Jacques Cousteau’s grandson wants to build the ISS of the sea(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
Jacques Cousteau’s grandson wants to build the ISS of the sea
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/jacques-cousteaus-grandson-wants-to-build-international-space-station-of-the-sea-180975635/
158 comments
> I would prefer if journalist learned to provide something more factual and informative in their stories
It is deeper than that (no pun intended); many journalists seem to be lacking the critical thinking skills required to judge whether a story passes a basic sniff test when it comes to science and technology.
The Proteus project is not the ISS of the Sea, it is a vanity project. Clickbait from cnet is par for the course but I guess I expect more from a publication with "Smithsonian" on the masthead.
The previous HN thread Proteus: Underwater research lab worthy of a Bond villain [1] points out that this is not just a questionable idea but a really bad one.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23985772
It is deeper than that (no pun intended); many journalists seem to be lacking the critical thinking skills required to judge whether a story passes a basic sniff test when it comes to science and technology.
The Proteus project is not the ISS of the Sea, it is a vanity project. Clickbait from cnet is par for the course but I guess I expect more from a publication with "Smithsonian" on the masthead.
The previous HN thread Proteus: Underwater research lab worthy of a Bond villain [1] points out that this is not just a questionable idea but a really bad one.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23985772
At some level I think we should stop calling it "journalism". The state of journalism in general is pretty sad, not just with regards to science and technology.
The amount of effort required to get down to actual information after reading most stories (about anything) is not trivial. In other words, they are now in the mode of writing click-bait pieces for traffic and letting interested readers to the work real journalists used to do in order to produce substantive material.
The simplest example of this are very short articles with an enticing subject line and lots of ads on the page. After reading such articles (and feeling cheated) you immediately go to Goggle and have to track down such things as the company URL, research papers, historical context, current state of the art, supporting documentation/legislation/whatever, and then apply some critical thinking. Yeah, what we have today, at many levels and kinds of organizations, is far from what I would call "journalism".
The amount of effort required to get down to actual information after reading most stories (about anything) is not trivial. In other words, they are now in the mode of writing click-bait pieces for traffic and letting interested readers to the work real journalists used to do in order to produce substantive material.
The simplest example of this are very short articles with an enticing subject line and lots of ads on the page. After reading such articles (and feeling cheated) you immediately go to Goggle and have to track down such things as the company URL, research papers, historical context, current state of the art, supporting documentation/legislation/whatever, and then apply some critical thinking. Yeah, what we have today, at many levels and kinds of organizations, is far from what I would call "journalism".
and what little journalism is presented is drowned in a sea of opinion pieces trying to tell me how angry or scared I should be.
Easy publishing has removed a few kinds of signaling that we used to have.
An article in the Wall Street Journal (chosen at random to have a proper noun) had a different gravitas than the hand-stapled 15 lb paper booklet the scruffy guy shoved at you in front of the market. Now the scruffy guy got shave and a haircut, has access to equipment that is almost but not quite as good, and the "WSJs" have reacted by engaging in a race to the bottom - more ads, less attention to detail. The signalling is gone.
An article in the Wall Street Journal (chosen at random to have a proper noun) had a different gravitas than the hand-stapled 15 lb paper booklet the scruffy guy shoved at you in front of the market. Now the scruffy guy got shave and a haircut, has access to equipment that is almost but not quite as good, and the "WSJs" have reacted by engaging in a race to the bottom - more ads, less attention to detail. The signalling is gone.
A 12 year old has the same reach and visibility as a real journalist. Normally this would be a good thing. The problem is that the audience has no way to discriminate across almost any intellectual plane.
I have seen this happen in local Facebook groups. I remember an instance where a dreadful, spiteful, verbally violent exchange of hundreds of posts was triggered by this community member starting a thread. Neighbors saying the ugliest things imaginable to each other. It was truly sad to witness.
Nobody bothered to see who started the thread.
It was someone who had just finished high school. In other words, a 17 to 18 year old, maybe a bit older.
The subject isn't important, what is important is that someone with exactly zero life experience, zero responsibility for herself or others, decided she could actually post one of the most ridiculous thoughts on a subject she could not possibly comprehend for many years.
People got launched into the most vile verbal battle I've seen in a long time because nobody took a moment to consider the source. Had this comment been offered in person, in the context of a town hall meeting, she likely would have been told to please sit down, listen, learn and come back once she had a kid or two, a mortgage, a job and the realities that come with adult life.
The internet has allowed this kind of thing to happen. It isn't about age, it's about a range of variables that used to create categories of trust. You had to earn this ranking over time in order to have reach. Today no such thing exists. Google, YouTube, FB, Twitter, TikTok and others will gladly hand you an audience of billions of people, truth and other standards of quality, in this context, are meaningless.
I have seen this happen in local Facebook groups. I remember an instance where a dreadful, spiteful, verbally violent exchange of hundreds of posts was triggered by this community member starting a thread. Neighbors saying the ugliest things imaginable to each other. It was truly sad to witness.
Nobody bothered to see who started the thread.
It was someone who had just finished high school. In other words, a 17 to 18 year old, maybe a bit older.
The subject isn't important, what is important is that someone with exactly zero life experience, zero responsibility for herself or others, decided she could actually post one of the most ridiculous thoughts on a subject she could not possibly comprehend for many years.
People got launched into the most vile verbal battle I've seen in a long time because nobody took a moment to consider the source. Had this comment been offered in person, in the context of a town hall meeting, she likely would have been told to please sit down, listen, learn and come back once she had a kid or two, a mortgage, a job and the realities that come with adult life.
The internet has allowed this kind of thing to happen. It isn't about age, it's about a range of variables that used to create categories of trust. You had to earn this ranking over time in order to have reach. Today no such thing exists. Google, YouTube, FB, Twitter, TikTok and others will gladly hand you an audience of billions of people, truth and other standards of quality, in this context, are meaningless.
I wonder if journalists are no longer getting the same on-the-job training they got with print magazines? Maybe the cycles are too quick, it's too easy to convince yourself that you can fix a mistake post-publication, and you don't interact with as many experienced coworkers throughout the process.
Are we the baddies?
Are we the baddies?
I wonder if journalists are no longer getting the same on-the-job training they got with print magazines?
They don't, but the roots run deeper than that.
College journalism departments used to stand on their own, or be part of a Communications department. Now, a lot of them are part of marketing departments because that's where the donor money is.
For example, one of the "Big J" journalism schools used to be Medill at Northwestern University. A decade or so ago it changed to become the "Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications."
I used to mentor interns from that school. The first few years after the switch we started getting students who didn't know the first thing about journalism. They were being taught how to edit videos for YouTube, not how to find out how a congressman voted on a particular topic. We had students about to graduate who didn't know important recent historical figures. Couldn't tell you what party any president belonged to earlier the current one, and his predecessor.
It goes along with a long-running theme on HN: That universities are no longer about education. They're only in it for the big money now.
They don't, but the roots run deeper than that.
College journalism departments used to stand on their own, or be part of a Communications department. Now, a lot of them are part of marketing departments because that's where the donor money is.
For example, one of the "Big J" journalism schools used to be Medill at Northwestern University. A decade or so ago it changed to become the "Medill School of Journalism, Media, Integrated Marketing Communications."
