Almost 25% of world’s seafloor now mapped
hydro-international.com
hydro-international.com
Also, admitting that adversaries might be/are flying drones in US territory would be embarrassing domestically and internationally, and could cause a panic. Steeping it in mystery and hinting at "aliens" is silly and interesting enough to be a harmless spectacle.
I think we'd also be shocked at just how trivial some of the drones are that are able to evade defenses or detection. I suspect we're good at detecting airplane-sized targets, maybe even ICMB-sized targets, but we have little to detect and stop drone-sized targets that can fly at relatively low altitudes, can be launched from inside the US, are easily smuggled and assembled domestically, etc.
Reports of such sightings took place within restricted airspace, sometimes at sea and sometimes during training missions at sea. I imagine a close-up look at things from better vantage points could be valuable, especially if they're doing signals intelligence.
I also see it as power projection and tickling the dragon's tail. Russia and China both have histories of doing similar things with jets and warships. Russia has a history of doing this with jets[1], they recently had their jets come "within 5 feet" of US Navy planes[2], as well as doing the same with their navy[3][4]. China, too[5][6][7].
> Dick waving ruins the element of surprise and also invites an arms race, that you'd be a fool to play against the US military industrial complex.
Adversaries have a history of dick-waving, as does the US, and I don't think there's much of surprise in the fact that they're interested in espionage/psyops. IMO, that arms race started a long time ago, and our military puts out PR pieces about how they're using and developing drones for all types of applications. I don't think there's much risk with exposing advanced tech, either. I think Mick West did a good job at explaining the videos that are purported to show UAPs doing incredible things[8], and I don't believe those are actually highly advanced drones capable of bending the laws of physics.
The point of drones is that they are cheap, disposable and easy to mass produce, so I don't think any groundbreaking advances in tech are being deployed here. Also, using drones sends the message that for every 1 drone the US detects now, they could've easily sent thousands, or more, if they wanted to.
Ultimately, I think it's a mix of intelligence collecting and sending the message that they can get this close, they're watching and there's not much the US can do about it.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/04/14...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/russian-aircraft-buzz-us-nav...
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russian-warship-aggressiv...
[4] https://www.npr.org/2019/06/07/730593184/u-s-navy-russian-wa...
[5] https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/14/chinese-jet-us-mili...
[6] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/chinese-j-15-fighters-...
[7] https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/us-china-destroyers-...
But if a civilian group pushed on this, we'd at least find out where the limits are before gov/military stopping it. Actually, UAPx went and tried to record with sensors off Catalina but I believe only for a week. Loeb's Galileo Project will likely place optical sensors near these hotspots but haven't seen any mention by them of sonar or acoustic monitoring.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/27/pentagon-relea...
You don't need to believe them but that's what's been publicly said.
That said, let’s speed this up. The Kraken is always in the last 5%, and C’thulhu is always the very last place you look.
Inverse survivorship bias: That's because you are no longer able to look elsewhere...
Falcon 1: confirming Falcon 2's visual, seeing the same thing... and my dead son from a decade ago... transmission dies
Falcon 2: Can't see nothing on the AV, wtf?
The problem is that at the moment pretty much the only technology available to map ocean floors at scale is sonar, which gets more imprecise with increasing depth. For individual SAR ops, robotic AUVs can be used such as in the search for the MH370 wreck, but as that effort has shown that doesn't scale well unless you can really narrow down the potential submergence site as was done with AF447.
At the core, the enemy is simple physics - the deeper the body of water, the less light penetrates down to the sea floor, and anything RF-based is out of the game as well.
Likely to inform and fuel the Rare Earth mining already being done on the ocean floor. Take for example off the West Coast of North America: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rare-earth-elements-u-s-on-side...
You think the ocean is mostly empty, until your nuclear powered attack submarine runs into a previously uncharted (or incorrectly charted) submarine mountain
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/04/asia/submarine-uss-connecticu...
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/02/1051422572/navy-submarine-nuc...
It's happened more than once...
On 8 January 2005 at 02:43 GMT, San Francisco collided with an undersea mountain about 364 nautical miles (675 km) southeast of Guam while operating at flank (maximum) speed at a depth of 525 feet (160 m).
How is Newsom still in charge after THIS?
Mountains do not, as a general rule, make noise, and do not show up on passive sonar.
In addition, when running at flank speed the efficiency of passive sonar is greatly degraded by flow and machinery noises.
