I've posted this in scifi as well, but I want to know what would be the architectural needs for such a thing and how well it would work. I'm assuming that the city would be powered by underwater volcanoes and crops could by grown hydroponically. What else is there that would be needed to construct and maintain an underwater city?

Cant be too far under water because there would little light.
Do you want to live without sunlight?

Temperatures would be stable though...no bad weather to contend with. And lots of deep silence.

There is already an underwater hotel being built in Hawaii.
Guests can witness the undersea wildlife from the comfort of their bed!

I wouldnt mind vacationing on a submarine the size of a cruise ship.

What is the point? Really? Oh, NONE. The cost/benefit ratio of such an endeavour makes it pointless, ie HUGE cost, zero benefit.

'powered by underwater volcanos' you might be able to get some heat, and you'd better make sure it's a dormant volcano. Growing crops hydroponically. Er, why? That means making the structure huge, and it all has to be water tight. HUGE = COST. It would be far cheaper to supply the place with food.

I can't see it working to be honest. As a hotel, as mentioned above, it would be cool, but then it could be a lot smaller, and their is a financial incentive, people would pay pretty well to stay there, otherwise I don't see where there is a return.

I've posted this in scifi as well, but I want to know what would be the architectural needs for such a thing and how well it would work. I'm assuming that the city would be powered by underwater volcanoes and crops could by grown hydroponically. What else is there that would be needed to construct and maintain an underwater city?

The question to me is why would anyone want to do such a thing when we

have real land that can be used to build upon ABOVE the water? The costs

alone would be extremly high as well as maintainence and upkeep. And what

about leaks? To many problems to try and develop this today IMHO.

and everyone would have to learn how to swim or they would be stuck in the building all the time. No going outside.
And a small earthquake would be disasterous. One small crack and here comes the water.
Could you have a dog or cat? Wouldn't children grow poorly? They need sunshine.

and everyone would have to learn how to swim or they would be stuck in the building all the time. No going outside.
And a small earthquake would be disasterous. One small crack and here comes the water.
Could you have a dog or cat? Wouldn't children grow poorly? They need sunshine.



Perhaps in the future doctors could put gills into humans genes to allow

them to live underwater. :shrug:

Perhaps in the future doctors could put gills into humans genes to allow

them to live underwater. :shrug:

Well, then they wouldn't be human anymore would they.

Yes they would. Just because you add gills would't mean they would lose

their sense of humanity. Everything else, mind, body, senses , all remain the

same. :itold:

Just like in Water World

Netherlands is the underwater country...so it is possible.

Just like in Water World

and like in water world it would be us vs them. One more thing to fight about.

Netherlands is the underwater country...so it is possible.

??? they aren't underwater. Below sea level is underwater? What about Venice and New Orleans then?

The question to me is why would anyone want to do such a thing when we

have real land that can be used to build upon ABOVE the water? The costs

alone would be extremly high as well as maintainence and upkeep. And what

about leaks? To many problems to try and develop this today IMHO.

Kevin Costner might want to reprise his role from waterworld. Jk. I'm just asking a question. Yes the idea is probably pointless but it's just an idea. You sure do like to put down my ideas cosmictraveler. First modern airships and now underwater cities. You just don't want me to have fun do you?

Kevin Costner might want to reprise his role from waterworld. Jk. I'm just asking a question. Yes the idea is probably pointless but it's just an idea. You sure do like to put down my ideas cosmictraveler. First modern airships and now underwater cities. You just don't want me to have fun do you?

I'm only replying to you my thoughts about what you post. If you dislike my

thoughts then put me on your ignore list. I'm not trying to upset you just

trying to open everyones eyes as to how many problems there are with your

ideas. You may think it is easy to talk about doing something but you seem

to forget just how much energy and resources it takes in building these

structures you come up with. :)

I understand. I'm actually glad that your honest about this so that at least I know that there is hardly any realism in my ideas. Keep in mind I'm only a writer. It's my job to be creative not correct. But it is helpful to be right. Also I'm only fifteen so this is good learning for me.

Why not write about environmentally clean buildings, offices and means of

transportation. Come up with ideas that can utilize things that are

recyclable, non polluting and lasting a long time. Ideas that inspire others

to think about the future of humankind as to their clean air, clean water and

clean Earth. There are thousands of ways to find out stuff about renewable

resources so incorporate that kind of thought into your work. This is only a

suggestion perhaps you can come up with positive examples of your own

for others to learn from as well. Good luck in whatever you do. ;):)

Keep in mind I'm only a writer. It's my job to be creative not correct. But it is helpful to be right. Also I'm only fifteen so this is good learning for me.


Underwater cities is not being creative, it's been done before;

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

A fella called Jules Verne wrote that in 1870.

