Technically he will die someday, and when he does, his channel will become inactive and youtube will delete all of his content within 2 years. We only have until december of this year to hunt down inactive channels and download their content before its gone forever.
I was a technician on the Aquarius habitat located at Couch Reef in Tavernier, FL for 5 years. You just barely scratched the surface of the problems living underwater for weeks at a time. Logistics is a nightmare to say the least. Great video though for the history and future of living underwater.
omg, that merman Simon graphic in the end-credits was a hilarious surprise haha! ^_^ On topic tho, I'm genuinely surprised that more effort hasn't gone into oceanic settlements. As China's island-building (and, to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia's commercial island building) has shown, it's a fairly simple way to artificially inflate your borders, create usable territory, or just extend your military's reach. Even some of the surface-oriented sea-steading proposals (that are FAR less damaging to the local ecosystems than dumping tons of stuff to build an island) could go a long way to alleviating the impact of sea-level rise that's already threatening several island nations.
I find myself being reminded of the sci-fi TV show, "Seaquest DSV" -- they had some large undersea colonies and outposts. Although I doubt anything like that could or would be built, any time soon, it's a cool concept.
Whenever underwater habitats are mentioned, I automatically think of SeaQuest! It was my favorite show in the 90s (RIP Jonathan Brandis) and it inspired me to pursue oceanography...at least until realizing it was a career completely at odds with my debilitating seasickness. I studied ancient and medieval history instead, which didn't require an endless supply of seasick meds!
You don't necessarily need to have the same inside as outside. Submarines and deep sea submersibles have a 1 ATM inside pressure. Yes, it makes the engineering of building the habitat more difficult, but it's doable, and makes a lot of other things much easier.
Being a child in the 70s, I was fascinated by Jacques Cousteau, and all the futuristic publications of the time foresaw undersea habitats and cities. Now we're hearing the same predictions about Mars,.... and well, we've heard it all before. Being able to do something, and scaling it up are very different things.
@@MyKharli Indeed, we're getting people talking about Moonbases and tourism, and well no. It's always going to be technically difficult, and very expensive, and never mass market but people love to hype these things up.
It occurs to me that there is a third alternative beyond just space or underwater, and that is underground - we definitely have a lot of ground to go under! It's more accessible than underwater, more maintainable than underwater, much safer than underwater (but not entirely without risks if you count cave-ins), no adjustment is needed when coming back above ground (apart from getting used to daylight I guess), it's relatively easy to expand the habitat, and we already have all the equipment needed to construct such habitats. Heat and drinkable water is already there too. Plus there are already hundreds of caves around the world that could be utilised if drilling/excavating isn't preferred. Human cultures have lived underground before, and we could do it again. Only better.
Actually pressure is still a problem, but only if you go really deep (500m below ground), because the air pressure difference is enough to cause harm (don't ask me what or how), and I only know that because a coal miner wrote how he and his crew almost died because a newcomer had a panic attack in the decompression chamber and tried opening the door
But you can use the tides to generate energy in underwater and doesnt really work underground. My understanding of mines also suggests that the dust created in tunneling/your cave expansions is highly explosive and lastly we started out with the problem that real estate is shrinking because of global warming so lots of caves are going to flood too (rising tides and floods)...
@@Lodrik18 I agree that there is energy from currents underwater, but probably far more energy within the ground. Some caves would doubtless lie below some flood levels, but many wouldn't. The problem with living underwater is it's complicated to get back to the surface (limited space on vehicles, decompression etc.), whereas going back to the surface from living underground is just a matter of walking.
Living ON TOP of the water is a more feasible concept, and not even mentioned. Such structures could easily contain underwater areas also, and no need for increased pressure if all areas are open or vented to the earths atmosphere. Pretty much like building on land, except some cool views at lower levels, certainly better than underground views!
This is a cool video, didn't know about that crazy spiral thing 1:49 graphic shows "a symbol cylindrical design" should be simple 2:21 Simon mispronounces 3 as 2 3:51 Simon says it's 2013 in 2023 or the upload schedule for this channel that didn't exist a decade ago is crazy
While I'm personally far more interested in the possibility of space as a Sci-fi fan... I think the idea of building underwater is a good one! I mean... an underwater city has the potential to give us a LOT of space since it could theoretically be built high enough to poke out of the water. Unfortunately... as we're just squishy little meat bags... it's a bit of a problem.
As a person who believe that intelligent life exists in space somewhere other than earth, I find it to be almost as (or maybe more so) likely that intelligent life exists "underwater". 3/4 of the earth is basically unexplored, and it is teaming with life that has yet to be discovered. Because I believe intelligent life exists in space (where I see no proof of any life), I have to believe that intelligent life is underwater on a planet where intelligent life exists on dry land. Intelligent life came from the sea, from what I've been taught. UFO's seem attracted to the sea (yes, I went there, the most credible ufo sighting was seen hovering over the ocean seemingly communicating with something underwater (the tic tac video that 4 highly trained navy pilots all witnessed from two different planes)). No coincidence the military has renamed UFO's to UAP's. Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. The military is using their verbage to include underwater UFO's. They aren't flying, they're swimming. UFO is obsolete in that case. F stands for flying.
@@cripplious Excuse me... space stations....MIR, ISS, etc. Real.There are two up there right now. Channels and tracking apps dedicated to them. There have been space stations since late last century. 🙄
One thing you failed to point out is that under sufficient pressure oxygen not only becomes more flammable but also becomes literally toxic to the human body after about 0.5 bar of partial pressure. This is entirely separate from and in addition to nitrogen narcosis.
I used to live on a submarine while being in the Navy. We did have have fire in the way of a lighter for smoking cigarettes and cigars. The air onboard is the same mixture as on land with nitrogen and other trace gases. My submariner brothers and sister's have been living underwater longer than a 100 days at a time as well during deployment.
@@drg9812 Maybe it should have been discussed. The topic was about underwater dwellings, so if a submarine can dive so deep with only one atmosphere inside and not be crushed, why can't we make a permanent structure below 10 meters?
@@chitlitlah Its not that you can't, it is just riskier. Poke a hole in the side of one of the discussed habitats and you could stop the water from coming in with your finger and no effort. Do the same on one of the navy subs? ... good luck with that Oh I should mention; I'm talking about the enclosed habitats, aka the ones that actually exist - not the hypothesized multibillion dollar "Spiral" - that one would be ~1 atmo all the way down
@@chitlitlahSubmarines live with the risk of implosion because they are very useful as warships. As the Ocean Gate accident a few weeks ago demonstrates, putting civilians into an environment where implosion is a constant hazard is not trivial. Especially when all it takes is one idiot to kill everyone inside by damaging the structure.
I think it will ultimately come down to costs and risks... artificial islands and floating cities are currently cheaper and carry fewer risk of fatalities. If you are underwater and your home/colony or whatever springs a leak (or worse, implodes if it is deep enough), your odds of survival are much lower than if you are somewhere on the surface.
Very cool! There is still plenty of room in rural areas (we mostly live in massive cities). The reason space is so appealing is to explore and become interplanetary as a species.
Trouble is that movement of rural polulation into cities is for a wide range of reasons, and doing the communist thing of restricting such population movement (all the while also demanding national borders be abolished) doesn't work, any more than does their economic system.
I think building under the ocean, at pressure, is harder than building a Moon base. If we did this, and took time not to upset any coral reefs etc, I think it would be invaluable experience for colonising other worlds.
And I think the true colonisation of other worlds will be spearheaded by the mining industry. While trying to make any new world look like prime real estate.
@@RCAvhstape I’ll agree with the pressures, to a point. But nothing we have sent has been able to adequately protect against cosmic radiation like earths atmosphere and magnetic field. Every astronaut experiences atrophy and a loss in bone mass, plus experiences tracers in their vision from highly accelerated particles. This is why, although ridiculously toxic, Venus is better to colonize than Mars. I’d be curious about increased medical conditions of long term oceanic life, like spinal decompression and other issues. Honestly I feel the ultimate conclusion is we take for granted how well adapted we are for the particular conditions we live in and the lack of appreciation most of humanity has for our habitat.
So wouldn't this mean a great way to help Astronauts would be to keep them in a high pressure facility when they get back? like an under water rehab facility or above ground but high pressure?
As someone else noted in the comments, I also grew up in the 1970's, so spent some of my very impressionable early years watching the antics of Jacques Cousteau on tv. What a guy ... That has to be the reason I liked 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou' so much.
I believe that things we would learn from living under water would translate well to space colonization. And any emergency they are much more rescue possible than those on another planet
If we're talking about more space for humans to live, then that could just be solved by Simon's preliminary mention of buildings with a few bottom floors underwater and the rest of the building stretching above water. If humans started to build such housing into relatively shallow sea floors in coastal waters (say less than 50m deep) , that would provide living space without requiring the whole "living deep underwater" complexity. Cities could be modelled after places like Venice - but with basement floors that could be usable. In addition, you could probably build a connected community of small artificial floating islands to serve the same purpose (again, in relatively shallow waters not open sea though). For small, crowded countries, these coastal extensions would be good options to increase living space without having to build artificial islands or reclaim land. How big you could build such buildings is unknown though. Most likely, using the shallows in this way and advancing construction for use in water will be necessary before anyone actually builds deep underwater (if they decide it's worth it).
There's land that was sea floor in the past (many coastal areas have those), and this is a much more efficient way to get more land (it can even be used for agriculture). Both solutions - getting land from the sea and putting buildings off-shore in shallow waters - come with their respective problems, especially in times of global warming. Both are expensive. And don't underestimate the corrosion problems salt water does pose to the buildings standing in salt water.
There's no need to build in water, just build tall buildings on land. I'm not even talking about going after height records, just build normal, tall buildings in moderately sized cities. In America, urban sprawl is a real problem, instead of spreading out, if cities spread up, we could add a lot of living space without destroying more land to do so.
It's safer to build in deep waters, not shallow ones, if you are building a floating city. You need to think of it as a ship at sea, that can ride up and down and over waves. In shallow coastal waters, waves are more dangerous, as is storm surge. At best, your floating city would end up in pieces onshore if a hurricane or typhoon hit. At worst, it would be on the seafloor. Floating in deep waters means the structure would rise up and down with the waves - it would need to be built in sections, connected by flexible roads and walkways. You would have to build it to stand up the strongest storms the local will get, but you'd have to do it in shallow waters, too. Not to mention tsunamis, which when in deep water may only be a few feet high, but 50 or 100 feet tall when they hit the coast. The Dutch have built many floating buildings already, they kind of know that they probably don't have much choice about it, if sea level continues to rise. So far, they've built up to maybe 5 floors tall, but they are building them to fit into there existing cities - with a large enough base, you could build a skyscraper that floats. Many deep sea drilling platforms are as tall as skyscrapers - some float freely, some are anchored to the ocean floor.
The vast majority of land has almost no human population density. It is astronomically cheaper to build in South Dakota than it is to build underwater.
@@Kriss_L So you are okay with inviting all of the Pacific Islanders to move to SD? Or people from the Philippines or Japan? Cubans and Haitians too? Sea level rise won't affect the US as much as a lot of places - but island nations and places like the Netherlands will need to have their population relocated. Floating cities make sense for some parts of the world. We will need them if we want working ports - we just can't keep moving port infrastructure inland and digging new channels for the giant cargo ships. A floating port city, with a floating rail and road bridge to the mainland, will be needed at most US ports. Which also happen to be major cities.
I'm both a recreational scuba diver and an ROV (underwater robot) pilot, who has spent enough time as a visitor to sat diving chambers.. Live underwater? HELL NO!!!!
Honestly, it probably would. If it were truly a community, with kids and schools and stuff, learning to swim would be a Paramount requirement. Besides, swimming is fun and great exercise, but the risk of going outside to do so would be too great.
So how do these habitats deal with rising sea levels? I mean, ok, you build one 10 meters down, but as the sea levels rise would it not fail badly as pressure grows? And those that have a level on the surface of the sea would find that level slowly being overwhelmed as the sea rises.
