11 ms·
The First Complete Map of the Ocean Floor Is Stirring Controversial Waters
- ChuckMcM 9y agoand there are military applications as navigating near the sea floor is greatly facilitated by having accurate maps. I am a bit surprised this isn't an NGA effort.
- wongarsu 9y agoBut why would the military share those maps with the public? After all, that would facilitate military applications by the enemy. Much better to quietly make the maps and not tell anyone.
- lighthazard 9y agoSame reason they share GPS?
- Retra 9y agoThey don't share GPS. They share a low-resolution subset of GPS. And they control the satellites and thus have the power to selectively disable it should their enemies decide to rely upon it.
- FigBug 9y agoSelective Availability was turned off in 2000, everybody gets the same GPS signal now. GPS III won't support it, so it won't be able to be turned back on.
- nine_k 9y agoGPS can stop working for everyone but the US military at a flip of a switch. Seafloor features will likely last millennia.
- noir_lord 9y agoIt can which is why the Russians, the Chinese and the Europeans are all rushing to finish their constellations. Iirc the Chinese are a partner in Galileo (the European program). This is a good thing, hardware will rapidly appear that supports 2 or more of them meaning that either all the partners would simultaneously have to agree to disable theirs or (more unlikely) someone was shooting down the satellites which since that would realistically only happen during a global conflict means I'd have bigger things to worry about at the time.
- bboreham 9y ago> hardware will rapidly appear that supports 2 or more of them Has been out for years. E.g. iPhone 4S supported GPS and GLONASS.
- kuschku 9y agoSadly, the EU system has a method for the US to shoot it down, as the US said they’d pre-emptively shoot down all satellites we put up unless we build such a backdoor (especially due to the chinese partnership in Galileo). Now we have a system where the chinese stopped being a partner, and the US forced us to add a backdoor and reduce the quality. I’m not sure I can see anything good in this.
- BrandoElFollito 9y agoWould you have any sources for this?
- kuschku 9y agoOf course, as it was in all the news, it’s even well-documented on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)#Tension_with_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_(satellite_navigation)...
- BrandoElFollito 9y ago
- jonknee 9y agoThey share GPS, it used to be low-res but is now the real deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Selective_availability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_...
- zb 9y agoThe part they share is literally called "Coarse/Acquisition" and the part they don't share is called "Precise". (This has nothing to do with Selective Availability; they're broadcast in two completely different bands.) The GP's characterisation is broadly accurate.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- wongarsu 9y agoTo avoid navigational errors and save civilian lives, and presumably to make everyone depended on US-operated satellites (at least the last one is probably the reason why Russia and the EU both now operate their own system)? Honestly, I struggle to find any reasoning on why GPS is shared with the world beyond "Korean Air Lines 007 crashed, so Pres. Reagan made GPS free to (save the world|gain political capital). Later we removed the civilian precision restriction because that's cheaper than maintaining it", which I find a bit weak. Maybe somebody can enlighten me
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lithos 9y agoHow much value has Google and similar created with GPS. It slowed the need for other countries to put their own up. The satellites were not a secret Their encryption scheme was probably already cracked, so might as well open it anyways.
- _delirium 9y agoIt wasn't so much Google. The big players lobbying for the civilian degradation to be turned off in the late 1990s were the airline industry. Within the government, the FAA was also a big advocate, hoping it would be able to retire various other expensive systems if it could count on a reliable GPS.
- mikeash 9y agoKAL 007 showed the US government that there were important civilian uses for GPS, and they realized that they could do a lot of good by opening it up. The idea of government is that it lets us do things for the collective good what we would not do for ourselves individually. The US government, for all its faults, does sometimes follow that idea. It's not much different from maintaining the highway system. True, it covers the world, not just the US, but the nature of satellite navigation means that it wouldn't be any cheaper or easier to restrict the system to only work in the US, so why bother?
- 9y ago
- samstave 9y agoHow many civilians/commercial vessels threatened by lack of accurate maps of the sea-floor? Zero, that the militaries care about. Subs and other military craft have been mapping, they won't share. How many secret villain lairs in the deep?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dboreham 9y agoLike they did with the magnetic declenation maps that proved mid ocean spreading and hence plate tectonics.
- samstave 9y agoI doubt highly the militaries of the world haven't been doing this for decades.
- jsmthrowaway 9y agoThey probably have. That canyon navigation bit in Red October was based on a real USN experiment that Clancy knew about, if I recall.
- arethuza 9y agoThey probably concentrate on mapping the areas where their own missile subs patrol and on the areas where opponent missile subs patrol.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y ago>Scott agrees that habitats around mining operations will be impacted. Still, based on his experience, he says, “I think [the effects] will be less substantial” than mining on land, which is known to have catastrophic environmental consequences ranging from acid mine drainage that pollutes water to toxic clouds of dust. “None of those things will be a problem in the ocean,” Scott says. So people are worried that a scientific expedition that vastly increases our knowledge of our world is controversial because it will make mining easier/more profitable?!? Per the quote above that it will be less damaging than the current mining we do on land. We should be doing everything to make this type of deep ocean mining more economical. In addition, it should be easier to enforce environmental regulations on deep ocean mining as the mining operations will be international waters and susceptible to visits by various navies and interested parties on boats. This would also help with a lot of the problems we have with land mining (opacity to the outside world, conflict materials, human rights abuses, displacement of existing populations due to mine locations). This opposition just seems very illogical.
