Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Grounded Russian Nuclear Sub Photographed With Sonar

Posted by kdawson on from the running-very-silent dept.

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.'"

21 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Pardon my pedanticism... by Spykk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This eerie wreck image is not computer generated.

    You don't have to use 3d studio max to generate an image with a computer. I would suggest that this image is in fact generated by a computer. It's just generated from sonar data instead of an artists interpretation.

    1. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by Droideka-TheGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd say most webcam photos are generated from boredom actually. Or stupidity, if one looks too long on facebook.

    2. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by lennier1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I doubt sunk submarines are that active on Chatroulette.

    3. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by SheeEttin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's your only problem? What about using the term "photograph" with sonar? Shouldn't it be a sonograph?
      (Also, the term "computer-generated" doesn't apply to the image itself, but the content. By your definition, even your digital camera takes computer-generated pictures. ;) )

    4. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by forkazoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't have to use 3d studio max to generate an image with a computer. I would suggest that this image is in fact generated by a computer. It's just generated from sonar data instead of an artists interpretation.

      Yeah, that's kind of a canonical example of a computer generated image. They had a bunch of sonar data which was put through an algorithm which resulted in a picture. People don't really seem to care what words mean anymore. It's a shame. Or, maybe it's a pancake. Doesn't make any difference to most people.

    5. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by gig · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, not using "sonographed" is the bigger mistake.

    6. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by Jurily · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's a shame. Or, maybe it's a pancake. Doesn't make any difference to most people.

      I'm very apancaked that Slashdot has editors who can't read.

    7. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by mforbes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

    8. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by ultranova · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why is there no noise?

      Noise changes from moment to moment, so take several images and average them (or simply remove outliers).

      How would the software know what parts should be yellow, and what parts should be black?

      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.

      I guess it's too much to ask of a mainstream magazine to just give us the image, without tweaking it by hand to make it all purty.

      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.

    9. Re:Pardon my pedanticism... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      I disagree some more. I would argue that a computer generated image is one made by a computer from non-visual data. This fits that description perfectly. CG involves images invented from geometry and textures. Sonar images obviously processed by computer, as these are, are generated from sonar data. Either way there's no image that the image is based upon.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Fishies! by JesterJosh · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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. So at the beginning we had to turn off the equipment for 40 minutes and wait for the fish to go."

    Thought the sonar wasn't good for the marine life in that they would avoid it. Is this a peculiarity of cod?

    1. Re:Fishies! by lazy_playboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't understand your logic. Hot lightbulbs are bad for moths but they're still attracted to them.

  3. Re:Must have been built well by Mitchell314 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Are you crazy? That sub is nothing more than a bunch of lines now.

    --
    I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
  4. Re:Must have been built well by Plazmid · · Score: 4, Informative

    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)....

  5. Glomar Explorer by theycallmeB · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  6. Photographed with Sonar? by Ihlosi · · Score: 3, Informative
    How do you do that? Snap a picture of what your sonar screen is showing?

    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.

  7. deep ? by giampy · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:deep ? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's very deep in terms of sonar technology, I guess. The article talks about having to use ROV-mounted sonar equipment, so they apparently could not get good resolution reflections with a towed sonar from the ship. I suppose the thermal or haline layering of seawater creates too much diffraction at this depth to get a high-resolution sonograph from the surface.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  8. Re:The image *is* computer generated by treeves · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sono-shopped, you mean.

    --
    ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  9. Re:Must have been built well by Vectormatic · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  10. Re:People never cared, really by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's a difference between making up new words and pronouncing old ones in a different way, and making up new words because your vocabulary sucks (anybody who says "defensed", I'm looking at you). One is evolution, the other is ignorance. Yes, both will always occur, but that doesn't mean we have to embrace both.

    There's value in having a consistent way of referring to things: people will actually be able to understand each other. This discussion is a nice example of how diverging meanings can hurt understanding.

    As for your example of the proper pronunciation of knight, do you mean to imply that we all should speak German? ;)

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.