I used to mentor interns from that school. The first few years after the switch we started getting students who didn't know the first thing about journalism. They were being taught how to edit videos for YouTube, not how to find out how a congressman voted on a particular topic. We had students about to graduate who didn't know important recent historical figures. Couldn't tell you what party any president belonged to earlier the current one, and his predecessor.
It goes along with a long-running theme on HN: That universities are no longer about education. They're only in it for the big money now.
[deleted]
The internet destroyed the economics of journalism, without cash, where are the resources to hire?
> "Fabien is raising $135 million" (which, TBH, seems quite a conservative estimate for this project on the one hand, and on the other is a pretty huge investment for something that doesn't have any ROI projections attached)
Juicero raised $113M, anything is possible if you get the right people on-board (no pun intended). I agree it seems incredibly conservative for a large scale engineering project though.
Juicero raised $113M, anything is possible if you get the right people on-board (no pun intended). I agree it seems incredibly conservative for a large scale engineering project though.
But that was a company selling a spectacularly expensive beverage subscription service. There was at least a business plan behind that.
Is it supposed to be a business? As far as I know, the ISS has no truly quantifiable ROI or business plan, either.
The orbiting ISS or at least the US segment of it, was designated a US National Lab in 2005.
A few companies have research or commercial projects, including Made In Space's work on ZBLAN ultra-clear optical fiber https://madeinspace.us/capabilities-and-technology/fiber-opt...
And Budweiser (a American beer subsidiary) has sent four experiments to the ISS on barley germination and malting https://www.issnationallab.org/blog/budweisers-fourth-invest...
While it's not turning a profit (ISS running costs are ~$3B/year) it is researching American space technology and agriculture for us down here on Earth.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/nlab/ind...
A few companies have research or commercial projects, including Made In Space's work on ZBLAN ultra-clear optical fiber https://madeinspace.us/capabilities-and-technology/fiber-opt...
And Budweiser (a American beer subsidiary) has sent four experiments to the ISS on barley germination and malting https://www.issnationallab.org/blog/budweisers-fourth-invest...
While it's not turning a profit (ISS running costs are ~$3B/year) it is researching American space technology and agriculture for us down here on Earth.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/nlab/ind...
In a world where a kpop band can get 150 million views in 24 hours I'd say visionary projects like this are a welcome addition to the internet.
Some of these Kpop bands do the Lords work in keeping democracy alive, so there's that.
Their fandoms of organized young people do. The bands contribute shockingly little to that.
Would someone please explain what this is about? How are kpop bands (or their audience) "keeping democracy alive"?
Genuine question, there's obviously something I've missed.
Genuine question, there's obviously something I've missed.
A lot of KPop fans are very organized on social media (mostly Twitter/Tiktok/Instagram) and know all the best tricks for them, which they usually use to push their favorite bands. At the same time it also gives them a lot of power whenever social issues are discussed on those platforms.
Recently, they've been involved with BLM in various forms[0] and orchestrated the "million ticket" Trump rally prank[1], so very direct involvement in politics. Whether that is "keeping democracy alive" is probably up for personal interpretation, but in general there seems to be at least a high interest in political participation.
In contrast to their fanbases, KPop artists are pretty absent from those political debates (which isn't uncommon for mainstream media stars), and don't speak out about political issues in fear they might turn away a portion of their fans.
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52996705
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump-rally-...
Recently, they've been involved with BLM in various forms[0] and orchestrated the "million ticket" Trump rally prank[1], so very direct involvement in politics. Whether that is "keeping democracy alive" is probably up for personal interpretation, but in general there seems to be at least a high interest in political participation.
In contrast to their fanbases, KPop artists are pretty absent from those political debates (which isn't uncommon for mainstream media stars), and don't speak out about political issues in fear they might turn away a portion of their fans.
[0]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52996705
[1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/21/style/tiktok-trump-rally-...
I see. Thank you for the explanation!
"Keeping Democracy alive"...by preventing voters from attending an event by certain politicians.
If trying to subvert the activities of a campaign to re-elect a politician who happens to be actively undermining the democratic process isn't making efforts towards "keeping democracy alive", I don't know what is.
Kpop fans are active on Twitter and have flooded right-wing and pro-police hashtags with content designed to drown-out "racist" messages.
The Verge covered it back in June: https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/3/21278950/k-pop-stans-socia...
The Verge covered it back in June: https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/3/21278950/k-pop-stans-socia...
If you consider Twitter to be a place to allow all voices (which it isn't) this act by kpop fans should be considered silencing voices
Well youre just some john doe. Even if I had the funding, I still would try to rope in either fabien or jean-michel just for the name recognition alone. Money would be more easily available with such people aboard the project, and (as long as we're smart and courageous) more money will just make things run smoother. So I would put Fabien out in the papers, smithsonian magazine, wherever our pr specialists think would have greatest fund raising impact.
Now "would I?" is a whole other question. Human missions are kind of old school now that we have fully autonomous devices such as the surf glider, underwater gliders, animal-tag based telemetry, multiple global satellite internet networks. If I was collaborating with Fabien, I would put that name to use raising money for something a little more modern, such as autonomous monitoring of military hydrophone arrays, measurement of radiation around nuclear sub pens, locating and monitoring the 60+ beluga whales just recently released from the russian whale jail.
Now "would I?" is a whole other question. Human missions are kind of old school now that we have fully autonomous devices such as the surf glider, underwater gliders, animal-tag based telemetry, multiple global satellite internet networks. If I was collaborating with Fabien, I would put that name to use raising money for something a little more modern, such as autonomous monitoring of military hydrophone arrays, measurement of radiation around nuclear sub pens, locating and monitoring the 60+ beluga whales just recently released from the russian whale jail.
"I don't know if a project like that can actually happen in the observable future."
Why not give him a try raising enough money to accomplish it?
In todays time anything can go viral quickly.
Maybe it will be only enough for a small, limited one?
Maybe only design work?
If you support maritime exploration, why not out of general principle also this? Maybe it goes off. In the context of saving the oceans and climate change, I think it is possible, but I also don't know more facts than the article that just described the dream.
But I am not aware of a project with better planning where this could draw ressources from. So, why criticize it to the ground from the start?
Because it is not your project? Well, this one at least has news article coverage and HN front page. I would call it a good start.
Why not give him a try raising enough money to accomplish it?
In todays time anything can go viral quickly.
Maybe it will be only enough for a small, limited one?
Maybe only design work?
If you support maritime exploration, why not out of general principle also this? Maybe it goes off. In the context of saving the oceans and climate change, I think it is possible, but I also don't know more facts than the article that just described the dream.
But I am not aware of a project with better planning where this could draw ressources from. So, why criticize it to the ground from the start?
Because it is not your project? Well, this one at least has news article coverage and HN front page. I would call it a good start.
Heck, let him go to #kickstarter for it and sell everything from souvenirs to actual trips to the facility. his customers can include full on science groups to everyday citizens with obvious disclaimers you have to meet specific medical requirements.
The scale of fundraising on Kickstarter is not even close to the scale of funding a project like this requires. The largest Kickstarters in history (which this would not be) are in the realm of $20 million.
