Slashdot Mirror


Robotic Gliders Soar Underwater

zymano writes "Yahoo has this tech news on ocean gliders that can go on journeys for hundreds of miles and last for weeks using pumps that push ballast water in and out to subtly change their buoyancy. This enables them to alternately rise and fall through the ocean as they glide forward. Oh , $60,000 if you want one." See our previous stories for more information.

208 comments

  1. Dear Santa by mikesab · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know the rest.

  2. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Maybe now we'll be able to explore the final frontier of our own planet.

    1. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uranus?

    2. Re:Finally by badman99 · · Score: 0

      I'd like to explore uranus :)

    3. Re:Finally by vladkrupin · · Score: 1

      Maybe now we'll be able to explore the final frontier of our own planet.

      Forget our planet! Explore Europa! I couldn't find many good links very easily, though I remember the discussion of such a sub that could be sent to Europa to explore its ocean. In addition to a lot of benefits, like simplicity, resistance to icing and mechanical failure of propellers, etc, such a sub has the benefit of making Europa's exploration virtually contamination-proof - you don't need the seals around propeller shafts, etc.

      A quick google search came up with this, though there are probably better sources out there.

      --

      Jobs? Which jobs?
  3. Double dupe! by wankledot · · Score: 5, Funny

    The previous post was a dupe too.

    Hot Dupe On Dupe Action!

    --
    My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
  4. Re:HOLY DUPE BATMAN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but at least micheal said it was a dupe and provided a link to the dupe where he also said *that* was a dupe and provided a link to the first article.

    I'm guessing micheal thinks this underwater glider thing is really cool, but enough, already!

  5. Imagine the possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'd bet the US military would love these things. You could easily weaponize these things! From mine sweeping to hunting down enemy subs these things would rock.

    1. Re:Imagine the possibilities by fnj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd bet the US military would love these things. You could easily weaponize these things! From mine sweeping to hunting down enemy subs these things would rock.

      I think you have to make a distinction between making into a weapon (true weaponizing), and making a detection/surveillance/tracking system.

    2. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah like it matters. We'll invade anyway.

    3. Re:Imagine the possibilities by fnj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I am getting the impression that the effect of the delayed action bomb that is Iraq blowing up in our face may stifle the impulse to invade elsewhere.

    4. Re:Imagine the possibilities by mccalli · · Score: 4, Funny
      You could easily weaponize these things!

      Yeah, and you can easily verbize things as well...

      Cheers,
      Ian

    5. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verbing weirds language.

    6. Re:Imagine the possibilities by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative
      From mine sweeping to hunting down enemy subs

      No. That is not the obvious use. The obvious use will be delivering a nuclear (or large conventional) payload in the middle of an enemy port undetected. These things can be made as stealthy as the submarines never ever got. They make no noise. They can be made to have near zero magnetic signature. If you are not in a hurry they can go half the way acrosss the pacific if needed.

      Fsck... The possible applications outright scare me. And at 60K they are only a fraction of the price of a missile. The only problem is navigating in shallow water, but this can be solved as well at around 60 more K.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    7. Re:Imagine the possibilities by skooba · · Score: 3, Informative

      the only problem with hunting down enemy subs is that the glider is too slow to keep up with a modern sub. the article points out that the current design only does 1/2 mph, and the navy's latest design goes at about 5 mph (which has to be a w.a.g. because i am sure the actual figures are way classified.)

    8. Re:Imagine the possibilities by randall_burns · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I tend to think the surveillance/tracking applications are more significant. There are already lots of way to deliver nukes. There aren't many ways to effectively guard against subs. Now, what is tricky here: these things are both their own problem and solution. It seems like guarding against these gliders might be most effectively done by the gliders themselves.


      I can imagine these things evolving into a rather effective means of monitoring ocean borders. It would simply become impossible to sneak into an appropriately guarded terroritory without detection.

    9. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All nouns can be verbed, and gerunding can noun any verb.

    10. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Ancil · · Score: 1

      1. Submarines managed to get stealthier than the oceans they were plying. That's pretty darn stealthy. Still, point taken, these things will be inherently stealthy, which is a lot cheaper.

      2. I doubt a non-nuclear payload would do enough damage to be worth the trouble. You might sink one ship, if you could keep up with it (these gliders make less than 5 knots). Seems like a lot of work for something you could accomplish with a rubber raft and someone willing to die (see Yemen/USS Cole).

      3. If you did have a nuke, I think I'd prefer it be set off underwater. Bad news for longshoremen, but taking it to the observation deck of the Sears Tower would be a lot worse.

      4. One thing it might be handy for is getting a nuke into the US. Still, I think the most likely delivery method is FedEx and lots of gamma shielding. Gliding submarines? Seems needlessly complex.

      5. But I bet drug-runners would like one of these.

    11. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it *can* be done, doesn't mean it *should* be done.

    12. Re:Imagine the possibilities by bobthemuse · · Score: 1

      The only problem with this is the time to delivery. Even the several weeks necessary to cross take the last leg (assuming it was dropped off as close as one can get to the enemy) could be unacceptible.

      If someone were to launch a bunch of them now, program them to quietly sit on the bottom near the shore, just in case there's a war.....

    13. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Aglassis · · Score: 1

      You said: "3. If you did have a nuke, I think I'd prefer it be set off underwater. Bad news for longshoremen, but taking it to the observation deck of the Sears Tower would be a lot worse."

      I'm not really sure about this. When atomic bomb tests were conducted in Operation Crossroads, the underwater test (Baker) destroyed more staged Navy ships and caused much greater radioactive contamination of those ships than did the airborne test (Able). It should be noted that the Able shot was off target by about 1000 to 2000 ft, but this probably didn't account for the greater destruction and radioactive contamination.

      I think the big concept is that in an airshot, a significant fraction of the energy is lost by being released up into the atmosphere or reflected off the ground into the atmosphere, while in an underwater shot much less energy will be lost. If the shot were to attack a city it could probably be safely assumed that the resultant tsunami would cause more damage than the weapon released in the air. Additionally the radioactive contamination would be far reaching. But of course this is no easy feat to do.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    14. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only way to be sure it can be done is to do it.

      For instance, do you know how to logically verb the word 'brigand'?

    15. Re:Imagine the possibilities by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I imagine it would just be "brigand". What I want to know is how to verb "offtopic".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Firefly1 · · Score: 1

      Attention is directed to 'The Steel Albatross' by Scott Carpenter (get it on Amazon.com)

      --
      - White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
    17. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Ancil · · Score: 1

      All excellent points, but I still think an air-shot would do more damage.

      1. Advantages of submerged detonation are outweighed by the obvious requirement to detonate below sea level. Air shots are designed to maximize the size of the horizon, as seen from the point of detonation. Keep in mind that the firestorm is caused by heat which travels in a stright line.

      2. Sure, the Baker test destoryed more ships. But ships are on water.. If a terrorist had one nuke, he'd want to take out a city, not ships.

      3. The tsunami might not even be that high. Remember, much of the water will flash to steam.

    18. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The obvious use will be delivering a nuclear (or large conventional) payload in the middle of an enemy port undetected.

      You want to deliver an object to a port undetected? Ship it. The vast majority of cargo containers are not inspected in the slightest. Way to go, Homeland Security.

    19. Re:Imagine the possibilities by Aglassis · · Score: 1

      Just a couple of minor points:

      You said: "Keep in mind that the firestorm is caused by heat which travels in a stright line.

