1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar




open ocean capeable living space bubble

Home Forums Archive TSI Engineering open ocean capeable living space bubble

This topic contains 85 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of shredder7753 shredder7753 2 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 86 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1371

    When we talk about colonizing the oceans we should think about the most basic unit that will allow to survive on the open ocean

    As the development of the rescue boat shows a open boat that gives you flotation is not enough (you would die from overexposion to the sun or get trown over by storms. So the kind of living space the manufacturers ended up with, is a kind of all side closed “bubble” that protects people.

    Given this development we might be wrong when we look at platforms of any kind – platforms do only work when there are “buildings” or “containers” on them that enclose the living space. -

    But this is doing 2 engineering tasks (platform building – and housing building) to perform a single task – “enclose the living space properly to make survival under any sea conditions possible”.

    What if we go away from the “platform idea” and go to a “integrated enclosuse” that encloses the living space “bubble like” so we would think more of floating shells, domes, spheres, rounded shapes, to enclose our living space in a open ocean capeable way.

    Once you think of a “living space bubble” more than a “platform” you might ask the question how high above the water or “how wave exposed” do i want the living space bubble to float ?

    Would not submerging or partially submerging the structure have big advatages in wave movements temperature control and position keeping – protecting it from the hostile ambient of the surface layer where athmosphre and ocean have their most violent interchange.

    How would living beneath the surface be? – has anybody analyzed those already existing structures that are basicly “spar designs with extended underwater part” where people live in the underwater part – not in the elevated platform. When reading the seasteading book if find submerged designes as “dismissed concept due to complication of holding a controlled depth and cost of building” – do we operate with the correct assumpions here?

    At European Submarine Structures AB we create submerged living space at a general cost of 331 Euro/ cubic meter which is below the average cubic meter real estate cost in Europe.

    Many structures that already exist have explored the concept of submerged living space. Among those the red seastar restaurant and the jordan submarine observatory.

    The making and float out of submarine tunnels, the rion-antirion bridge pylon, the ekofisk storage tank, Troll, and similar structures have tested and refined the necessary engineering in big scale.

    Creating submerged bubble living space in the high seas is not only possible, economic feasible, it is potentially the most easy way to deal with wave hazards and seasteading real estate cost.

    Let me hear your thoughts…

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11672
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    Spar-like structures can provide the wave stability, such as the FLIP/FLIP II and SeaOrbiter. The taller it is, with corresponding percentages deeper, the more stable.

    Creating a functional break-water, will be the next step in expanding the surface area.

    Later,

    J.L.F.

    Never be afraid to try something new…

    Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

    #11675
    Avatar of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    If a spar requires a breakwater to function, then it offers little improvement over any other sea going vessel right now. Host the living space in a submerged structure and you require nothing else to benefit from little to negligable wave movement.

    I think the resistance to submersible structures is the fear of living in a submarine and the extra costs they might require. Every vessel requires an airtight hull over a majority of the surface area, a sub just requires it on the entire surface area. Other than this, subs just need two additional systems not in most vessels… a system to keep fresh air circulating within the vessel (a snorkel can do this on the cheap) and boyancy control. Neither of these are costly or overly complicated systems.

    Live Well!

    -Jason

    #11692
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    Break-water would be for expansion horizontally. A spar, for an innitial structure offers high stability…

    Later,

    J.L.F.

    Never be afraid to try something new…

    Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

    #11702
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    SeaOrbiter has more space submerged, than typical spar-buoy, but the whole thing is a cross between the spar-buoy and a sub/semisubmersible. Meanwhile, it can be anchored, or mobile, according to the needs and desires of the operator.

    Later,

    J.L.F.

    Never be afraid to try something new…

    Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

    #11707
    Avatar of admiral-doty
    admiral-doty
    Participant

    From an aesthetic viewpoint, the view below the surface could be very interesting. A colony of sea life can be expected to grow very quickly, especially if encouraged with feeding and stocking. In colder climates, a kelp forest can be planted on a grid of cables strung between habitat modules. In tropical locations, a coral reef can be grown on a similar structure. This will be very appealing for tourism. The area can also be enclosed with netting to function as an aquaculture cage for food and ornamental fish. In contrast, the view above sea level in international waters will be very bleak other than what structure is built and landscaped on the seatead itself, and the flotilla of boats swarming around it.

