Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Project Mohole

Project Mohole was a pioneering American scientific initiative launched in the late 1950s to penetrate the Earth's oceanic crust and retrieve samples from the mantle at the Mohorovičić discontinuity, the boundary separating the crust from the deeper mantle layers.^[1] Proposed by geophysicists associated with the American Miscellaneous Society and funded by the National Science Foundation, the project sought to unlock fundamental insights into the planet's internal structure through direct sampling, bypassing indirect seismic methods.^[2] The experimental phase, conducted in 1961 approximately 40 miles east of Guadalupe Island, Mexico, utilized the converted oil barge CUSS I to drill in 11,700 feet of water, successfully coring 601 feet below the seafloor across five holes and recovering basalt from seismic Layer 2 for the first time, confirming models of oceanic crust composition.^[3]^[4] This effort introduced critical innovations, including dynamic positioning systems to maintain vessel stability without anchors and advanced wire-line coring techniques with diamond bits, demonstrating the feasibility of deep-ocean drilling operations.^[3] However, subsequent phases encountered severe mismanagement, with projected costs escalating from initial estimates of around $20 million to over $70 million due to contractor disputes and technical complexities, leading Congress to terminate funding in 1966 amid competing priorities like the Vietnam War and space program.^[2]^[5] Though it failed to achieve its ultimate goal of reaching the mantle, Project Mohole's technical advancements laid the groundwork for the Deep Sea Drilling Project initiated in 1968, which employed similar methods aboard vessels like the Glomar Challenger to gather extensive core samples supporting plate tectonics and seafloor spreading theories.^[5]^[1] The endeavor highlighted the challenges of large-scale geophysical exploration, including the tension between scientific ambition and fiscal realism, yet its empirical contributions to drilling technology proved enduring despite contemporary criticisms of inefficiency.^[2]

Origins and Scientific Rationale

Discovery and Nature of the Mohorovičić Discontinuity

The Mohorovičić discontinuity, commonly known as the Moho, was identified in 1909 by Croatian seismologist Andrija Mohorovičić through analysis of seismic data from the October 8 earthquake near the Kulpa Valley in present-day Croatia.^[6] ^[7] Mohorovičić observed that certain seismic waves arrived at recording stations sooner than predicted by a homogeneous Earth model, indicating refraction off a deeper boundary where wave propagation accelerated.^[8] This led him to propose a layered structure, with the discontinuity at approximately 50 km depth beneath the epicenter, separating a shallower layer with average P-wave velocities of about 6 km/s from a deeper one exceeding 8 km/s.^[9] His findings, published in 1910, represented the first evidence of lateral heterogeneity in Earth's interior based on empirical seismic observations rather than theoretical assumptions.^[6] Seismically, the Moho manifests as a first-order discontinuity characterized by an abrupt increase in compressional (P-wave) velocity from 6.0–7.2 km/s in the crust to 7.6–8.6 km/s in the uppermost mantle, accompanied by a similar jump in shear (S-wave) velocities.^[10] ^[11] This velocity contrast arises from a density increase of roughly 0.3–0.5 g/cm³, reflecting a compositional transition from silica- and aluminum-rich crustal rocks (predominantly felsic to intermediate in continents, mafic in oceans) to magnesium- and iron-rich peridotite in the mantle.^[10] However, the boundary is not uniformly sharp; in some regions, it may involve a transitional zone rather than a discrete interface, and seismic definitions do not always align precisely with petrologic changes, as evidenced by variations in refraction profiles.^[12] Depth to the Moho varies significantly: typically 25–40 km beneath continental interiors, thinning to 20 km or less under rift zones or basins, and reaching 50–70 km under mountain roots like the Sierra Nevada or Tibetan Plateau, where crustal thickening compensates isostatically. In oceanic settings, it lies at 5–10 km below the seafloor, enabling potential access via drilling due to thinner basalt layers overlying peridotite.^[10] Evidence derives primarily from refraction surveys using controlled explosions or earthquakes, which trace head waves along the interface, and reflection seismology revealing the boundary's geometry, though direct compositional verification remains absent, relying instead on extrapolations from ophiolite exposures and mantle xenoliths.^[13] These seismic constraints underscore the Moho's role as the primary marker of Earth's chemical differentiation, formed during planetary accretion and subsequent magmatism.^[10]

Motivations for Direct Sampling of the Mantle

Prior to Project Mohole, geologists' understanding of the Earth's mantle relied on indirect evidence, including ultramafic xenoliths ejected in volcanic eruptions and ophiolite sequences interpreted as obducted oceanic crust, both of which offered potentially altered or incomplete representations of in situ mantle material.^[14] Seismic refraction studies had identified the Mohorovičić discontinuity (Moho) as a boundary where P-wave velocities increased from approximately 6.5–7 km/s in the crust to 8 km/s in the mantle, implying a compositional shift to denser, magnesium-rich ultramafic rocks such as peridotite, but direct verification required physical samples to analyze mineralogy, geochemistry, and fabric without surficial alteration.^[15]^[14] The primary scientific impetus for direct mantle sampling, as articulated by geophysicists Harry Hess and oceanographer Walter Munk in their 1957 proposal to a National Science Foundation panel, was to drill through the oceanic crust—thinner at 4–6 km beneath the seafloor compared to continental crust—and retrieve pristine mantle cores to elucidate its structure and composition.^[14] Gordon Lill, who advanced the idea through the American Miscellaneous Society (AMSOC), emphasized that penetrating the Moho would represent "a monumental advance in earth sciences" by providing empirical data to test hypotheses on mantle convection, partial melting processes, and the petrogenesis of basaltic magmas derived from it.^[14] Such samples would enable laboratory examination of mantle-derived rocks under controlled conditions, revealing trace element distributions, isotopic ratios, and phase assemblages unattainable through geophysical modeling alone.^[15] Furthermore, direct access to the uppermost mantle promised to clarify the nature of the Moho itself—whether a primary compositional gradient or a metamorphic front—and inform evolutionary models of Earth's interior, including differentiation during planetary accretion and the role of the mantle in driving surface tectonics.^[15] Hess's contemporaneous seafloor spreading hypothesis (formalized in 1960) underscored the urgency, positing that mantle upwelling at mid-ocean ridges generated new crust, making unaltered oceanic mantle samples essential to validate mechanisms of crustal accretion and melt migration.^[15] Lill's advocacy highlighted the project's potential to bridge seismological inferences with petrological reality, addressing long-standing uncertainties in mantle rheology and volatile content that influenced global heat flow and volcanism.^[14]