      Actually the firestorm occurs after the heat from the blast is absorbed, not at the blast. It occurs when there is such a substantial fire ongoing in a city that hurricane force winds develop to keep the fire burning. This firestorm will, of course, be unstoppable once it has started and continue until it consumes all fuel in the area. A comparable effect is the strong winds seen over forest fires.

      You said: 3. The tsunami might not even be that high. Remember, much of the water will flash to steam.

      If the heat flux is high enough, very little heat will actually be transmitted to the water. This is because the initial steam around the blast will insulate the rest of the water from the fireball. Compare this to fully heating a pan on the oven and tossing on butter. The butter very slowly melts because of the superhot film layer insulates it. With a lower heat flux (a lower temperature of the frying pan) the butter would melt without forming this layer. The reality of this is that it might lower the energy transmitted to the water because it would let the fireball escape into the atmosphere from the water (but I'm not sure).

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
  6. Bond...James Bond by bubblewrapgrl · · Score: 1

    Does this remind anyone else of a James Bond movie?

    I can hear the advertisements now: "You too can fight the henchmen of evil geniuses with our Ocean Glider. Help fight terrorism above and below the waves!"

    1. Re:Bond...James Bond by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Maybe if there was a hot girl in a skimpy bathing suit named "Dr. Virginia Muff" or something.

  7. I wonder by mental_telepathy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What their towing capacity is? Can they run fiber out to my private island? Or, for the 20 foot ones, do rescue missions (Remember the trapped Russian Sailors in the sub?)

    1. Re:I wonder by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 1

      Since they're running on ocean currents these things are gonna have enough trouble moving themselves. They aren't going to be able to tow a cable or rescue anybody. To do that you'd need something with an internal power source.

      --
      Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
    2. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The US had the capability to save the Russian sailors on the Kursk. An article on Pravda claimed that no sailors survived the initial disaster. Later reports show letters that were written for a period of time after the inital explosision, but before the crew expired.

      It's a damn shame too. At the time that this happened, I don't think there would have been a US sub sailor who wouldn't have lent a hand. The DSRV crew would have had quite a feather in their cap. We are able to put the DSRV in the water anywhere in the world within 24 hours. We could have saved them, and we would have if we had been asked.

      http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/dsrv.htm

      Later,
      Jason from Seattle
      (ex sub sailor)

    3. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can they run fiber out to my private island?

      Oh, for a +1, Delusional mod point...

    4. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saw the History/Discovery/Science (they all run together after a while) channel documentary on it - we begged them to let us help. Arrogant Russian generals killed those men just as much as the explosions did.

      It was a tragic and unnecessary loss.

    5. Re:I wonder by dbavirt · · Score: 4, Informative

      They don't run on ocean currents. By changing their bouyancy, they provide a downward or upward force, which is translated to a forward force via the wings.

    6. Re:I wonder by SethJohnson · · Score: 1


      This post is ridiculous. The advancement here isn't a better submarine. It's using ballast to raise this submersible and then having it glide forward as it descends again. It's not something you'd use for stringing cable (surface vessels are quite capable) or rescuing people trapped underwater (existing submarines are better).
    7. Re:I wonder by Thud457 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The less real power you have, the greater the importance of saving face. (That's why dissing someone in the ghetto will get your ass shot. Or stabbebeded.)

      They couldn't rescue those men, so obviously, it couldn't be done. Can't be shown up by those Americans, you know.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    8. Re:I wonder by ckaminski · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is more than just "we don't have the capability". It's the fact that that same DSRV capability was designed to steal Russian submarine secrets from the bottom of the ocean. The fact that the Thresher accident gave the Navy a convenient cover story for building such tools was a slap in the face to the Russians. To have the U.S. use the DSRV technology that they built to steal Russian submarine secrets, but never got to use for said purpose (at least as far as I know), to actually save Russian submariners was just too much.

      We'd never let the Russians on a SS(B)N if it were reversed, either. We've (U.S.) have been talking about DSRV for 30+ years. You'd think the Russians would at least have some capability for this by now?

    9. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh really? And just where is it recorded as a 'fact', then?

      The inside of your colon doesn't count.

    10. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone who is interested in cold war submarine stories needs to read "Blind Man's Bluff." In the cold war, truth is stranger than fiction, and much more riveting.

      Hell with stealing sub secrets, we tried to get the whole damn sub. Re: Glomar Explorer.

      The book will tell you interesting stuff about tapping undersea cables.

      And officially, There are no submarines at the Baghdad airport... as far as you know.

      Later,
      Jason from Seattle

    11. Re:I wonder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a great idea! By moving the wings slightly, they could do very gradual tacks off ocean currents. Multiple (mostly) passive drive sources would drive efficiency through the roof.

  8. story in today's globe... by fishboy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    more details can be had here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM .20031123.wglid1123/BNStory/International/

    1. Re:story in today's globe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      WARNING! do not copy/paste that link into your browser! If you accidently type in "goatse.cx", it will show you a very disturbing picture!

      Thanks a lot, asshole! My boss just walked by. Now I'll probably get fired, or sent to sexual harrassment classes, or invited to play strip poker with the boss!

  9. bewm by kewsh · · Score: 0, Troll

    "The first generation of gliders look like little more than 6-foot torpedoes fitted with stubby wings that provide the lift needed to move them forward."
    OK so how long until one hits a russian sub and/or ship and starts a war?

    1. Re:bewm by fnj · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you mean "and makes a faint tap on the hull" instead of "starts a war" :-)

    2. Re:bewm by kewsh · · Score: 0, Troll

      ok and they dont produce duds? what makes you think someone wouldnt assume that the torpedo was a dud?

    3. Re:bewm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How long until this genius realizes that the cold war ended awhile ago and that we were probably better off during it?

    4. Re:bewm by fnj · · Score: 1

      Oh let's see, maybe the difference in timber between between a strike caused by a 2000 pound dud torpedo moving at 20-40+ knots, and a 100 lb glider moving at substantially less than 10 knots.

    5. Re:bewm by fnj · · Score: 1

      Oh, I think maybe a chem or bio attack or just a sniping or suicide bomb in his neighborhood, that can be pulled off for almost no expense, just miiiiight convince him. We may have bankrupted the USSR before we bankrupted ourselves, but I don't see us bankrupting the terrorists.

    6. Re:bewm by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      It's not a torpedo. There's no explosive in it.

      Heck, it hardly makes any sound, so the sonar man isn't likely to know it's there until it taps the hull.

    7. Re:bewm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Well, first of all, if the 'torpedo' has wings, then any halfway decent sonar operator should be able to tell. It looks kind of like a torpedo, but it sure doesn't have the same sonar profile.

      Second, even if they did think that it was perhaps a new kind of torpedo, why would some other country use a new kind of weapon unless they were sure that it would work? You don't want to be giving your enemy munitions technology. When the device didn't self-destruct, they would be able to tell that it wasn't a weapon.

      Third, after examining the device, it would become abundantly clear that it wasn't a weapon at all.

      Now, assuming that their sonar operator is an idiot and that it somehow destroyed itself in a way that looked like a self-destruct mechanism, they would start to wonder whre it came from. Since whoever is firing at them obviously knows where they are, they would have no problem turning on their active sonar and finding ... exactly nothing. So, either it was some kind of cruise-torpedo (which does not currently exist), or something other than a torpedo.

