Current Events > I wish more research would be focused on deep ocean rather than space...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Just imagine what kind of creatures or new resources might be down there, or even clues about early Earth
---

Yeah we've gotten more technology launching humans into space than fucking around in the ocean.
---

Space is no longer interesting
---

I'm afraid of the deep ocean. Like I think it's a phobia. I can barely play deep ocean levels in video games. I'm fine with a lake and pool, though.
---

I mean at least ocean exploration might have some purpose.

Putting stuff into orbit is pretty much the only practical reason for going into space.
---

DevsBro posted...

I mean at least ocean exploration might have some purpose.

Putting stuff into orbit is pretty much the only practical reason for going into space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies
---

And that's awesome.

They can continue to research these things without going to Mars.
---

I don't want to know what's down there honestly, probably some creepy af stuff lurking
---

ShinigamiSoul posted...

Space is no longer interesting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIC_8462852

They're two completely different fields of science, so why not both
---

DevsBro posted...

I mean at least ocean exploration might have some purpose.

Putting stuff into orbit is pretty much the only practical reason for going into space.

There's a lot of other reasons. Making humanity a multi-planetary species and resource extraction (like asteroid mining) is a good idea.
---

DevsBro posted...

And that's awesome.

They can continue to research these things without going to Mars.

No, they can't. What are you going to spin off of if you stop these types of boundary-pushing endeavors?
---

I wonder what the limitations are for deep sea exploration. I guess it's something I could read about. Like why aren't people constantly using that submarine that James Cameron took down to the Challenger Deep?
---

Because most of it is empty dark space.

Yes, that's true for space too but if we find something there, we can at least point a telescope at it
---

I suppose if we can find large deposits of supplies elsewhere that are worth 100x the cost of rocket fuel, plus the cost of the rocket itself, plus the R& D and training, and whose value is not linked to scarsity, then yes, there might be some value in it.

But what people refuse to realize is that launching a payload costs 10x the payload in fuel. 100x if the payload needs to be brought back to us. It's simply too uneconomical.

A space elevtor is a step in the right direction. If we get that going, we'll talk. Until then the only appeal is literally "who cares about *insert what spenditure of tax money would actually benefit you here* this is just like Star Trek!"
---

Wow, apparently the submarine that James Cameron used back in 2012 to reach the bottom of the Marina Trench or w/e caught on fire like a few years later when it was being shipped via truck to some ocean researchers or something, and it was badly damaged >_<
---

DevsBro posted...

I suppose if we can find large deposits of supplies elsewhere that are worth 100x the cost of rocket fuel, plus the cost of the rocket itself, plus the R& D and training, and whose value is not linked to scarsity, then yes, there might be some value in it.

But what people refuse to realize is that launching a payload costs 10x the payload in fuel. 100x if the payload needs to be brought back to us. It's simply too uneconomical.

A space elevtor is a step in the right direction. If we get that going, we'll talk. Until then the only appeal is literally "who cares about *insert what spenditure of tax money would actually benefit you here* this is just like Star Trek!"

You realize that there's a large body of research that doesn't give return on investment right away, right?
---

DevsBro posted...

But what people refuse to realize is that launching a payload costs 10x the payload in fuel. 100x if the payload needs to be brought back to us. It's simply too uneconomical.

So 1 gram of the substance retrieved needs to be worth at least 100 grams of the fuel? It doesn't seem that unreasonable, especially if the fuel is super cheap.
---

Sure.

The question is would sea exploration be preferable to space exploration, and my answer was at least sea might be practical.

I never meant to imply that space exploration was the only impractical research.
---

scar the 1 posted...

You realize that there's a large body of research that doesn't give return on investment right away, right?

Tbf, the majority of such research is basic science. Usually if an applied research project doesn't reach a successful application, i.e. generate an ROI, it is more or less a failure.

Though, I'm not too sure I would categorize space exploration as science to begin with, so I certainly don't have any grounding on its stance as basic or applied.
---

COVxy posted...

scar the 1 posted...

You realize that there's a large body of research that doesn't give return on investment right away, right?

Tbf, the majority of such research is basic science. Usually if an applied research project doesn't reach a successful application, i.e. generate an ROI, it is more or less a failure.

Though, I'm not too sure I would categorize space exploration as science to begin with, so I certainly don't have any grounding on its stance as basic or applied.

I would say it's a bit of both. Modern day space exploration consists solely of science missions, and more often than not they contribute a lot to basic science.
---

Like what? What basic science questions in astrophysics are being answered in manned space flights that can't be answered from earth or through probes?

Like, "we can use technology to launch ourselves to the moon" isn't a hypothesis.
---

Seems like a natural extension of drone technology would be automated deep ocean mapping and exploration.
---

There's more likely going to be useful resources in the ocean than in space.
---

DevsBro posted...

Sure.

The question is would sea exploration be preferable to space exploration, and my answer was at least sea might be practical.

I never meant to imply that space exploration was the only impractical research.

I don't see how sea would be much more practical than space. I think they are both very important. One area where sea may have the advantage is in natural resource extraction. I'm sure it's easier to get resources from the bottom of the ocean compared to space. Of course, the downsides are that the environmental damage actually matters, for one. In space, you don't have to worry about greenhouse gas emissions or habitat destruction.
---

COVxy posted...

What basic science questions in astrophysics are being answered in manned space flights that can't be answered from earth or through probes?

If we could get a manned flight to Mars we could answer a shitload of basic geological questions that we don't have time for with probes, because we could iterate 100x faster without the signal delay.

The Admiral posted...

Seems like a natural extension of drone technology would be automated deep ocean mapping and exploration.