The way a submarine avoids running into seamounts is a combination of very good maps, very good dead reckoning, (IIRC) gravitational anomaly detection (tied to more great maps), and if all else fails high-frequency (short-range) active sonar. It's a really interesting system! But I don't think passive sonar ties into it.
I've got no idea where jcampbell pulled their information from, but I've never seen anything to even suggest it's possible to use your own prop and machinery noises like that.
There's a whole series of highly classified inertial navigation units used in aviation and submarine applications. The ones for use above the ocean's surface have many DoD applications in a theoretical GPS-jammed environment in warfare against an equal-tech adversary.
and also, I wanted to mention another submarine navigation technique that the Soviet Russians pioneered. I thought it was called Crazy Ivan but I just looked that up and that's Soviet Russian submarinery, but not this one. The idea is to carefully map the ocean floor features in a particular area, and water currents, and know your boat well, and use that information to "blindly run a route" at high speed. I'm not an expert but something like, when submarines are traveling at speed, stuff like sonar (at least the quiet kind) is useless because of all the turbulence around the boat, so the Russians figured out they didn't need to be stealthier to evade US subs in the Baltic, they just needed to know where they were and then go fast. The goal was to get to the open sea were it's easier to get loast in the vastness. Maybe these Navy subs were trying something like that.
Submarines go to great lengths to be as quiet as possible so that the acoustics of the engine, ship, etc. can't be caught in a microphone. Any sort of EM radiation is child's play to trace compared to that. The content of the message and the frequency of the message don't matter - any sort of signal means you can be monitored and your location determined.
You're right in that a broadcast is required, but I don't see why the broadcast should have to come from the sub itself.
While water motors are not exactly my area of expertise, I would also expect that drone/torpedo motors are significantly louder than submarine engines and that launching or recovering a drone is itself a fairly noisy event that exposes the sub to traditional acoustic tracking.
In terms of noise, keep in mind that submarines have all sorts of concessions already. A diesel-electric sub is quieter than a nuclear sub, but it has to surface every two days or so to get air to run its very noisy diesel generators.
I think a battery powered electric drone should be far quieter than any sub technology we have (steam/nuke is loud, diesel is louder). The quiet systems we have are all electric and therefore have limited energy capacity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinder-class_survey_ship
there is also the danger that a drone emitting sonar pings may be indistinguishable to a third party from a live torpedo, and makes it look like you're preparing to attack somebody you really don't want to start a war with (China, etc).
Any active sonar would likely paint the submarine anyway too for any passive sonar listeners.
Overall, unlikely to be useful.
How would it be useful to them at that distance?
The drone can transmit the ping and the sub can listen.
If I'm hiding in the darkness I can send a drone out with a lightbulb to shine a light near what I want to see without revealing myself.
And how would the drone know to 'flash the flashlight' where it was useful to the sub without the sub somehow communicating to the drone? Which would require the sub to emit something, or preprogram it before release.
Not to mention, unless the sub stayed in one place or somehow communicated with the drone, it would have to stay in one place to have any chance to recover it. Even then, odds of finding the hidden black spot on it’s own with inertial guidance aren’t great if it’s away for long.
If it was programmed into the drone when it was launched, just the drone coming to and from the sub would draw a giant red line to and from the sub. It would also severely restrict the sub - it either has to program in a path, in which case the drone will illustrate where the sub WILL BE shortly, or it has to do a one-off, in which case anyone could listen to/follow the drone back to the sub when it's retrieved.
Seems not very useful in practice, except as some kind of disposable thing during an attack for redirection or distraction.
A programmed path wouldn't illustrate where the drone or sub will be in advance so that's also a non-issue. You only know where the ping came from, at the time the ping was sent.
The drone could also simply surface and pick up new instructions from satellite.
I assume we will soon be moving en masse to underwater drones for reasons far beyond what's discussed here.
There are of course ocean based drones already, but they tend to be for surveillance and data gathering in general - like detecting subs. Not so much for navigation.
But, I hope we do agree without question that it's possible, should we wish to do so.
Fire and forget programmable torpedoes have been a thing for decades.
What makes no sense is trying to link them in some operational/controllable/recallable way to submarines which are trying to remain covert, as the communication channels give away the submarine or require them to do risky behaviors like surface for satellite comms.
So my point is, you’re not proposing anything novel where you seem to think you are, and where you think they are advantages are actually significant operational disadvantages based on actual submarine mission profiles.
Step 1. Have a thousand cheap solar (or buoyancy/wave) charged sonar drones spread over hundreds of miles.
