Rockets

[Ioannis Georgiou]

Hello Jim,

Hello Ioannis,

As for the firing of the first rocket. We know that number 7 was the first boat in the water. It was either illuminated by the lights from the ship's side which would be blazing out or it was illuminated by a rocket. I don't think that Rowe would see the activity on the starboard side of the boat deck from where he was but he would most certainly be able to see all along the ship's starboard side.
Since the area of interest was so far away from the poop deck, I tend to agree with Sam theory as to why QM Rowe saw boat 7. But not the 'flash' of the rocket. These rockets went high then burst into balls which fell slowly earthwards The balls would brightly illuminate the ship and the surrounding sea for as long as they were visible.. probably about 5+ seconds.. plenty of time to have a look round. Incidentally, every time one of these things went off, the ship and the surrounding sea would have been bathed in an eerie white glow.

Interesting! But unfortunately Rowe didn't say anything about why he was able to see boat 7. According to Lowe, the flash of the rocket was illuminating the boat deck.

Mr. Lowe: He was there, and I distinctly remember seeing him alongside of me — that is, by my side — when the first detonator went off. I will tell you how I happen to remember it so distinctly. It was because the flash of the detonator lit up the whole deck, I did not know who Mr. Ismay was then, but I learned afterwards who he was, and he was standing alongside of me.
Senator Smith: Did you say anything to him?
Mr. Lowe: I did not.
Senator Smith: You saw him in the flash-
Mr. Lowe: Of the detonator.

What is absolutely certain is the fact that if Stone missed any of Titanic's rockets then the distance between these two ships was very great indeed and most certainly not between 5 and 7 miles.

Totally agree with you, Californian must have been more far away. (As we know, there are some people who really believe she was only 5 miles away!)

One other point: coloured rockets are just that... coloured, and the colours are very strong. Deliberately so, so as they cannot be mistaken for any other colour, including neutral white ones. Perhaps Pitman was developing colour blindness and that's why he had to change from deck officer to purser? Colour blindness in a navigator was a taboo which failed you for all navigation examinations.

As we see, the rockets were white.
Regarding Pitman, there is an article by Senan Molony about his colour blindness;
Pitman's Own Private Iceberg by Senan Molony :: Titanic Research

 

[Samuel Halpern]

>>As we see, the rockets were white. <<

Ioannis,

As you know what was sent up were not ordinary rockets but socket distress signals. We all tend to use the term 'rockets' very loosely, as they did back then. When James Cameron asked in that TV special what he should have done differently in the movie based on what is now known, the topic of colored rockets was brought up. What I found intersting is that what he showed in the movie, and in the movie clip shown in the TV program, were not socket signals, but ordinary rockets being sent up. There is even one scene in the movie where an officer reaches into a box to pull out one these rockets, and you see that the cone of the rocket was painted red on top, and attached to the rocket was a long stick. When they were fired, a bright luminous white trail was left behind as it went up. According to what was claimed in the TV program, 'they went up white and burst into colored balls.' But as Lightoller explained, socket signals did not leave a bright trial of fire behind them as an ordinary rocket did. They did leave a faint luminous streak from the burning fuse as they ascended skyward, and that was seen and described by eyewitnesses, as I mentioned in my article. But that is not what was shown in Cameron's film, and nobody brought that up during the TV special. Of course, that detail is not as dramatic as claiming that it was discovered that the signals fired threw colored balls, and then showing a 'jazzed up' color-enhanced photo of the box of signals to back that up.

David, period articles, patents, and advertisements described these socket signals, as well as rockets, as throwing 'stars'. The term 'balls' was used when Roman candles were being described. However, it was only Boxhall who used the term 'balls' when he described what these distress signals looked like to him, being practically right under the shell bursts. He also talked about these balls falling down and then bursting. I think Jim may be right about how long these stars or balls would last before they flamed out.

I'd also like to point out that there were socket signals made at the time that threw brilliant stars of either red, white or green. We even has access to the chemical composition of these different colored stars. Socket signals were built to be used as light signals or distress signals. For light signals they did not produce a loud report when they burst. For distress signals, they would make a loud report as well as throw one, two or multiple stars. Different services would use a specific color. For example the National Lifeboat Service used distress signals that threw red stars to summon their volunteers. For use by ships at sea, distress socket signals that threw bright white stars were provided as standard.

 

[Jim Currie]

Your titillating my 'think' buds Sam.

I am now pretty sure that the colours seen in the rockets fired from Titanic would be Corona effect which are a series of coloured rings extending outward from the source of light. They are caused by the diffraction of the light rays from the ball/star descending through steam vapour or moist air.. a bit like the sun's light when it is broken up to form a rainbow. Moon light sometimes does the same thing.
You would see faint red, white and blue and perhaps brown rings surounding the brightest part of the signal ball/star as it decended. These would be brightest in the highest concentration of water droplets and fade as drier, colder air was encountered.

