[HN Gopher] New seafloor map only 25% done, with 6 years to go
___________________________________________________________________
New seafloor map only 25% done, with 6 years to go
Author : Brajeshwar
Score : 161 points
Date : 2024-04-03 13:57 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (eos.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (eos.org)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Project: https://seabed2030.org/
|
| Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38231626 ("HN: Why
| Is It So Difficult to Map the Ocean?")
| araes wrote:
| 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.
| tbihl wrote:
| It's crazy to read this, for the same reason that maps used to be
| military secrets; accurate bathymetric data is a huge deal for
| modern battlespace preparation. And it'll probably be impactful
| in all sorts of exciting ways just like Google Earth was when it
| released.
|
| 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.
| medellin wrote:
| 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.
| ysofunny wrote:
| 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
| rdlw wrote:
| 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.
| bragr wrote:
| Specifically look along the border with other countries
| where the offset is obvious.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restrictions_on_geographic_da
| t...
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > 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.
| mikece wrote:
| 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.
| marsRoverDev wrote:
| I would put good money on the US Navy already having a map that
| is superior to this.
| mikece wrote:
| 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.
| reaperman wrote:
| 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)
| crote wrote:
| 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.
| vundercind wrote:
| 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.
| mikece wrote:
| 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.
| swarnie wrote:
| You paid for it, why not?
| maxglute wrote:
| 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?
| maxwell wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining
| jjk166 wrote:
| 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.
| ecommerceguy wrote:
| Google Earth, Formerly Keyhole EarthViewer, funded in large
| part by the CIA.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cias-earthviewer-was-the...
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Keyhole being a very old reference to the shape drawn on the
| earth by geostationary sat orbits.
| adolph wrote:
| 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...
| sandworm101 wrote:
| https://ar.inspiredpencil.com/pictures-2023/geosynchronou
| s-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.
| maxglute wrote:
| 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.
| TypicalHog wrote:
| Don't know the resolution they're working with, but they should
| defo prioritize the MH370 potential crash area.
| xandrius wrote:
| Why?
| johnp_ wrote:
| 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.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| 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.
| deadbabe wrote:
| Are those resources more valuable just sitting at the bottom of
| a deep sea?
| crote wrote:
| 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?
| Retric wrote:
| > 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
| BobaFloutist wrote:
| The same math could probably be done for sustainable
| stewardship of our oceans, just with more steps.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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.
| dopidopHN wrote:
| How fish were fished from place X 40 years ago. How much
| now.
|
| Make the difference.
| s0rce wrote:
| Seems highly unlikely, tourism economic value must exceed
| the scrap value of the copper...
| tacocataco wrote:
| "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.
| pimlottc wrote:
| Don't forget about the people who were already here, too
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> 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.
| sockaddr wrote:
| 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
| hex4def6 wrote:
| 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.
| pygy_ wrote:
| Extracting these resources means destroying the ecosystems
| that live on top of them.
|
| So, yes, they are better left to their own devices.
| dopidopHN wrote:
| 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
| ! )
| tomrod wrote:
| Nah. We aren't creating rutters to navigate tough waters for
| enforcing colonialism. Sometimes the past doesn't predict the
| future with much confidence.
| Teever wrote:
| 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.
| itishappy wrote:
| > 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
| refulgentis wrote:
| 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.
| itishappy wrote:
| 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/
| refulgentis wrote:
| +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.
| itishappy wrote:
| 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.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| 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.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _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?
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >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).
| jjk166 wrote:
| By that argument, anyone who drinks a gin and tonic today must
| be trying to protect themselves from malaria.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| My house has a threshold to hold the thresh in the room I do
| all my threshing.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I do my threshing where I do my winnowing.
| eschneider wrote:
| It's worked for me so far.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Totally agree. We need to know where we can establish kelp
| farms.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| "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.
| sleepingreset wrote:
| what makes you so certain we can coordinate our resources and
| act in unprofitable ways to ensure long-term survival?
| genuine question
| BurningFrog wrote:
| 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.
| godelski wrote:
| 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"
| ToValueFunfetti wrote:
| 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.
| godelski wrote:
| 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!
| samus wrote:
| 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.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| _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.
| samus wrote:
| 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.
| nine_k wrote:
| 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?
| tomoyoirl wrote:
| well, the Bronze Age, for one
|
| And regular conductors ...
| SCUSKU wrote:
| The aqueduct?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| > 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
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| They're making a joke, referring to a skit by Monty
| Python.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| I see, that explains why it wasn't funny
| albumen wrote:
| 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.
| perihelions wrote:
| 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."_
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| perihelions wrote:
| Alright, I've edited out "territorial waters" from my
| comment.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| 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.)
| acchow wrote:
| 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.
| ricardoplouis wrote:
| 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.
| luxuryballs wrote:
| If we just discovered these giant mountains then what are the
| chances we will find a new "deepest point"?
| s0rce wrote:
| 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.
| peppertree wrote:
| 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.
| tacocataco wrote:
| 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_?
| random_kris wrote:
| Well if it isn't profitable it isn't desirable by society
| enough?
| malfist wrote:
| 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.
| stuartjohnson12 wrote:
| Interesting choice of example as far as ROI calculations
| go
| gus_massa wrote:
| 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._
| wongarsu wrote:
| 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).
| kouru225 wrote:
| 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.
| snapcaster wrote:
| Do you actually truly deep down believe this? You don't
| look around and see a single valueable thing that isn't
| profitable?
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Or see highly profitable things that aren't valuable, or
| that are even highly damaging?
| BurningFrog wrote:
| 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.
| nine_k wrote:
| 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.
| knute wrote:
| 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...
| elevaet wrote:
| 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
| caycep wrote:
| queue Red October quotes :)
| fburnaby wrote:
| Does anyone here know if and how the IHO's S-100 data formats
| relate to this?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-04-03 23:00 UTC)