Question: **Dateline**: 2067

**Setting**: A research base at the bottom of the [Marianas Trench](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench)

**Depth**: 10,000 meters.

**Mission Duration**: Thirty days

A research base lies at the bottom of the Marianas Trench, housing 10-12 scientists of both sexes and a cat.

The mission starts well, the team have trained together for months, and they're tight knit. At least they thought they were...

One by one, they start to die, and it becomes obvious that their deaths are not accidental.

**Question**:

What would be a reasonable prime purpose of this research mission? For what reason would a dozen scientists be sent to the bottom of the ocean for a month where a robot/scans would not be appropriate?

Answer: 
> 
> What would be a reasonable prime purpose of this research mission?
> 
> 
> 

Science. Pick your poison:
==========================

1. Marine Biology
2. Geology
3. Deep See Ecology
4. Habitation

> 
> For what reason would a dozen scientists be sent to the bottom of the ocean for a month where a robot/scans would not be appropriate?
> 
> 
> 

For the same reasons why human exploration of space usually trumps robotic exploration.
=======================================================================================

First of all, the belief or presumption that unmanned robotics are, and will always be, more efficient explorers of [place we wish to explore] is **intrinsically flawed**. This topic has been covered in academia [[1](https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.6250.pdf)], media [[2](https://astrobites.org/2012/03/29/dispelling-the-myth-of-robotic-efficiency-why-astronomers-should-support-human-exploration-of-the-solar-system/), [3](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/robots-vs-humans-who-should-explore/)] with respect to Space, and many of the same reasons apply here. I grant that in many cases, robotic exploration is better; however, there are many reasons why human exploration may or will be preferred. Fundamentally it boils down to the long term goals and the available resources, and the long term ROI. For example, robotics is not always cheaper than human exploration. Here's quick list of broad (and paraphrased) reasons supporting human exploration over robotic exploration:

1. On-the-spot decision making.
2. Flexibility. Robots can't be redesigned to observe or respond unexpected phenomena.
3. Enhanced mobility and attendant opportunities (Something broke? Can't climb that [obstacle]? Remember when Spirit [got stuck](https://www.space.com/6740-spirit-stuck-insidious-invisible-rover-trap-mars.html)?).
4. Increased efficiency in sample collection and sample return capacity.
5. Increased potential for large-scale exploratory activities.
6. Increased potential and capacity for deployment and maintenance of complex equipment.
7. The development of a infrastructure capable of supporting further scientific applications.
> 
> What would be a reasonable prime purpose of this research mission? For what reason would a dozen scientists be sent to the bottom of the ocean for a month where a robot/scans would not be appropriate?
> 
> 
> 

It's not the easiest to do a scientific reason here as by 2067 there shouldn't be too much we can't do through robotics that a human could do easier. That being said, I'd shift the reason from pure science...ya science can be a secondary reason, but the primary reason is more like the reason we stepped on the moon. To prove to the rest of the world we could.

I'd go with PR. This is some nation setting out to prove they can, either to show up a competitor nation or simply bragging rights. "We have the technology to go anywhere, including the Mariana trench". There can be some 'tourism' reasons coming along as well, just as 'space tourism' will come about, proving the technology can allow millionaires to see whatever is in the trench could also be a reason. In the end, it's just about proving we can.

> 
> What physiological reason could there be for one (or two) members of the research team to kill others, but for that same cause not to affect any other member of the team?
> 
> 
> 

The fun part of using a PR reason is you've now introduced the 'sabotage' motive...a well hidden spy sabotaging the mission. Someone intentionally planted in the group with the idea of making the entire 'prove we can' fail.