Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
400-year-old warships in Swedish channel may be sisters of doomed Vasa
Two 17th-century shipwrecks on the bottom of a busy Swedish shipping channel may be the sister ships of the ill-fated Vasa. Archaeologists with Sweden's Vrak—Museum of Wrecks discovered the vessels in a 35-meter-deep channel near Stockholm during a recent survey. Neither wreck is as well-preserved as Vasa (to be fair, there are probably ships actually sailing today that aren't as well-preserved as Vasa), but they're in remarkably good shape for several centuries on the bottom.
Studying the wrecks could reveal more details about how early naval engineers revised their designs to avoid another disaster like Vasa.
The wrecks may be the remains of two of the four large warships Sweden's King Gustav II Adolf built in the 1620s and 1630s. The earliest of the four ships, Vasa, had a first trip out of port in 1628 that ended in disaster; the top-heavy vessel caught a gust of wind and leaned over far enough to let water rush in through open gun ports. King Gustav's prized warship sank just a few dozen meters offshore in front of hundreds of spectators, killing half the crew onboard.
On the other hand, the three later ships—Äpplet, Kronan, and Scepter—had longer careers. Äpplet sailed with the Swedish fleet to invade Germany in 1630, and Kronan and Scepter sailed against a combined Danish-Norwegian fleet in the 1644 battle of Kolberger Heide.
[...] At the moment, Hansson and his colleagues don't know which two of the three ships they're dealing with—assuming that the wrecks really are Vasa's sisters. The divers collected wood samples from both wrecks and will radiocarbon date them to confirm when the ships were built. All three of Vasa's sisters hail from the early 1630s, so if the dates match up, that will be a strong hint.
Meanwhile, the archaeologists plan to continue diving on the wrecks, measuring timbers and documenting details of how the ships are put together. Wooden sailing ships were the high-tech military vehicles of their day, and Vasa and her sisters were among the earliest to carry large numbers of heavy cannon. "We didn't have time to do a proper survey but will come back," Hansson told Ars. "It's quite hard to get a grip of such a big wreck in such a short time."
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 28 2019, @03:05PM (9 children)
I guess I've listened to over 50 hours of this guy: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZFipeZtQM5CKUjx6grh54g
You'd agree he's in the "we can do this camp", I hope? I still think it's idealistic, blue-sky thinking, and to be perfectly honest, a bit naive. All attention is paid to finding things that might work (if we pretend that we don't have to scale them up by 12 orders of magnitude), and none on how things are likely to fail. And they're all fragile. This is paying attention to a tiny fraction of the recent history of materials science, and turning your back on almost the entirity of the rest.
Perhaps I should step up to the plate and go down in history as the one who reworded Albert Bartlett's famous saying by replaced "exponential" with "logistic" (OK, and add a "second", as his is still the greatest).
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @04:09PM (8 children)
What has to be scaled up that much? For example, even if for some reason, we tried to move the entire population of Earth to Mars, we wouldn't need to scale anything up by 12 orders of magnitude. Seven billion people aren't a trillion times more resource intensive to move than four.
What's the point of paying attention to materials we wouldn't be using? And we already have experience in making non-fragile societies. Maybe we ought to apply that knowledge to making non-fragile Martian societies too?
Why is that supposed to be relevant? He's just another Malthusian in a world that's not Malthusian.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:50PM (7 children)
> What has to be scaled up that much?
Material for a sky hook or elevator. Remember to engineer into your numbers the fact that it *must not fail*.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @07:17PM (6 children)
That's not even needed for a complete moving of Earth's population. Lots of rockets suffice. Presently, the Falcon Heavy can move a dozen or so people at a time. Tens of millions of larger rockets would do.
Nonsense. Even a space elevator can be allowed to fail. You just have to figure out how to make the failure relatively nonlethal. For example, if the strands are broken up into small pieces prior to reentry, it massively reduces the harm from collapse of the elevator.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 28 2019, @09:54PM (5 children)
Glad to see you accepting that at least 7 orders of magnitude are required, even if not doing the more energy-efficient thing, that's a start.
Where's your rocket fuel coming from?
No, the other 99.99999% of it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:12PM (4 children)
Why wouldn't I? Keep in mind this is for the extreme position of depopulation Earth using near future technology.
Fossil fuels would cover it.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 29 2019, @01:37AM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @02:16AM (2 children)
Presently, humanity has managed a seven billion global civilization. It just happens to be on Earth not Mars.
There would be plenty of economies of scale, particularly in the R&D budget. Seven billion people isn't much harder than a thousand people, research-wise.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 29 2019, @11:58AM (1 child)
But you're still assuming, for want of a metaphor, that the moore's law of material science will keep holding. Of course, there's only one way of finding out, and that's by doing the science and pushing the limits, I'm far from anti-science. I just think that none of the tech that we are even aware of as possible is good enough to create a sustainable space-faring population. We haven't even solved the food/sustenance issue yet. No, those experiments were an abject failure, and didn't last long enough even to get us beyond jupiter.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 29 2019, @07:01PM
I agree that there presently is a huge gulf between what humans can presently do and what is needed for permanent Martian colonies. Sending token space probes to Mars won't cut it. Sending people in orbit around Earth won't either. But my view is that the game has changed. Musk, mentioned in the beginning of this thread, has done remarkable things on a small fraction of the budget that any of the major space programs would have used. If he can deliver well enough on his "Super Heavy", then I believe that will be enough on the Earth-side to spur eventual colonization of Mars due to the massive drop in cost of supplying space activities from Earth. And if he can develop rockets at such a remarkably low cost, then maybe he can develop a Martian space colony too. The man has some skills.
Many of these technology gaps can be developed concurrently. For example, the US in 1961 at the time a lunar mission was first announced had many technology gaps such as no big rocket, no capsule with the necessary capability or endurance, no lunar lander, no idea about where to land, etc. It's educational to see how they developed these simultaneously to get to the landing in 1969. I'm not advocating the same rush, dumping huge funds on a big gamble, but a private effort that develops and tests these technologies simultaneously could knock out most of the technological issues in a couple of decades.