This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Exploration

Why Should Space Exploration Get More Money Than Ocean Exploration?

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
June 23, 2013

Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending, National Geographic
“In fiscal year 2013 NASA’s annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for everything NOAA does–fishery management, weather and climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programs–was about $5 billion, and NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And that’s not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. … This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as “Mohawk Guy” for his audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself.”
Sylvia Earle: Exploring the World’s Oceans, Ensia
“We understand why it’s important to reach for the stars, to look at ourselves in perspective of the universe, ask big questions such as where did we come from, how is it that we’re here in this blue speck in space, and where are we going? And we’ve devoted a great amount of time and resources to moving forward, but meanwhile we’ve neglected understanding how this part of the solar system – our home – our life support system – how this really functions.”

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

15 responses to “Why Should Space Exploration Get More Money Than Ocean Exploration?”

  1. meekGee says:
    0
    0

    Well, per cubic mile, the ocean people are getting a LOT more.

    Space is much much more difficult, and requires much more advances in technology.

    “But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well.” – when it becomes possible to do a first-of-its-kind manned mission to space for $8M, this will be relevant. (And no,suborbital doesn’t count, nor is it part of the “Space Billions” which are at the core of this gripe.).

    • Michael Bruce Schaub says:
      0
      0

      Cameron’s descent was the underwater equivalent of a sub-orbital flight. Would you pay $8 million for a sub-orbital flight?

      • meekGee says:
        0
        0

        Then he shouldn’t be complaining, since he’s got funding similar in scope to suborbital flights, right?

  2. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    I’d be favor in greatly expanding funding for both, so it’s not an either-or thing. Space exploration just tends to get more press, because it’s so much more high profile than when someone sends a submersible to explore the ecosystem of the deep ocean basins.

  3. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    FWIW, I’m with Brett. Both have considerable potential to improve the human condition. I’m particularly interested in offshore habitation, power generation and more focussed farming (such as kelp cultivation). Let’s stop whining about resources and do something about it, hmm?

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      The powers-that-be readily throw trillions of tax dollars at terrestrial conflicts than what lies above or below us. Personally, I’d rather live in space colony than on the ocean floor.

  4. Geoffrey Landis says:
    0
    0

    First, ocean exploration is cheap enough that private individuals like Cameron CAN fund their own exploration. It will be great when access to space is low enough in cost to do that— but it isn’t yet. If you could do a mission to Mars for eight million, the cost quoted for Cameron’s mission to the bottom of the Marianas, we wouldn’t need NASA for it.

    Second, the oceans are already commercialized. Just for a start, commercial fishing is a 200 BILLION dollar a year industry. A single offshore oil drilling rig can cost five billion dollars– and people set these up because they make a profit on them. NASA’s budget is dwarfed by what’s being put into the oceans by industry already.

  5. David Gaba says:
    0
    0

    Besides agreeing with most of the other comments I ask “What is the continuing scientific program of the Deepsea Challenger vehicle”? It seems like a one-shot mission rather than an ongoing scientific program. We don’t send flybys to anywhere but the Pluto system anymore — a one-time visit to the Challenger Deep was a cool events, which probably gathered some useful data, but it cannot be compared to the scientific program of (especially robotic) space exploration. And space is indeed WAY harder to several orders of magnitude.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Indeed, NASA robotic space exploration has “gathered some useful data.” A pity that NASA human spaceflight has yet to – thanks to American politicians since 1972.

  6. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Government funding for ocean science and exploration directly affects our survival on earth and impacts a significant fraction of human economic activity. Taxpayer funded ocean science is essential so that unbiased information will be available to establish the regulatory environment in areas from seabed exploitation to atmospheric CO2 release.

    The goal of tax-funded ocean science is to increase knowledge, guide policy, and facilitate sustainable development. It is not to spend money on stunts. That’s why NOAA doesn’t pay for human dives to Challenger Deep, an environment that is of interest but is not as high a priority as many shallower areas, and can be best studied robotically.

    We should not fund unsustainable stunts in space either, and unfortunately that is what some of our human exploration plans have become.

  7. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    One important long-term justification for exploring — the oceans and space — is to provide for expansion of the human race. We will always need more room to live, places to farm, sources of resources, etc. While the oceans are large, their combined human-usable portions are extremely finite compared to space. So, investing more into ocean exploration than into space exploration could be effectively painting ourselves into a corner.

    Having said that, from a valid short-term perspective, the oceans play a large part in controlling and sustaining our planetary environment and ecology on Earth, so ocean research would seem to me to be more important than exploration in either place.

    My point is that we have to look at more than just the total dollar value allocated to each endeavour, and consider the details of how those dollars are being spent. As we’ve all seen, a lot of money can be wasted in government programs, and that, being money not well spent, should be filtered out of any comparisons.

  8. John Kavanagh says:
    0
    0

    Well, for one, the universe is a lot bigger than 2/3 of Earth’s surface.

  9. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Because it is way cooler?

    • Norman Campbell says:
      0
      0

      Really, you explore space you find a rock, you explore the ocean you find living things that science fiction directors use to imagine space aliens.