Skip to content

Southern Fried Science

Over 15 years of ocean science and conservation online

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS

Bring the trench to the bench or bring the bench to the trench? The future of deep-sea exploration

Posted on January 15, 2013January 15, 2013 By Andrew Thaler
Science

AndrewThumbNewsweek, in is new and impressive digital format, released a series of articles this week on deep-sea exploration, the challenges of human occupied and remotely-operated vehicles, and the decline in funding for ocean science, particularly in the deep sea. The main article, The Last Dive? Funding for Human Expeditions in the Ocean May Have Run Aground, is a deep, detailed look at the state of deep-sea science, seen through the eyes of Dr. Sylvia Earle and Dr. Robert Ballard, two giants in the ocean community. The follow-up, James Cameron Responds to Robert Ballard on Deep-Sea Exploration, provides insight into the mind of James Cameron, who last year successfully dove the Challenger Deep in his own deep-sea submersible.

Both the articles continue to perpetrate the canard that there is a deep chasm between the human-occupied submersible (HOV) and remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) communities. The reality is that deep-sea scientists use a variety of tools, from mechanical samplers to autonomous robots, to study and understand the deep. The choice comes down to which tool is most efficient, least expensive, and currently available. Absent a sea change, ROV’s will continue to be the workhorses of deep-sea research. And that is a good thing. I sang the praise of my robot underlings the last time this debate breached the public consciousness. I also discussed why basic deep-sea research and training highly skilled ROV pilots is a matter of national security.

Ballard and Earle have been on opposite sides of this divide for a long time, with Earle pushing for a greater human presence in the ocean and Ballard supporting the continued expansion of telepresence technologies that allow scientist and the public to interact with deep-sea assets from the comfort of facilities like the Inner Space Center in Rhode Island. Cameron, whose most successful movie to date is a essentially a meditation on how awesome it is to pilot a really sophisticated ROV, takes the stance that young minds cannot be inspired by remotely-operated exploration, that someone must be there to “experience it first hand and return to tell the story”, claiming “the quickest way to get even less interest and engagement is to take human explorers out of the vehicles.”

I categorically reject the implication that people cannot be inspired unless another person is physically there. The Mars Curiosity Rover is proof enough that our robotic brethren are nothing less than extensions of our own senses. While government funding for deep-sea exploration is waning, almost 500 people came together to donate more than $110,000 to fund OpenROV, an open source project to put as many ROV’s into the ocean as there are people willing to build them. That my first and formative foray into the deep-sea was through the Jason Project, which placed ROV controls into the hands of elementary school students to explore underwater volcanoes in Hawaii, is not incidental.

In the end, the question of whether deep-sea exploration proceeds with human-occupied or remotely-operated vehicles is a false one. From behind a 4-inch quartz plate or an HD monitor, the operator is still a world away from the deep ecosystems we explore. I was there, in New Zealand, when Cameron presented the results of his historic descent. During the majority of the dive, Cameron operated his sub from a “virtual viewport”–a monitor hooked up to several external video cameras. Even the Deepsea Challenger website reveals that “inches from the pilot’s face a screen projects images captured by a Red Epic 5K camera that generates a wide-angle view—better than what the pilot could see with his eyes—from the narrow end of the sphere’s cone-shaped window.” This statement gets to the heart of my frustration–all submersibles are ROV’s, the only difference is tether length.

Ocean exploration, especially deep ocean exploration is struggling in the United States. We are losing submersibles, but we are also losing ROV’s, research vessels, even entire oceanography departments. Amidst all of this, we are also losing sight of the larger picture. Technology doesn’t create explorers, explorers create technology. Any tool, from Wormcam to Alvin, that provides a glimpse into the wonderful unknown, is a tool worth having.

It is the ocean that inspires us. Everything else is hardware.


Over at Deep Sea News, Dr. M and Al Dove discuss why We Need an Ocean NASA Now: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Share this:

  • Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
  • Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
  • Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

Related

Tags: Alvin Ballard Cameron Earle HOV Inner Space Center OpenROV ROV telepresence

Post navigation

❮ Previous Post: An interview with Kool Kid Kreyola of “Me and My Shark Fin”
Next Post: This Week in the Deep ❯

You may also like

Science
Shark Science Monday: Matt Baronio discusses using ROVs to study shark behavior
March 29, 2011
Science
I sing the praise of my robot underlings, the workhorses of deep sea exploration
March 28, 2012
Conservation
OpenROV is changing the way we think about ocean outreach and citizen science
August 16, 2014
Weekly Salvage
Parasitic barnacles, a code of conduct for marine conservation, #BillMeetScienceTwitter, and more! Monday Morning Salvage: May 22, 2017.
May 22, 2017

Popular Posts

At least 74 practicing shark researchers: How a silly thing I said online raised thousands for conservationAt least 74 practicing shark researchers: How a silly thing I said online raised thousands for conservationFebruary 26, 2025David Shiffman
Why the new Trump order to shoot wolves is both illegal and a dreadful precedent for endangered speciesWhy the new Trump order to shoot wolves is both illegal and a dreadful precedent for endangered speciesSeptember 5, 2026Ali Gaster
5 things I learned helping to reassess the global conservation status of every species of tuna and billfish5 things I learned helping to reassess the global conservation status of every species of tuna and billfishSeptember 15, 2026David Shiffman
The Trump Administration’s latest attack on endangered speciesThe Trump Administration’s latest attack on endangered speciesSeptember 17, 2026Ali Gaster
That's not a blobfish: Deep Sea Social Media is Flooded by AI SlopThat's not a blobfish: Deep Sea Social Media is Flooded by AI SlopDecember 19, 2025Andrew Thaler
How to build a canoe from scratch on a graduate student stipendHow to build a canoe from scratch on a graduate student stipendApril 17, 2010Andrew Thaler
What is a Sand Shark?What is a Sand Shark?November 12, 2017Chuck Bangley
What Ocean Ramsey does is not shark science or conservation: some brief thoughts on "the Shark Whisperer" documentaryWhat Ocean Ramsey does is not shark science or conservation: some brief thoughts on "the Shark Whisperer" documentaryJuly 2, 2025David Shiffman
Shark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine is a fake documentaryShark of Darkness: Wrath of Submarine is a fake documentaryAugust 10, 2014Michelle Jewell
10 Tips for grad students to make the most of a scientific conference10 Tips for grad students to make the most of a scientific conferenceAugust 21, 2013David Shiffman
Subscribe to our RSS Feed for updates whenever new articles are published.

We recommend Feedly for RSS management. It's like Google Reader, except it still exists.

Southern Fried Science

  • Home
  • About SFS
  • Authors
  • Support SFS


If you enjoy Southern Fried Science, consider contributing to our Patreon campaign.

Copyright © 2026 Southern Fried Science.

Theme: Oceanly Premium by ScriptsTown