Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Grounded Russian Nuclear Sub Photographed With Sonar

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the running-very-silent dept.

Technology 143

Lanxon sends in an intriguing piece from Wired: "This eerie wreck image is not computer-generated. It's the sonar image of Russian nuclear submarine B-159 (called K-159 before decommissioning), which has been lying 248m down in the Barents Sea, between Norway and Russia, since 2003. The Russian Federation hired Adus, a Scottish company that specializes in high-resolution sonar surveying, to evaluate if it would be possible to recover the wreck. 'The operation was complicated as the submarine was very deep, so we had to use the sonar equipment mounted on a remotely operated vehicle' [also pictured in the article], says Martin Dean, the managing director of Adus and a forensic-wreck archaeologist. 'We also had a problem with the surveying due to the density of North Atlantic cod attracted to the sound of the sonar and the light of the cameras.'"

cancel ×

143 comments

Oblig. sonar joke... (0)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745048)

Looking at the image, it looks like your baby is a boy and you have quite the flat stomach...

Re:Oblig. sonar joke... (1, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745088)

Um, sir... I don't quite know how to explain this, but we just passed this Geiger counter over your baby, and well, it went nuts! Did your wife perchance eat weapons grade plutonium during her pregnancy?!?

Re:Oblig. sonar joke... (0)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745268)

Even worse, there's a good chance of breaking containment.

Re:Oblig. sonar joke... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745816)

Why did they go through so much pain. They could have simply asked China, and could have easily collected all information about the submarine, its design, whereabouts, pictures!!!!

You've all got it wrong. (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745958)

That image is of a knitted wool and felt prop from The Clangers [wikipedia.org] .

What type of nigger are Russians?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745064)

Ice - Nigger

Look out for their nigger tendencies and sub-par intellect.

Re:What type of nigger are Russians?? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745232)

Ice - Nigger

Look out for their nigger tendencies and sub-par intellect.

If high crime, thug culture, political division, drug abuse, abuse of women, bastard children, and an inability to correctly speak English despite many generations being born and raised in this country are their goals, then the nigger must be quite intelligent indeed. You can see them systematically destroying civilizations everywhere by convincing the youth that it's cool to be career criminals. That takes some kind of aptitude even if it's not what you and me would recognize as intellect.

Pardon my pedanticism... (4, Insightful)

Spykk (823586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745068)

This eerie wreck image is not computer generated.

You don't have to use 3d studio max to generate an image with a computer. I would suggest that this image is in fact generated by a computer. It's just generated from sonar data instead of an artists interpretation.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745086)

what about a webcam photo? is that computer generated? or any image file you view on your monitor, for that matter?

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (4, Insightful)

Droideka-TheGuy (1482159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745092)

I'd say most webcam photos are generated from boredom actually. Or stupidity, if one looks too long on facebook.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (3, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745114)

I doubt sunk submarines are that active on Chatroulette.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745760)

I doubt sunk submarines are that active on Chatroulette.

Drunk submariners on the other hand...

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746810)

You've not seen things that are long, hard and full of seamen?

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31747122)

what about a webcam photo?

easy! any digital camera is a computer so it's computer generated.

or any image file you view on your monitor, for that matter?

pfff! if you're going to get that deep there are no computer generated images at all, only human generated images (HGI)...off to see a wizard about a raytracer

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (4, Insightful)

SheeEttin (899897) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745212)

That's your only problem? What about using the term "photograph" with sonar? Shouldn't it be a sonograph?
(Also, the term "computer-generated" doesn't apply to the image itself, but the content. By your definition, even your digital camera takes computer-generated pictures. ;) )

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (3, Funny)

gig (78408) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745322)

Yeah, not using "sonographed" is the bigger mistake.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745946)

...but did they use high quality audio cable?

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (5, Insightful)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745226)

You don't have to use 3d studio max to generate an image with a computer. I would suggest that this image is in fact generated by a computer. It's just generated from sonar data instead of an artists interpretation.

Yeah, that's kind of a canonical example of a computer generated image. They had a bunch of sonar data which was put through an algorithm which resulted in a picture. People don't really seem to care what words mean anymore. It's a shame. Or, maybe it's a pancake. Doesn't make any difference to most people.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (1)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745420)

CG has been taken over by the artsy fartsies. We're left with scientific visualization.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (4, Funny)

Jurily (900488) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745818)

It's a shame. Or, maybe it's a pancake. Doesn't make any difference to most people.