      So, in short, any reasonably cautious world power would very quickly realize that it wasn't a weapon. If anybody decides to declare war, then they were just looking for an excuse to declare said war.

    8. Re:bewm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rumsfeld addressed this in a recent leaked memo. It was counted as weakness of the DoD by the press. I think it ought to be counted as wisdom. In a very pragmatic way, he said we need to get our cost per attack down into the thousands of dollars per target range, instead of the millions of dollars per target we sometimes spend.

      Later,
      Jason from Seattle

  10. Why buy this by Pingular · · Score: 1

    Oh , $60,000 if you want one
    Why buy one of those, when you can get one of these these for a mere $20,000 more?

    --

    When anger rises, think of the consequences.
    Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
    1. Re:Why buy this by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, that looks good and all, but unfortunately my office gift exchange this year has a strict $60,000 spending limit.

    2. Re:Why buy this by dlosey · · Score: 1

      Well, that looks good and all, but unfortunately my office gift exchange this year has a strict $60,000 spending limit.

      I didn't think you Enron execs were doing a gift exchange this year. Should I provide the shredder confetti again this year?

    3. Re:Why buy this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up Sir Haxalot

    4. Re:Why buy this by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Because the things in the article go underwater, and are autonomous?

      Just a guess.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    5. Re:Why buy this by Dav3K · · Score: 0

      Moorage. Who can afford it these days?

    6. Re:Why buy this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please, I get enough "enlarge your penis" messages in my e-mail. I don't need them on /. too!

    7. Re:Why buy this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LICK MY BALLS YOU COCKSUCKER

  11. Re:HOLY DUPE BATMAN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Looks like those paying subscribers aren't doing very well at dupe checking.


    Wait a couple days, maybe it'll be slashbacked.

  12. Cool Idea by randall_burns · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I can imagine this basic idea might also get adapted in various ways for non-time critical transport. The hard part here seems like the embedded software/hardware--the other technology is based on stuff that has been around a while.


    I have a feeling this is one that really will take off in time.

    1. Re:Cool Idea by arhines · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is certainly the case - the UW gliders (the original ones by the way) are doing open ocean work in the labrador sea and alaska right now. One of the gliders got stuck in an eddy for several days, and went around in circles trying to fight the current rather than use the current to go out the side of the eddy and then continue south. Some new code had to be sent to the glider, which then made its way out. Writing algorithms for "figuring out how to get from point a to b without an intimate understanding of ocean current prediction" isn't particularly easy. Want to see gliders tracked in realtime? Look here.

  13. Non military uses by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about free, albeit slow, cargo delivery? Get a tug to tow containers/gliders to a 'safe' distance from the traffic surrounding a port, point the glider at its destination, set its GPS coordinates, and let it go. 3 months later, your boxes of widgets arrive at their destination, where another tug picks up the stuff at the other end.

    No fuel
    No staff
    24x7 operation
    weather independent

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Non military uses by lobsterGun · · Score: 5, Funny

      If by "widgets" you mean "cocaine", then I suspect it won't be long before your idea gets a real world try out.

    2. Re:Non military uses by Rxke · · Score: 1

      Yes... Drug barons will *love* this thing... Easy to deploy, launch it and forget it till it arrives... Much safer than sailboats etc...

    3. Re:Non military uses by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much what I was thinking. make some small submersibles, use radar "repelling" coatings, and start pointing them northwards from Columbia.. Or for sensimilla coming out of Vancouver, start sending down shipments to California.. Or more adventurous, Opium/Heroin from the far east to the west coast... But then again, it seems more cost efficient to ship a bunch of containers over.. You lose one or two to DEA/customs, the sheer cost of the goods more than makes up for it so I hear.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    4. Re:Non military uses by robslimo · · Score: 1

      Better program them to surface often to get GPS updates. The GPS signals will not penetrate the water (at least not very far).

    5. Re:Non military uses by Saeger · · Score: 1
      The GPS signals will not penetrate the water

      That's why you combine GPS with inertial guidance.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    6. Re:Non military uses by PPGMD · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Personally I highly doubt that it will work because during the Cold War the US deployed a series of Sonar nets through out the oceans to detect Soviet submarines.

      They are called the Sound Surveillance System (SOUS), word was that it could detect Soviet subs leaving their North Sea bases from the US.
      You can find more information here:
      http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/systems/sosus .htm

    7. Re:Non military uses by XenonChloride · · Score: 1
      How about [...] cargo delivery? [...]
      I rather doubt that the concept is feasible for large freight.
      No fuel
      Well, at least no diesel. But it isn't a perpetuum mobile ;-).
      In order to move the glider in sawtooth mode (up and down) you'll need energy to pump the "swimming oil" around. Wouldn't the amount of oil to be pumped and thus the energy used be proportional to the freight carried?
      What about automated sailing ships with sturdy square sail constructions like the Shin Aitoku Maru instead?
    8. Re:Non military uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Submariines are large and most of the USSR ones had known profiled hydrodynamic signatures. These things will be small and with miniscule power. Sonar is going to have a hard time fiding many of them.

    9. Re:Non military uses by skooba · · Score: 1

      i am sure that submarines make a lot more noise than these gliders. the only noise the glider makes is the noise from its ballast pumps. sosus is a passive array, so it sensitivity is limited.

    10. Re:Non military uses by PPGMD · · Score: 1

      We are talking about a SOUS array detecting a Soviet sub hundreds of miles away. Just think if we dropped one in the gulf and another one in the Pacfic (just off the coast).

    11. Re:Non military uses by Zirtix · · Score: 1

      And does it detect big fish?

    12. Re:Non military uses by PPGMD · · Score: 1
      Actually one of the uses that the Navy was toying around with (to get some more money out of the nature research lobby in congress) was to listen on whale songs, in particular the ones related to mating.

      Not sure if anything came about with it, but the Navy has was high quality stuff for detecting subs that can be extremely quiet, it's almost as if they aren't there.

    13. Re:Non military uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article and the previous article both talk about using the temperature difference between different ocean depths to provide power (future plans). That's about as close to a "perpetuum mobile" as you'll probably ever get.

    14. Re:Non military uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Researchers do listen to this stuff. Whales are very interesting but hard to study. Apparently, each whale has a unique voice, so to speak, and its sonic signature can be distinguished from that of other whales. Using these acoustical arrays, or tapes from them, some researchers have been able to find out a lot of stuff about whales. The arrays allow you to triangulate in on a particular sound. So, in principle, they can allow you to passively track individual whales.

      Radio tags can do the same thing (and much more), but not all whales are taggable. I don't think anyone has successfully tagged a sperm whale, but I do know one person who tried. The tags were attached, but apparently destroyed or removed somehow by the whales, either on purpose or by accident. In any event, the tags never made contact with any of the receiving stations.

    15. Re:Non military uses by aggieeit · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I doubt a couple of low-capacity ballast pumps could compete with the sound output of a sub's prop wash or its reactor coolant pumps. Especially if the glider designers are using positive displacement pumps instead of centrufigal pumps, it would be damned near impossible for SOSUS to pick it up.

    16. Re:Non military uses by XenonChloride · · Score: 1
      Notice that the gliders currently used, such as the ALACE and the APEX still use batteries to drive an electrical motor.
      I'm astonished that you don't recognize a joke being one yourself.

      Go fly a kite, kid! Yes, you may use the string of your greased Yoda doll.

