New seafloor map only 25% done, with 6 years to go(eos.org)
eos.org
New seafloor map only 25% done, with 6 years to go
https://eos.org/articles/new-seafloor-map-only-25-done-with-6-years-to-go
165 comments
Can you explain “GPS maps offset from reality” or what would i have to look up to learn more?
I see for china some into about random offsets but couldn’t find anything else.
I see for china some into about random offsets but couldn’t find anything else.
Others have already answered, but yes, I'm referring to China. Check out Google maps in any Chinese city; I've never seen one without the offsets. You can read about the general spec for the obfuscation and also about fines and arrests for illegal mapping.
I think the comment you replied to is just talking about the government of China.
Try looking at China on Google Maps in satellite view.
Try looking at China on Google Maps in satellite view.
Specifically look along the border with other countries where the offset is obvious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_dat...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_dat...
the mathematics of cartographic projections possibly
but this information was really a military secret not that long ago. same as cryptography is right now!
which annoys me personally becuase I wish to learn more/better about the mathematics behind information technology and cryptography. but this is considered 'sensitive' understanding so the quantity of people that are ever taught this stuff is tightly controlled; not to say that it's difficult stuff to begin with and any efforts to make it more widespread and accessible are often derailed in education comitees and so on. but I should stop before I get any more paranoid
but this information was really a military secret not that long ago. same as cryptography is right now!
which annoys me personally becuase I wish to learn more/better about the mathematics behind information technology and cryptography. but this is considered 'sensitive' understanding so the quantity of people that are ever taught this stuff is tightly controlled; not to say that it's difficult stuff to begin with and any efforts to make it more widespread and accessible are often derailed in education comitees and so on. but I should stop before I get any more paranoid
The details of specific implementations are sometimes considered secret, but broadly speaking the mathematics of both projections and cryptography are extremely public. For example, GCJ-02 (the projection being obliquely referenced by the GP) is just WGS-84 + "noise". For cryptography, you can read any of the excellent textbooks and educational resources available (e.g. [0]).
[0] http://www.cs.umd.edu/%7Ejkatz/imc.html
[0] http://www.cs.umd.edu/%7Ejkatz/imc.html
i'm not supposed to say this, but my above paranoia is but a coping mechanism to deal with the harsh truth that I just cannot for the life of me completely understand any of those ideas no matter how well they're explained
It would make for a good sci fi novel, but yeah. Cryptography is cutthroat in the sense that if you’re even a little imprecise people can and will break your scheme. At some level of development the material will just filter out people from learning it.
This information is part of why the US missiles can hit their targets precisely and why Soviet ones could not. you lose accuracy dead reckoning when you don't have good corrections for the earth's gravity at your current location
how much does earth's gravity fluctuate by location?
Enough for consumer-grade Hario coffee scales to include a geographic location setting, so that you can weigh your coffee beans accurately.
To put numbers to it, according to google there's a gravity strength max discrepancy of 0.7% between the places with the lowest and highest gravity on the planet. Assuming using ~17g of beans for a coffee, that comes out to an error of up to 0.12g. Seems kind of dumb to correct for 0.12 grams, in the absolute most extreme case. If they just manufacturer calibrated the machine for "average" gravity then there'd be a max of +-0.35% difference in gravity, for a maximum error of +-0.06g for a 17g brew.
Off by 0.35% in your morning coffee, no problem.
Off from your intended vector by 0.35% when you're moving at 6500 m/s, and you're veering off course by 22 meters every second.
Off from your intended vector by 0.35% when you're moving at 6500 m/s, and you're veering off course by 22 meters every second.
[deleted]
How is that different than air pressure?
Quite a lot, at least at the weight and speed scale a missile operates on. The biggest source of gravity force difference is the distance between the equator / pole [1], and altitude (both in terms of altitude in reference to the planet core as well as altitude in reference to ground, e.g. due to the mass of a mountain range) also adds jitter [2].
On top of that, dead-reckoning is disturbed by aerodynamic effects such as wind, as well as drift from the gyro compass itself... a fine-detailed gravity effect map can be used to compensate for both of that, and adding imagery maps and radar/laser distance measuring is even better.
To add even more context... that is the reason why Germany's Chancellor Scholz is refusing to deliver TAURUS long range missiles to Ukraine. TAURUS owes its significant increase in precision over Storm Shadow / SCALP (UK/FR equivalent) to that kind of sensor aids, but the assistance dataset aka the photogrammetry, gravity and height maps of the flight route must be individually created and loaded into the missile as part of the mission preparation. As you can imagine this kind of precision information is stuff that we really don't want to get leaked to Russia so we can't (or don't want to) deliver the systems for programming to Ukraine where it might get stolen/diverted to Russia, so Scholz is afraid that the necessary direct cooperation of German Bundeswehr soldiers with Ukrainian soldiers might be seen as an act of war of Germany by Putin. (Complete horse dung if you ask me, but I can understand where he's coming from)
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/do-you-weigh-more-at-the-equator...
[2] https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/652759
On top of that, dead-reckoning is disturbed by aerodynamic effects such as wind, as well as drift from the gyro compass itself... a fine-detailed gravity effect map can be used to compensate for both of that, and adding imagery maps and radar/laser distance measuring is even better.
To add even more context... that is the reason why Germany's Chancellor Scholz is refusing to deliver TAURUS long range missiles to Ukraine. TAURUS owes its significant increase in precision over Storm Shadow / SCALP (UK/FR equivalent) to that kind of sensor aids, but the assistance dataset aka the photogrammetry, gravity and height maps of the flight route must be individually created and loaded into the missile as part of the mission preparation. As you can imagine this kind of precision information is stuff that we really don't want to get leaked to Russia so we can't (or don't want to) deliver the systems for programming to Ukraine where it might get stolen/diverted to Russia, so Scholz is afraid that the necessary direct cooperation of German Bundeswehr soldiers with Ukrainian soldiers might be seen as an act of war of Germany by Putin. (Complete horse dung if you ask me, but I can understand where he's coming from)
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/do-you-weigh-more-at-the-equator...
