So is this...
M/center>Posted on 12/05/2005 12:02:23 PM PST by ZGuy
The discovery of two large pieces of the Titanic's hull is changing the story of how the luxury ocean liner sank 93 years ago.
Undersea explorers said Monday that the Titanic broke into three pieces, not two pieces as commonly believed and portrayed in James Cameron's 1997 film version of the catastrophe. That means the ship likely sank faster than believed.
The hull pieces were found this summer by an expedition sponsored by the History Channel. Its leaders called it the most significant find at the site since undersea explorer Robert Ballard discovered the wreck 20 years ago and declared that the ship had broken in two.
"The breakup and sinking of the Titanic has never been accurately depicted," Parks Stephenson, a Titanic historian, said Monday at a conference at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, where scientists discussed the findings.
The 46,000-ton luxury liner was billed as "unsinkable" by its owner, the White Star Line. But it sank after striking an iceberg on April 14, 1912, on its maiden voyage across the Atlantic. About 1,500 people were killed.
Ballard discovered the bulk of the wreck in 1985 in 13,000 feet of water, about 380 miles southeast of Newfoundland. A portion of the ship's bottom was missing, and Ballard's team presumed it had fragmented into hundreds of small pieces.
The discovery of the two hull pieces about 500 meters from the rest of the wreck indicate that the piece came off the ship intact and later broke into two large sections, the explorers said.
"That's X marks the spot," said Richard Kohler, who led the expedition. "Right above that is where the Titanic broke."
Ballard did not immediately return a call for comment.
Wasn't it 5 compartments that were flooded?
Harsh!
Didn't he play a retard in that movie? Anybody can play a retard (of course, it's almost guaranteed you'll be nominated for Best Actor).
Ouch!
My father was fascinated by the Titanic and so a few years ago I bought him a little chunk of the coal as a Christmas present. (Sadly, I have now inherited it back.) But anyway, he thought it was one of the coolest presents he'd ever gotten. Pretty smart of those folks to think to market lumps of coal. :)
>>>Didn't he play a retard in that movie? Anybody can play a retard (of course, it's almost guaranteed you'll be nominated for Best Actor).>>>
No, not really. (about anybody playing retard) You'll have people who think they are playing a retard, or do the typical stuff they think retards (God I hate the repeated use of this word) do, but he was consistantly good. IMO of course.
now's the time of year to be thinking of coal;-)
i'd dearly love to get my hands on a coffee cup or dinner plate...
If memory serves me the design could take any two consecutive compartments flooded, but not three. The damage flooded three. But that really had little to do which the breakup of the vessel as it sank.
I've heard that the steel in the hull was made improperly, causing it to fracture in the cold water.
Hull plate material recovered from the ship showed MnS "stringers" resulting from too much sulfur in the steel. This significantly reduced the fracture toughness of the steel.
Their watertight compartments had big holes in the top through which water was not supposed to flow.
you sure? you may be right, but I know the origional plan was for four big liners, or which only three were built. the name of the fourth has always been fuzzy with me...
LMAO. That is exactly the movie that they would make today. Bush caused the collision!!!! Sound the alarm!!! Bush is attacking....
the water wasn't supposed to get that high, I suspect.
The Titanic didn't have watertight compartments, only watertight bulkheads. They couldn't stop the water from move up through each deck
I'm not clear on what "mechanical design failure" you're referring to. A design failure -- halting the bulkhead doors below the main deck -- was largely responsible for the sinking. Mechanically, no ship that large could have survived the forces arrayed against her.
Or better yet, break into three pieces....
So is this...
M/center>Two of the best "stiff upper lip" lines of dialogue ever in that movie:
Two gentlemen on the deck see what's going on, the lack of boats, etc. One says to the other, "It looks like we might be having sand for supper."
The other one is from the lead stoker down in the boiler room. An officer asks him to keep his men working as long as they can in order to keep power up for distress calls and lights. Then he says, "I suppose you know you may not make it out of here." The stoker pauses a moment, then says with great calm, "Well, that's the way of it sometimes."
Britannic sank after hitting a mine/torpedo in the Medeterranean during WWI
Olympic lasted in service until 1935 and was known as "Old Reliable" as she never had a machinery breakdown.
She survived two collisions as a troop ship in WWI.
All three shiops were built in the Belfast yards of Harland and Wolff of pretty much the same steel.
As to the structural soundness of the Titanic, even today it is a pretty bad idea to slam 21,000 tons of passenger ship into an object of almost infinitely larger mass at a speed of about 24 miles per hour. Just does not work out very well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.