    17. Re:Non military uses by amembleton · · Score: 1

      This is an intresting idea. However this would probably be possible at the moment by using a sailing ship fitted with a computer to control the sails to get the maximum energy from the wind and travel in the desired direction. The computer could be powered by solar cells.

      This has actually been done by a Japanese company a few years ago. I saw it on 'Tomorrow's World' (BBC TV program). They successfully transported goods across a large distance without the use of fuel. However diesel is currently cheap enough and diesel ships travel faster, so there seemed to be little intrest in the idea. I would like to know if that company still exists, but I can't find anything about them on the net.

    18. Re:Non military uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because those subs are too quiet. If something is quieter than everything around it, it won't be that difficult to realize that something is up.

    19. Re:Non military uses by Eivind · · Score: 1
      Unlikely. The forward thrust of this thing is ridicolously low, and combined with the need to go *deep*, thus nessecitating protecting most cargo from the pressure, it'll never be a hit.

      Consider the following:

      If the thing is changing it's ballast enough to move its density from say 1.1 in "gliding-downwards" mode to 0.9 in "gliding-uphill" mode, then the entire energy available for one sink-float cycle is equal to 0.2 *mass_of_vehicle*9.8*max_depth

      So, let's say you've built a device weighing 10.000 kg, and capable of witstanding pressure down to 2000 m.

      It can then use 0.2*10000*9.8*2000 J every sink-float circle. That is 39.200 KJ. One liter of diesel frees 9.3 KWh or so of energy, or about the same amount. So your ten-ton craft saves *one* liter of fuel every time it dives to 2000m and back. It has to do this very slowly, spending atleast several hours, because the only way to do it quicker is to dive steeper, and loose more of the energy to up-down drag rather than forward motion.

      But wait, it gets worse. What stops this machine from being perpetuum mobile if it gets this energy for "free" ? The answer is that the energy ain't free at all. Actually the energy is spent in expelling the ballast at 2000m. Do the math. Expelling 200 litres (from my example above) of water-ballast against a pressure of 200 atmospheres, requires ... you guessed it: *precisely* the same energy as you "gained" by doing the entire dive-swim operation in the first place.

      Brilliant.

    20. Re:Non military uses by ysachlandil · · Score: 1

      It was my understanding that this system doesn't use sonar, it just listens with very sensitive mikes. Then when you correlate the soundplots you get from multiple places, you can pinpoint the source of the sound.

      If the system is passive, it will not detect these 'gliders', since they are absolutely silent.

    21. Re:Non military uses by PPGMD · · Score: 1
      There are two different types of SONAR passive and active. Passive sonar is nothing more than a senstive mike with someone or something listening in.

      The SOUS is an array of passive sonar devices senstive enough to detect submarines from hundreds of miles away.

      Now whether or not SOUS can detect these gliders is up for debate (and classfication), but every operation underwater makes noise, and the pumps on the glider will make noise of some type.

      If the US feels that these gliders are being used to bring in drugs (if all the problems get fixed), I wouldn't be surprised if the US Navy drops one of these arrays in the Gulf simliar to the radar ballons deployed in Florida to cover the gulf.

      If the SOUS can detect Russians subs hundreds of miles away, I am sure that it can be used to detect these gliders no more than a few miles away (if they put one in the gulf).

    22. Re:Non military uses by ysachlandil · · Score: 1

      Since the gliders glide for a couple of miles on one buoyancy change, the pumps will be idle most of the time, and are allowed to be very very slow, and therefore very very quiet. The amount of water pumped in or out for the required buoyancy change is minimal, that's why they are planning to power the system using the temperature difference between the internal ballast tanks and the outside water temperature.

      It is also possible to design the pumping system without moving parts, use the power generated by the temperature difference to make hydrogen and oxygen from water (totally silent). The hydrogen and oxygen will change the buoyancy of the sub if stored in flexible bladders in the ballast tanks. Then if you need to change the buoyancy the other way, power a fuel cell from the oxygen/hydrogen mixture, and store the energy in a battery for the next buoyancy change. This whole operation is (when properly designed) totally silent. Furthermore, if you create the glider from sonar-transparent (or semi-transparent) materials, and make sure that a large part of it is ballast tanks (further helping the sonar transparancy) the thing could be almost sonar transparent. Now make it small, about as small as a fish, and no sonar in the world will see it unless they have a magic real/fake fish filter.

  14. For $60,000 you can get the opposite... by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1, Funny

    A land Rover can cost you $60,000, if loaded with extras that contribue to it's "poorest MPG of practically any vehicle" rating, which I believe makes it the polar opposite of this underwater thing. Why can't they make a land version that pumps air or something?

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:For $60,000 you can get the opposite... by Neil+Watson · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You need to understand how it works. By adjusting the vehicle's bouancy you give it velocity in the direction of up or down (water pressure for up and gravity for down). The fins or wings translate the up or down velocity partially to forward motion.

      The density of air it to small to generate enough up or down velocity for a land (air actually) to work.

    2. Re:For $60,000 you can get the opposite... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

      Maybe if we vary the air in the windbag driving it...

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    3. Re:For $60,000 you can get the opposite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, this sort of technique could be useful for very small flying robots. You see, at the scale of a micrometer or so, the microfluidic effects of air make it very similar to water at a larger scale.

    4. Re:For $60,000 you can get the opposite... by Stunning+Tard · · Score: 1

      Maybe it can be done with a blimp.

    5. Re:For $60,000 you can get the opposite... by Duckman5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You mean something like this?
      They have an entire series of cars designed. You can view them all on the site. They don't seem to be in active production yet. I don't know when that will happen, but if you're really interested, you can sign up for information here.

    6. Re:For $60,000 you can get the opposite... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just don't sneeze...

  15. Message In A Bottle by tds67 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Wouldn't this be a neat way to send a message cross-Atlantic style from New York to the coast of France?

    Not very cost effective, but an interesting variation of "message in a bottle."

    1. Re:Message In A Bottle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Not very cost effective, but an interesting variation of "message in a bottle."

      tds67 on seeing the Grand Canyon, "Nice ditch.".

    2. Re:Message In A Bottle by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 1

      Perfect! It shows just exactly how much we (on the other side of the Atlantic) value communication with the French!
      I'm all for it. Drop the phones, satellites, and let's just completely cut to these ... robots.

      --
      -- No sig for you!
    3. Re:Message In A Bottle by freeweed · · Score: 1

      an interesting variation of "message in a bottle."

      Nah, it just *seemed* like that movie lasted as long as a .5mph trip across the Atlantic would.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    4. Re:Message In A Bottle by slashnull · · Score: 1

      C:\>ping www.asus.co.jp
      Pinging www.asus.co.jp [210.59.147.149] with 32 bytes of data:


      I've sent out my undersea glider to send a message across the Pacific. Now, I've got about 6 months to remove my firewall rule that blocks apnic.

      (note: I did *not* calculate the time it would take to cross the Pacific twice at 5 mph. Likewise it would have taken too long)

    5. Re:Message In A Bottle by tds67 · · Score: 1
      tds67 on seeing the Grand Canyon, "Nice ditch.".

      Well, it is you know.

  16. They're cheap if you build them yourself. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're not all that complicated. The Columbians have been using these things to smuggle in Coke for deacades already. It used to be tough configuring all the radio equipment to track them, but with GPS it's a no brainer.

    1. Re:They're cheap if you build them yourself. by keester · · Score: 0

      Any links? Or are you trolling?