Initial Proposal Amid Cold War Scientific Competition

The initial proposal for Project Mohole originated in March 1957, when Walter H. Munk, a geophysicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a National Academy of Sciences member, suggested drilling through the oceanic crust to retrieve mantle samples from the Mohorovičić discontinuity during an Academy meeting.^[16] Co-developed with Princeton geologist Harry Hess, the concept drew from prior ideas, such as W. Maurice Ewing's 1953 undersea drilling proposals, but emphasized targeting the thinner oceanic crust (approximately 5-7 km thick) over continental equivalents (30-50 km).^[14] The American Miscellaneous Society (AMSOC), an informal group formed in 1952 under Office of Naval Research auspices to pursue unconventional scientific ventures, endorsed and formalized the effort through a dedicated committee chaired by Gordon Lill.^[17] ^[16] This proposal gained institutional legitimacy when AMSOC affiliated with the National Academy of Sciences, addressing National Science Foundation (NSF) concerns over the originating group's ad hoc structure. In June 1958, NSF awarded a $15,000 grant for a feasibility study led by ocean engineer Willard Bascom, focusing on engineering viability for deep-sea drilling.^[14] The timing aligned with post-World War II advances in oceanography, including dynamic positioning systems tested during the International Geophysical Year (1957-1958), but faced initial skepticism regarding costs estimated at $35-50 million over 3-7 years.^[17] The Cold War context amplified urgency, as the Soviet Union's Sputnik 1 launch in October 1957 exposed perceived U.S. vulnerabilities in frontier sciences, prompting accelerated federal investments in high-profile endeavors.^[14] Soviet geophysicists had publicly discussed Moho exploration, positioning Project Mohole as a symbolic "moon shot" for Earth sciences to counterbalance space race setbacks and affirm American technological superiority.^[18] Congress approved NSF funding in recognition of these geopolitical stakes, with the project framed not merely as basic research but as a strategic assertion of U.S. capabilities amid superpower rivalry.^[14]

Planning and Organizational Structure

Role of AMSOC and NSF

The American Miscellaneous Society (AMSOC), an informal group of geophysicists and oceanographers formed to pursue ambitious scientific challenges beyond conventional funding constraints, originated the concept of Project Mohole during a 1957 meeting at the National Academy of Sciences, where drilling through the oceanic crust to sample the mantle was proposed as a means to study the Mohorovičić discontinuity.^[2]^[17] AMSOC established a dedicated Mohole Committee, chaired by figures such as Gordon Lill and including Harry Hess, to develop the proposal, emphasizing the thinner oceanic crust as a feasible drilling target compared to continental sites.^[14]^[19] In 1958, AMSOC submitted a grant application to the National Science Foundation (NSF), securing initial funding of $2.5 million to initiate experimental ocean drilling, with AMSOC assuming operational responsibility as an official study unit under the National Academy of Sciences.^[16]^[2]^[19] The NSF, established to advance basic research amid post-Sputnik pressures for U.S. scientific leadership, supported the project as a high-risk, high-reward endeavor to penetrate Earth's interior layers, sharing oversight with AMSOC during the planning and execution of Phase One, which involved preparatory tests and the 1961 drilling off Guadalupe Island that reached 601 feet into basalt.^[16]^[19] Following the technical successes of Phase One, AMSOC relinquished direct management in late 1961, transitioning primary responsibility to the NSF, which then solicited bids from universities and industry for a prime contractor to advance deeper drilling phases, while retaining AMSOC in an advisory capacity.^[16]^[19] This shift reflected NSF's role in scaling the project federally, though it later faced scrutiny over escalating costs and contracting decisions, ultimately contributing to the program's cancellation in 1966.^[2]^[19]

Site Selection: Advantages of Oceanic Drilling

The selection of an oceanic site for Project Mohole was driven primarily by the significantly thinner crust beneath the oceans, which reduced the required drilling depth to reach the Mohorovičić discontinuity compared to continental locations. Seismic studies indicated that the oceanic crust averages approximately 6-7 kilometers thick to the Moho, in contrast to 30-50 kilometers or more under continents, making the endeavor technically more feasible with mid-20th-century drilling technology.^[20]^[21] This shallower target depth lowered anticipated costs and logistical demands, as proponents argued that penetrating the thinner oceanic section would be cheaper and faster than attempting a continental borehole.^[22] Oceanic drilling also promised access to relatively unaltered rock samples, preserved from surface weathering, erosion, and atmospheric oxidation that complicate continental outcrops and boreholes. Subseafloor materials recovered from ocean sites would thus better represent primary igneous compositions and structures at the crust-mantle boundary, free from the metamorphic overprinting common in exposed or near-surface continental rocks.^[16] For Project Mohole, preliminary seismic surveys identified prospective sites, such as off Guadalupe Island, where the Moho was estimated at around 4 kilometers below the seafloor in water depths of about 3.5 kilometers, further optimizing the total penetration needed from a floating platform.^[17] These advantages aligned with the project's goal of demonstrating deep scientific ocean drilling, leveraging the uniformity and relative accessibility of oceanic basalt sequences over the varied, sediment-laden continental profiles.^[21]

Engineering Challenges and Proposed Solutions

The foremost engineering challenge in Project Mohole was maintaining the drilling platform's position in water depths exceeding 3,500 meters, where conventional anchoring systems proved inadequate due to the impracticality of deploying anchors to the seafloor.^[17] Various anchoring alternatives were evaluated and rejected, leading to the development of dynamic positioning technology as the primary solution.^[17] This system employed seafloor acoustic transponders for precise location tracking combined with vessel-mounted thrusters to counteract currents and winds, achieving positional accuracy within tens of meters— a breakthrough first demonstrated during Phase I operations.^[1] Deploying the drill string through the water column to the seafloor posed additional difficulties, including managing the length of pipe (over 3,500 meters), mitigating wave-induced heave that could damage equipment, and ensuring stable penetration into underlying sediments and basalt.^[23] Proposed mitigations involved converting existing shallow-water oil rigs, such as the CUSS I barge, into deep-water capable platforms with heave compensation mechanisms to dampen vertical motion.^[3] For subsequent phases, planners advocated constructing specialized intermediate vessels equipped for rotary drilling and core recovery in oceanic environments.^[2] Drilling into the hard, fractured oceanic crust presented risks of borehole instability, rapid bit wear, and low core recovery rates, compounded by the need to reach depths of approximately 5-7 kilometers below the seafloor to access the mantle.^[24] Solutions included the use of diamond-tipped core bits for enhanced durability in igneous rocks and circulation of weighted drilling fluids to support the borehole walls and remove cuttings.^[1] Phase I testing off Guadalupe Island in March 1961 validated these approaches by successfully coring 183 meters into the sediment-basalt transition from 3,560 meters of water, though full-scale crustal penetration remained untested due to project cancellation.^[17] ^[25] Anticipated geothermal gradients would elevate bottom-hole temperatures to 200-300°C near the Mohorovičić discontinuity, threatening equipment integrity and requiring advanced thermal-resistant seals and electronics.^[26] Engineering proposals emphasized modular drill string designs with real-time telemetry for monitoring pressure and temperature, alongside phased escalation from experimental to dedicated Mohole platforms to iteratively address these extremes.^[2]

