Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Remembering Sealab

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the do-you-want-the-mustache-on-or-off? dept.

Books 138

An anonymous reader writes "'Some people remember Sealab as being a classified program, but it was trying not to be,' says Ben Hellwarth, author of the new book Sealab: America's Forgotten Quest to Live and Work on the Ocean Floor, which aims to 'bring some long overdue attention to the marine version of the space program.' In the 1960s, the media largely ignored the efforts of America's aquanauts, who revolutionized deep-sea diving and paved the way for the underwater construction work being done today on offshore oil platforms. It didn't help that the public didn't understand the challenges of saturation diving; in a comical exchange a telephone operator initially refuses to connect a call between President Johnson and Aquanaut Scott Carpenter, (who sounded like a cartoon character, thanks to the helium atmosphere in his pressurized living quarters). But in spite of being remembered as a failure, the final incarnation of Sealab did provide cover for a very successful Cold War spy program."

cancel ×

138 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Helium atmosphere? (5, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937639)

I guess that explains Hesh's voice.

Aquanauts?!? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939295)

Aquanaut. Water sailor. Isn't that a little redundant?

Fignuts (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937643)

Fignuts

Stimutacs (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937665)

It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain!

Re:Stimutacs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937777)

Golf sucks. Hesh wants to go to the Nineteenth Hole. Hesh wants jalapeno poppers. Hesh wants poppers.

Re:Stimutacs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938339)

Hesh wants some sex.

The ocean frontier - not (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937671)

There was the idea in the 1960s that the ocean was as important a frontier as space. There was talk of undersea cities. Today, zilch. There are pretty renderings of underwater hotels on the web, but none of them actually got built. The one "underwater hotel" in the world is a recycled two room research habitat.

Drilling wells in the ocean floor is a big business, but that's about as far as it's gone.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (5, Funny)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937713)

Space, sadly, doesn't even have oil exploration going for it.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937957)

You guys laugh now, but of all places to find pockets of oil and natural gas in space, Mars is our closest workable candidate.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938259)

You guys laugh now, but of all places to find pockets of oil and natural gas in space, Mars is our closest workable candidate.

Really ? I think you'll find Uranus is a more prodigious source of natural gas.

That's Where You Went? (0)

Niscenus (267969) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938285)

Really?

See, as I look at it, burning petroleum from other planets on this one should make it even more Venusian than burning the pre-solar petroleum under the basaltic plains.

I wonder if we'll see some steam-punk space travel of using our petroleum to get more petroleum elsewhere. Go us!

Re:That's Where You Went? (2)

inasity_rules (1110095) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939765)

How could you possibly miss a Uranus joke? Seriously?

Well (1)

Niscenus (267969) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939899)

It was technically accurate, and besides, we renamed Uranus to Urectum to get around that stupid joke.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (4, Insightful)

flyingsquid (813711) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938543)

You've got to be joking. It wouldn't matter even if there were oceans of high grade crude oil on the moon. Look at the Saturn V- the entire thing is one big fuel canister, with an engine on the bottom, and a little crew capsule on top. They burned that entire canister's worth of fuel just to get that tiny little Apollo module to the Moon and back. Moving a mining operation into space, and then moving fuel out of a gravity well- even a shallow one like the Moon- is going to burn far more than you could ever transport; it's a losing proposition. To move fuel economically you need something like an oil tanker or a train- a vehicle that moves vast quantities of fuel, while burning only a little bit of fuel itself. And to do that, you'd need something like a highly efficient fusion engine, or some kind of fantastic Star Trek technology. And if you had that technology, why would you need to get fuel from space?

The same goes for pretty much any resource except maybe gold. It takes a huge amount of resources to go to space and back. The only way it's profitable is if the resources you bring back are more expensive than the resources you expend building and launching the rocket. Until that changes- until there's some radical change in launch technology that makes space travel cheaper — not by a factor of two or three, but orders of magnitude cheaper — the idea of resource extraction in space isn't even science fiction, it's fantasy.