      --
      Take it easy? I'll take it anyway I can get it . . .
    2. Re:They're cheap if you build them yourself. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Duh, GPS underwater? As Foghorn Leghorn would say, it was a joke son, you missed it. They did catch some drug smugglers building a submarine once, but there are no known reports of anyone actually using a submarine of any type to smuggle drugs, let alone one of these 'gliders'.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:They're cheap if you build them yourself. by keester · · Score: 1

      It could surface every once in awhile to check it's position. Anyway, noone has actually been caught smuggling drugs this way. Just wondering.

      --
      Take it easy? I'll take it anyway I can get it . . .
  17. not so fast.... by greechneb · · Score: 3, Informative
    from the article

    Preliminary analysis of the design suggests its shape should produce speeds up to 10 times as fast as today's gliders, which fly at a pokey half-mile an hour

    That is a whopping 5 miles per hour... you won't be able to swim with many schools of fish - or keep up with that russian sub, unless you are being towed by it. It is neat, but slow.

    1. Re:not so fast.... by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      no, not so fast as far as land machines go, but 5mph! wow, thats truly amazing. And for only 60,000k that has to be a misprint. This is revolutionary, I hope this goes well

      -dw

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    2. Re:not so fast.... by bbc22405 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I also did the mental calculation to convert the "NEW, IMPROVED, 10X AS FAST!" to the rather modest speed of 5mph. (Er, that roaring top speed is about 8kph for the rest of the world.)

      But, compared to the speed of ocean currents, it makes all the difference in the world. I think the Gulf Stream is only 4mph. At 1/2 mph, your glider needs to take care to avoid being plankton. At 5 mph, care is good, but you can get headlong into a modest current if you feel the need.

    3. Re:not so fast.... by rocketsled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since the Navy has been backing it I'd say that this is autonomous sensor or worse autonomous weapon. So swimmin' with the fishies is not at the top of their priorities.

  18. Silly superstitious fishermen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    from the article:
    During the August experiments in Monterey, fishermen plucked four of the gliders from the water after the robots briefly surfaced to communicate with scientists by satellite. Three of the gilders were recovered intact; the fourth was found on shore in pieces.
    Bob: What the Hell is that, Earl?
    Earl: That's the biggest dang devil ray I ever did see!
    Bob: Well get the cudgel, they're bad luck! Damn robot devil rays...
  19. i know where to get one cheaper than 60k by theMerovingian · · Score: 5, Funny

    During the August experiments in Monterey, fishermen plucked four of the gliders from the water after the robots briefly surfaced to communicate with scientists by satellite.

    Ebay!

    --
    "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
    1. Re:i know where to get one cheaper than 60k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang, Beat me to it.

      But seriously who would pull one of these "torpedeo shaped" items out of the sea?

      Maybe if they put Al Quida markings on them or Danger signs.

      Nah, they'd lose the others too.

    2. Re:i know where to get one cheaper than 60k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for real! what did they do, put their ear up to it and listen for ticking?

  20. Mine detector, or dolphin scab labor? by RealProgrammer · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am outraged. We've got dolphins for all of this work.

    Where is the Dolphin Workers Union on this? Sitting fat in their own Jacuzzis, that's where, taking handouts from the Man.

    Their silence condemns them for the fish-bucket whores they are.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  21. other uses? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This seems measuremade for 'dumb' drones that swim (or rather fly) around in the big blue ocean and collects data, but I wonder; could this technology be used for larger, manned crafts too? One possibility is a even more stealty military submarine* - possible with a more conventional propulsionsystem in adition to the ability to fly - but more civilian applications seems possible too. Perhaps giant cargovessels** and supertankers, pulling energy out of the seawater (RTFA) and cruising under the busy sealanes?

    _*) Submarines are plenty stealty already...
    **)The cargocarreing submarine is not a new idea, the germans launced Deutchland, and later the idea has resurfaced several itmes.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    1. Re:other uses? by threephaseboy · · Score: 1
      The cargocarreing submarine is not a new idea, the germans launced Deutchland, and later the idea has resurfaced several itmes.

      Intentional or not, thats just horrible.
      --
      .
  22. Long Distance Torpedoes for Terrorists? by savaget · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if terrorist will try to adapt this to target cruise ships with explosives?

    1. Re:Long Distance Torpedoes for Terrorists? by happyfrogcow · · Score: 1

      I wonder if terrorist will try to adapt this to target cruise ships with explosives?

      I wonder if another slashtroll will try to adapt this article to political propoganda?

      Why waste the money? We've seen that they prefer to blow themselves up in the process, so they'll probably continue to just stick to human bombs.

    2. Re:Long Distance Torpedoes for Terrorists? by slashnull · · Score: 1

      I'll advise the major sea cruise companies to stop putting explosives in the cargo bays of their ships. Have they learned nothing from the RMS Lusitania?

  23. ROFL MOD PARENT FUNNY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coffee -> Monitor

  24. Finally, a cruise missile for the masses by Animats · · Score: 4, Insightful
    At last, the intercontinental torpedo. This is going to go over big with terrorists. Or small countries that need some effective deterrent against US attack.

    The next step in weaponization is a torpedo powerplant and seeker. This would be used only in the last stage, when wave motion has brought the thing to a harbor mouth, allowing a final attack run with power. The thing can be launched hundreds of miles offshore. Maybe thousands.

    It's back to submarine nets, like WWII. SOSUS isn't going to pick this up; it's just drifting sea junk most of the time.

    1. Re:Finally, a cruise missile for the masses by Crossplatform · · Score: 1

      Why make one for your selves? Just pick up a US 'homing pigeon' and send it home packing.

      --
      Sex is what happens when people think no one else will ever find out
    2. Re:Finally, a cruise missile for the masses by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

      If they had an AI onboard, I can imagine what these little fishies would be thinking...

      Ooooooo, look at all this water. What am I doing here?

      Hmm, I have this strange urge to travel...I wonder why....

      Ooo, I know, there must be more fishes like me where I'm going... (Checks WWW for information on migratory species...) That's it! I must be migrating. There must be other fishes like me there.

      swim swim swim...

      Three months later....

      swim swim..

      Hmmm, this is where I'm supposed to be... Now how do I find other fishes like me? I know.. I'll go find something that smells like me. (What do I smell like? I smell like METAL!!!)

      That's it, I'll go find something that smells like metal, and give it a kiss!

      POWERED MODE ON..

      SWIM SWIM SWIM

      KISS

      BOOOM!

  25. Tripe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dupe of a dupe, right?

  26. Re:Non military uses-not free by randall_burns · · Score: 1

    Very low cost maybe, but not free. The equipment might last 10-15 years. In mass production, you can probably get costs way down. This is really the time of thing that belongs in the category of "global infrastructure". If enough folks started using these, they'd become highly practical.

  27. Uses big huge baking soda pellets.... by bodland · · Score: 3, Funny

    Fills up with bubbles then sinks....fills up with bubbles then sinks... I ordered one of those subs from Haunted Tank comic book... "Negative Jeb..."

    1. Re:Uses big huge baking soda pellets.... by lcsjk · · Score: 2, Funny

      The baking soda technology is certainly not new. I ordered mine from a cereal box coupon some 50 years ago. Gray plastic, and worked like a charm. Unlike the ones in the article, it would have lasted more than 50 years except for that old dog that liked to chew on toys.

