Deep Ocean Related...

I've always dreamed to know more about the deepest part of the ocean and what lingers at very bottom of it. I really liked the scaling of this picture and somehow I'm sure its possible that Human could go further. And does anybody know what could happen to a person who goes to the deepest part of the Ocean and get the highest water pressure? And do you think it's still possible for Humans to explore deeper?

http://i.imgur.com/5z7OB7r.jpg

Off course its possible but our chests would explode at half that depth, before that we would die, our blood would boil due to the immense pressure. (that is if pressure is like in space)

By the way I didn't understand the depth, I'm actually AMAZED on how deep it is.

If we can discover a harder metal that we already have , that can be actually shaped , perhaps we can.

Carbon Fiber would be the ideal material for now, kind of. To give you a small idea of it's strength, average scuba tanks of steel withstand around 3,000 psi, whereas carbon fiber tanks are rated for up to and slightly higher than 5,000 psi. Almost twice as strong in the pressure withstanding sense.

However the Deepsea Challenger wasn't primarily comprised of steel, but rather a custom syntactic foam created specifically for it that was made to float, yet allow the installation of the horizontal thrusters, while also being able to withstand the incredible pressures of well over 5 miles underwater.

Now, the reason carbon fiber was not used on the Deepsea Challenger, is mainly due to the price and composition of the material. It may be one of the strongest materials known to humankind, but that does not translate into aquamarine submersion invulnerability. It may be able to handle more pressure, but pressure surely is not the only calculable variable in deepsea diving.

I personally think we should be spending as much, if not more time and money on oceanic research and exploration here on our own planet than we do on space research and exploration. If we were to invest the same amount of time, effort and money on oceanic research/exploration we would discover so much more vital information about our and the Earth's origins.

Not only that, but we would save SO much money. The average cost to prepare, launch, perform the mission at hand and then recover ONE SINGLE space shuttle is in the vicinity of 500 million, or half a billion dollars. That's just ONE lousy shuttle, and how many have we created over the last 60 years? Yeah... We could probably explore and map out every inch of water on this planet multiple times over with all the time and ungodly amounts of money we've spent on space exploration.

Don't get me wrong, space exploration is vital and incredible and has given us a plethora of answers as well as questions, but we could obtain far more information, for FAR, FAR less amounts of money through oceanic research and exploration.

By the way, did you know James Cameron wasn't the only person to explore the Challenger Deep;

"Only four descents have ever been achieved. The first descent by any vehicle was by the manned bathyscaphe Trieste in 1960. This was followed by the unmanned ROVs Kaikō in 1995 and Nereus in 2009. In March 2012 a manned solo descent was made by the deep-submergence vehicle Deepsea Challenger. These expeditions measured very similar depths of 10,898 to 10,916 metres (35,755 to 35,814 ft)."

I see Cthulhu!

There was a TV series a while ago where one episode was about the deeper sea fish. If i find it i'll post a link.

Just don't send people down there I mean why not have it robotic? This may be contrary to what the discussion is about but something is better than nothing. Atleast send down remote controlled subs. Idk I'd be way to damn scared

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justice For All

Carbon Fiber would be the ideal material for now, kind of. To give you a small idea of it's strength, average scuba tanks of steel withstand around 3,000 psi, whereas carbon fiber tanks are rated for up to and slightly higher than 5,000 psi. Almost twice as strong in the pressure withstanding sense.

However the Deepsea Challenger wasn't primarily comprised of steel, but rather a custom syntactic foam created specifically for it that was made to float, yet allow the installation of the horizontal thrusters, while also being able to withstand the incredible pressures of well over 5 miles underwater.

Now, the reason carbon fiber was not used on the Deepsea Challenger, is mainly due to the price and composition of the material. It may be one of the strongest materials known to humankind, but that does not translate into aquamarine submersion invulnerability. It may be able to handle more pressure, but pressure surely is not the only calculable variable in deepsea diving.

