Slashdot Mirror


Tsunami Warning From Space?

Peter bayley writes "Tell me I'm crazy or tell me someone has already done it — but wouldn't a satellite equipped with a laser be a great way to warn people of tsunamis? I was pondering how to warn people in remote coastal areas once evidence of a seismic incident has been received by the monitoring stations that have now been set up following the large Boxing Day tsunami. The idea is to illuminate the areas that are likely to be at risk with a bright (but not dangerous) light. People would be told to head to higher ground if such a light appears in the sky. Put the satellite in a geosynchronous orbit. Make it tunable so that different colors can convey different meanings. You would be able to warn anyone, anywhere they can see the sky. The laser could be directed to illuminate only those areas at risk, skipping unnecessary areas to save power. Power could be varied so that it is visible day and night and through cloud (raise the power where the satellite detects cloud cover). I emailed some people at NOAA about it but they said it would stand on too many toes by circumventing local emergency service organizations in the various countries. I replied that countries could easily opt out, in which case the laser would be turned off for those countries — but received no further reply. Anyway, I thought the massed minds of Slashdot would relish the chance to demolish my idea."

46 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Satellite? by dov_0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Better a shark with a fricken laser - they're right where the action is!!!

    --
    sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
  2. I don't think so by tsa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not an expert on tsunamis but I understood that tsunamis start as very low waves that roll over the face of the ocean for many many miles before reching land. Only where the sea gets less deep they turn into the ferocious waves that destroy everything. So even if you could see them then with a satellite you would still be warned late.

    --

    -- Cheers!

    1. Re:I don't think so by tsa · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're right, I only read the first sentence of the question before replying, so my reply was totally off topic. That will probably cost me some karma.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    2. Re:I don't think so by DJRumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be a little cheaper, and a bit more sure way to communicate with the locals if they just issued sat phones to the local government?

  3. Cheaper solution by mhajicek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be cheaper to hand out emergency radios that wait in a low power standby mode until a certain signal is received?

    1. Re:Cheaper solution by will_die · · Score: 2, Informative

      And easy in training people in what to do or what a laser from space would look like.
      Just going with the old Communist fixed frequency radios or similar to the ones the US dropped during Korea or Vietnam would be cheaper and provide more and better information.

    2. Re:Cheaper solution by ipquickly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just give them cell-phones that can do that instead.
      Make each cell phone have an emergency receiver.

      The phone is more likely to be close to the person.
      It has a greater chance of being charged.
      People will not ignore it.

      And the best part is that cellphones are spreading even in poorer countries.
      Implementation costs would be minimal, just make sure every cellphone receives an emergency band.

      (and being waterproof with a solar charger on the back would be nice too)

    3. Re:Cheaper solution by the_womble · · Score: 5, Informative

      Living in one of the countries affected by the Boxing Day Asian Tsunnami, the problem was not lack of a way to reach people, but the lack of a mechanism to pass the message along. IN particular the people who had the warning, said they did not know how to contact the governments of some countries (which shows a worrying lack of resourcefulness, but that is another subject).

      As you say, mobile phone penetration is easily high enough to work, but you will need to guard against hoax calls. A designated number of warnings would have to be well publicised.

      Radio will work, but you hardly need to distribute them specially: just ask all radio and TV broadcasters to broadcast an emergency message. It may not work that well late in the night. For times like that vehicles with big speakers on them driving through towns with loud warnings should work well.

      The laser idea is stupid: there are all kinds of lights in the sky to confuse people: I remember a huge number of people seeing "UFOs" in London in 1990 or 91 because someone said there was one on a popular radio station, so people started looking up and seeing all kinds of things they normally never noticed.

    4. Re:Cheaper solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I reviewed a prototype for a mobile phone four days ago that would be perfect for this.

      With mobile devices still pretty big and requiring something to stow them in, this company is trying to fill a niche market with a mobile device that's completely voice driven and pretty small as far as phones go. You don't actually stuff it in a purse or pocket, but rather pin it on your shirt like military insignia. They are offering integration with the audio system in your house for advanced features that require a computer. If your in the house you simple call up the system by saying a keyword (default is "Computer", which I think is too common a word, but hey, I'm no Vulcan). If you're not in the house you simply touch the phone on your chest and call up people by name.

      I think this would be perfect since you would be wearing it the whole time. And somehow when I wear it I feel.... complete.