  28. time to by myself a sonar by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

    and a fishingboat.
    Hey, lett me know when you start flooding the ocean with them. I can always use a new laptop or cellphone.
    And the **AA thought kazaa-users were pirats.
    Imagine the outcry if their cd's are gone as well.

  29. Power from the water? by jbayes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So I want to know how they manage to "sip" power from the warmth of the water. Last I checked, things didn't work like that.

    --

    "It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape." -- Wil Wheaton

    1. Re:Power from the water? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 3, Informative

      So last time you checked, thermal energy didn't work? Odd, I'm pretty sure I didn't turn that off...

      Seriously, I can see two ways of doing this: Either you find some way of bringing the heat from the upper layers down to the colder ones and tap part of the energy as it radiates, or you bring up somethign cold from the deapth and tap part of the energy as it is warmed up. One system I saw described in a popular science magasine a few years back involded phasechanging wax from solid to liquid and back again.

      Basicly, to 'sip' power from seawater is not significanlty different than making electricity with geothermal energy - it's just a bit harder to pack all the bits into a tiny topedoshaped hull.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    2. Re:Power from the water? by timeOday · · Score: 3, Informative

      The thing works on gaining and losing elevation, so if there's a temperature gradient at different depths, well there you go. Or maybe they're talking about the hot springs where steam comes up through fissures? I don't know. But there's certainly some energy there, enough to support life in fact.

    3. Re:Power from the water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      1)surface water is warm
      2)deep water is cold
      3)these things go up and down
      4)apply thermodynamics.

    4. Re:Power from the water? by jbayes · · Score: 1

      Okay, when you put it that way, I guess it could work.

      I still don't see any sipping involved, though. Does it slurp also?

      --

      "It sure was strange to see something on Usenet about me that didn't involve Klingon gang rape." -- Wil Wheaton

    5. Re:Power from the water? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      I assume 'sip' is journalistspeak for 'thermal energy transfer'...

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    6. Re:Power from the water? by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      also the lower you go the higher the pressure...you could potentially use pressure differences to help store power as well.

      if done right you might be able to design a sub that is purely mechanical, without any batteries, that works by winding a spring or something through moving up and down through pressure differences at different depths

    7. Re:Power from the water? by carambola5 · · Score: 1
      so if there's a temperature gradient at different depths


      Check it out: http://lter.limnology.wisc.edu/slrecent.htm

      That's for a Wisconsin Lake. As you can see, during the warm to semi-warm months, there is a definite drop in temperature between 10 and 15 meters in depth. And this is for a temperate lake... imagine the gradients in a tropical/sub-tropical ocean.

      So the question is not if there's a temperature gradient, it's how big is the temperature gradient. And going by this data, 10 degC is plenty for these suckers.

      Disclaimer: I didn't design the site. Though I did consider building one of these gliders once. And for much less than $60k. The overall cost for a hacked-together glider is around $200. Though the knowledge to do it efficiently could cost you nearly $60k in college tuition.
      --
      IWARS.
      People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
    8. Re:Power from the water? by cazzazullu · · Score: 1

      You fill it up with warm water when it is near the surface, then you descent. Very deep under water the temperature is at a constant of 4 degrees Celsius (then water has the greatest density). You schield the warm from the cold water with semiconducting plating that can generate electricity when a thermal gradient is applied. This is called the Seebeck-effect (google for more info). You use this energy to charge a battery. With this power you compress or decompress a certain volume of air, so that the total density of the sub switches between a bit below 1 and a bit above. By placing your airtanks asymmetrically you can make it nosedive or noselift. The wings do the rest.

      --
      int main(void) {while(1) fork(); return 0;}
  30. Wow, someone read the article by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    The gliders are as efficient as they are stealthy, which has drawn the interest and backing of the U.S. Navy (news - web sites). Potential military applications include mine detection, surveillance and patrol, Navy officials said.

    Half the story is about military applications and development.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  31. Similar to another article by Saeger · · Score: 0
    That (AP) article starts with the sentence:

    A century after the Wright Brothers first took to the skies, the world of flight is pushing to new depths.

    I noticed another popular (Reuters) article on Yahoo - Technology Removes Need for Human Pilots - released on the same day, which began similarly:

    The Wright Brothers demonstrated that man could fly. A century later, we're looking at a future in which planes fly without humans.

    Where is written that one must mention the Wright Brothers as a historical leadin to any story about advancing aircraft technology? That's damn annoying.

    --

    --
    Power to the Peaceful
    1. Re:Similar to another article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you see? Reuters, AP and Al-CIA-da are all in it together man. Just look at Turkey. Al-CIA-da warned them, the attack happened and AP and Reuters profited.

    2. Re:Similar to another article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think you're on to something, man! The conspiracy is so clear!

      Why didn't I see it before?!

      so stupid. stupid. stupid. stupid!

    3. Re:Similar to another article by lcsjk · · Score: 1
      I think they got a PATENT on some EULA protected by the DMCA which was later set to music. In order to avoid lawsuits from the RIAA, any mention of aircraft technology must be accompanied by a reference to the Wright borthers.

      If you want to know more just ask.

    4. Re:Similar to another article by Chris+Y+Taylor · · Score: 1

      It's probably because this year is the centenial of flight.

    5. Re:Similar to another article by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Maybe because it's about 23 days away (December 17)?

    6. Re:Similar to another article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nah, that can't be it...it must be some sort of conspiracy...

    7. Re:Similar to another article by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      There was flight before the Wright Brothers, this year is the centennial of successful human flight...

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    8. Re:Similar to another article by kirinyaga · · Score: 1

      there was successful human flights before Wright Brothers. They weren't the first to fly, they invented the modern wing. Previous, successful but not efficient, planes used bat-like wings. The first heavier-than-air machine to fly with human onboard was l'Eole, made by clement ader in 1890 : http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/ader.html

      --
      Kirinyaga
  32. Advantages over normal glider by grims · · Score: 1

    So this glider functions exactly as a normal
    glider - make use of up and down moving air
    currents to gain altitude-and maybe also speed.
    The question I had is that, are water currents
    more predictable than air currents? (Maybe due
    to their viscosity?) This could really help in
    transporting goods from one region to other if
    predictable under-water currents could be used.

    Come to think of it - these would be of no use
    Land-locked countries !

    1. Re:Advantages over normal glider by lcsjk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pump the water to the front and it glides downhill in that direction, just like an air glider, while you use the rudder to set the direction. When you are deep enough, pump out the water and the front rises, letting you glide uphill in the direction you wish to go. It's just simple physics and simple aerodynamics. You are trying to make it too hard. You use the force of gravity to sink. (Does that mean you use the force of anti-gravity to rise?)

    2. Re:Advantages over normal glider by squidfood · · Score: 1
      The question I had is that, are water currents more predictable than air currents?

      High-altitude balloonists/weather scientists know how to use the jetstream. Major water currents are similar though slower, but there are many unpredictable eddies on scales of 200+ km. So adaptive steering/bouyancy control is needed.

      Come to think of it - these would be of no use Land-locked countries !

      Tell it to the Swiss Navy.

    3. Re:Advantages over normal glider by eatdave13 · · Score: 1

      Pointing the nose up and down would do nothing. It's the change in density that propels this.