Implementation of Phase One

Preparatory Experiments and Platform Selection

The platform for Phase One of Project Mohole was selected as the CUSS I barge, a converted offshore drilling vessel owned by Global Marine Exploration Company, chosen for its innovative dynamic positioning system that eliminated the need for anchors in deep water.^[27] This system utilized four steerable propellers and acoustic positioning references from submerged buoys to maintain the vessel's position over the drill site with precision sufficient for coring operations.^[28] The selection prioritized vessels with proven capabilities in offshore oil exploration, as CUSS I had previously demonstrated station-keeping in water depths exceeding 3,000 feet during tests for submerged oil dome detection.^[29] Preparatory experiments began with model tests conducted at the University of Michigan to evaluate the stability and hydrodynamic performance of the proposed drilling platform under various sea conditions, including wake surveys and propeller open-water efficiency studies.^[30] These were followed by sea trials off La Jolla, California, in March 1961, where the CUSS I drilled test holes in approximately 3,100 feet (945 meters) of water to validate dynamic positioning accuracy and drilling equipment functionality in an intermediate-depth environment resembling Neogene turbidite basins.^[31] During these trials, the system maintained position within a few feet using six submerged buoys deployed in a circular pattern at about 200 feet depth, confirming the feasibility of unanchored operations for subsequent deeper-water coring.^[28] Additional preparations included land-based tool testing, such as drilling approximately 300 meters into serpentinite near Puerto Rico to assess bit performance and core recovery in hard rock analogs to oceanic basement.^[29] These experiments collectively demonstrated that deep-sea drilling could penetrate over 600 feet into seafloor sediments without anchoring, paving the way for the primary Phase One operations while incurring costs of around $1.5 million for the offshore components.^[29] The success in positioning and initial coring addressed key engineering uncertainties, though full mantle penetration remained a distant goal requiring scaled-up platforms in later phases.^[27]

Drilling Operations Off Guadalupe Island (1961)

The preliminary deep-water drilling operations for Project Mohole off Guadalupe Island took place from March to April 1961, utilizing the converted Navy barge CUSS I, a floating drilling platform developed by a consortium of oil companies.^[17]^[23] The site, located approximately 50 miles east of Guadalupe Island and about 65 kilometers offshore Mexico in the Pacific Ocean, featured water depths of around 11,700 feet (3,566 meters).^[17]^[3] This location was selected for its deep oceanic conditions to test technologies essential for future mantle-penetrating drills, distinct from shallower tests near La Jolla, California.^[32] The CUSS I employed dynamic positioning, a pioneering technique using four outboard propulsion engines guided by acoustic beacons on the seafloor and radar/sonar systems to maintain station over the drill site without anchors, even in strong currents.^[23]^[17] Over the course of the expedition, five core holes were drilled, achieving a maximum penetration of 601 feet (183 meters) below the seafloor.^[3] Operations penetrated through approximately 560 feet of soft, green-gray ooze sediment (Miocene age, 12–20 million years old) before reaching the underlying tholeiitic basalt of the oceanic crust's second layer.^[17] Cores recovered included samples from depths up to 575 feet below the seafloor, featuring glassy basalt penetrated to 41 feet in one hole, marking the first direct sampling of hard oceanic basement rock.^[17] Scientific measurements encompassed seismic velocities of 1.6 km/s in the sediments, temperature profiles providing the first in-situ heat data from 500 feet sub-seafloor, and ocean current recordings at multiple depths.^[17]^[33] These results validated rotary coring methods in deep water and informed engineering refinements, though challenges like protecting the drill string from surface wave motion persisted.^[23] The operations demonstrated feasibility for sustained deep-sea drilling but fell short of mantle access, serving primarily as a proof-of-concept for Project Mohole's ambitions.^[32]

Immediate Technical Achievements and Data Obtained

The preliminary drilling phase of Project Mohole, conducted in March and April 1961 using the converted barge CUSS I, achieved the first successful deep-ocean core drilling without anchors, employing dynamic positioning via acoustic transponders on the seafloor and four azimuth thrusters to maintain station over the drill site.^[23]^[1] Operations targeted a site approximately 75 km east of Guadalupe Island in water depths of about 3,658 meters (12,000 feet), where the platform drilled multiple holes, with the deepest penetrating 183 meters (601 feet) below the seafloor.^[17]^[31] This marked the initial penetration into the basaltic basement underlying oceanic sediments, recovering cores from seismic Layer 2 and confirming the uppermost oceanic crust's composition as basaltic lavas.^[34]^[31] Core samples retrieved included Miocene-age sediments overlying basalt, with one hole yielding approximately 13.5 meters of basalt after traversing 550–570 feet of unconsolidated sediments, providing direct evidence of the sediment-basement transition and oceanic crustal structure.^[31]^[35] Additionally, the expedition obtained the first in-situ heat flow measurements below the seafloor, recording a value of 2.81 × 10⁻⁶ cal/cm²/sec at depths around 152 meters (500 feet) sub-seafloor, which contributed to early understandings of geothermal gradients in deep-sea environments.^[36] These results validated the engineering feasibility of sub-seafloor drilling in ultra-deep water and supplied foundational geological data that informed subsequent ocean drilling programs.^[17]^[23]

