Titanic Sonar Images
Discussion
Yes it's the Daily Mail, but the pictures speak for themselves.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112456/Ti...
Still, if the Sunday Sport were still going it would be "Titanic Found on Moon!"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2112456/Ti...
Still, if the Sunday Sport were still going it would be "Titanic Found on Moon!"
I was reading about that elsewhere earlier and it got me thinking about wrecks in general.
These pics / soundings were taken by the official wreck holding company or some such, an American Inc. presumably as a precursor to further exploratory or recovery work. The American Inc, I imagine ended up being the wreck holder as some sort of deal with Carnival who became the eventual owners of the white star line.
But of course at the time of the wreck she was a British ship registered here by a British company.
If it were a war wreck then invariably the government would lay claim over the wreck and give it a protected status as a war grave international waters or otherwise.
With such a great loss of life I am surprised that it wasn't immediately protected as a wreck given that numerous bodies weren't recovered and possibly still down there.
So, excuse my ramblings, but if the company supposedly own the wreck do they also own the possessions left around there and do they owe a service to the dead (multiple nationalities) to ensure they have recovered all remains and given a suitable burial before they lift anything?
These pics / soundings were taken by the official wreck holding company or some such, an American Inc. presumably as a precursor to further exploratory or recovery work. The American Inc, I imagine ended up being the wreck holder as some sort of deal with Carnival who became the eventual owners of the white star line.
But of course at the time of the wreck she was a British ship registered here by a British company.
If it were a war wreck then invariably the government would lay claim over the wreck and give it a protected status as a war grave international waters or otherwise.
With such a great loss of life I am surprised that it wasn't immediately protected as a wreck given that numerous bodies weren't recovered and possibly still down there.
So, excuse my ramblings, but if the company supposedly own the wreck do they also own the possessions left around there and do they owe a service to the dead (multiple nationalities) to ensure they have recovered all remains and given a suitable burial before they lift anything?
MOTORVATOR said:
if the company supposedly own the wreck do they also own the possessions left around there
My thought is that they should belong to the victims' descendants - in much the same way that artworks pillaged by the Nazis still technically belong to the original owners. But as I know zip about international law I may well be wrong.RegMolehusband said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
The stern is just a pile of pulp !
The ship split in half. The other half is some distance away.It was suggested some time back that the forward section is thought to have coasted down through the water over a considerable distance giving it a softer landing, hence it's preservation.
You also have to consider the effects of flooding prior to the sinking, and the effects of hydrostatic pressure during the descent to the seafloor below. The bows would have been almost totally flooded (the ship went down bow first, eventually breaking her back as the more bouyant stern section) Hence, on the descent, the hydraulic pressure would have been much much less than for the stern section which still had water tight compartments. It is likely that a lot of the deformation could have been caused by this pressure crusing the hull. The bow section looks to have been relatively un crushed, but has hit the bottom with force as there is a large "kink" in the hull where the bows impacted and bent upwards. Further to that it is possible a boiler explosion caused further damage ? (not sure if the ship was still in steam, but it is likely it was)
Max_Torque said:
You also have to consider the effects of flooding prior to the sinking, and the effects of hydrostatic pressure during the descent to the seafloor below. The bows would have been almost totally flooded (the ship went down bow first, eventually breaking her back as the more bouyant stern section) Hence, on the descent, the hydraulic pressure would have been much much less than for the stern section which still had water tight compartments. It is likely that a lot of the deformation could have been caused by this pressure crusing the hull. The bow section looks to have been relatively un crushed, but has hit the bottom with force as there is a large "kink" in the hull where the bows impacted and bent upwards. Further to that it is possible a boiler explosion caused further damage ? (not sure if the ship was still in steam, but it is likely it was)
I believe the reports were of electrical light being there virtually to the end so it can assumed she was carrying at least an element of steam. No back up battery power back then.MOTORVATOR said:
I think he's referring to the fact that the stern went straight down and sustained a shedload of damage whereas the remaining forward section settled on the bed with relatively little damage.
It was suggested some time back that the forward section is thought to have coasted down through the water over a considerable distance giving it a softer landing, hence it's preservation.
The last docu I watched suggested the trapped air in the stern section ravaged the deck as it escaped from openings and such. They also reckoned that went straight down, while the bow went down much gentler in a downward spiral motion.It was suggested some time back that the forward section is thought to have coasted down through the water over a considerable distance giving it a softer landing, hence it's preservation.
