Tell me your opinion of my underwater city theory ...?

Question

I'm thinking that we could spend less money on space travel and more money on development right here. The world is 2/3 water and we should be able to build "bubble cities" where the glass is thick enough so the density won't crush it. Also, since water is 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, we should be able to extract oxygen from the surrounding salt water, filter out the salt, and have air for people to breath and water for them to drink down there.

Answer 1

Dont have a theory but if you ever manage hope i get a invite

Answer 2

Actually the entire cost of space exploration is quite small - at $15 Billion it may seem like a lot but it is much less than 1% of the total US annual budget. To put it in perspective - consider that the total sales of one real estate firm last year was in the trillions. The average that the US spends on pet care is $30 Billion - double the amount spent on space. The amount spent on holiday gifts for pets by the government was $5 Billion. People spent $31 Billion on tobacco, $58 Billion on Alcohol - and almost $250 billion are spent annually in the US on the medical treatment of tobacco and alcohol related diseases - but most remarkable - $586.5 billion a year is spent on gambling.

Now if you just want to look at only the money spent by the government and leave people to their favorite vices then consider this - even if the U.S. exits Iraq within another three years, the total direct and indirect costs to U.S. taxpayers has been estimated to reach up to $2 Trillion Dollars.

Whether or not you think the war in Iraq was justified - and the American taxpayers should pay whatever the cost - keep in mind that this question is about a minor cost required for exploring the idea of developing ocean-floor habitats.

If the budget was able to support the expenses described above - 10 billion a year to develop habitats on the coastal shelf seems a drop in the bucket. Also, just as we discovered with space exploration the spin-off science and financial returns would be enormous.

Consider the possibilities of using geothermal power by drilling holes in the sea floor - where the crust is thinner - and using the hot water to power your desalination and hydrolysis for both oxygen and hydrogen. There are gold, silver, copper, iron potassium, sodium, and every other commercially valuable mineral dissolved in sea water so even as an experimental 'mining project' the idea has merit. Methane deposits in the form of hydrate ice are found all over the sea floor and could become a resource for plastics manufacturing.

If you add to that the possibility of aquaculture (fish farms) as well as the incredibly rich nutrients available for fertilizers and the production of foodstuffs being possible products - such colonies could become one of the most powerful economic engines on earth for perhaps the next hundred years.

To sum up - I think your idea has great potential but you may find that there are many small adjustments which need to be made for it to be successful - for example it is probably more practical to make many small 'glass bubbles' rather than one huge one. It may also be simpler to do most of the exploration and construction using robotics or tele-operation - so you may want to look at the work already being done in the oil industry to build and maintain offshore platforms.

In my opinion it's certainly a proposition worthy of serious consideration.

Answer 3

there are a few large obstacles to overcome.
in fact, we know less about the bottom of the ocean than we do about the surface of the moon. six miles of water is a bigger obstacle than 250,000 miles of empty space.
as far as bubble cities go- the larger the structure becomes the less sturdy and stable it is under pressure. that is why ultra deep sea vessels are all so small.
secondly- to separate hydrogen from oxygen in water takes a good deal of energy. more energy than you would get back by using the hydrogen for electricity.
and desalination- the process of turning salt water into fresh water- is very expensive.
right now it is more cost effective for governments and corporations to use what we have on land. not to mention overcoming the physics of building large structures underwater.

Answer 4

Giving up space to live in the ocean is just another way of giving up space to live on Earth. Some day, far, far in the future, we will be as amazed that we ever lived on just one planet as we are amazed now how we ever lived without toilet paper, tooth brushes and fire. The oceans are too limited compared to the whole universe which probably contains billions of other planets with oceans every bit as big as ours.

Answer 5

That's a good idea, but we would be able to waste SO MUCH more money terra-forming Mars than building a present-day Atlantis.

Answer 6

sounds great but what you ask is actually more expensive an idea than space travel. would be cool thou. so long as there were no leaks

Answer 7

It's a good idea, but i don't think it would be cheaper than space exploration.

Answer 8

The main problem is earth don't have such technology right now.

Answer 9

Excellent idea!
We need investors...

Answer 10

because we are more fascinated by birds than fish.