulation. Now how much do you all think it would cost to build a city under the sea large enough to hold lets say 250,000 people. Do we even have technology reliable enough for such an endeavor. I mean for power just build near thermal vents on the ocean floors and use geothermal power. Plus currents in areas like this tend to be pretty fast so what about doing deep sea turbines there. Then for air build multiple pipelines to the surface that are protected for things like weather and animals. The "bubbles" we would live in can be made from carbon nanotube composites. There could be farm "bubbles" to help recycle air too. So I want to hear opinions on the cost and feasibility of such a project. These could be build in international waters too so that various groups could have their own rule over what happens.
Nessus
11th January 2006 - 06:26 AM
Much eaiser to build in the middle of the desert IMO. Under water problems include huge pressure, an environment that wears away materials quickly, isolation from any kind of help, cost to transport initial materials and build, the list just goes on and on... even air is a pain to get!

And what happens if a 'bubble' fails? instant death to those inside, could you live with that hanging over your head? (worse than living in a cave, wrt fear of the roof collapsing)
Martian Realtor
11th January 2006 - 06:49 AM
Hmmm...maybe can also consider building a Biosphere on Mars.
snelson5871
11th January 2006 - 07:35 AM
QUOTE
And what happens if a 'bubble' fails? instant death to those inside, could you live with that hanging over your head?


Exactly why i asked if it was technologically feasible. I know there are new materials out there that could withstand the pressure nowadays i know this stuff could withstand the pressure. But is it costly and does it corrode? Besides large areas of the pacific are pretty shallow as oceans go its not like we'd build them under 50,000 feet of water they would be closer to the surface maybe even suspended so they arent too deep. On top of the water though is bad because storms over the ocean get pretty bad. But there is a certain depth that the storms no longer reach and cities should be built there. Besides you would want to build close to the surface in order to recieve any supplies easier and you could also have platforms for people to get out in the sun every once in a while get some fresh air and take a dip in the water. Smokers would also most likely be required to smoke outside.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And what happens if a 'bubble' fails? instant death to those inside, could you live with that hanging over your head?


Exactly why i asked if it was technologically feasible. I know there are new materials out there that could withstand the pressure nowadays i know this stuff could withstand the pressure. But is it costly and does it corrode? Besides large areas of the pacific are pretty shallow as oceans go its not like we'd build them under 50,000 feet of water they would be closer to the surface maybe even suspended so they arent too deep. On top of the water though is bad because storms over the ocean get pretty bad. But there is a certain depth that the storms no longer reach and cities should be built there. Besides you would want to build close to the surface in order to recieve any supplies easier and you could also have platforms for people to get out in the sun every once in a while get some fresh air and take a dip in the water. Smokers would also most likely be required to smoke outside.

even air is a pain to get!


As for this problem you just have to build enough air tubes then it can be freely pumped down.

QUOTE
isolation from any kind of help


Don't build so far out that it takes weeks for ships to get there.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
isolation from any kind of help


Don't build so far out that it takes weeks for ships to get there.

cost to transport initial materials and build


make sure the company that builds this already owns their own ship. Plus ships can be rented from poorer countries for quite cheap. Labor? poorer countries can be paid less by our own monetary standard while being rich by their own.

1.00 USD 114.667 JPY
United States Dollars = Japan Yen

1.00 USD 984.250 KRW
United States Dollars = South Korea Won


This would stimulate other countries while remaning cheap for us. Build the habitats on land then ship them out to sea they don't have to be one giant bubble just a bunch of little ones interconnected. Then with a handfull of skilled underwater welders you can connect and anchor the habitats.


QUOTE
Hmmm...maybe can also consider building a Biosphere on Mars.


I am a member of redcolony.com which is a martian terraforming discussion group and the main reason I thought of this is because it would make some good prototypes for a martian community. It would also test the long term effects of having a bunch of people locked up in a small habitat for a long time.


Nessus
11th January 2006 - 08:22 AM
If its so close to land it would be infinitly more cheaper to just build on the land (even if they have to build up, as is done atm). We are not running out of land anytime soon.
Thomas the Gardener
11th January 2006 - 05:28 PM
I lived in a bubble under water for a while (sub). I would not recommend it. Getting air is easy, there's oxygen all around you (H2O).

Under sea cities are prohibitively expensive now, but things will change. I see many reasons why there may be reasons to justify the cost. What if you had a whole lot of money and wanted to start you own country? What if climate change became too severe on land, a large body of water would mediate temperature changes. What if sea levels continue to rise and we feel the need to throw more money at city that becomes further and further below sea level every day (New Orleans).
snelson5871
11th January 2006 - 10:07 PM
Exactly. Long term thinking. I think a city in the sae build right now would be a major tourist location if the laws in such a colony were as loose as those in Amsterdam or looser. Maybe Vegas meets the red light district meets the smoke shops. Something like that could make a person rich and get other people intersted in building their own even for serious reasons like research of the ocean and as a place to stay if the earth were made a bad place to be. Yeah we could build undergroud to be protected from nuclear holocaust or global warming but with an undersea city at least your colony could interact with other colonies without digging in the ground for months. Another risk of building under the ground is the pockets of poison gas that makes mining so dangerous. It would also be harder to grow things. So if global warming does not cease and the earth becomes unbearable then undersea cities would be the ideal place to live.
Guest_Thunder
6th October 2009 - 08:22 AM
All of the technology is there to enable us to live under the sea, the problem is the people whom can make it happen are too scared to. Ok, in the first stages bubbles may leak, there may be a few deaths, how many people have died so that we can cross bridges, get into space, fly to other contries and even drive our cars. We are safer now. there would not be many (hopefully none) deaths. But accidents do happen. The progress of mankind has basically halted because people are scared of getting sued!
giuseppe
6th October 2009 - 02:53 PM
QUOTE (Nessus+Jan 11 2006, 08:22 AM)
If its so close to land it would be infinitly more cheaper to just build on the land (even if they have to build up, as is done atm). We are not running out of land anytime soon.

yes I agree , the people are not running out of land , the wild animals are running out of land
uaafanblog
6th October 2009 - 09:46 PM
Much more feasible to build a floating city for 250,000 than to put one undersea. You already have floating mini-cities all over the oceans. Here is a link to BP's Thunder Horse Floating Platform which is currently the largest.

I'd imagine there are hundreds of people working on that platform at any given time. But clearly in a different non-oil drilling configuration it could house at least 1,000. Scale it up and viola you've got 250,000. Something that could be done (if there was any need ... which there isn't) today.

Without some sort of unforeseeable above water catastrophe there is absolutely no need EVER for humans to consider living under the sea.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.