    #11786
    Avatar of Republic6
    Republic6
    Participant

    What about growing non-sea vegetation? It might be difficult to do that in a bubble. It would require a large area of the bubble to be glass or thick plastic? What would that do to the cost? Also how much wave protection would really be offered by submerging the shelter? Wouldn’t an on coming big wave cause a depression in the water line, thereby possibly exposing the bubble to the air before the wave hit?

    #11788
    Avatar of Pastor_Jason
    Pastor_Jason
    Participant

    I believe the math on this is to submerge at least 1/3 of the wave height you wish to be protected from. If I recall correctly, Wil went through a storm in his sub just 10m below sea level… you can ask him. Even in your example where a large wave temporarily uncovers the submerged bubble… the bubble would just submerge again, well before the wave crashes on it. In that case however you would have some effect from the wave motion… an example of not going deep enough.

    Personally, I can’t imagine submerging in anything less than a concrete structure.

    Thanks!

    -Jason

    #11800
    Avatar of J.L.-Frusha
    J.L.-Frusha
    Participant

    One thing, though, is that wave height increases pressure depth, as large waves psss over a submerged vessel. It your hull is at 50′ depth and a 100′ wave passes over you, the trough pushes you down, then the wave passes, causing a pulse of 100′+ depth change. Have to have a hull that can withstand those pulses, if those are the conditions you are hiding from…

    Later,

    J.L.F.

    Never be afraid to try something new…

    Remember, amateurs built the ark, professionals built the Titanic.

    #11805
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Pressure spikes are only a concern if you try to maintain 1 ATM which is an expensive proposition IMHO.

    Build a personal “Turtle” submarine out of concrete, and then blow the ballast tanks on your fiberglass living room gas envelope. You hang out in the 1 ATM submarine while your submersible living room hangs out at a cozy 10 ATM because it doesn’t get the bends.

    I can take a mattress and toilet to unlimited depths simply by equalizing pressure.

    Unless my mattress or toilet evolve nitrogen sensitive biochemistry: they’ll survive.

    Realistically: to keep your mattress and toilet dry, you need sufficient compressed air volume to increase the air volume as you descend.

    an 80 cubic foot scuba tank worth of air can keep:

    40 cubic feet of living space dry at 10 meters

    ~27 cubic feet of living space dry at 20 meters

    20 cubic feet of living space dry at 30 meters

    ect.

    The good news is: SCUBA tanks are cheap, and storms are normally short lived.

    Here’s the best part: you can use all that air as your personal submarine’s air supply. Particularly if you breath your exhaust air in to a diaphram to be snuba compressed back in to the living room.

    Now let’s suppose that my living room is made of thick enough fiberglass that I can overpressurize it by 1 ATM.

    That means that if your living room is at 2 ATM at the surface: and your personal submarine is 1ATM: you now have an additional living room’s worth of air to sip from while you’re waiting out the storm. If you have a 160 cubic foot living room: that’s a lot of air! It would take me 2 hours to use that much air.

    All of this just confirms in my eyes that:

    A. You should live in shallow enough water to make the investment in scuba tanks minimal.

    B. You should live in a region where storms aren’t particularly common

    C. Seasteads should be cheap and full of cheap furniture.(so you can abandon ship without much hesitation)

    &

    D. Maybe seasteading is a seasonal lifestyle? If it get’s stormy in the winter: dock your seastead 6 months out of the year. Your cost of living is still 1/2 what it would be if you were renting an appartment.

    Anyone who can’t build a structure that will allow him to bug out to 10 meters deep for 48 hours at a time isn’t trying hard enough.

    #11807

    Tuavision, what you describe is basicly saturation diving. This was in fact one of the first ideas for ocean colononization promoted by costeau and his conshelf 1-3 experiments and his vision of “aquasapiens”. The offshore saturation diving industy is still in business but gets increasingly replaced by ROV (remote operated vehicles) and 1 ATM pressure suits.

    There are good reasons for this – basicly the human body did not evolve for those pressures, and there are long term negative effects asociated to saturation diving. So if we will live in the ocean we will probably do so in 1 ATM living space bubbles that keeps our ambient in normal pressure conditions.