That's the real reason that undersea colonies and space colonies didn't happen. It's definitely technologically possible, but it's just not economically possible.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (4, Insightful)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939303)

Do you remember how efficiently crude oil was harvested and refined 100 years ago? I wouldn't be surprised if the early wells achieved 10% extraction of the available raw material.

All we need to get lunar petroleum back to Earth is a space elevator pipeline, (relatively) easy to build on the moon, and if you pump it fast enough, it will get slung out the other end with more energy than you are pumping into it. Then we just have to catch it as it free falls toward Earth and give it a safe re-entry, again, Space Elevators seem like the way to go, and you can run some pretty nice generating turbines capturing the kinetic energy of the falling petroleum.

Anyone who believes the above is serious needs to check their humor sensors... on the other hand, using space elevators to lower raw materials from orbit just might be a good way to power mass up to orbit...

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 2 years ago | (#38940611)

Do you remember how efficiently crude oil was harvested and refined 100 years ago? I wouldn't be surprised if the early wells achieved 10% extraction of the available raw material.

All we need to get lunar petroleum back to Earth is a space elevator pipeline, (relatively) easy to build on the moon, and if you pump it fast enough, it will get slung out the other end with more energy than you are pumping into it. Then we just have to catch it as it free falls toward Earth and give it a safe re-entry, again, Space Elevators seem like the way to go, and you can run some pretty nice generating turbines capturing the kinetic energy of the falling petroleum.

Anyone who believes the above is serious needs to check their humor sensors... on the other hand, using space elevators to lower raw materials from orbit just might be a good way to power mass up to orbit...

Ok, now you've stopped laughing I guess in another 50 years we will have one.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

lostthoughts54 (1696358) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939309)

or a space elevator of some kind. I believe designs for that have been in the works for years and is only limited by carbon nanotube length. We are getting better and better at making longer tubes but the lengths we need for the elevator is a long way off. Granted this is from memory of a article i read in a NG magazine in high school but the idea is the trip will take a few days(which i think would be much lower if not transporting living things) and will end on a landing platform in low earth orbit. At this point taking off and landing become trivial.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

drmofe (523606) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939559)

Your point would be wonderfully made, if not for the fact that Earth is at the bottom of the gravity well and the Moon is near the top. If there was crude oil on the moon (or any other useful energy-bearing ore), all that would be needed would be to get it to free-return trajectory, which is a whole lot less than raising it to LEO from Earth.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939769)

You've got to be joking. A +5 Insightful for that? The Moon has no meaningful atmosphere. That means all those friction problems with magnetic launch systems no longer apply. You use a linear motor to get you up to whatever speed you need to be going, and then just coast the rest of the way. At our current utility costs, you would be looking at a couple $/kg to put something into Lunar transfer orbit, and maybe a few dozen $/kg for enough fuel for a LEO insertion burn, although that could be cut down significantly with aerobraking.

At our current technology, there really isn't much of worth on the Moon for use on Earth. There is huge worth as a materials source for anything you might want to do in space.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939793)

Moving a mining operation into space, and then moving fuel out of a gravity well- even a shallow one like the Moon- is going to burn far more than you could ever transport; it's a losing proposition. To move fuel economically you need something like an oil tanker or a train- a vehicle that moves vast quantities of fuel, while burning only a little bit of fuel itself. And to do that, you'd need something like a highly efficient fusion engine, or some kind of fantastic Star Trek technology. And if you had that technology, why would you need to get fuel from space?