Step 2. Have a hundred silent listening drones spread over the same area.
Sonar drones can tell anyone and everyone that they exist and where they are, and encrypt what they see to transmit over whatever channel.
Listening drones learn what the sonar drones saw by whatever means (satellite, VLF radio, etc).
One of them gets close enough to the sub to tell it. The others all whisper into the void somewhere.
Or the sub just listens directly if it's close enough.
There's probably some better way of the sub learning what's around it that's top secret though
The big issues tend to be:
1) active sonar plays havoc with marine life, and it’s not a problem that can be typically solved by shifting frequencies, as the frequencies used by certain species are used due to beneficial transmission characteristics.
Wartime sonar is so powerful it can literally kill or injure people or animals nearby in the water due to the over pressure pulse, so tends to be seen as dangerous and undesirable to use except in specific emergency circumstances.
Low energy active sonar is indeed used by a lot of folks, but due to #3, would likely have some economic issues.
2) sound can be listened to in the oceans over far longer distances than a useful return signal can be gleaned by the emitter, and tends to transmit unevenly due to factors that are difficult to impossible to predict or control like thermoclines, currents, etc. [https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sound.html]
Listeners to an active sonar emitter can identify the location of something using triangulation even 10-100x the distance the ‘pinging’ party could get a useful return signal. (See performance here [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonar]. Think of it like shining a flashlight around in the dark. Folks miles around could see the pinprick of light easily, even if the flashlight wielder can see nothing out there, and it’s not bright enough for everyone else to see anything else either.
Listeners at 2x the distance would typically have the same clarity of view as the initial ‘pinging’ party within the area energized.
This also makes it easy to avoid for parties trying to hide. They stay 5x the distance from the active sonar, and they’re likely good, minus passive sonars listening for engine noises or whatever which are always a hazard.
And 3) distances in the ocean are huge. Much, much larger than you might be mentally modeling.
Outside of a harbor or port (which generally already have these systems), a hundred square miles of ocean is tiny.
The Atlantic Ocean is 41.2 million square miles, the pacific 63.8, and the Indian Ocean 27.
So covering any useful segment of a large shoreline can be nearly impossible economically, let alone a segment of the open ocean. Even if you wanted a sensor per 100 square miles over half of the ocean - say the most interesting/busy parts of the ocean, or approx. 70 million square miles, well, 700k drones are not going to be easy to build, maintain, etc.
For this reason, equipment tends to be carried by parties who might need it, and only deployed in areas they might need it, or deployed as fixed installations in very high value/interesting areas.
Sonobouys from helicopters, sonar arrays on ships or submarines, fixed sonar installations at harbors, ports, clandestine passive sonar arrays near expected strategic areas off coastlines, etc.
4) clandestine bandwidth is very limited.
VLF has VERY low bandwidth (depending on frequency), so low even voice transmission is generally not practical, and it still has limited penetration into water. As far as I am aware, it’s used the equivalent of submarine texting (at best), and the submarine still has to come quite close to the surface. ELF can work at operating depths, but communication is one way, and bandwidth is in the ‘bits per minute’ range [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarine...]
ELF antennas are measured in miles and use the earths crust.
Sound in the ocean has weird transmission effects. If your quiet ‘whispered’ data gets under a thermocline, it could go 100s of km and you would be none the wiser. If it didn’t, it might go just meters. Distortion at high frequencies also makes it difficult to transmit much data this way unless the listener is close.
You’d want some kind of mesh network ideally though, as whatever node the sub is near would not be one the sub would want to approach if there was a potential enemy contact nearby, as it’s drawing a giant target on them.
If one way, that could be useful - however that also means the crypto better be really good, as one compromised node would turn the array into an enemy asset to hunt your subs, and the passive listening and mesh network model would mean you’d need to be transmitting all potentially interesting data all the time.
This sounds exactly like the kind of thing a top secret military program would know how to do with a few petaflops of calculating power, a network of linked microphones, and a complete survey of the area. At least to ranges that would be very surprising to someone outside of that program.
But yes, anything some rando on hn thinks of in five minutes has been thought of and dismissed or thought of in detail and had problems said rando didn't think of worked through.
I haven't suggested any novel ideas at all. I'm only pointing out something that should be obvious.
This conversation started when someone asked whether it's possible to use sonar without giving away a sub's location. It is possible. That's really all there is to it.
If doing the equivalent of dropping a speaker into the ocean and giving a speech, yes it is possible of course.
This might be an interesting paper - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340683649_Cellular_...
