Undersea colonies

> Odd thing. People trot out all kinds of reasons why under sea
> colonies could never work. "They're colod/damp/icky...etc."

The only reason I need is that there's not much reason to be there.
Any resources you get, you can haul up to a ship. The equivalent of
a construction shack, sure, if current turbines turn out to need
them. Colonies, why? We're not talking about astronomical amounts
of every imaginable resource, astronomical distances from home.
Current turbines and manganese nodules, anything else?

But probably not even construction shacks. There's no problem with
light-speed lag if you have your remote-control machinery at the
bottom and your operators on the surface.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> > From: ralph buttigieg
> > There has been some discussion about undersea
> > colonies here in the past. Aquanaut and Nasa
> > engineer is writing a series of articles on them on
> > his blog. Have read,
> > they are interesting and informative.
> > See: http://quantumeditions.com/quantumlimit/
>
> Odd thing. People trot out all kinds of reasons why under sea
colonies could
> never work. "They're colod/damp/icky...etc." But you never hear
about such
> problems on attack or missile submarines. Russians had
small 'swimming'
> pools built into some of theirs. In terms of economics, undersea
currents
> (like the north atlantic drift) have significantly more kenetic
energy per
> cross-sectional-area than wind does. And because it also moves at
a much
> slower rate, a 'wind turbine' style generator could generate more
> electricity at a lower RPM than their surface counterparts.
Depending on
> building techniques and location, this could justify an undersea
> 'construction shack' (for maintinance equipment storage if not
assembally)