    5. Re:Cheaper solution by itoledo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here in Chile, everyone rushed to call their relatives when the earthquake came. The three main provides of GSM telephony collapsed, because of the huge number of people calling, oversaturating all the base stations. Also, the lights went off, and most towers shut down. Almost no one could place a call, and certainly not at the epicenter.

      So I think that sat phones are a better idea for tsunami warnings.

    6. Re:Cheaper solution by Thelasko · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wouldn't it be cheaper to hand out emergency radios that wait in a low power standby mode until a certain signal is received?

      Not to mention more effective. The people who were affected by the Boxing Day Tsunami didn't know what it meant when the ocean suddenly receded. How will they know what a blinking light from space means?

      With a radio, you greatly reduce the chances of the message being misinterpreted. I fear this satellite may become worshiped by some isolated people as the great God of the sea.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    7. Re:Cheaper solution by DiegoBravo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Exactly the same happened in Perú in our last big earthquake (2008). The epicenter was about 200 km south of the capital (Lima), but nobody in all the region could make a call after several hours (afterward there was a government investiagtion to the carriers, pure blah, blah..) Cell phones are useless at least in standard commercial installations or configurations.

      Interestingly, the DSL services remained operative (at least in the capital) and it was the only way to communicate with peers.

  4. Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, because the amount of energy, in the form of light, would be immense. You're talking at least 10 watts per square meter, much more during the daytime. Tsunamis can affect hundreds of miles of coastline.

    By my impromptu math, you'd need at least a gigawatt of power to light up that kind of area. So a medium-size nuclear reactor in the sky.

    How about, instead, we just use these devices that transmit sound and vision via lower-frequency light, aka radio and television? Cheap transistor radios are much, MUCH cheaper than launching a reactor into the sky.

    1. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by burisch_research · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correct.

      This idea will never fly. Ten out of ten for style, but minus several million for good thinking.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    2. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by fractoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about instead of assuming that we need to simultaneously light up hundreds of square miles of land, we assume that we only need to make the land 'blink'? Using your figure of 10 watts per square meter, and assume a 0.1 second flash every 3 seconds. That would require 1/30th the power, and it would only be necessary to transmit the warning for maybe 15 minutes at a time. A 10kWh battery pack should do the trick, and can trickle-charge from solar panels between tsunamis. In fact, the figures are even better because the tsunami would hit different pieces of coastline at different times.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    3. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by pspahn · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'll have my laser, Chris, and you'll have it by mid-May.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    4. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by Zumbs · · Score: 4, Funny

      you'd need at least a gigawatt of power to light up that kind of area.

      You are sure it is not 1.21 GigaWatts? If we just could find a way to pump a lighthing bolt into space, we would be able to go back to the ... no, wait, wrong movie ...

      --
      The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
    5. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by pspahn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does the laser have to be in the sky? Is ground-basing and bouncing it around okay? A laser cage would probably also help in asteroid defense someday.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    6. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Informative

      no.
      The testing of nuclear weapons in space is banned.
      Nuclear reactors are fine.

      The reason we don't see them on the ISS is the people who too terrified of anything with the word nuclear attached to think rationally.

    7. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by EdZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A nuclear battery is not a nuclear reactor. And nuclear reactors are not prohibited: they're just deemed to risky to launch (and need to be parked in a long term high orbit, or risk raining down reactor bit that don't burn up), and generally are too large and heavy to be cost effective. It's nuclear weapons that are prohibited in space.

    8. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by burisch_research · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'd still need enormously powerful lasers, and sufficient power generation on the ground. We're talking about space-based weapon class power here, and honestly politicians would be far more excited about the offensive capabilities of such a system than 'merely' saving civilian lives.

      A slightly more realistic approach would be to use massive space-based tinted mirrors to reflect sunlight toward the ground. You'd still need truly enormous mirrors for this to work at all -- $$$$$$$. It's not gonna fly.

      --
      char*f="char*f=%c%s%c;main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}";main(){printf(f,34,f,34);}
    9. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by r00t · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope.

      The USSR launched plenty of full-blown reactors, and RTGs are still popular.

      You're not supposed to park ground-attack devices (like ICBMs) in space. Of course, if you imagine that Russia hasn't done that for decades, you're pretty gullible.

    10. Re:Terrible idea, of course, which is why we don't by fractoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're right about average vs. peak power, but you've got the wrong end of the stick. Specifically with semiconductor light sources (my particular experience was with high-intensity LEDs but should apply to diode lasers too) you overdrive them by ridiculous amounts as long as the average power stays the same. I've put half an amp through a 30mA LED for 50 microseconds without causing any damage.