This project will need $135 million, and it's not clear even that will be enough, but my guess is no. For reference, estimates put the actual ISS cost around 150 000 million (150 billion)
This project will need $135 million, and it's not clear even that will be enough, but my guess is no. For reference, estimates put the actual ISS cost around 150 000 million (150 billion)
Why does the cost of the ISS matter when "Jacques Couasteau's grandson" has already projected costs to be lower than the ISS?
Star Citizen raised 300$ million in crowdfunding.
Sure, you probably will not get to that level for a science project - but at least some extra money would be good.
Sure, you probably will not get to that level for a science project - but at least some extra money would be good.
Just because you only know his last name, but not Fabien’s actual research work, background and experience doesn’t preclude that he is highly qualified to run and make use of this project. Regardless of his last name.
to you he is just “this Fabien guy” because you are uninformed of his qualifications. But blame the journalist, or blame the article for not providing that context, or blame Fabien for his last name, or maybe do a little googling before discounting the person and blame yourself
to you he is just “this Fabien guy” because you are uninformed of his qualifications. But blame the journalist, or blame the article for not providing that context, or blame Fabien for his last name, or maybe do a little googling before discounting the person and blame yourself
If I am an expert in my field planning to volunteer or stake the next five years of my career on a slightly crazy idea, I could do worse than attach myself to a project headed by someone who already has their foot in the door with a lot of people who can get us financing or legislative help.
And don't most investors want some solidarity with their fellow investors? Brand recognition is a built-in safety feature that might help protect my money.
And don't most investors want some solidarity with their fellow investors? Brand recognition is a built-in safety feature that might help protect my money.
Lots of things succeed with very shallow major drivers, like a name.
“Cousteau’s grandson”, just that phrase, will grab attention around the world from people who never once saw the grandfather’s face.
“Cousteau’s grandson”, just that phrase, will grab attention around the world from people who never once saw the grandfather’s face.
[deleted]
I'm not sure I understand the point of this exercise. If it's being built in reasonably shallow water, why not just have the structure be mostly above-water, with sensors underwater and apparatus for divers and remotely-operated vehicles?
Decent choice of name, of course.
Decent choice of name, of course.
Just in case anyone here is considering donating to this project, do your due diligence. There is quite a bit of behind-the-scenes drama in the Cousteau family, which is why both Jacques's son, Jean-Michelle, and his grandson, Fabien, each have their own 501(c)(3) separate from the Cousteau society. JM has http://www.oceanfutures.org/ and Fabien has https://www.fabiencousteauolc.org/. According to JM, he broke away because the Cousteau society had been taken over and corrupted by one of Jacques's ex-wives. I never verified this, but it is consistent with Charity Navigator's one-star rating [1]. We used to be major supporters of Ocean Futures, but they too seem to have become dysfunctional. Neither JM's nor Fabien's organization even merits a rating on CN. It's kinda sad actually.
[1] https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...
[1] https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summar...
Can I ask the obvious question? What good is a stationary lab in one spot in the ocean? Didn't we do plenty of that in the 70's?
If you really want something interesting, build a sub that can park itself in stationary locations or some sort of crawler lab with legs that do minimal impact on the floor and have the ability to reach the deepest parts such as the Mariana Trench. The ocean is huge and parking in one spot seems ridiculous.
If you really want something interesting, build a sub that can park itself in stationary locations or some sort of crawler lab with legs that do minimal impact on the floor and have the ability to reach the deepest parts such as the Mariana Trench. The ocean is huge and parking in one spot seems ridiculous.
IIRC navy subs are capable of parking on the seabed, though they definitely cant reach as deep as the mariana trench.
Some science experiments require visiting the same patch of ocean repeatedly. Having access from an underwater lab means that scientists can spend more time doing science and less time traveling to/from the site and decompressing.
My uncle is a marine biologist and spent time living in an underwater lab in Florida. Aside from all the diving he was able to do, he said it smelled like a high school locker room and everything was damp inside.
My uncle is a marine biologist and spent time living in an underwater lab in Florida. Aside from all the diving he was able to do, he said it smelled like a high school locker room and everything was damp inside.
On the plus side, you don't have to worry about your soda fizzing over...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJiUWBiM8HE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJiUWBiM8HE
A YouTube video that jumps right in to the main point and doesn't have any "don't forget to subscribe!" stuff in it is kinda jarring in 2020.
way to paraphrase the top comment on the video
I have YouTube comments disabled. Everyone should.
Good point. If we want to start farming the ocean, an open ocean habitat would be more useful. Especially if it were 60 feet below the surface to avoid weather conditions.
I suspect somebody was inspired by the Octonauts' Octopod, down to the "liquid door" hatch inside:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/octopod/images/f/fd/Octo...
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/octopod/images/f/fd/Octo...
> down to the "liquid door" hatch inside:
Moon pools or wet porches have been ubiquitous in underwater habitats for many decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_pool
That you know of them through a cartoon is not a good criticism of the proposal.
Moon pools or wet porches have been ubiquitous in underwater habitats for many decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_pool
That you know of them through a cartoon is not a good criticism of the proposal.
Who's criticising? The Octonauts is an awesome show, and this concept is awesome too!
Moon Pools have been the cool thing since at least 1989. Can't have a water tentacle in your habitat without a moon pool.
I never really liked Octonauts. I was gutted when the kids were old enough that they didn't want to watch the latest Fireman Sam movie on the other hand - especially after I'd spent 2 years waiting for it :(
They grow up so fast.
They grow up so fast.
My nearly 5 year old is obsessed with Octonauts and is able to recite a lot of accurate factual information form their end of show "Creature Reports", now if i can only get him as obsessed with school.....
Get the hardcover books the show was based on. Beautiful artwork!!
Ehh.
On the one hand, I definitely agree they're beautiful! And creative, clever, etc.
On the other hand, the books are not grounded in actual sealife the way the show is. Coming from the show to the books, this was disappointing. Hopefully it's a better experience if you know that ahead of time!
On the one hand, I definitely agree they're beautiful! And creative, clever, etc.
On the other hand, the books are not grounded in actual sealife the way the show is. Coming from the show to the books, this was disappointing. Hopefully it's a better experience if you know that ahead of time!
Fireman Sam is trash. Long live Sarah and Duck! ;)
Never thought I’d be giving shouts out to Sarah and Duck on HN but here we are. That show has a rare combination of real chill and real personality. As my son is aging out of Sarah and Duck, I’m hoping to find similar content to offer him that will be stimulating but not spastic like so many shows. I would also love to find more stuff like Beat Bugs and Motown Magic, which are a bit more typical but still wholesome.
quack.
How can you not like Octonauts?! It's so wholesome! Covers great topics about creatures that rarely get the exposure that their land-based comrades do, the characters are unique, funny, strong, and demonstrate all the qualities you would want scientists to have!
<3 Octonauts!
<3 Octonauts!
I was seriously hoping it was going to be shaped like the Octopod. Instead, it looks like "my first Maya project". Very disappointing.
There sure is a lot to discover below the surface of our oceans.
