Nic, Bupkis and Nichevo

About Nothing, by Nothing, with German-flavored cleavage occasionally thrown in for local color.

Location: Indianapolis, Indiana

You can email me at NicBupkusNichevo at aol dot com. Aren't you excited?

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Oh, Screw THAT!

The officials said the main chart on the submarine, prepared in 1989 and never revised, did not show any potential obstacles within three miles of the crash. They said the incident happened in such a desolate area - 360 miles southeast of Guam - that updating their depiction of the undersea terrain was never considered a priority.

Registration required for the NYT.

The gist of the article is that a sailor lost his life because there wasn't enough money to map effectively, even though the data was available. That's just fargin' wonderful. This Does Not Make Me Happy. Someone very close to me has spent a great deal of time riding subs, and I bloody well am NOT thrilled by the idea that at any time he could have turned into a ketchup smear inside of a wadded-up ball of tinfoil full fathom deep just because someone didn't have the extra $100 to put a mountain on the chart.

Fuck the depth,
Fuck the pressure,
Let's go down
And see the the Thresher!


Ok, a couple of questions: wouldn't passive sonar have picked up something that large in their path (I'm assuming they weren't actively pinging, given their speed)? Or, given their speed, would passive sonar have been deaf, dumb and blind? Also, the captain's being criticized for going that fast in an area with such "spotty" charts. Given a chart that's only 15 years old, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that it's accurate?


Post a Comment

<< Home