      Anyway the bulk of my argument was that you wouldn't need jigger-ma-whats of power because you wouldn't need to constantly illuminate the whole target area. Instead, you'd have a 100m x 100m illuminated spot scanning around the target area at 1km/sec. By my calculations, assuming that the original estimate of 1GW was accurate, a 100ms pulse every 3 seconds over the whole area gives a 1/30 duty cycle, or about 30kW sustained. That's well within the limits of LiPoly batteries. A 10kW battery pack can output 40kW for 15 minutes without too much trouble, most modern lithium batteries are designed for 10C or higher discharge rates.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  5. Opt out? by impaledsunset · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This should be opt-in, not opt-out. As cool as the idea is, someone messing with your emergency services by lighting emergency signals from space on your country just isn't cool. The countries should sign that they agree to have such emergency warnings issued above their territory. And maybe should otherwise participate in the system. Such deals are much better done with opt in, not opt out.

    Also, who runs the system? It should be multinational, otherwise someone might decide to run false warnings during a war, or to otherwise hurt an enemy nation through it. Also, how long before someone launches an amateur satellite that makes fake warnings as a prank? The last one is not a big deal, but also worth spending a second thinking about.

    1. Re:Opt out? by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

      What about rogue pringles cans with tv aerials sticking out of them?!? How about a pair of sneakers tied together and thrown over a power line? OMG P0n13$!!!

      I'd say that right about now you should check your tinfoil hat dude.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    2. Re:Opt out? by irtza · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Could you imagine a nation whose citizens are not informed about this? They will develop new fears. "Billy, don't look at the sky you might go blind". and then after Billy goes blind from looking at the laser beam, the island gets hit with a tsunami at which point they will accuse Billy of being a prophet of doom.

      Well, in conclusion, I think opt-in with formal education about not looking in a particular direction in the sky would be a good thing.

      --
      When all else fails, try.
    3. Re:Opt out? by tibit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess there's some misconception about what such a "light" would look like.

      Everyone seems to react like this was going to be a streetlight type of a thing. You'd need a rather big nuclear powerplant to get that sort of power density on the ground. Assume we want 1W/m^2 on the ground, and a "square" area 5,000km on the side. That's 2.5E10 m^2, so you'd 25GW of optical power output for your illumination. How anyone sees that much power being generated in orbit using current technology -- I don't know. Even getting a 1MW generator in the orbit would be a big feat. You can't exactly put a chiller tower up there. Dissipating all the waste heat would be a huge fucking problem, no kidding.

      For what's achievable with current technology, we're talking about a faint star that say can be red, green or blue. So beam forming to a point where "a country could opt-in" etc. is a fantasy at this point. How hard is it *not* to look up?

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    4. Re:Opt out? by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...I think opt-in with formal education about not looking in a particular direction in the sky...

      With the remaining eye?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    5. Re:Opt out? by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Formal education would remove some of the need for tsunami warnings in themselves. For example, the American tourists who saw the water recede sharply before the Indian Ocean tsunami (an obvious warning sign), and took that time to explore the newly uncovered beach rather than getting to higher ground. Then we can just skip the laser satellite, and focus on education and audible warning systems (which do not depend on people looking the right direction)

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
  6. So... it's a super hi-tech siren? by chefmayhem · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They used to use warning sirens for that sort of thing. Far more low tech, but quite cheap, and a single siren can be heard for quite a distance. Just put them near the shore. Now, it's not nearly as cool as the satellite, but it would work if people are indoors and not looking out the window.

  7. Laser Power... by GrpA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Getting a laser from a sattelite to one place on earth so it could be seen would require a LOT of power, even at night. Illuminating an entire part of the earth would take more power than you could imagine...

    Even measuring the ocean's height with a satellite would be challenging.

    However, I think you've uncovered the real problem. It's not warning people that's the issue ( you could easily broadcast radio and pick it up with a small receiver ) it's that there's no desire to create such a system.

    Usually, the authorities would prefer to be the only ones to know. Then they can make the decisions... Do they tell people in all areas? How do they handle the evacuations? etc.

    Your heart is in the right place, but your idea itself presents a lot of problems... If you really want to help, then spend a few years teaching yourself world politics. Speak to experts in the field of emergency services and become one yourself. Don't wait for others to pick up your idea, make it work yourself and become an expert. Most experts are simply people who were driven for one reason or another to keep on learning about a particular field.

