Lost Loch Ness Monster camera accidentally found by Boaty McBoatface
The U.K.'s National Oceanography Centre was conducting a routine test of one of their autonomous underwater vehicles, named Boaty McBoatface, when it happened upon the camera system at a depth of around 590 feet.
The camera is thought to have been submerged 55 years ago as part of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau's first attempt to use underwater photography in their search for Nessie.
The center's underwater robot came across the contraption when part of its mooring snagged on Boaty McBoatface's propeller. When it was brought back to the surface, author and lifelong Nessie investigator Adrian Shine said he knew exactly what it was.
"It was a fascinating moment," Shine told CBS News.
He described the camera trap as "quite ingenious." "[It was] triggered by a bait line, which was above the camera on a float, and if that was pulled, an external magnetic switch was operated," he said.
Shine, who set up The Loch Ness Project in the mid-1970s to investigate Loch Ness, said around 24 film exposures had been taken but there was no evidence of Nessie in those pictures.
Once revealed, the pictures mostly show Loch Ness' dark, murky waters and it is believed the camera could have been triggered by the loch's strong underwater currents.
According to Shine, the Instamatic film camera was one of six deployed as part of the project, which was spearheaded by American biologist and scientific director of the Loch Ness Investigation Bureau Roy Mackal. The camera pulled to the surface by Boaty McBoatface was one of three that had been lost in the deep waters during a gale.
The chance encounter came during a routine test of the center's underwater vehicles, which help map seabed habitats.
Sam Smith, from the center's Marine Autonomous Robotics Systems group, said, "While this wasn't a find we expected to make, we're happy that this piece of Nessie hunting history can be shared and perhaps at least the mystery of who left it in the loch can be solved."
Freed Israeli hostages call for end to war, to bring remaining Gaza hostages home
Ex-Trump intelligence official: "Nothing" shared was "appropriate" for Signal group chat
Poll finds most American think Trump not focusing enough on loweirng prices
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
7 hours ago
- Business Wire
Coastal Bend LNG and Solvanic Announce Carbon Capture FEED Study
HOUSTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Coastal Bend LNG, developer of a multi-train natural gas liquefaction and export facility along the Texas Gulf Coast, today announced it has commenced a front-end engineering and design (FEED) study with Solvanic for electrochemically mediated amine regeneration (EMAR) carbon capture at its Coastal Bend LNG facility. Solvanic has signed an option agreement for use of the EMAR technology, originally developed by Professor T. Alan Hatton's research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Department of Chemical Engineering. The technology uses an electrochemical process to release carbon dioxide (CO 2) captured by amines with electricity, rather than high temperature steam traditionally used in thermal amine systems. This innovative approach reduces the energy requirements and capital costs for carbon capture and enables much greater flexibility across operating conditions and process scales. The EMAR technology has been in development at MIT for over a decade, with recent breakthroughs by Dr. Michael Massen-Hane and Dr. Michael Nitzsche, paving the way for emissions reductions that were previously infeasible. Drs. Massen-Hane and Nitzsche have since become co-founders of Solvanic to scale the technology into industry and maximize their climate impacts. 'To deliver on our ambitious low carbon intensity LNG goals, we need to capture carbon dioxide emissions from both our natural gas pretreatment and cogeneration facilities,' said Nick Flores, Chief Executive Officer, Coastal Bend LNG. 'For post-combustion capture on our onsite cogeneration facilities, we need a step change in carbon capture efficiency. We're highly encouraged by Solvanic's preliminary techno-economics and are keen to accelerate their technology readiness with this FEED study.' 'We have demonstrated our EMAR solution to Technology Readiness Level 4 with low energetics, high stability, and modular scalability across emission sources,' said Dr. Michael Nitzsche, Co-Founder and Chief Technology Officer, Solvanic. He added, 'This FEED study accelerates our techno-economic analyses for gas processing and post-combustion carbon capture with the full engineering support of Coastal Bend LNG and their contractors.' 'We are leveraging over a decade of electrochemical carbon capture research and development at MIT via this option agreement. We appreciate Coastal Bend LNG's confidence in the technology to meet their industrial decarbonization objectives,' said Dr. Michael Massen-Hane, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Solvanic. About Coastal Bend LNG Coastal Bend LNG is a privately held energy infrastructure development company dedicated to delivering low-carbon energy to the world. With a focus on sustainability, innovation, and operational excellence, the company is at the forefront of unleashing American energy dominance. For more information, visit About Solvanic Solvanic develops flexible industrial decarbonization solutions. Their modular electrochemical systems deliver step changes in levelized cost of carbon capture to enable economical decarbonization for even the hardest-to-abate industrial processes. To learn more, visit
Fox News
8 hours ago
- Fox News
The 2026 Senate Race Already Attracting Big Attention… and Big Money
