Challenger Deep
Discussion
There are a couple of threads running about the Apollo missions ... to this day, 40 years on since Neil Armstrong's first steps up there, only 24 people have travelled beyond the moon.
That's actually quite a lot of people, compared to the number of people who have visited the bottom of the ocean ... in 6 months time it will be the 50th anniversary of the first, and last, manned visit to the bottom of Challenger Deep.
The Moon is often described as the most inhospitable place man has visited, but compared to Challenger Deep, it's a walk in the park. The pressure at just short of 11,000m deep is enough to crush a human outside of the bathyscaphe to a pulp instantaneously, whereas a man (Jim Leblanc) survived in a vacuum with a broken suit for over a minute during Apollo space suit testing, with no ill effects.
Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh spent a total of 20 minutes at the bottom of Challenger Deep, enough to see vertebrate life there - mainly flat fish. On their way to the bottom they had their own "apollo 13" moment when a glass window cracked at 9000 meters, but they continued and the glass held.
Only 2 missions have since returned to the bottom, once in 1995 (Kaiku or Kaiko), and a few weeks ago Nereus reached the bottom. These last two missions were unmanned remotely operated vehicles (ROV's).
There does not exist any submarine or bathyscaphe capable of making that dive now. Kind of puts the Apollo mission into some context - just as we do not have the capability to reach the moon now, nor do we have the ability to reach the furthest reaches of this blue planet.
The sea exploration was far more scienctific compared to the Apollo missions, despite the latter becoming far more scientific in nature as they progressed (to the extent of Jack Schmidt - a geologist - being the LMP on Apollo 17 over any number of military test pilots), there was a political motive behind it.
Just as the men who flew on the Apollo, and Mercury and Gemini missions beforehand, are worthy of admiration (and the 400,000 people who helped them get there), Piccard and Walsh should be added to that list of people who have taken that extra risk and moved mankind on - along with Chuck Yeager, Tensing & Hilary, Joe Kittinger and John Stapp, to name but few.
That's actually quite a lot of people, compared to the number of people who have visited the bottom of the ocean ... in 6 months time it will be the 50th anniversary of the first, and last, manned visit to the bottom of Challenger Deep.
The Moon is often described as the most inhospitable place man has visited, but compared to Challenger Deep, it's a walk in the park. The pressure at just short of 11,000m deep is enough to crush a human outside of the bathyscaphe to a pulp instantaneously, whereas a man (Jim Leblanc) survived in a vacuum with a broken suit for over a minute during Apollo space suit testing, with no ill effects.
Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh spent a total of 20 minutes at the bottom of Challenger Deep, enough to see vertebrate life there - mainly flat fish. On their way to the bottom they had their own "apollo 13" moment when a glass window cracked at 9000 meters, but they continued and the glass held.
Only 2 missions have since returned to the bottom, once in 1995 (Kaiku or Kaiko), and a few weeks ago Nereus reached the bottom. These last two missions were unmanned remotely operated vehicles (ROV's).
There does not exist any submarine or bathyscaphe capable of making that dive now. Kind of puts the Apollo mission into some context - just as we do not have the capability to reach the moon now, nor do we have the ability to reach the furthest reaches of this blue planet.
The sea exploration was far more scienctific compared to the Apollo missions, despite the latter becoming far more scientific in nature as they progressed (to the extent of Jack Schmidt - a geologist - being the LMP on Apollo 17 over any number of military test pilots), there was a political motive behind it.
Just as the men who flew on the Apollo, and Mercury and Gemini missions beforehand, are worthy of admiration (and the 400,000 people who helped them get there), Piccard and Walsh should be added to that list of people who have taken that extra risk and moved mankind on - along with Chuck Yeager, Tensing & Hilary, Joe Kittinger and John Stapp, to name but few.
aclivity said:
Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh spent a total of 20 minutes at the bottom of Challenger Deep, enough to see vertebrate life there - mainly flat fish. On their way to the bottom they had their own "apollo 13" moment when a glass window cracked at 9000 meters, but they continued and the glass held.
Balls of steel... 
Not enough time is spent in the deep oceans, all because it's not as exciting.
ridds said:
aclivity said:
Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh spent a total of 20 minutes at the bottom of Challenger Deep, enough to see vertebrate life there - mainly flat fish. On their way to the bottom they had their own "apollo 13" moment when a glass window cracked at 9000 meters, but they continued and the glass held.
Balls of steel... Not enough time is spent in the deep oceans, all because it's not as exciting.
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_ballard_on_explori...
It's been a while since I've watched this, and I'm on mobile broadband now so can't re-watch it, but I'm sure he contrasts the NASA budget with that of NOAA.
glazbagun said:
ridds said:
aclivity said:
Jacques Piccard and Don Walsh spent a total of 20 minutes at the bottom of Challenger Deep, enough to see vertebrate life there - mainly flat fish. On their way to the bottom they had their own "apollo 13" moment when a glass window cracked at 9000 meters, but they continued and the glass held.
Balls of steel... Not enough time is spent in the deep oceans, all because it's not as exciting.
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_ballard_on_explori...
It's been a while since I've watched this, and I'm on mobile broadband now so can't re-watch it, but I'm sure he contrasts the NASA budget with that of NOAA.
If its any consolation I find moon missions equally as uninteresting as voyages to the depths of the ocean.
I mean there really isn't much to see at either destination and it is not as if we as a species *need* to go so why bother?.
On balance though I suppose the millions spent on moon and marine exploration would only be wasted on something else, probably far more harmful, so I guess the missions do have a purpose.
I mean there really isn't much to see at either destination and it is not as if we as a species *need* to go so why bother?.
On balance though I suppose the millions spent on moon and marine exploration would only be wasted on something else, probably far more harmful, so I guess the missions do have a purpose.
"Seven Miles Down"
One of my favourite books, detailing the whole project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste
One of my favourite books, detailing the whole project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathyscaphe_Trieste
redtwin said:
If its any consolation I find moon missions equally as uninteresting as voyages to the depths of the ocean.
I mean there really isn't much to see at either destination and it is not as if we as a species *need* to go so why bother?.
On balance though I suppose the millions spent on moon and marine exploration would only be wasted on something else, probably far more harmful, so I guess the missions do have a purpose.
I think if we only ever did what we 'needed' to as a species we'd be quite limited in what we have now.I mean there really isn't much to see at either destination and it is not as if we as a species *need* to go so why bother?.
On balance though I suppose the millions spent on moon and marine exploration would only be wasted on something else, probably far more harmful, so I guess the missions do have a purpose.
The most important question ... as one of the explorers was French ... is why didn't they try to retrieve one of the flat fish for scientific research:
- How does it cope with such extreme pressures?
- Can the physiology of the flat fish help in extending human capacity to deal with pressure, thus expanding our ability to live in the 70% of the earth that is underwater
- What does it taste like?
aclivity said:
The most important question ... as one of the explorers was French ... is why didn't they try to retrieve one of the flat fish for scientific research:
- How does it cope with such extreme pressures?
- Can the physiology of the flat fish help in extending human capacity to deal with pressure, thus expanding our ability to live in the 70% of the earth that is underwater
- What does it taste like?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff