Why is Ocean Science still the poor relation ?

[studiot]

I have just been listening to a programme about burying carbon in the american Midwest or central China.

 

Why not the bottom of the sea?

 

This is, after all, where Nature buries it.

 

We have the International Space Station, and projected missions to Mars, but ocean bottom stations are still only available in Hollywood Scifi movies.

 

I have spent the last half century hearing about how much treasure is to be had at the bottom of the sea, yet we know proportionately more about the Solar system than the depths because we put proportionately more effort into space research than subsea research.

 

Why is theis?

 

Surely the payback would be greater for many centuries to come?

 

 

[swansont]

Not a very hospitable place, and not easy to get to, if you want to return.

[studiot]

Is Mars any better?

 

From what I can understand

 

$50 million is a lot of money in oceanographic research

 

$50 billion is a drop in the ocean of space research.

 

Edited November 23, 2015 by studiot

[Ophiolite]

Curiously, it may be because oceanographers don't make enough waves. Perhaps the tide will turn soon if current concerns don't leave us all at sea.

[swansont]

Is Mars any better?

 

From what I can understand

 

$50 million is a lot of money in oceanographic research

 

$50 billion is a drop in the ocean of space research.

 

 

NOAA's budget is more than $5 billion. NASA's is around $18 billion, so it's not 1000x bigger. Space is pretty big, and other countries study the ocean that don't have extensive space programs.

[zapatos]

Curiously, it may be because oceanographers don't make enough waves. Perhaps the tide will turn soon if current concerns don't leave us all at sea.

LOL!

[studiot]

 

NOAA's budget is more than $5 billion. NASA's is around $18 billion, so it's not 1000x bigger. Space is pretty big, and other countries study the ocean that don't have extensive space programs.

 

 

I'm glad to hear oceanograhic funding has increased.

Some of the Captain Cook's soundings are still on the on charts.

 

However I said space research, not NASA.

How much is spent by other organisations, telescopes, satellite coms companies, universities and so on and so forth?

 

Yes some other countries have oceanographic budgets that you appear to count in, thogh Mongolia's is pretty small.

Yet you don't want to include the space budgets of other countries.

 

Sure I probably exaggerated for effect, but the usage of and payback from the oceans is vastly greater than that from space.

[swansont]

 

I'm glad to hear oceanograhic funding has increased.

Some of the Captain Cook's soundings are still on the on charts.

 

However I said space research, not NASA.

How much is spent by other organisations, telescopes, satellite coms companies, universities and so on and so forth?

 

Yes some other countries have oceanographic budgets that you appear to count in, thogh Mongolia's is pretty small.

Yet you don't want to include the space budgets of other countries.

 

Sure I probably exaggerated for effect, but the usage of and payback from the oceans is vastly greater than that from space.

 

You mentioned Mars. Nobody is contemplating going to Mars other than NASA, AFAIK.

 

The NSF astronomy budget recently has been about $235 million. http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/15pch14.pdf

 

Satellite com companies out things in space because they can make money at it. The put cables in the ocean for the same reason. If they are not doing something, it's likely because they don't see it as economical. But if you include them, don't you have to include all of the shippers out there? Fishing vessels? Anyone making money with a ship or boat?

[studiot]

 

You mentioned Mars. Nobody is contemplating going to Mars other than NASA, AFAIK

 

How do you know?

 

You Americans thought the Russians weren't going into space but they beat you there.

 

What about the yellow (dark) horse from further east?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

DNA . The blueprint of all living things . On land and in the Ocean requires water to function. So the Ocean need not be a poor cousin , but rather a fundamental for life .

 

Mike

[EdEarl]

There are many oil platforms pulling $ from below the ocean floor already. I suspect that a major find of lithium, gold, or another valuable substance would result in robotics being developed to mine the substance. I don't know how difficult it is to find such a resource, but it must be difficult or at least appear to be very difficult.

 

There are a few submersibles that explore the bottom of the ocean, but I don't know of any that could prospect for valuable materials. However, robotic technology is improving rapidly, and I expect it will become economically practical soon, it it is not already. From viewing documentaries about the deep ocean, my impression is that submersibles are prone to failures, and they need to be more reliable before they are practical for deep sea mining.

 

Many species in the ocean are either endangered, vulnerable or threatened. With little oversight, it might be best to leave the bottom of the ocean unexplored.

 

There seems to be an economic opportunity to mine the ocean, but no one like Elon Musk has devoted themselves to exploiting it. Do we really want it to occur?

[Ophiolite]

You Americans thought the Russians weren't going into space but they beat you there.

The Americans were well aware that the Russians had a space program. What caught them out was how advanced it was.