I recently watched "Diving Deep" https://de.oceanfilmtour.com/en/movies/volume-7/diving-deep/ a documentary (part of the Ocean Film Tour 2020) about Mike deGruy, an ocean cinematographer.
deGruy showed what the chemicals that were used to disperse the oil during the Deepwater Horizon spill did to the life on the ocean floor. The chemicals removed the oil from the surface of the ocean (where it was visible), but made a mess below the surface. A wakeup call for sure.
He also appears to have been a really nice, fun guy.
I recently watched "Diving Deep" https://de.oceanfilmtour.com/en/movies/volume-7/diving-deep/ a documentary (part of the Ocean Film Tour 2020) about Mike deGruy, an ocean cinematographer.
deGruy showed what the chemicals that were used to disperse the oil during the Deepwater Horizon spill did to the life on the ocean floor. The chemicals removed the oil from the surface of the ocean (where it was visible), but made a mess below the surface. A wakeup call for sure.
He also appears to have been a really nice, fun guy.
Completely support this. Grew up loving his father's programs and I think we should invest more in saving our planet than going to Mars.
Those who understand rocket engineering can’t just be asked to switch to something else, though. In any case, there has been a lot of evidence that humans’ foray into space has led to a lot of innovation of technologies that we’ve used here on Earth.
We also should have a plan B as a species.
I’m of the camp that believes we should go to space and also focused on saving the Earth.
We also should have a plan B as a species.
I’m of the camp that believes we should go to space and also focused on saving the Earth.
When I was a kid I used to watch a TV series called SeaQuest. Pretty much the same idea, isnt it? :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQNXOscKEhY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQNXOscKEhY
Same here and it was fairly complex in its geopolitical views. It wasn't just fish and bikinis.
There it is! I immediately thought of this.
Discussed 26 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23985772
Anyone else immediately thinking about Subnautica while looking at the article's teaser image? :)
One of my all-time favorite games. I think it's the most emotionally raw game I've ever played. There are strong moments of wonder, curiosity, and fear. And it inspires both love and fear of the real ocean (and viscerally taught me why cave divers are maniacs). Jacques Cousteau’s grandson should have gone into game development if he wanted to get more people interested in the sea.
I think about Subnautica all the time - I love that game :) - can't wait for below zero to release!
Go to comments, Cmd + F, "Subnautica", yup, exact same thoughts. Even the way "SeaMoth" docks.
Ever since I built the big submarine I've wanted one in real life
So they want to create a multi-story structure anchored at "60 feet"? Is that 60 to the bottom? 60 feet to the top of the structure? 60 feet to the moonpool? That thing looks 80 feet tall.
Fyi, moonpools are cool. They create all sorts of interesting practical physics problems. Take the one in the artist rendering. Say it is at 60 feet. What is the pressure depth of the rooms on the second floor, say 15 feet above the moon pool? What about the rooms below? If I poke a hole in a room below the moonpool room, does water come in or air leak out?
By having a moonpool, the entire structure has to be kept at the pressure/depth of the water at the moonpool. So rooms above are at higher pressure than the water immediately outside, while rooms below are at lower pressure. The simple act of having that open pool creates very interesting structural design issues.
Fyi, moonpools are cool. They create all sorts of interesting practical physics problems. Take the one in the artist rendering. Say it is at 60 feet. What is the pressure depth of the rooms on the second floor, say 15 feet above the moon pool? What about the rooms below? If I poke a hole in a room below the moonpool room, does water come in or air leak out?
By having a moonpool, the entire structure has to be kept at the pressure/depth of the water at the moonpool. So rooms above are at higher pressure than the water immediately outside, while rooms below are at lower pressure. The simple act of having that open pool creates very interesting structural design issues.
My first thought was there could be an airlock separating the moonpool room from the rest of the structure. But putting the people through compression/decompression cycles would seem to defeat one of the benefits of having a habitat down there to begin with. Also, if the internal pressure was kept down to one atmosphere, how strong would the structure need to be to avoid being crushed like a soda can?
Aren't all of these problems solved by just having the moonpool room airlocked?
Airlocks are actually rather dangerous. Things can go wrong very quickly. An accidental rapid/unplanned decompression, even only across a few feet of pressure, can do real damage. Then there are the issues building the doors, which hold enough force that should they pop open they could kill. The biggest advantage of the moonpool approach is having the entire complex at the same pressure, with the pool acting as a passive safety valve against wild pressure fluctuations.
Yeah, pressure differentials are no joke. Look at the Byford Dolhin incident [1]:
> Hellevik, being exposed to the highest pressure gradient and in the process of moving to secure the inner door, was forced through the crescent-shaped opening measuring 60 centimetres (24 in) long created by the jammed interior trunk door. With the escaping air and pressure, it included bisection of his thoracoabdominal cavity, which resulted in expulsion of all of the internal organs of his chest and abdomen, except the trachea and a section of small intestine, and of the thoracic spine. These were projected some distance, one section being found 10 metres (30 ft) vertically above the exterior pressure door.
> The blood of the three divers left intact inside the chambers likely boiled instantly, stopping their circulation
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin
> Hellevik, being exposed to the highest pressure gradient and in the process of moving to secure the inner door, was forced through the crescent-shaped opening measuring 60 centimetres (24 in) long created by the jammed interior trunk door. With the escaping air and pressure, it included bisection of his thoracoabdominal cavity, which resulted in expulsion of all of the internal organs of his chest and abdomen, except the trachea and a section of small intestine, and of the thoracic spine. These were projected some distance, one section being found 10 metres (30 ft) vertically above the exterior pressure door.
> The blood of the three divers left intact inside the chambers likely boiled instantly, stopping their circulation
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin
There are a lot of reasons for having a stationary lab under sea - I have seen a lot of experiments for acceleration of coral growth, bringing corals back to life etc that need long term study and sustained help. However, I am a bit confused as to why this project needs an expensive building as opposed to something like a submarine shell with living quarters (and a moon pool, of course).
Better quality of life? I've seen those submarine tours on Youtube and they look cool initially but I could imagine it could get old pretty quickly eating freeze-dried rations and living in such a small space with no homey human elements to its design. Even the Antarctic bases have mini-libraries, and ping pong tables and whatnot that look like they would be much nicer to spend an extended period of time.
Humans weren't meant to be cooped up in a vessel. In space we don't really have the tech to build something bigger but I imagine in the ocean we could do it if we wanted to.
Humans weren't meant to be cooped up in a vessel. In space we don't really have the tech to build something bigger but I imagine in the ocean we could do it if we wanted to.
We already have an ISS of the Sea. Many believe this 'International Swimming Station' is the real ISS.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Buoyancy_Laboratory
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Buoyancy_Laboratory
That seems to be just a pool to mimic zero gravity, which I would not equate to the ISS in ocean form at all
If I build underwater real-estate, there are no laws governing it? There probably aren't laws anywhere in the world about it? Probably I can still be harassed if it's in national waters. But if it's in international waters? Nuclear reactor test site?
There are plenty of laws (in this case, more like 'treaties') regarding international waters and use thereof. You can't do whatever you like, you certainly can't avoid all laws there. Usually you will have to flag your structure as being part of a nation and then follow their laws while onboard.
Curious lack of any mention of Jacques Cousteau's first son (and father of Fabien) Jean-Michel, who I met about a decade ago while doing some work for his Ocean Futures Society.
