Deep Sea vs. Space Exploration

[Anonymous No.4476779]

Which would you rather see more money go into?

Which interests you more?

Which would you rather participate in?

Do any of you participate in either?

[Anonymous No.4476783]

>>4476779
>exploring 99.99999999999% of the universe, or the remainder.
obviously the latter

[Anonymous No.4476787]

>>4476783
Not nearly enough 9s.

[Anonymous No.4476788]

space obviously.
Exploring the sea is useful and interesting (and inspirational too) and should be done first.... but if you had to choose between the two... choose space.

[mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk No.4476791]

>>4476783
You can put infinite nines there: 99.999..... %
Just make sure it never becomes 100%.

[Anonymous No.4476795]

Space

Space

Space

;_;

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4476798]

>>4476791

Actually guess what an infinite number of nines would be 100%%%

[Anonymous No.4476803]

>>4476791
>not trolling
>99.999999(ad infinium) != 100
oh ,you. :)

[Jim Profit !DgnrydpFYU No.4476812]

>>4476788
True, but in the way he worded the question... and I would imagine to any rational human being, this isn't throwing the baby out with the bath water. We're not simply going to have an aversion to water or completely give up on space travel. I just think he means...

A: Where do you think money should go RIGHT NOW, in this generation?

B: Where would you personally like to put your time and effort into investigating?

And I would say marine biology is far more exciting then the tremendous circle jerk of space opera. That's all it is... is nerds, with chalkboards, throwing around ridiculous sized numbers and repeating what dead scientists before them proposed of blackholes, super novas, and quasars.

It is out there, someone needs to find it, and then master it. I'm not denying that... but me? I would rather learn how to control the environment of my backyard, then find out my neighbor owns a fucking mansion in resources and hyper intelligent creatures. The depths of our own world are still strange and magical to us. Our computers fuck up, the earth sneezes and we pay for it in a thousand dead babies, we have no control over anything.

To investigate the oceans, would be to give us more stability by learning more about marine life, how it survives, and in fact if our technology can endure the intense pressures of the bottom of the sea, then we can certainly deal with heat, cold, and vacuums of space! I guess what I'm trying to say is to focus on the ocean would make us better at being engineers and architects of the universe, rather then philosophers and professors.

[Anonymous No.4476817]

Both are important. Space exploration is more vulnerable to being axed in the face of shortsighted budget cuts though. We're already doing deep sea exploration for economic reasons (finding and extracting oil, rare earth metal deposits, etc.)

[Anonymous No.4476818]

There's not much potential for developing the ocean further. Energy and material resources are poorer than on land, let alone in space.

Developing the ocean might net us some bonus resources, but space development has practically limitless potential.

Space.

[Anonymous No.4476823]

>>4476818
>material resources are poorer than on land
Source please.

[Anonymous No.4476822]

deep sea

[mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk No.4476827]

>>4476798
Oh no, it's you again. This is not the first time I have to explain to you that 0.999... does in fact not equal 1. Don't you economists learn any math?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4476834]

>>4476827

There are no real numbers between .99... and 1, therefore they must be the same number.

An infinite number of 9s means the distance between .999... and 1 is infinitely small AKA 0. Therefore they are the same.

I WILL ARGUE THIS UNTIL MY DYING BREATH.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4476837]

>>4476827
Go away troll/idiot. And for fun, let's make this the tripfag thread.

[mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk No.4476842]

>>4476834
>There are no real numbers between .99... and 1

That's a (wrong) statement. Where's your proof?
Saying there is no number inbetween because they are equal, that would circular logic because you are using (as an assumption) the statement which is to be proven.

Why isn't (0.999... + 1)/2 between 0.999... and 1?
Please explain without applying circular logic.
You can't.

>>4476837
Insulting me is the wrong way to hide your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.4476844]

>>4476791

>dat segue

7/10 on this one

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4476859]

>>4476842
I have two arguments.

1- A decimal expansion is a notation which by convention is defined to be the Real Number:
0 . a_1 a_2 a_3 a_4 ...
= sum of i = 1 to infinity of a_i / 10^i
It is thus quite easily provable that 0.999 repeating is 1.

