Governments and scientific organizations around the world built more than 65 underwater habitats, beginning in the 1960's to study the physiological processes and limits of breathing gases under pressure as well as for research in marine biology.ii
1962_ The first was Jacques Cousteau's Conshelf I, II and III (Continental Shelf Station). Though the missions never reached their proposed potential of 900 feet there was successful research conducted on humans ability to live and work in underwater environments at a depth of near 300 feet. These expeditions also did much to publicize oceanographic research and usher in an age of ocean conservation through building public awareness.
1964_ "SeaLab I, II and III were experimental underwater habitats developed by the United States navy to prove the viability of saturation diving and humans living in isolation for extended periods of time. The knowledge gained from the SEALAB expeditions helped advance the science of deep sea diving and rescue, and contributed to the understanding of the psychological and physiological strains humans can endure."iii Interestingly the third SeaLab mission was sabotaged from within and though the Lab was retrieved it was later scrapped.
iv
1966_ The HydroLab project was in part funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). Hydrolab could house 4 people. Though it only operated for four years but was thoroughly used conducting about 180 missions; 100 missions in the Bahamas during the early to mid 1970s, and 80 missions in St. Croix. The laboratory was decommissioned in 1985.
v
1969_ Tektite I and II became the first underwater research laboratories dedicated to ecological studies. The constructed by General Electric and funded by NASA.
1986_ Aquarius is the only undersea laboratory still functioning and is the only permanent underwater environment in the world. Located in the Florida Keys at the base of a coral reef in 62 feet of water. Aquarius houses sophisticated lab equipment and computers, enabling scientists to perform research and process samples without leaving the underwater facility.
One researcher writes of his experience in Aquarius:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature4/fulltext.html
i Koblick, Miller. Living and Working in the Sea. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc., 1984. 33.
ii <http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature4/fulltext.html>
iii <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEALAB_%28US_Navy%29>
iv SeaLab III
v HydroLab
2 comments:
OK, Neight-
Good stuff recently posted....though I note that, except for the Florida Keys, every eg is mobile (and so more a piece of machinery than a piece of "architecture") and even your fine first quote about viewing from above talks about walking thru a forest, not staying in one place, hanging from a tree limb. And so, I do wonder, is it a question of BOTH- that there is clearly the permanent armature that anchors your project (quite literally meant) and then, from it, away from it, the moveable parts. Are you designing the underwater equivalent of both a ship and a dock, an airplane and a airport terminal.
That said, well, there was not much to be said about last Wednesday night- no progress, no development, just more voluptuous coral shots. Now that the juries are done, I assume you'll get rolling.
And I really do want everyone to actively post both text and images on this blog well in advance of our Monday night meetings, so that it can be accessed and digested by all- fellow students and advisors. We need to better manage these evening meetings, and trying to be articulate, interested and awake from 6-10pm is no decent format. We all have to be better prepared to keep these sessions more succinct. jp
Nate,
I don't know the base in the channel, but i think you should be able to google it it was an anti-aircraft emplacement from WWII.
Nate, the thing that conerns me most about your thesis sentences just like this one:
"more interesting is the idea of nuclear submarine"
You want to design a nuclear submarine?
I just see this process going in an un-architectural direction.
It's designing a presssure vessel for underwater - aka a submarine
The program is a scientific research station, but the catch phrase for it is that since "it's going somewhere where we've never gone before it will find new things we can't even imagine"
The details are redesigns of whatever you can find from naval and sea-faring information.
Here are my concerns:
Number one:
Bearing in mind that you are a very talented architectural student, I think you deserve a thesis which is very in depth, one which you can really study yourself, the way you work and how you put architecture together.
I think you deserve to have a thesis process and a jury from which you can get as much insight in to the process, design and development of that as possible, i.e. something that we can unleash on a group of really good architects that will really cause them to have a discussion, a deep discusison about architecture design and process.
That's the gist of what i get from your opening statement.
Here's where you muddy the water (pardon the pun).