    To adapt the human body to high pressure conditions is a incredible complicated task – to make a pressure resistant shell is a simple task.

    I understand that you are speaking of submerging the living space only and a shallow stay for the humans – but why this complicated proceedure to work around a simple task – it is much simpler to build a pressure hull and keep the interior at cosy 1 atm.

    There are hundreds of giant holow concrete structures like bridge pylons, underwater tunnels, oilrig legs, working in depths of hundreds of meters maintaining 1 atm interior pressure as we speak already.

    Floating concrete structures are good for a maximum depth of 1400m (see study below)

    ———–

    Paper Number 3011-MS
    Title OCEAN IMPLOSION TEST OF CONCRETE (SEACON) CYLINDRICAL STRUCTURE
    Authors Roy S. Highberg and Harvey H. Haynes, Civil Engineering Laboratory
    Source

    Offshore Technology Conference, 2-5 May , Houston, Texas
    Copyright 1977. Offshore Technology Conference
    Language English
    Preview ABSTRACT

    An ocean implosion test was conducted on a pressure-resistant concrete cylindrical structure to obtain the depth at implosion. The structure was a reinforced concrete cylinder with hemispherical end caps, twenty feet (6.1 m) in overall length, ten feet (3.05 m) in outside diameter, and 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness. The structure was near-neutrally buoyant having a positive buoyancy of 12,000 pounds (5.4 Mg) for a hull displacement of 85,000 pounds (38.5 Mg). The implosion depth of the cylinder was 4700 feet (1430 m). A predicted implosion depth, using an empirical design equation based upon past test results, was 16 percent less than the actual implosion depth.

    INTRODUCTION

    A pressure-resistant, reinforced concrete hull was constructed in 1971 as part of a Seafloor Construction Experiment, SEACON I. The structure was placed on the seafloor at a depth of 600 feet (180 m) for 10 months. Figure 1 shows the SEACON I hull prior to its ocean emplacement. Since its retrieval in 1972, it has been located in the open air about 150 ft. (50 m) from the ocean. In the summer of 1976, the structure was returned to the ocean for an ultimate load test, that is, the structure was lowered into the ocean until implosion.

    SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION

    The cylindrical structure was assembled from three precast, reinforced concrete sections. The straight cylinder section, 10.1 feet (3080 mm) in outside diameter by 10 feet (3050 mm) in length by 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness, was fabricated by United Concrete Pipe Corporation. The concrete hemisphere end-closures, 10.1 feet (3080 mm) in outside diameter by 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness, were fabricated in-house. Tolerances on the sections conformed to concrete pipe standards of not to exceed to ±0.75 inch (19 mm) for the inside diameter or minus 0.5 inch (13 mm) for the wall thickness.

    Steel reinforcement in the amount of 0.70% by area was used in both the axial and hoop direction. Reinforcing bars of 0.6 inch (15 mm) diameter were employed throughout the structure. A double circular reinforcement cage was fabricated for each precast section; the concrete cover on the outside and inside reinforcing cage was 1 inch (25 mm). For the cylinder section, hoop rebars had a spacing of 27.25 inches (692 nm) and 31.25 inches (794 mm) for the inside and outside cages respectively.

    The hemispherical end-closures were bonded to the cylinder section with an epoxy adhesive, no other attachment besides the epoxy bond was employed (Figure 2). The gap between the mating surfaces of the hemisphere and the cylinder was less than 0.13 inch (3 mm) for 75% of the contact area. Prior to epoxy bonding, the concrete surfaces were prepared by sandblasting and washing with acetone.

    Source: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-3011-MS&soc=OTC

    ———-

    In other words if you build a bubble that floats deeploaded in cylinder, blimp, donut, sphere, and any other shape that burns down to a non buckling compression arch as basic structural element you can dive it below 1000m .

    A seastead bubble hanging out at a few meters on a snorkel should not be a problem not even if the century storm pressure spikes it with 10m.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    #11808
    Avatar of tusavision
    tusavision
    Participant

    Tuavision, what you describe is basicly saturation diving. This was in fact one of the first ideas for ocean colononization promoted by costeau and his conshelf 1-3 experiments and his vision of “aquasapiens”. The offshore saturation diving industy is still in business but gets increasingly replaced by ROV (remote operated vehicles) and 1 ATM pressure suits.