Covering specific physics reasons, alternatives, etc.
Yes of course. No one has suggested otherwise. That's the entire point of using a drone, after all.
They couldn’t control something that they can’t talk to without giving away their position?
No, it would not. We already discussed this above, vis a vis preprogrammed paths.
I don't really want to rehash things we've already discussed. Have a good one.
Not to mention that sonar is highly disruptive to many forms of sea life as it's incredibly loud.
Or something thermal sensor based, there's rumored to be systems that submarines can use passively to follow and track other submarines by the waste heat put into the water.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQUID
Managing the interference is probably the main issue.
Actually, I see now the Wikipedia entry lists prospecting among the uses, so I guess it's quite possibly not only practical but even practiced.
The main problem in using it, as I understand it, is rather that picking up everything the sensor could detect would usually result in an unmanageable deluge of unwanted information, and it's a normal operation context to filter the signal for distance so as to not pick up too much interference from equipment, staff, etc. But personally I don't see any reason it would be impossible to arrange it to band-pass instead of low-pass in that filtering.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/deep_sea_mining
So I was saying something like "I read about leaked story of Moses parting the Red Sea in the newspaper!"; yes, you're right, anybody can learn about Moses from the Bible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370
A large airliner carrying more than 200 people disappeared, and over the past 8 years, we still have not found the main body of the airplane or the black boxes.
What we have are pretty good 400x400m maps, and increasingly more 100x100m maps.
I do hope for a resolution for MH370 one day but we know the bullet points: it was a deliberate action by the pilot (and/or the co-pilot) to depressurize the plane, run it out into the ocean and (most likely) make a "soft" landing after which it would fill with water and sink. There's alot of evidence for this and no other proposed scenario fits the evidence.
I'm a certified commercial pilot and I'm researched this incident extensively.
That's the most plausible conclusion that I can come to. The precise turning to attempt to evade radar at the start (even the military radars) must have meant extremely precise planning at the start.
There are a lot of other cockpit maneuveurs and flip switching you'd have to go to during this phase but I won't get into that.
You can depressurize it at altitude to kill the passengers and then put it into the furthest reaches of the ocean.
It's a very sad situation all around but I can't find any facts that would point to other alternatives.
I always imagined that our inability to find the thing was suggestive of a high speed impact that disintegrated the plane.
Since it was likely on autopilot, it would behave in certain predictable ways. If it was being hand flown once it ran out of fuel, who knows.
Why do you think that's likely? Because it was a long flight (to wherever it crashed), and pilots tend to use autopilot on long flights? Or is there some other reason?
Would the pilot be able to breathe at the altitude he was flying at? I presume he wouldn't have enough emergency oxygen for the entire time it takes to get to the presumed crash area.
Given the debris that has washed up on various coastlines, would you assume it was a soft landing or hard crash?
What's your take on theory that the plane had a fire and the pilot maneuvered the plane to a high altitude to snuff out the fire, then away from populated areas, then he himself passed away and the plane drifted on its deep ocean course until it crashed?
Seems busted:
Indeed the same thing I was thinking of, I wonder if this seafloor mapping thing will eventually discover the plane. Though perhaps the resolution is not adequate?
Edit: Someone (actual username :) ) just posted above that the grid cells are between 100x100m and 800x800m so that does indeed not sound adequate to detect a 777 accurately, sadly. The whole thing would easily fit into one grid cell of the smallest dimension.
Depth range Grid cell size % of world ocean floor
0– 1500 m 100 × 100 m 13.7
1500– 3000 m 200 × 200 m 11
3000– 5750 m 400 × 400 m 72.6
5750–11000 m 800 × 800 m 2.7
For comparison, https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/8333/a-decade-of-compiling-t...:“each observation by CTX covers a swath of ground about 18.6 miles (30 kilometers) wide, at a resolution of about 20 feet (6 meters) per pixel”
Not having oceans makes this a lot easier.
I doubt many will shed a tear for the super yacht owners of the world but with their desire to go to ever more exotic locations they have highlighted how poor our data is for some parts of the world.
A new island is forming in the Pacific Ocean after an underwater volcanic eruption : https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-island-pacific-ocean-volcan...
List of new Islands : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_islands
Edit: seems like the first reservations are in 50,000 years, not 5000
A magnitude 7.6 earthquake 1,500 miles away caused 4 ft high waves at Devil's Hole: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexico-earthquake-triggers-4-fo...