Controversies and Opposition

Contracting and Management Shortcomings

The National Science Foundation awarded a $43.6 million, five-year contract to Brown & Root, Inc., on June 20, 1962, to design and oversee the construction of a specialized drilling vessel for Project Mohole, despite the firm ranking fifth among bidders in initial evaluations by review panels.^[37] Higher-ranked proposals came from Socony Mobil Oil Company, deemed "outstanding," and Global-Aerojet-Shell Marine Company, rated a "strong second," highlighting shortcomings in the competitive selection process that favored an engineering firm lacking prior deep-ocean drilling experience.^[37]^[29] Under Brown & Root's direction, the project encountered technical, financial, and managerial difficulties, including integration of the American Miscellaneous Society (AMSOC) scientific committee into operations, which diminished AMSOC's influence and exacerbated coordination failures between academic advisors and contractors.^[29] Management deficiencies were compounded by AMSOC's informal structure, lacking formal membership or consistent agendas, and frequent leadership transitions, such as Hollis Hedberg's replacement of a prior chairman, which fostered internal conflicts and slowed decision-making.^[2] The NSF, assuming direct oversight after AMSOC's limitations became evident—particularly following Willard Bascom's departure—proved ill-equipped for operational management of such a complex engineering endeavor, leading to inefficiencies in execution and inadequate academic-contractor alignment.^[29] A protracted bidding and rebidding process for vessel components contributed to significant delays, as did Brown & Root's underestimation of engineering challenges, resulting in no vessel construction despite expenditures reaching approximately $57 million by 1965.^[29]^[2] Cost estimates escalated dramatically under this framework, from an initial $14–15 million projection to $70 million by 1963 and proposed figures exceeding $160 million, driven by contractor inexperience, shifting priorities toward a single deep-drill site over incremental coring, and poor fiscal oversight.^[29]^[2] In response to these issues, a special five-member committee of the National Science Board launched an investigation into Project Mohole's management in April 1963, amid criticisms from scientists and engineers, including National Academy of Sciences members, who questioned Brown & Root's technical competence and the NSF's handling of progress.^[38]^[37] These shortcomings ultimately undermined congressional confidence, contributing to the project's defunding without achieving its core objectives.^[3]

Escalating Costs and Fiscal Critiques

The initial exploratory phase of Project Mohole, conducted in 1961 off Guadalupe Island, was funded at a relatively modest level, with the National Science Foundation (NSF) providing approximately $15,000 for early planning and feasibility studies under the American Miscellaneous Society (AMSOC).^[29] However, as plans advanced toward the full-scale "deep Mohole" objective—drilling through the oceanic crust to the Mohorovičić discontinuity—projected costs escalated dramatically, with engineering proposals for Phase II estimating between $35 million and higher figures to develop specialized floating platforms and drilling technologies capable of operating in deep water.^[17] By the mid-1960s, overall budget projections had ballooned from an initial $4 million to around $70 million, driven by unanticipated engineering complexities, iterative platform designs, and procurement delays.^[2] These cost overruns drew scrutiny from government auditors, who highlighted inefficiencies in contracting and management that amplified fiscal pressures, including separate appropriations outside standard NSF budgeting processes.^[3] Congressional critics, particularly in the House of Representatives, argued that the project's scale threatened to divert resources from smaller, more incremental scientific endeavors, labeling it a potential "foolish and unjustifiably expensive fiasco" that prioritized speculative megaproject ambitions over broader research priorities.^[2] In fiscal year 1966, a House committee explicitly refused the NSF's request for $19.7 million in continued funding, citing the unchecked escalation as evidence of poor fiscal oversight amid competing national demands like the Apollo program.^[39] Fiscal critiques extended to concerns over opportunity costs, with opponents contending that the funds—equivalent to a significant portion of NSF's earth sciences budget—could better support distributed geophysical studies rather than a single high-risk venture prone to technical setbacks and indefinite timelines.^[40] Proponents within the scientific community, such as AMSOC leaders, defended the investments as essential for groundbreaking data on mantle composition, but auditors and legislators emphasized that early successes in shallow drilling did not justify the exponential cost increases for unproven deep-crust penetration.^[16] This backlash culminated in the project's effective termination by late 1966, underscoring systemic challenges in managing large-scale, government-funded scientific initiatives where initial underestimations of technical hurdles led to unsustainable fiscal trajectories.^[3]

Political Entanglements and Cronyism Allegations

The National Science Foundation (NSF) awarded the prime contract for Project Mohole's engineering and construction phase to Brown & Root, Inc., a Texas-based construction firm, in 1961, despite the company's limited experience in deep-sea scientific drilling operations.^[37] This decision sparked immediate controversy, as critics highlighted Brown & Root's lack of relevant expertise compared to specialized marine engineering firms, prompting allegations that the selection bypassed rigorous competitive bidding processes.^[41] Congressional hearings ensued, with opponents arguing that the award reflected undue influence rather than merit-based evaluation.^[42] Exacerbating suspicions were Brown & Root's longstanding political connections to Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, a fellow Texan whose Senate and presidential campaigns had received substantial contributions from the firm's principals, including a reported $25,000 donation from a family member of a key executive shortly before the contract award.^[42] These ties fueled cronyism claims, portraying the contract as an instance of favoritism within Johnson's political network, which included Texas business interests that had previously benefited from federal projects under Democratic administrations.^[43] Although no formal charges of corruption were substantiated, the optics contributed to broader critiques of NSF management, leading the National Science Board to convene a five-member investigative committee in 1963 to assess both the agency's oversight and Brown & Root's competence.^[38] The Senate Appropriations Committee withheld funding in 1962 pending a full review, citing risks of inefficiency and waste tied to the contractor's inexperience, which delayed platform design and escalated preliminary costs.^[44] Scientific panels echoed these concerns, recommending against Brown & Root's continued primacy due to perceived prioritization of political reliability over technical suitability.^[45] Ultimately, these entanglements eroded bipartisan support, intertwining Project Mohole's fate with debates over government contracting integrity amid the era's expanding federal science budgets.^[46]

