Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday November 27 2019, @11:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the two-out-of-three-ain't-bad dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @04:10PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 28 2019, @04:10PM (#925665) Journal

    Do you not think "we can't do this" is the strongest argument for pointlessness?

    Only when it's true. When it's false, as in this case, then it's among the weakest.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:36PM (1 child)

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Thursday November 28 2019, @05:36PM (#925702) Homepage
    The Bayesian prior is that it's true. The evidence to change that is nothing. The Bayesian posterior is therefore that it's true too.

    Show me the evidence, the posterior will change.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 1, Disagree) by khallow on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:19PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 28 2019, @11:19PM (#925797) Journal

      The Bayesian prior is that it's true. The evidence to change that is nothing.

      Then we wouldn't be able to demonstrate [soylentnews.org] progress towards that.

      To elaborate, what makes something possible? We've already demonstrated that one can land people on another body and we've landed mass on Mars. Landing people on Mars is physically merely landing more mass on Mars (certainly not twelve orders of magnitude more mass). We already demonstrated that we can keep people alive for months without resupply from Earth. We also have demonstrated many times over the use of local resources on Earth. Sure, there's a number of technologies that would need to be developed before a self-sustaining colony can exist on Mars. But we've developed similar technologies on Earth and in space, demonstrating our ability to develop such technologies.

      Given that the evidence of our ability to solve the alleged impossible problem, your argument is in error.