In what promises to be a decisive clash for control of the Senate, North Carolina's high-stakes Senate race is shaping up to be one of the most costly of 2026. This next cycle, Republicans will be fighting to preserve their 53- 47 Senate majority. Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley is running for that North Carolina Senate seat; he joins the Rundown to share his outlook on GOP prospects in the midterms, the weight of President Trump's endorsement, and the sharp divide he sees between Republican and Democratic platforms. As acting NASA administrator, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon, a strategic initiative he says will be crucial to compete with the growing lunar ambitions from China and Russia. Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine joins the podcast to explore Secretary Duffy's call for American nuclear reactors in space, the evolving legal debate over ownership in space, and why he predicts mining rare metals on the moon will become very lucrative. Plus, commentary from FOX News Digital columnist David Marcus. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Critics shouldn't block NASA's nuclear path to a moon base
Sean Duffy, NASA's interim administrator, proved that the U.S. is serious about establishing a lunar base when he announced the deployment of a 100-kilowatt nuclear reactor on the moon by 2030. The idea, although a sound one, is not without its critics. The announcement that the first element of a lunar base will be a nuclear reactor was logical. Nuclear power, unlike solar, is available 24/7 and thus does not require backup batteries during periods when the sun is not available. That the reactor is first means that every other element of the lunar base can be hooked up and powered up immediately. As NPR notes, a 100-kilowatt reactor on Earth would be able to power 70 to 80 private homes in the United States, so it could power a decent-sized lunar base. It would have to withstand the extremes of heat and cold on the moon, not to mention the possibility of moonquakes and meteor strikes. Instead of water to cool it, the reactor would simply radiate the heat it creates into space. The cost would be about $3 billion. Space lawyer Michelle Hanlon describes some of the legal aspects of placing a nuclear reactor on the moon, especially in context of the space race with China. While the Outer Space Treaty prohibits claims of national sovereignty on the moon, the establishment of a nuclear reactor, especially with a lunar base attached to it, grants the nation-state that does it some measure of control over the surrounding territory. Its Article IX requires that states act 'with due regard to the corresponding interests of all other States Parties to the Treaty.' The practical effect of the Article IX provision is that the first country to establish a lunar base on the moon's south pole would be able to claim control over some prime real estate, important where ice mining is likely to be an essential enterprise. Duffy is therefore correct that the U.S. and its allies should be first with a nuclear reactor and a lunar base before China can establish its own and thus exert control. The idea of a nuclear-powered lunar base is not without its critics. For example, a CBS News host opined that colonizing the moon was akin to the colonization of native peoples on Earth by European powers. Celebrity astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson set him straight by pointing out that no native peoples exist on the moon or anywhere else in the solar system beyond Earth. The exchange elicited eyerolling on the Fox News show 'The Five.' But even there, some griping occurred. Dana Perino, who used to work for President George W. Bush, expressed considerable ennui about the whole concept of space travel. From the perspective of someone who has seen a space shuttle launch in person and watched men walk on the moon live on television, the attitude seems to be bizarre and dispiriting. Tyrus, the former wrestler turned social and political commentator, trotted out the 'let's solve problems on Earth before we go into space' trope that has been around since the beginning of the space age. The obvious answer has always been, 'Do both.' Ross Marchand, writing for Real Clear Science, noted the $37 trillion national debt and then claimed that building a lunar base would be just too expensive. He undermined his argument by comparing the 100-kilowatt lunar nuclear power plant to the 1-gigawatt reactors that exist on Earth and cost $10 billion to build (largely because of permitting and environmental regulation problems). Then he increased the estimated cost by a factor of 10 'or more.' Although NASA projects often do suffer cost overruns, $3 billion to $100 billion would be a little much, even for the space agency with its history of inefficiency. Marchand also trotted out the 'robots can explore space cheaper and better than humans' claim that was soundly debunked by the late, great lunar geologist Paul Spudis. In fact, returning to the moon and going on to Mars also polls well and has bipartisan political support, even it still has its critics. No great endeavor ever undertaken since the beginning of civilization has not had people saying it can't or shouldn't be done. The International Space Station, for example, drew fierce opposition and was almost cancelled more than once. The orbiting space laboratory is currently churning out a stream of scientific discoveries and technological innovations, confounding its early critics, who are long since forgotten. The lunar base and even Elon Musk's planned Mars colony will undergo a similar process. Future generations will find it difficult to imagine a universe where humans just occupied one world. Mark R. Whittington, who writes frequently about space policy, has published a political study of space exploration entitled ' Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? ' as well as ' The Moon, Mars and Beyond,' and, most recently,' Why is America Going Back to the Moon? ' He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner.