If they do it I I hope they use low-iron glass to mitigate that greenish tint you get from looking through normal shitty glass.
- why just 60 feet / 20m below the surface?
- what will be possible that now is not?
- what will be possible that now is not?
For extended stays, physiology demands of breathing compressed gasses get complicated. At that depth, the effects are minimized.
I was underwater for 2 months on a nuclear submarine. Does that count?
Somewhat played a bit too much of Subnautica.
[deleted]
So, some kind of sea lab, in 2021?
(Pod six are jerks)
(Pod six are jerks)
It will be like the octonauts
Reminds me of Aquanox :)
I'm really surprised something like this hasn't been done yet.
I strongly recommend the YouTube channel deep sea oddities:
https://youtu.be/pDW4IYVlbbw
It made me realize that alien like life is more fascinating on earth than it will ever be on my lifetime lurking at the space.
https://youtu.be/pDW4IYVlbbw
It made me realize that alien like life is more fascinating on earth than it will ever be on my lifetime lurking at the space.
[deleted]
Does he have a name?
(I was raked over the coals a few months ago for describing a person as "Jeff Bezo's ex-wife. I want to make sure we hold all these cases to the same rule.)
(I was raked over the coals a few months ago for describing a person as "Jeff Bezo's ex-wife. I want to make sure we hold all these cases to the same rule.)
Jacques Cousteau was a horrible person, both personally (bigot, anti-Semite, pathological liar) and professionally. It's inexplicable that he passes for a defender of nature when in reality he "explored" things by blowing them up with explosives and destroyed unique sites, etc.
The grandson is a different person of course; but he invokes his grandfather's name as a reference and proof of competence. Don't fall for it.
The grandson is a different person of course; but he invokes his grandfather's name as a reference and proof of competence. Don't fall for it.
I don't know to what extent this is true (heard similar claims before but never checked), but you should provide some sources when making such strong allegations.
At least the blowing up parts of nature with explosives was prominently featured in one of his films. Also the killing of "vicious sharks".
Interestingly it is the writer of the article who wrote the headline!
The grandson's NPO is named after himself.
"The founder of the Fabien Cousteau Ocean Learning Center, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting and preserving the planet’s oceans, coastal areas and marine habitats, is building the world’s largest underwater research station."
It would be one thing if people knew Jacques was a bigot and touted his science as being great because it promoted bigotry. I had no idea. But I do think of ocean conservation when I think of him and that is the truly important part.
And, as you point out yourself, its the grandson. Sins of the grandfather?
The grandson's NPO is named after himself.
"The founder of the Fabien Cousteau Ocean Learning Center, a nonprofit dedicated to protecting and preserving the planet’s oceans, coastal areas and marine habitats, is building the world’s largest underwater research station."
It would be one thing if people knew Jacques was a bigot and touted his science as being great because it promoted bigotry. I had no idea. But I do think of ocean conservation when I think of him and that is the truly important part.
And, as you point out yourself, its the grandson. Sins of the grandfather?
Was this not the premise of the Life Aquatic by Wes Anderson? Essentially we are shown a satirical representation of Jacques Cousteau where Zissou (the Cousteau-type) wants to blow up a shark and fakes discoveries of obviously made up sea creatures.
One of my favorite movies, really a piece of art if you like the humor. But I didn't actually notice the reference although it is really obvious thinking about it. Even the red cap.
But did he also have a real life Seu Jorge who could only play Bowie? Those scenes are when it hits me hardest: all the characters are lost, somehow bound to Zisou with no outside life that they could defect to, but the environment they are trapped in is one of extreme beauty.
I wonder if we could get a number of people to destroy their Apple devices by pointing out the fact that Steve Job was an absolutely horrible person.
Drove a car without plates so he could park in handicap spaces, Denied his daughter was his, etc.
Apple was founded by Steve Jobs and the entire culture was dictated by him, it is inexcusable to say that Apple products are separate from that.
Or we can say that unreasonable, and even bad people also have good points and that we want to try and take the good they have accomplished and build upon it. This does not mean we have to celebrate the person.
Jacques Cousteau much like Steve Jobs did not develop many of the things we think about when their names are mentioned but they both worked to promote and popularize their fields.
Drove a car without plates so he could park in handicap spaces, Denied his daughter was his, etc.
Apple was founded by Steve Jobs and the entire culture was dictated by him, it is inexcusable to say that Apple products are separate from that.
Or we can say that unreasonable, and even bad people also have good points and that we want to try and take the good they have accomplished and build upon it. This does not mean we have to celebrate the person.
Jacques Cousteau much like Steve Jobs did not develop many of the things we think about when their names are mentioned but they both worked to promote and popularize their fields.
> This does not mean we have to celebrate the person.
Yet that's what we are doing when we introduce an article about an underwater device by the name of the grandfather of the promoter of said device.
"Joe Shmoe's grandson wants to build something" doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
Yet that's what we are doing when we introduce an article about an underwater device by the name of the grandfather of the promoter of said device.
"Joe Shmoe's grandson wants to build something" doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
I totally wasn't expecting this comment. First time hearing it, can you share some links?
Most people don't know this truth, in particular here in France where the name Cousteau still holds its aura.
I know because I watched and enjoyed the shows as a kid and most people at the time liked him. The only person I knew back then who didn't like the man was my dad (a sailor).
What I mean is the name is still strong enough to attract some interest.
I know because I watched and enjoyed the shows as a kid and most people at the time liked him. The only person I knew back then who didn't like the man was my dad (a sailor).
What I mean is the name is still strong enough to attract some interest.
Do you have sources for such accusations?
Plenty of sources (in French). For example:
Anti-Semitism: https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1999/06/18/la-plonge...
Cousteau's first wife Simone was independently wealthy and financed his boat (Calypso) and expeditions. She lived on board most of the time (yet never appears on camera). But he had another secret family (with kids) on the shore with a former flight attendant, since the late 70s. Simone only learned about it in 1990. Letters were published where she asks a friend in disbelief if this can be true. She then died within a few months. Can't find the letters right now but I did read them then.
Critique of "Le Monde du silence": https://www.rtl.fr/culture/medias-people/video-pourquoi-le-m...
In that movie from 1956 which won the Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or, the team blows a whole coral reef with dynamite in order to "count fish living in it". They also catch live sharks on board and kill them with shovels "because seamen don't like sharks".
You can watch the documentary and see for yourself.
Anti-Semitism: https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1999/06/18/la-plonge...
Cousteau's first wife Simone was independently wealthy and financed his boat (Calypso) and expeditions. She lived on board most of the time (yet never appears on camera). But he had another secret family (with kids) on the shore with a former flight attendant, since the late 70s. Simone only learned about it in 1990. Letters were published where she asks a friend in disbelief if this can be true. She then died within a few months. Can't find the letters right now but I did read them then.
Critique of "Le Monde du silence": https://www.rtl.fr/culture/medias-people/video-pourquoi-le-m...
In that movie from 1956 which won the Cannes Film Festival Palme d'Or, the team blows a whole coral reef with dynamite in order to "count fish living in it". They also catch live sharks on board and kill them with shovels "because seamen don't like sharks".
You can watch the documentary and see for yourself.
This is his private life. It has nothing to do with your allegations of "bigot", "liar", etc.