Scientific Skepticism on Feasibility and Priorities

Scientists expressed doubts about the technical feasibility of penetrating the Mohorovičić discontinuity (Moho) using mid-1960s drilling technology, citing challenges such as the hardness of oceanic basalt, which accelerated bit wear, and escalating subsurface temperatures potentially exceeding 200°C at depths of 5–7 km below the seafloor, risking equipment failure.^[17] These concerns were amplified by the project's reliance on unproven dynamic positioning systems for floating platforms in water depths over 3,000 meters, where currents and heave could destabilize operations, as evidenced by early test drillings that encountered unexpected sediment instability.^[38] Geologists like those on the National Science Board panel highlighted that incomplete geophysical surveys might lead to site-specific anomalies, such as variable crust thickness, rendering a single deep borehole insufficiently representative.^[45] Prioritization critiques within the earth sciences community argued that resources allocated to Project Mohole—initially $5 million in fiscal year 1962—diverted funds from broader oceanographic mapping and shallow-core sampling, which could yield more immediate data on crustal composition and structure across multiple sites.^[17] Proponents of alternative strategies, including members of the American Miscellaneous Society (AMSOC), contended that achieving mantle samples presupposed unresolved questions about seismic velocity gradients and mantle heterogeneity, advocating instead for a phased program of refraction surveys and pilot holes to validate targets before committing to full-depth attempts.^[45] This view gained traction amid fears that Mohole's high-risk profile could undermine public and congressional support for geosciences, potentially framing it as a "scientific flop" if mantle recovery failed despite preliminary successes in sediment coring to 601 feet in 1961.^[38]

Cancellation and Project Evolution

Congressional Funding Decisions (1966)

In May 1966, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, in reporting H.R. 14921 for fiscal year 1967 appropriations for independent offices including the National Science Foundation (NSF), recommended zero funding for Project Mohole, denying the President's request for $19.7 million to continue the project.^[47] This decision followed the February 1966 death of Representative Albert Thomas (D-TX), chairman of the committee and a key advocate for Mohole, which diminished political backing amid broader scrutiny of NSF-managed initiatives.^[48] Cost estimates had escalated dramatically, with the total projected at approximately $127.5 million by mid-1966, of which $47.5 million had already been expended, prompting concerns over fiscal oversight and value for taxpayers.^[1] Opposition in the House centered on allegations of mismanagement, including contractor selection irregularities and the NSF's perceived inability to control expenditures, as Phase I costs alone had tripled the initial $522,550 estimate.^[3] A Government Accountability Office audit highlighted administrative shortcomings and potential political influences in contracting, further eroding confidence.^[49] In August 1966, during Senate floor debate on the appropriations bill, Senator Gordon Allott (R-CO) criticized the project for "mismanagement" and "excessive costs to the taxpayer," arguing it diverted resources from more pressing priorities amid escalating federal spending.^[50] Although the Senate initially sought to restore some funding, rejecting an amendment to explicitly bar NSF use of funds for Mohole by a vote of 37-46 on August 10, 1966, the conference committee reconciled the bills without allocating resources for the project.^[51] The final Independent Offices and Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act (Public Law 89-555), signed on September 6, 1966, effectively terminated federal support, marking the end of Project Mohole's deep-drilling ambitions.^[3] This outcome reflected congressional prioritization of Vietnam War-related expenditures and domestic programs over high-risk scientific megaprojects, despite endorsements from the scientific community for its potential insights into Earth's interior.^[1]

Transition to Shallow-Water and Multi-Site Drilling Initiatives

Following the U.S. Congress's termination of Project Mohole's Phase II funding in fiscal year 1966 amid ballooning cost estimates exceeding $100 million, scientists redirected efforts toward more achievable ocean drilling objectives.^[23] The original ambition of a single deep penetration to the Mohorovičić discontinuity in ultra-deep water proved technically daunting and fiscally unsustainable, prompting a strategic shift to multi-site coring in relatively shallower water depths and sediment layers.^[29] This transition emphasized collecting extensive samples from diverse oceanic locations to map sediment records and upper crustal structures, rather than risking resources on one high-stakes borehole.^[52] In response, the Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling (JOIDES) consortium, established in 1964 by leading U.S. oceanographic entities including Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, proposed the "LOCO" (Lots of Cores from the Ocean) initiative.^[52] LOCO advocated for numerous shallow drillings—typically penetrating hundreds of meters into seafloor sediments across global ocean basins—to build a comprehensive dataset on paleoceanography and crustal composition.^[29] This approach leveraged proven dynamic positioning and drilling technologies tested during Mohole's Phase I off Guadalupe Island in 1961, while mitigating risks associated with extreme depths exceeding 5,000 meters.^[23] The National Science Foundation endorsed this pivot by launching the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP) in 1966, with operational drilling commencing August 1968 aboard the purpose-built Glomar Challenger.^[53] Capable of operating in water depths up to 6,000 meters and coring to approximately 1,000 meters below the seafloor, the vessel enabled over 100 expeditions by 1983, recovering more than 2 million meters of core samples from sites worldwide.^[53] These multi-site efforts prioritized shallow-water relative to Moho targets—focusing on continental margins and mid-ocean ridges—yielding foundational data on magnetic reversals, sediment ages, and basalt compositions that informed subsequent geological models.^[52]

Reasons for Abandoning the Deep Mohole Goal

The pursuit of a full-depth penetration to the Mohorovičić discontinuity encountered insurmountable technical barriers with mid-1960s technology, including frequent drill bit failures, pipe deformations under extreme pressures, and loss of equipment in water depths exceeding 3,000 meters. Preliminary operations off Guadalupe Island in 1961 achieved only 183 meters into basalt bedrock after repeated setbacks, highlighting the challenges of maintaining borehole stability and circulation in dynamic ocean conditions.^[1]^[2] These issues underscored the engineering limitations, as rotary drilling techniques optimized for softer sediments proved inadequate for the hard, fractured oceanic crust at target depths of 5-7 kilometers below the seafloor.^[24] Cost projections for the deep phase escalated dramatically, from an initial $2-4 million for tests to estimates exceeding $64 million for completion, rendering the endeavor fiscally untenable amid competing national priorities like the Vietnam War and Apollo program. Administrative inefficiencies and contractor disputes further inflated expenses without proportional progress, eroding confidence in achieving mantle samples within a reasonable timeframe or budget.^[1]^[2] Scientific advisors increasingly argued that the deep Mohole's singular focus offered diminishing returns compared to distributed shallow-water drilling, which could systematically sample sediments and upper crust across multiple sites to test hypotheses on ocean basin evolution and paleoclimates at lower risk and cost. This shift prioritized verifiable, incremental data over a high-stakes "moonshot" to the mantle, influencing the 1966 congressional pivot to the Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling (JOIDES) framework for broader ocean floor investigations.^[24]^[2]