I'm very apancaked that Slashdot has editors who can't read.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745868)

They had a bunch of sonar data which was put through an algorithm which resulted in a picture. People don't really seem to care what words mean anymore. It's a shame. Or, maybe it's a pancake. Doesn't make any difference to most people.

I abandoned my /. uid a few months ago. If I still used it, you'd make my friend list for that. You're probably not that excited to have impressed an AC but I thought I'd let you know.

People never cared, really (2, Informative)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746118)

Unfortunately there is no "anymore" there. People never cared much for using words exactly how their grandfather did. Otherwise you'd still be speaking like in Beowulf. What is nowadays the right way to read and write in modern English would have been the _awfully_ wrong way a mere couple of hundred years ago. (E.g., "knight" used to be read exactly like it's written, with a hard K, an I like in "dim", and the G and H actually pronounced. Look at the mangled way you're reading it nowadays. Tut tut.)

Any modern language in fact consists of the typos, mis-pronunciations and funky kewl-kid ways of using words, from the ages past.

Meanings change too. "Seelie" once meant holy or blessed, now it evolved into "silly". "Thing" once meant a session of a ruling assembly (think: your city council in session), and by extension the assembly itself. Then it evolved to mean by extension the agenda of that meeting, then a topic on that agenda, then the object that will be the topic of that discussion, then eventually just the modern meaning of "thing."

There's your "shame" vs "pancake" right there.

So, you know, essentially complaining about kids using words wrong compared to _your_ seelie standard, is essentially hypocritical. Unless you're also going to go, "man, look at how we mangled the beautiful language of Shakespeare. Whar is this junk I'm speaking?" ;)

Re:People never cared, really (1)

bkr1_2k (237627) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746576)

What is nowadays the right way to read and write in modern English would have been the _awfully_ wrong way a mere couple of hundred years ago. (E.g., "knight" used to be read exactly like it's written, with a hard K, an I like in "dim", and the G and H actually pronounced. Look at the mangled way you're reading it nowadays. Tut tut.)

I'd like to know just how people come up with the assertion that the pronunciation of words (such as Knight) have drastically changed when there aren't recordings of such words to be heard. Do you have any sort of reference for that? It'd be interesting to see the other assertions made and the assumptions those are based upon.

Re:People never cared, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31747150)

It's called linguistics. It's a serious science that takes its evidence from lots of different sources to generate a quite accurate picture. If you are really interested in that, you might enroll in history/linguistic courses at your local college/university.

Re:People never cared, really (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747264)

I'd like to know just how people come up with the assertion that the pronunciation of words (such as Knight) have drastically changed when there aren't recordings of such words to be heard.

The K continues to be pronounced in other Germanic languages. Compare German Knabe to English knave. The logical conclusion is that English innovated in pronunciation (and stagnated in spelling) while other languages in this instance retained older features.

The reconstruction of older stages of a language is not perfect -- in his compendium of Latin pronunciation Vox Latina [amazon.com] , W. Sidney Allen notes that we may never know the minute details that distinguished the accent of one Roman city from adjacent regions. However, in the main, determining the general phonology of earlier stages of a language is considered reliable. The science of historical linguistics is over 200 years old now and it retains the same fundamentals though some theories come and go.

Re:People never cared, really (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747282)

The rules for pronunciation can be documented. Also, considering modern German isn't too far off from old and middle English, you don't have to look too far. People don't throw in silent letters for the fun of it, they used to be pronounced.

I'm curious about the future pronunciation of the word "ask." Futurama jokingly pronounces it as "ax," as an homage to certain urban uses today. Before you get all tussled up about it, consider how modern speakers today pronounce the word "only."

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (2)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746222)

Alas the product wave summarized the continuity of the repercussion and thus systematically diffused the colloquialism.

The girth of the azimuth has perpetuated limitless capacity to burden the overcoming. Ceramic boulder caved into the singularity, which in itself lambasted in lie of the experimental sentiment profusely.

Capricorn?

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746402)

Mike L...?