How about something 1,000,000 times more dense than carbon fuels? [wikipedia.org] Sounds star-trek like to me. The catch? It's dangerous and risky (psychologically), until we find a cure for all cancers. Practical fusion would be a fantastic, unbelievably awesome breakthrough, but it would only provide ~3 times the gravimetric energy density of fission-based fuels. It does seem that with this star-trek like technology at our disposal today, it would be insane to use it to mine utterly inferior (except arguably safer) fuels from the nearby cosmos, but given the risk factors, I wouldn't be that surprised to see it happen.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (3, Funny)

DeathToBill (601486) | more than 2 years ago | (#38940003)

Hang on... moon... space elevator... YES! Let's move the moon to a geostationary orbit and use it as the other anchor for a space elevator!

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38940135)

Gold is heavy. ITYM printer ink.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38940579)

I've done calculations to show that picking up giant diamonds from the surface of Mars with a very optimistically priced robot wouldn't be profitable. The only possible resource that could be profitable to bring back from space would be He3 from the moon, for use in fusion power.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (2)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 2 years ago | (#38940005)

The Moon is much closer than Mars and since all planets are made of the same schtuff, it should also have water, oil and gas just like all the other planets.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

Coisiche (2000870) | more than 2 years ago | (#38940329)

but of all places to find pockets of oil and natural gas in space, Mars is our closest workable candidate.

I was under the impression that fossil fuels were a result of organic (i.e. formerly living) material getting compressed for a few million years. There is no evidence that the required quantities of life ever existed on Mars and nor (I believe) any evidence of the plate tectonics needed to compress it when it was dead.

Space has fuel sources: ethane, methane, hydrogen (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938707)

Space, sadly, doesn't even have oil exploration going for it.

However it could have something akin to natural gas exploration. Space has fuels such as ethane, methane, hydrogen, etc.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937839)

Arguably, deep-ish ocean has most of the same things going against it that space does, but with the additional(advantage or disadvantage depends on your opinion) that there is a much 'smoother' gradient between terrestrial work and deep-ocean work than there is between land and space.

With a mixture of robots and things on strings, you can exploit much of the economically interesting stuff below the water surface without any long term human habitation. Where that isn't possible(certain construction projects related to drilling, some salvage work, having a fleet of nuclear submarines ready to get their second-strike on with extreme prejudice...) you do, indeed, find people. Generally very expensive ones; but available if you are suitably motivated.

The cost of entry starts at nearly zero, pick up a fishing line at your nearest sporting goods shop, and just keeps going up, more or less smoothly(but very, very fast at the high end) for how deep you want to go and how long you want to go there. That's the kicker: For any cool undersea scheme, you can probably cook up a scheme with 90% of the benefits at much lower cost just by not going as deep or by not staying there as long. It doesn't help that many of the technologies you would need to live successfully underwater could be applied more easily and more pleasantly to existing untapped options.

Want to live on seafood and algae, in a hamster-habitube, in a hostile environment where you can't drink the water? No problem, we have loads of coastal desert where you can desalinate to your heart's content, and won't even have to breath trimix all the time!

Re:The ocean frontier - not (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938047)

You know, I really hate rational people sometimes....

Re:The ocean frontier - not (4, Funny)

turing_m (1030530) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938641)

That's nothing compared with the hate that the irrational can have for imaginary people. But most people in the real world simply don't like dealing with such complex issues.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

dbc (135354) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939165)

Of course. For imaginary and complex issues you don't want irrationals, you want transcendentals: e and pi.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (5, Informative)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938751)

One REALLY big difference between undersea and space is air pressure. If you want people to be living near 1atm of pressure then in space you have to deal with at most 1atm of pressure on your hull. Underwater you're dealing with more than 1atm of pressure before you reach depths on par with a big swimming pool. That means you need a lot less structural strength in your spacecraft.

All the messing around with gas mixtures undersea is about trying to work at higher pressures to cut down on that disadvantage, but it gets really messy - people are designed to live at 1atm on 20% O2. In space that is fairly easy to provide, and deep underwater it is almost impossible.