Long-Term Legacy

Technological and Methodological Advancements

Project Mohole pioneered dynamic positioning systems for ocean drilling vessels, utilizing acoustic transponders on the seafloor and shipboard thrusters to maintain precise station-keeping without anchors. This technology was first tested successfully in March 1961 aboard the CUSS I, a converted offshore oil barge, during experimental drilling in the Pacific Ocean off Guadalupe Island, Mexico, where the vessel held position over depths exceeding 3,000 meters.^[1]^[54] The project advanced deep-water drilling methodologies by developing techniques to penetrate the water column and underlying sediments to reach basaltic basement rock. In the 1961 Phase I operations, crews drilled through 3,500 meters of water and achieved a core depth of 183 meters (601 feet) below the seafloor, marking the deepest oceanic basement penetration at the time and demonstrating feasible coring in challenging marine environments.^[55]^[3] Methodologically, Mohole emphasized site selection in regions of thinner oceanic crust, such as the Guadalupe Trough, to minimize drilling depth requirements—targeting approximately 4 kilometers to the Mohorovičić discontinuity compared to averages of 6-7 kilometers elsewhere. This approach, informed by seismic refraction data, optimized feasibility and influenced future geophysical survey strategies for deep drilling.^[56] These innovations extended beyond the project's core goal, providing foundational technologies for the offshore petroleum industry, including stable vessel control in open seas, and enabling subsequent scientific endeavors like the Deep Sea Drilling Project launched in 1968.^[57]^[58]

Contributions to Plate Tectonics and Earth Structure Understanding

Although Project Mohole failed to penetrate the Mohorovičić discontinuity (Moho), its Phase I experimental drilling in April 1961 off Guadalupe Island achieved a depth of 601 feet (183 meters) below the seafloor in 11,000 feet (3,353 meters) of water, yielding core samples of oceanic sediments and uppermost basalt that provided initial empirical data on the composition and structure of the oceanic crust.^[3] These samples confirmed the presence of a thin sedimentary layer overlying basaltic basement, aligning with seismic refraction models of oceanic crust thickness averaging 5–10 kilometers, and demonstrated the technical feasibility of dynamic positioning and turbodrilling in deep marine environments.^[56] ^[1] The project's innovations in drilling technology and methodologies directly catalyzed the formation of the Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling (JOIDES) in 1964 and the subsequent Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP), launched in 1968 aboard the Glomar Challenger, which employed Mohole-derived techniques to conduct over 100 expeditions worldwide.^[2] ^[59] DSDP cores revealed systematic age progression of oceanic basalts away from mid-ocean ridges, with magnetic polarity reversals in the crust corroborating seafloor spreading, a cornerstone mechanism of plate tectonics proposed by Harry Hess in 1960.^[60] These findings, including the recovery of Jurassic-age sediments atop Cretaceous basalt at sites like the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, furnished direct evidence that oceanic lithosphere is continuously recycled at subduction zones, with crust ages rarely exceeding 180 million years, thus refuting static continent models and affirming convective mantle dynamics.^[60] ^[61] By enabling systematic sampling of the oceanic crust-mantle interface proxies, Mohole's legacy advanced delineation of the Moho as a petrologic transition rather than a sharp chemical boundary, with seismic velocity increases from ~6.8 km/s in crust to ~8.0 km/s in mantle reflecting density contrasts driven by olivine-rich peridotite composition, as inferred from dredged and drilled ultramafics.^[1] Later programs like the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) built on this foundation to quantify crustal hydration and alteration, revealing how serpentinization at the Moho influences plate boundary rheology and seismicity.^[59] Overall, these contributions shifted Earth structure models from speculative geophysical inference to data-constrained realism, underscoring the oceanic crust's role in global tectonics.^[24]

Broader Lessons on Government-Funded Megaprojects

Project Mohole exemplifies the perils of underestimating technical complexities in government-funded scientific endeavors, where initial optimism often masks escalating difficulties in deep-sea drilling environments. Proposed in 1957 with an eye toward penetrating the Mohorovičić discontinuity at depths exceeding 5 kilometers beneath the ocean floor, the project quickly encountered unforeseen challenges, including frequent drill bit failures—lasting only 7-10 meters before replacement—and painfully slow progress averaging 60 meters per month during test phases.^[60] These issues contributed to cost overruns that drew scrutiny from congressional auditors, transforming what began as a $5 million allocation in the National Science Foundation's budget into a target for fiscal conservatives by 1966.^[3]^[17] A core lesson lies in the vulnerability of such megaprojects to mismanagement and shifting institutional priorities, as Mohole's detachment from its founding scientists eroded momentum and technical coherence. Originally envisioned as a phased effort—starting with experimental shallow-water tests off Guadalupe Island in 1961, where 183 meters were achieved—the initiative devolved into fragmented efforts amid disputes over platform design and contractor selection, ultimately leading to its defunding by the U.S. House of Representatives in 1966.^[34]^[21] This highlights how bureaucratic layers and reliance on unproven technologies, without rigorous contingency planning, amplify risks in taxpayer-funded ventures lacking private-sector incentives for efficiency. Politically, Mohole underscores the instability introduced by earmarking large sums for prestige-driven goals amid competing national demands, such as the escalating Vietnam War expenditures in the mid-1960s. Critics in Congress, empowered by reports of "unjustifiably expensive" outcomes, leveraged the project's overruns to argue against unchecked federal spending on speculative science, resulting in a pivot to more modest, multi-site drilling under programs like JOIDES.^[2] Such episodes reveal a pattern in government megaprojects: initial bipartisan enthusiasm wanes when costs balloon without proportional milestones, fostering skepticism toward future proposals and emphasizing the need for adaptive funding mechanisms tied to verifiable progress rather than fixed ambitions. Ultimately, Mohole's abandonment illustrates the merits of incrementalism over singular "moonshot" pursuits in publicly financed research, as its technological byproducts—such as dynamic positioning systems for vessels—paved the way for sustained ocean drilling successes without the mantle-piercing objective.^[18] While megaprojects can yield breakthroughs, their frequent derailment by overruns, estimated at multiples of initial budgets in analogous endeavors, cautions against overreliance on them; instead, modular approaches better balance innovation with fiscal prudence, mitigating the principal-agent distortions inherent in government procurement.^[16]