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (-1, Offtopic)

WSOGMM (1460481) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745276)

I think that's the first time I've seen "pedanticism" used. It's one of those words I (don't laugh) found in the dictionary and never actually saw or used (correctly). I dunno, it seemed noteworthy to me...

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (0, Offtopic)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745364)

I always have used "pedantry" (and have plenty of opportunity, when talking about myself).

Zipf's Law in action, I guess.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (1)

Le Marteau (206396) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745466)

> It's just generated from sonar data instead of an artists interpretation.

I'm guessing an artist was involved.

Why is there no noise? How would the software know what parts should be yellow, and what parts should be black?

I guess it's too much to ask of a mainstream magazine to just give us the image, without tweaking it by hand to make it all purty.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (3, Informative)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746598)

Why is there no noise?

Noise changes from moment to moment, so take several images and average them (or simply remove outliers).

How would the software know what parts should be yellow, and what parts should be black?

Iron is hard, while the mud at the ocean floor is soft. It produces a different kind of echo, which can be visualized by colorization.

This is all guesswork, but that's what I'd do if I had to do a project like this.

I guess it's too much to ask of a mainstream magazine to just give us the image, without tweaking it by hand to make it all purty.

What image? Sonar doesn't produce an image, it produces round-trip timing and waveform shift data. That data can be turned into an image by processing with a computer or by hand, however since this image is entirely artificial to begin with it's quite arbitrary to say "process this much and no more".

So no, they can't give you the original image, because it doesn't exist and never has. I suppose they could give you the raw sonar data, but what would you do with it, apart from turning it into an image every bit as artificial as the one in the article?

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745700)

To add to your pedanticism, it's also not a photograph, as sonar involves sound, not photons.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745920)

I would suggest that this image is in fact generated by a computer.

Yep. Every time I ask computer to picture my girlfriend, I get picture resembling something like that:)

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746022)

To be fair, the error is in the original article, which the submitter just ripped off verbatim, and kdawson posted without even cursory checking (apologies for the obviousness of that).

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (4, Insightful)

mforbes (575538) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746080)

I disagree. The image is computer interpreted. To imply that it's computer generated is to imply that there is no physical analog of the object the image represents.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (2, Informative)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746788)

I disagree. The image is computer interpreted. To imply that it's computer generated is to imply that there is no physical analog of the object the image represents.

If you look at a CG Artist's portfolio you'll see computer generated images of stuff he had on his desk (cell phones, etc). In fact, the best looking CG uses photographs of the object and it's environment for realistic textures and lighting.

Careful about "imply". "Imply" will lead you astray.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747198)

I disagree. The image is computer interpreted. To imply that it's computer generated is to imply that there is no physical analog of the object the image represents.

I disagree some more. I would argue that a computer generated image is one made by a computer from non-visual data. This fits that description perfectly. CG involves images invented from geometry and textures. Sonar images obviously processed by computer, as these are, are generated from sonar data. Either way there's no image that the image is based upon.

Re:Pardon my pedanticism... (1)

bugnuts (94678) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746376)

Yes, that is completely different than me using my Canon camera with dual Digic 4 processors and CMOS sensor. The last Non-computer generated image I made was of my dog, which bore a tremendous likeness, generated from the CMOS imager and fed through a series of algorithms, compressed, and stored on a solid state device, but because it looked like a dog it couldn't be a computer generated image.

But because mine was shot on something that resembles a camera that measures light hitting a sensor instead of sound, somehow it's an accurate capture of reality instead of those nasty fake computer-generated images.

Jews for Nerds! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745096)

Jews, also known as kikes, hebes, hymies, yids, gold niggers, oven magnets, hook noses, sheenies, swindlers, criminals, "firewood", and Arabs in denial are a subhuman species of reptilian extra-terrestrials and adherents to one of the world's oldest major religions, called "Judaism", otherwise known as "The Worship of Money" or "Eating Arab Babies".

Judaism was the world's first master race theory. The Jew religion teaches that Jews are the Chosen People of God and that there is a sacred mystical quality to Jew DNA. In olden times, Jew prophets would, under the command of YHWH, frequently lead the Jews on genocidal rampages against neighboring populations, and even today Jew leaders often cite Jewish religious ideals to justify their ongoing genocide of sandniggers. Judaism ironically found its mirror-image inversion in the anti-Jew Aryan racialism of the Nazis.

