
First U.S. woman to walk in space dives to deepest point in the ocean - tzs
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/09/873194201/first-u-s-woman-to-walk-in-space-dives-to-deepest-point-in-the-ocean
======
GrifMD
It's really cool that she got to go down, but I think the more interesting
story is around Vescovo and his team. [The New
Yorker]([https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/18/thirty-six-
tho...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/05/18/thirty-six-thousand-
feet-under-the-sea)) has a long-form article published in May about it.

One of my favorite lines from the article:

“And the next day, around lunchtime, everyone went ‘Fuck this, I’ll go for
lunch.’ Patrick retrieves a piece of equipment from the deepest point on
earth, and it’s just me, going, ‘Yay, congratulations, Patrick.’ No one seemed
to notice how big a deal it is that they had already made this normal—even
though it’s not. It’s the equivalent of having a daily flight to the moon.”

~~~
Overtonwindow
That was a killer article, a really great read.

~~~
philshem
I agree, and especially liked the salty Scottish sailor speak that was
sprinkled throughout.

If you liked that one, you may enjoy this other great NYer article about
modern explorers (2018):

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/12/the-white-
dark...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/02/12/the-white-darkness)

~~~
arethuza
Another Scottish connection being the use of Culture ship names - Iain Banks
was from Scotland.

[https://fivedeeps.com/home/technology/names/](https://fivedeeps.com/home/technology/names/)

~~~
zimpenfish
I suppose, pedantically, if you're talking about Culture ship names, he should
be referred to as Iain M. Banks?

~~~
arethuza
If we want to be that pedantic then we could always use his own Culture name:
_" Sun-Earther Iain El-Bonko Banks of North Queensferry"_ ;-)

Edit: Apparently his name really was just "Iain Banks":

 _" Menzies was supposed to be his middle name, but his father got it wrong on
the birth certificate."_

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/iain-
bank...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/iain-banks-i-
never-had-any-illusions-about-gordon-790223.html)

------
gorgoiler
Something about journeying to the deep ocean seems so much more terrifying
than space. Perhaps it’s that one cannot “fall” home whenever one wants to,
when you are already at the bottom of the sea?

That’s hardly rational though. After all, if anything goes wrong in the ocean,
your buddies can just pull you up. If something goes wrong in space you drift
into oblivion. If you are tethered in space and the safety rope breaks its
game over. Just as if one was deep in the ocean without positive buoyancy.

And then space itself is all fun and games when in orbit around Earth. If,
when facing the planet, you are feeling existentially terrified by there being
simultaneously nothing and half of all of the Universe behind you then you can
just turn around and have the safety of Earth at your back, at least.

But go deeper into space and that feeling of safety is gone forever. The same
universal nothingness and everything-ness is in all directions. Space
psychiatrists of the future may recommend we install permanent curtains to
deal with this. Only those forced to work outside need experience the terror
of the void.

At least you can see past the end of your nose in space. In the deep ocean
it’s truly pitch black. Until the squids come.

~~~
plq
Actually, you can "fall home" in the ocean. I have no idea what procedures
exist in missions that go to extreme depths like these, but if you are a
recreational diver (who is not allowed to go below 30m) and you have an
emergency down there, the last resort is to get rid of all your additional
weights* as fast as possible so that you get pushed to the surface with zero
effort.

Of course, you need to deal with fast changes in pressure during the short
journey towards the surface (protect your eardrums, lungs etc) and you may get
decompression sickness depending on the dive time and avg depth at the moment
of emergency, but hey, at least you're alive to deal with all those problems!

*: Generally, a scuba diver takes additional weights to counter the positive buoyancy effect of wetsuits, fat etc. These are mounted on belts or similar accessories that are designed to be very easy to get rid of in case of emergency.

~~~
serkandurusoy
> so that you get pushed to the surface with zero effort

This is not always true.

Your buoyancy decreases as you go deeper (and have more water above you,
causing more downward pressure).

At a depth of 30 meters (100 feet), the pressure is 4 atmospheres, 4 times
that of sea level.

Furthermore, not everyone is positively buoyant. The less fat one has,
especially if not wearing diving suit, the more likely staying afloat/level to
become harder.

As the depth increases, lungs and all bodily cavities shrink, further adding
to one's density.

So, at 30 meters, it is actually quite a struggle to swim back up, even more
so if you've lost your fins.

As for weights, I used to work out and exercise daily. During that time, I
also dived few times a week spanning various sea conditions throughout the
year and never have once taken weights as I was already negative.

Fast forward 2 years to today, I put on 15kg (33 lbs) and I need 10kg weight
to enjoy my dive. But on the upside, I'd probably skyrocket to the surface if
needed, lol :D

~~~
power78
> Furthermore, not everyone is positively buoyant. The less fat one has,
> especially if not wearing diving suit, the more likely staying afloat/level
> to become harder.