Now, in space you have lots of other issues to deal with I'll grant you, and the cost of moving around is pretty high too (well, maneuver in space is cheaper per mile than underwater, except that stuff is thousands of miles apart so you do a LOT more of it and once you're close to a gravity well you build up kinetic/potential energy and changing your energy state is much harder). Underwater you can just use buoyancy to do half the work.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939401)

Actually, all you need to deal with is 0 psi of pressure gradient underwater.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939863)

That's not really true, only some of these thing is open in the bottom, others have airlooks.

and even if it's open in the bottom there will be a pressure difference. If there is 4 meters from the open bottom to the top there will be a 4 meters of water of pressure difference at the top and the surrounding water. (5.7 psi overpressure on the inside at the top, or about 0.4 atm of pressure difference).

(The air pressure inside will be the same as the water pressure at the opening in the floor. On the outside 4 meters up there will be 4 meter less of water pressure, on the inside there is no water to push back down.)

Re:The ocean frontier - not (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38940369)

If, and only if, you are content to breathe either some sort of liquid(maybe they've finally gotten those fluorocarbons worked out?) or some gas mix at whatever the pressure imposed by your depth is. Unfortunately, it appears that virtually all potential atmospheres are some flavor of toxic, narcotic, or both at any more than modest pressure.

Also, "Dysbaric Osteonecrosis" is about as fun as it sounds, possibly less so.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (4, Informative)

JoeMerchant (803320) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939341)

I think that undersea conditions are actually more challenging than Space, at least LEO Space. You've got a terrible corrosion problem underwater, typically saturation level humidity, and the pressure differential to a "shirtsleeve" environment is higher as soon as you get below 60' (at 30' depth, you can saturation dive indefinitely with no special gasses and no decompression needed...), and then there's the mixed gas / decompression thing if you want to run your environment at a higher pressure to make a larger hull practical.

A blowout in the space-station can be plugged with duct tape (from the inside)... a blowout in an undersea habitat at 100' depth is considerably harder to deal with.

It is a shorter trip to "the undersea world," but the challenges pile up very quickly as you go down.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38940393)

The one (partially) compensatory factor is that getting mass roughly where you want it in the ocean is dirt cheap and relatively simple compared to getting it out of a gravity well. So, if you are prepared to massively overbuild, you can at least get your monstrosity delivered...

Unfortunately, even if you are willing to massively overbuild, that doesn't solve the "But why?" problem: Living in a structure designed largely for its ability to survive massive pressure for any length of time would be a fairly horrid experience, and the inability to bring a human outside without truly alarming tech diving(or even have a structurally safe window), would likely leave you with a terribly expensive pressure-vessel full of hydronauts who spend their time operating the same ROVs and whatnot that they could just as easily be operating over a tether from a cheaper and vastly more pleasant surface support ship(or some sort of near-surface neutrally buoyant platform, if local weather is a problem)...

Re:The ocean frontier - not (2)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937925)

I don't think a lot of people are clamoring to live on the ocean floor. On a continental shelf would be bad enough. It's not an easy life, expensive and pretty risky. There are remotely operated vehicles and other machines to do the drilling for oil and related work.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937997)

"I don't think a lot of people are clamoring to live on the ocean floor. "

Why not? What could possibly happen?
Will the guys upstairs pumping thousands of tons of radioactive water upon us?
No way!

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938003)

It's not like everyone will turn on each other in order to feast on sweet sweet Magical Shrimp.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939623)

I don't think a lot of people are clamoring to live on the ocean floor.