    As a suggestion? The easiest way to address tsunami's might be without sattelites and high-tech... Perhaps just keep an eye on the situation by following the websites that publish that kind of information, then set up your own website to co-ordinate redistribution of it - Then people who are worried about it, such as yourself, can subscribe - perhaps you could even use SMS to notify them?

    Big ideas are easy to implement and opt-in is the best system.

    GrpA

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
    1. Re:Laser Power... by gandhi_2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if the laser was intense enough to be visible on the ground in the day, how intense would it be at 40,000 feet? would we be frying pilots eyeballs?

      disregarding the impossibility of generating that much energy in space. and the lack of Pink Floyd to go with the laser light show.

  8. Problems by jaxxa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think that this is a practical solution. Lasers are very focused and don't spread out like normal lights, if they were to spread out the power requirements would be huge. Also It would be walking a very fine line between delivering enough light to be noticed and too little to cause eye damage to people looking up. Lastly You would have to check the wording on the agreements banning weapons in space, even though it is not the intention this could be viewed as one. While this is an interesting idea I don't think it is very practical and there could be better solutions.

  9. Dumbest. Idea. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Why not just get Superman to fly backwards around the world really fast thereby (somehow) turning back time? He could then fly under the country in danger and lift it up until the tsunami passed safely underneath.

    Seriously - why is this crap get on the front page?

  10. Re:Unmanned Warning System by Igmuth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait a damn second here. You are against warning people about tsunamis because some might use it as a chance for looting? Personally, if there is a giant wall of watery death heading my way, I'd like to know about it. If some moron decides to stay behind to grab my stuff, I'll the aforementioned wall of watery death deal with him, wash away all evidence, including the moron himself.

  11. Please... stop... by mad+flyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, now brainfarts... directly on slashdot... the only thing more stupid than anything following "Hey y'all watch this" are usually exposee introduced by a falsely humble "crazy idea" which in 90% of the case is totally retarded and in the 10% remaining already more common than water but the bragging genius was to dull to understand how it worked in the first place.

    Seriously, keep this for april first or Digg...

  12. easier way to get the power by r00t · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look, we just need a bright flash of light. It doesn't have to be a laser.

    Put up a large number of satellites, much like GPS or Iridium. Each one holds a 30 megaton nuke. When an area is affected by a tsunami, we set off all the nukes that would be visible above the horizon.

    Tsunamis are rare enough that we can normally launch a replacement system fast enough, assuming we don't put spares in different orbits. Have replacements ready to launch.

    1. Re:easier way to get the power by number11 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Look, we just need a bright flash of light. It doesn't have to be a laser.

      Put up a large number of satellites, much like GPS or Iridium. Each one holds a 30 megaton nuke. When an area is affected by a tsunami, we set off all the nukes that would be visible above the horizon.

      Take out their power grid, their radios and computers, their cell phones, and their vehicles with the EMP. And, of course, the power grids of everybody else who can see those satellites above the horizon. Then while they're going "WTF???" hit 'em with the tsunami.

    2. Re:easier way to get the power by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear Iran,
      This is a test of the Emergency Tsunami Warning System. Had this been an actual emergency these EMP pulses would have been followed by a tsunami. This concludes this test of the Emergency Tsunami Warning System.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:easier way to get the power by tibit · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even the rad-hardened stuff will be taken out in short order. They won't take a short burst of radiation (that's what they're designed for!) -- there'll be bazillions of particles trapped in Earth's magnetic field, pounding incessantly on everything up there. Remember that it's all in vacuum.

      Rad-hardening works for short bursts of radiation coming *from Earth* -- from a ground or airborne nuclear explosion.

      There's no rad-hardening for space-based explosions. We're several orders of magnitude away from being anywhere close to that.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
  13. My tags for this story by cheesethegreat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is obviously absurd, as pointed out by plenty of the above posters. What I'm more concerned about, is why this got posted to the Slashdot front page. We have the Digital Economy Bill about to be passed without debate in the UK, various stories on the LHC's full power experiments, all sorts of lunacy in the US with patents, and we get a "hey guys, what about this idea" from a random slashdotter.

    If this were coming from a noted astronomer, a major figure in disaster relief, or GWB, then it would be Slashdot-worthy. But seriously, what value did this Ask Slashdot add?