It spawned this;

Captain Nemo and the Underwater City (1969) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065522/taglines)

But even someone so young as you should be aware of;

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

What is the point? Really? Oh, NONE. The cost/benefit ratio of such an endeavour makes it pointless, ie HUGE cost, zero benefit.Lets be creative. nanomachines build and maintain an organic semi-conscious underwater city the size of NY :+)

Yes! I like that idea michael. It seems like nanomachines will be able to do anything.

http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/Hydropolis/images/4-atnight.jpg

Underwater habitat

http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/Hydropolis/

why would we ever live underwater anyways?

why would we ever live underwater anyways?

So that developers can make more money. Another place for more

taxpayers as well!

I've posted this in scifi as well, but I want to know what would be the architectural needs for such a thing and how well it would work. I'm assuming that the city would be powered by underwater volcanoes and crops could by grown hydroponically. What else is there that would be needed to construct and maintain an underwater city?

Do you expect the city to be under normal surface pressure, or under ambient pressure? This makes a huge difference in design requirements.

If the former, then unmodified humans can live in it and can travel to and from surface at any time, but the structure must be enormously strong, built to unbelievable tolerances, and very small structural damage could cause the entire city to implode. Also, humans can only venture outside in pressurized vessels, such as rigid deep-sea "suits"[1].

If the latter, then construction requirements are enormously easier, and structural damage causes only leaks, not catastrophic implosions, but inhabitants will need major biological/genetic modifications in order to live under a hundred or more atmospheres of pressure. Quite possibly, they could not survive on Earth's surface without aritificial aids. OTOH, they could just go for a swim in as little as a wetsuit at any time.

I recommend you read SF novel "Starfish" by Peter Watts; it's available for free on the web. He addresses your questions thoroughly, including "why?" Here it is:

http://www.rifters.com/index.htm

[1] I put "suits" in quotations because these things are not really suits -- they are man-shaped submarines.

Lets be creative. nanomachines build and maintain an organic semi-conscious underwater city the size of NY :+)

Ah yes, the nanomachine explanantion!

Here's a philosophical question for you;

"Could nanomachines construct an argument that the Chewbacca defense could not get you out of? -Discuss."

I'm only replying to you my thoughts about what you post. If you dislike my

thoughts then put me on your ignore list. I'm not trying to upset you just

trying to open everyones eyes as to how many problems there are with your

ideas. You may think it is easy to talk about doing something but you seem

to forget just how much energy and resources it takes in building these

structures you come up with. :)

uh yea... and wut if ther are major problems with the surface world eh? 4 example- over population, over the past years, our population has been increasing by millions. afcorse it wud take alot of energy and resources, but eventually underwater cities will be self sustaining, and will benifit us.

uh yea... and wut if ther are major problems with the surface world eh? 4 example- over population, over the past years, our population has been increasing by millions. afcorse it wud take alot of energy and resources, but eventually underwater cities will be self sustaining, and will benifit us.

Only if you maintain zero population growth....

Back in the 60's there was a lot of talk in pop sci and sci-fi about living underwater in the future to deal with surface population / pollution problems etc - There were a few experiments like Jacques Cousteau's Precontinent habitats and the Sealab projects in the US - but due to the expense of the habitation, and the physiological problems of the ambient pressure environments nothing really came of them other than expensive marine biology, diving tech labs, and showy futurist experiments

I dived the rusty and mostly flooded remains of one of the Precontinent experiments in Sudan 2 years ago - the sub pen still holds air and you can come up inside it - which is kind of cool :)

http://www.ckplaneta.cz/sudan/fotosud/precon4.jpg

(not my pic btw)

ps - these guys sell underwater habitats:

http://www.ussubs.com/habitats/index.php3

Their Subs are pretty cool - anyone got a spare $78 million?

http://www.ussubs.com/habitats/index.php3

Aside from the 'how', the prevalent and recurring question is 'why' (?). Obviously, such an invertly-lucrative investment is only going to be the proverbial son of necessity. Excepting irrational circumstance (meteor strikes, global nuclear winter, the Rapture, etc.), overpopulation seems the only credible justification. But...

Stephen Hawking claims the world, by A.D. 2600, will be entirely overpopulated (I'm referencing 'The Universe in a Nutshell'; I understand it's like 'A Brief History of Time'...with pictures!).

I live in one of the most infamous regions of American overpopulation, north Jersey...which really isn't that bad. Though the most densely-populated state in the union by considerable measure, the US has a ridiculous amount of room to spare for overpopulation. Hell, Maine's coniferous expanses spread for 10 MILLION unsettled acres (thank you, Bill Bryson, 'A Short History of Nearly Everything').

So whatever conventional figures are being utilized for determining rate of population growth (not sure the rate), the US is not in any immediate danger (Alaska, the Southwest, blah blah blah). Granted, Africa is scheduled to overpopulate in not much past fifty years...but I'm sure we'll be substantially and legitimately colonizing the Sahara WELL before the Pacific.

Honestly, I personally would forego aquatic civilizations for lunar counterparts.

