AHC: Underwater Exploration on Par with Space Exploration

Delta Force · Apr 24, 2014

Despite covering so much of Earth's surface, it has been said that we have less knowledge about our ocean than the surface of the Moon and Mars. We also don't spend nearly as much money on underwater exploration. While several nations have space agencies and billions of dollars are spent each year on space research, equivalent organizations and funding for underwater exploration doesn't really exist.

How can we end up with a situation in which the major (seafaring) nations of the world have "sea agencies" on par with space agencies?

Gunnarnz · Apr 24, 2014

I don't really have an answer for this, but underwater exploration is hard. When designing a vessel, spacecraft have to withstand a maximum of 1 atmosphere of pressure. Underwater craft have to withstand hundreds.
Communication and sensors are also blocked by water quite quickly, and there's no convenient source of external power (the sun).
The good news is that you're not mass-limited to anywhere near the same extent, the bad news is that you still have to be able to achieve positive buoyancy at some point or you'll never see your exploration craft again.
In other words, underwater exploration craft have to cope with an environment that is many ways more hostile than space. So I'm not surprised it's been put in the "too hard" basket for a long time.

Delta Force · Apr 24, 2014

I imagine that military necessity also helped play a role in space exploration, and now space exploration has become popular in wider society. There is some military justification for underwater research as well, as knowing the underwater terrain can help submarines hide.

Ironically, there was an era in which surface fleets were widely popular, with people joining naval leagues to advocate for their national navies and help finance new ships. That enthusiasm started to go towards aviation and spaceflight around the 1920s.

I'm not sure something on par with the first man in space, the Moon landing, or Star Trek is possible for underwater exploration, but impressive feats and discoveries have been made. There were some underwater military projects in the 1960s and an aquanaut program. I suppose the challenge is getting popular support to continue the program.

Kung Fucious · Apr 24, 2014

Gunnarnz said:
I don't really have an answer for this, but underwater exploration is hard. When designing a vessel, spacecraft have to withstand a maximum of 1 atmosphere of pressure. Underwater craft have to withstand hundreds.
Communication and sensors are also blocked by water quite quickly, and there's no convenient source of external power (the sun).
The good news is that you're not mass-limited to anywhere near the same extent, the bad news is that you still have to be able to achieve positive buoyancy at some point or you'll never see your exploration craft again.
In other words, underwater exploration craft have to cope with an environment that is many ways more hostile than space. So I'm not surprised it's been put in the "too hard" basket for a long time.

Piggybacking off of that, you'd need to find a way to either a) make underwater exploration cheap, or b) make it profitable.

Someone managing to find a way to safely and successfully mine manganese nodules from the ocean floor might do it, or maybe finding huge deposits of rare Earth elements down there. You need something to justify the exorbitant cost, which might push this into a geologic POD.

asnys · Apr 24, 2014

Delta Force said:
I'm not sure something on par with the first man in space, the Moon landing, or Star Trek is possible for underwater exploration, but impressive feats and discoveries have been made. There were some underwater military projects in the 1960s and an aquanaut program. I suppose the challenge is getting popular support to continue the program.

My first thought was somebody finding an Elder Thing city on the bottom of the Pacific, but I suppose this is the wrong forum for that...

MattII · Apr 24, 2014

Depends what you mean by underwater exploration, there's plenty of prospective oil-drilling going on all around the world, and that's about as viable as anything going to Mars.

Of course the issues with underwater explanation are rather the opposite of those for space exploration, namely, it's easy to get to, but quite difficult to do anything with once you are there.

Corjomc · Apr 24, 2014

Fritz Lang's Woman in the Sea (1929) was the first hard scifi to look at Underwater travel

The Mariana Trench Landings were faked in a Burbank back lot

Delta Force · Apr 24, 2014

MattII said:
Depends what you mean by underwater exploration, there's plenty of prospective oil-drilling going on all around the world, and that's about as viable as anything going to Mars.

