Why is space exploration more important than deep sea exploration?

In the past several decades we have spent incredible amounts of money on space exploration. It does seem we have learned a great deal from these endeavours in the past 40 years. However, there appears to be an enormous discrepancy in the amount of money and energy put into deep sea exploration right here on ol’ planet Earth. How does the scientific community account for the disparity? What exactly do we have to gain by placing space exploration above deep sea exploration or any other Earth based research?

Please note, I am not looking for a debate on this subject, as I have no argument on this subject. I am merely looking for any factual answers that may be available.

Thanks in advance.

My WAG,

curiousity - is there life out there? Minerals? green cheese?
bravado - many people have been under the water, but how many have been in space?
been-there done that- Never been to Mars, probably worth a visit
sexier- get more votes to go to Mars.
long term thinking - this planet is F****d, better find a new one
I agree that if we are going to survive as a species, the oceans are in the short term the place to look at

Over the whole period during which space exploration has been a reality, it was perceived as being a huge national defense/national prestige issue. “Capturing the high ground” and all that. Also, space exploration appears to have had much more in the way of profitable spin-off technology like satellites.

In the long run, space exploration will pay off. There’s no doubt in my mind that eventually humans will have to leave Earth, either en masse or as colonists. Knowing about the oceans is all well and good, but when it’s time to go, we need to be ready.

Was it easier, or more feasible at least, to create a craft that could withstand the vacuum of space, rather than the tons of pressure of the deep sea? That may be one reason why. Surely it would be easier for a government to put piles of cash on an achievable goal, than to spend that money researching the possibility of deep sea exploration.

I agree that space exploration should come first and foremost. This planet is pretty much doomed, so we better find another to screw up.

I don’t know if I can give a “factual answer”, but I can make a WAG based on my opinion.

In 1957-1958 we had the “International Geophysical Year”, a period in which scientists all over the world studied our planet. Jacques Cousteau got Calypso in 1950. We’re all familiar with his Undersea World shows; but he and his crew made many other expiditions that were not exciting enough for television. For example, Calypso supported studies about the placement of oil pipelines and the study of undersea geography. (At the time, large explosive charges were set off and their echos were recorded. When Cousteau saw the damage these explosions did to the environment, he banned their use on expeditions mounted from his ship. I believe this led to less destructive methods of echo sounding.) Cousteau and his crew were very active in the 1950s through the 1970s. Thor Heyerdahl was making his anthropological expeditions on the ocean.

Then came Sputnik. Suddenly, people realized that enemies could drop nuclear bombs on them “like dropping stones from an overpass”. Missiles, which was also enjoying much interest, became a matter of survival. Now, nobody wanted a nuclear war; but you could demonstrate to your enemies what you could do by supporting space exploration. Going to the moon was not just because humans are curious and explore; it was a game of "Top this! with the Soviet Union.

For the first time, humans were leaving the atmosphere. We were in the Space Age. Everything had a Space Age “feel”. I remember my dad’s '66 Ford Galaxy 500 (the “Ford 7-Litre”, as we called it). The taillights resembled spaceship exhausts, lots of chrome bits, “spaceship” themed console, etc. Space was exciting! “Hey, we’re going to the Moon!” Underwater was fine back in the '50s with Sea Hunt and all; but “We’re going to the Moon!

So the Public were more excited by spaceships than by fish. Politically and militarily, space was seen as more important because of the ICMB thing. And in the 1960s, there was Star Trek. We’ll never get to boff the alien babes if we stayed mucking about underwater!

But there were some important experiments underwater too. Conshelf and Sealab missions, for example. The Earth’s population was (and still is) growing. The Sea was seen as an unlimited resource that would feed the planet. Aquanauts would become underwater farmers and ranchers. Cousteau even suggested creating a race of surgically altered humans who could live permanently underwater. When I was a kid, one of my favourite cartoons was Sealab: 2020 (which I understand is being remade as a comedy thing). At the time, it was thought that “The oceans will save us!”

