Talk:Deepsea Challenger

Based on archive.org, it looks like the deepseachallenge.com domain disappeared sometime after 3/20/2017. Should that "official website" link be redirected to  ? Is the NGS video still available somewhere? Zilcho (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

26 March 2012

• • • WHO**** built it in Australia & *WHERE* in Australia was it built???

It is *SO* secret I cannot find anything for the above two answers.

Cheers,

Alex -- Alex Portnoy PO Box# 1048 Bondi Junction NSW 1355 AUSTRALIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.44.98 (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

--- Found it - Leichardt, Sydney, NSW, Australia by Acheron Projects Pty Ltd.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3461512.htm?site=sydney

Shouldn't the dive program Deepsea Challenge be a separate article, covering the TV program, the dives, and discoveries? That would clearly separate the research from the submarine. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

NO - The sub (at this point) is synonymous with the dive. The Project (dive), for the most part, is over this article (prose) will not get much bigger, longer. I don't see any need to split this article unless the sub goes on and gets involved in other projects. The discoveries should probably have their own articles since undoubtedly there's little written about them. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No - as per Mlpearc the subjects are pretty much inseparable, certainly there is not enough here now to justify two separate articles. danno 21:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me just dive seven miles down and I'll get you a pic! Let's hope my camera is waterproof... Lugnuts (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The submarine is frequently on the surface, but the mission photos would have to come from the mission. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Wondering what the crush depth of Lug nuts is? (Or the 'lugnuts'?)--220 of ^Borg 03:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

These lugs are not for crushing. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It might be good to make Race to the Marinas Trench (per description at ) about the teams going to Challenger Deep at more or less the same time (Cameron (Deepsea Challenge), Schmidtt (Deep Search), Branson (DeepFlight Challenger), People's Republic of China) 70.24.244.198 (talk) 08:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that the tweet was sent by proxy, not sure this counts? http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/03/26/how_did_james_cameron_tweet_from_the_bottom_of_the_ocean_.html 20:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.220.199.66 (talk)

Damn :P. This was one of the story "mile stones" that caught my interest but, it was sent by a crew member of the support ship on the surface. I don't think it can be classified as the deepest tweet. Mlpearc Public (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The vessel was attached to the surface ship by cable the whole time, right? AMCKen (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not appear to be so. Such a long cable would require a specially built ship, making the mission much more expensive. The Kaiko mission to Challenger Deep was connected by cable though, as was the original sounding that found the Challenger Deep. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What form of English is the article going to adhere to ? After reading WP:MOS Varieties of English and {{Uw-disruptive2}} it seems to me that American English is called for, even though I was expecting it to be International English . Thoughts ? Mlpearc (powwow) 07:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

National Geographic is a US based organization. Guam is a US territory. Cameron is Canadian. So... at the least, it should be North American English. Given the preponderance of US basing (Cameron living in the US, US research organizations, other US organizational involvement), AmE (US English) probably is the correct choice. Ofcourse, this is given that the article is a unified mission and sub article. Separate mission and sub articles may result in different choices, considering the degree of Australian involvement in the sub itself. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

For goodness sakes, now Cameron seems to live in New Zealand. This is the modern world and language purists can really take it too far (outsite literature). They should have left the thing in Australia; maybe the trucking company would have been a little more alert to the possibility of fire through brakes. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ou lala! This article is about an Australian object, developed and built here. It must be strine!!! How convenient that it had the accident, now people can stick nose into secret components. 2001:8003:A921:6300:704B:D3AE:2256:3C0E (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

1. I'm assuming that this thing does not remain tethered to a surface ship when it dives, but saying so explicitly in the article would remove any possibility of doubt. [I just noticed this was asked above, but the answer, if authoritative, should go in the article...]

2. The diagram shows "antennas". It would be interesting to know whether these can function at great depths, and more about the technology that enables that to happen (since one would imagine communicating by radio through seven miles of water might be a tad difficult). 86.160.85.74 (talk) 17:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything referring to a tether which seems would have to about eight to ten miles in length, which brings up the fact that Cameron spent a fair amount of time roaming the bottom which would use up more of the tether. My guess it would not be feasible to have the sub tethered. Mlpearc (powwow) 21:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The story of submersible-ship comms is at http://www.hydro-international.com/issues/articles/id1443-Communications_to_the_Deepest_Point_on_Earth.html GraL (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is nothing but spinning a non-event. What's the point of repeating the Trieste feat 52 years after? It only demonstrates that the team of the Trieste did something vastly superior in 1960 with the technology of the time. It took real innovation and a lot of guts back then. Today it is just the leisure of a bunch of bored billionaires. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.21.180 (talk) 07:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To call this a "non-event" is total nonsense. 86.181.200.87 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A non-event indeed: nothing significant achieved. No new record of any value and no new activity, result or data whatsoever. Only inflating the ego of a few people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.21.180 (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

@ 76.176.21.180 if you honestly believe what you say then I would suggest you nominate the article here and see what the consensus is. Mlpearc (powwow) 18:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, right, and if the U.S. returns to the Moon today, it will also be a total non-event, right? HkCaGu (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)