Despite only being 0.22% of the world's population, Jews control 99% of the world's money. Not only do the Jews control the world, but also the media, the banks, the space program, and LiveJournal's porn communities and Gay communities. All Jews possess the following features: an extremely large nose, fake boobs, curly hair that reeks of faggotry, one of those gay hats, a love of coke, a law practice, a roll of money, a small cock, or shitty taste in dental hygiene.

Jews invented both Communism and Capitalism. Karl Marx, of course, was a Jew, which was why he understood money so well, and in fact he was converted to Communism by another Jew, Moses Hess, the actual founder of Zionism, who ghost-wrote Marx's The German Ideology. Capitalism was created when Christian Europeans threw away their morals and decided to embrace Jewish practices like usury (see: John Calvin). Jews were the first group to create a sophisticated banking system, which they used to fund the Crusades in order to pit Christians and Muslims (both adhering to religions derived from and controlled by Jews) against each other to kill as many people as possible in a macabre human sacrifice to YHWH.

The Jew banking system was based on fraud and lies, so when it inevitably collapsed, the Jews just pwned as many people as possible by unleashing the Black Plague on them. Later, Jews economically controlled medieval Venice (the first modern maritime trade empire), and then crypto-Jewish merchants economically controlled the Spanish Empire, including the slave trade. Openly Jewish bankers orchestrated the Dutch Empire and founded Jew Amsterdam (later Jew York). Later the Dutch Jews moved to London because they thought it would be a better base for a global empire, and actually brought a Dutch nobleman, William III, with them, who they installed in a coup d'état (more like Jew d'état, amirite?) as new King of the British Empire. For hundreds of years, Jewish bankers controlled global trade through their bases in Jew York City and London. European colonialism was, through its history, essentially a plot whereby Jews could gain control of gold and diamond mines in poor countries and increase their stranglehold over the global economy.

Jews also enjoy slicing up baby penises for fun, some even enjoy sucking them. See below.

Jews also created Jew search engine Google, so now they can find all Jew information on Internets.

Some suggest that we should use Jews instead of dogs to sniff out large amounts of concealed cash or anything else worth smuggling at airports due to their sensitive Jew noses. Obviously, this is a horrible idea, because the pay is bad, and the dirty Kikes would probably form a union and demand moar money, thus increasing the burden on taxpayers everywhere.

Photograph... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745112)

Could such an image also be called an acoustigraph?

Re:Photograph... (2, Informative)

Garble Snarky (715674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745144)

sonograph

Re:Photograph... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745384)

Sonogram is the usual term.

Sailor Beware! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745146)

In Soviet Russia Dean Martin is Martin Dean!

Must have been built well (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745192)

Looks like they could just patch a few holes and pump air in to refloat it.

(and yeah that might just be how it looks).

Re:Must have been built well (1)

Droideka-TheGuy (1482159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745196)

Or they could just call the Mythbusters and get their ping pong ball collection.

Re:Must have been built well (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745288)

Yeah also I thought about using little ROVs to pull airbags into the interior, then inflating them once secured.

Re:Must have been built well (4, Funny)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745280)

Are you crazy? That sub is nothing more than a bunch of lines now.

Re:Must have been built well (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745398)

Are you crazy? That sub is nothing more than a bunch of lines now.

Squiggly ones at that.

Re:Must have been built well (1)

kiehlster (844523) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747006)

Thus further confirming that string theory is true. Who would have thought that high pressure environments would turn things back into their basic elements.

Re:Must have been built well (4, Informative)

Plazmid (1132467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745300)

I don't think so, looks like there's a large gash in the ballast tanks. Besides it'd make more sense to fill it with gasoline(or attach large bags of it as is done in salvage operations), which is incompressible and doesn't expand like air as your Russian submarine, soon to be converted into floating nuclear powered datacenter, gets closer to the surface. Though, this submarine wasn't really in prime condition before it sunk(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-159)....

