Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > General History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

General History General History Forum - General history questions and discussions


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 2nd, 2017, 08:32 AM   #21
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2013
From: Ulster
Posts: 1,206

Quote:
Originally Posted by JenniferHJohnstone View Post
Could be in a warehouse. Turning it into a museum. We have dino bones displayed in museums which are very large.

Exhibit? Educational, historical etc
I'm sure they could find some room for whatever was raised in the Titantic Quarter
Fred Crawford is online now  
Remove Ads
Old January 2nd, 2017, 09:30 AM   #22
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 130

Quote:
Originally Posted by PragmaticStatistic View Post
I doubt they can do it. The CIA's Hughes Glomar Explorer with all its technology could not raise the Soviet G-II sub K-129 in its entirety back in 1974 from 16,500 feet below. All it got was a 145-foot section of the bow and the sub had only been under for 12 years.
The depth of the ship makes me think that too. That it would be too far down, and lack of technology couldn't do it.

Doesn't mean that it couldn't be retrieved in pieces.
JenniferHJohnstone is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 09:33 AM   #23
Archivist
 
Joined: Dec 2016
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 130

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redaxe View Post
Also Titanic is often unfairly maligned for its supposed flaws but actually its remarkable that it managed to float for 2.5 hours after its collision without capsizing - When you consider that 7 compartments were taking on water (not 5 that the stupid James Cameron movie would have you believe).

The amount of damage the ship took was immense and then not to mention the secondary stress the uneven flooding caused on the hull to weaken - I doubt any modern ship could do better under those circumstances.

Compare that to the Costa Concordia which suffered a far smaller area of damage (especially considering the difference in size between the two vessels) and rolled over and sunk in 1 hour. Had Costa Concordia been in the same conditions as Titanic was in the North Atlantic thousands would have perished. Costa Concordia also listed badly and was almost unable to get its lifeboats out.

So really, Titanic was a remarkably safe vessel for its time - its failure was in navigation, poor communication and the crew not being trained in emergency procedures. Had the Titanic's crew rushed to the lower decks immediately and closed the open port holes on the lower decks then she probably would have stayed afloat longer.

But that it floated for 2.5 hours, and the dynamos were running right to the end so the pumps, lighting and radio could operate was a testament to the heroes of the disaster who were the electricians, engineers and firemen who also worked in freezing cold water to vent steam from the boilers to prevent them from exploding.
Your comment also made me think of the fact that the Titanic is also partially beneath the sand. Due the force it fell. Which would make it even more difficult to revive.
JenniferHJohnstone is offline  
Old January 2nd, 2017, 04:12 PM   #24

HistoryFreak1912's Avatar
History Freak since 1999.
 
Joined: Apr 2009
From: Alabama, USA
Posts: 4,329
Blog Entries: 20

Honestly, it'd be a lot cheaper to just build an exact replica of the Titanic.
HistoryFreak1912 is online now  
Old January 5th, 2017, 05:58 PM   #25

jgrooms's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Shawnee
Posts: 273

What say the Titanic experts about this photo supposedly showing evidence of a coal fire & this had structurally damaged the hull. And this is where the iceberg hit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jgrooms is offline  
Old January 5th, 2017, 07:46 PM   #26
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2009
From: San Diego
Posts: 3,108

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgrooms View Post
What say the Titanic experts about this photo supposedly showing evidence of a coal fire & this had structurally damaged the hull. And this is where the iceberg hit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is money to be made in trying to push NEW theories about the titanic or other famous events of the past. This doofus got a "documentary"made....

However- his theory is based on nonsense.

Everyone knows there was a fire in the coal bunker. It was well covered in the inquest- and there was significant divergence in the 'testimony' in that the supposed testimony that the fire was Not out, and the bulkhead was seen to be cherry red with heat was utterly debunked by actual survivors who had the job of clearing that bunker.

The men who cleared the last of the coal from that bunker reported that The fire was OUT entirely before the wreck. That the bunker was totally empty by that time, and the ONLY mention of the bulkhead being red hot was one of the men who inspected the bunker interior reported that he could see where the paint on the bulkhead had been charred which lead him to believe that the bulkhead must have gotten red hot at some prior time.

That is- NO One SAW the bulkhead red hot... they surmised it must have gotten that hot When it was inspected after the bunker was emptied.

Moreover the 'supposed' testimony of the person cited in the fake documentary could not be corroborated and contained several factual errors.

For one- he referred to the bunker by the wrong designation... One that neither the builders, nor the men who operated the Titanic ever used. For two- he reported that the coal was wetted down to try and keep it from catching fire- but it was well established fact at that time that WET coal was twice as likely to spontaneously combust. In fact, colliers loading coal took special care to ensure the bunkers were bone dry before loading coal, and that the coal had to be kept dry.

And it is true that Coal fires in bunkers were not uncommon at all. and there was a well established method for eliminating them. First- ships of that era always had numerous separate coal bunkers so that any fire that broke out would be contained.
Secondly, once a fire had started, the stokers in that boiler room compartment would use exclusively the coal from the bunker that was burning, so as to empty it as fast as possible. Titanic had been running on the coal from that bunker and had run entirely thru that supply of coal by the early evening of the accident.

The notion that the Titanic was steaming at high speed to try and get to new york for help putting out a fire that was already out is ludicrous. And Charles Lightoller- titanic's second officer, was specifically asked about the bunker fire at the inquest and reported that he was entirely unaware of any bunker fire aboard... and when questioned further, stated that a coal bunker fire was such a minor concern that it would not at all be unusual for the engineering officer to not even bother to mention it, unless he thought it might affect the running of the ship.

