3 ms·
Sure, if every part of rugged terrain were monitored with sufficient frequency to detect such a change. That might take some infrastructure to cover everywhere
by defrost 2mo ago
Sure, if every part of rugged terrain were monitored with sufficient frequency to detect such a change.
That might take some infrastructure to cover everywhere such things can happen (eg: the beds of rivers in Western Australia's Pilbara and Kimberley regions have a high flash flooding risk in the wet season.
- bamboozled 2mo agoSounds like a great application for drone tech.
- defrost 2mo agoIs it? What's the land area you'd like seamlessly and continuously monitored by a mobile object with moving parts ... and how is that a better solution than using static solar powered instrumentation?
- mandeepj 2mo agoBetter suited for satellites
- dredmorbius 2mo agoSatellites or ground-based observation. Geologists have used the latter for many decades. Monitors upslope of at-risk glaciers, solar/battery powered, and communicating by radio (or Internet / satellite links) could be part of this. See for example the extensive seismic monitoring of California's San Andreas Fault, particularly at Parkfield and through the Carrizo Plain / CA Hwy 25. <https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/parkfield/safod_pbo.php https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/parkfield/safod_pbo.php> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrizo_Plain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrizo_Plain> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Route_25> (Different tech, obviously, but in situ ground-based sensors which share some similarities.)
- defrost 2mo agoGround based field instrumentation on specific potential threats has the advantages of being up close and always on target whereas sat observation is distant and intermittent. Multiple sat observations a day is great, obviously, but sudden collapses / changes often won't get flagged for seven or eight hours after the event.