    There are good reasons for this – basicly the human body did not evolve for those pressures, and there are long term negative effects asociated to saturation diving. So if we will live in the ocean we will probably do so in 1 ATM living space bubbles that keeps our ambient in normal pressure conditions.

    To adapt the human body to high pressure conditions is a incredible complicated task – to make a pressure resistant shell is a simple task.

    I understand that you are speaking of submerging the living space only and a shallow stay for the humans – but why this complicated proceedure to work around a simple task – it is much simpler to build a pressure hull and keep the interior at cosy 1 atm.

    There are hundreds of giant holow concrete structures like bridge pylons, underwater tunnels, oilrig legs, working in depths of hundreds of meters maintaining 1 atm interior pressure as we speak already.

    Floating concrete structures are good for a maximum depth of 1400m (see study below)

    ———–

    Paper Number 3011-MS
    Title OCEAN IMPLOSION TEST OF CONCRETE (SEACON) CYLINDRICAL STRUCTURE
    Authors Roy S. Highberg and Harvey H. Haynes, Civil Engineering Laboratory
    Source

    Offshore Technology Conference, 2-5 May , Houston, Texas
    Copyright 1977. Offshore Technology Conference
    Language English
    Preview ABSTRACT

    An ocean implosion test was conducted on a pressure-resistant concrete cylindrical structure to obtain the depth at implosion. The structure was a reinforced concrete cylinder with hemispherical end caps, twenty feet (6.1 m) in overall length, ten feet (3.05 m) in outside diameter, and 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness. The structure was near-neutrally buoyant having a positive buoyancy of 12,000 pounds (5.4 Mg) for a hull displacement of 85,000 pounds (38.5 Mg). The implosion depth of the cylinder was 4700 feet (1430 m). A predicted implosion depth, using an empirical design equation based upon past test results, was 16 percent less than the actual implosion depth.

    INTRODUCTION

    A pressure-resistant, reinforced concrete hull was constructed in 1971 as part of a Seafloor Construction Experiment, SEACON I. The structure was placed on the seafloor at a depth of 600 feet (180 m) for 10 months. Figure 1 shows the SEACON I hull prior to its ocean emplacement. Since its retrieval in 1972, it has been located in the open air about 150 ft. (50 m) from the ocean. In the summer of 1976, the structure was returned to the ocean for an ultimate load test, that is, the structure was lowered into the ocean until implosion.

    SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION

    The cylindrical structure was assembled from three precast, reinforced concrete sections. The straight cylinder section, 10.1 feet (3080 mm) in outside diameter by 10 feet (3050 mm) in length by 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness, was fabricated by United Concrete Pipe Corporation. The concrete hemisphere end-closures, 10.1 feet (3080 mm) in outside diameter by 9.5 inches (241 mm) in wall thickness, were fabricated in-house. Tolerances on the sections conformed to concrete pipe standards of not to exceed to ±0.75 inch (19 mm) for the inside diameter or minus 0.5 inch (13 mm) for the wall thickness.

    Steel reinforcement in the amount of 0.70% by area was used in both the axial and hoop direction. Reinforcing bars of 0.6 inch (15 mm) diameter were employed throughout the structure. A double circular reinforcement cage was fabricated for each precast section; the concrete cover on the outside and inside reinforcing cage was 1 inch (25 mm). For the cylinder section, hoop rebars had a spacing of 27.25 inches (692 nm) and 31.25 inches (794 mm) for the inside and outside cages respectively.

    The hemispherical end-closures were bonded to the cylinder section with an epoxy adhesive, no other attachment besides the epoxy bond was employed (Figure 2). The gap between the mating surfaces of the hemisphere and the cylinder was less than 0.13 inch (3 mm) for 75% of the contact area. Prior to epoxy bonding, the concrete surfaces were prepared by sandblasting and washing with acetone.

    Source: http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=OTC-3011-MS&soc=OTC

    ———-

    In other words if you build a bubble that floats deeploaded in cylinder, blimp, donut, sphere, and any other shape that burns down to a non buckling compression arch as basic structural element you can dive it below 1000m .

