How come all the focus is on colonizing space, when we haven't built even one underwater colony?

bump

>>16718006 (OP)
>we haven't built even one underwater colony
that you know of

>>16718006 (OP)
Building an underwater colony won't save us from a comet smashing into the Earth

>>16718006 (OP)
Would an ice shell around your hull prevent corrosion?

>>16719693
Came into this thread to post this.
The goal of colonies on other planets is to ensure the continuation of life.

>>16719693
Actually it will, but outer space, another planet, another world, another civilization is more appealing/rewarding than trying to establish land on ocean. Ocean is already controlled by current world powers.

>>16718006 (OP)
the absence of pressure in deep space and on planets with weak atmospheres seems like an easier hurdle to mitigate than the crushing 7000 psi average of the ocean floor. GPT says the space shuttles would crumble in the Mariana trench

>>16718006 (OP)
Because elite satanic pedophiles want to escape the planet they fucked up

>>16719730

Nobody said it has to be as deep underwater as possible. The continental shelf is 1,000 feet deep at its deepest point. Maybe 250ft deep would be fine for avoiding the influence of storms

>>16719751

To where? Mars is vastly worse than the worst climate predictions. Don't buy into alarmism, it's not an extinction threat, nature just gets fucky.

>>16719693

It worked in SOMA, kind of.

>>16718006 (OP)
the weather is betta, down where its wetta, take it from me

>>16718006 (OP)
space is harder, underwater is harder

>>16718006 (OP)
space is hard, underwater is harder

>>16720905

Doesn't look that hard

>>16719693
aint seen no fish die when the asteroid made dinos extinct
it might work

>>16721020
That is small and at a low depth.
Any bigger structure at more depth would be hugely expensive.

>>16718006 (OP)
>underwaterologies
there are brilliant people working on it, like the amazing oceangate corporation.

>>16721197

It will be different this time, no more carbon fiber. Can't just give up after every setback

>>16721197

It will be different this time, no more carbon fiber. Can't just give up after every setback

>>16718006 (OP)
Space actually has immense resources. The ocean mostly doesn't and is just as difficult to live in. The best I can think of is a giant floating city that's basically a moving Venice-boat for rich people

>>16718006 (OP)
Can temperature change at the lowest depths of the ocean?
Can water go below freezing point because of the intense pressure?

>>16721573

https://english.kyodonews.net/articles/-/48234
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/deep-sea-mining-permits-risks

Who told you that? The ocean has 3x the precious and rare earth metal density as land. Plus you can farm sea life

>>16721583

Yes, but it would be foolish and suicidal to build anything humans go inside of at such depths

>>16721558
looks kinda like how the "hab" structures are described in Behemoth

>>16721704

It's the only proposed design in recent years based on plausible marine engineering. Many "underwater city" renders are laughably impractical and are promoted to futurist publications simply to advertise architectural visualization studios. Like this silly nonsense: https://www.shimz.co.jp/en/topics/dream/content01/

>>16718006 (OP)
What focus? There is zero focus on colonizing space outside of a few billionaires and their self glorifying sales talk.
Even the ones who says they are serious about it havent made a single thing to progress towards space colonization, not even Elon Musk.

Why would you colonize some dead rocks in space? Why would you colonize some cold and dark place on earth where there is no other incentive to stick around for?

Just send rovers and robots - Space, deep sea it doesnt matter, they will do a better job than humans.

>>16722941
I want to live like Cowboy Bebop.

>no sunlight so everyone's going to get depressed
>the territory has to be taken care of actively not passively every crack has to be eventually repaired
>can't grow food because you can't have large swaths of land unless it's seaweed type food
>probably won't have a good view/cool fish to see unless you're in shallow waters and at that point you might as well just live on land

>>16719693
There's nothing in space better than the planet we have now, sorry your life sucks so much that you think launching into space will fix your problems.

>>16722979
>>no sunlight so everyone's going to get depressed

Only down deep. In the first 300 or so feet, there's plenty of light.

>>16722979
>>can't grow food because you can't have large swaths of land unless it's seaweed type food

Fish farming net/mesh tents

>>16719751
https://youtu.be/ScVZ9aktQr0

>>16721020
where do you shit?

>>16721558
it's a very small space bruh

>>16723064
The part of the spectrum the light is in is also important. Not sure if the frequencies that are mostly filtered by water are important to humans psychologically but it's something to keep in mind as a potential issue. Or just be sure to bring some full spectrum lights for supplementation.

>>16719693
An earth devastated by a massive comet impact will still be more amiable to life than any nearby planet, being deep underwater would definitely shield from the worst heat and pressure effects.

>>16718006 (OP)
Did Rapture teach you nothing?

>>16722941
>Even the ones who says they are serious about it havent made a single thing to progress towards space colonization, not even Elon Musk.
Sure cheap reusable rockets, autonomous robots, and a whole space based communication infrastructure have nothing to do with progressing space colonization.

>>16718006 (OP)
>underwater colony
Useless. It'd be expensive to build and maintain, environmentally irresponsible, and the place would be a dump. Why would anybody want to live in an underwater colony? Even if it was populous and advanced like your favourite underwater sci-fi city (it wouldn't be), it'd still be objectively inferior than living in the surface in every way. A pitch-black dark and confined shithole with no fresh air or sunlight. Even assuming it'd be technically feasible, the cost would be unjustifiable and life there would be shit. Even if we were to ruin the seabed for profit (say with deep sea mining), that could be done with robots with no people actually living underwater.
The surface of our planet is still better than any other option by a large margin and that won't change. We'll do well if we just treat Earth better than we have been.

>>16724861
>Rapture

That was fiction. This time will be different

>>16724890

> no fresh air or sunlight.

The freshest air & water possible actually, chemically pure, hydrolyzed from sea water. And plenty of sunlight if it's only ~250 feet deep.

>"the cost would be unjustifiable and life there would be shit."

100x less expensive than space

>>16726096
All of those machines are robots. There's no need to send people down. Cousteau's conshelf and underwater city proposals became obsolete the moment reliable ROVs were invented. Farming's done on the surface

>>16724890
Too bad everything you say is rebutted by the actual existence of modern underwater hotels.