- rodgerd 9y ago> Per the quote above that it will be less damaging than the current mining we do on land. That's a fact-free assertion by a person providing PR. I should be surprised people here are gullible enough to take that at face value, but obviously not.
- dandelany 9y agoEven if we were to take this guy's word for it (which we obviously shouldn't)... > it should be easier to enforce environmental regulations on deep ocean mining as the mining operations will be international waters Precisely which regulations are you talking about, and who do you imagine enforcing them? The International Seabed Authority, of which the US is not a member state, and whose Law of the Sea Convention they have repeatedly declined to ratify? Good luck with that.
- samstave 9y agoPlease don't spill oil into the environment which will kill the environment. Violators must tow such disasters outside of said environment before returning regular exploitative operations. Thank you, The Management
- logicallee 9y ago>It’s a common sentiment among Earth scientists—often a lament—that we know more about other planets in the solar system than we do our own. Indeed, astronomers have a more complete topographical understanding of the moon, Mars, ex-planet Pluto and the dwarf planet Ceres than we do of the seabed. This is shocking, because the topography of the seafloor plays such a huge role in keeping the planet habitable—a role we need to fully understand in order to predict what the future of our climate holds. >The reason we have no comprehensive map is dumbfoundingly simple, considering that we’ve traversed and charted our solar system: “It’s not so easy to map the ocean, because the water is in the way,” says Jakobsson.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jjr8 9y agoThe article makes it sound as though the seafloor is virtually unknown outside of areas surveyed with multibeam sonar, which is a relatively small fraction of the seafloor. In fact, other technologies have been used to map the entire planet to a resolution of 15-60 arc second resolution (roughly 500-2000m). See http://topex.ucsd.edu/WWW_html/srtm30_plus.html http://topex.ucsd.edu/WWW_html/srtm30_plus.html for one such widely used, freely available dataset. What multibeam provides over extant dataset such as that one is much higher resolution.
- mmanfrin 9y agoroughly 500-2000m That gives broad strokes but I really would hesitate to use this as a counterexample against the notion that we haven't mapped the seafloor.
- jjr8 9y agoIt depends on what you're interested in. Admittedly, if you want, say, a global map of all hydrothermal vents, 500-2000m is not going to cut it. But the time and cost required to map the entire ocean with multibeam sonar is huge, on the order of 120 ship-years for the deep oceans and 750 ship-years for the shallow (<500m) continental margins [1]. Global coverage at 500-2000m resolution from satellite gravitometers represents a very cost effective middle ground between that huge effort and what is currently available, which is a patchwork of soundings that has gaps 10s to 100s of km thoughout much of the ocean. (See Fig 2 of [1]). [1] Becker at al. (2009) http://topex.ucsd.edu/sandwell/publications/124_MG_Becker.pdf http://topex.ucsd.edu/sandwell/publications/124_MG_Becker.pd...
- cobbzilla 9y agocould 100 solar/wave-powered drones do the job in 10 years?
- rosser 9y agoAt that resolution, you probably couldn't distinguish the TransAmerica Pyramid from the SalesForce Tower. I wouldn't call that particularly well-known.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoIf you want a good idea how deep is the deepest part of the ocean (Mariana Trench), look up in the sky and find a jet flying at full altitude (37,000 feet). That is how deep.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoIn reverse: if you're flying and the sky below you is clear of clouds, look down. That's how far deep the ocean floor is from the surface.
- peterjlee 9y agoHow can you tell if a jet is flying at full altitude? Is it actually visible?
- SubiculumCode 9y agoGood question. I've seen passenger jets get pretty small to the eye sometimes, and they don't tend to go higher than 37,000 feet. Alternatively, if you've ever flown across the country, mid-flight, look down.
- ygra 9y agoThe flight I took from the US back to Europe was at 42000 feet. Not that the difference in altitude matters much.
- jsmthrowaway 9y agoThey’re not directly correlated, but generally, when you see lengthy contrails behind an aircraft, it’s probably cruising at altitude. Again, not directly related – it’s an atmospheric phenomenon[0] – but visible contrails are a safe indicator an aircraft is at or near cruise and are quite common. (Their absence, on the other hand, is not necessarily a counterindication.) And yes, an aircraft will pretty much always be visible to the naked eye, even up to 45-50k where some business jets live now. You may have to squint, but your eyes are pretty good at finding fast motion against a static background. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail
- PhantomGremlin 9y agoThe article mentions the USS San Francisco, but I think the details are interesting. They highlight how little we know. The San Francisco, a nuclear attack submarine, operating at flank speed at a depth of 525 feet, collided with an underwater mountain. Extensive damage, 98 crew injured, one dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)#Collision_with_seamount https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)#Co...
