[HN Gopher] Satellite data reveal nearly 20k previously unknown ... ___________________________________________________________________ Satellite data reveal nearly 20k previously unknown deep-sea mountains Author : Brajeshwar Score : 119 points Date : 2023-05-01 15:07 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sciencenews.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencenews.org) | radicaldreamer wrote: | I wonder if the navies have secret high resolution maps of the | sea floor for submarine operations... | jedc wrote: | (Former US submariner) | | Yes, and no. | | Yes- the US has maps with higher-resolution data on water depth | around the world than what's commercially available. | | No - those maps aren't perfect. Some areas are extraordinarily | well-mapped, others are less so. | | Submarine crews are trained not to check just the charts that | are in use for a particular voyage, but also other charts | covering the same area. (The USS San Francisco collision has no | evidence of a seamount on the charts in use, but there was | "discoloration" on another chart covering the same area.) | GalenErso wrote: | They do, but these maps are either incomplete, or they don't | always follow them. | | The Los Angeles-class nuclear submarine USS San Francisco | (SSN-711) nearly sank on January 8, 2005, when it hit an | uncharted 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). [1] | | The Seawolf-class nuclear powered fast attack submarine USS | Connecticut (SSN-22) suffered damage on October 2, 2021, after | it collided with an undersea mountain while maneuvering in the | South China Sea. [2] | | And the Swiftsure-class nuclear powered fast attack submarine | HMS Superb (S109) had to be decommissioned ahead of schedule | due to the damage it suffered during a collision with an | underwater pinnacle in the Red Sea, 80 miles (130 km) south of | the Suez Canal. [3] | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)?us... | | [2] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Connecticut_(SSN-22)?usesk... | | [3] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Superb_(S109)?useskin=vect... | contingencies wrote: | Makes you wonder why they don't have forward-facing sonar as | standard during non-secret ops. I mean, there's not a whole | lot of shifty things you can be doing off Guam, if you | already own the place. | count wrote: | The position of most submarines at any given point is | considered actually secret, especially if it is underwater. | Great expense is undertaken to monitor and listen for other | countries undersea vehicles as well. | jedc wrote: | former US submariner here: | | * forward-facing sonar is always being used at all times | while a submarine is underway | | * however, the sonar that's always used is passive, and | since mountains don't move, passive sonar doesn't find them | | * active sonar could theoretically be used, but the risk of | communicating a submarine's position relative to the chance | that you'd hit an underwater mountain is balanced strongly | on the side of running silent. | contingencies wrote: | Thanks for sharing an informed perspective! | jakear wrote: | What do you think would be easier: tracking a sub when you | have tons of data linking your clandestine sensors' | information to their location as broadcast by sonar, or | when you don't? | wongarsu wrote: | There's always training as a good excuse for running | silent. Apart from that ... well, I'm not quite sure what | these fast attack submarines are doing out and about at | all. Maybe looking for other subs in the area? But whatever | they are doing probably benefits from being hard to detect. | If you are comfortable with announcing yourself with active | sonar and are not just on the way to somewhere else, why | not just use a surface ship in the first place? | cromwellian wrote: | "Most of the newly discovered underwater mountains are on the | small side -- between roughly 700 and 2,500 meters tall". 2500 | meters is small? Even 700 meters is almost as tall as the Burj | Dubai. I'd call 2500 meters a decent sized mountain. | dylan604 wrote: | If you're in a submarine that is only 10m tall, 700m is huge. | It seems like a pretty good idea to know where they are | notahacker wrote: | Depends on your point of reference though; the lowest lying | lowland is around 3600m "tall" when measured from average ocean | floor depth rather than sea level, and a 2500m seamount might | be sitting in a valley surrounded by the underwater edges of | continental shelf that's at least twice as high as it. By our | usual standards, they're -1000m tall :) | nunuvit wrote: | You may enjoy the movie The Englishman Who Went Up a Hill But | Came Down a Mountain. | alejohausner wrote: | Here is the data: https://zenodo.org/record/7718512 | kachnuv_ocasek wrote: | Here's a link to the original article (open access) with figures | and all that: | https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/202... | abudabi123 wrote: | Wonder if these satellites see naked human skeletons inside | submarines now or in the near future. | lingqingm wrote: | [dead] | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | > However, it's possible that some could pose a risk to mariners. | "There's a point when they're shallow enough that they're within | the depth range of submarines," says David Clague, a marine | geologist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss | Landing, Calif., who was not involved in the research. | | It would be interesting to see what proportion of these 20k deep- | sea mountains were actually known to either the US or Soviets as | part of their submarine support. | | Knowing the location of these deep-sea mountains could be very | valuable when you are engaged in submarine cat and mouse games | with nuclear submarines. | | My guess is that quite a few were known but classified as a | national security matter. | asicsp wrote: | Dupe: "More than 19k undersea volcanoes discovered" | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35662580 _(134 points | 9 | days ago | 92 comments)_ | officeplant wrote: | My favorite part of the article is the mention of the submarine | hitting an uncharted sea mount. I rarely think about the fact | that they can't just leave sonar on at all times to be aware of | their surroundings and often rely on known mapping data. | whatever1 wrote: | But why submarines do not have a tethered drone traveling I | don't know, 1 mile ahead of them and hit such obstacles? | asdfman123 wrote: | Cost and complexity is probably one part of it.But more | importantly, I imagine having a drone ahead of them would | generate noise, thus decreasing stealth. | | It's probably one of those things that shouldn't happen if | you're doing everything else the "right" way. | Thrymr wrote: | It would not be trivial to design an separate underwater | vehicle that could travel ahead of a submarine at flank speed | (>30 knots), let alone do so quietly. | passwordoops wrote: | I'd love to see more satellite-based underwater archaeology, | seeing how far sea levels rise after the last glacial period. A | lot of human history is probably out on the continental shelves. | | See, for example, Doggerland beneath the English Channel: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland | z3c0 wrote: | Another example: the underwater structures off the coast of | Cuba | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_underwater_formation | adastra22 wrote: | At 600+ meters of depth, those are almost certainly not of | human origin. There are many examples of these sorts of | phenomena, which derive their regular shapes from the way | crystalline minerals fracture. | whydoyoucare wrote: | I am curious now - at what depths is it considered human | origin? Is it because we know how much the sea level has | risen in the last x years? | paganel wrote: | More aerial Lidar-based archeology would also be pretty cool. | | It seems that there was a strong momentum in that direction a | few years ago but recently I've stopped hearing about it (or at | least not that often compared to the recent past). | akiselev wrote: | LIDAR has made a splash in archaeology last few years, | especially in South America where the jungles cover up all | the ruins. See [1][2][3] etc | | You haven't heard much about it because everyone is | scrambling for funding to go excavate these ruins in person. | | [1] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/maya- | lase... | | [2] https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/lidar-technology- | confi... | | [3] https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/lidar-reveals- | hundre... | dr_dshiv wrote: | Do you think we will discover some frequency of light that will | let us map the ocean floors as you imagine? | netcraft wrote: | AFAIK there are no frequencies of the electromagnetic | spectrum we are not aware of, but our techniques and signal | processing can potentially improve. There are also | frequencies of waves other than light that we can use, such | as sonar - but not from a satellite of course. | daveslash wrote: | It's not really about the frequency of light. We pretty much | have "discovered" all frequencies -- it's the electromagnetic | spectrum. We know all of the frequencies that exist. The | trick is devising new methods with increasingly sensitive | instrumentation. | | This article talks about how researchers looked at | measurements taken from space to gauge where the sea level | was a mere few-centimeters higher than the surrounding area! | Incredible! In theory, I could have seen someone like Arthur | C. Clarke proposing this half a century ago - but with the | precision in instrumentation only becoming available today, | the idea could have been proposed long before the technology | existed. | | In the future, might we devise a method and accompanying | instrumentation that will allow us to map the sea floor with | just a regular flash light hung from a ship? Maybe (but | probably not). Point being: It's the methodology + | instrumentation, not the frequency of light itself. | paulusthe wrote: | It's not probably out there, it's definitely out there. One of | the absolute best places to be a hunter gatherer is in river | deltas and low lying floodplains. If we could magically lower | sea levels by 100m, we'd find evidence of humanity not only in | doggerland but off the coast of Africa, China, Australia, and | more. | | In fact some archaeologists are planning future underwater digs | based on today's topographical hints of ancient riverbeds now | underwater. There's a massive one off Bengal, another one near | Ceylon, and a few more I can't remember right now. | malux85 wrote: | Could these places be a source for gold? Were these cultures | advanced enough to be mining and smelting gold? | BurningFrog wrote: | We know very close to nothing about them, so the answer to | most such questions is "maybe". | shrubble wrote: | They definitely would be a good place to search. Not only | for historical artifacts but becuase the plains would trap | the heavier gold flakes that got eroded either locally or | upstream. | | For instance the state of Pennsylania has no known gold | vein deposits but small flakes of gold are often found in | the rivers, since the quartz rocks that contained the | flakes were eroded, freeing the flakes which are then | washed into the river by rain. | jewayne wrote: | So, your first thought when searching for artifacts from | the ancient past is whether they can be melted down into | commodities? | Teever wrote: | A more charitable interpretation of the comment that you | replied to is that the artifacts may be located near | ancient gold mines, and after we've retrieved the | artifacts during excavation then we could potentially | continue to mine the valuable resources in the same | location. | mxkopy wrote: | I think GP might've been sarcastic, but even if not, | there's no need to be charitable to such a caricaturistic | intent to extract resources. | AlotOfReading wrote: | Any implication that archaeologists are remotely | interested in gold or that there's monetary profit to be | had from excavations is almost always destructive to the | cause of heritage programs. | | I've done anti-looting programs in various places around | the world as part of excavations. The belief that gold | and other precious artifacts will be found is one of the | most common causes/justifications for looting. Moreover, | the belief that archaeologists are motivated or will in | any way help to find precious metals is utterly corrosive | to our ability to work with local authorities because it | reduces trust and incentivises preemptive looting | whenever we show up, among other things. | | Let me emphasize this: finding precious metals _sucks_. | It means you have a lot more paperwork, it means you get | a lot more looting, it means a lot of government | interest, it means treasure hoard laws apply, future | excavation decisions become far more political, etc. It | 's a massive pain in the butt all around. | lazyasciiart wrote: | > I've done anti-looting programs in various places | around the world as part of excavations. | | This sounds fascinating, do you know of anywhere I can | read about this kind of work? | AlotOfReading wrote: | It's way more boring than you're thinking. The goal is to | reduce looting by | | 1) educating people about the harm it does | | 2) convince the audience that whatever goals might be | sought in looting are unlikely to be met (profit, cool- | stuff-factor, "helping archaeologists", etc) | | 3) Ensuring site security and getting legal frameworks in | place to monitor/enforce heritage preservation. | | The first is usually pretty easy. The NPS used to have | this video called "Assault on Time" that they show to | people. People who don't want to fill out requisition | forms from the government usually just show pictures of | looted sites. I had a professor who liked to use pictures | of Mimbres sites in New Mexico. I prefer to use Ai- | Khanoum because the before [0] and after [1] is so stark. | | For the second, usually this takes the form of inviting | locals out to see what you're excavating and showing them | any finds. This will usually be rocks, charcoal, lithics, | and other profoundly unprofitable things. It also | humanizes the historical people to help locals build | personal connections with the sites. In a lot of cases | you'll also be hiring locals to help with the | excavations, so they know there's nothing hidden because | they're present for everything. | | This usually isn't effective on the "collectors" and | "metal detectorists" (see e.g. _Coping with Site Looting_ | [2]), so other things are necessary. That tends to be | site monitoring and heritage protection laws, which | depend on the country and situation. Sometimes it 's best | to just invite local officials to the site. Meeting with | important officials can be very inconvenient though. Ever | tried getting wrinkles out of a suit in a field site 2 | days from the nearest city? Those clothes did _not_ | survive the expedition. | | That's just the lowest level of cooperation that has to | happen as well. The key is having embedded experts making | connections with the people who can implement those laws | and fines, then enforce them. This is also the level most | affected by the budgetary constraints of heritage | programs globally. Last I checked, there were fewer than | 100 positions for this sort of work available in the US | every year. Some countries may have less than a dozen | people total. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ai_Khanoum_landsca | pe_phot... | | [1] https://m.psecn.photoshelter.com/img- | get/I0000lqdxnldw3QE/s/... | | [2] | http://npshistory.com/series/archeology/seac/rapp/1.pdf | throwbadubadu wrote: | Erm, just no and that wasn't necessary, or GPT? | mywacaday wrote: | I used to lifeguard on a beach in Ireland, on a very low tide | and if the sand had shifted there were solid black slimy | things just under the sand, turns out they were the remains | of an ancient oak forest, would be amazing to see what 100m | would should, that was only 3-4 meters. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-05-01 23:00 UTC)