Originally Posted by vtec to vvel

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/ho...-dg/index.html

"The Titanic submersible was going down nearly 13,000 feet. Just how deep in the ocean is that?"

We have the ability/technology to send people to the moon and rovers to Mars, which are thousands upon millions of miles away, and have the capabilities to track them so they don't get lost. Yet, we can't track a vehicle on our home turf that is less than 3 miles down underwater? Are there not any in-case-of-emergency functionalities on these things?

Originally Posted by filip00

Listen, take the following as a given, because these are the facts:
1. You can't predict the weather with 100% confidence. You can't, forget it.
2. Nobody can guarantee safety from hurricanes, force majeur events etc.

Now with those two in mind....would you rather that you have a newscaster who says:

"Hurricane is underway, we expect it will go throught states A, B and C, we got no idea if it will go to other states like C, D, E, good luck folks."

or would you like something like:

"Hurricane is underway, we expect it will go throught states A, B and C, we think that states like C, D, E are safe, to the best of our knowledge."


Because the first one will get them legally off the hook, and I dunno, you'll be happy? But what will happen is panic, a lot of people AGAIN hoarding stuff and idiots spreading everywhere......so they are doing the second, but you'r angry because nobody guarantees safety.

I mean think about it for a moment.

Originally Posted by filip00

Correct.

It's much easier to secure someone from vacuum than from the depths and crazy pressures that are experienced in the bottom of the Mariana trench for example.
It's much easier to track and communicate to people in space, where there are NO OBSTACLES for radio wave communication, whereas in the sea, the opposite is true.
Thirdly, we have mapped the whole moon, because all you need is a telescope. To map the ocean floor, what do you think is necessary? That's a question for you to answer.

With the first two answers that I've given you, and the third one you can answer yourself -> you will answer the whole conundrum that bothers you.
Spoiler alert:

Originally Posted by DaveZ03

Looks like we've only mapped <10% of the global ocean, to filip00's point.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html

Originally Posted by filip00

I am amazed that this apparently isn't common knowledge.

Originally Posted by vtec to vvel

I'm not angry nor asking for 100% accurate results, and I understand weather is not an exact science. BUT, given the education/technology/qualifications/etc. needed, meteorologist should and need to give a better picture of its projected path based on conditions and factors (i.e. warm air, warm water, wind shear, troughs, any jet streams that could push the hurricane away to a different direction, etc.). They have plenty of tools and resources and KNOWN variables to depict these phenomenons. There will be different scenarios, but these should be very limited, and not have the spaghetti models with the entire alphabet.

Originally Posted by vtec to vvel

So you're telling me it's much easier to communicate with someone that is millions of miles away and in space with unknown territory/variables than someone who is less than 3 miles underwater on home turf with better known variables?

We can map the moon, but we can't map out 3 miles of underwater of the general area of where the Titanic is? We don't need to map out the entire ocean for this, let alone the Mariana Trench.

Originally Posted by vtec to vvel

I am amazed society has apparently only mapped <10% of the global ocean.

Originally Posted by DaveZ03

I look forward to reading your thesis on how we can improve not only ocean mapping, but also meteorology. I await with baited breath.

Originally Posted by vtec to vvel

I didn't bring up ocean mapping, someone else did. Perhaps you can enlighten us on this.

Meteorology: Again, it's not an exact science, but it's not rocket science either. They (the meteorologists) should be able to make better educated projections, at least a lot more educated and accurate than what they have been.

Originally Posted by vtec to vvel

I'm a little late on this, but I now understand the reference, courtesy of youtube.

Holy sh!t....

Originally Posted by DaveZ03

I'm just curious how we are supposed to find something that is lost in the middle of something we don't even have 10% mapped out. How did we send people to the moon? We mapped out the way, the fuel needed, the technology needed, the additional resources REQUIRED, etc.

So your question about how we can't solve the problem of finding folks in the ocean is clearly dependent on the understanding of the environment we are exploring. By exploring, we map.



