subs without nuclear.

[dragonstar57]

as of right now there really can't be any underwater development in terms of real estate and cities such because transportation would be difficult.

standard internal combustion is out for obvious reasons.

nuclear is out for a publicly available transportation method for equally obvious reasons

so what would be kind of propulsion would work best within the restraints that it has to travel long distances most likely aprox. 200 mi and pressure at whatever depth the destination would be located at presumably at depth no greater than 400 feet.

without a recharge/refuel has to be affordable to people who are not necessarily extremely wealthy. and be able to handle waves and ocean currents and allow for comfortable breathing for extended amounts of time.

[Moontanman]

I think it's Sweden that has some amazing submarines that are powered by fuel cells, very very quiet, and of reasonable range...

[InigoMontoya]

Why do you have to travel underwater? Just because your city is underwater doesn't mean you can't base your transportation system on the surface. I mean, last time I checked I live on land but think nothing of flying through the air to get to another location. Why couldn't your transportation system merely include a glorified elevator that gets you too/from the surface whereupon you take a plain ol' boat to [other location]?

Edited April 20, 2012 by InigoMontoya

[Moontanman]

Why do you have to travel underwater? Just because your city is underwater doesn't mean you can't base your transportation system on the surface. I mean, last time I checked I live on land but think nothing of flying through the air to get to another location. Why couldn't your transportation system merely include a glorified elevator that gets you too/from the surface whereupon you take a plain ol' boat to [other location]?

 

 

Good point, then there is the issue of pressure under water, could a city really be under water?

[dragonstar57]

Why do you have to travel underwater? Just because your city is underwater doesn't mean you can't base your transportation system on the surface. I mean, last time I checked I live on land but think nothing of flying through the air to get to another location. Why couldn't your transportation system merely include a glorified elevator that gets you too/from the surface whereupon you take a plain ol' boat to [other location]?

you would need some way to descend to the city

and to go from city to city and surfacing traveling along the surface and then diving would be a chore

that and it would allow to go to areas that have not been developed yet or construction structures that have not yet been completed

[InigoMontoya]

you would need some way to descend to the city

and to go from city to city and surfacing traveling along the surface and then diving would be a chore

 

Why would it be any more difficult than riding an elevator? We have skyscrapers that are a LOT taller than the 400' maximum depth for your planned cities. We have submarines that are longer than 400' as well. Conceptually, start with a submarine. Hollow it out. Stand it on end. Put an elevator in it. Have a door at the top that goes to some sort of dock for boats. Have a door at the bottom that goes to your city. Voila, you can travel from the surface to your city without getting wet in nothing more than a couple minutes.... Just like you can get to the 40th floor of any modern skyscraper in a couple of minutes.

 

that and it would allow to go to areas that have not been developed yet or construction structures that have not yet been completed

So your glorified elevator is the first thing you build. Build it like a ship. Float it to your desired location. Sink one end of it so it stands upright. Done.

 

There are many, many problems associated with having a city under water. Transportation is not one of them. In fact, it's trivial.

[dragonstar57]

Why would it be any more difficult than riding an elevator? We have skyscrapers that are a LOT taller than the 400' maximum depth for your planned cities. We have submarines that are longer than 400' as well. Conceptually, start with a submarine. Hollow it out. Stand it on end. Put an elevator in it. Have a door at the top that goes to some sort of dock for boats. Have a door at the bottom that goes to your city. Voila, you can travel from the surface to your city without getting wet in nothing more than a couple minutes.... Just like you can get to the 40th floor of any modern skyscraper in a couple of minutes.

 

 

So your glorified elevator is the first thing you build. Build it like a ship. Float it to your desired location. Sink one end of it so it stands upright. Done.

 

There are many, many problems associated with having a city under water. Transportation is not one of them. In fact, it's trivial.

that would make transportation difficult in rough surf and you wouldn't be able to go to go to undeveloped areas which would be useful sometimes

[InigoMontoya]

that would make transportation difficult in rough surf

Thunder storms make transportation difficult at airports today. Blizzards make driving impossible. In the history of man there has never been a transportation system that wasn't at the mercy of Mother Nature. Why does this one have to be any different?