I'm not sure if it is just me, but I could not understand this at all. Do you
mind rephrasing it? Which type of person has a harder time stating afloat?

~~~
serkandurusoy
Fat can naturally float on water due to its density being less than that of
water.

The more fat one has, the less overall average density becomes, making it
harder to sink. I have a close friend who is very overwheight and she can
practically sit upright floating. I must admit I'd usually envy her when I
struggled staying afloat while she enjoye a cool refreshment like it were her
couch :)

So in short, less fat, more muscle mass, more bone mass harder to stay afloat.

Also the diving suite (which is made from a foam-like material) and some of
the hallow diving gear make it harder to sink, hence the need for weights.

------
areoform
Kathy Sullivan is my heroine. Her first spacewalk was one of the most
dangerous spacewalks ever attempted, as they tried to demonstrate the Orbital
Refueling System (ORS) capability of the Space Shuttle.

It would work as follows, an astronaut would manually capture a satellite with
the help of the Shuttle's arm, and then they would move it into the bay where
they would refuel it with a hypergolic mixture that included hydrazine. At the
time, the odds for a fatal interaction with the hydrazine were rated low, but
in retrospect, this manoeuvre was extremely dangerous and incredibly unwise.

The details of the experiment involved them doing an EVA and then servicing
the satellite and hooking it up with the fuel source, before retreating to the
shuttle to let the hypergolics flow. It is needless to say that a mistake
would have been costly. AFAICT, the project was never attempted again and was
cancelled after the loss of Challenger.

[https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-
newsref/...](https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-
newsref/stsover-missions.html)

[http://www.spacefacts.de/mission/english/sts-41g.htm](http://www.spacefacts.de/mission/english/sts-41g.htm)

Her second mission was even more interesting. She helped deploy Hubble - she
wrote about that experience and others in "Handprints on Hubble",
[https://www.amazon.com/Handprints-Hubble-Astronauts-
Inventio...](https://www.amazon.com/Handprints-Hubble-Astronauts-Invention-
Innovation/dp/0262043181/ref=sr_1_1_sspa)

It's well worth the read if you're interested in space.

~~~
techslave
wow. haven’t heard ‘heroine’ in forever. sounds like actress or stewardess.
‘hero’ is probably a better, non-gendered choice.

------
ellyagg
Is she the first person to do both? That's gotta be a pretty awesome feeling.

------
sradman
The Five Deeps Expedition technology [1] includes a two-man submersible, three
unmanned sea floor landers, and the support vessel.

The EYOS Expeditions blog post [2] is the press release from which the NPR
piece is based.

The technical challenges are due to the pressure at depth and communication
through water. The manned submersible seems to be a requirement until better
autonomous vehicles are programmed. I keep thinking that these machines should
be liquid filled, like the gamer PCs immersed in mineral oil for cooling, to
avoid the pressure issues.

I’m not sure that we need men or women 11 km down except for media coverage.
I’d rather see thousands of small/cheap fully autonomous sea floor landers
taking benthic core samples worldwide than one giant expedition doing gimmicks
to get media coverage.

[1]
[https://fivedeeps.com/home/technology/](https://fivedeeps.com/home/technology/)

[2] [https://www.eyos-expeditions.com/kathy-sullivan-becomes-
firs...](https://www.eyos-expeditions.com/kathy-sullivan-becomes-first-woman-
to-challenger-deep-eyos-coordinates-call-between-international-space-station-
and-dssv-pressure-drop/)

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I’m not sure that we need men or women 11 km down except for media
> coverage. I’d rather see thousands of small /cheap fully autonomous sea
> floor landers taking benthic core samples worldwide than one giant
> expedition doing gimmicks to get media coverage._

Well, but men and women _want to be there_.

This last paragraph of yours is a mirror image of the same argument against
manned space exploration - wouldn't it be better/easier/cheaper if it was all
done by autonomous robots? The answers are also similar: we don't have the
necessary tech, we likely won't have it without intermediate missions
involving humans, even in robotic missions there will be a benefit of having
humans near the mission site (in case of space: light lag), and media coverage
is actually a good thing, because both fields are starved for funding.

~~~
sradman
> This last paragraph of yours is a mirror image of the same argument against
> manned space exploration...

Indeed it is the exact same argument and it has been made more eloquently by
much greater men than I. Freeman Dyson made the argument in a talk he gave at
the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics titled "Living Through Four
Revolutions"[1]. He discusses the International Space Station (ISS) starting
at about the 7:15 mark and he adds the following quip:

> [The Russians] are very proud of the space station and for good reasons.
> They believe that human activities in space are an end in itself,
> essentially as an international sporting event. They don't sell it under
> false pretences as a scientific program.

[1] [https://perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/living-through-four-
rev...](https://perimeterinstitute.ca/videos/living-through-four-revolutions)

------
bmitc
I wish ocean exploration was seen as sexy as space exploration. We have so
much to learn from our oceans. It seems strange to me that we'd rather go to a
desert planet than understand the place where life possibly began and that
drives many of Earth's systems.

