I think you are making some assumptions here. There was no blind faith here.

At the time that the Titanic was designed, the worst accident that could endanger a ship like the Titanic was a mid ocean collision with another ship. In 1909 the White Star ship Republic was hit by the Florida. The Florida hit the Republic right at the seam between two watertight compartments. The Republic sank two days later.

No one considered that a ship like the Titanic was unsinkable (what was the media) but naval engineers were convinced that a ship like the Titanic could not sink quickly.

This was why the Titanic only had a limited number of life boats. The expected purpose was to ferry passengers to a rescuing ship and also use the life boats of the other ship. Life boats at that time were not designed to carry passengers adrift for weeks.

This is why the Titanic was designed to stay afloat with any four compartments flooded. No one considered that more than 2-3 compartments could be flooded in any one accident.

The Titanic was clearly not a perfect design, but it did represent the state of the art design for ship safety. A glancing blow buckling plates as what happened with the Titanic was not considered a realistic threat.

Perhaps the designers could be criticized for not considering future accidents that had not occurred. But to say that the designers had blind faith in technology over nature is unjustified.

The designers knew that the Titanic, like any ship, can sink. They designed the ship to survive any anticipated accident, and, in my opinion, did it well.

It is tragic that the Titanic, through human errors, was involved in an accident that was not anticipated. But I think blaming the designers and builders is unjustified.

Reminds of the old joke about the man who refused to fly; said it was too dangerous; always took trains; died in a terrible train wreck: a plane crashed into the train...

You're talking about a very bad luck, if I go fairly straightforward :-?

i agree with platapus.

The ship was so elegant that it was crewed by the finest. The engineers built the ship to withstand any normal accident at sea.

Due to Human error, it sank that cold night.


First off, the Captain and the telegraph operator ignored iceberg warnings. Second, they steamed at full ahead in weather that prevented sufficient view of the surroundings.

And when they faced the iceberg, The officers made the wrong maneuver. The officers went full back AND hard over. Now as most of us at subsim know, the faster a ship goes the harder it turns. those critical knots lost couldve made the difference.

Or, they couldve critically assessed the situation and went full back and actually rammed the iceberg. If the Titanic slowed enough, it wouldve caused major damage but the ship wouldve most likely stayed afloat

could the engineers have built watertight compartments for the entire keel? sure. but it would cost more and wasnt perceived as necessary for the elegant cruise liner that wasnt intended to go into battle or be the victim of a collision amidships or behind the watertight bulkheads.

The irish built em a good ship. However the crew were at fault for its demise. Full speed ahead in a gauntlet of icebergs isnt a very good idea.

:yep: And those real facts in more detail .... we will probably never know.

If I had the money and space i'd want at least a 2 meter long Titanic model fully lighted ;).

It's a symbol of man's arrogance and folly and man's spirit to survive. A symbol of tragedy and a new beginning. People's lives were changed by it for the better or worse or even perhaps both. I love it. To put it simply it is to me a symbol of life.

I did mean my statement more in a philosophical way, as a spirit of the times, beliefs of the masses and - what you also pointed out - what the media suggested. In a way, you can find this again also in the 1950's spirit, like the belief that we will soon live on the moon, drive cars powered by nuclear reactors and stuff like this.

Certainly the designers were also children of their time, but it is also a design principle that one always has to think of the "unthinkable", behind the borders of known accidents and faults - hell, even as a software designer one has to do so. Maybe this is one of the lessons learned through an accident like this.

Btw, I work as a technician - so it's not an anti-technology mindset that drove me to assumptions like this ;)