I personally think we should be spending as much, if not more time and money on oceanic research and exploration here on our own planet than we do on space research and exploration. If we were to invest the same amount of time, effort and money on oceanic research/exploration we would discover so much more vital information about our and the Earth's origins.

Not only that, but we would save SO much money. The average cost to prepare, launch, perform the mission at hand and then recover ONE SINGLE space shuttle is in the vicinity of 500 million, or half a billion dollars. That's just ONE lousy shuttle, and how many have we created over the last 60 years? Yeah... We could probably explore and map out every inch of water on this planet multiple times over with all the time and ungodly amounts of money we've spent on space exploration.

Don't get me wrong, space exploration is vital and incredible and has given us a plethora of answers as well as questions, but we could obtain far more information, for FAR, FAR less amounts of money through oceanic research and exploration.

By the way, did you know James Cameron wasn't the only person to explore the Challenger Deep;

"Only four descents have ever been achieved. The first descent by any vehicle was by the manned bathyscaphe Trieste in 1960. This was followed by the unmanned ROVs Kaikō in 1995 and Nereus in 2009. In March 2012 a manned solo descent was made by the deep-submergence vehicle Deepsea Challenger. These expeditions measured very similar depths of 10,898 to 10,916 metres (35,755 to 35,814 ft)."

---

I wholeheartedly disagree. The only way for humanity to survive long term (in non-human terms) is for us to get off this planet asap. The problem is we piss about with space travel too much, using it as only research, or even worse tourism. It should be an industrial endevor, because that is where the real money will come from. A couple of decent asteroids will pay for a huge chunk of the entire cost of space travel. But really that is an issue of cost vs worth, having the ability to harvest large quantities of elements we can't on earth is worth more than how much it can be sold for.

I would say it is worth researching deep sea stuff, but long term I'm not sure how it will pay for itself, unless we discover some new algae which converts heat into electricity or something awesome, which is entirely possibly tbfh. Once space industry becomes viable, it will easily subsidise the research being done up there, and by all means redirect that research funding to the ocean. But until then, space is imo a higher priority.

We sure have more to discover... Everyday-life tricks us into thinking we're already so far in technology and know everything possible. That is one reason why I want more discoveries, open your eyes and spirit, to believe there isn't only us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Robert

I wholeheartedly disagree. The only way for humanity to survive long term (in non-human terms) is for us to get off this planet asap. The problem is we piss about with space travel too much, using it as only research, or even worse tourism. It should be an industrial endevor, because that is where the real money will come from. A couple of decent asteroids will pay for a huge chunk of the entire cost of space travel. But really that is an issue of cost vs worth, having the ability to harvest large quantities of elements we can't on earth is worth more than how much it can be sold for.

I would say it is worth researching deep sea stuff, but long term I'm not sure how it will pay for itself, unless we discover some new algae which converts heat into electricity or something awesome, which is entirely possibly tbfh. Once space industry becomes viable, it will easily subsidise the research being done up there, and by all means redirect that research funding to the ocean. But until then, space is imo a higher priority.

---

The planet in its current state is perfectly healthy for all lifeforms on Earth. We don't need to get off it as soon as possible, we need to fix what will ultimately lead to our desire to leave this planet.

Eventually this world won't be habitable if we continue to produce the amount of pollution we produce today, as our knowledge grows we will know more about safer nuclear energy (nuclear power plants are safe until they blow up - if we know how to prevent that in meltdowns it really can be safe and clean energy, Nuclear Power plants don't produce green house gases.) I believe that researching deep-sea is more important than space travel. People care what is on this planet more than what is out there, with Electric cars we won't need to drill oil, with nuclear energy we won't need to burn coal/wood and produce green house gases.

I honestly believe Nuclear energy is the way to go. It would give us pretty clean energy to put in our futuristic electric cars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zJordan

The planet in its current state is perfectly healthy for all lifeforms on Earth. We don't need to get off it as soon as possible, we need to fix what will ultimately lead to our desire to leave this planet.

Eventually this world won't be habitable if we continue to produce the amount of pollution we produce today, as our knowledge grows we will know more about safer nuclear energy (nuclear power plants are safe until they blow up - if we know how to prevent that in meltdowns it really can be safe and clean energy, Nuclear Power plants don't produce green house gases.) I believe that researching deep-sea is more important than space travel. People care what is on this planet more than what is out there, with Electric cars we won't need to drill oil, with nuclear energy we won't need to burn coal/wood and produce green house gases.

I honestly believe Nuclear energy is the way to go. It would give us pretty clean energy to put in our futuristic electric cars.

---

So you want cars strolling around with nuclear reactors... That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Want to know why there aren't shit loads of nuclear power plants around? Because they're dangerous. They leave permanent damage. And meltdowns can't be 100% prevented. If something goes wrong, it goes wrong, and we now an another giant plot on the earth no one can inhabit for the next thousands of years. nuclear power is DANGEROUS. Hence why there aren't many around. It's good energy yes. But that trade off isn't worth it in the long haul.

Inflation is steadily increasing, with no signs to ever slow down, because of the amass of people on the planet. Hell the current population already uses more then the planet produces each year(25% more). Resources aren't unlimited, this is a giant RTS game. At some point you WILL run out of resources. No discussion. There is no "save this planet". At some point humans will have to move, and looking to the stars is preferable to looking in the ocean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supicioso

At some point humans will have to move, and looking to the stars is preferable to looking in the ocean.

---

I agree with the rest of your post, but who's to say by then technology isn't so advanced we either A. don't use the same nonrenewable resources for all the things we do now, or B. we can just create resources, or create everything self sustaining so it doesn't require any resources, or at least any significant amount. That's my problem with the whole, one day we'll have to leave Earth no matter what. Chances are by the time that comes and we do have to, technology will be so advanced we can just use it to 'fix' all of the things wrong with Earth and stay here.

Because I mean, if we have the means to pack up and leave this planet, travel aaaaalllllllllllllllll the way (the nearest Earth-like planet is somewhere in the vicinity of 5 light years away) to another planet, and make it our new home, I don't see why technology wouldn't be advanced enough to just make Earth more habitable.

Sounds like you're saying we'd be able to just up and create everything we need. Which may be possible, but at some point, there won't be enough to go around. Energy can nether be create nor destroyed. They're won't be enough to go around. The planet will get over populated. True you can just recycle everything, but not at a rate that would sustain a heavily populated planet. Though we won't have to worry about that any time soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Justice For All

Because I mean, if we have the means to pack up and leave this planet, travel aaaaalllllllllllllllll the way (the nearest Earth-like planet is somewhere in the vicinity of 5 light years away) to another planet, and make it our new home, I don't see why technology wouldn't be advanced enough to just make Earth more habitable.

---

Resources on earth ARE limited, i.e. - those mined from the earth... e.g. Metals, and fossil fuels... you cannot 'make' those. Once they're gone, they're gone - which is why we're recyling metals.

But I reckon within the next 200 years, we'd be having people mining local astreoids from the astreroid belt, and/or mining mars or whatever local planet/moons in our solar system. I don't see 'light travel' happening anytime soon, if at all - so if we're sending people out to these really distant planets, they'd be a one way trip to colonise it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daedius

Resources on earth ARE limited, i.e. - those mined from the earth... e.g. Metals, and fossil fuels... you cannot 'make' those. Once they're gone, they're gone - which is why we're recyling metals.

But I reckon within the next 200 years, we'd be having people mining local astreoids from the astreroid belt, and/or mining mars or whatever local planet/moons in our solar system. I don't see 'light travel' happening anytime soon, if at all - so if we're sending people out to these really distant planets, they'd be a one way trip to colonise it.

---

I'd be all for hopping on one of those one way trips... If it wasn't for the internet. hahah. There'd be no internet on that planet. At least not like it is now.