Do you expect the city to be under normal surface pressure, or under ambient pressure? This makes a huge difference in design requirements. If the former, then unmodified humans can live in it and can travel to and from surface at any time, but the structure must be enormously strong, built to unbelievable tolerances, and very small structural damage could cause the entire city to implode. Also, humans can only venture outside in pressurized vessels, such as rigid deep-sea "suits".Will such travel not be enormously expensive for the same reason: pressure? Building the ships to carry them back and forth is just a miniature version of the engineering nightmare of building the city. I suspect that once you're down there you probably have to stay there. But I'd guess only the wealthy would be able to afford to live in such an expensive home, and they'd be the last people to want to do so.Stephen Hawking claims the world, by A.D. 2600, will be entirely overpopulated. . . .Then he's a little behind the curve on that. Based upon the trends they see in the birthrates around the globe, many sociologists are predicting that the population will peak at just around ten billion by the end of this century... and then start to drop back. Prosperity is the most effective contraceptive and prosperity is spreading slowly but steadily.

The birthrate among native-born Americans is on the verge of dropping below replacement level as it already has in Europe. Soon the U.S. will be dependent on immigration to support Social Security and the rest of the economy, like Europe. And of course by the second or third generation (depending on the group) those immigrants all become Americans with American habits including our low birthrate.So whatever conventional figures are being utilized for determining rate of population growth (not sure the rate), the US is not in any immediate danger (Alaska, the Southwest, blah blah blah). Granted, Africa is scheduled to overpopulate in not much past fifty years...but I'm sure we'll be substantially and legitimately colonizing the Sahara WELL before the Pacific.What's the definition of "overpopulate"? Food production is not an issue in a global economy that is not dysfunctional. The underpopulated, sustainably farmed Western Hemisphere can feed the whole planet, all the way up to that peak population with ten zeroes.

For an entire continent to reach the uniform population density of northern New Jersey would be remarkable but it would hardly be a crisis per se since people live quite happily and prosperously in northern New Jersey. I've even seen fat people up there so there can't be much of a food shortage.

It's been pointed out that the single greatest factor in determining whether a person is destined to grow up in poverty is the country he lives in. So the single most effective tactic in reducing global poverty is to encourage emigration.Honestly, I personally would forego aquatic civilizations for lunar counterparts.Somehow I suspect that the expense would be equally daunting. Lifting materials (not to mention people) out of Earth's gravity well uses up a prodigious amount of energy. No one's proven to my satisfaction that the infrastructure of a lunar colony can be built from lunar materials, so we could be talking about shipping billions of tons of material a couple of hundred thousand miles. (You could not afford union drivers. :)) Then there are the totally unknown medical and psychological effects of living in low gravity. And talk about an expat community for whom a trip home is prohibitively expensive! Nonetheless there are probably a lot more people who would like to live on the moon than in Davy Jones' Locker.

"Could nanomachines construct an argument that the Chewbacca defense could not get you out of? -Discuss."
Hahahaaa come on they're just nanomachines not a God.

I was thinking, what if the walls are made from a forcefield? Then the wall part is really cheap. Now, all we need to do is make a forcefield. Then blow it up and poof - instant land. Then we add an anti-gravity to an artificial sun that floats in the middle of the air and turns into a moon ... done and done :)

I have seen the designs for the underwater habitats. How about a dome top only that has just enough pressure to keep out the water, the roads around the city would just be canals of water that way just the buildings and walks would be out of the water, the substructure and other plant ops could be in closed underwater enviroments that wouldn't need air. Also, there is an artificial lung that is made of microfiliments inserted into a vein with the air exchange taking place outside the body, provides up to 40% of the body's air requirements at rest. The researchers postulated that it may be possible to use this underwater in a few years. I think they are trialing it in England or the UK. With this it would do away with the need for gills.

The hull could likely be somwhat flexible; just as some large structures are constructed to withstand earthquakes. Rather than withstanding strong ocean currents and/or a disastrous submarine graze, it would, much like a child's goo toy, expand elsewhere to allow for said impact (and obviously one wouldn't expect it to stomach a nuclear blast).

Fraggle Rocker-- definitely some legit points; I was just trying to use a source a bit more authoritative than my own mind regarding the population growth. My personal sentiment echoes most of what you said regarding a pinnacle then a decline.

As for relative costs involved with the lunar v. aquatic colonial debate, here (KCSpacePirates.com) is something I came across watching Conan earlier this week (of all places). As this discussion is distinctly beyond the realm of present human technological capabilities, I feel more than justified in introducing this "space elevator". Intriguing to say the least. Regardless, I'd prefer the moon if given equal oppurtunity.

And, uh, when prosperity doesn't work, well, that's when we start aiming that weapons arsenal Far Eastward....heh.

I think the idea's fascinating, but impractical.
Not enough pros, and too many cons.

Hasn't anyone here ever played bioshock?