Ask HN: Should we survey all the oceans?
4 comments
> The space programs to send humans in space are at the same time granted hundreds of billions.
You are off by an order of magnitude. The space program is a rounding error in the federal budget. And, FYI maybe one of the few things that actually has a chance of helping end our climate catastrophe while bringing billions out of poverty.
I’m sorry but you seem grossly misinformed on these subjects. I really suggest reading up more before coming to judgemental conclusions.
You are off by an order of magnitude. The space program is a rounding error in the federal budget. And, FYI maybe one of the few things that actually has a chance of helping end our climate catastrophe while bringing billions out of poverty.
I’m sorry but you seem grossly misinformed on these subjects. I really suggest reading up more before coming to judgemental conclusions.
Elon, is that you ?!?
The space programs are not annual programs. Let's check with Wikepedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
In the recent years, the NASA budget is around 0.5% of the Federal Budget. So it's not a "rounding error".
"In 1973, NASA submitted congressional testimony reporting the total cost of Project Apollo as $25.4 billion (about $158 billion in 2020 dollars).[21]"
The reference #35 indicate that the Shuttle program amounted to 206 billions.
=> If Apollo has cost 160 billions, the Shuttles 206, how much a permanent base on the Moon will it cost? I don't know, but certainly "hundred of millions". The Artemis program to just go back to the moon plans a 35 billion budget, but no base, just to repeat Apollo.
I love space projects ; I prefer them useful with a good return of investments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program
The space programs are not annual programs. Let's check with Wikepedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
In the recent years, the NASA budget is around 0.5% of the Federal Budget. So it's not a "rounding error".
"In 1973, NASA submitted congressional testimony reporting the total cost of Project Apollo as $25.4 billion (about $158 billion in 2020 dollars).[21]"
The reference #35 indicate that the Shuttle program amounted to 206 billions.
=> If Apollo has cost 160 billions, the Shuttles 206, how much a permanent base on the Moon will it cost? I don't know, but certainly "hundred of millions". The Artemis program to just go back to the moon plans a 35 billion budget, but no base, just to repeat Apollo.
I love space projects ; I prefer them useful with a good return of investments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_program
Thanks for the link, I had not heard from this endeavor yet.
Who is "we", in this case? Humanity as a whole does not really have any means of coming to agreement or making collective decisions...
Yes, I meant we as human beings, but in some places, the pronouns really points to us on HN who appreciate the value of science and technologies.
About coming to an agreement on the global stage, I admit this is almost impossible. However, the 2015 "Paris Agreement" was signed by a very large numbers of countries ; Trump decided to get the USA out. In all cases, only a handful of small countries have kept to their word. Not one country of the EU respected it, not even France, the organizer of that conference. Appalling.
My point was more ethical than practical. My opinion is that spending money to put humans in space is henceforth a waste of money. The ISS, the international space station, has cost 140 billions with very little scientific yield. Except one: how the humans do in space. And the result is crystal clear: they don't do well. My father was a space engineer with a Phd in orbital control and a close friend of the family has been and still is today one the MDs in charge of European astronauts' health.
Many space programs result from international cooperation, sometimes quite large like the ISS. Those countries could decide that climate dereliction and massive loss of biodiversity are more urgent matters than a base on the Moon to replace the ISS (on the verge of being retired).
So the countries concurring to these space programs could as well work together to enlarge our knowledge of the oceans. As mentioned, I wonder if that is such a good idea.
About coming to an agreement on the global stage, I admit this is almost impossible. However, the 2015 "Paris Agreement" was signed by a very large numbers of countries ; Trump decided to get the USA out. In all cases, only a handful of small countries have kept to their word. Not one country of the EU respected it, not even France, the organizer of that conference. Appalling.
My point was more ethical than practical. My opinion is that spending money to put humans in space is henceforth a waste of money. The ISS, the international space station, has cost 140 billions with very little scientific yield. Except one: how the humans do in space. And the result is crystal clear: they don't do well. My father was a space engineer with a Phd in orbital control and a close friend of the family has been and still is today one the MDs in charge of European astronauts' health.
Many space programs result from international cooperation, sometimes quite large like the ISS. Those countries could decide that climate dereliction and massive loss of biodiversity are more urgent matters than a base on the Moon to replace the ISS (on the verge of being retired).
So the countries concurring to these space programs could as well work together to enlarge our knowledge of the oceans. As mentioned, I wonder if that is such a good idea.
How might we prevent surveying the oceans from continuing?
In my understanding, oceanographers complain of the huge lack of data and therefore knowledge of the oceans. They are surveying, but at a scale far too limited to be able to model that complex ecosystem.
My point is not to stop the current level of surveying, but an ethical issue: would it be such a good idea to give all the means they could dream of?
However, there is an interesting link provided above by a commentator: the global mapping will maybe be done by 2030. Mapping is an important part, but there are many other aspects to survey in the ocean ecosystem.
My point is not to stop the current level of surveying, but an ethical issue: would it be such a good idea to give all the means they could dream of?
However, there is an interesting link provided above by a commentator: the global mapping will maybe be done by 2030. Mapping is an important part, but there are many other aspects to survey in the ocean ecosystem.
The space programs to send humans in space are at the same time granted hundreds of billions. Many point that maybe this money should be invested in ... discovering our oceans rather than setting up a base on the Moon.
I was until recently convinced that it would be much more relevant. Now I wonder: Could it be better to keep the oceans away from our knowledge?
I know how absurd it sounds. My opinion varies accordingly to my mood, I reckon. One day, I have faith that knowledge and Science is The Way. The other day, I can't help thinking that the current unchecked capitalism will ruthlessly exploit whatever Science discovers at whatever cost for the climate and biodiversity.
Could it be more ethical to keep our oceans and seas out of reach of capitalism?
Of course, it's easy to argue that a better knowledge will empower the protectors of the oceans, since unchecked capitalism is already depleting the seas.
Scientific arguments would be therefore the only way to convince the governments to preserve the oceans.
But would they really? In the last 30 years, the IPCC reports have proved reliable. Its climate model has been being tuned continuously and their last report is now very reliable.
And yet we do nothing at the scale of the issue.
So what is the point, really, to know more about our oceans except opening new ways to make profits while destroying Life?
Hoping for the best as a principle is nice. And easy. But doing again and again the same error is stupid, isn't it?
If we believed in Science and Technology as much as we pretend, why aren't the 300 billions needed for a base on the Moon directed to find a technical solution to grab CO2 and methane from the atmosphere - at a scale large enough to stop global warming?
It seems that we trust Science and Technology in very different ways. A colony on Mars? Yeah, genius! Stop global warming? Rather than founding EarthX, Elon Musk himself prefers to grant 100 million to whoever finds the way to massively recapture CO2.
So, what do you think? Is Science the Way or are we helplessly the baddies, since we can't help going to the Dark Side when money is to be made?