Quick google search:

https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/20/a-...-he-was-fired/

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/21/11834...te-submersible

Amazing what a quick search can yield. Also it's easy to complain. It's hard to come up with solutions that are grounded in science. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Originally Posted by vtec to vvel

That is exactly my point. We have the time/energy/resources to map out space for the moon, which is thousands of miles away, but can't take the same resources to map out less than 3 miles underwater?

This is a "problem" that can easily be solved: map out the general area of the ocean of their target area. In this case, the resting place of the Titanic. Like you said, explore to map the 3 miles of underwater. I think we both can agree that it is MUCH easier to explore/map 3 miles underwater than it is to explore/map thousands of miles into space.




Lol Did I come across as complaining? I was thinking it was more of expressing shock/astonishment. At the end of the day, this doesn't affect me personally so I really don't have any complaints about this.

Originally Posted by DaveZ03

If it is SO MUCH easier, than why aren't you doing it? Do you have a solution to present? I'll wait...

Originally Posted by filip00

They can't. Now what? Should we all fire them?

they can give accurate predictions maybe 24h in advance. More than that is pure guesswork.

Now what?

Originally Posted by filip00

Yes, I'm telling you exactly that. I'll even give you another analogy. One person in space, the other on earth. The dude in space only needs to make a flash of light and you will see it, regardless of your distance. If you replace light by radiowaves, you will get communication.

Now beneath the deep ocean...is a different medium. There are other objects in between (hint: there are virtually NO objects in space between us and the moon [except maybe some satellites]), and there are also deep sea caverns, and the pressure is larger, and waves do not travel freely in this medium.....even light can't penetrate it.....do...you....see where I'm going with this?

Originally Posted by filip00

I am shocked that you are what, questioning this? You think that's not the case, or what? Or you think they should've mapped more? How? Read my comment above.

Originally Posted by filip00

Saddest part is - I didn't need to look up the fact that the ocean floor is virtually completely unmapped. Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand the difference between mapping an ocean floor and a foreign space body. YES THE MOON IS FURTHER. YES. But that does not mean you can't observe it from afar. That does not mean you can't map the whole fckn thing - we've got incredible telescopes.

And ocean? Do you have underwater telescopes? WE DON'T. Do we have super submersible vessels that withstand crazy pressures deep beneath? NO SIR, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE EITHER. And I'm not sarcastic here - WE DON'T HAVE THESE. Even the most advanced nuclear submarines can only submerge a couple of hundred meters deep.
So seriously - how DO you go about mapping the ocean floor? Light doesn't penetrate deeper than maybe 100 meters. Then what? I mean, do you even fathom the practical problems of mapping the ocean floor?

The only thing we've got is sonar. Fckn sonar. You know what that gives us? It gives us a ROUGH ESTIMATE of depth and where the walls are. That's it. Good luck with anything else. If there's an underwater cave - we'll miss it unless we go around the siphon to see it.

****, I'm tired of explaining.

Do me a favor now and you tell me. Seriously - you tell me, what do you think is going on? You think that we actually mapped the ocean floor? You think there's a conspiracy against it or what? Seriously asking this, I'm not joking, I genuinely want to understand how do you view this, because it will help me understand how someone else doesn't understand this, and I'll maybe be able to explain better and easier next time.

Originally Posted by vtec to vvel

Didn't think my posts and opinions would create such traction lol. You do you and I'll do me.

But be careful, there are those here that will take these posts as political and report. Still wondering who among us that is.

DaveZ03, be sure to send a blank check my way and I will gladly take on the ocean mapping project. Someone has to do it.

Originally Posted by filip00

So you can't be arsed to be at least that decent to tell me - what YOUR take on this whole thing is? I mean, you plant the **** seed, insinuate that something else is going on, but you can't actually follow through and elaborate? I'm disappointed man. Do explain, because like I said - I'm genuinely interested in what's going on in your head, because I think you're the perfect "normal" dude here, who might be able to fill in the gap between myself, and someone who is a conspiracy theorist. So I wonder, who's in between, what do average people think - what *actually* happened there?