Exceptionally Preserved Ancient Ships Discovered in the Black Sea
smithsonianmag.com
smithsonianmag.com
As far as I know, this oxygen-free water layer below approximately 150 meters from the surface makes Black Sea unique. Virtually anything drowned in it from the beginning of marine history is in perfect condition. If I was a beginner archaeologist who dreams of big discoveries then I'd look at the Black Sea in the first place.
While being careful to avoid adding to the collection, of course.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/oxygen-black-sea-has-dec...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_waters#Anoxic_basins
It might be the source of a flood myth. But such myths are pervasive, you can find them in nearly every culture on Earth. Surely such a story has originated more than once.
"When the Secondary Globe (the lavaic ocean bottoms) began to submerge in the beginning of the last Farsolar Epoch, the global seas were forced to glide off the Primary (Geologic) Globe":
And that's why people paint their faces. Also, yetis. Okay, zermatism is controversial, but he produced some very good art and sculpture from it.
[1] http://unurthed.com/2007/12/23/szukalskis-science-of-zermati...
Their website seem down [0]. Here a cute video though [1]. Some nice pictures [2].
> All of the artefacts that were found by the team have been 3-D printed using one of the most detailed 3-D printers in the world.
Next time just create a .torrent file...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWtX233YQNc
[2] http://www.iflscience.com/editors-blog/incredible-ship-grave...
There is a bunch of stuff we have left to do. There's still a constant stream of discoveries being made in the depths of the oceans.
The science is hardly settled and, I suppose, that's what makes it so exciting. We have critters we can't even fully understand how they survive, and then we have all sorts of smaller mysteries. Like eels... We only first observed them mating just a couple of years ago, and that was just a single species.
I believe this is still true. The search for the missing Malaysian airliner ended up producing way better maps of the seafloor in the search region than had ever been done before. That search region is a teeny tiny portion of the entire seafloor and it took years.
https://eos.org/project-updates/geological-insights-from-mal...
Meanwhile the entire moon has been mapped down to 328 feet resolution:
https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2...
The data report [0] from the MH370 search offers good insight for how little we know of the ocean, and why it is so difficult to map in its entirety. Two points really stood out to me from their findings: 1) the current quality of our topographical maps and other images are low quality and mostly unhelpful for any sort of real research or analysis; 2) it took 3 years of dedicated masses of search teams from multiple countries just to produce quality maps of a tiny stretch of one part of one ocean.
To put numbers behind it, the MH370 report referenced above calculated their entire mapping efforts this way: "The search for MH370 collected 278,000 square kilometres of bathymetry data within the search area and 710,000 square kilometres of data in total, which includes the data acquired in transit between port and the search area. It is one of the largest marine surveys ever conducted." That's a lot of time (3 years), money ($160M, granted not all spent on mapping), and people, for a good chunk of sea floor. But the oceans comprise 360,000,000 square kilometers. Three years of dedicated, coordinated searching in the "largest marine survey" ever only mapped 0.2% of the ocean floor. So who knows what sort of motivation, incentives, time, and organizations it will take to get 100%.
[0] https://geoscience-au.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Cascade/index.htm...
A third of the way to the moon, there are approximately 7x10^6 molecules of hydrogen per cubic meter[0].
From high earth orbit (assume 60k km), it's about 300k km to the moon.
The average depth of the ocean is about 3.5km.
For simplification, let's assume that a molecule of water and a molecule of hydrogen have the same density (which they don't)
From high earth orbit, in a straight line to the moon, there would be about 2x10^12 hydrogen molecules in the way.
From the ocean surface to the average depth, there would be about 1x10^32 water molecules in the way.
Not getting into the optical properties of water vs hydrogen, or the fact that the math is much different for a probe orbiting the moon, there's just more "stuff" between the ocean surface and the ocean floor, and a satellite and the moon.