[2] https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/652759
Does it vary at the location or is it constant? Basically, is it more like a fluid (air) or fixed because of mass?
> accurate bathymetric data is a huge deal for modern battlespace preparation
Their resolution is "all features 100 meters or larger", so better than nothing but not useful for manuevering your submarine.
Their resolution is "all features 100 meters or larger", so better than nothing but not useful for manuevering your submarine.
100m isn't especially big. Significantly less than turning radius for most ships, and laughably small compared to stopping distance.
Having said that, maneuvering is only one problem among many.
Having said that, maneuvering is only one problem among many.
Obstacles smaller than 100m can wreck your sub.
Well yeah.
But trees can wreck my face too. I'd still want a good contour map if I were to go wandering into the wilderness.
A good map can tell you about the possibilities of the environment, but it's always inferior to looking at it yourself.
But trees can wreck my face too. I'd still want a good contour map if I were to go wandering into the wilderness.
A good map can tell you about the possibilities of the environment, but it's always inferior to looking at it yourself.
So can obstacles smaller than 50cm. What resolution should we aim for?
I'm thoroughly nerd-sniped by your username. Is there something special about those permissions?
It was the first thing that came to mind when creating an account. At the time I was creating some setup/build scripts for a service I was working on, I believe. Nothing really special about those permissions.
[deleted]
> It's crazy to read this, for the same reason that maps used to be military secrets
Reminds me of the Map Men episode "Why does Russia have the best maps of Britain?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bqzwsM6eoQ
Reminds me of the Map Men episode "Why does Russia have the best maps of Britain?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bqzwsM6eoQ
The name of the ship doing the work is Falkor (too), which is named after the ship RV Falkor, which in turn was named after the Luckdragon:
> The retrofitted vessel was renamed R/V Falkor, after the Luckdragon in the fantasy novel The Neverending Story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Falkor_Too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Falkor
> The retrofitted vessel was renamed R/V Falkor, after the Luckdragon in the fantasy novel The Neverending Story
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Falkor_Too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RV_Falkor
Schmidt Ocean Institute (which owns/operates Falcor (too)) is an awesome nonprofit supporting a lot of really fascinating and impactful oceanographic and environmental research. One of my favorite oceanography documentarians, Leo Richards, produced a truly beautiful video for Schmidt Ocean Institute and put it up on his YouTube channel, Natural World Facts, which I highly recommend for anyone with an interest in the ocean or scientific research in general:
https://youtu.be/Uh3fNYVwDXM?si=QnzFTJFJ5hIhXWoJ
There's another nonprofit in this space, Inkfish.
They have a highly advanced deep sea research vessel called the Pressure Drop, and another called the Hadal Exploration System.
Do you know who owns Inkfish? Gabe Newell of Valve fame!
They have a highly advanced deep sea research vessel called the Pressure Drop, and another called the Hadal Exploration System.
Do you know who owns Inkfish? Gabe Newell of Valve fame!
There's also the Ocean Exploration Trust, founded by Robert Ballard of Titanic discovery fame (among _many_ other things).
https://nautiluslive.org/
https://nautiluslive.org/
[deleted]
Project: https://seabed2030.org/
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38231626 (“HN: Why Is It So Difficult to Map the Ocean?”)
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38231626 (“HN: Why Is It So Difficult to Map the Ocean?”)
The "Explore the Global Map" portion's pretty interesting, as there are several regions where the difference is rather clear. Gulf of Siam and the Caribean both have fairly clear areas where the low res old data and the higher res new collection can be examined. Unfortunately, if you zoom in too much though it goes back to the old Maxar data.
The Azores and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge work is also kind of interesting. Much larger number areas that are "almost islands" than I thought there were. The old GIS data seems smeared out and makes them look shallow, yet the newer maps show pretty distinct near surface ridges.
The Azores and the Mid-Atlantic Ridge work is also kind of interesting. Much larger number areas that are "almost islands" than I thought there were. The old GIS data seems smeared out and makes them look shallow, yet the newer maps show pretty distinct near surface ridges.
Since nuclear submarines and intercontinental data cables are militarily very important, I assume the US and other militaries have mapped vastly more than the civilian world has access to.
Submarines don't go deeper than couple kilometers, usually less than 500 m. Vast areas of the ocean are way deeper, and that depth likely has little operational importance for submarines.
Cable-laying is another thing, but only along the lines that connect interesting points on the shore.
Cable-laying is another thing, but only along the lines that connect interesting points on the shore.
Even at submarine depths, the oceans are poorly mapped. In 2005, the USS San Francisco collided with an uncharted (but suspected) seamount at 160m depth.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)#Gr...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)#Gr...
Manned submarines, perhaps, but what about unmanned submarines?
Do those have military relevance at those depths?
The Nippon Foundation that funds this is a strange beast, established to make it legal to bet on speed boats in Japan. A percentage of speed boat betting winnings enables the Nippon Foundation.
The first two chair-people were... colorful. Leading to some 'colourful activities':
>In 2001, the Peruvian Congress determined that the foundation financed forced sterilizations in that country (1990-1999).
First chairman:
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ry%C5%8Dichi_Sasakawa
>Ryōichi Sasakawa (笹川 良一, Sasakawa Ryōichi, May 4, 1899, in Minoh City, Osaka – July 18, 1995, in Tokyo)[1] was a Japanese suspected war criminal, businessman, far-right politician, and philanthropist. He was born in Minoh, Osaka. In the 1930s and during the Second World War he was active both in finance and in politics, actively supporting the Japanese war effort including raising his own paramilitary units. He was elected to the Japanese parliament during the war. After Japan's defeat he was imprisoned for a time, accused of war crimes, and then found financial success in various business ventures, including motorboat-racing gambling events (Kyōtei) and ship building. He supported anticommunist activities, including the World Anti-Communist League
Second chair-woman:
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayako_Sono
> Sono is considered to be a conservative. She was considered to be an advisor to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. She has drawn controversy for advocating for a system similar to South Africa's apartheid for Japan's immigrants.[1][2][3] She has also advocated for women to quit their jobs after becoming pregnant.[4]
The third is less colorful (at least his Wikipedia is highly curated), but the son of the first chairman, so who knows....