You might be surprised. www.underseacolony.com

Re:The ocean frontier - not (3, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937961)

"...but none of them actually got built. The one "underwater hotel" in the world is a recycled two room research habitat. "

Phew, glad that the guys in the link below don't know that. (Top 5 underwater hotels)
http://blog.hotelclub.com/top-five-underwater-hotels/ [hotelclub.com]

Re:The ocean frontier - not (4, Informative)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938199)

Going through the list there
Jules Undersea Lodge: a converted two bedroom research facility. Located in a lake 21 feet down. Dive entry.
Utter Inn: a box just below the surface with surface entry not much different from the lower sections of a boat except there is water between the upper and lower sections. Only one room.
Hydropolis: looks like it was intended to be a proper hotel though only barely underwater and surface entry but the article you linked claims it as "under construction" but wikipedia links to another article that claims it is "nothing more than a pile of blueprints". Looks like it got nixed in the wake of the credit crunch.
Poseidon Undersea Resorts: this does actually sound like an undersea hotel but from their website it is not at all clear whether it was ever finished or not. Trying to get a "booking request form" out of their website gives the message "Thank you for your interest in Poseidon Resorts. We welcome you to contact us after September 15, 2009.". This suggests the website hasn't been updated in years.
Istanbul: I can't find any evidence of this underwater hotel actually exiting either.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938393)

Well, the link is from Hotel Club, and the first rule of Hotel Club is...

Re:The ocean frontier - not (2, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938447)

Istanbul: I can't find any evidence of this underwater hotel actually exiting either.

Not Constantinople?

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939829)

People just liked it better that way...

Re:The ocean frontier - not (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939591)

I did a list some time ago, just to inventory how many actual underwater destinations there are and came away with about a dozen. There's more than you're aware of, and they are already built. The Ithaa is an all glass panoramic undersea restaurant (1atm, in just 15 feet of water) the Huvafen Fushi undersea spa is another 1atm facility, concrete hull, big picture windows, perhaps 20 feet underwater. The Red Sea Star is a more ambitious undersea restaurant, 30 feet deep, concrete hull, wraparound segmented window panels, lots of interior space. There's also the Aquarius, America's undersea research lab, Marinelab (in the same cove as the Jules) and Baylab, still active in Chesapeake bay. If you also count general public access undersea observatories there's one in Australia, one in Eilat, Israel and more than one in China.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938051)

The same could be said for space, there are a load of satellites and a single manned space station for research but there are no space cities or space hotels, there have only been 6 manned landings on the moon and afaict no human has left LEO since.

The fact is both space and deep ocean are hostile environments. Space has the additional issue of being extremely expensive to get to and from.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938147)

Yeah but you're talking from a perspective of reality, sanity, practicality and engineiering feasability, and social reality and economics. Space Nutters would rather group-masturbate to the same delusional 1970s space posters forever than face facts.

Re:The ocean frontier - not (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939229)

The main reason all of those "big ideas" suddenly went away in the 70's was because President Johnson's "Great Society" programs exploded in cost and we could no longer afford to spend money on research like we previously had. In the intervening decades the expense of social programs has multiplied many times to the point we can't afford any kind of space program even unless we borrow money to pay for it. The future is indeed grim. Just imagine what we could have accomplished by now if we hadn't decided to go the socialism route. We've spent at least $16 TRILLION dollars on social programs and the percentage of people in poverty has barely changed. Imagine what we could have done in space, the ocean, research, etc. with that kind of money.

I remember THIS Sealab (4, Funny)

Terranex (1500465) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937677)

Re:I remember THIS Sealab (1)

DataDiddler (1994180) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937857)

I'm very glad I wasn't the only one whose first thought was of this show.

Re:I remember THIS Sealab (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939411)

Felt the same.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ROXLtorwY

Re:I remember THIS Sealab (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939531)

I had a memory error. I pulled up Johnny Quest in my head instead.

Sekrit Canadian Locations (4, Informative)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937691)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Institute_of_Oceanography [wikipedia.org] This is also the area where they keep the lone remaining Avro Arrow for further study, that Hydrofoil warship that we did and the telephone. It's all super-secret.

Re:Sekrit Canadian Locations (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938853)

I was an air cadet in my younger days so I had the opportunity to travel to various air bases around Canada. I've heard various stories about an intact Arrow; it was ditched in Cold Lake, AB, it's in a warehouse somewhere in Quebec, it was flown over the border and has been hidden by the Americans, etc.