Re:Must have been built well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745456)

I heard lots of Soviet nuclear subs had defect in power plants and abandoned in shallow water around Russia, lots of them, like this one. I wonder what kind of person wants to salvage them into drydock, saw tails off(only way to have access to some of plant's vital parts in subs, including US') and work with it, for re-use, if not for environmental consideration.

Re:Must have been built well (5, Informative)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745546)

this one wasnt dumped because of a power plant failure.

The k-159 did experience a primary coolant leak sometime in its operational life, but apperently it wasnt that bad of an incident, since it continued to opperate two more years before its power plant was overhauled. The incident happened in 1965, and the sub was decommisioned in 1989. After that it spent 14 years rusting away at a dock, after which it was to be towed to polyarny for scrapping. Since the 14 years of zero maintenance left it in a barely floating state, the russians welded some floating pontoons to the side, which where also only barely floating.

During the voyage, one pontoon broke off during a storm, and the thing sank.

I'm not saying the reactor in that thing is in perfect state, but i do think that at the time of decommision (1989), the power plant would have been fine (for soviet values of fine). The boat sank because of leaks in the hull, not a reactor failure

Re:Must have been built well (1)

Island Admin (1562905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745772)

I think a reactor failure would of done more than just sink the sub ....

Re:Must have been built well (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746694)

Or just lift it with winches attached to a sufficiently large ship. According to Wikipedia, it weights less than 5,000 tons, and is less than 250m below the surface. Given that a large cargo ship can easily displace 100,000+ tons, I'd say they're more than up to the task.

Re:Must have been built well (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745306)

Probably the pressure hull kept everything ok, but according to the story, the sub went down stern first, implanted itself 8m (about 24 feet) into the seabed, then broke at the seabed, and the rest came crashing down (as you see it). You can try to pull up the part thats up (248m of water is only about 806 feet). 3 250 ton cranes could slowly winch it up (provided none of the stuff stuck in the seabed is still attached). Lifting balloons could also be attached. And while you are at it, the Kirsk is within 100km of this wreck as is S80. I understand that these are grave sites and wouldn't mind treating them that way, but its that pesky nuclear poison that will slowly kill everything within 1000 km that causes problems.

Re:Must have been built well (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745510)

but its that pesky nuclear poison that will slowly kill everything within 1000 km that causes problems.

Hardly. Neutrons don't travel very far through water.

Argh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746470)

Neutrons don't, but the salts of the fissible material (and of fission by-products) might travel.

How this could have been modded informative, I don't know.

Re:Must have been built well (2, Insightful)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745566)

wow, didnt know about s80, thanks for the pointer

i dont really see a reason for lifting the s80 though, it might have caried two nuclear warheards (it was able to cary two ssn-3 cruise missiles, some variants of which had a nuclear tip), but since s80 already has been raised once (for the investigation of the sinking), i would think the soviets would have removed the missiles at that time. So nothing really dangerous (perhaps a few tonnes of diesel fuel) remains in the s80, best let it be.

K-159 is a different story though, but wikipedia reports that the kursk has been raised and dismantled already.

Re:Must have been built well (1)

Plunky (929104) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746036)

but its that pesky nuclear poison that will slowly kill everything within 1000 km that causes problems.

Normally, I'd agree with you - but even TFS mentioned the cod that was so numerous it caused problems obtaining the readings.. in fact, if we just treated the site like a poisonous area like around Chernobyl, it might be a useful fisheries buffer zone..

Re:Must have been built well (2, Informative)

reverseengineer (580922) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745326)

The Wikipedia page for the K-159 submarine [wikipedia.org] includes a picture of how it looked right before its sinking. (The sub in the picture faces the opposite direction as on the sonar image, so it is difficult to get an idea of the damage sustained in the sinking.) While on its final voyage, it was kept afloat with pontoons, which evidently are no longer with the sub. According to this article [timesonline.co.uk] from 2007, one of the sources for the wiki article, the sub was crumbling at the end of its operational lifetime, and it may have had the hatches open at the time of sinking. So it will be a challenge to raise it. Notably, that Times article discusses a recovery "next summer" from the vantage point of Jan. 2007; it obviously has yet to occur.