The first two chair-people were... colorful. Leading to some 'colourful activities':
>In 2001, the Peruvian Congress determined that the foundation financed forced sterilizations in that country (1990-1999).
First chairman:
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ry%C5%8Dichi_Sasakawa
>Ryōichi Sasakawa (笹川 良一, Sasakawa Ryōichi, May 4, 1899, in Minoh City, Osaka – July 18, 1995, in Tokyo)[1] was a Japanese suspected war criminal, businessman, far-right politician, and philanthropist. He was born in Minoh, Osaka. In the 1930s and during the Second World War he was active both in finance and in politics, actively supporting the Japanese war effort including raising his own paramilitary units. He was elected to the Japanese parliament during the war. After Japan's defeat he was imprisoned for a time, accused of war crimes, and then found financial success in various business ventures, including motorboat-racing gambling events (Kyōtei) and ship building. He supported anticommunist activities, including the World Anti-Communist League
Second chair-woman:
2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayako_Sono
> Sono is considered to be a conservative. She was considered to be an advisor to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. She has drawn controversy for advocating for a system similar to South Africa's apartheid for Japan's immigrants.[1][2][3] She has also advocated for women to quit their jobs after becoming pregnant.[4]
The third is less colorful (at least his Wikipedia is highly curated), but the son of the first chairman, so who knows....
From motorboat racing to forced sterilization in just a couple of decades.
The most interesting part is the funding came from Japanese motorboat racing profit. Imaging if we could funnel profit from NFL to benefit science or local communities.
I often think about what could be if artists and scientists were free to explore their crafts and passions.
What are we missing out on because it's not profitable right now?
What are we missing out on because it's not profitable right now?
Well if it isn't profitable it isn't desirable by society enough?
Often you have chains of invention, where it's not obvious from the outset that a specific outcome can be achieved by making that specific discovery or invention.
Other issues are cases where the profit to society is clear, but difficult to capture by any specific group (the reason why infrastructure is mostly built by governments), and cases where discoveries happen by chance because somebody was given the chance to "screw around" (for example the person who found the xz vulnerability probably couldn't have justified why he put engineering time into investigating a 0.5 second delay).
Other issues are cases where the profit to society is clear, but difficult to capture by any specific group (the reason why infrastructure is mostly built by governments), and cases where discoveries happen by chance because somebody was given the chance to "screw around" (for example the person who found the xz vulnerability probably couldn't have justified why he put engineering time into investigating a 0.5 second delay).
Do you actually truly deep down believe this? You don't look around and see a single valueable thing that isn't profitable?
Or see highly profitable things that aren't valuable, or that are even highly damaging?
That's a very bad take. Things have value even if they're not profitable. Do you think the pharaohs built the pyramids because they were profitable? Look how important they are to the world culture.
The pyramids were a power demonstration. Probably indirectly profitable. Some unespoken threat like
Fake> I ordered them to build the pyramid. If you revolt I will order them to pillage your village. Have a nice day and please send 20% more goats.
Fake> I ordered them to build the pyramid. If you revolt I will order them to pillage your village. Have a nice day and please send 20% more goats.
The most familiar thing to compare the pyramids to is probably European cathedrals. They were huge public works projects requiring a lot of labour, both skilled and unskilled, and done for religous, political, and probably economic reasons.
Interesting choice of example as far as ROI calculations go
Sure, it's got a positive ROI now, but most artist don't have 4,000 years to let their art appreciate in value.
> world culture
Do people in 2024 really care about the pyramids?
Do people in 2024 really care about the pyramids?
It's hard to fund things where the benefit is diffused among many people. Lighthouses are a classic example of this (you can enjoy their benefit even if you don't pay!). So is public art (why should I pay for public sculptures for everybody else?).
Taxes are a traditional approach to this. It's sloppy and imperfect (plenty of my money is spent on stuff I don't value), but I don't know a much better way.
Similarly, it's hard to price things where the negative externalities are diffused among many people. Pollution is a good example of this - the person generating pollution is often not the one suffering the effects of it, and the effects are generally widespread and diffuse (your car makes a thousand people a little bit worse off, not a single person horribly worse off). Taxes on these externalities are also an appropriate tool here.
Taxes are a traditional approach to this. It's sloppy and imperfect (plenty of my money is spent on stuff I don't value), but I don't know a much better way.
Similarly, it's hard to price things where the negative externalities are diffused among many people. Pollution is a good example of this - the person generating pollution is often not the one suffering the effects of it, and the effects are generally widespread and diffuse (your car makes a thousand people a little bit worse off, not a single person horribly worse off). Taxes on these externalities are also an appropriate tool here.
You gotta think about profitability across a larger timescale. Some things aren’t profitable now, but will be later, and if we get started on them now we can make that later come sooner.
Six years until we can put the myths of Atlantis and underwater UAP bases to rest, then. But it's an impressive effort, long overdue for our civilisation, really...
Atlantis is 15 meters under the sea bed at this point. This doesn't put that myth to rest at all.
Oil & Gas
Where does the data from Oil & Gas companies who prospect for new drill sites come into play?
I know companies like Shearwater are paid for their sea floor data.
https://www.shearwatergeo.com/
Where does the data from Oil & Gas companies who prospect for new drill sites come into play?
I know companies like Shearwater are paid for their sea floor data.
https://www.shearwatergeo.com/
Is the NSA a secret funder of this project? I suppose having accurate bathymetric data might have business or scientific applications but the only immediate use that comes to mind is undersea warfare.
I would put good money on the US Navy already having a map that is superior to this.
For certain parts of the world it's more than a certainty -- I've seen them! (Before my computer career I was a navigator in the US Navy.)
Where we don't yet have hyper-accurate bathymetric data there are boats like the USS Jimmy Carter which have lots of tricks and capabilities that we'll never learn about.
Where we don't yet have hyper-accurate bathymetric data there are boats like the USS Jimmy Carter which have lots of tricks and capabilities that we'll never learn about.