Of course the issues with underwater explanation are rather the opposite of those for space exploration, namely, it's easy to get to, but quite difficult to do anything with once you are there.

More along the lines of general exploration. Private companies are concerned with resources in areas that can be economically produced. States add to that concern about the underwater terrain and native life, but only within their area of responsibility. There isn't really any pure exploration going on in deeper waters and international waters. It's usually task oriented towards finding lost objects, ships, and aircraft or finding out what a ship or submarine ran into. There's a lot of interest when we need to find something specific, but not in general research like making maps and exploring ecosystems.

Orville_third · Apr 24, 2014

Given how OTL's space program was motivated by national prestige, wouldn't it help if the Soviets and US had an undersea race? After all, undersea exploration would help with spying and sub design. Further, some undersea research could help with the space race.

TxCoatl1970 · Apr 25, 2014

To some extent, there was a superpower race in underwater exploration through the 1960's.
The US had a full panoply of undersea research going but when there was no low-hanging fruit as it were AND folks went from go ahead explore- Excelsior! to making the oceans a massive nature preserve NOBODY's supposed to exploit in the 1970's, interest faded.
Folks wanted artifical gills, undersea cities and all kinds of stuff that needed a LOT of tinkering to work.

The big problem as Gunnarnz put it is that it's been damned expensive to engineer s/t that can withstand crush depth @ 1000', much less 8000'.

Materials science is giving us some neat thoughts still a decade from commercial application (graphenes) you could build subs, habitats, and suits that could be workable and reasonably cheap- w 3-D printers and a lot of other goodies that aren't cheap, off-the-shelf available tech YET.

Namayan · Apr 25, 2014

Delta Force said:
Despite covering so much of Earth's surface, it has been said that we have less knowledge about our ocean than the surface of the Moon and Mars. We also don't spend nearly as much money on underwater exploration. While several nations have space agencies and billions of dollars are spent each year on space research, equivalent organizations and funding for underwater exploration doesn't really exist.

How can we end up with a situation in which the major (seafaring) nations of the world have "sea agencies" on par with space agencies?

The percentage underwater sea exploration has more progress than Space exploration.

If you think of it, Man spaced exploration is only upto the Moon with plans to go to Mars. The unmanned exploration is space is just outside of the solar system. Compare this to the size of the known universe. That is a very tiny percentage compared to where James Cameron has reached in comparison to the underwater limits of Earth.

Funding wise, I think you cannot compare the two since the cost of going millions/billions kilometers is more expensive than going down a few kilometers down our waters. Its like asking why it is more expensive to travel from New York Sydney than from Manhattan to Brooklyn.

One of the difference is the marketing that space exploration gets over underwater sea exploration.

MattII · Apr 25, 2014

And our total 'manned' exploration capacity for the undersea world is something like 5 submersible (akin, kin one . Remember, twelve people have walked on the moon, but only three have thus far descended to the bottom of Mariana Trench.

frlmerrin · Apr 25, 2014

MattII said:
And our total 'manned' exploration capacity for the undersea world is something like 5 submersible (akin, kin one . Remember, twelve people have walked on the moon, but only three have thus far descended to the bottom of Mariana Trench.

Three? Walsh and the Swiss chap makes two. Who was the third? I seem to have missed an expedition.

January First-of-May · Apr 25, 2014

frlmerrin said:
Three? Walsh and the Swiss chap makes two. Who was the third? I seem to have missed an expedition.

James Cameron, in 2012. I suspect you just didn't think this actually happened (I myself thought it was a joke when I first heard of that expedition - it being pretty close to April 1 didn't help either).
The whole thing really was less Apollo 11 style serious program and more Virgin Galactic style publicity stunt, and IMHO just proves the point that we really can do as much underwater exploration as we want, there's just not enough profit - and actually not very many opportunities for cool publicity stuff either.