It may be that the aquifer in Devil's Hole is somehow connected to a network of underwater aquifers thousands of miles away in Mexico… but we just don't know, and have no way of knowing right now.
> Earthquake-generated seiches can be observed thousands of miles away from the epicentre of a quake.
https://weather.com/news/video/how-mexicos-earthquake-caused... says the waves started about 20 minutes after the earthquake, which was 1,500 miles away. That's about 2 km/sec, which makes it (I think) due to the S-wave.
It's certainly not underground water being compressed for hundreds of miles before arriving at Devils Hole, if only because underground water flow doesn't work that way.
Seiches happen even in swimming pools, as at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2JwUSD3x2s where the pool starts sloshing around from an earthquake about 200 miles away. They don't need to be connected to a larger water system.
I see from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devils_Hole :
> The pool has frequently experienced activity due to far away earthquakes in Japan, Indonesia, Mexico, and Chile, which have been likened to extremely small scale tsunamis
and https://home.nps.gov/deva/learn/news/alaska-quake-shakes-wat... notes the Alaska earthquake was 2,000 miles away in the other direction.
The safest class of substances I can think of are unusual isotopes.
They're chemically identical to the regular elements, which is what matters for life forms, but can be detected by scientific instruments.
We still do not know a lot about our own planet. What makes us so confident we won't just screw up another planet with our lack of understanding...
Inigo: He's already dead.
Miracle Max: He is, huh? I'll take a look. Bring him in.
We screw up everything. The question is, can we leave places alone and screw up others instead? Screwing up the moon is probably better than screwing up Yosemite, or the Great Barrier Reef.
Patience is a virtue, as they say. I fear the current raft of would-be planet colonizers are not very patient...
https://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/updates/how-accurate-are-nau...
In reality though, our maps of the far side of the moon are as good as those on the near side.
> The hemisphere is sometimes called the "dark side of the Moon", where "dark" means "unknown" instead of "lacking sunlight"
[ed note: compare "dark ages"]
So the "unknown" (relatively anyway) side of the moon is less mapped, but not because it's unlit, but because it's dark. The lit side of the moon is well mapped, not because it's always lit - sometimes it's unlit, but it's certainly the known bit as we've been looking at it since before we were human.
Tbqh I think "dark side of the moon" is more often a genuine misconception than a poetic way of saying unknown. Fundamental misconceptions of the Moon abound, such as the mistaken belief that the Moon is opposite of the sun and rises when the Sun sets. You'd think that people would notice the Moon in the sky during the day for much of the month, but some people just don't pay attention to the sky, don't think about it much, and pick up the meme of the antisolar synchronous moon from cartoons, video games and grandfather clocks.
And sometimes people simply mispeak, perhaps due to Pink Floyd.
On one hand, discovery is the human way. On the other hand just like the USGS before, this is the first step to mining and other exploitation. Don't get me wrong, I went to the Colorado School of Mines so I know intimately how critical mining is to our modern civilization.
I guess what I'm hoping to highlight is the various world views. Some folks when they see this headline will say "great, now we can further explore, understand, and protect it" and some folks will say "great, now how do we mine or otherwise extract thr value just sitting on the sea floor for my and my friends profit".
I'm not trying to pass judgement on either, just highlight the duality of our modern life. We seek to protect and preserve on one hand and on the other hand we don't. Somehow we need to get our hands both working on the same thing.
Personally, I'm also really interested in learning more about human prehistory because much of it was coastal and now submerged.
I figured it would be much, much higher. I wonder if militaries have more mapped but consider it secret. That is also mostly shallower areas (for submarine evasion and detection).
Almost certainly, although I expect they focus a lot more on some areas than others. And they probably care about the deepest parts of the ocean floor less than the rest; if the ocean is so deep that it crushes anything short of a bathysphere, then it's probably less important to have precise maps of the ocean floor in those areas.
https://omegataupodcast.net/277-life-and-work-on-hms-enterpr...
I personally think it'd be a worthwhile thing to do - but maybe will take such a massive amount of resources that we'll have to solve more pressing issues and stabilize society first before we'll - with precision - manage the ocean as a food source?
Anyhow thanks!
The Nippon Foundation is the charitable arm of Japan's boat racing gambling monopoly. One of only five types of legal gambling they have a large and profitable monopoly in exchange for charitable work like this.
The management and advertisers in turn make the profit. They just built a giant and super expensive HQ skyscraper in the Roppongi area.
They also sponsor various suicide help lines and subsidize wheel chair enabled vans.