Was this already public info? I feel weird about people sharing classified info on the forums I frequent. (Even information that I don’t agree should be classified)
It's also public knowledge that the USS Jimmy Carter is a "very special" submarine. I have no direct knowledge of what it can do (I was a surface warfare type) but splicing into fiberoptic cables has been rumored many times by many sources.
"Blind Man's Bluff" is a great book about the work of espionage submarines and includes many anecdotes from other boats that were based at Kitsap.
Tapping cables is definitely something that's been done through history, but more of the stories were about things like recovering the remains of enemy test missiles for physical intelligence. Now that that fiber traffic is routinely encrypted anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if more of USS Jimmy Carter's missions are recovering North Korean rockets.
Tapping cables is definitely something that's been done through history, but more of the stories were about things like recovering the remains of enemy test missiles for physical intelligence. Now that that fiber traffic is routinely encrypted anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if more of USS Jimmy Carter's missions are recovering North Korean rockets.
A former Navy Seal heads the org I work in. He’s an expert in telecommunications and fiber tech. I’ve always wondered how he go the job and knows so much about telecom…especially fiber.
It's public knowledge that the US Navy has its own fleet of surveying vessels, concluding that they actually use them as well isn't much of a stretch.
I’ve had no access to classified anything ever and could have told you the US navy has remarkably good maps of several key parts of the ocean in which friendly or enemy boomer subs are likely to operate.
Like, of course they do. If there are any unusually-good ocean maps they have, it’s those, at least.
Like, of course they do. If there are any unusually-good ocean maps they have, it’s those, at least.
You paid for it, why not?
Without divulging anything, as a map enthusiast, are there any public images of maps submariners use to navigate? It is just like bathymetric/contour maps with similar notations? Do they look cool?
I'm going to hazard a guess, by your use of 'map' rather than 'chart', that you're not very familiar with nautical charts. A lot of what they do is chart depths, including broad contours which get more precise in shallower areas and closer to land (not always the same thing). Check out https://fishing-app.gpsnauticalcharts.com/i-boating-fishing-...
Thanks, I've "enjoyed" nautical charts before, not for use, but the design. I just like seeing different kinds of maps/schematics and seeing their symbology or notation. Want to see something for submersible navigation, I imagine it's mostly countrs and depth indicators, but what about stuff like currents, thermocline layers, landmarks... like is there a big geologic underwater arch somewhere that subs pass under for shits and giggles. What do charts show subs that operate at 500m or vehicles designed to deeper. Things like that.
What you're looking at there would suffice as source material whether your keel depth is 30ft or 300, and then many layers of planning happen atop it.
> like is there a big geologic underwater arch somewhere that subs pass under for shits and giggles.
I can't promise there's not, but most naval services have proud traditions of firing captains who are involved in collisions, allisions, and groundings.
> like is there a big geologic underwater arch somewhere that subs pass under for shits and giggles.
I can't promise there's not, but most naval services have proud traditions of firing captains who are involved in collisions, allisions, and groundings.
[deleted]
The main reason why these parts of the ocean are not mapped is because ships don't go there. In proximity to inhabited land and along seaways that ships regularly travel there are much better maps readily available. Not a lot of warfare is going to happen in a place where there are no assets to defend and no targets to attack and which isn't on the way to or from a location with either.
Those boring places would be great places to hide misske carrying subs no? And hence other subs might want to engage there.
Not really. Ships moving in high shipping areas typically aren't carrying any type of submarine detection equipment, nonetheless relay such data to an adversary who could use it, so being in waters with traffic is not really an issue. In fact it helps. If there's nothing else man made for hundreds of miles in any direction, then anything that gives off a signature is dead giveaway you're hiding a sub there. In an area with some decent traffic, a propeller that's 1000 times quieter than a normal propeller is basically indistinguishable from background noise. Likewise it's not weird to find traces of soap or industrial lubricants along shipping lanes. At the same time the regular and predictable noises of other ships are useful for navigating by passive sonar so subs don't need to give away their position to navigate.
There's also more to consider than just hiding. Navies have fleets. A surface fleet can deter anti-submarine warfare activities as well as conduct anti-submarine operations of their own. This both helps submarines to better hide and helps protect them if their stealth is for whatever reason compromised. If you have a surface fleet parked in the middle of nowhere, again it is a dead giveaway that there is something of interest there. Conversely there's no reason your adversary can't sail their surface ships there. If you are going to put your submarines somewhere remote, you want it to be a place where they are reasonably safe from surface assets, like under ice sheets.
There are also the practical concerns that keep other ships from passing through these areas. Remote locations are difficult to get to, difficult to resupply, and far from port facilities which are critical for maintenance and upkeep. If you're 200 miles from port and there's a problem, you can be back in port in a matter of hours. If you're 2000 miles from port it may be a week before you get help. This translates into higher operating costs for your deterrent.
I'm not saying that a sub would never traverse these waters, just that shifting strategy to focus on using remote locations to hide your missile subs has a lot of cons and limited pros.
There's also more to consider than just hiding. Navies have fleets. A surface fleet can deter anti-submarine warfare activities as well as conduct anti-submarine operations of their own. This both helps submarines to better hide and helps protect them if their stealth is for whatever reason compromised. If you have a surface fleet parked in the middle of nowhere, again it is a dead giveaway that there is something of interest there. Conversely there's no reason your adversary can't sail their surface ships there. If you are going to put your submarines somewhere remote, you want it to be a place where they are reasonably safe from surface assets, like under ice sheets.
There are also the practical concerns that keep other ships from passing through these areas. Remote locations are difficult to get to, difficult to resupply, and far from port facilities which are critical for maintenance and upkeep. If you're 200 miles from port and there's a problem, you can be back in port in a matter of hours. If you're 2000 miles from port it may be a week before you get help. This translates into higher operating costs for your deterrent.
I'm not saying that a sub would never traverse these waters, just that shifting strategy to focus on using remote locations to hide your missile subs has a lot of cons and limited pros.
Google Earth, Formerly Keyhole EarthViewer, funded in large part by the CIA.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cias-earthviewer-was-the...
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cias-earthviewer-was-the...
