James Cameron and Eric Schmidt's SOI Grieve Loss of Nereus ROV 72
theodp (442580) writes "Wealthy guys love extreme submarines, observed Billionaire in 2012. And the Washington Post reported that deep sea exploration is getting to be a rich man's game in 2013. The NY Times also covered the privatization of American science earlier this year. So, it's not too surprising to see the [Google Chair Eric] Schmidt Ocean Institute (SOI) post filmmaker James Cameron's eulogy-of-sorts for the loss of the Nereus ROV, the hybrid remotely operated vehicle that's believed to have imploded under 16,000 PSI of pressure at a depth of 9,990 meters as it explored the Kermadec Trench. 'I feel like I've lost a friend,' wrote Cameron. 'I always dreamed of making a joint dive with Nereus and [Cameron's] Deepsea Challenger at hadal depth.' Also feeling Cameron's pain is SOI, which used the Nereus to explore the Mid-Cayman Rise in 2013 and had plans to use the $6 million HROV again to explore the Mariana Trench in two missions later this year. SOI is currently working with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution to build the world's most advanced deep-diving robotic vehicle for use on SOI's ship R/V Falkor, which Wendy Schmidt indicated provides ship time that enables researchers to tap into available funding."
WOW (Score:1)
6.21 miles deep, that's impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at what Jim Cameron's brother Mike does for a living. Extreme stuff like that is in the family's blood.
Re:WOW (Score:4, Funny)
"Mike Cameron, brother to James, is a super-smart aerospace engineer. He came up with a way to film at 12,600 feet underwater, and JPL wants to use the technology to explore one of the moons of Jupiter."
Oh great, haven't they read the memo about attempting no landings there? Now those aliens are going to get all monolith on our asses.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it was so impressed, it imploded!
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry, we're still at war, the first victim of which has always been truth. So truth has been dead and buried for years.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
back up on land, people in other parts of the world are starving...
And you haven't donated any of your money to help them, have you?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's really sad that in our society a begger can make more in an hour than a trained chef serving you a $40 steak.
So what? (Score:1)
How many miles can THEY go under the sea.
Besides, they are generally starving because leaders of their land are on a power trip. Not playing with subs is going to help them not at all; sending more aid just means another gold plated limo for the king.
I'd rather have the submersible exist, thanks.
Is this a special posting? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is this a special posting? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
So hard to admit slashdot is dead.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Erh... if this is supposed to be an ad, it backfires badly. Just take a look around at the comments...
Re: (Score:2)
James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does, because James Cameron IS James Cameron.
Re: (Score:2)
It has sunk low enough to cave under the pressure to publish slashvertisements.
Re: (Score:1)
"Mr Schmidt played in a key role in the re-election of President Barack Obama last month, helping to oversee Google's $700,000 donation to his campaign."
Link [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Relax. Either he discovers something for science or he eventually removes himself from the gene pool.
It's just so win-win...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Should have been "Schmidt Ocean Laboratory" (Score:4, Funny)
Then the initials would have been "S.O.L."
Re: (Score:2)
One rule of thumb I remember from way back... an institute founded by an individual and named after himself usually means it mainly generates pseudoscience.
Also, was anyone else disappointed that Mr. Cameron wasn't on that sub when it imploded?
Re: (Score:2)
Also, was anyone else disappointed that Mr. Cameron wasn't on that sub when it imploded?
What grievous offence has he committed upon your person that you'd wish him a horrendous death and his body likely never recovered? I quite liked Aliens myself.
They will build a better one (Score:3)
Unless you want to actually use one (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In the eyes of folks who build underwater robots, that may be true. For folks who use underwater robots to accomplish a task, it's all about accomplishing that task. State of the art, obsolescent, obsolete, they simply don't care so long as it works and accomplishes what they ask of it.
I'm sure the
"Obsolete" != useless (Score:3)
Underwater robotics is all about advancing the state of the art.
That may be true but the primary aim here is marine research, better robotics is a secondary consideration and besides we already know a 10 km high water column can turn a sub into a cigarette box in the blink of an eye, and it only takes a microscopic imperfection in the hull to trigger such an event.
When we are talking about very expensive research tools "Obsolete" does not mean useless, we are talking about a sub that can (almost) reach 10km down. I can only think of two other subs that have reached t
People should learn history (Score:3, Insightful)
“For better or worse,” said Steven A. Edwards, a policy analyst at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “the practice of science in the 21st century is becoming shaped less by national priorities or by peer-review groups and more by the particular preferences of individuals with huge amounts of money.”
Coz, like, science has never relied on rich benefactors before. Hint: Before government-funded science it was rich benefactors that provided residence, food and money for artisans and scientists.
Re: (Score:2)
History is is the fastest way to understanding Science (with a capital 'S') and one of the best "executive summaries" I've read (and watched) is The ascent of man [youtube.com].
Most of the pre-1900 polymaths that gave us the enlightenment were either nobility or one social step down from it. The simple fact of the matter is that they were the only people who could afford the "leisure time" to purse their intellectual curiosity. It was not unusual for these people to
Re: (Score:2)
a waste (Score:1)
Oh Boo Hoo (Score:2)
6 million to a billionaire is like me losing a $50 Toy RC Helicopter. Only I don't whine about it as much, or milk it for all the PR I can get.
Re: (Score:1)
confusing headline (Score:2)
Re: confusing headline (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Gotta keep it up (Score:2)
Wealthy guys love extreme submarines
...because jets are so 20th century, no-one will take you seriously.
Isn't this small change for billionaires? (Score:3)
Isn't $6 million small change for Schmidt and Cameron? couldn't they just check out the loose change down the back of the armchair/ in their car's ashtray and pay for a new (and better one)? I am sure several US universities would be more than happy to have one of these folks offer to buy a new submarine for them on the agreement that said donor gets a certain amount of access to it.
Surely this is small change for these folks (and they are canny enough to work out how to make money out of the donation, e.g. by making a film about it).
Re: (Score:3)
I think he has worked out a way to make money on it. Step one is to drum up interest by talking about the one that was lost....
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, they learned valuable information on what will cause a ROV to finally implode. Similar to Edison being quoted as finding out 1,000 ways not to make a lightbulb.
Raving Nutjobs (Score:3)
Only a lunatic would risk violating the Benthic Treaty. Giving Blue Hades a casus belli would be a really, REALLY bad idea.
Really? Is anyone buying this? (Score:2)
Riiiiiiiiiight.. "implosion". More like someone was poking around into territories - specifically outlined as forbidden - in the 1953 Benthic Treaty of Azores with BLUE HADES and got their expensive little toy slapped.
Try and not get us wiped out there Cameron.. thanks.