The man who testified as to the condition of the bunker9 having entered the bunker to ensure all the coal was pout of it and to inspect the damage, PHYSICALLY touched the bulkhead where the scorch mark was- so by the time he got in there, the bulkhead was not even warm to the touch.

He reported that other than the scorched paint ( that he cleaned off and rubbed the steel down with oil ) the only damage was that the bulkhead itself was dinged Out near the bottom and IN near the top.... meaning that the expanding hot metal had dished slightly in a wavy dimple.

So- the most credible reportage is that coal bunker fires were not even deemed dangerous enough to bother to report to the Captain and Second officer. That the fire was out, and the metal dead cool by well before the accident, and that the damage suffered was minor.

There is no way they would have need to steam extra fast to put out a fire that was already out and of which the second officer was not even aware.

This is not a 'new' theory.... it has been fielded before and the source suggesting this fireboat in New York yarn has been thoroughly discredited.

Last edited by sculptingman; January 5th, 2017 at 07:51 PM.
sculptingman is online now  
Old January 5th, 2017, 08:03 PM   #27
Scholar
 
Joined: Nov 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 524

This would be a more interesting one to restore and more practical. The HMS Cerberus was built in 1869 and became the pattern for all battle ships that followed. Sunk in shallow water to form a breakwater in 1945. It was the first iron warship to abandon sails. The first ship to have turreted guns (10" muzzle loading) with a clear field of fire, bow and aft. Now beginning to rust away badly and breaking into the water. I first saw it 50 years ago when it was still stable.
The Titanic became famous because many of those that went down, were wealthy and important people.
Click the image to open in full size.

Last edited by Mr Higson; January 5th, 2017 at 08:06 PM.
Mr Higson is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 12:21 AM   #28

Carolus's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Regnum Francorum (orientalium) / Germany
Posts: 1,868

Quote:
Originally Posted by JenniferHJohnstone View Post
There have been talks about raising the wreck of the Titanic in the past. This has been controversial. Understandably, as it is a grave yard site for the perished victims. However, it has recently be estimated that the Titanic is rotting so fast, that it will disappear by 2030.

If it's going to disappear anyway into the ocean, why not raise what it is left of it? For historical preservation. It probably wouldn't be likely to raise it in its entirety, as the technology isn't there. But, would it be possible to raise it from the ocean in the two parts its in?

If we already have museums with other artifacts from the Titanic, then why not try and preserve what is left? And put it in a museum?

What's you thoughts....

I doubt that it is technically possible to raise the wreckage which are broken to two segments (which are still quite large).

IIRC there was an operation to raise a Soviet submarine sunk somewhere in the Pacific Ocean in the 1970s (but a submarine is much smaller than the Titanic).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Space Shark View Post
Didn't Clive Cussler write a really good (but largely unrealistic) book about this very subject?
Indeed and there is even a movie based on his book:

Click the image to open in full size.
Carolus is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 04:59 AM   #29

Matthew Amt's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2015
From: MD, USA
Posts: 1,681

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Higson View Post
This would be a more interesting one to restore and more practical. The HMS Cerberus was built in 1869 and became the pattern for all battle ships that followed. Sunk in shallow water to form a breakwater in 1945. It was the first iron warship to abandon sails. The first ship to have turreted guns (10" muzzle loading) with a clear field of fire, bow and aft. Now beginning to rust away badly and breaking into the water. I first saw it 50 years ago when it was still stable.
The Titanic became famous because many of those that went down, were wealthy and important people.
Click the image to open in full size.
Oh, neat old ship! But it is by definition a "monitor", named for the USS Monitor which fought the Confederate ironclad Virginia in 1862. The original Monitor was the first ship to have a revolving turret (and could fire in any direction), and it also was completely iron construction and had no sails.

The USS Monitor Center - At The Mariners' Museum & Park

Using the Cerberus for a breakwater seems like heresy! A lot of antiques went for scrap in WWII. Thanks for the photo and information!

Matthew
Matthew Amt is offline  
Old January 6th, 2017, 06:47 AM   #30
Lecturer
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: Australia
Posts: 312

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgrooms View Post
What say the Titanic experts about this photo supposedly showing evidence of a coal fire & this had structurally damaged the hull. And this is where the iceberg hit?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Coal fire or none it made no difference to the plight of Titanic after she hit that iceberg. She was doomed either way.

The tipping point was Boiler Room 6 (that was the 5th compartment from the bow) which was flooding after impact with the iceberg.
The ship couldn't float with 5 compartments flooded (not to mention that boiler room 5 had some flooding (and possibly room 4 also).


I mentioned the Britannic on an earlier post - for any interested there is an excellent real-time documentary show the plight of the Britannic during her last hour after she hit a mine off the Greek Islands in WW1.




One can imagine how horrified the captain would have been in its final moments - if you watch the video at 44:30 he started the engines one last time in a last ditch effort to try and beach the vessel on Kea island. Yet putting the ship in a forward motion simply drove the bow deeper in the water and accelerated the sinking. In minutes the entire bow is under water - a terrible end for such a magnificent vessel
Redaxe is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > General History

Tags
raising, titanic, wreck



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Raising Byzantine emperors on shields Kirialax Medieval and Byzantine History 2 June 20th, 2016 09:26 AM
Titanic fans HERE??? Titanic 2 movie is here! Heidi XX History in Films and on Television 37 October 4th, 2012 09:50 AM
Anniversary of flag raising at Iwo Jima diddyriddick War and Military History 9 February 24th, 2010 02:35 PM
MGY CQD SOS TITANIC CQD SOS...Titanic's wireless odyssey Richard Stanbery General History 4 June 18th, 2009 03:00 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.