Keyhole being a very old reference to the shape drawn on the earth by geostationary sat orbits.
The KH series of satellites were in low earth orbit, not geostationary. Where did you get the idea the keyhole name came from a shape?
An NRO history has all early satellite reconnaissance as being under the “TALENT-KEYHOLE” designation:
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/HOSR/SC-2...
An NRO history has all early satellite reconnaissance as being under the “TALENT-KEYHOLE” designation:
https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/HOSR/SC-2...
https://ar.inspiredpencil.com/pictures-2023/geosynchronous-o...
Many geosync orbits trace an asymmetrical 8 on the ground that looks like a keyhole. That's where the name comes from, from programs older than the TK sats.
Many geosync orbits trace an asymmetrical 8 on the ground that looks like a keyhole. That's where the name comes from, from programs older than the TK sats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CORONA_(satellite)
"The CORONA satellites were designated KH-1, KH-2, KH-3, KH-4, KH-4A and KH-4B. KH stood for "Key Hole" or "Keyhole" (Code number 1010),[7] with the name being an analogy to the act of spying into a person's room by peering through their door's keyhole"
"The CORONA satellites were designated KH-1, KH-2, KH-3, KH-4, KH-4A and KH-4B. KH stood for "Key Hole" or "Keyhole" (Code number 1010),[7] with the name being an analogy to the act of spying into a person's room by peering through their door's keyhole"
I saw that too but noticed that the claim didn't have a reference. That is what brought me to the NRO PDF, which ties the designation KH of the satellites to the Talent Keyhole security designation on page 15 [0]. One of the confusing parts is that the early Corona didn't have a KH designation initially because the Keyhole compartment wasn't created until 1960 [1]. Maybe the Keyhole compartment's name came from the analogy?
0. https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/HOSR/SC-2...
1. In 1960, it was broadened to cover all national aerial reconnaissance (to later include SR-71 sourced imagery) and the KEYHOLE compartment was created for satellite intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_inform... compartment%20was%20created
0. https://www.nro.gov/Portals/65/documents/foia/docs/HOSR/SC-2...
1. In 1960, it was broadened to cover all national aerial reconnaissance (to later include SR-71 sourced imagery) and the KEYHOLE compartment was created for satellite intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_compartmented_inform... compartment%20was%20created
Keyhole reconnaissance satellites predate geostationary satellites. Geostationary reconnaissance satellites are rare, and not like Keyhole ones.
> from programs older than the TK sats.
What was that older than Corona?
What was that older than Corona?
Wonder if subsea map will ever be released like Google Maps. It's something I always wanted to see. I suppose it's more of national security threat since it allows adversaries to plot up subsurface routes, and can't exactly blur out features without giving away importance like on Google maps. Unless they're deliberately tampered to cause confusion... maybe that's enough motivation to release. Get foreign subs to bonk on undersea cliffs.
If we just discovered these giant mountains then what are the chances we will find a new “deepest point”?
My guess is low, the deepest points are specific trenches related to intersecting tectonic plates and are of relatively higher scientific interest so many have been mapped. Its unlikely there is just a giant hole somewhere random. The trenches are way deeper than the ocean floor https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/ocean-tren... and the deepest on e is quite deep, maybe there is a slightly deeper point in the deepest trench? I'm not a ocean floor expert though.
The intersection of seafloor mapping and the Apple Vision Pro has been an idea that has been kicking around in my mind since its release. I can imagine a scenario where a submarine pilot wears a VR headset with a 3d map of the seafloor around them to be more accurate in their piloting.
Does anyone here know if and how the IHO's S-100 data formats relate to this?
S-57 charts are a derivative product manually authored based on hydrographic survey data. They differ from the raw data a little because they include extra metadata and hand-tweaked geometry to reflect safety issues.
To my knowledge S-100 is simply an updated “container” for ENC data and is replacing S-57. So it’s not necessarily related to this effort except that the new format may support gridded bathymetry data being encoded?
To my knowledge S-100 is simply an updated “container” for ENC data and is replacing S-57. So it’s not necessarily related to this effort except that the new format may support gridded bathymetry data being encoded?
The two are mostly unrelated, IHO members are supporting seabed 2030 but the new data formats coming at the same time is more of a coincidence than anything else
Although S-101 is the updated ENC standard for S-100 the new S-102 standard will enable the visualisation of processed bathymetric data by mariners, biggest benefits will be more granular no-go areas
Although S-101 is the updated ENC standard for S-100 the new S-102 standard will enable the visualisation of processed bathymetric data by mariners, biggest benefits will be more granular no-go areas
How strong are the sonars used by those ships? Do they hurt / kill fish and other sea creatures? I read that they made whales deaf.
Obviously military does not care about that.
Obviously military does not care about that.
Don't know the resolution they're working with, but they should defo prioritize the MH370 potential crash area.
It says in the article
> Seabed 2030 is a long-term mapping project attempting to fully chart the seafloor and reveal all features 100 meters or larger by 2030.
There is an area of interest, "Area 3: Indian Ocean: Ninetyeast Ridge" around 30S 87E, which specifically mentions MH370:
https://seabed2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AtlanticIn...
Though that is quite a bit (~830 km / ~1250 km from the center of the square around 30S 87E) off to the (north)west of the most recent search proposal from mh370search.com:
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/03/16/mh370-a-new-hope/
edit: Got the distance wrong. Corrected.
> Seabed 2030 is a long-term mapping project attempting to fully chart the seafloor and reveal all features 100 meters or larger by 2030.
There is an area of interest, "Area 3: Indian Ocean: Ninetyeast Ridge" around 30S 87E, which specifically mentions MH370:
https://seabed2030.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/AtlanticIn...
Though that is quite a bit (~830 km / ~1250 km from the center of the square around 30S 87E) off to the (north)west of the most recent search proposal from mh370search.com:
https://www.mh370search.com/2024/03/16/mh370-a-new-hope/
edit: Got the distance wrong. Corrected.
Why?
queue Red October quotes :)
How quickly we forget the ties between mapping and exploitation. The British Empire didn't map the world to preserve it, nor will these maps be used to protect the seafloor. This is about demarcation ahead of future development and resource extraction. Sure, some interesting areas will be saved, but thanks to these more accurate maps such areas can now be defined as narrowly as possible.