If this is your references, you end up having denigrated him.
About your allegation of J. Cousteau having protected marine life "by blowin' it", it is his work that has raised the current awareness of the richness and fragility of marine life. Compare his positive achievements at the scale of the whole planet (or at least Western world) versus some small part of a coral reef he blew up.
If this is your references, you end up having denigrated him.
About your allegation of J. Cousteau having protected marine life "by blowin' it", it is his work that has raised the current awareness of the richness and fragility of marine life. Compare his positive achievements at the scale of the whole planet (or at least Western world) versus some small part of a coral reef he blew up.
Regarding bigotry and antisemitism, there are, of course, caveats in the article you link:
Interrogé par Le Monde, Erik Orsenna confie : « C'est évidemment une lettre ignoble. Mais j'ai peur que si l'on ouvre toute la correspondance des Français de l'époque, et si l'on écoute l'enregistrement de leurs conversations, on découvrirait beaucoup d'autre antisémitisme de cette sorte. Autrement, Pétain n'aurait pu rencontrer en France un tel accord, et des horreurs comme les rafles de juillet 42, organisées par la police française, n'auraient pas pu se produire. A la différence de son frère, Pierre-Antoine, dirigeant de Je suis partout, ce que je dis dans mon discours, et à ma connaissance, Cousteau n'a jamais émis ce genre d'ignominie en public ni ne s'est engagé dans aucune action antisémite. »
Which is not to excuse anything, but it seems to me the majority of French society (indeed, European society) at the time held such views. Why single out Cousteau? And why do it in an article about a project undertaken by his grandson, who is not himself, I believe, accused of holding any of those biggotted views? Kin punishment is no less a barbaric practice than antisemitism (and islamophobia, as per the article above).
As henearkr says below, the rest of your comment is about Cousteau's personal life, which is neither here nor there. This is not the Daily Mail.
Interrogé par Le Monde, Erik Orsenna confie : « C'est évidemment une lettre ignoble. Mais j'ai peur que si l'on ouvre toute la correspondance des Français de l'époque, et si l'on écoute l'enregistrement de leurs conversations, on découvrirait beaucoup d'autre antisémitisme de cette sorte. Autrement, Pétain n'aurait pu rencontrer en France un tel accord, et des horreurs comme les rafles de juillet 42, organisées par la police française, n'auraient pas pu se produire. A la différence de son frère, Pierre-Antoine, dirigeant de Je suis partout, ce que je dis dans mon discours, et à ma connaissance, Cousteau n'a jamais émis ce genre d'ignominie en public ni ne s'est engagé dans aucune action antisémite. »
Which is not to excuse anything, but it seems to me the majority of French society (indeed, European society) at the time held such views. Why single out Cousteau? And why do it in an article about a project undertaken by his grandson, who is not himself, I believe, accused of holding any of those biggotted views? Kin punishment is no less a barbaric practice than antisemitism (and islamophobia, as per the article above).
As henearkr says below, the rest of your comment is about Cousteau's personal life, which is neither here nor there. This is not the Daily Mail.
Cousteau falsely claimed to have been a member of the Résistance when he was in fact protected by the occupying German army. His first film received a positive critique in his brother's newspaper Je suis partout in 1943, which launched his entire career. He later said the film only came out in 1946.
The part about his personal life is to further substantiate the "liar" part. It's not just that he had a "mistress"; he had another family and hid it from his wife, whom he didn't divorce because he needed her money. She died of sorrow when she eventually found out. I think it tells something about his character.
I'm getting downvoted heavily for all these comments, but I persist in thinking we should be more careful about the "heroes" we choose. This man is no hero. He's horrible.
The part about his personal life is to further substantiate the "liar" part. It's not just that he had a "mistress"; he had another family and hid it from his wife, whom he didn't divorce because he needed her money. She died of sorrow when she eventually found out. I think it tells something about his character.
I'm getting downvoted heavily for all these comments, but I persist in thinking we should be more careful about the "heroes" we choose. This man is no hero. He's horrible.
What "heroes"? Why do we care about Jacques-Yves Cousteau's character? We are commenting on an article about a project by Cousteau's grandson. Why does Jacques-Yves Cousteau's lying or antisemitism have anything to do with Fabien Cousteau's project?
In any case, why do we need to judge anyone's character in a HN thread? What is this, inquisition by internet forum? That is just the worse, lowest form of internet activity and I'm really sorry to see it on HN. This is at the level of the darkest recesses of 4chan.
In any case, why do we need to judge anyone's character in a HN thread? What is this, inquisition by internet forum? That is just the worse, lowest form of internet activity and I'm really sorry to see it on HN. This is at the level of the darkest recesses of 4chan.
> We are commenting on an article about a project by Cousteau's grandson.
Exactly. And we wouldn't be talking about it were it not for the affiliation.
> This is at the level of the darkest recesses of 4chan.
Right. Does this count as Godwin's law?
Exactly. And we wouldn't be talking about it were it not for the affiliation.
> This is at the level of the darkest recesses of 4chan.
Right. Does this count as Godwin's law?
>> Exactly. And we wouldn't be talking about it were it not for the affiliation.
I posted the article and I didn't post it because Fabien is Jaqcues-Yve's grandson, but because I find the idea of underwater habitats interesting. You're the one who is focused on the "affiliation". And for no good reason other than to throw some dirt around, from what I can tell.
I posted the article and I didn't post it because Fabien is Jaqcues-Yve's grandson, but because I find the idea of underwater habitats interesting. You're the one who is focused on the "affiliation". And for no good reason other than to throw some dirt around, from what I can tell.
Regarding his mistress and other family, at the time this wasn’t a scandal for either elites or even common people. Having mistresses was then acceptable in France. Mitterrand was one such example, but of course there were many like him.
is it not acceptable now?
Because it's the current fad to try and pull down famous people.
In 80 years if you're famous people will be talking about how horrible you are as a person for being ok with the slaughtering of animals just to eat meat.
It gets really fucking old.
In 80 years if you're famous people will be talking about how horrible you are as a person for being ok with the slaughtering of animals just to eat meat.
It gets really fucking old.
While the majority of French people would probably have been somewhat anti-semitic, I'm not sure that it's fair to say that the majority of French people were hoping that the Nazis would get on with deporting the Jews, already. That letter really is pretty bad.
The letter is prety bad, but my understanding is that until the atrocities committed by the Nazis forced the other Europeans to confront their antisemitism, such ideas were widespread in all European countries. [Edit: and of course, antisemitic ideas persist to this day.]
Pretty much the same thing happens today with islamophobic ideas and with "the last racism", i.e. hatred towards Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, even though they were also subjected to genocide by the Nazis.
Some people never learn- and Europeans, in particular, seem to have a particularly hard time to learn from our shared past of nationalism and racism and the brutalities committed because of them. In that, I'm speaking as a European, an EU citizen, a Greek citizen and someone very concerned about the waves of nationalism and racism that are still rising all around Europe. In my own country, it took cold-blooded murder for public opinion to face the fact that Xrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn) is a band of criminal thugs and stop voting those bastards to the Greek parliament (now they vote for their dregs). If we expect blood to be spilled before we understand where fascism leads us, we'll just keep destroying ourselves over and over. And I'm very afraid that we will do exactly that.
