Post-Discovery Reaction to the break-up of Titanic

[J Sheehan]

What was the reaction of people, and the Titanic Community in general, to the fact that Titanic was found to have in fact broken in two and laying on the bottom of the Atlantic in pieces after the discovery on 1st September 1985?

Were there some people who went; "No...no...no! It can't be! That shouldn't have happened!"

Or were there some people who went. "I knew it...yes, I knew it!

 

[William Oakes]

I was 15 when Robert Ballard found the Titanic.
The general public was so excited that Titanic had been found, that they were eager for any news; any stories.
Titanic Researchers, to some degree felt the same way.
However, the researchers looked upon this as a whole new chapter.
Those who suspected the breakup I am certain that they were happy to be validated.
Those who never accepted a breakup. which was the majority, were eager and excited to learn more.
For many of us, this was equal to the lunar landings, in many ways much bigger.
The needle in the haystack had at last been found.
I think if memory serves me, that the universal feeling was one of joy at the discovery, and excitement about the new chapters to be written.

 

[PRR5406]

I think it was just accepted as a fact. Jack Thayer said brke in half and was denied since he was only 17 at the time. It made good sense. Frankly, I thought it probably broke as it sank. Ballard himself said he never expected it to be so intact since, as a rule, big ships break up on the fall to the bottom.
What I was glad of was scotching the story that her boilers fell through the ship and out the bow, which I never believed. The ship was too well constructed for that to happen. Now, one of those loose boilers could be raise off the seabed and conserved for dislay, and that would be a great way to bring a tangible artifact to people to gauge her true size.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I first saw L P Skidmore's sketches based on Jack Thayer's description of the Titanic's final moments is some "Great Events of the 20th Century" type of book in 1967, soon after I first learned about the disaster. I was only 12 years old at the time and my first reaction was that it could not have been the case, especially as the accompanying article mentioned that such a break was improbable. In the ensuing years, the possibility that the Titanic could have broken-up as it sank never entered my thoughts because I had already decided that a huge ship like that could not break into two just by colliding with an iceberg. The physics of the weight of the unsupported stern causing stress and strain on the keel and deck plates never entered my mind.

That thought process persisted into March 1985 when we moved to Burton-on-Trent, England and I befriended a nearby used bookshop owner named Mr Sheppherd. He had an interest in the Titanic and rekindled mine and so in the months leading up to Ballard's discovery of the wreck in September 1985, I was involved in a lot of "Titanic talk", something made easier that I was "between jobs" for most of that year. So, when I saw in the papers and on TV that the ship had indeed broken-up as it sank, my first reaction thought was "So it did break into two after all!" or something like that. I confess there was a touch of disappointment as well.

 

[brionboyles]

As a life-long TITANIC buff, (since 8 years-old in 1968 when I saw "A Night To Remember"), I believed she went in one piece. Hundreds of sinkings in my bathtub only reinforced that belief LOL.
I joined the Navy in 1978...and learned that ships are actually very fragile things, out of water... when even a soft "beaching" on a sand bar can break a vessel's back. It came as a disappointment when Ballard's discovery revealed the break-up, but not a surprise.
At the time of this news, I surmised that the large open space, the vast "shaft" of open area over and lack of longitudinal bracing thru the reciprocating engine room might have been a natural weak point ... and even might have collapsed/imploded AFTER that area of superstructure went under...
Such were my thoughts then.

 

[brionboyles]

I think it was just accepted as a fact. Jack Thayer said brke in half and was denied since he was only 17 at the time. It made good sense. Frankly, I thought it probably broke as it sank. Ballard himself said he never expected it to be so intact since, as a rule, big ships break up on the fall to the bottom.
What I was glad of was scotching the story that her boilers fell through the ship and out the bow, which I never believed. The ship was too well constructed for that to happen. Now, one of those loose boilers could be raise off the seabed and conserved for dislay, and that would be a great way to bring a tangible artifact to people to gauge her true size.

"Now, one of those loose boilers could be raise off the seabed and conserved for dislay, and that would be a great way to bring a tangible artifact to people to gauge her true size."
Yes...especially if it were parked next to a Pennsy K-4!

 

[Steven Christian]

I had the same thoughts of the other posters in this thread. Also that there was no evidence of a 300 ft long tear in the hull. Before the Ballard discovered the wreck I had thought that was the case. I confess in those days I didn't really think about the physics of the damage. That kind of damage the way it was often desribed would have probably sent her to the bottom in 20 mins instead of over 2 hours. Cheers.