But then came the 1970s. There was the energy crisis, economies sagged, there was less money available. The Flower Children seemed to be becoming the Me Generation. Sure, the ocean is nice; but we’ve got to get off of this planet before we blow it up! Yeah, the Cold War was still on. With limited funds, we could learn to farm underwater; or we could build better space ships to show up our opponents. And in many ways, it’s easier to build a space ship than an undersea habitat.

So I think that there are many factors that make space exploration “more important” than undersea exploration in the public’s mind. Flying through space is more exciting. Entertainment (Star Trek, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Lost in Space) focused more on space exploration than undersea exploration (Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea), and this made people tend to forget about the ocean. Feeding the world through more chemicals on the land was easier than undersea farming and ranching. (And many people may have been turned off by the idea of some sort of seaweed soufflé for dinner.) And there was “keeping up with the Joneskis”.

There are still scientists making important discoveries underwater. With the popularity of undersea shows on “science” channels and the demise of our great Cold War adversary, we may see renewed interest in oceanographic exploration.

Dang, it took me so long to type out my ramblings that everyone else already covered my points!

Some reasons scientists are interested in space are:
[ul]
[li]It’s a great vantage point to observe the Earth from[/li][li]Studying the rest of the solar system tells us a lot about the earth - how it formed, what would have happened if conditions were different, etc.[/li][li]You can find extreme conditions not easily reproduced in a lab (e.g. microgravity, 100-million degree plasma, 10[sup]-14[/sup] torr vacuum)[/li][li]It allows many new types of astronomical observations that are impossible to do from the ground.[/li][/ul]
Deep sea exploration allows a closer view of some parts of this planet, but it doesn’t accomplish any of the above. At least not to the extent space science can.

But obviously there’s more to space exploration than science. Public interest, corporate interest and politics are all significant factors.

Why is space exploration more important than deep sea exploration? Well, for one thing, there’s a lot more of it. So if we’re going to explore it, we really need to get started.

Some very good points raised so far. What I have to add is speculative, but makes sense to me.

One logical reason for disparity in funding is the disparity in the amount of funding required to carry out a mission. There is a lot of ocean exploration that can be done using unglamorous surface ships, sonar, and other technologies that are very cheap in comparison to lofting a rocket into orbit or beyond. I would not be at all surprised to find that there is much more ocean exploration going on than gets reported in the news.

In which country? The United States actually spends miniscule amounts of money on the space program. Even at the height of spending, during the Apollo program, funding for NASA amounted to a pizza and a six-pack per American taxpayer per year.

As for the disparity of exploration, we’ve already been to the bottom of he Marianas Trench, the deepest point in the ocean. We’ve explored the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, where new material is welling up and sunless ecosystems thrive. We’ve toured the coral reefs. Now, certainly, it’s still worthwhile to explore more. There’s still plenty to learn in the oceans, and more learning is always good. But there’s not much new to do in the sea.

By contrast, consider our exploration of space. Humans have only been to one other world. Our probes haven’t even gone to all the planets of our Solar System, much less the moons, comets, asteroids, and other interesting subjects. Our most distant robotic explorers are less than a hundred times more distant than the Earth is from the Sun, but the closest stars are hundreds of thousands of times more distant. We’ve still got plenty of frontiers, in space.

Yes.

With spacecraft, even if you pressurized to full standard atmosphere pressures (that’s sea level air pressure to you groundpounders) that’s a differential of only about 15 lbs/square inch between interior and exterior vacuum at most. In the very deep sea, however, you have a pressure differential of tons per square inch. Requires MUCH more robust engineering.

But I think there are other factors as work. There were a number of government programs (both military and civilian), research institutions, and private ventures funding ocean studies throughout the 20th Century. Space, however, has been a purely governmental domain. This may change on June 21 with the planned launch of WhiteKnight/SpaceShipOne out of the atmosphere.

Satellites orbiting the planet are able to peer into the ocean as well.

Because deep sea exploration symbolically represents running from one’s past experiences under the biomechanical domination of the Borg, whereas once one gets into a fight with one’s brother in a vineyard, it becomes obvious that space exploration is really where we belong.