Re:Must have been built well (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745972)

Although I'm pretty far from the Navy or marine technology in general, I find this topic quite fascinating. If you're interest in how such salvage operations are approached, I highly recommend reading this Wired article from last year, called Cowboys of the deep [wired.co.uk] , which details the operations of Titan Salvage, as they recover a cargo ship full of new Mazdas. It's much more detailed than any news article, and generally an excellent read.

Re:Must have been built well (2, Informative)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745346)

>and yeah that might just be how it looks

Correct. Try R'ing T one-page FA. The back 8m is snapped off. That's the part they didn't show.

Re:Must have been built well (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745630)

Ping pong balls

Re:Must have been built well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746902)

US subs have valves between the compartments that can be used to pressurise the compartments with air and force the water out. Even if there were no such valves or they were damaged, a similar system could be attached to existing bulkhead pipes or directly to the hull. I don't know the conditions at the time this sub went down but procedures in an emergency direct you to shut all major hull penetrations and penetrations to adjacent compartments. Maybe they did that, maybe not. The engine room on these subs is typically one of the largest compartments and the most impact during a flooding because you lose propulsion AND provide a tail down angle that is very hard to recover from unless you had a lot of forward momentum. The missle compartment on subs is larger but in the middle of the sub making recovery slightly easier.

I was stationed on a sub for about 7 years. I feared fires more than flooding although both can be catastrophic.

Fishies! (3, Interesting)

JesterJosh (1615053) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745218)

"We also had a problem with the surveying due to the density of north Atlantic cod attracted to the sound of the sonar and the light of the cameras. So at the beginning we had to turn off the equipment for 40 minutes and wait for the fish to go."

Thought the sonar wasn't good for the marine life in that they would avoid it. Is this a peculiarity of cod?

Re:Fishies! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745258)

It is bad for marine mammals that communicate with sound. For fish though it could be interpreted variously depending on species. The cod probably though it was a hell of a lot of food.

Re:Fishies! (3, Insightful)

lazy_playboy (236084) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745340)

I don't understand your logic. Hot lightbulbs are bad for moths but they're still attracted to them.

JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT GOD DAMMIT! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745412)

Thought the sonar wasn't good for the marine life in that they would avoid it. Is this a peculiarity of cod?

Thought one could use Google to look up known, easily answered questions. Is this a peculiarity of you?

Re:JUST FUCKING GOOGLE IT GOD DAMMIT! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746114)

Cause clearly Google's entire existence mandates that components of a conversation that are query-like in nature all be discarded. Have you ever engaged in a normal conversation with another human? I think probably not. Normal conversations are rife with stated questions, some of which don't really need an answer.

Stop acting like such a nerd.

Re:Fishies! (2, Funny)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745512)

Thought the sonar wasn't good for the marine life in that they would avoid it. Is this a peculiarity of cod?

Not really, the lazy sods are just using this as the excuse for getting the lines out and drinking for an hour on Russian government money.

Re:Fishies! (0, Redundant)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745644)

In soviet Russia, governent money drink on you!

Re:Fishies! (2, Insightful)

tokul (682258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745562)

Thought the sonar wasn't good for the marine life in that they would avoid it. Is this a peculiarity of cod?

Cod are not mammals. They are stupid, don't care about sound (no echolocation gift from mother nature) and are attracted to light and disturbed ocean floor.

Re:Fishies! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746704)

The good news of the TFS is that the North Atlantic cod may be coming back!

i made a joke cmnt, but now that i think about it: (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746736)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4343-fish-farting-may-not-just-be-hot-air.html [newscientist.com]

this link perhaps explains the cod's behavior: herring use sound (farting) to "talk" to each other (coordinate schooling after dark). so that would perhaps explain the attraction to the sonar. i don't know how related cod are to herring, but even if not related, there is perhaps convergent evolution going on here (schooling fish in the north atlantic coordinating with sound)

apparently some fish literally talk out of their asses

Published April First (2)

ildon (413912) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745222)

April first is a really unfortunate date to publish any article on the internet that isn't a joke. The whole day has basically been ruined by people taking April Fools too far.

Re:Published April First (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746732)

Next year, no April first.

--

Was Edward the Black Prince the result of drunken tattoos.