Nah. We aren't creating rutters to navigate tough waters for enforcing colonialism. Sometimes the past doesn't predict the future with much confidence.
> Since the ISA's inception in 1994, the Authority has approved over two dozen ocean floor mining exploration contracts in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans, with the majority of contracts for exploration in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone between Hawaii and Mexico, where polymetallic nodules contain copper, cobalt and other minerals used to power electric batteries. To date, the Authority has not authorized any commercial mining contracts as it deliberates over regulations amid global calls for a moratorium on deep sea mining.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Seabed_Authority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Seabed_Authority
Is there some additional context that got cut out?
I'm not sure this adds anything to the observation that there's a distinction between this and British empire colonialism.
I'm not sure this adds anything to the observation that there's a distinction between this and British empire colonialism.
What drove colonialism? It wasn't a desire to meet new and interesting cultures. It was land for development and resources for extraction.
What's driving our current exploration binge? Land for development and resources for extraction.
Regardless of intent, they share many of the same incentive structures.
That being said, I'm quite surprised by the partner list from the project website. I may be discounting conservation from my analysis.
https://seabed2030.org/our-partners/
What's driving our current exploration binge? Land for development and resources for extraction.
Regardless of intent, they share many of the same incentive structures.
That being said, I'm quite surprised by the partner list from the project website. I may be discounting conservation from my analysis.
https://seabed2030.org/our-partners/
+1 on partners. Riffing on that: my priors entering are "oh I've been reading an article in the Economist, every 2 months, for 2 years about how scaling green energy requires deep sea bed mining, and it's incredibly non-invasive because they just sit in coalesced lumps down there"
From that perspective, comparing it to subjugating human populations seems like a non-sequitur, though one I respect.
From that perspective, comparing it to subjugating human populations seems like a non-sequitur, though one I respect.
Fair point. Colonial empires have some emotional baggage that I completely glossed over...
The good news is that the impact of sea bed mining on the human population of the deep ocean appears negligible! The bad news is that the environmental impact is still quite uncertain, and the lack of resident humans could make advocacy more challenging.
From the Wikipedia article I linked about the ISA:
> The ISA is funded by UNCLOS members and mining contractors and led by Secretary-General Michael Lodge, a British barrister who oversees a 47-member administrative body and has come under criticism for close ties to the mining industry and support for deep sea robotic exploration to develop renewable energy.
Also, I feel compelled to respond to to the comment that it's "incredibly non-invasive," as I'm not sure that's how it actually works out. In theory, we can simply pluck the nodules from the seabed. In practice this requires sending a multi-ton robot vacuum cleaner down to suck up and sift through the top layer of the seafloor, pump the chunks back to the surface for processing, and spit the silt back overboard. Here's a video of how we currently mine shallow-water deposits by hand. (Deep sea nodules are a bit different, they sit on the surface, so less disruption to the seabed is required. Less isn't none though, and surface is where life concentrates.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYAw26nSzBA
In this light I'm actually quite enheartened by the partner list of the Seabed2030 project.
The good news is that the impact of sea bed mining on the human population of the deep ocean appears negligible! The bad news is that the environmental impact is still quite uncertain, and the lack of resident humans could make advocacy more challenging.
From the Wikipedia article I linked about the ISA:
> The ISA is funded by UNCLOS members and mining contractors and led by Secretary-General Michael Lodge, a British barrister who oversees a 47-member administrative body and has come under criticism for close ties to the mining industry and support for deep sea robotic exploration to develop renewable energy.
Also, I feel compelled to respond to to the comment that it's "incredibly non-invasive," as I'm not sure that's how it actually works out. In theory, we can simply pluck the nodules from the seabed. In practice this requires sending a multi-ton robot vacuum cleaner down to suck up and sift through the top layer of the seafloor, pump the chunks back to the surface for processing, and spit the silt back overboard. Here's a video of how we currently mine shallow-water deposits by hand. (Deep sea nodules are a bit different, they sit on the surface, so less disruption to the seabed is required. Less isn't none though, and surface is where life concentrates.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYAw26nSzBA
In this light I'm actually quite enheartened by the partner list of the Seabed2030 project.
We're going to be using these maps to expand deep sea mining that will certainly result in the poisoning of innocent people in remote regions of the world whn their food sources become contaminated from whatever we dredge up.
It's colonialism and exploitation of a different kind.
I'm not expecting you to single handedly put a stop to it or anything but it's not unreasonable to expect that you can recognize and acknowledge it instead of pretending it doesn't exist and saying that those sort of things only happened a long time ago.
It's colonialism and exploitation of a different kind.
I'm not expecting you to single handedly put a stop to it or anything but it's not unreasonable to expect that you can recognize and acknowledge it instead of pretending it doesn't exist and saying that those sort of things only happened a long time ago.
So compete with eco-friendly dredging, and show them a better way?
But you know that 'eco-friendly dredging' in this context is an oxymoron on par with 'consensual rape.'
Then use caissons and hyperbaric chambers; Mine the old fashioned way. You could make a floating island to service the system; They can be quite cheap https://ventivefloathouse.com/
Without getting into whether or not this technology that you're bringing up out of no where is the panacea to all the problems with seabed mining that we're talking about, what sort of mechanisms do you propose we use to ensure that the people who mine will use these safer technologies?
"You gotta tell people... The oceans are dying, plankton's dying... it's people. Soylent Green is made out of people."
Yäss, Yäss. By employing alcalic hydrolysis and growing fungi from that sludge.
Maybe with some fried bugs & worms added. Soylent Green Sesame?
As long as they figure out the prion safety issue, "going home" and then being turned into food doesn't sound like such a bad system really.
Maps exist to define ownership. Everything else is tertiary to that. Lewis and Clarke weren't "blazing a trail" for the pioneers. They were measuring the land that the US government had just purchased.
These are charts, they exist mainly to aid in navigation with secondary benefits to exploration for resource extraction.
Besides, maps are very much about taxation, balistics, and administration. Much more than just ownership.
Besides, maps are very much about taxation, balistics, and administration. Much more than just ownership.
> Maps exist to define ownership
...you've never used a map in a different way? When we draw maps of the galaxy, are we imminently planning on dividing it up?
...you've never used a map in a different way? When we draw maps of the galaxy, are we imminently planning on dividing it up?
>you've never used a map in a different way?
Sure. But the USGS doesn't publish precise up to date topological maps of every square inch of the United States for the purpose of guiding backpackers with compasses. They do it to divide up political boundaries, delimit resource rights, and guide commercial activity. This goes for just about any other large scale mapping effort (on earth).
Sure. But the USGS doesn't publish precise up to date topological maps of every square inch of the United States for the purpose of guiding backpackers with compasses. They do it to divide up political boundaries, delimit resource rights, and guide commercial activity. This goes for just about any other large scale mapping effort (on earth).
"Exploiting" the natural resources of the oceans, if allowed, will be a huge benefit to humanity.
Just like we've benefitted enormously from "exploiting" land resources.
Just like we've benefitted enormously from "exploiting" land resources.
But for steel, gold, silver, salt, gems, fuel, fertilizers, uranium, lithium, semiconductors, stone, cement, bricks, plastics, aluminum, glass, and chalk for schools, what did exploitation of land mineral resources ever give to us?
> what did exploitation of land mineral resources ever give to us
the entirety of modern society, good and bad... the computer or phone you're typing this with, your job, etc
the entirety of modern society, good and bad... the computer or phone you're typing this with, your job, etc
They're making a joke, referring to a skit by Monty Python.
I see, that explains why it wasn't funny
If you mean, "I didn't get the joke because I'm not familiar with the cultural reference", fair enough. If you mean, "it's Monty python, therefore not funny", you must be fun at parties. Now go away before I taunt you a second time.
[deleted]
well, the Bronze Age, for one
And regular conductors …
And regular conductors …
The aqueduct?
what makes you so certain we can coordinate our resources and act in unprofitable ways to ensure long-term survival?
genuine question
Certainty is hard, but we've done pretty well with it on land, so I think leaving the 3x larger mineral resources untapped would be madness.
Not saying things will be perfect, of course. They never are.
Not saying things will be perfect, of course. They never are.
FWIW, that land allocation came through a lot of blood allocation. Of course, wars are fought very differently these days but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the "transitionary period"
Fortunately the merpeople are already extinct; no genocide necessary this time.
More seriously, I'd expect greater resource availability to result in fewer wars over it. That's pretty consistent with human history.
More seriously, I'd expect greater resource availability to result in fewer wars over it. That's pretty consistent with human history.
We fought many wars over lands that no one occupied. In fact, we've fought many wars over maritime territories before too. Wars are far from exclusively fought via inhabiting force and invading force. How do you think those boundaries were developed in the first place? People don't grow out of the ground and we all originated from Africa. In fact, not even the whole of Africa!
Did we really do so well on land? We are already looking at overtaxing our planet's carrying capability. 21st century will be pretty rough as the developing countries' lifestyle will catch up and they won't accept the richer countries telling them to be more sustainable unless the latter become so as well. Unfortunately, our level of consumption and environmental destruction is already unsustainable.
Did we really do so well on land?
We grew from 50 million hunter gatherers to 8000 millions mostly living longer better lives, and have access to Hacker News.
So for me that's a very strong Yes.
We grew from 50 million hunter gatherers to 8000 millions mostly living longer better lives, and have access to Hacker News.
So for me that's a very strong Yes.
I am not asking you if human progress is speeding along and accelerating. That's an obvious yes.
I am asking you: are we speeding into a brick wall? If so, can we steer the car? Who steers the car? Does ANYONE steer the car? Or do market forces just decide where we go.
How do we ant colony our way out of this bitch before we all die?
How do we ant colony our way out of this bitch before we all die?
Nobody has steered humanity's car so far, and it's gone well.
I'll give you my favorite answer. You probably won't like it.
For reasons I don't claim to know, humanity always expect the world to end. It's in all the religions. Christians has expected the Last Judgment any day now for 2000 years.
In this century we don't express that urge in religious term. It manifests in worries that pollution or overpopulation or nuclear war will bring the end of times. I've seen enough of these predictions over the last 50 years to stop worrying too much about the new ones that keep popping up.
Of course non of this proves we won't speed into one of these brick walls. None of us knows the future, and that's certainly a possible one.
I'll give you my favorite answer. You probably won't like it.
For reasons I don't claim to know, humanity always expect the world to end. It's in all the religions. Christians has expected the Last Judgment any day now for 2000 years.
In this century we don't express that urge in religious term. It manifests in worries that pollution or overpopulation or nuclear war will bring the end of times. I've seen enough of these predictions over the last 50 years to stop worrying too much about the new ones that keep popping up.
Of course non of this proves we won't speed into one of these brick walls. None of us knows the future, and that's certainly a possible one.
It worked so far because our desire to grow never before threatened to exceed the carrying capacity of the whole planet. Growth is not stopped by people, but by environmental boundaries. So far the cost of failure was never the near-extinction of humanity. When civilizations exceed the carrying capacity of their environment, the results aren't pretty.
Civilizational collapse is real. It has happened many times to flourishing cultures and might happen again. Most cultures never recover*. The difference is that previously there was always another culture that was not pulled into the abyss as well and could pick up the leftovers.
Civilizational collapse is real. It has happened many times to flourishing cultures and might happen again. Most cultures never recover*. The difference is that previously there was always another culture that was not pulled into the abyss as well and could pick up the leftovers.
As I indicated above, this seems to be an unsustainable state of affairs and an example of the mentality of kicking the can down the road. Let's hope we can continue living longer and better lives.