    Also, the previous story on the sun-chandelier was such a non-story as to be shocking.

    I've now started tagging stories: ohnoitskdawson

  14. After 500 years, all that will be left would be by govt-serpent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "And when the unblinking star starts to blink.. Beware o evildoers... And when the star starts blinking red, Knoweth that thy doom is at hand Saints and sinners alike For the sea will come And seek you out of your lowly abode"

  15. Re:Lazy Fucking Slashdotters by geoskd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Who said this thing had to illuminate the entire damn planet in one go? Jeez, ever heard of raster scanning people?

    Ok, as the post above stated above, it takes ~10 watts / m^2 to illuminate. Raster scanning does not fix the problem. if you only have a signal in a given place for say 1/1000th of the time, then the signal needs to be 1000 times stronger to be noticed by the naked eye. You have to remember that we are not talking about a transmission to dedicated hardware. The end result is that your power level required is the same no matter how fancy you get with your scanning system. Unless you are proposing that we attempt to shoot just the people with the laser, and skip everywhere else to save power, but I humbly suggest that this is impracticable...

    So, it has to warn people in at-risk sections of coastline. That alone cuts the area to be illuminated by orders of magnitude. Then, it doesn't need to illuminate all of these areas simultaneously and permanently - it could sweep them repeatedly. Imagine that the laser was spread out along a line, say 20Km wide, and that then scanned the affected coastlines. So the people underneath might only see a bright flash lasting for say, 10th of a second every ten seconds. Brief, but maybe enough - better than nothing if you're out of range of a siren.

    Say for the sake of argument that this was just 1 square mile of coastline. That is around 2.5 Million square meters, so again for just one square mile of coastline you need 25 Megawatts. This is roughly the power consumption of a small town. Good luck with that.

    The whole idea is thoroughly unworkable, not necessarily because we cant build the tech, but because the cost would be prohibitive, and there are far cheaper and more effective solutions. The process you have witnessed here, is one I have seen countless times in engineering:

    Step1: Clueless moron (usually management), says hay, lets build x to solve problem y.
    Step: Engineer looks at solution x, and cringes at the raw stupidity of it, then looks at problem y, and realizes that there is a far cheaper solution, possibly even already in place.
    Step 3: if this is government, the moron pushes ahead with solution x anyway because it is politically valuable, even though it has no practical value.

    This whole thread has been an exercise in those who understand good engineering trying to pass some knowledge to those who are quite clearly ignorant and should stop trying to solve engineering problems with frikkin lasers

    -=Geoskd

    --
    I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  16. And how about daytime? by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How you gonna get enough power to make daytime *brighter*?

    Was the idea to cook people and see who notices?

    How about bad stormy weather which the (visible light) laser can't penetrate?

    You going to have geostationary satellites so far away as to multiply the power required and the tremendous power losses?

    Or were you going to have low level satellites, and need thousands to make sure every inch of ground was within a few seconds of any satellite coming into position?

    How about topography blocking line of sight?

    There are so many FAILs all over this idea.

    It's a comic book idea, should never have gotten past the hangover stage.

  17. Not nuclear by killmenow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I actually think people aren't afraid of the word nuclear. It's nucular that scares them. Mostly because they don't know nuclear is a real word and think nucular means big bad bomb go boom.

  18. So, how do we detect tsunamis from space, exactly? by reillymj · · Score: 2, Informative

    how is detecting a tsunami from space better than our current method? 1. seismometers detect earthquake, computers & scientists quickly determine possibility of tsunami generation and issue a warning. 2. buoys in the ocean and pressure sensors on the ocean floor detect passing tsunami energy wave, allowing warnings to be updated. This system works well in about 90% of cases where it's installed; it still isn't fully operational in the Indian Ocean(the Pacific system worked very well after the Chile quake in February), but should be soon. The only major gap that leaves is the places where time from wave generation to impact is only a few minutes -- that is, a city like Padang, Indonesia, or Seattle, which sit just a few miles from a huge fault. What do we do then? A satellite might be useful, but only if it can detect the formation and size of a tsunami and issue a warning *instantly*. Fortunately, those cities have a natural warning system in place: the earthquake itself. They're so close to the fault that inhabitants will certainly feel any tsunami-generating quake. So, spending tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars on a satellite or satellites to monitor tsunamis probably isn't the best course when you can educated people about how to get out of harm's way for a tiny fraction of the cost.