- kendallpark 9y agoWhat will the resolution be? If it's fairly detailed, I could see this turning into a Google Maps for armchair treasure hunters searching for lost vessels. Who knows how many ships/planes are down there. Edit: Looks like they're aiming for ~100m resolution. They specifically mention the search for Malaysia Flight MH370 as an example for the need for adequate ocean floor mapping. https://seabed2030.gebco.net/documents/seabed_2030_roadmap_v10_low.pdf https://seabed2030.gebco.net/documents/seabed_2030_roadmap_v...
- LightskinKanye 9y agoHow is the US government allowing this? I'd be willing to wager we have some under water assets that we don't necessarily want to be discovered.
- oska 9y agoWho gives a fuck what the US government ‘allows’? This is highly arrogant and entitled thinking.
- ouid 9y agowell, given the number of thermonuclear warheads that have been misplaced, it does seem reasonable that we should at least try to prevent those kind of missions.
- Teever 9y agoWell you might give a fuck when you try and do something and the US government 'disallows' it. Arrogance or not the force that the US government can exert anywhere in the world at any time they want is real.
- Qwertious 9y ago>Who gives a fuck what the US government ‘allows’? Iraq and Afghanistan, for starters. If the US doesn't allow something and you do it anyway, you tend to come up with a nasty case of Dead.
- known 9y agoHumans explored just 5% of sea floor;
- ptxd 9y agoI have actually worked in bathymetric survey projects in 4 different continents, and I can tell you there is a good reason why the ocean floor hasnt been mapped yet. For one its cost. A single survey ship (their rates are cheap now due to low oil prices), cost about USD30000 a day, A single ROV (>5k a day), ROV crew, divers, backup ROV(yes there needs to be 2 ROV's) why? one needs to recover the other in deepwater, ships crew, the survey crew etc... all usually comes to about 50k-70k a day in cost (and this is being really conservative). I am not including cost of bunkering (refueling the ship), crew transport to location, rotations, food, water, waste disposal etc and the list goes on. If you take USD100000 a day at an average of 60miles a day in length and probably a mile width, USD18.5 mil would probably not cover much of a distance. Dont forget the cost of processors to process the multibeam data (yes multibeam provides higher resolution because it collects more data points), the mappers-charters, engineers etc...etc. Just the cost alone is enough to put most people off. There is a reason why MH370 couldnt be found, and the cost was enormous that they had to call of the search.
- surement 9y agoFor others wondering, ROV stands for Remotely Operated underwater Vehicle.
- prawn 9y agoHN magic again. No matter the niche, someone pipes up with real and interesting details about their area of expertise. Thanks!
- ge96 9y agoThis is insane $30K a day just for a boat?! Wow You'd think with "drone technology" you could just send these things out there and have it surface and beam back images by satellite. Sphere designs. Haha just a ball that sinks to the bottom of the ocean. What about sea floor changes how long would these maps be valid for? Anyway that's crazy. Won't be deploying my gold-finding crabs anytime soon.
- cr1895 9y ago>This is insane $30K a day just for a boat?! Wow Specialized vessels (e.g. heavy crane ships, pipelay) can cost 250k-500k per day. A smaller survey vessel will obviously be much cheaper, but there's crew to pay, operating costs, specialized labor costs (ROV engineers, scientists), logistics, fuel, etc. It all adds up. >You'd think with "drone technology" you could just send these things out there Autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs) that aren't tethered to a ship are in wide use. However, you still need a ship to deploy, maintain, etc. Here's an article: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025322714000747 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025322714...
- blunte 9y agoNo mention of the impact on marine life of this blanket of sonar... Maybe I'm too environmentally concerned, but it would seem a bit foolish to do something like this without having a pretty solid understanding of what negative impact it could have.
- cetalingua 9y agoYou are absolutely right. In fact, multibeam sonar use for sea floor mapping was connected to a devastating mass stranding in Madagascar http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/whale-mass-stranding-attributed-sonar-mapping-first-time http://www.ifaw.org/united-states/news/whale-mass-stranding-...
- ambicapter 9y agoIf the sonar is hitting these animals, shouldn't the sonar operator be able to detect it? Can you beamform sonar? Would it be feasible to narrowly direct the sonar towards your target?
- rdiddly 9y agoWould this be an appropriate project for Boaty McBoatface (the remote submersible attached to the Attenborough)? I kind of hope so, obviously.
- mnw21cam 9y ago> “Mines on land are soon going to run out,” Scott says. “Every electronic device in the world has rare earth [metals] in it ... we need raw resources.” Rare earth mines on land are nowhere near running out.
- FRex 9y agoAnd they can (apparently, I'm not an expert) be reclaimed. It's very technically challenging and expensive but they are still in all these old devices in Chinese landfills. They are not used up, I'd call them 'raw materials' not 'raw resources'. Oil and coal are 'raw resources' that you can't get back after they are used up. One could even make an argument that time and money could be better spent researching a better recycling process for e-trash than trying to mine the ocean floor.