Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Underwater ears everywhere

computer.rip

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 179 posts

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#51

Post by jcrawfordor »

etimberg wrote: post #47
jcrawfordor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one answer is that US hydrophone technology was probably superior at the time - but that's not necessarily a well-established fact, mostly an assumption. Still, it would stand to reason. SOSUS benefited greatly from cutting-edge research into acoustics that Bell Labs had been performing for other reasons, the Soviet Union probably didn't have the hydrophone technology or the undersea cable technology it relied…

The book Red Star Rogue by Kenneth Sewell goes in depth on the theory that K-129 sank while on some kind of mission to launch a nuclear weapon.

I kind of wanted to say Sewell but I wasn't sure I remembered the name right and I guess I was too lazy to look it up---but that's the one. Sewell is a big advocate of this theory but I think most people, even conspiratorial ones, think of him as kind of a crank. I haven't read the book so I won't judge too harshly, I just know that the rogue nuclear mission theory sort of hinges on a lot of political currents within the Kremlin and KGB that aren't in evidence elsewhere.

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#52

Post by dylan604 »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #24
manzanarama wrote: post #6

This writing is so clear and good. I can't tell you how many NYT articles I read where the paragraphs feel out of order, chopped up and there is no consistent flow. This reads very enjoyably.

That kind of modern journalism is absurd. Originally the rule in journalism was, the first paragraph must contain who, when, what, where, then subsequent paragraphs fill in the details in either chronological or logical order. Now the first paragraph must contain an emotional human-interest style “hook” to rope in the reader, then bury the lede in some random spot in the remainder of the text, in an attempt to keep t…

> Now the first paragraph must contain an emotional human-interest style “hook” to rope in the reader

So news sites have become a recipe site? Except, you’ve limited to a single paragraph vs 7/8 of the page

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#53

Post by XorNot »

tw04 wrote: post #31
grog454 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And those are all valid reasons to delay release. My point is that they are not mutually exclusive with declassification, or verification that the information is OK to release publicly from a security standpoint. I'm not sure why secrecy automatically means "conspiracy theory".

>I'm not sure why secrecy automatically means "conspiracy theory". It doesn't automatically, but literally everyone claiming the Navy was "hiding something" was going down the conspiracy theory route. I'm not talking about generalities, I'm talking about the specific situation in question which is the Titan sub. >the information is OK to release publicly from a security standpoint. What information are you referring…

Releasing the information 4 days later implies it took 4 days to properly process and categorize. It probably did take some time to properly process and categorize it, because anomalous sounds happen underwater all the time, and unless it's a subsea nuclear detonation or a Russian propeller screw then it's going to go into the "figure it out later" bucket.

So what we know is it took no more then 4 days to categorize it. We don't know whether or not the system flagged it immediately, or flagged it as part of background process, or how long that took.

Joe Internet-Commentator looks at that and says "oh it was totally instant, probably".

Bill Submarine-Commander for a Hostile Power on the other hand is very interested in exactly how quick any particular detection was, to what resolution, and what implied noise-cutoffs of the network. What sort of sonic events are handled in real time vs. handled in later analysis. Because for Bill the question is "how long before I'm detected and surface ships start dropping buoys, depth charges and torpedos to kill me".

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#54

Post by grog454 »

tw04 wrote: post #31
grog454 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And those are all valid reasons to delay release. My point is that they are not mutually exclusive with declassification, or verification that the information is OK to release publicly from a security standpoint. I'm not sure why secrecy automatically means "conspiracy theory".

>I'm not sure why secrecy automatically means "conspiracy theory". It doesn't automatically, but literally everyone claiming the Navy was "hiding something" was going down the conspiracy theory route. I'm not talking about generalities, I'm talking about the specific situation in question which is the Titan sub. >the information is OK to release publicly from a security standpoint. What information are you referring…

> Nothing about the system would have been compromised by publicly announcing they had detected an anomaly the day of the event vs 4 days later.

Have you worked on classified detection systems? Actions and conclusions don't always appear to follow logic when your priors are wrong.

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#55

Post by stall84 »

I guess I'm feeling a little dumb and outlying on my immediate theory to the delay between USN officially reporting hearing the implosion, but here it is anyway: It would make sense to me that in the vast world of US Intelligence, especially when combined with signals-intelligence (like listening on what channels in Russia or China are communicating internally to each other), that when you have an event like Titan imploding, relatively close to US waters, you would want to not show those cards, and listen to hear if anyone else reports hearing anything .. Kind of like a sophisticated game of counterespionage .. That way you can get an idea of whoever else might have equipment in the water very near your own. But idk .. just the first thing that came to mind. Love this read btw

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#56

Post by SkyMarshal »

dylan604 wrote: post #52
SkyMarshal wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of modern journalism is absurd. Originally the rule in journalism was, the first paragraph must contain who, when, what, where, then subsequent paragraphs fill in the details in either chronological or logical order. Now the first paragraph must contain an emotional human-interest style “hook” to rope in the reader, then bury the lede in some random spot in the remainder of the text, in an attempt to keep t…

> Now the first paragraph must contain an emotional human-interest style “hook” to rope in the reader So news sites have become a recipe site? Except, you’ve limited to a single paragraph vs 7/8 of the page

It's more that they're using Skinner Box variable rate reinforcement bs to rope readers in and keep them reading, which explains why the text feels so randomized and out-of-any-logical-order.

https://www.nirandfar.com/want-to-hook-your-users-drive-them...

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#58

Post by ProAm »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #24
manzanarama wrote: post #6

This writing is so clear and good. I can't tell you how many NYT articles I read where the paragraphs feel out of order, chopped up and there is no consistent flow. This reads very enjoyably.

That kind of modern journalism is absurd. Originally the rule in journalism was, the first paragraph must contain who, when, what, where, then subsequent paragraphs fill in the details in either chronological or logical order. Now the first paragraph must contain an emotional human-interest style “hook” to rope in the reader, then bury the lede in some random spot in the remainder of the text, in an attempt to keep t…

How many news or journalism sites are you currently subscribed to?

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#59

Post by apawloski »

jcrawfordor wrote: post #34
maxbond wrote: post #32

Somewhat tangentially, I've been wondering why the Soviets weren't able to locate K-129. From what I've read, they searched in a location hundreds of miles away from where SOSUS detected an implosion - why didn't the Soviets pick it up? Surely they had a hydrophone array?

Well, one answer is that US hydrophone technology was probably superior at the time - but that's not necessarily a well-established fact, mostly an assumption. Still, it would stand to reason. SOSUS benefited greatly from cutting-edge research into acoustics that Bell Labs had been performing for other reasons, the Soviet Union probably didn't have the hydrophone technology or the undersea cable technology it relied…

Re: Scorpion, I’ve been persuaded by the argument put forth In Blind Man’s Bluff, that a faulty torpedo battery overheated and kicked off a sequence of events ultimately resulting in sinking and implosion.

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#60

Post by fbdab103 »

XorNot wrote: post #53
tw04 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not sure why secrecy automatically means "conspiracy theory". It doesn't automatically, but literally everyone claiming the Navy was "hiding something" was going down the conspiracy theory route. I'm not talking about generalities, I'm talking about the specific situation in question which is the Titan sub. >the information is OK to release publicly from a security standpoint. What information are you referring…

Releasing the information 4 days later implies it took 4 days to properly process and categorize. It probably did take some time to properly process and categorize it, because anomalous sounds happen underwater all the time, and unless it's a subsea nuclear detonation or a Russian propeller screw then it's going to go into the "figure it out later" bucket. So what we know is it took no more then 4 days to categorize…

>Joe Internet-Commentator looks at that and says "oh it was totally instant, probably".

Kind of, yeah. There is a good timeline on when the ship was in water, when an event would have occurred, plus a very narrow geographical search area. That is significantly more information than is ever available when chasing ghost submarines.

It is difficult for me to imagine some bored analyst did not pop open a graph of activity within a 30 minute window of suspected loss of contact time for the area. If detectable, a ship implosion is likely a pretty aberrant signal in the data.

Post reply on HN