 

[Arun Vajpey]

I confess that I had believed in the "300-foot gash" theory for a very long time. If I remember correctly, it was in the months following the discovery of the wreck and ensuing TV discussions and interviews that I started to read and think a bit more about it. It was Walter Lord's 1986 book The Night Lives On that made me finally realize the truth, including the physics involved

 

[Mike Spooner]

I am still curious how a boiler was found to be outside the ship and where any other boilers found outside the ship to?

 

[Steven Christian]

I confess that I had believed in the "300-foot gash" theory for a very long time. If I remember correctly, it was in the months following the discovery of the wreck and ensuing TV discussions and interviews that I started to read and think a bit more about it. It was Walter Lord's 1986 book The Night Lives On that made me finally realize the truth, including the physics involved

An interesting article from 1986. In it Ballard also says calculations show possible implosion 1000 ft down allowing ship to break apart. Has anyone here ever seen those calculations. I never heard of them before reading this article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1986/07/31/no-gash-from-iceberg-seen-on-titanic/37f0c846-8518-475d-949d-d76eaf27ba39/

 

[Steven Christian]

I am still curious how a boiler was found to be outside the ship and where any other boilers found outside the ship to?

One of the boilers was the first thing found when Ballard was looking for the debris field that he hoped would lead him to the ship if I understand your question right. Take a look at the thread below. Looks like maybe four to five boilers fell out of the ship if I'm looking at it right.

Are the boilers of Boiler Room #1 identified?

I am still thinking if the boilers fell straight down one by one while the stern section rotated facing against the bow. I am suspecting that the boiler location, which looks like an arc, proves that the stern rotated and drifting before it finally sinking. I marked the boilers red and scaled...

www.encyclopedia-titanica.org

 

[Arun Vajpey]

An interesting article from 1986. In it Ballard also says calculations show possible implosion 1000 ft down allowing ship to break apart.

I don't recall any specific article but in the early days after discovery "implosion" seemed to be the buzzword and there was a lot of debate whether the break-up had occurred on the surface or somewhere underwater during the sinking. It is now more or less accepted that the break-up occurred on the surface probably around 02:18 am, the bow separated and sank first and the stern perhaps about 2 minutes or so later (although that would have seemed a lot longer to onlookers from the lifeboats).

I have never understood why people keep on harping nonsense about a large scale implosion, of which there is absolutely no evidence. The bow was almost completely flooded when it sank and so the pressure gradient between the water outside and inside would have been practically zero. While the stern was largely dry before the break-up, the exposed deck spaces would have caused rapid flooding, while displacing the air forcibly out of open portholes and such spaces. That kind of 'from inside out' forces would have resulted in explosive rather than implosive effects and which probably contributed to damage to the decks etc. As the stern sank, continued flooding would have lowered the pressure difference between inside and outside steadily, making an implosion less and less likely. Finally, when the stern section slammed to the sea floor, any remaining air would have been forced outwards, which is anything but an implosion.

I also never believed the theory that boilers fell through and out of the steel plates making up the bow; it seemed a ridiculous notion and in any case the relatively intact prow is evidence that it did not happen. But I agree that when the separated stern reared up almost perpendicular just before sinking out of sight, a few of the boilers remaining in the stern section could have fallen though the exposed deck spaces.

 

[Steven Christian]

As I've stated in other threads I don't believe there was any large implosion. Maybe a few minor spaces that were sealed like freezers and such. There was too much damage. Besides even if she didn't break apart the way she was built was not like a warship where you could seal her up anyway. Too many avenues for her to flood like the forward part of the ship did. At the time I remember when Ballard found found her in 2 pieces I thought something like "well no Raise the the Titanic" like in the 1980 movie. After the buzz died down I didn't really read much about the ship. It wasn't until 1995 I think it was when I saw the A&E docu about the ship. That rekindled my interest. At the same time the internet was starting to take off and more info was available. Then when Camerons movie came out the internet exploded with sites and information about the ship that wasn't available before. At least to me that is. Not much stuff related to Titanic in Arizona. Anyway with all the info out there many things I learned. And many things I thought were true I was wrong about. Cheers.

 

[Mike Spooner]

Looking at Steven post 11. Are the boilers of BR1 identified mark up as five red dots. One can see the red dots in the three clips are not quite all in the same place. However can we take they where the single end boilers from BR1. And were there any other boilers found outside the ship to?

 

[Kyle Naber]

I think it was just accepted as a fact. Jack Thayer said brke in half and was denied since he was only 17 at the time. It made good sense. Frankly, I thought it probably broke as it sank.

I wonder how widespread this was. There surely was a small group who envisioned a breakup since the inquiries or through private conversations with survivors.