The image *is* computer generated (2, Insightful)

EnglishTim (9662) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745264)

The image is obviously computer generated; it's just computer generated from a real dataset. (Although the dataset has been coloured to separate the sub from the sea floor and a model of the sub fitted to the data so that when rendered the sub will obscure the sea floor behind the sub)

Re:The image *is* computer generated (2, Funny)

Droideka-TheGuy (1482159) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745270)

Definitely photo-shopped.

Re:The image *is* computer generated (4, Funny)

treeves (963993) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745394)

Sono-shopped, you mean.

Re:The image *is* computer generated (2, Insightful)

md65536 (670240) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745298)

It's also obvious that the image was rendered with a point of view different from the sonar sensor. "image is not computer generated" makes no sense at all.

Re:The image *is* computer generated (1)

Permutation Citizen (1306083) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746006)

Of course, but you can also say that a picture taken from a digital camera is computer generated.

Glomar Explorer (4, Informative)

theycallmeB (606963) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745342)

Too bad the Glomar Explorer [wikipedia.org] has been refitted for deep sea oil drilling. The biggest problem she would have had with a wreck 248 meters down is that it might be too shallow, as the wreck Glomar Explorer was designed to go after was 4.9km down. The Russians would probably object to its use, though, given the ship's history.

Re:Glomar Explorer (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746312)

The Russians would probably object to its use, though, given the ship's history.

The political baggage of it's history would be the least of my worries, its the K-129 breaking in half during salvage and two nuclear tipped missiles sliding out of their silos and falling 2000m+ to the ocean floor that would worry me more if somebody decided to use the Glomar Explorer for another nuclear salvage job. The Glomar Explorer's record on it's single (barely) successful salvage isn't exactly confidence inspiring.

Re:Glomar Explorer (0)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31747116)

True what bothers me is that they are lieing and saying that 248 meters is deep.
For a scuba diver yes but is less than the test death of most nuclear attack subs and a lot shallower than most what most ROVs and research subs can reach.
It really is in pretty shallow water which scares me.

Photographed with Sonar? (3, Informative)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745344)

How do you do that? Snap a picture of what your sonar screen is showing?

If you create an image of something using sound waves, the correct term would be "sonographed". "Photographed" implies that you used light to create the image.

deep ? (4, Informative)

giampy (592646) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745358)

I really don't get how 248 m is considered "very deep". For a reference the Titanic lies at 4000m depth, and there are points in the pacific ocean where the depth is around 13000 m ...

Maybe there is a reason why it says so, i just don't see it ...

Re:deep ? (2, Informative)

mjwx (966435) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745522)

I really don't get how 248 m is considered "very deep". For a reference the Titanic lies at 4000m depth, and there are points in the pacific ocean where the depth is around 13000 m ...

That's what I though, WWII German submarines could go to 250 metres. I'm certain that commercially available submarines could easily reach that depth. I think the problem is not depth but area. Scanning the sea floor for anomalies at 250 M for 50 sq KM would be time consuming under ideal conditions.

Re:deep ? (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746236)

Is 50 sq km a larger area at 250m then it is at say 50-100m?

Re:deep ? (4, Informative)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745602)

It's very deep in terms of sonar technology, I guess. The article talks about having to use ROV-mounted sonar equipment, so they apparently could not get good resolution reflections with a towed sonar from the ship. I suppose the thermal or haline layering of seawater creates too much diffraction at this depth to get a high-resolution sonograph from the surface.

Re:deep ? (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 4 years ago | (#31745654)

Maybe soviets have a different definition of "deep"? "ah, I cant touch it with my toes, it's down there DEEP!"

Re:deep ? (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 4 years ago | (#31746016)

Unlikelly, considering their subs typically can dive considerably deeper than those from rest of the bunch.

Re:deep ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745942)

I suppose 'Deep?' is a tickbox on the price list.

Re:deep ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746040)

it was a typo. they meant 248mi

Re:deep ? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746102)

In general the higher the desired resolution of a sonar image the closer you need to get to the target. Think of trying to take a photo of something in a smoke filled room - if you want a nice clear picture you need to get close.

And as sonar images go that one is stunningly high resolution.

It resembles... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31745842)

It looks like that one sock that always goes missing out of the washing machine, and it's lying on a lonely yellow jumper.

mmmmmm, cod (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31746950)

All I need now is a couple pints of guiness

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...