Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they can't prove what they heard wasn't a different sub imploding.
Perhaps they can triangulate
afaik they did, and helped narrow the search area
Top secret U.S. Navy system heard titan implosion days ago
111–120 of 204 posts
Re: Top secret U.S. Navy system heard titan implosion days ago
#112How deep is it?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-23/titanic-submersible-d...
Re: Top secret U.S. Navy system heard titan implosion days ago
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think they should have looked for it regardless...?
If they heard an implosion at the time the sub lost contact? No. There would be a search and recovery operation, not search and rescue. I'd liken it to a space shuttle blowing up, the incident isn't compatible with life.
[dead]
Re: Top secret U.S. Navy system heard titan implosion days ago
#114I'm pretty sure the Navy also knows what was causing the "banging" heard underwater during the search. I don't understand the point of leaking this information now, it just makes it look like the Coast Guard spent 3 days and considerable money pretending to look for a target it knew was probably destroyed.
The cynical part of me thinks everyone involved knew what had happened on Sunday. There was ample evidence that the submersible imploded (repeated stress on a carbon fiber frame, zero regard for safety, the fact that all communication was lost permanently). Then there was the fact that the logistics involved in a rescue were basically insurmountable. The Navy/Coast Guard saw this as a good live training exercise and…
Even if you can guess they're gone, you're still going to try to mount a rescue in the case that you were wrong.
And nobody with any shred of PR training would make a "heard a big boom, they're probably fucked" statement with all the world's media and the families listening. Nobody wants to tell the families that its over until they've got hard proof.
Re: Top secret U.S. Navy system heard titan implosion days ago
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do we know the weights where dropped before the immplosion
Once they locate the wreckage, if the weights aren't nearby that's a strong sign they were detached before the implosion. They would have fallen to a different location on the seafloor than the hull because they're denser and have a smaller cross-section, thus not affected as much by the hydrodynamics during the fall.
I thought the drop weights were held on by electromagnets--essentially a dead-man switch kind of fail-safe. So therefore when the power failed due to the implosion the weights would drop.
Re: Top secret U.S. Navy system heard titan implosion days ago
#116I'm pretty sure the Navy also knows what was causing the "banging" heard underwater during the search. I don't understand the point of leaking this information now, it just makes it look like the Coast Guard spent 3 days and considerable money pretending to look for a target it knew was probably destroyed.
> it just makes it look like the Coast Guard spent 3 days and considerable money pretending to look for a target it knew was probably destroyed. This counts as a maritime accident so the NTSB will likely be investigating. They'd want the Coast Guard to locate and try to recover any pieces it could for the investigation anyway. Besides, the vast majority of that money is already spent. The variable cost is actually qu…
I assume these people could've been doing something more useful than recovering debris, so there's also the value of lost opportunities to be taken into account.
Re: Top secret U.S. Navy system heard titan implosion days ago
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very common for "technical details" of a system to receive a different classification than the "fact of existence" of said system. In other words, it's widely known that the Navy has a system for listening. The internal designation, capabilities and limits of operation are not widely known and that information should be kept secret. > The Navy asked that the specific system used not be named, citing national sec…
So the name, and internal designation, is "top secret"? You're saying the capabilities are also secret but the newspaper just reported the data it generated, which certainly suggests what its capabilities are. And why is it "widely known" that the military has this listening system? If it's really "top secret" then no, the public shouldn't know about it. Seems like everything is "top secret" until someone wants to sh…
I think existence of automatic surveillance isn't a secret.
The secret bits would include what this can detect, but I guess the presumption here is that an imploding civilian sub is easier to hear than a Russian military sub. So not really giving anything away.
Re: Top secret U.S. Navy system heard titan implosion days ago
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> it just makes it look like the Coast Guard spent 3 days and considerable money pretending to look for a target it knew was probably destroyed. This counts as a maritime accident so the NTSB will likely be investigating. They'd want the Coast Guard to locate and try to recover any pieces it could for the investigation anyway. Besides, the vast majority of that money is already spent. The variable cost is actually qu…
I assume these people could've been doing something more useful than recovering debris, so there's also the value of lost opportunities to be taken into account.
Eh…
The US military, Coast Guard included, is an exercise in readiness. Responding to something happening is probably as good an exercise as any.
Re: Top secret U.S. Navy system heard titan implosion days ago
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can understand that, if the reporter is not aware that the information is secret. But clearly they do know this is a "top secret" system, it's in the headline, so I'd assume the plausible deniability excuse doesn't apply.
It's not about plausible deniability. They know the information is top secret. They asked the Navy for comment and were probably told that. The 1st amendment still protects the reporter. They are legally in the clear. The person who told them is not.
The First Amendment doesn't mention anything about secrets, that's not what this is about. If I sell you a stolen item, and you know it is stolen, you're guilty of a crime. If you later try to sell or move those goods, that's a more severe crime, fencing. In this case the reporter is obtaining "stolen" information and passing it along, it's exactly the "fencing" of information.
I'm aware this practice has been going on for decades, people leaking private and/or classified information, often illegally. But it's like money laundering, just "info" laundering through an "unnamed source," and it feels pretty sleazy.
Re: Top secret U.S. Navy system heard titan implosion days ago
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
So the name, and internal designation, is "top secret"? You're saying the capabilities are also secret but the newspaper just reported the data it generated, which certainly suggests what its capabilities are. And why is it "widely known" that the military has this listening system? If it's really "top secret" then no, the public shouldn't know about it. Seems like everything is "top secret" until someone wants to sh…
I think existence of automatic surveillance isn't a secret. The secret bits would include what this can detect, but I guess the presumption here is that an imploding civilian sub is easier to hear than a Russian military sub. So not really giving anything away.
That's ridiculous though, either it is "top secret" or it isn't. There shouldn't be some arbitrary sliding scale of what's ok to reveal and what's not.