Comments on: Journey to the Center of the Earth?

Journey to the Center of the Earth?

amberglow — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:24:11 -0800

Hole Drilled to Bottom of Earth's Crust, Breakthrough to Mantle Looms --Should we be doing this? What will happen? The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (IODP) seeks the elusive "Moho," a boundary formally known as the Mohorovicic discontinuity. It marks the division between Earth's brittle outer crust and the hotter, softer mantle. (the creamy nougat center?)

By: moonbird

moonbird — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:36:37 -0800

how many licks does it take to get to the center of a...? oh never mind.

By: reflection

reflection — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:39:14 -0800

there was a theory floating about a year or so ago about super-hot molten blob of metal that would melt its way to the center

By: cloeburner

cloeburner — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:40:08 -0800

and i thought this had already been done ...

By: snsranch

snsranch — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:49:19 -0800

According to scientific "theory" quarks or somesuch shoot through our planet all the time. I'll start worrying when I hear Cantonese from that hole my dog has been digging for two years in the back yard.

By: 40 Watt

40 Watt — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 21:50:05 -0800

moonbird: I think this is what you're looking for.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:22:40 -0800

I always wondered why the giant holes that are dug on Mars by the colonists in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy are called "moholes". Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:44:30 -0800

This is how Satan gets freed from hell. Thanks, Science!

By: bluehermit

bluehermit — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:44:57 -0800

Why is it really necessary to do this? I'm sure there are more productive things we could be doing or spending money on..

By: hattifattener

hattifattener — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:56:40 -0800

It's not like this "web" thing or the whole "automobile" business were really necessary either ... and really, shouldn't a certain someone have been off hunting or gathering instead of "discovering fire"? sheesh ...

By: tempest2i

tempest2i — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 22:59:15 -0800

Geologists have been able to study the upper mantle/lower crust for a long time now, ever since we figured out what those crazy ophiolites were we found in a few locations around the world. It should also be noted that the upper mantle is still solid rock. There's no magma. There's no lava down there either. Just really hot igneous rocks. It's interesting to just be able to drill down that far, but I'm not waiting for anything life altering to come out of that hole. On Preview: Why is it really necessary to do this? I'm sure there are more productive things we could be doing or spending money on.. Because we can do it. This is the type of thing that science should be doing. Igneous petrologists have never been able to directly sample in situ mantle rock before. If we kept saying to ourselves that we could be spending our money in better ways we'd never get to do these things. And then we'd be setting limits on the scientific community.

By: kickingtheground

kickingtheground — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:00:46 -0800

Why is it really necessary to do this? I'm sure there are more productive things we could be doing or spending money on.

Oh, come on. You're not the least bit curious to see what our planet is made up out of?! Also, if you want practical applications: concievably, a better model of the composition of the earth could increase the accuracy with which he can detect/measure/predict/model earthquakes, volcanos, tsunamis, and the like.

By: OneOliveShort

OneOliveShort — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:18:21 -0800

Caution: Planet nougat made in factory that also handles nuts.

By: bluehermit

bluehermit — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:26:04 -0800

Oh, come on. You're not the least bit curious to see what our planet is made up out of?! haha not really, well not in the case of drilling so deep, but that's just me

By: JGreyNemo

JGreyNemo — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:26:10 -0800

Why is it really necessary to do this? I'm sure there are more productive things we could be doing or spending money on. As far as government/privately funded mad science goes... they could be doing a whole lot worse.

By: c13

c13 — Thu, 07 Apr 2005 23:52:04 -0800

Why is it really necessary to do this? I'm sure there are more productive things we could be doing or spending money on.. Yeah, fuck that whole science stuff...

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:02:41 -0800

I just learned tonight that geothermal is bringing in ~20x the production of solar for California's electricity generation needs (5% vs 0.3%). This is indeed one very hot rock we're living on...

By: PenDevil

PenDevil — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:07:23 -0800

Could this be used for geothermal power generation? Or at least help in better development of it?

By: Stauf

Stauf — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:35:39 -0800

c13:Yeah, fuck that whole science stuff... What an intelligent ~~strawman~~ answer.

By: c13

c13 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 00:44:00 -0800

Well, I think it matches up the question pretty well. I'm not making up a strawman here, you can ask this same question about any basic science. More generally, if people decide to spend 1.5 billion dollars on something, they probably have pretty good reasons, even if you can't think of any.

By: Stauf

Stauf — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:01:57 -0800

you can ask this same question about any basic science This is true. But surely some pursuits are more worthwhile than others? In any case, I find this interesting simply because I'm the curious type who likes to think about this kind of stuff, so I don't really have a problem with it. I just hate to see an argument that may be asking a valid (and sincere) question get misrepresented as some kind of anti-science/anti-intellectual thing.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:07:27 -0800

I HATE ARGUMENTS!!! Stauf, c13, kiss and make up. TwelveTwo demands it.