2- This is not a formally correct proof. Instead, it is an appeal that the above notation convention is sensible. I claim that all decimal expansions should be Real Numbers, and that all Real Numbers should have a decimal expansion. Now, don't make me whip up a pdf of a Real Analysis book to post here, showing the derivation of the field properties and the dense property of Real Numbers from ZF and peano axioms. With that in hand, we can show that 0.999 repeating != 1 iff there exists a Real Number distinct from both and inbetween. As this is a Real Number, it should have a distinct decimal expansion, but there is no such decimal expansion. Thus, contradiction, and you have to give up a premise. The apparent options are:
** 0.999 repeating != 1
** 0.999 repeating is a Real Number
** The basic properties of Real Numbers derived from the construction of Reals from ZF and peano axioms.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4476856]

>>4476818
>There's not much potential for developing the ocean further. Energy and material resources are poorer than on land, let alone in space.

This is untrue. It is precisely because ore deposits on the seafloor are six times higher grade than in terrestrial mines that it is economically viable to extract them in the first place. There are trillions in precious metals and around 800 billion in (known) rare earth metal deposits accessible with current technology. As for energy, wave power alone, assuming installations only on the west coast of landmasses (where it is most effective) could supply twice the current total annual electricity usage. This does not include OTEC or hydrothermal energy.

That said, it isn't either/or. The two are intimately connected. Oceanic industry will provide technologies that apply directly to space colonization, and an influx of wealth that will create favorable economic conditions under which properly funding NASA will become politically feasible.

If space is our future, the ocean must be our present.

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.4476857]

>>4476837

Yay tripfags

>>4476842

>implying I was using logic circularly.
This image is for you trip brother.

[Anonymous No.4476865]

>>4476823
It's true. Most of the sea floor is undifferentiated sediment on undifferentiated basalt, and you can get either of those things easily without diving. Although there are a few interesting seafloor deposits by river mouths, the weathering processes that create concentrated ore bodies mostly only work on land.

The continental plates are fundamentally different in composition, and have stuck around longer than ocean floor material for slow-acting processes to work on.

We've had pretty decent ocean mining technology for a while, but there are only a few things worth digging out, and we're already exploiting most of those as much as makes sense.

[Anonymous No.4476869]

>>4476859
>>4476842
>>4476834
please stop shitting up my thread, i see these arguements 100 times a day, create a thread of your own to have it in

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4476878]

>>4476865
>We've had pretty decent ocean mining technology for a while, but there are only a few things worth digging out, and we're already exploiting most of those as much as makes sense.

Permits for mining deep sea ore deposits were only just issued to Nautilus Minerals and the various other companies pursuing subsea mining are still waiting on theirs. As an industry, it is still in it's infancy.

http://www.nautilusminerals.com/s/Media-NewsReleases.asp?ReportID=437932

[mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk No.4476880]

>>4476857
Assuming the theorem in question to be true as a basis to prove said theorem is circular logic aka begging the question. A fallacy.

>>4476859
As you said, a decimal expansion is a "convention", not a rigorous method of proof. For your second "appeal to intuition" (you stated by yourself that it's not a formal proof): You are using the same fallacy as our ignorant economist. If you say there is no number between them, you have to prove that statement independently.

[Anonymous No.4476883]

>>4476856
>it is economically viable
I don't agree with this. At present the cost of deep-sea mining is still too high to make it a feasible source of minerals. It's not like there's a big block of Lanthanum sitting on the bottom of the pacific: mining would involve dredging huge volumes of mud, pumping it to the surface, extracting meaningful minerals, and then doing something with the leftovers.

We can solve these problems in time, of course. What I believe is a greater concern is the opposition from environmentalists.

[Anonymous No.4476897]

>>4476880
Reported for offtopic. Discuss this in another thread.

(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

[mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk No.4476904]

>>4476897
There is no need for discussion anymore. I proved them wrong. Please do not announce reports. You are violating the rules.