Just took a Google search. If all the earth's ice caps melted, the oceans would rise by 60 to 80 meters. Or another 7 to 9 atmospheres of pressure. I mean that's quite a bit of pressure but you can free dive that with training. (It's around 40 meters/5 atm of pressure if your a casual diver.) You just need to make your structures strong enough to withstand that. Example. If your structure or sub is only suppose to go 200 meters, engineer it to survive an extra 100 meters. Never just do the bare minimum. That way if anything happens, it can withstand unforseen issues.
I would have liked to hear how big a city/town/village you could build with 28 billion dollars and how big of a population it would support for the purpose of comparing between the two habitat environments.
average cost of new construction is $150/sqft, with 28 billion that's 155,555 1200sqft houses. Obviously if you're building an entire new city it would be fewer because there would be the cost of building the infrastructure and some of that squarefootage would be commercial but you also ideally would not be building only single family homes so it would still be far more housing than this underwater city
No mention of buoyancy vs ballast weight. That's the single biggest factor and specifically what adds most to the cost. Each cubic foot of air is 64lbs positively buoyant. You need to not only add enough ballast to counteract that (making your structure neutrally buoyant) but 1.5x as much to securely emplace the habitat against storm currents, if it's in relatively shallow water. This adds up to dozens or hundreds of tons. The Soviet crew of the Chernomor habitat discovered this the hard way when a storm washed their home ashore, fatally decompressing them. This weight problem is the main reason habitats tend to be so cramped inside.
Water does make for a great radiation shield. If something happened like eg the Ozone layer got wiped out - then I could see this being beneficial... otherwise tho... no
An underwater habitat has to be at the same pressure as the water IF it has openings to the water. If it's sealed, it could be at sea level pressure or whatever. They usually run equal pressure for safety and practicality. But if we did some sort of open sea colony, it would make sense to have some of it at lower pressure.
What if we build the hull of the building strong enough to hold up to the delta pressure. Couldn’t you keep pressure inside the vessel lower than outside?
They should build an underwater skyrise with the top poking out, use oil rig tech. Glam it up with lights and cruise ship amenities and just park it somewhere unused, but calm and nice. Might work.
I am in love with the editing style of this channel, hats off completely, bravo. Simon, the editing alone has made this one of my favorite channels. (All of your channels top my list, needless to say lol).
The pressure inside and outside have to be the same … well NO. We can build 1 atmosphere structures in modest depths (100 meters) it’s just really hard, expensive, and fatal if something goes wrong. Submarines go over 100 meters with 1 atmosphere
Surprised you didn't mention the other major issue living underwater would have: whether or not the houses would be able to withstand underwater earthquakes or not (and other nearby natural disasters like say underwater volcanic eruptions) which would more or less lead to instant death if the house gains even the smallest crack (it'd of course lose air but also there's also the chance of something similar to possibly the entire thing collapsing nearly instantly if it's deep enough by the forces of the water trying to push through said crack thus widening it...and if said crack affects the pressure inside the house by making it lower than outside the house there'd be the chance of an implosion too I guess). And even if the house's structure isn't compromised if something happens to the water filtration system and you can't escape from the house to the surface dying of thirst/likely hunger too will be a huge risk factor to consider. With that said if people were able to iron out those issues it'd be interesting to see how we'd evolve in the long run (hundreds of thousands to millions of years...granted we'll all be dead)...would our bodies adapt to allow us to not only survive the higher pressure (that's very likely, would more or less make everyone living there more fantasy dwarf like (short and stock builds) so their bodies can withstand the pressure) but depending on how much we spend time out in the water I wonder if it'd cause said humans to develop the means to live underwater IN the water as well or not (develop something like gills or our lungs/respiratory system will become stronger to allow us to store air longer like undersea mammals such as whales/dolphins/seals/etc...maybe even gain webbing/fin like appendages on top of that so we more or less become mermaids/mermen).
The biggest issue imo with long term underwater dwellings is one shared by space exploration: you can't really just go outside, ever. Cabin fever would set in very quickly for a lot of people.
Depends on the advancement of suit technology and land to ocean acess as well as the method of apocalypse. i.e. natural disasters or global warming. There is likely some overlap but one is far worse than the other.
@@smoldogbigbobs I don't really consider being isolated in a diving suit _going outside_ , you're still just however many millimeters from total annihilation
@mikeymonkey1209 if the communities are set up like that spiral one, there would be a portion of the habitat above water. There could be parks and cafes and stuff up there for people to get out and get some sun and fresh air. Likewise, if there were some connection to the shore, either via a tunnel or a bridge, people could easily get on land.
If you are talking about building cities underwater, then people can come and go all the time from a city. Underwater it would be submersibles, rail tubes, boats moored above,etc. In a city there are lots of things to do. You wouldn't have to stay at home all the time.😊
I feel like most of these problems would be solved by being able to build something that is so strong, you wouldn't need to keep the same pressure as outside. I have no idea how much pressure the entire ocean would put on a building 100-200 meters down, guessing it's quite a lot, but materials and structural support techniques are getting better all the time so who knows. Then you would just need some elevators to the surface and for oxygen/food, and you're sorted. But tbh, there is so much land that is still uninhabited but just not used because it's not close to any towns/cities, it would be much cheaper to use this space first and improve transport/supply to cut down on delivery/commute times or just have purely remote jobs.
Living underwater is as ridiculous as living on the moon. Australia could become a tropical paradise if they'd dig canals with lakes from the ocean all throughout their dry interior. This would allow moisture to penetrate into the extreme heat and create new weather patterns of rain.
I think you should have stated up front that you were talking about structures that weren't pressurized and instead were relatively equal to the outside pressure. We have had submarine patrols that pushed 90+ days underwater with little or no issues for the crews. I think that we can have undersea habitats, but not where the inside pressure is equal to the outside pressure; to me, there seems to be too may risks involved.
Exactly. The whole part about the effects of the pressure on the body is moot when you keep the inside pressure close to the pressure at MSL which I pretty much can guarantee they did for the dude in the "lodge" in Florida. Where it does get interesting is for deep sea construction where workers are exposed to high pressure for several weeks before having to come back to the surface and decompress for several days.
