A must needed exploration vehicle test

[dryson]

<p>Deep Flight Challenger was built to enable adventurer, Steve Fossett, to set the ultimate solo dive record for all time (37,000 feet). Unfortunately Fossett perished in a plane crash before he could dive the submersible to record depth. Hawkes Ocean Technologies is now the only organization in the world that has full ocean depth technology.</p><p>http://www.deepflight.com/</p><p>Now how will this vehicle be usable in space you ask. It will for one give humanity a test bed vehicle that can survive the massive amount of fluidic psi encountered. The test of this vehicle must go forward. It will not only pave the way for planetary exploration of oceans on other planets, but it will also give the necessary data needed to construct underwater habitat's to help eleviate the land issues of overcrowding. The norm&nbsp;of which is handled by war. This vehicle will also give us an oppurtunity to explore the deepest parts of any ocean, thus finding lost wrecks of forgotten treasures, provide new and accurate models of mapping ocean current's and ocean circulation patterns. This vehicle will also pave the way for finding possible new materials from which to build with. &nbsp;</p>

 

[JonClarke]

What is "fluidic psi"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What is "fluidic psi"? <br /> Posted by jonclarke</DIV></p><p>I think he means that if we have marine craft that can handle pressures at 37,000 feet, that the technology might be of use in very dense atmospheres like Venus. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think he means that if we have marine craft that can handle pressures at 37,000 feet, that the technology might be of use in very dense atmospheres like Venus. <br />Posted by dragon04</DIV></p><p>Maybe...!<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p>I also find this interesting.</p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NEEMO/</p><p>I dont think living under the water is a way to cope with over crowding because it isnt actually standing space that is limited. We are already emptying the oceans of food without even living there.</p><p>On the other hand if we did have several thousand or a million people living in underwater cities then we would learn a lot of things relevant to living on other worlds and for that matter about living on our own.</p>

 

[crazyeddie]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I also find this interesting.http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NEEMO/I dont think living under the water is a way to cope with over crowding because it isnt actually standing space that is limited. We are already emptying the oceans of food without even living there.On the other hand if we did have several thousand or a million people living in underwater cities then we would learn a lot of things relevant to living on other worlds and for that matter about living on our own. <br /> Posted by kelvinzero</DIV></p><p>I think it's much more likely that humans will gravitate to low-pressure environments in preference to high-pressure environments, because the consequences of catastrophic failure of your infrastructure is much more dire in the latter situation. &nbsp;I think it's much easier to keep pressure leak controlled if your atmosphere is venting outward into a low-pressure space than it is to control a leak where a crushing atmosphere or ocean is trying to get into your living space.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I also find this interesting.http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NEEMO/I dont think living under the water is a way to cope with over crowding because it isnt actually standing space that is limited. We are already emptying the oceans of food without even living there.On the other hand if we did have several thousand or a million people living in underwater cities then we would learn a lot of things relevant to living on other worlds and for that matter about living on our own. <br />Posted by kelvinzero</DIV></p><p>Maybe if we encouraged the politicians to live underwater (concrete galoshes might work) then the dry land areas would be more liveable.&nbsp; It would not require so many as a million to produce marked improvement in conditions if the people were selected from the body of professional politicians.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it's much more likely that humans will gravitate to low-pressure environments in preference to high-pressure environments, because the consequences of catastrophic failure of your infrastructure is much more dire in the latter situation. &nbsp;I think it's much easier to keep pressure leak controlled if your atmosphere is venting outward into a low-pressure space than it is to control a leak where a crushing atmosphere or ocean is trying to get into your living space. <br />Posted by crazyeddie</DIV></p><p>I don't see it as an either or choice. I see&nbsp;the colonisation of space as the goal of the human race, and experimenting&nbsp;with reasonable scale experiments of human bases in&nbsp;certain traditionally inhospitable locations on earth as a very important step towards that goal. More important than rocket research for example.</p><p>Three examples of inhospitable locations are: deserts, very cold regions, and the ocean floor.</p><p>A city in the desert (perhaps some sort of las vegas) that for example domed and recycled all its water would be a very interesting experiment. Getting rid of heat is harder than keeping it in though and I dont think deserts are similar to any locations in the solar system that we would value.</p><p>Very cold and inaccessable locations could be interesting. Build large enclosed greenhouses. Get as close to zero impact as we can. There is&nbsp; a lot of overlap between the goals of zero impact and the goals of efficient long term lifesupport. I also think these could be great tourist attractions. Although that would limit some of the scientific value there would still be much worthwhile learnt in managing such a city.</p><p>Cities underwater would be interesting for two reasons: (1) it is an environment separated from the outside by airlocks and where air is not free, and (2) I think that if we colonise the solar system the majority of us will be living deep under the ice in oases of water kept liquid by our own waste heat. In these locations we have&nbsp;earthlike temperatures and pressures, robust protection from radiation and depressurisation, and large&nbsp;bodies of water for cooling and within which to grow food.</p>

 

[dryson]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't see it as an either or choice. I see&nbsp;the colonisation of space as the goal of the human race, and experimenting&nbsp;with reasonable scale experiments of human bases in&nbsp;certain traditionally inhospitable locations on earth as a very important step towards that goal. More important than rocket research for example.Three examples of inhospitable locations are: deserts, very cold regions, and the ocean floor.A city in the desert (perhaps some sort of las vegas) that for example domed and recycled all its water would be a very interesting experiment. Getting rid of heat is harder than keeping it in though and I dont think deserts are similar to any locations in the solar system that we would value.Very cold and inaccessable locations could be interesting. Build large enclosed greenhouses. Get as close to zero impact as we can. There is&nbsp; a lot of overlap between the goals of zero impact and the goals of efficient long term lifesupport. I also think these could be great tourist attractions. Although that would limit some of the scientific value there would still be much worthwhile learnt in managing such a city.Cities underwater would be interesting for two reasons: (1) it is an environment separated from the outside by airlocks and where air is not free, and (2) I think that if we colonise the solar system the majority of us will be living deep under the ice in oases of water kept liquid by our own waste heat. In these locations we have&nbsp;earthlike temperatures and pressures, robust protection from radiation and depressurisation, and large&nbsp;bodies of water for cooling and within which to grow food. <br />Posted by kelvinzero</DIV></p><p>The only real problem is not getting off of the planet and colonizing Mars and the Moon, which we do have the capability to do. Is is because of the human male and female ego of not watning any one to be "higher" then they are. It boils down to selfish childish notions that in a capitalistic society someone who has more and is of "higher" status then someone else would not like the attention they receive that makes them money to be drawn away to an age of space exploration where there are numerous potentials for profits. But because it would cost to much to design a craft that would be able to mine the rings around the planets in this solar system and would not create fast cash for them to live like kings and queens in their own delusionaly wrought story is the main reason. A second reason is "it sounds to much like work." This is also another problem, humanity has grown fat and lazy in the exploration field. Without continued exploration, ideas will continue to seem "new' but will be just another version of the same old product drawn differently and packaged with different lighting.<br /></p>