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.
You know the rest.
Maybe now we'll be able to explore the final frontier of our own planet.
The previous post was a dupe too.
Hot Dupe On Dupe Action!
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
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.
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!"
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?)
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)
I think you mean "and makes a faint tap on the hull" instead of "starts a war" :-)
I have a feeling this is one that really will take off in time.
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.
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 |
Not very cost effective, but an interesting variation of "message in a bottle."
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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
I wonder if terrorist will try to adapt this to target cruise ships with explosives?
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.
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.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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.
... exactly nothing. So, either it was some kind of cruise-torpedo (which does not currently exist), or something other than a torpedo.
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
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.
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.
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.
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..."
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.
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
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.
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 !
Radar dosn't work underwater.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
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.
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.
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
If you want to know more just ask.
It works for the large manned craft, Earth.
It's probably because this year is the centenial of flight.
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.
Maybe because it's about 23 days away (December 17)?
Yet another innovation to benefit the Drug Running industry. Bravo!
"Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
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.
It's all explained here: /. story.
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
J
your mom wants one
+-+-+-The folowing statement is true. The previous statement is false.-+-+-+
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.
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.
"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.
You mean plus the average 1-1.6+ million you spend on an average sea going yacht.
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.
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
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
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.
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.'"
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
Yikes! Okay, I take back what I said about him -- this guy is the bad-ass of the deep.
Gets me thinking
-kgj
-kgj
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 . . .
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
... 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.