 

and you wouldn't be able to go to go to undeveloped areas which would be useful sometimes

 

And yet, somehow James Cameron managed to go 7 miles down without a nuclear reactor. Baring a reactor, you'll have to do the majority of your traveling on the surface. But so what? As Mr. Cameron proved, it's NOT a big deal. WWII proved the utility of a submarine that spends the majority of it's time on or very near the surface. There really is no reason to stay deep. I mean, you act like it's a big deal to go up/down a whopping 400 feet when you're also talking about traveling 200 *miles*. Airplanes go up/down more than that on shorter trips and they don't even have the advantage of simple ballast tanks.

 

In other words... You're fishing for some sort of Buck Rogers type answer that will sound all cool and such. I get that. The problem is that you're trying to come up with a $50 solution to a $5 problem.

Edited April 20, 2012 by InigoMontoya

[CaptainPanic]

Why do you have to travel underwater? Just because your city is underwater doesn't mean you can't base your transportation system on the surface. I mean, last time I checked I live on land but think nothing of flying through the air to get to another location. Why couldn't your transportation system merely include a glorified elevator that gets you too/from the surface whereupon you take a plain ol' boat to [other location]?

Good point. +1

 

However... since we already started the thread with the assumption that people would want to live under water (rather than on the water), I don't see why we don't just answer the question.

 

A 200 mile action radius is nothing to a submarine. Since weight is hardly an issue, you can fill your sub with battery packs, and charge them at your underwater home with off shore wind power (or if there is a strong current/waves, some tidal power). Seems trivial to me.

 

But so far, there are probably thousands of examples of people living on the water (just google for house boats), and almost no examples of people living under water. Likewise, there are many examples of people traveling on the water, and very few of people traveling under water.

 

So, I think that the problem of powering a sub can be solved easily, I don't see why you are trying to solve it?

[swansont]

If you build a city underwater, and assume that's technologically feasible, I don't see why surface transportation is required at all. A subway — an underwater train tube — would not be a problem. You aren't going to be that far from the coast, anyway.

 

Submarine travel still gives you the issue of docking so you can get from one to the other. Underground/under-surface travel removes you from the effects of surface weather to some extent. Underground until you reach some reasonable depth, and then along the ocean floor.

[Dekan]

Getting back to Dragonstar57's OP on best methods of underwater propulsion - wouldn't trained animals such as dolphins and whales, be a good solution. These animals are naturally adapted to a subaquatic environment. And are well-muscled and strong. So they would be ideal for towing a human over long distances under the sea.

 

In the same way, that horses were used to transport humans across land in the past. A horse can carry a rider very conveniently. As exemplified by the US "Wild West", when a horse provided a universal method of individual personal transport. For more than one person, horses were grouped in fours, then used to pull a vehicle, such as a stagecoach.

 

So under the sea, a trained dolphin could be like a horse. And 4 dolphins could pull an underwater coach. And for heavy transport, a trained blue-whale could pull the same load as a land lorry or truck!

 

The only problem is - are dolphins and whales as dumb as horses?

[dragonstar57]

you guys are assuming an Atlantis dome when that might not be the case or even if it is the case it there might be dwellings not part of the main structure and would only be able to be gotten to either by a an expensive elevator or a sub and I would guess that they would be approximately equal to a sub in cost.

I think the sub is a better idea because of the versatility provided it can go places that are not set up with elevators although for many things that would work.

ntm that having a multitude of elevator shafts extending from the seabed might be a hazard to boats.

ps. gen submarine city discussion here:http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/65898-underwatter-city/

Edited April 20, 2012 by dragonstar57

[Enthalpy]

Swede and German submarines do use fuels cells, yes. Said to navigate over 2 weeks under water, which is enough for a military attack, making nuclear reactors less necessary.