I hope the U.S. Navy incorporates this into their nautical charts, but, sadly, I doubt they will. I wonder if this data would have prevented the 2004 undersea collision of the USS San Francisco. see, e.g.,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_San_Francisco_(SSN-711)
They had the data. VMS indicated the navigational hazard but they have ignored it. It was a combination of insufficient training and poor chart review procedures.
They had data of "discolored water" in an area 3nm from where the seamount actually was, on a chart not normally used for navigation
It is true that they did have the chart available, and that they would have been far more prudent with regard to their intended track (and speed of advance) had they known about even something as vague as discolored water while planning the voyage. But implying that the fault was either limited to the crew or obvious in retrospect is unrealistic IMHO.
The crew should have done a more thorough scrub during their voyage planning process, but the NOAA and Navy offices that prepare charts should also have done a better job of ensuring that hazards to safe navigation are listed on all of their charts (but especially the ones intended to be used most frequently!), not just one or some of them.
I'm not sure if this is meant to contradict my comment somehow, but I think we are saying the same thing -- read differently, it sounds like you might be suggesting they don't even need the new data. Whether on VMS, or notice to mariners, or whatever, what they had was a report of discolored water. Different, therefore from new data revealing underwater topography.
Removed redundant and pedantically incorrect extra use of word "new".
They are inferring mountains and trenches based on the observed effect of their gravity on the water above. But can't there be mass concentrations that aren't mountains, like the lunar maria?
Plate tectonics theory was born by looking at the ocean floor. During second world war, in the Atlantic, there was huge effort by both parties to obtain good quality maps of the ocean floor. This was to drive/combat the german U-boats.
In addition, "new" sensitive magnetic devises were developed to detect large bodies of steel (e.g. submarines).
After war (during 50's and 60's) these new data came out and researchers found several striking features: first, the ocean basis were not deeper in the middle but, on the contrary, were deeper just by the continents. In the middle they found a mountain chain that goes from pole to pole with an average height os 5000m (over seafloor, still submerged). Actually this is the larger mountain chain on Earth.
Second, they found that seafloor rocks have a permanent magnetization. This is not surprising giving their composition, but the ming blogging feature is that this magnetization has a clear pattern of stripes parallel to the mid Atlantic mountain chain.
These two observations, that didn't fit at all with the theories of Earth evolution of the moment, were the main triggers of the new Plate Tectonics theory.
Nowadays, despite there is little doubt on how the Earth and oceanic plates behave, it is not clear how is the exact mechanism driving tectonic plates.
The thermal state of tectonic plates, hot at the mid oceanic ridge and cold near continents, explains the observed bathymetry. Nevertheless there is no agreement in the geophysical community on how this cooling happen. The first order is absolutely clear, but if you go to the details two theories compete to explain observations (the so called "half-space cooling" vs. "Plate Model"). Detailed bathymetry is key to distinguish which one is closer to what happen in Nature. We need better observations that the currently available to advance in our understanding.
On a day-to-day practical level, very little, but I suspect it will give us a lot of insight into tectonic plates and ocean current systems, so maybe better weather predictions.
Reposts are ok if it's a good story that hasn't had much attention [1]. The duplicate detector is deliberately left porous to allow for this. Otherwise the luck of the draw would prevent many—if not most—good stories from being seen.
I guess it's great that you found and submitted this a while ago, but just because nobody picked up on your post when it happen doesn't mean "Me, me, pick me~!" should qualify as a good comment on your part.
You should always search for a story before posting it (IMO). In fact i thought HN did this automatically but apparently not. I always search in case the same story has been posted from a different news outlet. Thats just good manners and avoids cluttering this place with dupes. Unless you're a karma whore...
No, you should just post whatever you find interesting and the site allows you to post. If it gets upvotes it means the community likes what you submitted. I'd say karma whoring is encouraged.
Why do you say it is terrible advice? The only thing I would add is the qualifier "intellectually" before "interesting". The other kinds of interest are not such a good fit here.
IMO karma is the worst aspect of HN. If you post any comments that are controversial or against the prevailing tech dogma you tend to get downvoted, whereas flashy press releasees about dubious original research get lots of upvotes (that obviously doesn't apply to this article).