We'll never know I don't think, but it's cool watching people try to reconstruct and figure it out
very cool images, though the shadows in the stern section debris field puzzle me somewhat; they dont all face the same direction?
at first i assumed the shadows must have been added digitally in order to make it look more like a photograph, but its strange that they have not made sure all the shadows are projected in the same direction to give the impression of a single light source.
but then if the sonar device is not directly above the object, would you get a 'real' shadow on the sonar image?
if the former is the case, why not make sure all the shadows face the same way to make it look more natural?
or would it be the case that because the final image is a mosaic, the contributing images were individually processed and had shadows added before they were then rotated to the correct orientation relative to the other stuff (with the editors forgetting/realising too late about the shadows)
if the latter, surely enough passes over the objects would have been done that a mosaic wouldnt have blank areas?
at first i assumed the shadows must have been added digitally in order to make it look more like a photograph, but its strange that they have not made sure all the shadows are projected in the same direction to give the impression of a single light source.
but then if the sonar device is not directly above the object, would you get a 'real' shadow on the sonar image?
if the former is the case, why not make sure all the shadows face the same way to make it look more natural?
or would it be the case that because the final image is a mosaic, the contributing images were individually processed and had shadows added before they were then rotated to the correct orientation relative to the other stuff (with the editors forgetting/realising too late about the shadows)
if the latter, surely enough passes over the objects would have been done that a mosaic wouldnt have blank areas?
deadtom said:
very cool images, though the shadows in the stern section debris field puzzle me somewhat; they dont all face the same direction?
at first i assumed the shadows must have been added digitally in order to make it look more like a photograph, but its strange that they have not made sure all the shadows are projected in the same direction to give the impression of a single light source.
but then if the sonar device is not directly above the object, would you get a 'real' shadow on the sonar image?
if the former is the case, why not make sure all the shadows face the same way to make it look more natural?
or would it be the case that because the final image is a mosaic, the contributing images were individually processed and had shadows added before they were then rotated to the correct orientation relative to the other stuff (with the editors forgetting/realising too late about the shadows)
if the latter, surely enough passes over the objects would have been done that a mosaic wouldnt have blank areas?
What shadows? Different colours represent different speeds at which the pulse/s returned I think, the black areas are areas that absorbed the pulse/s or something like that (creating dead areas), im just guessing.at first i assumed the shadows must have been added digitally in order to make it look more like a photograph, but its strange that they have not made sure all the shadows are projected in the same direction to give the impression of a single light source.
but then if the sonar device is not directly above the object, would you get a 'real' shadow on the sonar image?
if the former is the case, why not make sure all the shadows face the same way to make it look more natural?
or would it be the case that because the final image is a mosaic, the contributing images were individually processed and had shadows added before they were then rotated to the correct orientation relative to the other stuff (with the editors forgetting/realising too late about the shadows)
if the latter, surely enough passes over the objects would have been done that a mosaic wouldnt have blank areas?
deadtom said:
very cool images, though the shadows in the stern section debris field puzzle me somewhat; they dont all face the same direction?
at first i assumed the shadows must have been added digitally in order to make it look more like a photograph, but its strange that they have not made sure all the shadows are projected in the same direction to give the impression of a single light source.
but then if the sonar device is not directly above the object, would you get a 'real' shadow on the sonar image?
if the former is the case, why not make sure all the shadows face the same way to make it look more natural?
or would it be the case that because the final image is a mosaic, the contributing images were individually processed and had shadows added before they were then rotated to the correct orientation relative to the other stuff (with the editors forgetting/realising too late about the shadows)
if the latter, surely enough passes over the objects would have been done that a mosaic wouldnt have blank areas?
Just had a quick look at the article and it looks to be a composite of Sonar images and ROV footage, so it will give a single point of light in that case, as its only the lights from the ROV illuminating it. your right that the final image will be a mosaic, with many hundreds if not thousands of pictures from the footage combined into the final image.at first i assumed the shadows must have been added digitally in order to make it look more like a photograph, but its strange that they have not made sure all the shadows are projected in the same direction to give the impression of a single light source.
but then if the sonar device is not directly above the object, would you get a 'real' shadow on the sonar image?
if the former is the case, why not make sure all the shadows face the same way to make it look more natural?
or would it be the case that because the final image is a mosaic, the contributing images were individually processed and had shadows added before they were then rotated to the correct orientation relative to the other stuff (with the editors forgetting/realising too late about the shadows)
if the latter, surely enough passes over the objects would have been done that a mosaic wouldnt have blank areas?
I just came across the following in The Guardian - Unseen Titanic: first ever complete views of the wreck regarding this month's National Geographic.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff