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

61–70 of 179 posts

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#61

Post by SkyMarshal »

ProAm wrote: post #58
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…

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

None, why? Are paywalled articles written in the traditional way since they already have a revenue source and don’t need to addict people?

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#62

Post by stuff800 »

> Instead, the battle of submarine silence has mostly revolved around obscure technical problems of fluid dynamics, since one of the loudest noises made by submarines is the cavitation around the screw.

Cavitation is loud, but usually only happens if they're running full out. What they're really listening for now are reactor plant noises.

> I don't know if this is true today, but at least years ago the low-noise design of the screw on modern US submarines was classified, and so the screw was covered by a sheath whenever a submarine was out of the water.

Many US fast attack (Virginia, Seawolf) and the upcoming Columbia SSBN use some sort of external pump jet. I'm not sure if they cover those up out of water like they did with more 'traditional' screws.

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#63

Post by dundarious »

Related but off topic (so I could understand being flagged, etc.), but in all likelihood, these capabilities could say a lot about what happened surrounding the Nord Stream pipeline explosions. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the US has these detectors beyond the borders of the US -- I've seen others claim as much: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/nord-stream-pipeline...

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#64

Post by ericbarrett »

apawloski wrote: post #59
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…

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.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through Blind Man's Bluff. Highly recommended if you have any interest in Cold War history; it's a gripping read.

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#65

Post by hammock »

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…

NPR features are the same now, only on the radio

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#66

Post by glompers »

fbdab103 wrote: post #60
XorNot wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 activit…

But why precisely does the sloppy sub operator or the mass media audience deserve the information their tax dollars are paying an analyst staff to harvest? Your idea still seems to me like potential question-begging; the fact that the habit would be of interest to people and save lives at some point is not surprising, but lifesaving is not the nature of the pointed interest of most OceanGater polemics in the first place...

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#67

Post by 01100011 »

dundarious wrote: post #63

Related but off topic (so I could understand being flagged, etc.), but in all likelihood, these capabilities could say a lot about what happened surrounding the Nord Stream pipeline explosions. I think it's a reasonable assumption that the US has these detectors beyond the borders of the US -- I've seen others claim as much: https://www.thenation.com/article/world/nord-stream-pipeline...

That area of the ocean is probably one of the most heavily surveilled areas in the world. Intelligence agencies absolutely know the ships involved.

I still maintain it could have been anyone with about $300k. Work class ROVs capable of planting the explosives at that depth are commonplace in underwater construction and maintenance.

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#68

Post by ProAm »

SkyMarshal wrote: post #61
ProAm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

None, why? Are paywalled articles written in the traditional way since they already have a revenue source and don’t need to addict people?

So you dont pay for any of it and then complain this is what they have to do to get views and clicks. Chicken meet egg, egg meet chicken, pot meet kettle.

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#69

Post by fbdab103 »

glompers wrote: post #66
fbdab103 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 activit…

But why precisely does the sloppy sub operator or the mass media audience deserve the information their tax dollars are paying an analyst staff to harvest? Your idea still seems to me like potential question-begging; the fact that the habit would be of interest to people and save lives at some point is not surprising, but lifesaving is not the nature of the pointed interest of most OceanGater polemics in the first pl…

I never said it had to be shared. Just that I think it incredibly likely that if a Naval sensor did detect the event, it would have been identified in short order. Potentially not definitively as an implosion, but that the Navy could have rapidly pinpointed the event in the data.

I am not qualified to state what was the appropriate timeline to give a public response nor it if should have been made.

Re: Underwater ears everywhere

#70

Post by glompers »

fbdab103 wrote: post #69
glompers wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But why precisely does the sloppy sub operator or the mass media audience deserve the information their tax dollars are paying an analyst staff to harvest? Your idea still seems to me like potential question-begging; the fact that the habit would be of interest to people and save lives at some point is not surprising, but lifesaving is not the nature of the pointed interest of most OceanGater polemics in the first pl…

I never said it had to be shared. Just that I think it incredibly likely that if a Naval sensor did detect the event, it would have been identified in short order. Potentially not definitively as an implosion, but that the Navy could have rapidly pinpointed the event in the data. I am not qualified to state what was the appropriate timeline to give a public response nor it if should have been made.

That's fair. I apologize for my tone.
Post reply on HN