The US government actually has an ongoing push right now to claim parts of the Arctic Ocean, for mining purposes, on the basis of bathymetric data.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-22/us-claims... ("US Claims Huge Chunk of Seabed Amid Strategic Push for Resources", https://archive.is/9Uyg4 )
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/us-extended-continental-s... ("U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Data")
- "The mission of the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) Project is to establish the full extent of the U.S. continental shelf, consistent with international law. "
- "Data collected for the project include bathymetric, subbottom, gravity, magnetic, seismic , and geologic sample data from the U.S. coastal waters to the deep ocean. U.S. ECS project data are in the public domain."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-12-22/us-claims... ("US Claims Huge Chunk of Seabed Amid Strategic Push for Resources", https://archive.is/9Uyg4 )
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/us-extended-continental-s... ("U.S. Extended Continental Shelf Data")
- "The mission of the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) Project is to establish the full extent of the U.S. continental shelf, consistent with international law. "
- "Data collected for the project include bathymetric, subbottom, gravity, magnetic, seismic , and geologic sample data from the U.S. coastal waters to the deep ocean. U.S. ECS project data are in the public domain."
> The US government actually has an ongoing push right now to claim parts of the Arctic Ocean as territorial waters.
No, it doesn't. (Beyond that part of the Arctic Ocean already generally recognized as US territorial waters.)
“Continental shelf” is not “territorial waters”, it is a whole different legal category. The project to identify the extent of what qualifies under international law as continental shelf beyond the 200nm presumed limit is not about extending territorial waters.
No, it doesn't. (Beyond that part of the Arctic Ocean already generally recognized as US territorial waters.)
“Continental shelf” is not “territorial waters”, it is a whole different legal category. The project to identify the extent of what qualifies under international law as continental shelf beyond the 200nm presumed limit is not about extending territorial waters.
Alright, I've edited out "territorial waters" from my comment.
The correct term for the legal category which they are trying to determine the extent of is “continental shelf”, hence the name of the project (under international law this is legal category is determined by the greater of 200nm or the natural extent of the physical continental shelf.)
If I'm understanding the history correctly, the British Empire eventually actively fought to end the slave trade because they realized there was something even more profitable than colonialism and extraction: trade.
Chasing profits didn't cause slavery to end, it was the abolitionists who were standing up for human rights. Historically massive social change doesn't come from the top down like you are describing. It would be akin to saying LBJ was a civil rights hero for his legislation. Sure, he signed it, but the civil rights movement of 60s is why it was possible in the first place. Hardly can one deserve credit for playing a forced hand.
Totally agree. We need to know where we can establish kelp farms.
By that argument, anyone who drinks a gin and tonic today must be trying to protect themselves from malaria.
It's worked for me so far.
My house has a threshold to hold the thresh in the room I do all my threshing.
I do my threshing where I do my winnowing.
Are those resources more valuable just sitting at the bottom of a deep sea?
The Statue of Liberty is just sitting there too - it would be far more valuable recycling all that copper and putting it to use. Could there perhaps be another reason we haven't melted it down yet?
> The Statue of Liberty is just sitting there too - it would be far more valuable recycling all that copper and putting it to use.
The US makes a several orders of magnitude more money from the Statue of Liberty where it is than they would get from its scrap value.
https://www.nps.gov/stli/planyourvisit/fees.htm
The US makes a several orders of magnitude more money from the Statue of Liberty where it is than they would get from its scrap value.
https://www.nps.gov/stli/planyourvisit/fees.htm
The same math could probably be done for sustainable stewardship of our oceans, just with more steps.
> same math could probably be done for sustainable stewardship of our oceans, just with more steps
Could it? We can measure the cash flow the Statue of Liberty produces relative to its commodity value. A pristine deep sea certainly has value. But it's difficult to argue that every square inch of it is more valuable than the commodities on and below it. Particularly when you start trading off extraction there against terrestrial mining.
Could it? We can measure the cash flow the Statue of Liberty produces relative to its commodity value. A pristine deep sea certainly has value. But it's difficult to argue that every square inch of it is more valuable than the commodities on and below it. Particularly when you start trading off extraction there against terrestrial mining.
How fish were fished from place X 40 years ago.
How much now.
Make the difference.
Make the difference.
Seems highly unlikely, tourism economic value must exceed the scrap value of the copper...
"Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
It's remarkable how people forget how we all got here.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
It's remarkable how people forget how we all got here.
Don't forget about the people who were already here, too
>> another reason we haven't melted it down yet?
Because it was gift. It was supported in the US locally by donations, but it was conceived and built in France as a gift to a younger nation.
Because it was gift. It was supported in the US locally by donations, but it was conceived and built in France as a gift to a younger nation.
My first reaction is: No
But if you rephrase it as "Are those resources more valuable just sitting at the bottom of a deep sea instead of mixing them into our bodies and environment?" my reaction is now: Yes
But if you rephrase it as "Are those resources more valuable just sitting at the bottom of a deep sea instead of mixing them into our bodies and environment?" my reaction is now: Yes
But then, also: "And what if the (human) environment is damaged / contaminated less by deep undersea extraction vs land-based mines"?
and also:
"What if an abundance of these materials enables vastly cheaper energy storage batteries, making solar / wind energy overnight storage practical, reducing our reliance on cheap fossil fuel energy generation"?
To be clear, I'm not sure if either of those hypotheticals are true, but I have a feeling, as with many things in life is "It's complicated".
Being good stewards of our resources with careful management / regulation is the answer, rather than unfettered exploitation or outright bans.
To be clear, I'm not sure if either of those hypotheticals are true, but I have a feeling, as with many things in life is "It's complicated".
Being good stewards of our resources with careful management / regulation is the answer, rather than unfettered exploitation or outright bans.
Those bottom are brittle ecosystem that thrive in silence and total darkness.
It would be nice to document and observe first, rather than barging in to get the riches as fast as possible once again. ( riche in that point being « nodules » it’s a fun resource ! )
It would be nice to document and observe first, rather than barging in to get the riches as fast as possible once again. ( riche in that point being « nodules » it’s a fun resource ! )
Extracting these resources means destroying the ecosystems that live on top of them.
So, yes, they are better left to their own devices.
So, yes, they are better left to their own devices.
Hopefully it doesn't experience too much interference from the usual suspects, like with the requirements that GPS maps be offset from reality. Given the large extraterritorial sea claims pushed by the same, it could interfere with a large geographic area.