English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I mean you would think that we would know more about our planet because we are already here on it so they should stop going crazy about the space thing. We do not know if there are aliens out there, but we do know that there is a bottom of the ocean and that there is life down there. They should not worrie with one thing until the other is solved. The jump to space is huge compared to the plunge to the bottom of the ocean.

2007-07-24 15:49:43 · 17 answers · asked by civilion 1 in Science & Mathematics Astronomy & Space

17 answers

it is much easier to build something that will withstand a vacuum than will withstand several atmospheres of pressure.

2007-07-24 15:57:10 · answer #1 · answered by Rusty 4 · 0 0

Does seem a bit bizarre, until you look at some key reasons why.....
First off, when going to space you are dealing with the loss of 1 atmosphere of pressure. Technologically, that's a solveable problem. Going to the bottom of the ocean, there are tens of thousands (and more) of atmospheric pressure. That's a technological hurdle. 1 vs. thousands...... 1 is easier to pull off.
2. There was a lot of impetus in the 1960's to get to space. Beat the Russkies at all costs..... Lots of money thrown at the problem(s). Not too many people are throwing money at getting to the bottom of the ocean, although we have been there lots in the last 20 years. We know a great deal more now than we did 20 years ago.
Technologically, given what resources were unquestioningly thrown into the space race, it's rather amazing that we did actually get to the bottom of the ocean at Challenger deep. If it's any consolation, knowing what we know about subduction zones, hydrothermal vents, black smokers, etc., I think the two subjects are on about equal footing at this time. The biggest difference is that the ocean depths problem got solved more efficiently on a smaller budget and with less fanfare. We know how plate tectonics work as a result partly of these investigations. That's just too cool......

2007-07-24 16:02:34 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Yes but it's much easier to build a spacecraft than a vehicle to explore the depths of the oceans. Spacecraft can be built very lightly, in fact they must be built lightly to even get into space, let alone to another planet. But a deep sea vehicle has to cope with enourmous pressures a spacecraft does not, unless it's going to land on the surface of Venus perhaps. For every 1,000 feet deeper a machine goes in the sea, it gets 500 psi more pressure on each sqaure inch. Building a craft that can take 10,000 psi without simply imploding with the force of tons of TNT is no small task. That is the pressure a submarine must withstand if it is to get to the bottom of many interesting locales in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Because of this, they are naturally very heavy, especially the manned submersibles. We just don't have the technology to send one to Europa to check out the ocean thought to exist under it's icy surface. Very few robots or manned submarines exist now that can descend that far under the sea. Until now these submersibles had to protect and substain a human crew, but now remotely operated robots are appearing on the scene that can operate at these depths without risking human life. The age of deep sea exploration is now underway, because of these un-manned vehicles and vast improvements in side-scan sonar and computer technology. The day will soon be here where underwater robots will explore the seas well enough that we''l know as much or more about them than we do about outer space. A good deal about the oceans has come to light recently, even though it doesn't garner the attention space exploration does. The advantage in these machines is that a human can control them in real time, wheras the enourmous distances in space make that impossible. On top of that, in space remote sensing can be used. Cameras, spectrometers, radars, magnetometers and so on can probe a planet, comet, star or what have you. In the sea, that is impossible, except for the use of sound waves and perhaps magnetometers at close range. That is the only form of energy that travels well through water, whereas in space there's any number of forms or energy that can be sensed and analyzed. Indeed, exploration of the sea and space will merge in our lifetimes if probes to Europa do indeed manage to get into that Jovian moon's ocean and give us a glimpse of an alien sea.

2007-07-24 16:00:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

That's the thing! People and scientists know they can explore the deeps of the ocean floor so it's not as big of a mystery to people. People are always trying to solve the unexplained, or prove that the impossible can be proven! Scientists want to travel to different solar systems and galaxies to see if there is anybody else among the stars looking for life elsewhere in the universe!

2007-07-28 17:42:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I have a preposition for all of you.

Sort of an Emmanuel Kant compromising the Materialists philosophies to that of the Mystics.

There are some of us who would look at the sky, and then some who would venture into inner space.

City-ships would serve the compromise with greater benefits to human kind.

Start with one. Underwater.To be populated with the very fine minds in Yahoo Answers. We start with one floor, building down, and learning while we do it. And exploring the depths as a self-sustained ,growing community.

When the prototype is sufficiently developed, we take the ship up, to explore the stars, applying everything we learned in the ocean depths.

Aref

2007-07-29 21:21:34 · answer #5 · answered by Aref H4 7 · 0 0

It's probably because overcoming an absence of pressure and travelling through it is less complicated than overcoming the vast pressures of the deep oceans but we do know a lot about the oceans floor, detailed sonar maps have been made and a manned bathysphere has made it to deepest part of any ocean.

2007-07-28 11:06:48 · answer #6 · answered by johnandeileen2000 7 · 0 0

because we can actually see what's going on in space by means of telescope and with our mathematical ability, we are able to predict how far away a body is or whatever. we cannot get to the bottom of the ocean because of the pressure. even in a submarine, the very bottom of the ocean would have such great pressure that it would squash right there. and it is way to dark to be able to just stick a camera or whatever down there and see.

=]

2007-07-24 15:55:08 · answer #7 · answered by fueflechazo 2 · 0 0

The pressure at the bottom of the ocean is so great that things could implode. That makes it very difficult to get down there to scope it out. Also, it is dark, dark, dark.

2007-07-30 08:11:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because when you go to the bottom of the ocean there is alot of preassure so the craft or thing will explode. And there are animals hello havnt you heard of giant squid. And it's easier to define gravity.

2007-07-29 11:41:20 · answer #9 · answered by Nimali F 5 · 0 0

The bottom of the ocean is much more remote and harder to get to and survive than going into space.

2007-07-25 01:19:09 · answer #10 · answered by Billy Butthead 7 · 1 0

apparently it must be easier to go into space(even if it cost us millions in tax dollars) than to go to the bottom of our own ocean. i agree with you, we should concentrate on our own planet, not give up on space all together, but put the most interest in our planet

2007-07-24 15:54:55 · answer #11 · answered by justin h 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers