Why haven't we colonized the oceans?

[Hercuflea]

Seriously. What are the engineering challenges of building underwater, (or floating) cities? What about mining the ocean floor? If we have found so much gold, iron, coal/etc in the Earth's landmasses, why haven't we thought to look to the Earth's crust underneath the oceans? Why do we leave 70% of the Earth's surface rendered useless?

 

[etudiant]

Costs matter.
We enjoy free life support on land, not so much on or worse under the ocean.
So looking under the oceans is done rarely apart from oil and gas extraction.
The few undersea coal mines that have been exploited have all been shut down, afaik, because their costs were too high. Note that all these mines were land based, with shafts extending under the sea bed.

 

[Travis_King]

We also do use dredgers to comb the sea floor to mine for diamonds and gold and other minerals/metals. There are several large mining vessels which have their own processing facilities on board. (for instance: Peace in Africa - Diamond Mining Vessel)

As for floating cities, or underwater cities, what would be the purpose for people to move out there? What potential return would justify the costs of construction and continued operation of such a venture?

Would it be cool? Yea, for sure. But would it be practical? I'm not too certain about that one.

For a truly practical city-ship (let's not get into underwater stuff), you would have to have something incredibly large. It would have to be able to produce at least some of it's produce and support some of it's required livestock (as it would be impractical and dangerous to have an entire city dependent on resources from land.

A big issue would be water consumption. It would seem to me that such a vessel would require it's own desalination plant to produce drinking water. These plants use a lot of energy, so I'd say this would have to have a nuclear power station within it as well. Then, it would also have to have evacuation vessels. And likely, people would have individual transportation. There would need to be places of work. etc, etc, etc.

Lot's of challenges, not the least of which are engineering related.

 

[Borek]

The day it will become profitable, we will colonize them.

 

[arildno]

The oceans already are colonized. Here in Norway. On oil drilling platforms, at least. But, nobody likes to live on them permanently, and typically work 14 days on, 14 days off shifts, commuting by helicopter.
Besides, those are surface constructions. To get people to work BENEATH sea level, you'll either have to create job desperation due to extreme poverty, or, alternatively, be willing to pay your employees very handsomely, indeed.

 

[phinds]

Hercuflea, do you understand capitalism? As Borek said, when it gets profitable, we WILL colonize them. Why would you want to waste money on something that costs more than it is worth? I mean, if it DIDN'T cost more than it is worth, companies would already be doing it. Companies LOVE to find things that are worth more than they cost.

Don't point to the moon exploration. That's politics / national pride / stuff started in the cold war.

 

[SteamKing]

As for floating cities, or underwater cities, what would be the purpose for people to move out there? What potential return would justify the costs of construction and continued operation of such a venture?

Would it be cool? Yea, for sure. But would it be practical? I'm not too certain about that one.

For a truly practical city-ship (let's not get into underwater stuff), you would have to have something incredibly large. It would have to be able to produce at least some of it's produce and support some of it's required livestock (as it would be impractical and dangerous to have an entire city dependent on resources from land.

A big issue would be water consumption. It would seem to me that such a vessel would require it's own desalination plant to produce drinking water. These plants use a lot of energy, so I'd say this would have to have a nuclear power station within it as well. Then, it would also have to have evacuation vessels. And likely, people would have individual transportation. There would need to be places of work. etc, etc, etc.

Lot's of challenges, not the least of which are engineering related.

It's not like this idea hasn't already occurred to someone:

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

One of the problems living on the surface of the ocean is dealing with the weather. Storms can be much fiercer over the ocean where there is nothing to divert high winds from developing. Strong winds blowing inevitably lead to high seas being generated, which are capable of damaging or destroying vessels or fixed structures in their paths. It's hard enough living on dry land.

 

[Hercuflea]

I put this thread in the engineering forum because I am specifically interested in the engineering challenges of building floating and underwater permanent human habitats. I am not interested in the economics of city building. I didn't ask you if we can pay for it, I asked how we would do it if we could? The same can be said about asteroid mining, it is too costly for current technology, etc, but we already have venture capital companies trying to accomplish just that. So I don;t want to hear the economic arguments, but I want to know what the best way to design and operate underwater habitats would be?

 

[phyzguy]

I put this thread in the engineering forum because I am specifically interested in the engineering challenges of building floating and underwater permanent human habitats. I am not interested in the economics of city building. I didn't ask you if we can pay for it, I asked how we would do it if we could? The same can be said about asteroid mining, it is too costly for current technology, etc, but we already have venture capital companies trying to accomplish just that. So I don;t want to hear the economic arguments, but I want to know what the best way to design and operate underwater habitats would be?

All engineering by nature includes economics. You can say, "What could I do if money were no concern?" but money is always a concern.

 

[Borek]

why haven't we thought to look to the Earth's crust underneath the oceans? Why do we leave 70% of the Earth's surface rendered useless?

I am not interested in the economics of city building.

You are contradicting yourself.

 

[Travis_King]

Sans economics? Build a giant holding tank in outer space where we can put all the ocean's water and sea/plant life for safe keeping. Then have at the ocean floor.

But seriously, as others have said, engineering challenges are often challenges only becuase there are costs associated with everything, and many times these costs become astronomical. It's not that difficult to build things that will work, it's much more of a problem to build things that will work optimally for minimal costs.

If you want a safe car without figuring in economics, buy a tank. But most people can't afford to buy and operate tanks, let alone reinforce their driveway to park one. So we buy Volvo's instead. But a lot of effort goes into making door panels on cars light enough that you don't have a 5 ton station wagon, but robust enough that you have adequate protection even at highway speeds.

I gave a you a few engineering challenges in my post. I'm sure the link SteamKing provided lists many more. There's a LOT that goes into a project like that, I doubt engineering challenges would really be the biggest concern. Were it not for the economics factor, many, if not most, of these issues would be trivial.

 

[dkotschessaa]

We did that already. Seems we preferred land.

 

[arildno]

Essentially, your question boil down to:
Why don't people with lots of money throw them out of the window?

Answer:
They wouldn't have had lots of money in the first place if they were in the habit of throwing it away.

 

[phinds]

You are contradicting yourself.

+1 on that.

 

[AlephZero]

All engineering by nature includes economics. You can say, "What could I do if money were no concern?" but money is always a concern.

Agreed. Mostly, the people who think about things like "What could I do if money were no concern" work in Saies and Marketing, not Engineering.

Hey, the sales and marketing people are here already: http://aboardtheworld.com/ Ignore the fact that it's basically just a never-ending round-the-world luxury cruise...

 

[Hercuflea]

thank you all for derailing my thread. Really, I thought PF mentors would be more mature than this.

 

[etudiant]

thank you all for derailing my thread. Really, I thought PF mentors would be more mature than this.

Honestly, that is not a fair response.
You asked a general question why we don't do something, many people answer that we do not because it is too costly for the advantages gained.
Then you redefine the question to remove the economic element, which of course shifts the discussion into the speculative, which you do not like.
The onus is on you to pose a constructive question, maybe just ask what constrains wider oceanic habitation/industrialization. My guess is that apart from economics, a lot is the jail like aspect of ocean living. Being confined to the platform or habitat or hull is hard to enjoy for long.
Maybe once the structures get big enough, that will change, but big is costly. Shell is building a 600,000 ton floating natural gas processor that will never come to harbor, so the perpetual ship is perhaps not that far off.

 

[Hercuflea]

Here is a company that has already proposed mining the sea floor. http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Projects-Solwara.asp . The company already "owns" entire areas of the sea floor.

I just wanted to talk about what the engineering challenges of such projects are and how they compare with land based mining. Also, in the distant future these mines could possibly support underwater habitats for workers. We already use nuclear reactors to power our AC's and submarines, why not a permanent colony? If the amount of precious metals we have found on land extrapolates to the ocean floor, there is a vast wealth of minerals down there to take.

 

[phinds]

If the amount of precious metals we have found on land extrapolates to the ocean floor, there is a vast wealth of minerals down there to take.

Reread post #6

 

[iwant2beoz]

I am not an engineer but I would say the 2 biggest challenges to overcome are high seas and the stress put on the structure by wave action, first high seas could flood the compartments of the structure and sink it as well as wash people over bored. And 2ed the motion of the waves could rip the whole thing apart. One question that you have to consider is how big do you make your platform. I saw i video on youtube that you might find interesting, il link it if you want.

 

[etudiant]

One major obstacle is that we cannot breathe water, unlike fish.
There has been work done on artificial gills, to allow dissolved oxygen to be captured for breathing, but the designs thus far are quite bulky and power hungry, as they require a lot of water per breath.
A better rebreather that would provide say a weeks underwater dwell time would be transformative imho.

 

[mrspeedybob]

There are significant amounts of ocean area that have been rendered suitable for human use.

In some instances dykes have been built to isolate a section of ocean. The water is then pumped out leaving the ocean floor available for use. http://geography.about.com/od/specificplacesofinterest/a/dykes.htm

In other cases material is dredged from the ocean floor and then re-deposited in another place to build up artificial islands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Islands

There are other similar efforts going on elsewhere. In each case though the primary resource they are after is usable land area, not mineral resources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reclamation

 

[AquaExtropy]

We are, slowly, colonizing the oceans but we re not there yet. In the past worms prevented Maritime nations from keeping permanent floating bases. In the age of steel corrosion (and its upkeep) prevent It.
But from the 70s onward concrete has proven a perfectly suitable material for permanent floating or grounded bases (in Norway first as it was pointed out earlier in this thread).
Monaco's pier extension is in fact a floating parking garage and shopping mall built in Spain and towed to Monaco. It continues to float even though its attached to the coast, only for access.
Ryon antirion bridge construction is another good example.
Light floating concrete is currently being developed by Wilfried Ellmer including concretesubmarine and floating cities.