[Anonymous No.4476905]

Space.

The material resources available when the technology has matured enough will far surpass anything we could find on Earth. Focusing on deep sea resources will lead to more environmental problems to deal with.

Getting materials from space has a number of considerations. If the material is for use on Earth it can be broken into large multi-ton blocks and landed in the ocean for processing in regular factories. For space projects it can prove to be quite energy expensive by landing and launching tons of materials out of Earths atmosphere. There may be a case where it is economical to invest in orbital or interplanetary processing and manufacturing plants. Highly expensive to set up commercially but the right situation may allow for it.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4476912]

>>4476880
>As you said, a decimal expansion is a "convention", not a rigorous method of proof.
No, that is a rigorous method of proof. That is the definition in common use of what that notation means. If you wish to invent a new inconsistent ambiguous notation, have fun with that, and be completely ignored by the mathematical community.

>If you say there is no number between them, you have to prove that statement independently.
Correct. That's why it's an appeal to sensibility, not a formal proof. You first have to accept convention and definition of notation that the decimal expansion identifies a Real Number via the standard limit definition. Do you even know what a Cauchy sequence or a Dedekind Cut is?

[mathgenius (not trolling) !!Ceavr+zDPUk No.4476915]

>>4476912
Please respect your friends and don't further derail this thread. If you still want to discuss your fallacies, make a new thread. Oh and you are still wrong btw.

[Anonymous No.4476930]

>>4476905
>broken into large multi-ton blocks and landed in the ocean for processing in regular factories
Most of it would burn up on descent. If there was enough left to not burn up, you'd be launching a hugeass asteroid directly at earth.

More importantly, there isn't really anything to mine in space, except for:
- Moon
- Mars
- Venus
- Asteroids

Mars is much too far to have any mining value at present, same for Venus, and asteroids rarely have more than iron in them. Only the moon has any practical value, and only for Helium-3.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4476931]

>>4476883
>I don't agree with this. At present the cost of deep-sea mining is still too high to make it a feasible source of minerals.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion but it's mistaken. Nautilus Minerals, Neptune minerals, and several nationalized mining programs are in the construction or deployment stage and have received or are waiting on permits for deep sea mineral extraction. Evidently much brighter minds than either of us have done the math and determined that it's profitable.

http://www.nautilusminerals.com
http://www.neptuneminerals.com/
http://subseaworldnews.com/2011/09/06/china-gets-isba-nod-to-carry-out-subsea-mining-and-exploration
-activities-in-south-west-indian-ridge/

[Anonymous No.4476933]

>>4476878
>As an industry, it is still in it's infancy.
It has been in its "infancy" for a long time, and it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

When it comes down to it, there's not much to be had, and it's hard to get at. Land resources are much richer.

[Anonymous No.4476945]

>Aether
>mtp
>Pifag
>Induraes
>The Juices of Lemons
>OP !UofeyHYdiM
>GL
>valjean
>AL
>resident /sci/ economist
>Richard Feynmann
>Neil deGrasse Tyson
>Carl Sagan
>mathgenius (not trolling)
>12 year old (not retarded)
>EK, Harriet, Zoologist, Teacup
>Blackman

All these tripfags have been thoroughly identified as shitposters and should be treated as such. For our board's interests, please do not engage in any discussion with anyone from that list. Please do not post in any thread by anyone from that list. Please do not respond to any argument started by anyone from that list. Please report every post by anyone from that list.

[Anonymous No.4476946]

>>4476931
Just because somebody's trying something doesn't mean it's actually cost effective. About 90% of industry is part of some capital shell game used to disguise the fact that people are "making money" by paying off loans with bigger loans and skimming off part of the excess into accounts that can't be touched when the pyramid collapses. Most of the rest are boondoggles.

It's a small miracle when anything productive gets done at all, let alone done in a sensible way.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4476948]

>>4476945
I'm no longer a shitposter? Or was I never on your list. Not sure if I should be happy for a compliment for not-shit posting, or whether because I don't trip anymore you forgot about me. I'm still around.