@@Llyd_ApDicta Completely agree! For deep sea work, that would be different as I don't see taking the wife, Junior and Juniorette, and the dog down to 400m. ;-)
I remember listening to Dr Robert Ballard that underwater colony's should be a thing of the future. Start small and when perfected move to larger colony's
Nobody said the facility had to be pressurized. With open access to the surface (sort of like the inverse of a tall building), with entry from the surface and you descend down into the structure, you won't need to pressurize anything. The only issue is with that much air displacing water, it would be difficult to keep it under water... so the goal would be to displace as little water as possible, using the heaviest thinnest and strongest material possible, while maintaining as much space as possible within.
You know, there is a game series that poses that very question Simon, I believe it is called Bioshock. And besides a little flaw of being run by a madman, it mostly worked
Now we just need to convince 4,000 wealthy individuals to invest between 7 to 10 million dollars each and see how everything goes. Although it'd been better to do this before the Titan sub incident.
there are a number of imprecise statements here. For example, in terms of chemical reaction and breathing it is the partial pressure of O2 that is relevant. You could keep that partial pressure at 200mbar. The rest of the gases are just there to raise the pressure to ambient pressure so you can breathe.
My favorite part of Simon's channels are the little mistakes in his speaking that go unnoticed like "conolize" instead of "colonize" in the video's opening lol
I`ve been designing my underwater home for a while i just need money, going to consist of either concrete domed structures or carved rock domes, the only problem is finding decent locations. I am thinking some of the atolls in the pacific ocean. I am also designing military complexes ca[able of launching anything from subs, ships, to underwater hangars with pneumatically/fresh water supported runways which is a lot more difficult to design due to reasons.
Ive also been kicking around a neutrally buoyant habitat to combat that pesky high pressure, this would still require the vessel/habitat to be closed off to the outside to deal with the deep sea conditions (if you go into deep water) and that would be a better idea than bottom sea dwellings. you could have a convertible habitat but that beings complexity and invites issues.
The first picture of the above water part of the ocean spiral looked like the most 'promising' solution. You can just build a huge 'bucket' where you build your houses inside. You float this to some place in the ocean. weigh it down so the water comes near the rim. Then you chain it to the ocean floor. Then you remove the weights and the structure is hanging on the chains. You live under the water level, but without water above you, you don't have the pressurization issues. Alternatively, you can build a very big tube, and sink it upright onto the sea floor, then pump it empty and you can live on the bottom.
I feel like floating cities are fine and great until we consider natural disasters like hurricanes or tsunamis, even strong ocean storms could flood and threaten a bucket city's infrastructure
Suscribing to Simon's channels is like a never ending game of Whack-a-Mole.
Technically he will die someday, and when he does, his channel will become inactive and youtube will delete all of his content within 2 years. We only have until december of this year to hunt down inactive channels and download their content before its gone forever.
@@EmeraldEyesEsotericwtf you trying to download content from RUclips for?
Another one
@@braukwood925 Because the channels will be deleted and their content will be gone forever, dummy. How did I not make this clear to you?
@@braukwood925perseveration
Now the theme to Sealab 2021 is going to be stuck in my head for a week until I inevitably binge the show again.
but its a great show, so that should help
🎶That's where you'll find me🎵
In the seeeeeeeeaaaaaaa laaaaaaaaaab underneath the waater
Now I want an Adrian BarbuBot 😂
Great point but I love Sea Lab 2021 I might have to binge also
I was a technician on the Aquarius habitat located at Couch Reef in Tavernier, FL for 5 years. You just barely scratched the surface of the problems living underwater for weeks at a time. Logistics is a nightmare to say the least. Great video though for the history and future of living underwater.
Soooo. No IRL version of Subnautica then? 😢
omg, that merman Simon graphic in the end-credits was a hilarious surprise haha! ^_^
On topic tho, I'm genuinely surprised that more effort hasn't gone into oceanic settlements. As China's island-building (and, to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia's commercial island building) has shown, it's a fairly simple way to artificially inflate your borders, create usable territory, or just extend your military's reach. Even some of the surface-oriented sea-steading proposals (that are FAR less damaging to the local ecosystems than dumping tons of stuff to build an island) could go a long way to alleviating the impact of sea-level rise that's already threatening several island nations.
Subnautica taught me living under water could be a terrifying experience. Especially in areas with no light.
Simon as a Merman is the clip art I’ve been waiting for. 😂
I find myself being reminded of the sci-fi TV show, "Seaquest DSV" -- they had some large undersea colonies and outposts. Although I doubt anything like that could or would be built, any time soon, it's a cool concept.
Whenever underwater habitats are mentioned, I automatically think of SeaQuest! It was my favorite show in the 90s (RIP Jonathan Brandis) and it inspired me to pursue oceanography...at least until realizing it was a career completely at odds with my debilitating seasickness. I studied ancient and medieval history instead, which didn't require an endless supply of seasick meds!
Yes this is a fantasy channel now
I am reminded of seaquest dsv and gerry anderson stingray voyage to the bottom of the sea and sealab 2021 and rapture from bioshock
@@Cara-39i wonder what a seaquest dsv bioshock crossover would be like
You know if i ever gonna work on a submarine than i am gonna work on the seaquest dsv submarine
You don't necessarily need to have the same inside as outside. Submarines and deep sea submersibles have a 1 ATM inside pressure. Yes, it makes the engineering of building the habitat more difficult, but it's doable, and makes a lot of other things much easier.
If you don't blow your budget building the habitat into a big dumb corkscrew shape, it would be even more doable.
Being a child in the 70s, I was fascinated by Jacques Cousteau, and all the futuristic publications of the time foresaw undersea habitats and cities. Now we're hearing the same predictions about Mars,.... and well, we've heard it all before. Being able to do something, and scaling it up are very different things.
Even doing it at all is highly doubtful outside of an extremely expensive tiny scale ..and even then highly doubtful .
@@MyKharli Indeed, we're getting people talking about Moonbases and tourism, and well no. It's always going to be technically difficult, and very expensive, and never mass market but people love to hype these things up.