I don't get why this isn't already a thing, given that the ocean is mainly open spaces and it doesn't seem like it would be hard to detect whether or not you're about to crash into a giant wall of rock or something with sonar.
---

Nothin down there but a bunch of weird looking fish
---

ShinigamiSoul posted...

Space is no longer interesting

It's literally the one thing that will keep our species from going extinct.
---

But the ocean is super boring most of the time. For those who explore the depths of the ocean. cools things are super rare, and you mostly just see muddy sea floor. And it is just as expensive to explore it, and it done at pretty slow speeds.
---

So 1 gram of the substance retrieved needs to be worth at least 100 grams of the fuel? It doesn't seem that unreasonable, especially if the fuel is super cheap.

Sure, if the rocket and crew are both massless. You can do a lot if you assume a spherical cow.
---

DevsBro posted...

You can do a lot if you assume a spherical cow.

Lol is that a reference to that Lawrence Krauss speech? I've seen that.
---

MJ_Max posted...

COVxy posted...

What basic science questions in astrophysics are being answered in manned space flights that can't be answered from earth or through probes?

If we could get a manned flight to Mars we could answer a shitload of basic geological questions that we don't have time for with probes, because we could iterate 100x faster without the signal delay.

It makes it easier, sort of (when you ignore all the complexity if getting a manned ship mars and just think about what happens when they get there), but does that really justify the expense, risk, and intrinsic harm of actually sending a manned craft to mars?

Not to mention, these sort of soil collection missions barely count as science by modern standards (Though would be perfectly comfortable in Darwin's time). If I were to write a grant application on the premise that I was collecting a bunch of data with the purpose being in-and-of-itself, it would never get funding, leaving reviewers to puzzle, 'what's the question being answered here?'
---

I don't see how sea would be much more practical than space. I think they are both very important. One area where sea may have the advantage is in natural resource extraction. I'm sure it's easier to get resources from the bottom of the ocean compared to space. Of course, the downsides are that the environmental damage actually matters, for one. In space, you don't have to worry about greenhouse gas emissions or habitat destruction.

I did say "might." But actually the environment on Earth is still a consideration with space travel. Those rockets have a whole lot of emissions even during a launch that lasts mere seconds.
---

blah blah 5% has been mapped.

Because its BORING. There is nothing amazing waiting to be discovered down there except more dumb fish. WHO CARES.
---

COVxy posted...

Like what? What basic science questions in astrophysics are being answered in manned space flights that can't be answered from earth or through probes?

I don't know that I implied that basic science questions in astrophysics were being addressed by manned space flights... Sorry if I gave that impression. Manned space flights would probably address a different spectrum of questions. But I guess if we set up research stations on Mars, Jupiter moons, Ceres, etc, there would be a lot of potential. That's a very far away future, though.
---

Other than a sleeping Cthulhu I don't see what's so important about investigating down there.
---

scar the 1 posted...

I don't know that I implied that basic science questions in astrophysics were being addressed by manned space flights... Sorry if I gave that impression.

Usually when people talk about space exploration, they specifically mean manned space crafts. At least in my experience. Simple misunderstanding.
---

Kolibri X posted...

Because its BORING. There is nothing amazing waiting to be discovered down there except more dumb fish. WHO CARES

Minerals man.
---

We should build a city at the bottom of the ocean that's covered in a dome and live there while global warming destroys the surface world
---

Elon Musk said we will get on mars by next decade. Ignore the naysayers
---

A deep sea structure has to be able to withstand pressures of 16000 atmospheres. A spacecraft only has withstand one atmosphere.
The lunar lander was essentially made of aluminum foil.

COVxy posted...

scar the 1 posted...

I don't know that I implied that basic science questions in astrophysics were being addressed by manned space flights... Sorry if I gave that impression.

Usually when people talk about space exploration, they specifically mean manned space crafts. At least in my experience. Simple misunderstanding.

That's how it's been viewed, traditionally. However with modern and future technology, space exploration becomes more and more about unmanned missions. It's already like that, but it will only increase.
---

Kolibri X posted...

blah blah 5% has been mapped.

Because its BORING. There is nothing amazing waiting to be discovered down there except more dumb fish. WHO CARES.

Sounds like you know exactly what's down there then. So no need to explore. This guy knows

comes down to funding, mostly (probably)

we need more ocean exploration funding
---

HaVeNII7 posted...

ShinigamiSoul posted...

Space is no longer interesting

It's literally the one thing that will keep our species from going extinct.

Nah
---

ShinigamiSoul posted...

HaVeNII7 posted...

ShinigamiSoul posted...

Space is no longer interesting

It's literally the one thing that will keep our species from going extinct.

Nah

Yeah. Earth is dying. We need to find a new planet to live on. It won't happen in our lifetime though
---

DevsBro posted...

I mean at least ocean exploration might have some purpose.

Putting stuff into orbit is pretty much the only practical reason for going into space.

You're joking right?

You are aware if we don't find a way to leave earth ASAP and colonize other planets our species is fucked right? Even if we miraculously solved the climate issue we'd still be fucked.

Space is where the future of our species is if we're to have a future at all.
---

slothica posted...

You are aware if we don't find a way to leave earth ASAP and colonize other planets our species is fucked right? Even if we miraculously solved the climate issue we'd still be fucked.

I don't think most population growth models in ecology predict such a thing.
---

COVxy posted...

slothica posted...

You are aware if we don't find a way to leave earth ASAP and colonize other planets our species is fucked right? Even if we miraculously solved the climate issue we'd still be fucked.

I don't think most population growth models in ecology predict such a thing.

The most effective population control ever, seems to be "civilization". Once a society advances enough, people just stop breeding, as seen with Japan and pretty much all of Europe, right now.

https://www.thoughtco.com/negative-population-growth-1435471