5 ms·

Given military subs operate around a maximum of 500msw why would the USN have randomly coverage of hydrophones to detect implosions at depths no military sub wo

Given military subs operate around a maximum of 500msw why would the USN have randomly coverage of hydrophones to detect implosions at depths no military sub would be at? This sub probably imploded around 1500 msw. A lot of people are saying sounds travel far under water that's true.. but laterally and not between the typical layers of the sea. Not to mention that these hydrophone systems are at critical choke points not littering the ocean floor uselessly. It seems motivated by a sci-fi understanding of the physics. Don't get me wrong things like this happen as cover ups. In this specific instance it seems driven by nonsense.

stochtastic 3y ago
Hydrophones don't need to be nearby or even at a similar depth. The SOFAR channel acts as a waveguide and will duct sources from other depths as long as the bottom is below the critical depth. As others have said, this part of the North Atlantic is one of the most heavily monitored parts of the ocean as well. No sci-fi physics necessary — this has been done continuously since the 1950s.
- psychphysic 3y ago
  So basically you think that the USN should be able to detect the implosion and so must be hiding that they can do so. Rather than any information specific to this event leading to the conclusion that USN can. This is the same reasoning "UFOlogists" use to insist area 51 has aliens. 1. Aliens must exist. 2. US must be able to detect any aliens. 3. The US must be covering up that aliens exist.
  - stochtastic 3y ago
    > and so must be hiding that they can do so I don't believe I said that. You can draw your own conclusion from the fact that it is within their capabilities to detect, localize, and to some extent classify a wide range of sources in this region of the ocean. What you won't find is a lot of information about those capabilities in the public domain. Just consider that what _is_ known tells us that we had these capabilities in the 1950s, and that they were continuously improved upon throughout the cold war. This is not Area 51 conspiracy speculation; it is bread-and-butter NRL stuff that is more than half a century old at this point and is classified for good reasons.
    - psychphysic 3y ago
      I'll rephrase. What about this incident supports your claim? As far as I can see not only is the answer to that is "nothing" but the claim itself is non-falsifiable.
  - danso 3y ago
    Maybe there's a miscommunication here; detecting underwater sound from hundreds, even thousands of kilometers away, is made possible via the publicly known laws of physics. Detecting extraterrestrial aliens requires technology that is not publicly known. Therefore, it is not at all logical to compare "hearing an imploding submersible in the Atlantic" to "detecting aliens/UFOs"
    - psychphysic 3y ago
      Really you'd need advanced technology to detect aliens if Roswell was indeed an crash landing? You've got to be kidding!
  - dTal 3y ago
    I fail to see the analogy between "aliens must exist" (a statement for which there is no evidence) and "the submersible imploded" (which is substantiated by debris). The syllogism is simple: * submarines make loud noises when they implode * the navy can hear loud noises underwater * the submersible is thought to have imploded based on debris therefore, * the navy heard the submarine implode
danso 3y ago
I'm not a physics expert, but sound seems to travel for long distances extremely well underwater. So even if they have a buoy at 1000 ft, hearing a loud sudden sound at 10000 feet (the sub's last communication was 1h45m into a roughly 2hr descent) would not require "sci-fi" physics? [0] https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16challenger/welcome.html https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16challenger/wel...
- giantrobot 3y ago
  Sound reflects off thermoclines. If there's a thermocline at say 1000ft and you have a hydrophone at 900ft, a sound originating at 1500ft will reflect off the thermocline and won't be detected by the 900ft hydrophone above the thermocline (frictionless pulleys and spherical cow assumptions).
- psychphysic 3y ago
  Yes because if you have a buoy there you need one everywhere... Doesn't matter, I was curious why people were speculating this and that's clarified. You believe that USN would detect this, and it's not motivated by any factor in the story. And a conspiracy to cover up capabilities is the only way you can sustain that belief.
  - danso 3y ago
    Here's my question for you: Let's assume that in our current reality, U.S. agencies did not detect an anomalous sound. So what we've observed is how they would operate if they had zero foreknowledge or data other than the initial report to the Coast Guard. Now imagine the alternate scenario in which Navy or NOAA buoys pick up a suspicious sound near the Titanic. There might be a flurry of U.S. gov activity (e.g. communication between NOAA, the military, and intelligence agencies) to make sure it's not a Russian sub, but that would be completely hidden to the public, and for all we know, is something that happens relatively routinely. In this alternate scenario, what would change about how the Navy, Coast Guard, or any other U.S. official has responded? Coast Guard rescue ships would still conduct search-and-rescue, the Navy would still send a deep sea salvage ship. You honestly think the Navy would volunteer information about an intelligence report that, as far as they know, may or may not be related to a now-missing civilian sub?