Mars is just another ridiculous lie and bad investment from the king of fools, Elon Musk.
@@engineeredlifeformWe will colonize Mars it is inevitable we just need to see if we can grow things with Mars "dirt".
@@shadowslayer9988 We already know we cannot grow things in Martian regolith.
It occurs to me that there is a third alternative beyond just space or underwater, and that is underground - we definitely have a lot of ground to go under! It's more accessible than underwater, more maintainable than underwater, much safer than underwater (but not entirely without risks if you count cave-ins), no adjustment is needed when coming back above ground (apart from getting used to daylight I guess), it's relatively easy to expand the habitat, and we already have all the equipment needed to construct such habitats. Heat and drinkable water is already there too. Plus there are already hundreds of caves around the world that could be utilised if drilling/excavating isn't preferred. Human cultures have lived underground before, and we could do it again. Only better.
Yes! And we could build cool hobbit homes.
Actually pressure is still a problem, but only if you go really deep (500m below ground), because the air pressure difference is enough to cause harm (don't ask me what or how), and I only know that because a coal miner wrote how he and his crew almost died because a newcomer had a panic attack in the decompression chamber and tried opening the door
But you can use the tides to generate energy in underwater and doesnt really work underground. My understanding of mines also suggests that the dust created in tunneling/your cave expansions is highly explosive and lastly we started out with the problem that real estate is shrinking because of global warming so lots of caves are going to flood too (rising tides and floods)...
@@Lodrik18 I agree that there is energy from currents underwater, but probably far more energy within the ground. Some caves would doubtless lie below some flood levels, but many wouldn't. The problem with living underwater is it's complicated to get back to the surface (limited space on vehicles, decompression etc.), whereas going back to the surface from living underground is just a matter of walking.
Lmfao bro forgot that earthquakes exist 🤣
Living ON TOP of the water is a more feasible concept, and not even mentioned.
Such structures could easily contain underwater areas also, and no need for increased pressure if all areas are open or vented to the earths atmosphere.
Pretty much like building on land, except some cool views at lower levels, certainly better than underground views!
Underwater house aren't affected by tsunamis :)
This is a cool video, didn't know about that crazy spiral thing
1:49 graphic shows "a symbol cylindrical design" should be simple
2:21 Simon mispronounces 3 as 2
3:51 Simon says it's 2013 in 2023 or the upload schedule for this channel that didn't exist a decade ago is crazy
While I'm personally far more interested in the possibility of space as a Sci-fi fan... I think the idea of building underwater is a good one!
I mean... an underwater city has the potential to give us a LOT of space since it could theoretically be built high enough to poke out of the water.
Unfortunately... as we're just squishy little meat bags... it's a bit of a problem.
living underwater is as sci-fi as living in space.
Would you kindly?
As a person who believe that intelligent life exists in space somewhere other than earth, I find it to be almost as (or maybe more so) likely that intelligent life exists "underwater".
3/4 of the earth is basically unexplored, and it is teaming with life that has yet to be discovered.
Because I believe intelligent life exists in space (where I see no proof of any life), I have to believe that intelligent life is underwater on a planet where intelligent life exists on dry land.
Intelligent life came from the sea, from what I've been taught.
UFO's seem attracted to the sea (yes, I went there, the most credible ufo sighting was seen hovering over the ocean seemingly communicating with something underwater (the tic tac video that 4 highly trained navy pilots all witnessed from two different planes)).
No coincidence the military has renamed UFO's to UAP's.
Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena. The military is using their verbage to include underwater UFO's. They aren't flying, they're swimming. UFO is obsolete in that case. F stands for flying.
Touch seaweed
@@cripplious Excuse me... space stations....MIR, ISS, etc. Real.There are two up there right now. Channels and tracking apps dedicated to them. There have been space stations since late last century. 🙄
One thing you failed to point out is that under sufficient pressure oxygen not only becomes more flammable but also becomes literally toxic to the human body after about 0.5 bar of partial pressure. This is entirely separate from and in addition to nitrogen narcosis.
I used to live on a submarine while being in the Navy. We did have have fire in the way of a lighter for smoking cigarettes and cigars. The air onboard is the same mixture as on land with nitrogen and other trace gases. My submariner brothers and sister's have been living underwater longer than a 100 days at a time as well during deployment.
I believe those vessels remain at 1 atmosphere pressure inside, which is not what was being discussed here
I'd rather be on a spacecraft than a submarine, and both make me claustrophobic
@@drg9812 Maybe it should have been discussed. The topic was about underwater dwellings, so if a submarine can dive so deep with only one atmosphere inside and not be crushed, why can't we make a permanent structure below 10 meters?
@@chitlitlah Its not that you can't, it is just riskier. Poke a hole in the side of one of the discussed habitats and you could stop the water from coming in with your finger and no effort. Do the same on one of the navy subs? ... good luck with that
Oh I should mention; I'm talking about the enclosed habitats, aka the ones that actually exist - not the hypothesized multibillion dollar "Spiral" - that one would be ~1 atmo all the way down
@@chitlitlahSubmarines live with the risk of implosion because they are very useful as warships. As the Ocean Gate accident a few weeks ago demonstrates, putting civilians into an environment where implosion is a constant hazard is not trivial. Especially when all it takes is one idiot to kill everyone inside by damaging the structure.
You're amazing Simon. I've been watching your videos for years and they just get better and more interesting.
I think it will ultimately come down to costs and risks... artificial islands and floating cities are currently cheaper and carry fewer risk of fatalities. If you are underwater and your home/colony or whatever springs a leak (or worse, implodes if it is deep enough), your odds of survival are much lower than if you are somewhere on the surface.
Who is old enough to remember the television series The Undersea World Of Jacques Cousteau, like me ? 🐟🐠📺😁
Simon Whistler son of Poseidon. 😁
The Whistlerverse is expanding underwater now.
It’s a full time job watching all the vids he puts out.
1:25 - Chapter 1 - 20 000 millimeters under the sea
5:50 - Chapter 2 - The almighty dollar
10:35 - Chapter 3 - Wrap up
If I'm going to live in a super-villain lair I think I'd prefer a tropical island volcano.