    A seastead bubble hanging out at a few meters on a snorkel should not be a problem not even if the century storm pressure spikes it with 10m.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

    Wil, totally agree with you. Concrete is affordable enough that as a long term solution: it makes sense to make the one time investment in a durable living space which doesn’t involve crazy ass fire drills and SNUBA supplied air.

    As a stop gap between starving artist idealism and serious business lifestyle commitments there lies the potential for underwater tents/above water rafts made from cheap junk. If you start small with a single man submarine lifeboat, you can get in the water NOW while you scrape together the rest of the money necessary to buy that dream submarine.

    You take a bunch of lead weight, chain it to a wench, chain the wench to a raft, and cover the raft in a clear plastic tarp with chicken wire over the top. Staple the chicken wire to the raft and it’ll keep the tarp from floating away.

    Now under the raft you have a video game caccoon made from concrete fed air by the scuba tanks strapped to the bottom of the raft. If shit goes tits up: you drop the ballast, float to the surface, get motion sick, and call the coast guard.

    The tarp+scuba tanks keeps the furniture dry.

    The caccoon keeps you safe, 1ATM and entertained, and the SCUBA tanks keep you breathing. It’s seasteading homelessness, but I’d rather be the badass living like a bum under the water than spend my life paying in to the housing racket.

    If I don’t have to pay rent to Neptune: then I can save up money to buy a grown up scale pressure hull. Currently: the rat race hamster wheel makes such a prospect out of the question without a mortgage. If I can’t buy it in cash, it really crimps my anti-establishment style.

    #11810
    Avatar of Alan
    Alan
    Participant

    While ellmer in particular has made many excellent points about living spaces under the surface, there remains one huge psychological reason (and perhaps a practical reason too) to stay on the surface.

    We all know that our machines and structures sometimes fail. If you are sleeping in your living space when this failure occurs, would you rather: (a) roll out of bed, stagger to the railings, grab a life preserver and jump, or (b) roll out of bed, take a few moments to orient yourself while to try to remember which way is out, groggily climb the stairs as water is gushing down on you, force your way against the current, and then – if you break free – try to find a lifeboat or life preserver or what-have-you?

    If you have a family to round up and get into a lifeboat, which setup will you prefer?

    Perhaps if we had gills things would be different, but there will always be a fear of drowning on the oceans, and it will naturally be greater if the water is already overhead.

    There are some things that can mitigate this concern: if there is sufficient compartmentalization, with plenty of horizontal exits to other modules, there may be less resistance. If the sleeping quarters are at or above the surface level with plenty of horizontal exits, other living quarters being underwater may not be of such concern. A large structure with lots of people around will be reassuring because the average resident will not have to be personally monitoring sea conditions at all times, and because it will be able to tolerate a large leak much longer than a smaller vessel – with more time to get to safety.

    A semi-submerged large vessel with sleeping quarters above the surface might have most of the benefits of both types of living.

    However, I would not want to be sleeping in a small underwater living space with a single exit at the top of the stairs, and I suspect many others would agree. A single failure would be deadly – and we all know that such failures happen eventually.

    #11812
    Avatar of admiral-doty
    admiral-doty
    Participant

    “You hang there 1-2m below the “hackzone” relaxed enjoy the smooth waiven of the waves comming in,…”

    What does “waiven” mean? I couldn’t find the definition on google. I take it hackzone means the turbulent zone where the waves are hitting the cliff face and falling back against the surface of the water.

    #11813

    Living under water some love it some hate it – just like flying. Tuavision you might want to contact Lloyd Godson he is the man for your vision of underwater living…

    Alan, yes the nightmare of drowning in a sub – but if you see it reasonable – no existing structure gives you a real chance of escape in case of failure – how fast can you run when the bridge you are crossing is falling down? – what stairway do you take when the columns of a building fail? – the idea of escaping from a failing structure is pure illusion. If a submarine hull fails you will not even drown miserably – you get instantly killed by the implosion.

    True is that for people that are borderline sub-phobic a flat raft will be a easier acceptable solution. Although the real danger might be higher due to wave and weather impact.

    It is like in transport some people hate flying and go by car they feel safer this way it is a question of perception not of objective safety.

    Wil

    concretesubmarine.com

    European Submarine Structures AB

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 86 total)

The forum ‘TSI Engineering’ is closed to new topics and replies.



Posted on at

Categories:

Written by

Blog/Newsletter

Donate