Slashdot Mirror
Adding Sensors To Every Ship Entering the Arctic Could Help Map the Uncharted Seafloor (arctictoday.com)
Equipping every ship that enters the Arctic with sensors could help fill critical gaps in maritime charts. From a report: Throughout the world, the ocean floor's details remain largely a mystery; less than 10 percent has been mapped using modern sonar technology. Even in the United States, which has some of the best maritime maps in the world, only one-third of the ocean and coastal waters have been mapped to modern standards. But perhaps the starkest gaps in knowledge are in the Arctic. Only 4.7 percent of the Arctic has been mapped to modern standards.
"Especially when you get up north, the percentage of charts that are basically based on Royal Navy surveys from the 19th century is terrifying -- or should be terrifying," said David Titley, a retired U.S. Navy Rea Admiral who directs the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at the Pennsylvania State University. Titley spoke alongside several other maritime experts at a recent Woodrow Wilson Center event on marine policy, highlighting the need for improved oceanic maps. When he was on active duty in the Navy, Titley said, "we were finding sea mounts that we had no idea were there. And conversely, we were getting rid of sea mounts on charts that weren't there." The problem, he said, comes down to accumulating -- and managing -- data. But there could be an intriguing solution: crowdsourcing. "How does every ship become a sensor?" Titley asks. Ships outfitted with sensors could provide the very information they need to travel more effectively.
Each ship would collect information on oceans, atmosphere, ecosystems, pollutants and more. As the ships traverse the ocean, they would help improve existing maps and information about the waters they tread. Maps are becoming more important as shipping activity increases -- both around the world and in the Arctic. In August, the Russian research ship Akademik Ioffe ran aground in Canada's Arctic. In 2015, the Finnish icebreaker Fennica ripped a three-foot gash in its hull -- while sailing within the relatively better charted waters of Alaska's Dutch Harbor. "The traditional way that we have supplied these ships with information -- with nautical charts and predicted tides and tide tables, and weather over radio facts -- are not anywhere near close to being what's necessary," said Rear Admiral Shep Smith, director of NOAA's Office of Coast Survey. The "next generation of services" would go much further, predicting the water level, salinity, and other information with more precision and detail. One of NOAA's top priorities, Smith said, is "the broad baseline mapping of the ocean -- including the hydrography, the depth and form of the sea floor, and oceanography." Such maps are necessary to support development, including transportation, offshore energy, fishing and stewardship of natural resources, he said.
"Especially when you get up north, the percentage of charts that are basically based on Royal Navy surveys from the 19th century is terrifying -- or should be terrifying," said David Titley, a retired U.S. Navy Rea Admiral who directs the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at the Pennsylvania State University. Titley spoke alongside several other maritime experts at a recent Woodrow Wilson Center event on marine policy, highlighting the need for improved oceanic maps. When he was on active duty in the Navy, Titley said, "we were finding sea mounts that we had no idea were there. And conversely, we were getting rid of sea mounts on charts that weren't there." The problem, he said, comes down to accumulating -- and managing -- data. But there could be an intriguing solution: crowdsourcing. "How does every ship become a sensor?" Titley asks. Ships outfitted with sensors could provide the very information they need to travel more effectively.
Each ship would collect information on oceans, atmosphere, ecosystems, pollutants and more. As the ships traverse the ocean, they would help improve existing maps and information about the waters they tread. Maps are becoming more important as shipping activity increases -- both around the world and in the Arctic. In August, the Russian research ship Akademik Ioffe ran aground in Canada's Arctic. In 2015, the Finnish icebreaker Fennica ripped a three-foot gash in its hull -- while sailing within the relatively better charted waters of Alaska's Dutch Harbor. "The traditional way that we have supplied these ships with information -- with nautical charts and predicted tides and tide tables, and weather over radio facts -- are not anywhere near close to being what's necessary," said Rear Admiral Shep Smith, director of NOAA's Office of Coast Survey. The "next generation of services" would go much further, predicting the water level, salinity, and other information with more precision and detail. One of NOAA's top priorities, Smith said, is "the broad baseline mapping of the ocean -- including the hydrography, the depth and form of the sea floor, and oceanography." Such maps are necessary to support development, including transportation, offshore energy, fishing and stewardship of natural resources, he said.
I expect that it would be more effective and provide a higher degree of accuracy to use a purpose built/modified ship to simply traverse the waters following satellite guided paths would be less expensive and simpler.
Not to mention that most ships are following trade routes.So your results would be highly limited.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
I expect that it would be more effective and provide a higher degree of accuracy to use a purpose built/modified ship
I don't think that's true at all, you could get very nearly the same level of accuracy from sensor packages retrofitted on existing ships.
Not to mention that most ships are following trade routes.
Yes, because that is where you need the most accuracy anyway, and they would be mapped first. That is the most win/win scenario I've seen for.a while.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This sort of thinking could be applied anywhere. Think what it would do to meteorology if any schmoe could buy an internet-connected weather station for peanuts. (Why reliable ones still so expensive?)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I read recently that a submerged acoustic device could make ripples that could be detected on the surface from the air. I have to wonder if ripples from an underwater acoustic device could be detected by satellite and processed to provide an image of the bottom. Even if it is very low resolution it might be enough to detect large-ish undersea mountains. Maybe seismic activity could be the basis for some of the disturbances measured.
