Hacker News Reader

Comment by jorgecurio | Hacker News Reader

what makes it so difficult is it the underwater currents that carry the fragments below the sea? don't we have some xray view on our spy satellites?

View on HN

Not entirely sure what you are asking, but A: No we have no xray view on spy satellites, and B: X-Rays can not go through water.

A: Is impossible - no satellite has enough energy to illuminate anything, they all use the sun for light and just take pictures.

B: Water blocks almost all forms of light, you need sonar to see anything under there.

A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor

Weaponized, 1967-88: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US-A

Which used a fast fission (!!!) reactor (i.e. not quite a nuclear kaboom operating mode).

More generally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_radar

"Although the test program was considered a success, no plans were pursued to fly any of the reactors."

Edit: I misunderstood the wiki article. Carry on.

That's just the TOPAZ-II model, the 2 of the earlier model flew, and 31 for the Soviet's military radar satellites.

That Russia was willing to work with us and share the TOPAZ-II is yet another sign of how much things changed after the Evil Empire fell.

Also, much of the MH370 search area includes some very rugged seafloor. If or when it sank, the wreckage may be located in the underwater equivalent of very mountainous terrain. Just like above water, it's a lot easier to find something in the desert (abyssal plain) than in the mountains. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/missing-flight-...

While I appreciate your point A for optical wavelengths, space based radar is definitely a thing. Optical wavelengths are undoubtedly more popular however.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasat

Reply on news.ycombinator.com