 

[Jeff Rosenbury]

We are, slowly, colonizing the oceans but we re not there yet. In the past worms prevented Maritime nations from keeping permanent floating bases. In the age of steel corrosion (and its upkeep) prevent It.
But from the 70s onward concrete has proven a perfectly suitable material for permanent floating or grounded bases (in Norway first as it was pointed out earlier in this thread).
Monaco's pier extension is in fact a floating parking garage and shopping mall built in Spain and towed to Monaco. It continues to float even though its attached to the coast, only for access.
Ryon antirion bridge construction is another good example.
Light floating concrete is currently being developed by Wilfried Ellmer including concretesubmarine and floating cities.

There are so many ways we colonize the oceans that it's hard to understand the OP's question. We live on the sea in cruise liners. We mine the seabed. We grow and harvest food. We process consumer goods (mostly frozen fish). We have hospital ships.

About the only thing we're lacking is seaborne cathedrals.

 

[AquaExtropy]

There are so many ways we colonize the oceans that it's hard to understand the OP's question. We live on the sea in cruise liners. We mine the seabed. We grow and harvest food. We process consumer goods (mostly frozen fish). We have hospital ships.

About the only thing we're lacking is seaborne cathedrals.

It's funny you mention that as I am these days sketching a semisubmerged temple of assembly (church, mosque, concert hall)
The OP is asking why not more people live normally at sea.
The ocean is permanently inhabited by humans but those humans do not live permanently at sea.
The research and actual work of Will Ellmer (ocean colonization network, concrete submarine) and the visualizations by Volco (ramform, etc) are worth exploring.

 

[Baluncore]

What about mining the ocean floor? If we have found so much gold, iron, coal/etc in the Earth's landmasses, why haven't we thought to look to the Earth's crust underneath the oceans? Why do we leave 70% of the Earth's surface rendered useless?

The ocean floors are mostly basalt originally laid down at the mid-oceanic ridge with thickening layers of sediment accumulating towards the continental margins. We have basalt volcanoes near mid-oceanic ridges, for example, Hawaii and Iceland, those are very poor sources of useful minerals, as is the basalt sea floor.

It takes mountain building and metamorphism to concentrate minerals. It needs land to grow plants that make coal. Oil is associated with shallow continental seas.

So the continents are where the resources are. Why go where they are not?

 

[AquaExtropy]

The ocean floors are mostly basalt originally laid down at the mid-oceanic ridge with thickening layers of sediment accumulating towards the continental margins. We have basalt volcanoes near mid-oceanic ridges, for example, Hawaii and Iceland, those are very poor sources of useful minerals, as is the basalt sea floor.

It takes mountain building and metamorphism to concentrate minerals. It needs land to grow plants that make coal. Oil is associated with shallow continental seas.

So the continents are where the resources are. Why go where they are not?

That's good geological info. But you re talking from an economical POV. The OPs question is more akin to what does it take to mine asteroids or Antarctica.
Let s take oil, as you said it is associated with continental shelves while deep water rigs mark the future or that industry.
Same with its quality and need of levels of refinement. Shale sand oil was not profitable back in the day and even now it is only profitable when oil is expensive.
Same with gold, it a present in many places but we begin with the easiest to extract or more concentrated. Eventually demand permits more difficult methods to become profitable And necessary.

Space is needed, particularly as the World is desertififying and wilderness is lost to farmland and suburbia.

Floating cities will allow us to live in a more cntrolled environment touching neither the seabed nor the dryland. Sea life likes some substrate to attach or seek refuge for reproduction and larvae protection. That's why most is found along coasts, shelves or undersea features like rocks or reefs.
Floating concrete structures would create oasis in the oceans. It is more economically necessary than ever.

 

[Baluncore]

That's good geological info. But you re talking from an economical POV. The OPs question is more akin to what does it take to mine asteroids or Antarctica.

The second part of the OP question suggested that we had trouble with access due to non-availability of technology. I am pointing out that if there is nothing there that we actually need, then why even consider going there? Instead, we now invest research funds in semiconductors and gene technology where the yeild is positive to the investors. We are using less materials to do things smarter, not more materials to make them heavier. Why mine gold if it is not for economic reasons? Why go broke mining anything in an uneconomic way when there are more economic mines flooding the market?

If you do not know what you want to do, but only that it must be a difficult and expensive challenge, then engineering is quite inapplicable to that issue, the unspecified possibilities are infinite and there can be no one optimised solution. Many inventive people come up with solutions to problems that do not exist. That can be nothing more than an uneconomic, though entertaining, mind game.

This is not a science fiction forum. It is an engineering forum. Engineering is economics.
Engineers must be economists. Engineering is the place where the joule of energy is traded with the dollar of economics.

If you can give a good reason for doing something, then engineering will be able to evaluate an optimised economical solution that may then go ahead in reality only if it meets the investors requirements. Without a well specified requirement there can be no reasoned engineering solution.

Placing the solution before the problem is placing the cart before the horse.
If it denies economics then it is not engineering, it is politics, psychiatry or fiction.

 

[Evo]

This necro-posted thread is getting off topic. Baluncore's post is a good place to close.