Talk:Deepsea Challenger

Official Website Gone?
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)

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

Deepsea Challenge
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. d a n n o 21:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Image?

 * 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)


 * 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)

"Race to the Marinas Trench"
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)

Deepest Tweet:
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)

Attachment
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)

Language
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)

Tethering, antenna
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)

Spin
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)

Claims in §Development
IP editor 122.106.173.196,

The references you have supplied in answer to the templates do not support the assertions that are made in the article text to which the references are attached.

"The new foam is unique in that it possesses a strength close to that of steel yet, with a density of about 0.7, will float in water."

Here the subject is the strength of the unique foam. The reference that you have provided doesn't address the foam but rather, addresses the compression strength of steel. That is not the same as addressing the strength of the foam.

"While details of the foam's composition are secret, its manufacture utilises inert gases, glass and polyester materials.."

Here the subject is the composition of the foam. The supplied reference does not confirm the composition of Deep Challenger's foam. Syntactic foam is mentioned but that is part of the discussion of Mr. Hawkes' design for Deep Flight Challenger.

"Mr Allum also built many new innovations necessary to overcome the limitations of existing products. Examples being the light emitting diode lighting arrays, new types of cameras and fast reliable penetration communications cables allowing transmissions through the hull of the submersible."

And here, the assertion is that Mr. Allum created new LED arrays, cameras, and hull-penetrating cables. The reference that you supplied addresses hull-penetrating cables. Notable about this reference is that, of the authors listed, Mr. Allum is not one. Also, the reference paper was published in 1994. Lack of authorship credit and the age of the reference each cast doubt on the claim that Mr. Allum created any new hull-penetrating cables.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Fire
July 23rd, 2015, apparently damaged in a fire in CT (assume on interstate?)

Source: CT State Police: https://twitter.com/CT_STATE_POLICE/status/624234560721690624 159.247.160.66 (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is added with a news source. Z22 (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Film
There should probably be some mention of the film of these dives: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2332883/ ed g2s • talk 09:08, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Current location
Unless it was a model, I just saw the deepsea challenger at an exhibit at the LA museum of natural history (dec 22, 2022). Don’t know if it was fully repaired or what but there was no mention/evidence of burn damage. 2600:1012:B123:CBB8:D1B2:B70C:2904:C13B (talk) 03:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Sphere Size
The article says the pilot's sphere is 1.1 meters in diameter. I think that it is wrong.

I checked the source in the citation. It says

"Crammed with equipment and just 43 inches (109 centimeters) wide, the interior of the pilot sphere is so small that the pilot will have to keep his knees bent and can barely move."

For most adults, 1.1 meters diameter would mean more than just knees.

I think the 1.1 meters isn't the diameter of the sphere, just the space between the equipment inside the sphere. 24.142.58.61 (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Trieste Comparison
The article states that the Challenger contains more scientific equipment than the Trieste, and right after this claim there are pictures of scientific equipment. Is this depicting the scientific equipment that the Challenger has over the Trieste? What exactly does the Challenger have that allows it to have a more rapid descent?

Schaefeu74 (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Red Australia????
So, on the beginning of the article at the left, there's the infobox, pretty normal right? So, when i scroll a little bit i find the "History" tab. Below the History Row, there's another Row that mentions the country that the Deepsea Challenger was made, Australia. At the left of the word "Australia", there's the flag of Australia. For some reason yhe Australian flag appears red to me. Like, what? Does this appear to you guys too? &#45; Ehrzeptzo (Formerly known as Zeptoman3308/Anteriormente conhecido como Zeptzoman3308) (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Removed per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 01:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)