References

[1]
The Quest for the Moho - Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Aug 8, 2016 · An ambitious effort to drill to the Moho called Project Mohole was launched in the early 1960s—in the same hopeful era when the United States ...
[2]
the beginnings of ocean drilling - JOIDES Resolution
Feb 3, 2020 · This meeting is the beginning of Project Mohole, a failed scientific feat from whose ashes would eventually rise the scientific ocean drilling we do today.
[3]
2.4 Project Mohole – Scientific Ocean Drilling
Project Mohole Achievements. Depth and Precision: Five holes were drilled, with the deepest reaching 183 meters (601 feet) below the sea floor in 3,600 ...
[4]
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/aapgbull/article-abstract/46/2/276/551122/Geological-and-Geophysical-Implications-of-Mohole
[5]
The National Science Foundation: A Brief History - About NSF
It is true that Project Mohole, a cleverly devised attempt to gain knowledge of the earth by drilling through its mantle from an ocean platform, became a ...
[6]
Discovery of Mohorovičić's (Moho) Discontinuity - Geotech Rijeka
In 1909, Andrija Mohorovičić proved that there is a strong discontinuity in the propagation of earthquake waves in the Earth's interior.
[7]
Layers of the Earth—What is the Moho? - IRIS
This boundary was discovered by Andrija Mohorovičić, a Croatian meteorologist-turned seismologist, after an earthquake in Croatia in 1909. This animation ...
[8]
Andrija Mohorovicic showed us that the Earth is layered
He deduced that some of the seismic waves were traveling through a deeper, denser portion of the Earth, now called the mantle, while slower waves traveled ...
[9]
Andrija Mohorovic: Seventy years ago an earthquake shook Zagreb
On October 8, 1909, at 9 hours 59 minutes Greenwich time, Zagreb was shaken by a strong earthquake which knocked down chimneys but did little other damage.
[10]
THE NATURE OF THE MOHOROVICIC DISCONTINUITY
The Moho is a manifestation of a differentiated earth and marks the boundary between the Earth's crust and mantle. 2. The Moho is a first-order (i.e. zero- ...
[11]
VFE: the Moho, a trip to the crust / mantle boundary - OpenGeology
Mar 22, 2020 · This sudden velocity change shows us that at the Moho, there is a significant change in the density of the material. The layer beneath the crust ...
[12]
Moho vs crust–mantle boundary: Evolution of an idea - ScienceDirect
Dec 8, 2013 · The concept that the Mohorovicic Discontinuity (Moho) does not necessarily coincide with the base of the continental crust as defined by rock-type compositions
[13]
[PDF] Crustal Structure of the Western United States
neath the M-discontinuity, and a velocity-depth model is presented for the lower lithosphere between 30 and. 100 km depth (Hirn and others, 1973). The fairly ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[14]
2.3 The Start of Scientific Ocean Drilling
The Moho intrigued them: The primary motivation was to explore this boundary and understand the composition and structure of the Earth's mantle. · They would ...<|separator|>
[15]
Drilling to Earth's mantle - Physics Today
That's a central motivation driving the new Mohole to the Mantle (M2M) project. ... Because the vast majority of Earth's deep interior is inaccessible by direct ...
[16]
[PDF] Project Mohole - National Academies
Jun 4, 1999 · Project Mohole was an attempt to retrieve a sample of material from the earth's mantle by drilling a hole through the earth's crust to the ...Missing: history | Show results with:history
[17]
"Mohole" Updated | Proceedings - September 1962 Vol. 88/9/715
At any rate, the National Science Foundation thinks highly enough of the prospects to include an allotment of $5,000,000 for Project Mohole in the NSF budget ...
[18]
Project Mohole: a failed 1960s expedition that changed Earth science
Mar 17, 2021 · Project Mohole gave science a huge gift of two techniques: a way to steadily position boats in the ocean without using an anchor (useful in ...
[19]
Mohole Project Records, 1943, 1958-1967 - OAC
Project Mohole was a multi-institutional federally funded science program to retrieve a sample of the Earth's mantle layer by drilling through the crust layer ...Missing: facts | Show results with:facts
[20]
Beyond the abyss: The mission to drill through the Earth's crust - CNN
Feb 4, 2020 · Drill beneath the sediment on the sea floor and you hit the oceanic crust. One advantage of drilling into oceanic crust is it's approximately 7 ...
[21]
A Sea Change in Ocean Drilling
Apr 1, 2004 · The decision to drill Mohole from a barge—to take advantage of the fact that the oceanic crust is much thinner than the continental crust ...
[22]
Ocean drilling program | Research Starters - EBSCO
Project Mohole started with engineering tests in 1961 in waters off California by Cuss I, a drilling barge developed for offshore oil drilling and built by ...
[23]
March 1961: Project Mohole undertakes the first deep-ocean drilling
Jul 6, 2016 · Today, the drilling program's flagship, the 143-meter-long R/V JOIDES Resolution, can drill in water more than 8,200 meters deep and has ...
[24]
Do we really need to drill through the intact ocean crust?
Testing this assumption is a principal motivation of Project Mohole (1957–1966), attempting to drill intact ocean crust across the Moho into the mantle.
[25]
Drilling into Hell . . . almost there - The Mountain Mystery
Dec 14, 2015 · Mohole funding was killed in 1966 when the US began to win the Space Race and national prestige was no longer at stake. By then the American ...
[26]
[PDF] The MoHole Workshop Report
Selecting drilling sites is essential to clearly identify the range of ... MoHole drill site should be in oceanic crust formed at a fast spreading rate ...<|separator|>
[27]
History of DP - Dynamic Positioning Committee
In 1961, the drilling barge CUSS I made scientific history when it was used to piece 601 feet into the sea floor to get core samples of the earth's never-before ...
[28]
3.2 CUSS 1 – Scientific Ocean Drilling: Exploration and Discovery ...
One of the six submerged buoys used for dynamic positioning in Project Mohole. They were lowered to about 200 ft (60 m) into a circular pattern. The CUSS I ...
[29]
Scientific Ocean Drilling, from AMSOC to COMPOST - NCBI - NIH
For more than 30 years, following the abandonment of the bungled Mohole project, designed to drill a hole through the crust-mantle boundary, the National ...<|separator|>
[30]
Project Mohole performance tests : wake surveys and flow studies ...
Project Mohole performance tests : wake surveys and flow studies, main propulsion propeller open water tests : final report. Gebhardt, John C.; Michelsen ...
[31]