But, again, this has nothing to do with the character of Fabien Cousteau, which to me is pretty clearly what the OP is trying to attack, through his association with his grandfather, a practice that I find as revolting as the ideas expressed by the grandfather in the letter discussed in Le Monde.
Pretty much the same thing happens today with islamophobic ideas and with "the last racism", i.e. hatred towards Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, even though they were also subjected to genocide by the Nazis.
Some people never learn- and Europeans, in particular, seem to have a particularly hard time to learn from our shared past of nationalism and racism and the brutalities committed because of them. In that, I'm speaking as a European, an EU citizen, a Greek citizen and someone very concerned about the waves of nationalism and racism that are still rising all around Europe. In my own country, it took cold-blooded murder for public opinion to face the fact that Xrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn) is a band of criminal thugs and stop voting those bastards to the Greek parliament (now they vote for their dregs). If we expect blood to be spilled before we understand where fascism leads us, we'll just keep destroying ourselves over and over. And I'm very afraid that we will do exactly that.
But, again, this has nothing to do with the character of Fabien Cousteau, which to me is pretty clearly what the OP is trying to attack, through his association with his grandfather, a practice that I find as revolting as the ideas expressed by the grandfather in the letter discussed in Le Monde.
Yeah, I would agree that the whole thing is a bit of a side issue wrt the grandson.
I think you'd be surprised at how much infidelity is a part of being French.
Says who? You mean, "part of being human"?
Apparently his biographer: https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jun/18/jonhenley1
I was surprised too. The anti-semite part seems to be dubious at best - the only link I found is someone's very liberal interpretation of some words
In many letters written during WWII Cousteau wishes to get rid of "youtres" which is a derogatory word for Jews much worse than the N word in English.
The defense of Commandant Cousteau's anti-Semite private writings usually goes along the lines of "okay, but everybody did the same at the time". But this is not true. Most people did not actively call for the physical extermination of Jews in occupied France. They did nothing to prevent it -- but rejoicing and calling for more is on another level.
His brother was a frequent contributor to "Je suis partout" during WWII and was sentenced to death for his writings at the end of the war (later commuted to life in prison).
And yes, Cousteau is not his brother. Yet -- not a good family.
The defense of Commandant Cousteau's anti-Semite private writings usually goes along the lines of "okay, but everybody did the same at the time". But this is not true. Most people did not actively call for the physical extermination of Jews in occupied France. They did nothing to prevent it -- but rejoicing and calling for more is on another level.
His brother was a frequent contributor to "Je suis partout" during WWII and was sentenced to death for his writings at the end of the war (later commuted to life in prison).
And yes, Cousteau is not his brother. Yet -- not a good family.
So far you and others here have only shown one example of a letter where he is calling for jewish (and muslim) people to be kicked out. I have seen nothing about extermination etc.
Even more so- what the hell is this "not a good family" business all about? Seriously? The whole family? Because of one member? This is just mud-slinging.
Even more so- what the hell is this "not a good family" business all about? Seriously? The whole family? Because of one member? This is just mud-slinging.
By "family" I meant Cousteau's family during the war, not all his descendants of course. Sorry if that was unclear.
But he was a Nazi sympathizer and was protected by the Germans during the war. Then he falsely claimed to have been a member of the Resistance. This is all documented in his biography.
But he was a Nazi sympathizer and was protected by the Germans during the war. Then he falsely claimed to have been a member of the Resistance. This is all documented in his biography.
Once more, I have to ask you, if you do not mean to implicate Cousteau's entire family, all the way up to his great-great grandchildren, for Cousteau's antisemitism, then why are you bringing his antisemitism up in a discussion about his grandson?
Why is what you are doing here any different than reminding everyone of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis everytime someone talks about modern Germany, or Angela Merkel?
Why is what you are doing here any different than reminding everyone of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis everytime someone talks about modern Germany, or Angela Merkel?
Because, last I checked, Angela Merkel doesn't invoke Hitler to show how great Germany is.
I'm sorry to have to point this out.
I'm sorry to have to point this out.
Yes, and Fabien Cousteau is not known to be an antisemite, so why are you bringing up antisemitism in a conversation about Fabien Cousteau?
Cousteau probably didn't realise _exactly_ what was likely to happen to Jewish people who were 'kicked out' to make room for important filmmakers; this was the year before the Wannsee Conference. But one would have had to be extremely naive to think that anything good was happening to the Jewish populations the Nazis were then deporting across their empire.
It doesn't take much to find it. Here's a quote from the man himself:
> Ici, nous n'avons toujours pas de logement. Nous sommes actuellement campés dans un petit pavillon d'une pension de famille sur la Corniche. Ce n'est pas gai pour Simone, mais il n'y aura d'appartement convenable que quand on aura fichu à la porte tous les ignobles youtres qui nous encombrent. [0]
A rough translation of the last sentence might be:
> It's not cheerful for Simone, but there won't be a suitable apartment until we have kicked out all the vile youtres [slur for Jew] that plague us.
But, to be more charitable to the man, it was a time where anti-semitism was wide spread, and doesn't seem to be more than the norm of the time. But it isn't really ambiguous.
[0] https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1999/06/18/la-plonge...
> Ici, nous n'avons toujours pas de logement. Nous sommes actuellement campés dans un petit pavillon d'une pension de famille sur la Corniche. Ce n'est pas gai pour Simone, mais il n'y aura d'appartement convenable que quand on aura fichu à la porte tous les ignobles youtres qui nous encombrent. [0]
A rough translation of the last sentence might be:
> It's not cheerful for Simone, but there won't be a suitable apartment until we have kicked out all the vile youtres [slur for Jew] that plague us.
But, to be more charitable to the man, it was a time where anti-semitism was wide spread, and doesn't seem to be more than the norm of the time. But it isn't really ambiguous.
[0] https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1999/06/18/la-plonge...
This is actually arguably _worse_ than it seems, when you put it in context. He wrote this is May 1941, in Vichy France. In 1942, Vichy France started 'kicking out' its Jewish population to occupied France, and thence to the concentration camps. Maybe Cousteau got his apartment after all...
Also surprised. I was taking the dark sides of the Steven Zissou character in Anderson's The Life Aquatic as an added twist, not as art imitating life.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
Dozens of other articles
Dozens of other articles
I think The Life Aquatic was an excellent parody of Cousteau (though it wasn't really about Cousteau). The character played by Bill Murray was probably more sympathetic than Jacques.
Also:
“Cousteau was a showman, nothing more – a man prepared to do anything to sell his films and books, even if it meant martyring animals.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/117...
“Cousteau was a showman, nothing more – a man prepared to do anything to sell his films and books, even if it meant martyring animals.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/117...
People want to see the world in black and white, and absolutes, today more than ever. It's fashionable to topple statues.
But the reality is grey and whatever his flaws might have been he contributed a huge amount to diving technology, to make the public discover the marine environment, and for the protection of oceans.
But the reality is grey and whatever his flaws might have been he contributed a huge amount to diving technology, to make the public discover the marine environment, and for the protection of oceans.
He may have been all that, but it's hardly relevant.
What's relevant is whether he made a net positive or negative impact on the world with his actions.