[Anonymous No.4476952]

>>4476945
Correction: ALL tripfags are shitposters. No exceptions.

[Anonymous No.4476951]

>>4476945

[12 year old (Not retarded) !DZhvTh6DN. No.4476955]

>>4476952
This. Anonymous is still the worst namefag, though.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4476956]

>>4476952
Maybe on /sci/.
Offhand, the example to prove you wrong is Hox on /a/. Hox is god.

[Anonymous No.4476953]

>>4476948
You didn't always have that tripcode, did you?
https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S4435934#p4436119

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.4476957]

>>4476953
Correct.

[Anonymous No.4476960]

>>4476953
This is the official list for reference:

https://archive.installgentoo.net/sci/thread/S4458617#p4458846

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4476962]

>>4476933
>It has been in its "infancy" for a long time, and it will remain so for the foreseeable future.

No, it has not. You are thinking of failed efforts to sublimate gold directly out of seawater and to sift it out of sand in the 1960s. That did turn out to be infeasible.

Efforts to mine hydrothermal vents and rare earth metal mud are much newer, owing to the fact that the existence of hydrothermal vents was not discovered until well after those gold sublimation efforts collapsed (1977) and the discovery of rare earth mud occurred just last year.

You do not know very much about this topic and should research the latest information on it with a view to reformulating your opinions.

[Anonymous No.4476964]

>>4476930 Most of it would burn up on descent.

Protective / sacrificial capsules could safely bring in large masses of minerals but cost effectiveness depends highly on type of material. A lump of rock rich with gold or uranium would be a lot more valuable than a lump of iron, easily overcoming the cost of a landing vessel.

[12 year old (Not retarded) !DZhvTh6DN. No.4476988]

>>4476779
Deep sea, for now. Space exploration is currently not very feasible. Besides, the oceans resources are far more accessible, in relative, and turning out a tangible profit would be nice.

[Anonymous No.4476997]

Both of them are econimically infeasible and total nonsense. There is no profit to be expected. It's a waste of money.

[Anonymous No.4476998]

>>4476997
1/10

[Anonymous No.4477007]

>>4476998
>implying I wasn't saying the truth

[Anonymous No.4477011]

>>4476964
>uranium
>expensive
Nope.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4477017]

>>4476997
>Both of them are econimically infeasible and total nonsense.

This is a bizarre view to take considering the profitability of oil extraction. Locating those deposits requires exploration. So really that much is not up for debate, but rather "are other oceanic industries potentially profitable enough to succeed in the way that deep sea oil extraction has".

[Anonymous No.4477021]

>>4477017
That is not what OP meant by exploration. Specifically searching for oil has nothing to do with "hurr durr fanatasy, fiction, colonize teh ocean". Oil is serous business outside of the childish nonsense discussed in threads like this one.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4477037]

>>4477021

Hindsight is 20/20. You take it seriously because it is established and has been since before you were born. You accept as feasible what has already been done and reflexively dismiss as impossible fantasy anything that has not yet been done. I should not need to explain why that is excessively conservative and shortsighted.

[Anonymous No.4477043]

>>4476779
>Which would you rather see more money go into?
Space, its important to colonise planets to protect against mass extinction events.

Which interests you more?
Space.

Which would you rather participate in?
Space.

Do any of you participate in either?
I don't, but madscientist is in deep sea exploration as far as I know.

[Anonymous No.4477044]

>>4477037
Show me when your fantasy bullshit becomes real. Until then it's garbage and a waste of time to discuss inane speculations.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4477047]

>>4477044

>Show me when your fantasy bullshit becomes real.

I did already. Here are those links again.

http://www.nautilusminerals.com
http://www.neptuneminerals.com/
http://subseaworldnews.com/2011/09/06/china-gets-isba-nod-to-carry-out-subsea-mining-and-exploration
-activities-in-south-west-indian-ridge/

[Anonymous No.4477052]

>>4477047
That's deep sea mining, not the retarded idea of colonization that keeps popping up again and again on this board.