It’d be much safer if all our agriculture was moved underwater and the current agricultural fields were turned to Human habitats.
I'm imagining a Rapture type city. Hopefully it includes gene splicing for the fun of it
I'd also accept Simon as an Andrew Ryan type of leader
I cannot unsee the Simon merman. Thanks for that.
Very cool! There is still plenty of room in rural areas (we mostly live in massive cities).
The reason space is so appealing is to explore and become interplanetary as a species.
Trouble is that movement of rural polulation into cities is for a wide range of reasons, and doing the communist thing of restricting such population movement (all the while also demanding national borders be abolished) doesn't work, any more than does their economic system.
Really? I thought it was to get away from the lunatics that live here.
Rural areas suitable for living is also prime farmland. Can't have both
I think building under the ocean, at pressure, is harder than building a Moon base. If we did this, and took time not to upset any coral reefs etc, I think it would be invaluable experience for colonising other worlds.
And I think the true colonisation of other worlds will be spearheaded by the mining industry. While trying to make any new world look like prime real estate.
But those pesky cosmic rays… 😜
@@It-b-BlairCosmic rays are way easier to deal with than deep water pressure, and so is vacuum.
Do not worry , all the coral reefs will be dead and bleached well before stupid ideas get realized .
@@RCAvhstape I’ll agree with the pressures, to a point. But nothing we have sent has been able to adequately protect against cosmic radiation like earths atmosphere and magnetic field. Every astronaut experiences atrophy and a loss in bone mass, plus experiences tracers in their vision from highly accelerated particles. This is why, although ridiculously toxic, Venus is better to colonize than Mars.
I’d be curious about increased medical conditions of long term oceanic life, like spinal decompression and other issues. Honestly I feel the ultimate conclusion is we take for granted how well adapted we are for the particular conditions we live in and the lack of appreciation most of humanity has for our habitat.
I didn't realize I was subscribed to this Simon channel.
00:06:10
this is the important technical bit. the challenges in living under water
So wouldn't this mean a great way to help Astronauts would be to keep them in a high pressure facility when they get back? like an under water rehab facility or above ground but high pressure?
As someone else noted in the comments, I also grew up in the 1970's, so spent some of my very impressionable early years watching the antics of Jacques Cousteau on tv. What a guy ...
That has to be the reason I liked 'The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou' so much.
I believe that things we would learn from living under water would translate well to space colonization. And any emergency they are much more rescue possible than those on another planet
Even more Whistler?!? ❤
3:55 did Simon just casually time travel by 10 years?
If we're talking about more space for humans to live, then that could just be solved by Simon's preliminary mention of buildings with a few bottom floors underwater and the rest of the building stretching above water.
If humans started to build such housing into relatively shallow sea floors in coastal waters (say less than 50m deep) , that would provide living space without requiring the whole "living deep underwater" complexity. Cities could be modelled after places like Venice - but with basement floors that could be usable. In addition, you could probably build a connected community of small artificial floating islands to serve the same purpose (again, in relatively shallow waters not open sea though).
For small, crowded countries, these coastal extensions would be good options to increase living space without having to build artificial islands or reclaim land. How big you could build such buildings is unknown though.
Most likely, using the shallows in this way and advancing construction for use in water will be necessary before anyone actually builds deep underwater (if they decide it's worth it).
There's land that was sea floor in the past (many coastal areas have those), and this is a much more efficient way to get more land (it can even be used for agriculture). Both solutions - getting land from the sea and putting buildings off-shore in shallow waters - come with their respective problems, especially in times of global warming. Both are expensive. And don't underestimate the corrosion problems salt water does pose to the buildings standing in salt water.
There's no need to build in water, just build tall buildings on land. I'm not even talking about going after height records, just build normal, tall buildings in moderately sized cities. In America, urban sprawl is a real problem, instead of spreading out, if cities spread up, we could add a lot of living space without destroying more land to do so.
It's safer to build in deep waters, not shallow ones, if you are building a floating city. You need to think of it as a ship at sea, that can ride up and down and over waves. In shallow coastal waters, waves are more dangerous, as is storm surge. At best, your floating city would end up in pieces onshore if a hurricane or typhoon hit. At worst, it would be on the seafloor.
Floating in deep waters means the structure would rise up and down with the waves - it would need to be built in sections, connected by flexible roads and walkways. You would have to build it to stand up the strongest storms the local will get, but you'd have to do it in shallow waters, too. Not to mention tsunamis, which when in deep water may only be a few feet high, but 50 or 100 feet tall when they hit the coast.
The Dutch have built many floating buildings already, they kind of know that they probably don't have much choice about it, if sea level continues to rise. So far, they've built up to maybe 5 floors tall, but they are building them to fit into there existing cities - with a large enough base, you could build a skyscraper that floats. Many deep sea drilling platforms are as tall as skyscrapers - some float freely, some are anchored to the ocean floor.
The vast majority of land has almost no human population density. It is astronomically cheaper to build in South Dakota than it is to build underwater.
@@Kriss_L So you are okay with inviting all of the Pacific Islanders to move to SD? Or people from the Philippines or Japan? Cubans and Haitians too?
Sea level rise won't affect the US as much as a lot of places - but island nations and places like the Netherlands will need to have their population relocated.
Floating cities make sense for some parts of the world. We will need them if we want working ports - we just can't keep moving port infrastructure inland and digging new channels for the giant cargo ships.
A floating port city, with a floating rail and road bridge to the mainland, will be needed at most US ports. Which also happen to be major cities.
I'm both a recreational scuba diver and an ROV (underwater robot) pilot, who has spent enough time as a visitor to sat diving chambers..
Live underwater? HELL NO!!!!
That’s so awesome such a great unique video!
I'd happily live in an underwater house in an underwater suburban community, would it have a swimming pool?
Spongebob did it!
Honestly, it probably would. If it were truly a community, with kids and schools and stuff, learning to swim would be a Paramount requirement. Besides, swimming is fun and great exercise, but the risk of going outside to do so would be too great.