In order to be "completely new" we have to uproot ourselves from everything we've ever known and goo deep into the sea.
ok but why? the answer is NOT 'because we've never done it before' there is needs to be theere HAS TO BE a deep theoretical reasoned response to why you are making this design decision - why? because your atalented student and you can answer that question.
I also fear that instead of having a conversation that delves into theheart of architecture and why it is we do the things we do and what happens when we turn it on our side, instead we will be having comments about the believablility of the project, how well you've engineered the NAte nuclear submarine, that we will spend our time seeing how well you can re-invent the wheel instead of looking into the theoretical, emotional, and idealistic reasons to turn architecture on its head.
WE're going to spend thesis talking about ship design, instead of design.
AND ontop of this since we're talking about architecture and not ship design, and since we've removed architecture so far from its base, you will have effectively removed enough context and precidence and common knowledge from the discussion that the discussion will be limited by everyone's lack of experience with the material.
I mean i tried to read that study on oil rigs, but it's so dry i had trouble staying interested.
I think that this underwater research station is going to turn into a very well designed underwater research station that national geographic will send their photographers to to take some pretty pictures, another scientist will write some papers from it and that's it. And how is this going to affect the realm of space as we know it? america will look at the pictures as they sit in thier bathrooms, and then forget about it with the next month's issue of pictures of polar bears. And thesis advisors will get bored trying to understand what the scientist was trying to write.
And your jury will be limited to talking about how sexy the images your images either are or aren't.
And it should get more attention than that.
Ok you've identified a problem - there are 100's of oil rigs sitting doing nothing. How do you make a MEANINGFUL thesis out of it.
The instinctual answer is an underwater research facility. BUt it's not a thesis, it's a diversion. For a guy with the skill that you have it is not a challenging topic. You could finish this project in the time we have left this semester.
If you still don't believe me look back at last year's class - Emmanuel Gee and Dustin, two interesting projects sure, but in the vast scheme of projects all they were were rafts and coffee bars. They were one off experiements. ONE LINERS
They had so much study they got nominated for the thesis award. but they never even made it past the first round of voting!
why?
because when you looked into the "big reason" behind why they existed - there wasn't one, Dustin's raft was because there used to be an island....but it didn't progress more beyond that.
and Gee's was just because he could do it that way.
There's no longterm ramifications in those projects.
They were just damn sexy.
YOU CAN DO A BETTER THESIS THAN THAT.
YOU CAN TAKE ON THIS ISSUE
YOU CAN MAKE A MEANINFUL SPACE
YOU CAN GENERATE A LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION
YOU CAN GET SOME ARCHITECTS EXCITED ENOUGH TO ARGUE WITH EACH OTHER OVER THIER IDEALS AT YOUR JURY
and that my friend will deeply affect and move this architectural world we live in, that will turn it on it's side.
but you gotta step up and give me more than just cool images.
I want a theoretical, poetic, meaning ful discussion.
I'm sorry but i don't believe you yet.
-Andrew
nathan scrivo wrote:
>andrew,
>
>just got your email, i had emailed you early in the week
>with no repsonse but i see now it was an incorrect
>address... anyways i was wondering firstly what the name of
>those water fortresses in the english channel was. i've
>researched them before but more interesting is the idea of
>nuclear submarine, since mobility is such a large factor in
>this environment, something we can't do on land (as easily)
>with buildings, and form is really driven by a dynamic
>process and brings up new ideas for land based
>architecture... anyways this is the next post i'm working on.
>
>
>secondly you said you had oil platform images you could
>share?
>
>lastly i now have some very good resources for technical
>data, materials, even details of constructing underwater
>habitats. as with a lot of technical data about the
>structure of the platforms themselves, part of the reason i
>had nothing to discuss last week is that i was gathering
>this type of information but i'm not sure if it needs
>presentation at least at this point, and how far are we to
>go into design? i'm getting mixed signals from our
>conversations with the JAL group and thesis prep...
>
>_nate
>
>
>
>
Post a Comment