By: c13

c13 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:18:21 -0800

This argument is exactly anti-intellectual. Nothing but. I'm sure there are more productive things we could be doing or spending money on. Come on, what else is there? He's basing the worth of doing something on how productive that thing is, that is, what he can gain from it materially. Spending money just to gain knowledge is obviously not productive. On preview: c13 does not kiss strangers. Well, maybe only cute ones...

By: BlackLeotardFront

BlackLeotardFront — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:46:40 -0800

are you suggesting that knowledge is not a product worth spending on? I think it's awesome. Anyway, I'm sure they had this kind of argument when they wanted to send a guy to the moooon. Some said, wtf, others dude! And basically it's just to advance the knowledge of natural science and domain of humankind.

By: c13

c13 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:50:02 -0800

No. I'm saying exactly the opposite, its one of the very few things that are actually worth spending the money on.

By: TwelveTwo

TwelveTwo — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 03:27:00 -0800

I see a lot of talking, and not enough kissing. I only rented this camera for the day.

By: saysthis

saysthis — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:44:28 -0800

the elusive "Moho," a boundary formally known as the Mohorovicic discontinuity. It marks the division between Earth's brittle outer crust and the hotter, softer mantle. Is it really that hard to find? Really? Are they searching with a Dremel?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 04:54:13 -0800

We should be spending this money on SDI and B2 bombers dammit! Unless maybe the oil or defense companies are profiting from this somehow or they're using Halliburton drilling rigs or something, then it's fine. [/snark]

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:02:26 -0800

Astronomy seems like the perfect example here; it is the oldest of the sciences, and the purest, in the sense that it is knowledge for the sake of knowledge. But many, many good things have come out of space exploration. Teflon, pc's, even the beginnings of the internet... all byproducts of astronomy. For an idea of how much stuff, try this. In short, this is worth doing, in part for the reasons given by tempest2i above; it's something we know less about than we'd like to, but there are also potential practical applications that are as yet unforseen.

By: raygirvan

raygirvan — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:34:39 -0800

"why the giant holes that are dug on Mars by the colonists in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy are called "moholes". Named after Project Mohole, an earlier attempt, 1958-1966, that fell over due to funding problems and monumental administrative screw-up. See here and Greenberg, D.S. 1964. Mohole: The project that went awry. Science 143:115-119.

By: herostratus

herostratus — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:45:11 -0800

Good Lord. Have these people not read The Day The Earth Screamed (Arthur Conan Doyle's Professor Challenger story, not the avant-garde music piece)? As I'm sure you'll recall, in the story the good professor attempts a similar dig, only to discover that the earth is a living creature -- not in the Gaia-hypotheis sense but alive like a kitten or a giant hissing cockroach or your Uncle Dwight -- which responds to being so pricked by, well, screaming.

By: oddman

oddman — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 05:45:36 -0800

Hey exlotuseater, I thought math was the oldest science. Oh, you meant natural science. I get it now.

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:22:16 -0800

oddman: I have always considered math and science to be two completely seperate and distinct fields. However, questioning this, I found this thread, which shows me that there is some debate about that. I'm still trying to decide where I stand.

By: exlotuseater

exlotuseater — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:23:27 -0800

Please NOTE that I think ID is garbage.

By: Eekacat

Eekacat — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:37:40 -0800

It would be kinda funny if when they pierced the earth that it flew around like a deflating balloon spewing earth-jizz all over the solar system.

By: MadeByMark

MadeByMark — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 06:53:56 -0800

All of this has already happened on Doctor Who.

By: naomi

naomi — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:03:20 -0800

MetaFilter: Some said wtf, others said dude!

By: c13

c13 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 07:36:45 -0800

MetaFilter: spewing earth-jizz all over the solar system.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:38:14 -0800

C13: That "fuck science" was bullshit. Just like the argument that any time people want to spend a lot of money on something, they have "a pretty good reason for it." A pretty good reason is not a valid reason (see: Missile Defense/Star Wars), and the thought that since we don't have unlimited funds with which to pursue scientific endeavors pretty much means that by funding this some other projects won't get funded. I can think of many, many things that would do more good for the world with the money than just exploring the moho (even if it does eventually teach us to make the ultimate mojito). I am, ultimately, in favor of this project. But the reductive and hostile answers you gave are more likely to encourage anti-intellectualism than just asking if we could be doing something better with the cash.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 08:58:16 -0800

c13 writes " This argument is exactly anti-intellectual. Nothing but." I actually find your argument, but not your point, to be anti-intellectual. Someone asked a question about purpose, and your response was STFU. You say that there must be a good one, but you don't provide one, or even take a crack at providing one. I agree that knowledge is usually a good thing, but I also think that, yes Virginia, there should be limits on our scientific community. Any scientist knows that we live in a world of finite resources, and we can and should make determinations about what is most important for us to pursue.

By: c13

c13 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:17:54 -0800

Oh please, last thing I'm trying to do is to shut someone up. I you think that determining if our ideas about how Earth is made up is not worth spending money on, I guess I really can't argure with you. There is always someone who can think of better things to spend money on. Just like, for example, going to the Moon or Mars. Yes, its easier and cheaper to send robots, but that's not really the point. Or building huge radiotelescopes or particle accelerators. We won't get much other than knowledge out of them, so we can always spend the money on making a better TV or finding the cure for hair loss. OmieWise says: Any scientist knows that we live in a world of finite resources, and we can and should make determinations about what is most important for us to pursue. Maybe, but in the last 2 years we've spent 180 billion on a little escapade in Middle East. And how many more billion were spent on buying useless shit, gambling, hookers, etc, by private individuals? Do you have these things in mind? Scientific projects get funded according to their merit as determined by a peer group. I'm not on a review panel, so I cannot give you the exact reason why this one got funded, other than what I've already said. But apparently there is one.

By: c13

c13 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 09:21:25 -0800

Someone asked a question about purpose, and your response was STFU. Why is it really necessary to do this? I'm sure there are more productive things we could be doing or spending money on. Read the last part. It really wasn't a question, was it?

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:11:30 -0800

OmieWise: Any scientist knows that we live in a world of finite resources, and we can and should make determinations about what is most important for us to pursue. Certainly, and scientists compete for funding based against other "important research". Given that one of the co-sponsors of this is the Japanese government, it seems possible that there might be a payoff somewhere down the road in terms of better understanding of earthquakes and volcanoes. But ok, lets put this in perspective here. Lots of people saw the $1.5 billion, but missed the "10-year" at the start of the sentence. Fermilab gets about $285 million a year in comparison.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 11:44:17 -0800

Yes, but can you catch and eat snakes in this new hole?

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:24:14 -0800

C13: Ouch, those straw men hurt when you beat them. If unmanned space flight can gather information just as well, only cheaper with less risk, why not do that and spend the rest of the money on running more experiments? It's not all hair loss, y'know. (Your first straw man). And I don't think that you're going to find a lot of people here saying that invading countries is a better use of public money than, say, curing AIDS or diptheria (your second straw man).

By: c13

c13 — Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:11:56 -0800

I really cannot answer your first question. Its one of the things that are either obvious or a complete nonsense. And I'm not making a judgement as to which one is true in this case. As for my second straw man (or is he yours?), it came in two parts, while you only listed the first one. But fine. Yes, I won't find many people on this here site who say that. But noone said anything about the people on this particular site in the first place. Secondly, we're in Iraq, the guys who got us there are still in power, we elected them, again. Obviously the majority then doesn't mind wasting money on our imperialistic aspirations. Compare 180 billion in two years to NIH or NSF budget.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 12:08:30 -0800

But are they sure it's safe? Wouldn't possible risks be extremely Earth-ruiningly catastrophic? As a non-scientific person entirely, i kinda think that spewing earth-jizz may not be far off.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:03:52 -0800

amberglow: But are they sure it's safe? Wouldn't possible risks be extremely Earth-ruiningly catastrophic? *boggles* Much larger events happen along the mid-Atlantic ridge on a daily basis.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:06:18 -0800

do they? and the mantle is exposed?

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 19:29:29 -0800

Well, there are the eruptions that created Atlantis Mastif for example. I think there is this big misconception going on here that the Earth is this super-pressurized can of stuff that just happens to boil up at weak places in the crust. A great metaphor I've heard once upon a time is that the continental and oceanic plates float on top of the mantle like the foamy scum that collects on top of boiling milk (or mead, maple syrup, or wort if your inclinations bend those ways.) Volcanic hotspots are not really the exception to this rule as the reason magma rises to the surface is because it is more bouyant than the surrounding rocks, not because of some inherent great pressure pushing them up through weak spots. The end result is that volcanic eruptions are reall huge events, demanding quite a bit more than just 2ft hole to the surface.

By: thatwhichfalls

thatwhichfalls — Sat, 09 Apr 2005 21:08:15 -0800

This is a monumentally bad article. "This latest effort, which drilled 4,644 feet (1,416 meters) below the ocean seafloor ..." That is nowhere near deep enough to hit the Moho - even at a mid-ocean ridge you would have to drill kilometers of rock. "The new hole, which took nearly eight weeks to drill, is the third deepest ever made into the floor of the sea, according to the National Science Foundation (NSF)." If the NSF said that they should pay more attention. I have worked routinely on wells that go upwards of 20,000 ft into the sea floor - some of them into oceanic crust. Oh - eight weeks for a deep sea well is nothing - a difficult one will usually be budgeted at around $20m which translates into three months or so. I've worked on ones that took upwards of a year. Shame they made such a mess of the report, because this is significant news. A knowledge of the precise nature of the upper mantle (which is not liquid and will not shoot out the hole and blast us all into space) would be useful. It would help with finding rocks on the surface that have a similar chemical makeup. Finding out what is under our feet is, however, inherently worthwhile. This planet is not a simple thing - it's an intricate set of complex processes spread over many thousands of cubic kilometers operating on timescales ranging from seconds to millennia. We live on top of it and we should try to at least understand a little of how it works. Oh, and yes, there's money in doing this stuff (although the JOIDES Resolution and the whole program around it is regarded as incredibly old-fashioned out here in the commercial drilling business).