- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Space vs Oceans
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:32 am
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:32 am
NASA found some new planets that are 40+ light years away. That's awesome, but what's at the bottom of the trenches in the Pacific Ocean? (Insert Malaysian Airline joke here)
If we're gonna spend a ton of taxpayer money exploring one of them, which would you rather investigate?
I agree we need to know about space, the moon, and things that are relatively close to us... but 43 light years?!?!?
Honestly, I just want to know what else is in the water when I go to the beach or diving...
If we're gonna spend a ton of taxpayer money exploring one of them, which would you rather investigate?
I agree we need to know about space, the moon, and things that are relatively close to us... but 43 light years?!?!?
Honestly, I just want to know what else is in the water when I go to the beach or diving...
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 9:42 am
12
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:36 am to GumplandTiger
quote:
If we're gonna spend a ton of taxpayer money exploring one of them, which would you rather investigate?
I agree we need to know about space, the moon, and things that are relatively close to us... but 43 million light years?!?!?
Honestly, I just want to know what else is in the water when I go to the beach or diving...
We know less about the Oceans than we do the stars. I was listening to the Infinite Monkey Cage podcast and they were discussing the unexplored deep. I think they said every time they do deep water explorations they make new discoveries of species previously unknown to man.
I think space is considered "grander" due to the uncertainty of what lies beyond our telescopes and satellites. Both are worthy of exploration, however. And both lead to technological advances that we use every day.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:39 am to GumplandTiger
Close. But I think it was 40 light years
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:44 am to GumplandTiger
agreed. oceans should be conquered before space
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:44 am to Yung_Humma
My bad. 40 light yrs, it's corrected. Either way, not my planet.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:46 am to GumplandTiger
The search for new life not on Earth is too big of a prize that they just can't turn it down. Kinda like peoppe playing the lottery but not doing scratch offs. Even though you're more likely to win on scratch off that's the lottery but the prize is just so grand.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:49 am to GumplandTiger
We should spend more on both.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 9:51 am to mmcgrath
quote:
We should spend more on both.
Or you could spend more on your pet projects instead. Get things fixed up here and then go looking for aliens to conquer.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:03 am to GumplandTiger
quote:Space. The possibilities, by scientifically and practically (e.g., colonization), are probably infinitely greater than exploring the oceans. Seeing the weird creatures that can survive in that insane amount of pressure would be cool, but it's probably not THAT useful.
If we're gonna spend a ton of taxpayer money exploring one of them, which would you rather investigate?
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:04 am to BugAC
quote:Great points. It's not an either or proposition, but space exploration probably has more value so resources should be allocated based on that.
Both are worthy of exploration, however. And both lead to technological advances that we use every day.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:06 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Space. The possibilities, by scientifically and practically (e.g., colonization), are probably infinitely greater than exploring the oceans. Seeing the weird creatures that can survive in that insane amount of pressure would be cool, but it's probably not THAT useful.
I disagree. The health advances made from creatures discovered in the depths have been pretty incredible. Again, listen to The Infinite Monkey Cage podcast from February 5th called "Oceans: What Remains to be Discovered?" It's very interesting and they do it much better justice than i could.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:08 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
but space exploration probably has more value so resources should be allocated based on that.
They each have value. However, more money is pumped into space exploration than deep sea exploration, so naturally, more technological advances should come from space exploration.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:09 am to BugAC
What health advances?
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:10 am to BugAC
For example, we developed some of the most lightweight yet durable material to go on the space station. On the other side, we've developed material that would withstand incredible pressures in the deep sea. It's really interesting stuff on both sides.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:12 am to GumplandTiger
I think I saw on a documentary years ago that we have discovered only 2% of the ocean floor.
And, if we are looking at land, the ocean floor makes up 85 to 90% of the land on planet Earth.
And, if we are looking at land, the ocean floor makes up 85 to 90% of the land on planet Earth.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:16 am to BugAC
quote:Of course, but I still don't think it's even debatable that space exploration has far more possibilities.
However, more money is pumped into space exploration than deep sea exploration, so naturally, more technological advances should come from space exploration.
And putting applied science aside, space exploration has had a significant impact on philosophy, religion, etc.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:18 am to GumplandTiger
What good will the ocean do when the earth goes to shite? This planet can only sustain the population growth, pollution, and destruction for so long. I say explore both as I'm sure the ocean does have a lot to offer.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:20 am to buckeye_vol
It mainly comes down to the facts that the deep ocean is incredibly hard to explore/navigate and, most importantly, it's uninhabitable. No sunlight, pressure alone would crush you, volcanic, etc. It's basically the most unforgiving environment imaginable.
We explore space because it's much more vast than the ocean, it has more possibilities, which means we might find another h
inhabitable planet with life on it.
We explore space because it's much more vast than the ocean, it has more possibilities, which means we might find another h
inhabitable planet with life on it.
This post was edited on 2/23/17 at 11:07 am
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:43 am to PrimeTime Money
quote:
What health advances?
I don't remember off hand, but it was something extracted from some fish or mollusk or cephalopod that was used in vaccinations or something. I'd have to relisten to the podcast.
Posted on 2/23/17 at 10:45 am to BugAC
Oh, and here's another one. The horseshoe crab.
LINK
LINK
quote:
An extract has been used in the industry-standard limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) contamination test since the 1970s -- replacing a rabbit-based system. Forty-five minutes of exposure to the crab's blood is enough to reveal endotoxins from gram-negative bacteria which otherwise avoid detection, and is sensitive enough to isolate a threat the equivalent size of a grain of sand in a swimming pool. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that intravenous drugs and any medical equipment coming in contact with the body must first pass through the crab's blood, from needles to surgical implants including pacemakers. As a result, thousands more of us survive such procedures
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News