My guess is he made more kids (and adults) happy with his programs, than he made sad with his personality and opinions.
Say I listen to a LGBTIOAQ+* muscian who hates straight people like myself (they exist), who is a feminist who hates men like myself, but I enjoy their music, their personality is definitely horrible to me, but I don't care because I love their music and I will listen just the same :)
My guess is he made more kids (and adults) happy with his programs, than he made sad with his personality and opinions.
Say I listen to a LGBTIOAQ+* muscian who hates straight people like myself (they exist), who is a feminist who hates men like myself, but I enjoy their music, their personality is definitely horrible to me, but I don't care because I love their music and I will listen just the same :)
Listening to Michael Jackson's songs is one thing. Saying he was a great human being and wanting to put things to his name is another.
If you like Cousteau's movies, good for you. But invoking his name and making him a hero is, I think, wrong.
If you like Cousteau's movies, good for you. But invoking his name and making him a hero is, I think, wrong.
He was a great oceanographer, engineer, filmmaker, and he opened the eyes of multiple generations on what lies in the oceans and how it's fragile and important to protect it. Isn't that worth a monument? He may have said/done/been bad things at the same time. Do we bury all bronze busts of Wagner?
He blew up coral reefs with dynamite!! By this measure, the Monkey Christ affair "opened the eyes of multiple generations" on the importance of religious paintings.
I don't know what he wanted to achieve and what were his options at the time. Until I know that, I suspend my judgement.
Anyway, he did not make disappear coral as a species, did he?
Please do not confuse nature protection with sentimentalism. There are very serious environmentalist jobs whose description is "destroy all the cats on this island".
Just to precise, there is none of this kind of cruelty in his films. What he transmitted to generations of children (and still does) is respect and fascination of nature in all its beauty and complexity.
I don't know what you saw about sharks, but what I saw as a child was Cousteau's team filming sharks from inside special cages, and even outside the cages in the open, with special canes he designed to keep them at distance without killing them. If he ever had cruelty towards sharks, he had also compassion, and this is the compassion bit that reached me.
Anyway, he did not make disappear coral as a species, did he?
Please do not confuse nature protection with sentimentalism. There are very serious environmentalist jobs whose description is "destroy all the cats on this island".
Just to precise, there is none of this kind of cruelty in his films. What he transmitted to generations of children (and still does) is respect and fascination of nature in all its beauty and complexity.
I don't know what you saw about sharks, but what I saw as a child was Cousteau's team filming sharks from inside special cages, and even outside the cages in the open, with special canes he designed to keep them at distance without killing them. If he ever had cruelty towards sharks, he had also compassion, and this is the compassion bit that reached me.
Here is an article putting back in context the method they used to count species:
https://www.levif.be/actualite/environnement/quand-le-comman...
Nowadays scientists use poison instead of dynamite, is it better? That shows you these methods have strong rationales, even if they seem stupid at first.
And at the time the Sea was still a big unknown, Cousteau greatly contributed to open this unread book.
So you see, you do not have to feel compelled to destroy him and his work.
https://www.levif.be/actualite/environnement/quand-le-comman...
Nowadays scientists use poison instead of dynamite, is it better? That shows you these methods have strong rationales, even if they seem stupid at first.
And at the time the Sea was still a big unknown, Cousteau greatly contributed to open this unread book.
So you see, you do not have to feel compelled to destroy him and his work.
Yup. That's how Cancel Culture works.
I don't care for Wagner's bust. I care for his music.
Edit: Cousteau's work is as bad as his character.
Edit: Cousteau's work is as bad as his character.
Well, people building/buying Wagner's busts are some big fans of his music who want somehow to materialize their fandom.
They certainly are not fans of his life, his life is extremely irrelevant, it may as well be totally forgotten, and it would not hurt.
About your last edit: here I beg to disagree.
I love his work as a filmmaker, it made me love the sea and nature in general and made me want to protect it. When I was a child he contributed to educate me and make me an environmentalist. On me at least, his work was tremendously successful.
As an engineer, he created a lot of devices used today for diving. His boat Alcyone was even sporting revolutionary static turbosails.
They certainly are not fans of his life, his life is extremely irrelevant, it may as well be totally forgotten, and it would not hurt.
About your last edit: here I beg to disagree.
I love his work as a filmmaker, it made me love the sea and nature in general and made me want to protect it. When I was a child he contributed to educate me and make me an environmentalist. On me at least, his work was tremendously successful.
As an engineer, he created a lot of devices used today for diving. His boat Alcyone was even sporting revolutionary static turbosails.
He blew up a reef one time in a documentary in the 50s. Do you know if he ever changed his mind about the event? Or was he just a-dynamitin' till the end?
(I ask rhetorically because even a cursory read of his Wikipedia page would demonstrate that his actions afterwards undercut that sort of cavalier attitude to the undersea environment. I believe he explicitly repudiated that action besides but I can't find where.)
Moreover, what _else_ of his work is bad? That one thing? He produced educational films, books, speeches, etc. for almost four decades after that film.
(I ask rhetorically because even a cursory read of his Wikipedia page would demonstrate that his actions afterwards undercut that sort of cavalier attitude to the undersea environment. I believe he explicitly repudiated that action besides but I can't find where.)
Moreover, what _else_ of his work is bad? That one thing? He produced educational films, books, speeches, etc. for almost four decades after that film.
Nobody said he was a good person to begin with ? It's hardly relevant to the discussion.
But the name is connected to the ocean and the grandson wanting to do somthing with the ocean, its not surprising that his name is invoked on that basis.
But the name is connected to the ocean and the grandson wanting to do somthing with the ocean, its not surprising that his name is invoked on that basis.
Jacques Cousteau, and really many prominent oceanographers / explorers (Ballard, who discovered the Titanic, comes to mind) have a background in espionage. Getting a large international joint effort off the ground coming from that field...can be difficult.
Recently Alexandra Cousteau, the grand-daughter of Jacques, had her name surface in regards to Epstein and whatever operation he was running.
Recently Alexandra Cousteau, the grand-daughter of Jacques, had her name surface in regards to Epstein and whatever operation he was running.
I know these sound like conspiracy theories, but Ballard was actually on a secret US Navy mission to find some subs when he accidentally stumbled on the Titanic:
https://www.wearethemighty.com/titanic-discovered-top-secret...
And the Glomar Explorer was an actual CIA operation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer
...but dragging Epstein into this? Really?
https://www.wearethemighty.com/titanic-discovered-top-secret...
And the Glomar Explorer was an actual CIA operation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomar_Explorer
...but dragging Epstein into this? Really?
The article is written in a very dreamy tone and contains very little substantial information. It firmly assures that "Proteus will be" such and such, as if they are making the finishing touches already, yet "Proteus is still in the concept phase". "Fabien is raising $135 million" (which, TBH, seems quite a conservative estimate for this project on the one hand, and on the other is a pretty huge investment for something that doesn't have any ROI projections attached), but there's no discussion about what else except for his surname this Fabien guy actually has to have any chances to succeed.
So, yeah, I would prefer if journalist learned to provide something more factual and informative in their stories, instead of telling me how cool deep-sea exploration is. I know it's cool, alright? I don't know if a project like that can actually happen in the observable future.