So how do these habitats deal with rising sea levels? I mean, ok, you build one 10 meters down, but as the sea levels rise would it not fail badly as pressure grows? And those that have a level on the surface of the sea would find that level slowly being overwhelmed as the sea rises.
Just took a Google search. If all the earth's ice caps melted, the oceans would rise by 60 to 80 meters. Or another 7 to 9 atmospheres of pressure.
I mean that's quite a bit of pressure but you can free dive that with training. (It's around 40 meters/5 atm of pressure if your a casual diver.) You just need to make your structures strong enough to withstand that.
Example. If your structure or sub is only suppose to go 200 meters, engineer it to survive an extra 100 meters. Never just do the bare minimum. That way if anything happens, it can withstand unforseen issues.
We don't say "A.T.M.s". We just say "atmospheres", which is what atm is an abbreviation for. It doesn't matter much, but it's distracting.
Those scuba divers can watch all they want.
If I made the effort to stay in an underwater habitat, you better believe im gonna bang in it.
I would have liked to hear how big a city/town/village you could build with 28 billion dollars and how big of a population it would support for the purpose of comparing between the two habitat environments.
average cost of new construction is $150/sqft, with 28 billion that's 155,555 1200sqft houses. Obviously if you're building an entire new city it would be fewer because there would be the cost of building the infrastructure and some of that squarefootage would be commercial but you also ideally would not be building only single family homes so it would still be far more housing than this underwater city
No mention of buoyancy vs ballast weight. That's the single biggest factor and specifically what adds most to the cost. Each cubic foot of air is 64lbs positively buoyant. You need to not only add enough ballast to counteract that (making your structure neutrally buoyant) but 1.5x as much to securely emplace the habitat against storm currents, if it's in relatively shallow water. This adds up to dozens or hundreds of tons. The Soviet crew of the Chernomor habitat discovered this the hard way when a storm washed their home ashore, fatally decompressing them. This weight problem is the main reason habitats tend to be so cramped inside.
11:28 love the ultra cursed image of Simon as a mermaid...
Water does make for a great radiation shield. If something happened like eg the Ozone layer got wiped out - then I could see this being beneficial... otherwise tho... no
It would be good practice for colonizing planets and moons that are covered in liquids (water, methane, etc).
Just bring plenty of vitamin D with you, I guess.
$28 Billion for an underwater habitat? That’s a better use than what I’ve seen comparable amounts of money spent on during the last year....👀👀
God I love opening youtube to a new Simon video
holy hell Simon how many channels are you behind or part of?
At least 14. More if you included older ones he's no longer hosting
An underwater habitat has to be at the same pressure as the water IF it has openings to the water. If it's sealed, it could be at sea level pressure or whatever. They usually run equal pressure for safety and practicality. But if we did some sort of open sea colony, it would make sense to have some of it at lower pressure.
Love the graphics
Simon as a merman. Too funny
What if we build the hull of the building strong enough to hold up to the delta pressure.
Couldn’t you keep pressure inside the vessel lower than outside?
They should build an underwater skyrise with the top poking out, use oil rig tech. Glam it up with lights and cruise ship amenities and just park it somewhere unused, but calm and nice. Might work.
I am in love with the editing style of this channel, hats off completely, bravo. Simon, the editing alone has made this one of my favorite channels. (All of your channels top my list, needless to say lol).
My son and I have dived at Jule's in Key Largo last year, it was an unbelievable experience.
Wow, another channel I had to sub too. I think we see him more often than his family does.
Goddamn Simon, how many different channels do you need?
Really early 😳 nows my chance!
I simp for your beard Simon!
Love the Whistle Boi Merman 🤣❤️
The pressure inside and outside have to be the same … well NO. We can build 1 atmosphere structures in modest depths (100 meters) it’s just really hard, expensive, and fatal if something goes wrong. Submarines go over 100 meters with 1 atmosphere
Surprised you didn't mention the other major issue living underwater would have: whether or not the houses would be able to withstand underwater earthquakes or not (and other nearby natural disasters like say underwater volcanic eruptions) which would more or less lead to instant death if the house gains even the smallest crack (it'd of course lose air but also there's also the chance of something similar to possibly the entire thing collapsing nearly instantly if it's deep enough by the forces of the water trying to push through said crack thus widening it...and if said crack affects the pressure inside the house by making it lower than outside the house there'd be the chance of an implosion too I guess). And even if the house's structure isn't compromised if something happens to the water filtration system and you can't escape from the house to the surface dying of thirst/likely hunger too will be a huge risk factor to consider.
With that said if people were able to iron out those issues it'd be interesting to see how we'd evolve in the long run (hundreds of thousands to millions of years...granted we'll all be dead)...would our bodies adapt to allow us to not only survive the higher pressure (that's very likely, would more or less make everyone living there more fantasy dwarf like (short and stock builds) so their bodies can withstand the pressure) but depending on how much we spend time out in the water I wonder if it'd cause said humans to develop the means to live underwater IN the water as well or not (develop something like gills or our lungs/respiratory system will become stronger to allow us to store air longer like undersea mammals such as whales/dolphins/seals/etc...maybe even gain webbing/fin like appendages on top of that so we more or less become mermaids/mermen).
The biggest issue imo with long term underwater dwellings is one shared by space exploration: you can't really just go outside, ever. Cabin fever would set in very quickly for a lot of people.
Depends on the advancement of suit technology and land to ocean acess as well as the method of apocalypse. i.e. natural disasters or global warming. There is likely some overlap but one is far worse than the other.
@@smoldogbigbobs I don't really consider being isolated in a diving suit _going outside_ , you're still just however many millimeters from total annihilation
@mikeymonkey1209 if the communities are set up like that spiral one, there would be a portion of the habitat above water. There could be parks and cafes and stuff up there for people to get out and get some sun and fresh air.
Likewise, if there were some connection to the shore, either via a tunnel or a bridge, people could easily get on land.
It doesn't affect people who pretty much live in their heads.
If you are talking about building cities underwater, then people can come and go all the time from a city. Underwater it would be submersibles, rail tubes, boats moored above,etc. In a city there are lots of things to do. You wouldn't have to stay at home all the time.😊
I feel like most of these problems would be solved by being able to build something that is so strong, you wouldn't need to keep the same pressure as outside.