Probably the best story was from an older gentleman who claims to have been involved in the scrapping operation. He said every plane was cut up but not every piece was accounted for. The Canadian Aviation and Space Museum has the cockpit and nose section of RL-206 along with an Iroquois engine and some other bits because they were essentially stolen and hidden. It wouldn't surprise me if a complete airframe (albeit in pieces) is sitting in a warehouse somewhere.

The next time .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937695)

The next when they call the Whitehouse with the helium voice, just tell them you're Papa Smurf calling the President telling him that they need talk to about his fling with Smurfette and the white stain on Smurfette's blue ass.

Well, it worked from 1992 - 2001.

Alim Tsk Tsk (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937697)

Now your ass be drippin' spit...

Let "today" be known.
"I say, let today be known."
I "say," let today be known as the day when your precious sack was cruelly transformed into a big ol' papoohiesack!

The drippin'ness this' minuteness originating from your sack of nuts'ness is the absolute 100% irritatingness this minuteness! Get 'em boys!?

I haven't forgotten (4, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937701)

I remember Sealab 2021 [wikipedia.org] very well

Re:I haven't forgotten (2)

sunderland56 (621843) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937721)

Came here to say exactly that. I can't believe the US Government based a research project on a cartoon.

Re:I haven't forgotten (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937725)

The real question is: Would you put your brain into a robot body?

Re:I haven't forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937795)

I thought it was why did my human dad put his human penis into my shark mom's shark vagina?

-- Sharko

Re:I haven't forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938097)

It's like a koala bear crapped a rainbow in my brain!

Re:I haven't forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938279)

No, but I'd consider putting a robot body around my brain.

Re:I haven't forgotten (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937827)

It's time to move on. The team is now making Archer, which is fantastic.

Re:I haven't forgotten (-1, Flamebait)

tbird81 (946205) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938015)

No it's not. It's not even funny or clever. It's just gay.

I have never understood why people think Archer is funny.

Re:I haven't forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938157)

this is truth.

Re:I haven't forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938245)

You obviously have irreparable brain damage.

Archer is good (2)

YesIAmAScript (886271) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938855)

But it doesn't have Harry Goz. And it still hasn't answered the real question at hand, which is would you put your brain in a robot body?

Sealab 2021 is not forgotten.

Re:I haven't forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938859)

What about BIZARRO ARCHER!??! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6ROXLtorwY)

Re:I haven't forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937889)

Some how I knew I'd come here and find useless man children saying something like this. Sigh.

Re:I haven't forgotten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939807)

Lighten up, Francis!

Doppelpopoulos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937717)

Do you think that's Greek?

(Seriously, one of the funniest things I've ever seen...)

It's wasn't just the Sealab that was important (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937731)

...but the Sealaughter we all shared.

and what a (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937809)

waste of tax dollars is was...

I heard he's divorcing Heidi Klumlab . . . (2, Funny)

wrencherd (865833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937829)

I'm not sure that the fact that the "aquanauts" had funny-sounding voices when they were in their undersea, "synthetic-gas environment" is a sufficient explanation for the public and the media ignoring the Sealab programs.

If the media and a cereal company could turn Kim Kardashian's cross-dressing step-dad [brucejenner.com] into a symbol of American manhood, then Scott Carpenter's helium-induced impression of Felix the Cat could not really have been that big of a public relations problem.

Seems a little like you`re hawking a book, /. (2)

fatbuckel (1714764) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937845)

Really?

Re:Seems a little like you`re hawking a book, /. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937901)

Slashdot is money grubbing whores. They're a publicly traded company and they suck the same dicks that the rest of the large corporations do. I don't know why people are so quick to give a Slashdot a pass in this matter.

SeaQuest (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937887)

This show actually made me very interested in underwater exploration when I was young. It was a little over the top at points, but overall I think it was a quality show.

Re:SeaQuest (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938243)

Sea Hunt [imdb.com] . Now get off my lawn, kid.