~~~
toshk
Certain type of humans have been exploring since beginning of times, thinking
of the vikings, but also the colonial times. But also the early tribes that
moved over the whole world. Seems to be a an innate trait for some people, to
go out and explore. But human curiosity seems to need to be tickled by
potential and that potential seems infinitely greater in space then in the
oceans.

At the same time why we can't do both?

------
growlist
'Person has vagina at different altitudes'.

------
billfruit
Isn't she the first woman ever to dive to the deepest point of the oceans?
Shouldn't that be the more interesting factoid than she also happened to be
the first US woman to have done a space walk?

------
spopejoy
> All told, EYOS Expeditions said that just seven people had reached the point
> before Sullivan, all of whom were men.

So she is both the first female spacewalker AND the first female Challenger
Deep diver. That is really remarkable, talk about opening doors and being a
role model.

------
wintercarver
Part of Michael Lewis’s book, _The Fifth Risk_, features Kathy Sullivan and
her life story. The focus of her story in the book is mostly about her work
for NOAA, in the context of Trump’s administration, but gives a fun overview
of her path to becoming an astronaut, too. Overall, a fast read and a
generally inspiring view into the scientific and engineering work done by many
people and various departments of the US government.

------
ck2
This feels like a great hollywood movie script where she next volunteers for a
one-way flight to colonize Mars.

------
irrational
Is she also the first person to both walk in space (or just go to space) and
also dive to the deepest point in the ocean? Or are there men or people from
other countries that have done the same thing?

~~~
aaron695
Your point doesn't make sense, which given it's leading, it really needs to
make sense.

Her achievement was the first women to walk in space.

Have there been people who have walked in space, climbed Mount Everest, eaten
heaps of hot dogs that have dived to the deepest point in the ocean.

Maybe, but unless they have eaten the most hot dogs, or were the first to
climb Mount Everest, it's not really a headline.

------
pvaldes
In the deepest ocean

The bottom of the sea

Your eyes...

------
ende
She's had her ups and downs.

~~~
sradman
And knows the ins and outs.

~~~
nvader
Far out, that's deep.

------
toohotatopic
Nice story but it feels distracting. She wasn't the pilot, she didn't build
the boat. What's the story being told? That women can reach everything if men
make it possible?

>All told, EYOS Expeditions said that just seven people had reached the point
before Sullivan, all of whom were men.

So most likely none of the other seven was an astronaut. This makes Sullivan
the first person to walk space and reach the deepest point of the ocean. The
story is that one person was in space and at the deepest point, not that a
woman was there, too.

With that perspective, what does she have to say? The article doesn't let her
speak, besides a short quote that is shorter than the tweet of the piloting
man. If that voyage is an achievement to be taken as guidance, why is there no
interview? They can send a picture so they can exchange questions and answers.

~~~
c3534l
I think the point is the poetry of the contrast, the two extremes. The fact
that she was the first woman in space is what makes her notable, not the fact
that she was the first woman to be in both space and the bottom of the ocean.
If it was "some astronaut," that would be weird. Which astronaut? You could
say her name, but most people aren't going to know her by name. So you say the
first woman to walk in space. She apparently was also the first woman to reach
Challenger Deep. The fact that she reached two opposite extremes, but with
obvious unifying similarities, is interesting. The fact that she was also the
first woman to do both of those thing in isolation is also interesting. The
story is interesting.

~~~
skissane
> The fact that she was the first woman in space

> most people aren't going to know her by name. So you say the first woman to
> walk in space

She wasn't the first woman in space.

That was Soviet cosmonaut Valentina Tereshkova in 1963.

She wasn't the first woman to walk in space.

That was Soviet cosmonaut Svetlana Savitskaya in 1984.

She wasn't the first American woman in space.

That was Sally Ride in 1983.

She was the first American woman to do a spacewalk.

~~~
billfruit
But it seems she if the first woman of any nationality into Challenger Deep,
that is the more interesting/notable factoid than the space walk one.

------
intpbro
Wow, seven miles down

------
coronadisaster
edit: A submersible:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger)
(not THE submersible, as I first thought) You would think that it would be
front and center in an article about this.

~~~
spendavis12
This is incorrect. The submersible used is in fact 'Limiting Factor' built by
Triton Submarines:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_Submarines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_Submarines)

Limiting Factor is correctly identified by NYT as the submersible used:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/science/challenger-
deep-k...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/08/science/challenger-deep-kathy-
sullivan-astronaut.html)