[Anonymous No.4477064]

>>4476812
>That's all it is... is nerds, with chalkboards, throwing around ridiculous sized numbers and repeating what dead scientists before them proposed of blackholes, super novas, and quasars.
This is retarded view of space science. Astronomy which is the only thing you talked about is inseparable from mainstream physics, it has vast numbers applications. You ignore the engineering aspect and the earth observation aspect. I could equally say marine biology is nothing more that cataloguing slightly different sea slugs with the vain hope of giving your name to a species. But then again that would be bollocks just like your little snippet.

>I guess what I'm trying to say is to focus on the ocean would make us better at being engineers and architects of the universe, rather then philosophers and professors.
This is the same cheap drivel.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4477065]

>>4477052
>That's deep sea mining, not the retarded idea of colonization that keeps popping up again and again on this board.

I thought you were asking about deep sea mining. We do not need colonies for deep sea mining.

What, specifically, do you want citations for? I can provide proof of two colonies in development, a resort, and multiple existing hotels, restaurants and spas underwater, as well as a race to return humans to the marianas trench in cutting edge next gen submersibles with four entrants going on right now. Please list the links you would like to see and I will provide them for you.

[Anonymous No.4477066]

>>4477065
Give info on James Cameron, i can't find anything on current mission status anywhere

[Anonymous No.4477074]

>>4477052
>>4477044
>>4477017
OP here.
Stop putting words in my mouth. By exploration of the deep sea I mean any type of advances in technology, scientific research or commercial exploration for natural resources. The way you interpreted what I said makes me thing you would say Apollo 16 wasn't exploration because they didn't actually establish colonies and have interspecies babies.

[Anonymous No.4477082]

>>4477065
Nah bro, I don't care.

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4477080]

>>4477066
>Give info on James Cameron, i can't find anything on current mission status anywhere

http://www.pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21856:cameron-
waiting-on-weather-to-begin-deepsea-challenge&catid=45:guam-news&Itemid=156

The mission is imminent. They are on-site, above the trench, and only waiting on calm seas before they deploy.

[Anonymous No.4477088]

>>4477052
>colonizing the ocean is not a good idea
It may not be economical, but there is some benefit to colonizing the sea.

We will not have successfully colonized space until space colonies can exist without Earth and that is a tall order. Mining the ocean floor and building everything needed to sustain an underwater habitat from those minerals is the same kind of problem we will face in space.

[Anonymous No.4477090]

>>4477074
mis quote on that last one I think, meant to get all 3 of that guys comment

[Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n No.4477108]

>>4477088
>It may not be economical, but there is some benefit to colonizing the sea.

To a limited degree, and yes it is economical. He is right to say there will never be undersea cities or nations, but small communities set up for workers that maintain, repair and operate continental shelf farms and energy installations make excellent sense from the perspective that (providing you can convince employees to live there full time) you can pay your employees the same amount but for daily inspections and incidental maintenance rather than monthly or bi-monthly. The preventantive effect of this avoids major breakdowns and saves money, albeit over a relatively long period.

Pic related, they use human divers and for installations any larger than perhaps 7 or 8 enclosures they would need people living onsite to manage them.

[Anonymous No.4477187]

>>4477064
Aside from those views his point is still valid.

[Anonymous No.4477213]

James Cameron is really into deep sea, but I think he has just realized that space exploration advances so slowly and is incredibly expensive, so he has settled for the second best. If you're rich like him and have finite amount of time you would put your resources into deep sea exploration if you wanted results fast.

I think all of us would prefer space exploration if we had unlimited resources and time.

[Anonymous No.4477217]

>>4476931
I actually saw those projects after I posted, and to my joy I was quite wrong. I hadn't considered using wheel-propelled undersea robots - this solves the problems I was thinking of.

[Anonymous No.4477219]

Space.

[Anonymous No.4477259]

Question

If one were to start up a private company which would involve itself in deep sea mineral extraction, would one be right in saying that if said mining was done in international waters there would be no need for permits and potentially no regard for any regulations or rules set by international organizations? I