Fond Memories (4, Funny)

paleo2002 (1079697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937905)

My fondest memory of Sealab was when Hank got trapped under the orange soda machine . . .

Re:Fond Memories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938647)

My favorite is when Stormy keeps getting multiplied. It's dodge ball time, bitch. Does it hurt when I do this? How about this? This?

Bioshock (1)

This is my user name (2567889) | more than 2 years ago | (#38937945)

I am so glad that it was canceled. We could be living in the world of bioshock now. That would really suck. Wireless signals under water are awe full.

Re:Bioshock (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938533)

On the other hand, if you happen to live near one of the undersea cabels...

Re:Bioshock (1)

wagnerrp (1305589) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939923)

Wireless signals under water are awe full.

You mean sonar?

Re:Bioshock (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38940505)

Or Xcom TFTD... anyone remember that?

Tastes good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38937951)

Like America use to.

Helium (4, Informative)

tbird81 (946205) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938061)

He sounds like Yakky Doodle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaa9ZJ2KSoQ [youtube.com]

Divers sometimes use helium to replace some of the nitrogen. If you're at pressure, then the amount of nitrogen that goes into your blood stream can cause nitrogen narcosis. If you lower the partial pressure of N2 (by using He) then this is less likely.

Helium also diffuses quicker than nitrogen. But this can mean that decompression is a bit more difficult.

It talks about it a bit here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trimix_(breathing_gas) [wikipedia.org]

Media ignored? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938105)

Mainstream magazines certainly covered it. That's how I knew about it as a kid. Hit Google Books with 'sealab popular [google.com] ' and select Full Version, for what ran in PopSci at the time.

It wasn't anywhere near as big a deal as the Moon program, but it got very good coverage for a single science program. Off the top of my head I can't think of another back then that got as much other than the Moon race.

I think it's hyperbole to say 'largely ignored'. There was a pretty good proportionate recognition. A little better than it deserved, arguably.

Too dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938377)

Place was like a frickin' bomb on stilts. ;)

So secret for so long (3, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938461)

... and the tapping of communications cables.
Civilian or military, analogue, digital ... somebody is always interested.

The Most Annoying Problem... (4, Interesting)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938571)

...was Athlete's Foot.

The high-pressure, high-humidity atmosphere of the lab caused the fungi to spread like wildfire, to the point where it would spread to the entire body, and even cause a secondary bacterial infection with alarming ease.

Re:The Most Annoying Problem... (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38940107)

A problem? Surely you jest. Mushroom Men from the Deep would make an excellent serial.

The Truth Will Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38938735)

"the final incarnation of Sealab did provide cover for a very successful Cold War spy program".

'Nough said Dan'O. We are finished here.

Great (1)

pipingguy (566974) | more than 2 years ago | (#38938865)

Did not RFTA, but this was wonderful.

Re:Great (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38940253)

the fta is a book advert anyways.

I remember when his mother saved him from drowing (5, Interesting)

hedronist (233240) | more than 2 years ago | (#38939253)

Alan Krasberg, one of the researchers connected with Sealab, was the son of one of my mother's best friends, Tammy Krasberg. Apparently one afternoon Alan was testing some rebreathing equipment in the family pool. Tammy, who was reading a magazine pool-side, realized she hadn't seen any activity from him for awhile, so she put down her magazine, dove in, hauled him to the surface and, at least according to the story my mother told, gave him CPR. He revived and his mother went back to her magazine.

I'm tempted to believe this since Tammy was one of the most unflappable people I have ever met.

Why the blatant ad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939541)

I come here for info, ads are on the side, not the stories themselves... please.

And also important to remember (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38939655)

I see that other threads have mentioned the same thing, but omitted the important part: Seaquest. Jonathan Brandis.

What a terrible waste of a young twink. I don't know what awful social circles drove him to suicide, but he had a few good years left in him spreading his man dressing into mouths and across faces.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>