stochtastic 3y ago

Hydrophones don't need to be nearby or even at a similar depth. The SOFAR channel acts as a waveguide and will duct sources from other depths as long as the bottom is below the critical depth. As others have said, this part of the North Atlantic is one of the most heavily monitored parts of the ocean as well. No sci-fi physics necessary — this has been done continuously since the 1950s.

psychphysic 3y ago
So basically you think that the USN should be able to detect the implosion and so must be hiding that they can do so. Rather than any information specific to this event leading to the conclusion that USN can. This is the same reasoning "UFOlogists" use to insist area 51 has aliens. 1. Aliens must exist. 2. US must be able to detect any aliens. 3. The US must be covering up that aliens exist.
- stochtastic 3y ago
  > and so must be hiding that they can do so I don't believe I said that. You can draw your own conclusion from the fact that it is within their capabilities to detect, localize, and to some extent classify a wide range of sources in this region of the ocean. What you won't find is a lot of information about those capabilities in the public domain. Just consider that what _is_ known tells us that we had these capabilities in the 1950s, and that they were continuously improved upon throughout the cold war. This is not Area 51 conspiracy speculation; it is bread-and-butter NRL stuff that is more than half a century old at this point and is classified for good reasons.
  - psychphysic 3y ago
    I'll rephrase. What about this incident supports your claim? As far as I can see not only is the answer to that is "nothing" but the claim itself is non-falsifiable.
- danso 3y ago
  Maybe there's a miscommunication here; detecting underwater sound from hundreds, even thousands of kilometers away, is made possible via the publicly known laws of physics. Detecting extraterrestrial aliens requires technology that is not publicly known. Therefore, it is not at all logical to compare "hearing an imploding submersible in the Atlantic" to "detecting aliens/UFOs"
  - psychphysic 3y ago
    Really you'd need advanced technology to detect aliens if Roswell was indeed an crash landing? You've got to be kidding!
- dTal 3y ago
  I fail to see the analogy between "aliens must exist" (a statement for which there is no evidence) and "the submersible imploded" (which is substantiated by debris). The syllogism is simple: * submarines make loud noises when they implode * the navy can hear loud noises underwater * the submersible is thought to have imploded based on debris therefore, * the navy heard the submarine implode

danso 3y ago

I'm not a physics expert, but sound seems to travel for long distances extremely well underwater. So even if they have a buoy at 1000 ft, hearing a loud sudden sound at 10000 feet (the sub's last communication was 1h45m into a roughly 2hr descent) would not require "sci-fi" physics? [0] https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16challenger/welcome.html https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16challenger/wel...

giantrobot 3y ago
Sound reflects off thermoclines. If there's a thermocline at say 1000ft and you have a hydrophone at 900ft, a sound originating at 1500ft will reflect off the thermocline and won't be detected by the 900ft hydrophone above the thermocline (frictionless pulleys and spherical cow assumptions).
psychphysic 3y ago
Yes because if you have a buoy there you need one everywhere... Doesn't matter, I was curious why people were speculating this and that's clarified. You believe that USN would detect this, and it's not motivated by any factor in the story. And a conspiracy to cover up capabilities is the only way you can sustain that belief.
- danso 3y ago
  Here's my question for you: Let's assume that in our current reality, U.S. agencies did not detect an anomalous sound. So what we've observed is how they would operate if they had zero foreknowledge or data other than the initial report to the Coast Guard. Now imagine the alternate scenario in which Navy or NOAA buoys pick up a suspicious sound near the Titanic. There might be a flurry of U.S. gov activity (e.g. communication between NOAA, the military, and intelligence agencies) to make sure it's not a Russian sub, but that would be completely hidden to the public, and for all we know, is something that happens relatively routinely. In this alternate scenario, what would change about how the Navy, Coast Guard, or any other U.S. official has responded? Coast Guard rescue ships would still conduct search-and-rescue, the Navy would still send a deep sea salvage ship. You honestly think the Navy would volunteer information about an intelligence report that, as far as they know, may or may not be related to a now-missing civilian sub?