      --
      "Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
    4. Re:Advantages over normal glider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you understand that pumping water in and out changes the density. However density does not propel anything. Propelling is accomplished as the sub pushes against the water as it tries to go down and up. If it stayed level it would need a motor. Sinking at an angle is the same as dropping a sheet of paper at an angle. It does not go straight down, but goes toward the low side. Rising at an angle can be demonstrated by releasing a board underwater. It moves toward the uppermost end. There are two force vectors. One vertical and one horizontal. Works every time. Straight physics. Try it.

  33. Um... by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Radar dosn't work underwater.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Um... by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Yeah yeah, rush post. I meant "sonar".

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    2. Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it does work on the surface, and these things do have to surface every so-often, afterall.

      If they wanted to get real clever, they could use high energy radiation like X-RAY... Maybe.

  34. Re:Sierra Club? Greenpeace? by Dav3K · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On what basis? This thing is cleaner than any boat they could use to monitor these creatures, does not use military-grade sonar and is not the size of an aircraft carrier. In short, this is the ideal research vessel for these groups.

    Why go to court over a tool that can potentially be used to quantify the ecological damage we are doing to the depths? I would think that Sierra and Greenpeace are very excited about the new monitoring potential of this device.

  35. Midwater research could really use this? by ianscot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The biggest habitat on earth is the ocean's "mid water," below where light can penetrate and above the abyssal depths. When biologists go down for a look there, they're trying to observe from a blind that's totally conspicuous, noisy, and thrashing around a ton. Even the latest scientific robot submersibles are pretty noisy hydraulic monstrosities -- the Monterey Bay Acquatic Research Institute's being decent examples.

    Still, even in Monterey Bay, MBARI has seen all kinds of new siphonophores (look halfway down) and so on -- really amazing animals that may be the biggest group of predators on earth, but that we know next to nothing about.

    A low-speed, quiet, long-term observation platform would be made to order for, to use that example, siphonophores: they're slow-moving, they hunt by drifting along extending toxic tentacles, but they're often disturbed by the existing robot subs. Or set this thing to watching a whale carcass as it floats around: scientists have a lot of ideas about the roles dead whales may play, but no way of really observing them long-term.

    The lack of speed isn't going to let you follow something like squid around; teuthids have a much better water jet system that'll let them outrun and outmaneuver almost anything we've got. But this'd give us a nice, quiet observation platform for most of the stuff that lives midwater and drifts -- which seems to be a huge share of the life on earth, and almost unexplored by science.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Midwater research could really use this? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Chemeolithotropes represent 99% of all life on the planet in number and ~50% estimated in biomass. Marine biologists never fail to bring up their own diversity numbers while forgetting what lays even below the ocean, 10's of KM of habitable crust.

    2. Re:Midwater research could really use this? by mwigmani · · Score: 1

      I'm curious about the link in your post. What happens to these creatures when they're photographed at that depth? The flash strobe would have to be incredibly bright to get the colors those photographs show and I imagine that a creature that needs to see at 5,000 ft below sea level would be rather sensitive to light. Are they temporarily blinded? Shocked into a catatonic state? Or do they not care?

    3. Re:Midwater research could really use this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's kind of hard to get excited about bacteria.

    4. Re:Midwater research could really use this? by Zeriel · · Score: 1

      Actually, why would a creature that lives in perpetual dark and has no bioluminescence of its own have any need for any light sensors at all? I imagine they'd notice it about as much as you'd notice an x-ray--not in your usual bandwidth, you don't percieve it, no problems. =)

      --
      "America has done some terrible things. But I know that Americans don't cheer when innocents die." -Dave Barry
    5. Re:Midwater research could really use this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our new Chemeolithotropic overlords!

  36. Hunter and Prey by handy_vandal · · Score: 2, Funny

    The obvious use will be delivering a nuclear (or large conventional) payload in the middle of an enemy port undetected.

    That's the obvious obvious use.

    The subtle obvious use: disguise this thing underwater bomb a manta ray, so it can turn Aquaman into shark fodder. Finally, a chance to prove what a second-rate superhero that guy really is!

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Hunter and Prey by bar-agent · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aqua-man has become quite the hard-ass. He cut off his own hand and grafted on a harpoon instead. He no longer takes shit from anyone. He now acts like what he is, the king of 73% of the Earth's surface. He's got armies, sea monsters, and a chip on his shoulder.

      Kind of like Namor without the pretensions, and with a beard.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  37. Has been done by wombatmobile · · Score: 1

    It works for the large manned craft, Earth.

  38. Actually, by lommer · · Score: 1

    They don't "pump" air per se, nor are they actually used for much of anything other than sport and recreation, but there are sail-cars. You sometimes see them having races on beaches or salt flats. They're basically only practical in flat, wide open spaces with lots of wind.

  39. Drug Running! by simetra · · Score: 1

    Yet another innovation to benefit the Drug Running industry. Bravo!

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
  40. Yes I can by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    If I am Al Qaeda, it it a nice way to get a Nuke, Chemical, or Biological bomb into DC, New York, Miami, LA, San Diego, Houston etc.

    It is also a nice way to bring in literally tons of Coke into the USA.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  41. Customizing for Imports vs. risk by billstewart · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Yup. They're probably pretty customizable - the articles tend to price them as $50-75K for non-mass-produced, and you could probably add an extra 20 kilos of cargo capacity without overly trashing the battery life. I'm not sure the current wholesale prices for cocaine, but if it's $10/gram for delivered to the US (as opposed to $1/gram in Colombia), you could about pay for the sub on its first trip, and definitely PROFIT on the later trips.

    On the other hand, during the 80s disco years, the profit on importing coke was in the $1-10M per Cessna-load range, so you could afford to lose half your shipments, and there were plenty of pilots willing to risk a few years in jail for a share of the profits if they win. The profit margin's probably not still 90%, but that's mostly because it's so easy for the importers; even at 50% you can lose almost half your shipments, so as long as you've got enough capital to risk losing a couple of containerloads before one gets through, your real problem becomes making reliable connections with distributors and not getting ripped off on delivery.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  42. OMFG I thought he article title was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I though the title was "Robotic Gliders Soil Underwear". I kid you not.

  43. explained on the website by AlienBrain · · Score: 1

    It's all explained here:
    http://www.webbresearch.com/slocum.htm
    It's a "heat engine which draws energy from the ocean thermocline". These engines were discussed a lot in the previous /. story.

    J

  44. i want one *drools* by XdarkstarX · · Score: 0

    that is awesomeness. i so want one.

    --
    =^_^= P|-|33R |\/|3
    1. Re:i want one *drools* by 00RUSS · · Score: 1

      your mom wants one

      --
      +-+-+-The folowing statement is true. The previous statement is false.-+-+-+
  45. i love simplicity by mantera · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I like this machine. It's amazing how the most beautiful solutions are often the simplest.

    It also reminds me of this...

    " It sometimes seems as if our planet has no secrets left - but deep beneath the great Antarctic ice sheet scientists have made an astonishing discovery. They've found one of the largest lakes in the world. It's very existence defies belief. Scientists are desperate to get into the lake because its extreme environment may be home to unique flora and fauna, never seen before, and NASA are excited by what it could teach us about extraterrestrial life. But 4 kilometres of ice stand between the lake and the surface, and breaking this seal without contaminating the most pristine body of water on the planet is possibly one of the greatest challenges science faces in the 21st century. transcript here

    The difference in mindset between the Soviet solution and the NASA solution was really interesting.

  46. these would make lousy weapons by sbma44 · · Score: 4, Informative
    Yes, Hunt For Red October has taught us all that you've got to be vewy vewy quiet when you're on a sub, lest your noise be picked up by the other guy's passive sonar and used to find your position.

    But that's for sub-to-sub situations, when both guys want to hide their location. If instead of a submarine you're manning, say, Miami, then your best efforts to hide your location are probably still going to fall short. So you can use active sonar to find these things. And then blow them up with torpedoes or depth charges.

    Which shouldn't be too hard, given that the ferrari of the class moves at 5 mph. And there's not even any guarantee that these things can work in shallow water. Who even knows what "shallow" is in this case? I wouldn't be surprised if their effectiveness is crippled as soon as they run into a continental shelf -- keeping them quite a good ways off-shore. It seems logical to assume that their efficiency drops off the more up-and-down cycles they have to employ, and the smaller the surface/seabed pressure differential is.

    Finally, delivering nukes by sea is not a good way to get the most value from your military-industrial dollar. My understanding is that for maximum wrath-of-god effect, you'd want to blow a nuclear weapon up in the atmosphere over your target -- hence MIRV's horrible destructiveness. Ground level is not where you want to detonate. And certainly not at sub-ground level, in the middle of a gigantic heat-and-radiation absorber.

    Admittedly, you are not going to save your city by keeping that nuke covered with 10 feet of water. But it's just one more strike against this as a weapon-delivery system. (Bonus Simpsons paraphrase: "Three month ocean voyage? But I'm mad now!"). A good-old fashioned cargo container would be easier to obtain, easier to retrieve, and only somewhat easier for the feds to detect.

    1. Re:these would make lousy weapons by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Aww man... you ruined all my fun. I was so excited to get scared and alarmist, but NOOO, you had to go and be calm and logical. WTF kind of Slashdotter are you?? ;)

    2. Re:these would make lousy weapons by Zordak · · Score: 1

      You're right that air blast is the most effective delivery. Even "hard target" kills don't necessarily detonate in the ground. In almost every case, if an RV hits the ground, it's because something went wrong. Impact fuzing is usually a last-ditch effort to get some value out of an RV that failed to fuze correctly. However, the power of MIRVs is not that they detonate in the air (a single RV can do that). It's that several of them detonate in the air in quick succession, which means it sucks to be you if you're anywhere nearby. The real testament to their effectiveness is the fact that they are now banned by treaty, and our Peacekeepers, which carry 10 RVs each, are to be dismantled by 2006.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    3. Re:these would make lousy weapons by arivanov · · Score: 1

      That is not entirely correct. Well if it was the coordinates for all russian 100MT watrheads would not have been guess where: 30-40 miles off the shore of California and New England. There were not many of those manufactured. Just enough to deliver the necessary effect - a nice cute tidal wave of 3-4 meters above the high tide mark.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  47. Aerodynamic water principles, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "The aerodynamic principles that guide ocean gliders are the same that apply to airborne gliders, except the underwater versions can climb every bit as effortlessly as they dive."

    Ah, very interesting indeed. The air and gaseous principles that guide ocean gliders in the water. Are they creating an air bubble around the thing so it can use its aerodynamic principles to fly under water?

    That seems like a waste of energy. Why not just make it move directly through the water?

    Or maybe someone needs to go back to grade school and learn what a dictionary is.

  48. Only $60,000? by BelugaParty · · Score: 1

    You mean plus the average 1-1.6+ million you spend on an average sea going yacht.

  49. SOSUS won't hear them by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    Submarines are detected mostly because of cavitation noise on the propellers and the engine sounds. Since the undersea glider has neither engine nor propellers, they would be indistinguishable from the background. The operators would have to maintain silence, of course, and the buoyancy pumps would have to be quiet, but those are simple problems to solve compared with designing your own stealth sub in the first place.

    1. Re:SOSUS won't hear them by PPGMD · · Score: 1

      Well we'll see there is still the question of barniacles and such, I wouldn't be surprised if the Navy drops a SOUS in the gulf if they become a problem. Most people don't know it but there are two ballons floating at 14,000ish feet with radar to cover the gulf.

    2. Re:SOSUS won't hear them by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      The people that care about those sort of things knew they were there... now everyone else does...

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  50. 60,000 leagues under the sea by jechonias · · Score: 1

    so nobody else thought of captain nemo, living under water totally self-reliant, never comming up for air unless he wanted to?

    at $60k perhaps i can build a home built one and live under the water for ever?

    man the mind boggles!

    jech

    1. Re:60,000 leagues under the sea by jechonias · · Score: 1

      BUGGER, i've just realised that should be 20,000 leagues (my memory is really shot these days!)

      jech

  51. Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Blind Man's Bluff" is a very interesting read!


    (I thought "stabbebeded" had a nice strongbadian feel to it. That one word should be worth a point!)

  52. Gah. by Richy_T · · Score: 1
    Thermodynamics!


    The device uses energy to move up and down through the pressure differences. Any way you could gather power from that movement would be counterproductive


    Rich

    1. Re:Gah. by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      yes, but there are also currents and tempurature differences that you can derive power from as well, so it isn't just the movement that is producing your energy. i guess i should have thought it through a little more before posting, but it is still possible to build it as i envisioned.

      there are no laws of thermodynamics that we have to break. the sea is a huge battery storing energy.

    2. Re:Gah. by Richy_T · · Score: 1
      Yeah, I should have made it clear that I wasn't saying that you couldn't get energy from temperature differentials or currents or other orthogonal processes, just not from the pressure differentials.

      Rich

  53. Question by randall_burns · · Score: 1

    What are the theoretical limits to how well this could work? If you had a bunch of these kinds of devices, appropriately networked, you'd have a lot more information about currents than we now have. It seems to me like that information could be used to speed things up a bit. I'd like to hear from someone that knows more about oceanography than I do.

  54. Your answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >> Dear Santa
    >> You know the rest.

    Dear troll:
    LettertoSanta.mpg

    Be sure to write a looooong letter. Santa loves long letters.

    And Merry Xmas to you...

    Muhahahahahahahaha, er, I mean, Hohohohoho.

    I pity the poor guy who owns the site...sorry... couldn't resist... maybe someone mirrors it... :-(

    1. Re:Your answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0?

      Nobody reads AC's anymore but me?

      Tsc, tsc...

  55. Our Dolphins switched parties by instarx · · Score: 1

    During the Latest Gulf War our highly trained dolphins decided to leave the employ of the US government and were never heard from again. I guess they were smarter than the Navy thought.

  56. Aquaman: Pussy No Longer by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Aqua-man has become quite the hard-ass. He cut off his own hand and grafted on a harpoon instead. He no longer takes shit from anyone. He now acts like what he is, the king of 73% of the Earth's surface.

    Yikes! Okay, I take back what I said about him -- this guy is the bad-ass of the deep.

    Gets me thinking ... 73% of the earth's surface isn't quite correct, because the ocean is measured in terms of volume, not surface ... in terms of volume, Aquaman owns an even bigger piece of liquid real estate.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  57. SEAL delivery system? by fygment · · Score: 1

    ... to stealthily deliver Navy SEALs (or other special ops types) to wherever it is that they get delivered to by sub and rubber raft now. A human on board would take care of the shallow water navigation and you could cover distances greater than a diver (even a SEAL diver) could swim.

    BTW they can't be too stealthy since blowing ballast at depth is a noisy job. Even at its quietest it's unique enough from ambient noise to be detected.

    --
    "Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.