Preliminary Drilling Phase of Mohole Project II. Summary of Coring ...
Sep 19, 2019 · Drilling and coring operations at both sites were successful. In spite of difficulties, including some rather rough weather, it was shown that ...
[32]
Preliminary Drilling Phase of Mohole Project I. Summary of Drilling ...
Sep 19, 2019 · In March and April of 1961 the first phase of Project Mohole was undertaken. It consisted of drilling a series of core holes in 3,109 feet ...
[33]
TESTS IN PACIFIC FOR MOHOLE END; Preliminary Drilling Phase ...
The work off Guadalupe Island is preliminary to the Mohole drilling, still at least two years in the future. In this project, scientists hope to drill ...<|separator|>
[34]
Proc. IODP, 335, Deep drilling of intact ocean crust
The drilling expedition in 1961 cored for the first time seismic Layer 2 and demonstrated with core that the uppermost ocean crust was made up of basaltic lavas ...
[35]
Drilling the Crust at Mid-Ocean Ridges: An "In Depth" Perspective
Oct 2, 2015 · In April 1961, 13.5 m of basalts were drilled off Guadalupe Island about 240 km west of Mexico's Baja California, together with a few ...Missing: penetrated core
[36]
Measurements of heat flow at the preliminary mohole site off Mexico
A heat flow through the ocean floor of 2.81 × 10−6 cal/cm2 sec was measured during the preliminary drilling phase of project Mohole 75 km east of Guadalupe ...
[37]
MOHOLE PROJECT RUNS INTO SNAGS; Earth Drilling Plan Beset ...
The Mohole Project to drill a hole in the bottom of the sea has run into rough political weather and serious technical criticism.
[38]
Project Mohole Is Under Inquiry As Controversy Delays Program ...
WASHINGTON, April 13-A special five-man committee of the National Science Board is investigating the management of Project Mohole.
[39]
about Mohole Trouble about Stonehenge Finfish Preserved - Nature
Committee of the House of Representatives had refused the National Science Foundation $19·7 million for. Project Mohole was ominous. For one thing, he said ...
[40]
50 Years of Ocean Discovery: National Science Foundation 1950 ...
For the next three years, Project Mohole pursued a mercurial course; sometimes appearing to be well underway, only to fall prey to cost overruns, technical ...
[41]
Mohole: The Project That Went Awry (III) - Science
Mohole was so beset with controversy that the Bureau of the Budget ... Mohole drilling vessel, as proposed by Brown & Root. The huge platform is ...
[42]
Why Mohole Was No Hole | Invention & Technology Magazine
The ostensible reason was to let participants get used to the novel equipment and perhaps improve it, but in fact Bascom doubted that the Mohole would ever be ...
[43]
The Strange Career of Donald Rumsfeld | Radical History Review
Jan 1, 2019 · At the center of the controversy in the House was Brown and Root, a construction contracting company that specialized in contracts with the oil ...
[44]
Appropriations for Independent Offices - CQ Almanac Online Edition
The Mohole project first came under Congressional criticism in 1962, when the Senate Appropriations Committee denied funds for the project until a full ...
[45]
MOHOLE CONCERN BACKED BY PANEL; Science Board Study ...
The committee has led scientific opposition to Brown & Root, contending that the company did not have sufficient technical competence to handle the project, ...
[46]
GETTING OCEANOGRAPHY DONE - jstor
allegations of political cronyism flew. On the scientific side, objections were raised to the firm's complete lack of scientific experience and expertise ...
[47]
[PDF] Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1966 - NASA
Project Mohole. House Appropriations Committee had denied (May 5). $19.7-million Presidential request for NSF work on Mohole in FY 1967. Total cost was ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[48]
https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal66-1301178
[49]
http://archive.gao.gov/otherpdf1/091215.pdf
[50]
https://www.congress.gov/89/crecb/1966/08/10/GPO-CRECB-1966-pt14-6-2.pdf
[51]
[PDF] Senate Retains Financing for Project Mohole, Rent Supplements
no NSF funds may be used for Project Mohole. Rejected 37-46: R 21-9; D 16-37 (ND 8-29; SD 8-8), Aug. 10, 1966. A. "nay" was a vote supporting the President's ...Missing: decision | Show results with:decision
[52]
2.6 JOIDES Institutions Assemble – Scientific Ocean Drilling
JOIDES Organizes For several years after the conclusion of Project Mohole, scientists made formal and informal proposals to the National Science Foundation for ...
[53]
History | About IODP
The next phase of scientific ocean drilling, the Deep Sea Drilling Project (DSDP 1966-1983), began in 1966 using the Drilling Vessel Glomar Challenger. This ...Missing: cancellation | Show results with:cancellation
[54]
Scientific Ocean Drilling: Accomplishments and Challenges (2011)
During the March 1961 Project Mohole cruise, the CUSS 1 drillship used dynamic positioning to maintain its position over a small circle at a site in the ...
[55]
Volcano Watch — After 50 years, a renewed effort to drill to the Moho
Oct 17, 2013 · The seafloor is relatively shallow near the mid-ocean ridges, where new crust forms from rising magma. So drilling near a ridge seems attractive ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[56]
Drilling deep to discover the secrets of the mantle - Chemistry World
Feb 14, 2022 · 60 years after Project Mohole, the dream of drilling down to get a sample of pristine mantle persists. ... Mohole to Mantle project, the next ...
[57]
The deepest hole we have ever dug - BBC
May 6, 2019 · As with the original Project Mohole, the scientists are planning to drill through the seabed where the crust is only about 6km (3.75 miles) deep ...Missing: initial proposal
[58]
Science and Technology - Energy Education Foundation
Mohole produced technological and scientific innovations vital to the offshore industry and to the nation as a whole. During the 1960s, many segments of the ...
[59]
Journey to the mantle of the Earth - Nature
Mar 23, 2011 · Project Mohole proved that scientific drilling into the ocean basement was possible. This contributed to the establishment, and continuance over ...Missing: advantages | Show results with:advantages
[60]
Drilling in the deep: Project Mohole and the underground space race
Jul 28, 2021 · Project MOHOLE and following DSDP expeditions proved that the oceanic basement was young basalt, confirming seismic models and the theory of ...
[61]
Holes in the Bottom of the Sea: History, Revolutions, and Future ...
Jan 24, 2019 · In the ocean, plate tectonic knowledge has come from geophysical studies, submersible observations, and samples, drill cores, and instrumented ...