Invest more money into ocean exploration...

[bvalen]

I have to conduct an interview with someone who is able to answer questions (30) about "why we should invest more money into ocean exploration rather than space?" I am NOT a professional in the field, but I have to interview someone who is educated in the subject. I guess you can message me your replies so it's not to cluttered in here.

*Please, do not cut and paste answers into my questions from different sources. If you can't answer it just specify. Just give the answers you know.*
I would appreciate any feedback you have to offer.



Question: "How we should invest more money on Ocean Exploration"
These (pretty simple) questions are me interviewing you on “how we should invest more money into ocean exploration” NASA (23.7 billion) vs. NOAA (3.8 billion)

1. What got you interested in the field, which is related somewhat to the ocean?
2. How many years have you researched or been educated about the field?
3. Are you involved in any non-profit organizations that have to do with the ocean or have done any projects involving the ocean?
4. What is it that you enjoy about the vast ocean?
5. Do you know what percent of species could be undiscovered and hiding in the depths of the ocean?
6. Approximately, how much of the Earth is covered by water?
7. Do you believe we should invest more money into exploring the vast ocean rather than space?
8. Why do you believe ocean exploration has been put on the back burner for so long?
9. How much would you estimate ocean exploration in a whole would cost?
10. Why do you believe the NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million in 2013, while the NASA’s exploration budget was 3.8 billion?
11. Where do you believe we would be today if we had invested as much money in ocean exploration rather than space exploration?
12. Do you believe we should ignore space all together and stick to what we have here on Earth (Ocean)?
13. Do you believe space exploration is a waste of money?
14. Do you believe we have only explored less than five percent of ocean?
15. Do you believe more exploration of the ocean could lead to scientific breakthroughs in the medical field, i.e., cure for some type of disease?
16. If NOT, what benefits do you think the ocean holds?
17. Do you believe the Ocean is inhabitable?
18. Do you believe Space is inhabitable?
19. Do you believe there are any benefits of space exploration?
20. If so, what are the some benefits (your opinion)
21. Do you believe that the ocean and space are similar and that they hold many secrets, or that the ocean is nothing but vast emptiness?
22. What do you believe is holding back the funding of ocean exploration (NOAA)?
23. Do you believe we have found everything we need to in regards to ocean exploration?
24. Do you believe there has been enough “space discoveries,” to validate why they have invested more time into space oppose to ocean exploration?
25. Do you believe that ocean exploration would just cost too much (creating new technologies) when it came to the bottom of it?
26. Do you believe that pollution has ruined any chances of us ever getting the full benefits of ocean exploration?
27. Do you believe ocean exploration could give us a better insight on phenomena’s like earthquakes and global warming (if you believe in that theory)?
28. What do you think we could do to start funding more money into ocean exploration?
29. Should there be more concern on the vast amounts of ocean we have not explored?
30. Last question, do you see a BIG and heavily funded expedition of the ocean in our near future?

Edited September 20, 2013 by bvalen

[Acme]

I think it is a mistake to associate ocean research in a comparative manner to NASA or any other research field. It should be enough to focus on the merits of ocean research alone, especially if the goal is to convince lawmakers to spend more. Negatively portraying other research that some lawmakers favor/champion will lose them as an audience and lose their vote in the bargain.

Edited September 21, 2013 by Acme

[CaptainPanic]

I would add a few specific questions about:

- Marine life

- Climate

- Oil & gas

[EdEarl]

I think oceanographic research funding is minimal in some areas, especially the study of marine life. However, huge sums are being spent to discover suboceanic oil and gas.

 

One should be careful of wishes. Suppose additional funding discovered a previously unknown marine fishery. One must assume that commercial fishing companies would immediately begin to rape that previously unknown fishery.

 

While additional research may give insight into steps necessary to help fisheries recover and maximize ocean production, can effective policing be imposed? Pirates threaten vessels in parts of the world, many places are not patrolled and commercial fisherman can do as they please.

 

Comparing the $ spent for oceanic vs space research is not in any way a fair comparison of scientific results. Exploring space, whether from an observatory, by robotic vehicle, or manned probe is far more expensive than exploring the oceans. Compare, For example, the costs of the Tara Oceans research and that of the SKA:

 

DUBLIN—A scientific sailing trip around the world has shed new light on the vast biodiversity in the world's oceans. The expedition, called Tara Oceans, has yielded about 1.5 million different plankton taxa, based on an initial preliminary analysis of samples. Scientists will spend years analyzing the catch, Tara Oceans co-director Eric Karsenti said here today at the Euroscience Open Forum, a biennial science and policy meeting.

 

The Tara, a 36-meter-tall research schooner, returned to Lorient, France, on 31 March after a 938-day trip. Its mission was to help understand the evolution and ecology of plankton, roughly defined as anything that's small and floating in the ocean—including viruses, bacteria, archaea, protists, metazoans, and even fish larvae. Although plankton makes up the bulk of the oceans' biomass, its biogeography and the structure of its ecosystems are an "almost virgin field," Karsenti said.

 

 

The Square Kilometre Array will be the world’s largest and most sensitive radio telescope.

A global science and engineering project is underway to build the telescope which will address fundamental unanswered questions about our Universe.

 

Or, compare the cost of the SKA and one of the more expensive deep sea explorations, the Deepsea Challenger:

 

We know less about the deepest points on our planet than we do about the surface of Mars. The DEEPSEA CHALLENGE team is dedicated to advancing the world’s understanding of our ocean’s vast range of biological and geological phenomena. The historic expedition to the Mariana Trench’s lowest point, the Challenger Deep, which lies 6.83 miles (10.99 kilometers) below the ocean surface, was the first extensive scientific exploration in a manned submersible of the deepest spot on Earth. On March 26, 2012, James Cameron successfully piloted the DEEPSEA CHALLENGER—outfitted for scientific exploration—to the ocean's deepest point, where he collected samples and documented the experience in the high-resolution 3-D for which he's known globally.

 

Moreover, consider the number of amateur astronomers, who build their own telescopes and observatories in their back yard, and spend countless nights looking at the stars. Now, compare that number of amateur astronomers to the number of amateur oceanographers. A search of "amateur oceanographers" resulted in this hit:

 

 

Visit a local aquarium with your Special Horizons group and learn about the wild things in our oceans. We will also visit the beach and explore tide pools.

 

Whereas, a search for "amateur astronomer," resulted in thousands of hits, with many local clubs, magazines, and an industry that sells equipment to these amateurs.

 

The expedition of the Tara Oceans, illustrates that if amateur oceanographers were challenged and guided by professionals, than local individuals (amateurs) with little funding could collect samples of marine organisms around the world and make them available for study to local universities, and in some cases the amateurs could do some of the research themselves.

 

I'm not sure why astronomy and archeology have many amateurs/volunteers helping to advance these sciences; whereas, other sciences, including oceanography, do not. Is this anomaly is indicative of funding differences between ocean research and space research?

 

Pure research can result in discoveries that are unexpected and sometimes have hugely beneficial consequences, which is a good argument for additional funding for additional money for undersea research, but it often fails to convince politicians, the public, and corporations. It is true, that something about space captures the imagination of people, and I believe at one time people had the same feeling for the sea. What has changed?