I have no idea how much pressure the entire ocean would put on a building 100-200 meters down, guessing it's quite a lot, but materials and structural support techniques are getting better all the time so who knows.
Then you would just need some elevators to the surface and for oxygen/food, and you're sorted.
But tbh, there is so much land that is still uninhabited but just not used because it's not close to any towns/cities, it would be much cheaper to use this space first and improve transport/supply to cut down on delivery/commute times or just have purely remote jobs.
Very cool and informative video. But I just want to know how we can have a video all about undersea living without even making a nod to Rapture.
Holy crap how long has this channel been around?!? SIMON!!!
That's to Simon and team for recording this video 10 years in advance 😊
A new Simon Whistler channel? Sign me up
Living underwater is as ridiculous as living on the moon. Australia could become a tropical paradise if they'd dig canals with lakes from the ocean all throughout their dry interior. This would allow moisture to penetrate into the extreme heat and create new weather patterns of rain.
Yes!
Wait can't a underwater house be at 1 ATM as long it's structurally sound against implosion?
Good nuclear protection being underwater.
If you make a follow-up to this, about livin ON the Water, "Sea Orbiter" should be worth a Mention, as well as Stargate Atlantis
3:55 2013????
dude...just how many channels does simon have? It feels as if every other day I stumble upon a new one
"Beneath the water men will walk, will eat, will breathe, will even talk." -Victorian Prophecy of Mother Shipton before submarines were invented.
I think you should have stated up front that you were talking about structures that weren't pressurized and instead were relatively equal to the outside pressure. We have had submarine patrols that pushed 90+ days underwater with little or no issues for the crews. I think that we can have undersea habitats, but not where the inside pressure is equal to the outside pressure; to me, there seems to be too may risks involved.
Exactly. The whole part about the effects of the pressure on the body is moot when you keep the inside pressure close to the pressure at MSL which I pretty much can guarantee they did for the dude in the "lodge" in Florida. Where it does get interesting is for deep sea construction where workers are exposed to high pressure for several weeks before having to come back to the surface and decompress for several days.
@@Llyd_ApDicta Completely agree! For deep sea work, that would be different as I don't see taking the wife, Junior and Juniorette, and the dog down to 400m. ;-)
Should be half mile rings with slope ramp connectors.
I remember listening to Dr Robert Ballard that underwater colony's should be a thing of the future. Start small and when perfected move to larger colony's
It wasn't impossible to build a city under the ocean. It was impossible to build it anywhere else.
I'm going to need more animated Simon please! Actually, all of your channels (except Into the Shadows 😬) should now include animated Simon!
Holy smokes you're everywhere I'm this man is everywhere!
Nobody said the facility had to be pressurized.
With open access to the surface (sort of like the inverse of a tall building), with entry from the surface and you descend down into the structure, you won't need to pressurize anything. The only issue is with that much air displacing water, it would be difficult to keep it under water... so the goal would be to displace as little water as possible, using the heaviest thinnest and strongest material possible, while maintaining as much space as possible within.
You should do a video on the possibility to of the underwater city Rapture form the Bioshock video game series.
You know, there is a game series that poses that very question Simon, I believe it is called Bioshock. And besides a little flaw of being run by a madman, it mostly worked
Seems making a large underwater complex with open hatches to the surface would make more sense.
Oh ffs. Another channel? Don't get me wrong I'm excited but atleast make xplord have all your channels!
Wait... at 9:59, Simon basically says that we could house 4000 people underwater for half the cost of what Elon Musk spent on Twitter?
Simon the Merman was a good edit at the end 😂😂😂😂😂
Underneath the sealab, underneath the water!
Now we just need to convince 4,000 wealthy individuals to invest between 7 to 10 million dollars each and see how everything goes. Although it'd been better to do this before the Titan sub incident.
there are a number of imprecise statements here. For example, in terms of chemical reaction and breathing it is the partial pressure of O2 that is relevant. You could keep that partial pressure at 200mbar. The rest of the gases are just there to raise the pressure to ambient pressure so you can breathe.
Love that Simon/Mermaid photoshop at the end! Lol! Thank you editor or whoever created that!
Merman.
if we can't live under water, we can't live on Mars.
3:27 Simon! Where’s your regulator?!
2:36 Nothing but black water all around me, not knowing how far away the nearest predator is would just freak me out.
My favorite part of Simon's channels are the little mistakes in his speaking that go unnoticed like "conolize" instead of "colonize" in the video's opening lol
I feel like this is a surefire way to have someone capitalising on the need for air. "You havent paid your air bill"
Never heard that quote attributed to Mark Twain. It was Will Rogers I thought.
When did the channel name change?
I`ve been designing my underwater home for a while i just need money, going to consist of either concrete domed structures or carved rock domes, the only problem is finding decent locations. I am thinking some of the atolls in the pacific ocean. I am also designing military complexes ca[able of launching anything from subs, ships, to underwater hangars with pneumatically/fresh water supported runways which is a lot more difficult to design due to reasons.
Ive also been kicking around a neutrally buoyant habitat to combat that pesky high pressure, this would still require the vessel/habitat to be closed off to the outside to deal with the deep sea conditions (if you go into deep water) and that would be a better idea than bottom sea dwellings. you could have a convertible habitat but that beings complexity and invites issues.
The first picture of the above water part of the ocean spiral looked like the most 'promising' solution. You can just build a huge 'bucket' where you build your houses inside. You float this to some place in the ocean. weigh it down so the water comes near the rim. Then you chain it to the ocean floor. Then you remove the weights and the structure is hanging on the chains. You live under the water level, but without water above you, you don't have the pressurization issues.
Alternatively, you can build a very big tube, and sink it upright onto the sea floor, then pump it empty and you can live on the bottom.
But then, that is a lot like living in a floating city I guess. And in many ways, floating cities make a LOT more sense :P
I feel like floating cities are fine and great until we consider natural disasters like hurricanes or tsunamis, even strong ocean storms could flood and threaten a bucket city's infrastructure