Nullius in verba
That really isn't speech...it's more like a seizure.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Not a dedicated crewed ship, an ocean drone would be much better. Particularly for arctic conditions that are difficult to keep people comfortable and sometimes even alive. A remotely operated floating bed of instruments with GPS. You could probably even get oil exploration companies to help pay for it.
Don't we have the capability to map the sea floor from orbit? Seems like there have been several stories about that capability in the not too distant past.
I expect that it would be more effective and provide a higher degree of accuracy to use a purpose built/modified ship to simply traverse the waters following satellite guided paths would be less expensive and simpler.
More accurate maybe but almost certainly more expensive unless they are doing something rather daft.
Not to mention that most ships are following trade routes.So your results would be highly limited.
Probably not as limited as you think and it makes a lot of sense to start where most of the ships are traveling anyway.
Throughout the world, the ocean floor's details remain largely a mystery; less than 10 percent has been mapped using modern sonar technology.
Actually basically everything interesting in the ocean is mapped, by the military.
This are magnetic fields in various water depths, local gravity, and other things like typical temperatures and current. And most certainly the terrain of the sea floor.
That is how submarines find their way staying half a year longer below the surface.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
"weather over radio facts" ??!!!
Have we already forgotten about radiofax ?!!!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
It's a popular submarine route. I am sure we have accurate maps.
Offer to pay the ships for carrying the sensor package.
Price adjusted to where it is going and how much that data is needed.
Imagine a hard luck crab boat getting the cash it needs to make it to the next season by doing this sort of mapping mission to someplace only a seasoned artic crew should go.
Not to mention that most ships are following trade routes.
Yes, because that is where you need the most accuracy anyway, and they would be mapped first. That is the most win/win scenario I've seen for.a while.
And that's *all* that will be mapped. Once you've done this with a few ships, you've mapped those areas. It is uninteresting to keep mapping the same routes over and over. And yes, the routes change somewhat, but they're still going to the same endpoints, which kind of limits how much they can change.
I think that a better approach would be to have commercial ships toss out solar-powered, motorized buoy-drones with mapping hardware at random points along their trip, and let them float/boat around in a spiral pattern or something, moving further and further from the shipping lanes.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Surely NASA came up with a way to map the seafloor by now? Oh, wait - international treaties and stuff - right?
You could still have exploratory vessels in the region that would have the additional sensors, so smoother areas would get more slowly mapped. But that would be OK because the bulk of ships would have access to greatly enhanced navigation charts for seas they were mostly in.
It is uninteresting to keep mapping the same routes over and over.
Well that's a bold statement considering we know nothing about the sea floor there today, what underwater volcanos might be doing, geologic movements, etc.
I think that a better approach would be to have commercial ships toss out solar-powered, motorized buoy-drones with mapping hardware at random points along their trip, and let them float/boat around in a spiral pattern or something, moving further and further from the shipping lanes.
Although interesting, that de-prioritizes the most important part to map - shipping lanes. It could be used asa an additional resource.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It was charted by submarines long ago.
Oh, minor question - will you be hanging the stuff off port side or starboard? Because that rather matters as it affects which side you can tie up on. Or does my vessel's master have to retract the equipment to deck before tieing up? In which case, we won't be needing to provide just pad-eyes, but a winch, with all it's documentation requirements.
Have you never had to deal with installing third-party equipment on an international vessel? It's a really fun experience. Not.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
A remotely operated floating bed of instruments with GPS.That'd be wonderful. Perhaps I could use the same technology to guide me underwater when I'm caving. Oh, but hang on ... aren't radio signals blocked by seawater (and slightly less effectively, in proportion to the water conductivity, by fresh water)? Perhaps that is why I've never once seen an advert for an underwater GPS device. (I have however seen hundreds of adverts though for waterproofed, boat ready GPS units for use on the air-ventilated parts of boats.)
You could probably even get oil exploration companies to help pay for it.They're much more likely to say "Here is a listing of the data we have already acquired. You tell us which areas you want to buy, and we'll tell you the price. We're not going to tell you the price for individual areas, because that might give you commercially sensitive information about which areas we consider more valuable. Oh, and here is an NDA for you to sign, if you want to take the conversation further." When I worked in the right places, I could get to read some of the Arctic contingency planning data. And when I tried to look in more depth ... the system security tools would block me and report the access attempt to my line manager.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
(Why reliable ones still so expensive?)Because sensors drift (or are extremely expensive), and so need calibration. Which takes time, expertise and continuing documentation. None of which come cheap.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
A remotely operated floating bed of instruments with GPS.That'd be wonderful. Perhaps I could use the same technology to guide me underwater when I'm caving. Oh, but hang on ... aren't radio signals blocked by seawater (and slightly less effectively, in proportion to the water conductivity, by fresh water)? Perhaps that is why I've never once seen an advert for an underwater GPS device. (I have however seen hundreds of adverts though for waterproofed, boat ready GPS units for use on the air-ventilated parts of boats.)
Ummmm... "Floating" as in to float on the surface of a liquid, like the ocean where GPS and radio signals are very detectable. WTF are you smoking? I expected knee-jerk reactions to mentioning oil companies [I don't care], but having to explain floating is a surprise.
You know, Your cave diving hobby [or job] is dangerous if you don't keep your wits about you. I'm concerned for you.