Slashdot Mirror
Grounded Russian Nuclear Sub Photographed With Sonar
Lanxon sends in an intriguing piece from Wired: "This eerie wreck image is not computer-generated. It's the sonar image of Russian nuclear submarine B-159 (called K-159 before decommissioning), which has been lying 248m down in the Barents Sea, between Norway and Russia, since 2003. The Russian Federation hired Adus, a Scottish company that specializes in high-resolution sonar surveying, to evaluate if it would be possible to recover the wreck. 'The operation was complicated as the submarine was very deep, so we had to use the sonar equipment mounted on a remotely operated vehicle' [also pictured in the article], says Martin Dean, the managing director of Adus and a forensic-wreck archaeologist. 'We also had a problem with the surveying due to the density of North Atlantic cod attracted to the sound of the sonar and the light of the cameras.'"
sonograph
I don't think so, looks like there's a large gash in the ballast tanks. Besides it'd make more sense to fill it with gasoline(or attach large bags of it as is done in salvage operations), which is incompressible and doesn't expand like air as your Russian submarine, soon to be converted into floating nuclear powered datacenter, gets closer to the surface. Though, this submarine wasn't really in prime condition before it sunk(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-159)....
Probably the pressure hull kept everything ok, but according to the story, the sub went down stern first, implanted itself 8m (about 24 feet) into the seabed, then broke at the seabed, and the rest came crashing down (as you see it). You can try to pull up the part thats up (248m of water is only about 806 feet). 3 250 ton cranes could slowly winch it up (provided none of the stuff stuck in the seabed is still attached). Lifting balloons could also be attached. And while you are at it, the Kirsk is within 100km of this wreck as is S80. I understand that these are grave sites and wouldn't mind treating them that way, but its that pesky nuclear poison that will slowly kill everything within 1000 km that causes problems.
The Wikipedia page for the K-159 submarine includes a picture of how it looked right before its sinking. (The sub in the picture faces the opposite direction as on the sonar image, so it is difficult to get an idea of the damage sustained in the sinking.) While on its final voyage, it was kept afloat with pontoons, which evidently are no longer with the sub. According to this article from 2007, one of the sources for the wiki article, the sub was crumbling at the end of its operational lifetime, and it may have had the hatches open at the time of sinking. So it will be a challenge to raise it. Notably, that Times article discusses a recovery "next summer" from the vantage point of Jan. 2007; it obviously has yet to occur.
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
Too bad the Glomar Explorer has been refitted for deep sea oil drilling. The biggest problem she would have had with a wreck 248 meters down is that it might be too shallow, as the wreck Glomar Explorer was designed to go after was 4.9km down. The Russians would probably object to its use, though, given the ship's history.
If you create an image of something using sound waves, the correct term would be "sonographed". "Photographed" implies that you used light to create the image.
>and yeah that might just be how it looks
Correct. Try R'ing T one-page FA. The back 8m is snapped off. That's the part they didn't show.
I really don't get how 248 m is considered "very deep". For a reference the Titanic lies at 4000m depth, and there are points in the pacific ocean where the depth is around 13000 m ...
Maybe there is a reason why it says so, i just don't see it ...
We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
but its that pesky nuclear poison that will slowly kill everything within 1000 km that causes problems.
Hardly. Neutrons don't travel very far through water.
this one wasnt dumped because of a power plant failure.
The k-159 did experience a primary coolant leak sometime in its operational life, but apperently it wasnt that bad of an incident, since it continued to opperate two more years before its power plant was overhauled. The incident happened in 1965, and the sub was decommisioned in 1989. After that it spent 14 years rusting away at a dock, after which it was to be towed to polyarny for scrapping. Since the 14 years of zero maintenance left it in a barely floating state, the russians welded some floating pontoons to the side, which where also only barely floating.
During the voyage, one pontoon broke off during a storm, and the thing sank.
I'm not saying the reactor in that thing is in perfect state, but i do think that at the time of decommision (1989), the power plant would have been fine (for soviet values of fine). The boat sank because of leaks in the hull, not a reactor failure
People, what a bunch of bastards
Unfortunately there is no "anymore" there. People never cared much for using words exactly how their grandfather did. Otherwise you'd still be speaking like in Beowulf. What is nowadays the right way to read and write in modern English would have been the _awfully_ wrong way a mere couple of hundred years ago. (E.g., "knight" used to be read exactly like it's written, with a hard K, an I like in "dim", and the G and H actually pronounced. Look at the mangled way you're reading it nowadays. Tut tut.)
Any modern language in fact consists of the typos, mis-pronunciations and funky kewl-kid ways of using words, from the ages past.
Meanings change too. "Seelie" once meant holy or blessed, now it evolved into "silly". "Thing" once meant a session of a ruling assembly (think: your city council in session), and by extension the assembly itself. Then it evolved to mean by extension the agenda of that meeting, then a topic on that agenda, then the object that will be the topic of that discussion, then eventually just the modern meaning of "thing."
There's your "shame" vs "pancake" right there.
So, you know, essentially complaining about kids using words wrong compared to _your_ seelie standard, is essentially hypocritical. Unless you're also going to go, "man, look at how we mangled the beautiful language of Shakespeare. Whar is this junk I'm speaking?" ;)
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Noise changes from moment to moment, so take several images and average them (or simply remove outliers).
Iron is hard, while the mud at the ocean floor is soft. It produces a different kind of echo, which can be visualized by colorization.
This is all guesswork, but that's what I'd do if I had to do a project like this.
What image? Sonar doesn't produce an image, it produces round-trip timing and waveform shift data. That data can be turned into an image by processing with a computer or by hand, however since this image is entirely artificial to begin with it's quite arbitrary to say "process this much and no more".
So no, they can't give you the original image, because it doesn't exist and never has. I suppose they could give you the raw sonar data, but what would you do with it, apart from turning it into an image every bit as artificial as the one in the article?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
I disagree. The image is computer interpreted. To imply that it's computer generated is to imply that there is no physical analog of the object the image represents.
If you look at a CG Artist's portfolio you'll see computer generated images of stuff he had on his desk (cell phones, etc). In fact, the best looking CG uses photographs of the object and it's environment for realistic textures and lighting.
Careful about "imply". "Imply" will lead you astray.
You can't take the sky from me...