96 years under the sea

[Penelope_Grey]

Just thought I would add that it was today 96 years ago the RMS Titanic sank claiming just about 1500 lives.

A definate tragic naval disaster that could have been so easily averted with enough lifeboats.

[kurtz]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

A definate tragic naval disaster that could have been so easily averted with enough lifeboats.

and if the doco's are to be believed less compromise on materials and ship building practices.

[August]

Well said, except "naval" is a military word. I think you meant to say "maritime".

[Tchocky]

Weird, was down by Harland & Wolff just last week.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

Just thought I would add that it was today 96 years ago the RMS Titanic sank claiming just about 1500 lives.

A definate tragic naval disaster that could have been so easily averted with enough lifeboats.

If they had closed the water tight bulkheads as designed she might have kept afloat. Tragic to say the least for a beautiful liner not to mention the people onboard.

[Brag]

The bulkheads apparently did not go all the way up to the main deck. the ship did not have real watertight compartments.

[AVGWarhawk]

At the time of her construction, the Titanic was the largest ship ever built. She was nearly 900 feet long, stood 25 stories high, and weighed an incredible 46,000 tons [Division, 1997]. With turn-of-the-century design and technology, including sixteen major watertight compartments in her lower section that could easily be sealed off in the event of a punctured hull, the Titanic was deemed an unsinkable ship. According to her builders, even in the worst possible accident at sea, two ships colliding, the Titanic would stay afloat for two to three days, which would provide enough time for nearby ships to help [Gannon, 1995].


Yes, the bulkhead did not go to the top but she had watertight technology.

[Trex]

RMS Titanic met all relevent British safety and design requirements of the day, including the number of lifeboats and in construction. Most of the compartment bulkheads stopped 3 metres above the waterline, which was felt to be quite enough in case of collision as the ship would stay afloat with the first four compartments flooded, all that was felt likely in case of a collision. They also had built in a double bottom in case of grounding. Given the technology of the day, she was pretty good. What killed her was that one-in-a-million chance. Instead of hitting the iceberg straight on, she just grazed it, opening five comparments to the sea.

There were, incidentally, some truly watertight compartments low in the hull, but these were too limited in size to save her.

[STEED]

It's the same old story...............

Rushed in to service to make a fast buck.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Trex

What killed her was that one-in-a-million chance. Instead of hitting the iceberg straight on, she just grazed it, opening five comparments to the sea.

Agreed. I've also read that the reaction of captain and crew were the exact opposite of what they should have been. If they had reversed engines and struck the iceberg head-on they would have smashed the bow and cause a lot of injuries, but almost certainly would have stayed afloat.

Conversely, if they had thrown the rudder hard over but left the engines at full speed there is a reasonable chance they would have missed the berg altogether. Ships actually turn tighter the faster they're moving.

As you say, a one-in-a-million chance.

[bookworm_020]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

At the time of her construction, the Titanic was the largest ship ever built. She was nearly 900 feet long, stood 25 stories high, and weighed an incredible 46,000 tons [Division, 1997]. With turn-of-the-century design and technology, including sixteen major watertight compartments in her lower section that could easily be sealed off in the event of a punctured hull, the Titanic was deemed an unsinkable ship. According to her builders, even in the worst possible accident at sea, two ships colliding, the Titanic would stay afloat for two to three days, which would provide enough time for nearby ships to help [Gannon, 1995].


Yes, the bulkhead did not go to the top but she had watertight technology.

IF she had the same as this ship she wouldn't have sunk. She had a gash riped in her side that was longer than the Titanic, but didn't even take on water!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Great_Eastern

[Trex]

It’s important to keep in mind that nobody cut any corners in designing or building the Titanic. Harland and Wolff were one of the best shipyards in the world. She took two years to design and three to build and she had every technological advantage that could be thought of. To all extents and purposes, Titanic was a five-star hotel with props, renowned for her decor and luxury. (Perhaps ironically, she even had a swimming pool.) Titanic met the every regulation and standard for a passenger liner in terms of safety. There was no doubt in anybody’s mind at the time that she was, for all practical purposes, unsinkable. That they were wrong is a tragedy, not negligence.

Another thing we need to consider is that all design is a compromise. We do it today; our bridges and such are built to withstand a ‘hundred-year storm’. In other words, we build to a reasonable level of strength based on our expectations of likely problems, not worst-case.

[I-25]

I had my Titanic thread first u.u