MattII · Apr 25, 2014

Actually, that's not so much different from Apollo, because that wasn't anything more than a publicity stunt either. I think one issue with underwater development is that outside of perhaps coral reefs, the sea doesn't offer much in the way of entertainment beyond perhaps a 'hey, look we're down here' line. Space OTOH does at least have microgravity, which is completely unlike anything possible here on earth.

Namayan · Apr 25, 2014

MattII said:
And our total 'manned' exploration capacity for the undersea world is something like 5 submersible (akin, kin one . Remember, twelve people have walked on the moon, but only three have thus far descended to the bottom of Mariana Trench.

You are comparing apples and oranges. Manned exploration in the Moon and in orbit should be compared to people swimming in the beaches rather than Marianas.

Has humanity even reached Alpha Centarui? or the center of the galaxy?

If you want equal comparison, here are somethings to ponder, how many humans have left our galaxy? - 0/zero. Has any man made structure sent by us reached beyond our galaxy? -NO

Now going back to the OPs question.

Delta Force said:
How can we end up with a situation in which the major (seafaring) nations of the world have "sea agencies" on par with space agencies?

Budget wise this is not possible due to difference of distance between the two. Put it this way, If I am going to Japan from LA, I will budget more money than my travel from downtown LA to Orange county.

However, Underwater exploration is actually more successful than Space exploration as of this moment percentage wise of discovery of exploration.

MattII · Apr 25, 2014

Namayan said:
You are comparing apples and oranges. Manned exploration in the Moon and in orbit should be compared to people swimming in the beaches rather than Marianas.

Really? the Marianas is less than 11 km down and was first visited in 1960, nine years before man walked on the moon, and at a fraction the price. The analogy stands.

Has humanity even reached Alpha Centarui? or the center of the galaxy?

Have we reached the mantle yet? Or the core? No we haven't.

If you want equal comparison, here are somethings to ponder, how many humans have left our galaxy? - 0/zero. Has any man made structure sent by us reached beyond our galaxy? -NO

That is comparing apples to oranges.

Dave Howery · Apr 25, 2014

January First-of-May said:
James Cameron, in 2012. I suspect you just didn't think this actually happened (I myself thought it was a joke when I first heard of that expedition - it being pretty close to April 1 didn't help either).
The whole thing really was less Apollo 11 style serious program and more Virgin Galactic style publicity stunt, and IMHO just proves the point that we really can do as much underwater exploration as we want, there's just not enough profit - and actually not very many opportunities for cool publicity stuff either.

well, he did it in cooperation with National Geographic, and I think it went beyond 'publicity stunt', although there was a bit of that... I think Cameron has a genuine interest in underwater exploring, and has the money to indulge it...

asnys · Apr 25, 2014

Dave Howery said:
well, he did it in cooperation with National Geographic, and I think it went beyond 'publicity stunt', although there was a bit of that... I think Cameron has a genuine interest in underwater exploring, and has the money to indulge it...

This is maybe getting off-topic, but honestly, good for him. It's a better way to spend his money than cocaine and hookers.

viewcode · Apr 25, 2014

Delta Force said:
Despite covering so much of Earth's surface, it has been said that we have less knowledge about our ocean than the surface of the Moon and Mars. We also don't spend nearly as much money on underwater exploration. While several nations have space agencies and billions of dollars are spent each year on space research, equivalent organizations and funding for underwater exploration doesn't really exist.

How can we end up with a situation in which the major (seafaring) nations of the world have "sea agencies" on par with space agencies?

We know a lot more about the sea floor than the surface of Mars.

We do have equivalent organizations and funding for underwater exploration: the organizations are called "navies" and the funding is called "defence spending". Or "oil companies" and "exploration budgets"

If this link is correct, there are over 400 military submarines in the world, so let's say 20,000 military personnel underwater at any one time if fully used. Our manned space capacity is the ISS & Tiangong & the vehicles used to get people there, the Soyuzes, Shenzhous. If you throw in the Shuttle that's a total of, what, less than 40 people max in space at any one time?