You wrote:

"But as Lightoller explained, socket signals did not leave a bright trial of fire behind them as an ordinary rocket did. They did leave a faint luminous streak from the burning fuse as they ascended skyward,"

This being the case; how was it that Gibson was able to see such a faint fuse at any distance over five miles.. even with binoculars?

I quote from his affadavit:

"I observed a white flash apparently on her deck, followed by a faint streak towards the sky which then burst into white stars."

If the rocket trail was 'a faint lumenous streak' to someone standing under it, how could such a streak be seen at any great distance from an observer; even with powerful glasses which Gibson would most certainly not have had in 1912? Even a 12 mile telescope would have a problem with that and then. the user would need to be pointing it exactly at the target... not an easy thing at night I can assure you.

Additionally; the maximum range any deck flash could have been seen was about 17 miles. But at that range, if he had, by some miraculous fluke of nature, seen the deck flash, the flash would have needed to be extremely bright and in his line of sight. The socket signal ignition flash on Titanic, while bright, would also have been screened by solid bulwarks. If Gibson was able to see anything, even if the ship was broadside-to, it would have to have been reflected light from the captain's acommodation bulkhead. At 16 or more miles I suggest this would have been impossible.

What do you think?


Jim C.

PS. I'm curious about Gibson's use of the word 'deck'. When a sailor refers to another ship's deck, he normally means her main deck, not the boat or any other accommodation deck.
Additionally: Stone observed that one of the last three signals he saw before 2am seemed brighter than the others. That too is curious.

 

[Samuel Halpern]

Despite what someone on another forum site accused me of, I don't pretend to have all the answers. What I do know is that Gibson wrote his observation as quoted above in a signed statement given to Capt. Lord while Californian was still heading to Boston, before the world knew about what seen during that middle watch. Boxhall used the words "luminous tail" to describe what the signal left behind as it went up. As to why Stone took one of these to be brighter than the others, maybe because he saw it explode while looking through glasses. I can only speculate.

By the way, in the Lightship service along the Irish coast, distress socket signals that threw stars specifically of white or green colors were used to reply to signals made to summon assistance to any vessel in distress or difficulty. This is from a handbook of regs issued by the commissioners of Irish lights in Apr, 1934.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Sam,

I know what you mean about 'knowing everything'. I've been on the receiving end of that comment myself.
Actually there was something I didn't know, but being old, I've forgotten what it was. Just joking!

I most certainly don't think you know everything but I also most certainly value your opinion concerning certain aspects of this mystery. I was being truthful when I wrote that you stimulated my 'thought buds'.
I believe everyone has something to offer and no one should be ridiculled or scorned for having an opinion that differs.

I think it was your use of the expression 'faint lumenous streak' which prompted my last response.

For those who have nothing else to do but read this, I quote from Boxhall and from Lightoller regarding these 'rockets':

First Boxhall:

"15397. Can you describe what the effect of those rockets is in the sky; what do they do?
- You see a luminous tail behind them and then they explode in the air and burst into stars.

Then Lightoller:

"14150. Now, then, about signals from your boat. You have rockets on board, have you not? Were they fired?
- You quite understand they are termed rockets, but they are actually distress signals; they do not leave a trail of fire."

As you rightly point out earlier, these things were actually shells with a time fuse. The charge which propelled them was consumed in the flash of ignition. They were a combination substitute for a gun's BANG and a rocket's arial display. This being the case, you were prfectly right in using the adjective 'faint'. However, as I pointed out, it raises more questions as to what Gibson really did see. Perhaps if we imagin what might have been seen? A rocket would show a long trail of sparks whereas the glow of a shell fuse would only be visible in the immediate vicinity of the bottom end of the projectile. Like This?
.

Here's another pic you might find of interest:



I am aware of the Lifeboat signals. When I was a boy, they usd a 'maroon'. a rocket which gave off a loud bang and a flare that could be heard and seen for miles. It called the lifeboat men to the station to man the boat.

Incidentally, until a short time before Titanic, the use of white rockets at sea as a greeting was quite a common thing. I quote from Rudyard Kipling:

" By day the dipping house-flag and by night the rocket’s trail –
As the sheep that graze behind us so we know them where they hail."

Jim C.

 

[Scott Mills]

Hey, guys, not to wade into this again, but I think the point about the light trail is interesting particularly when put into the contexts of Titanic's tonite distress rockets. So, if it were the case that the luminous trail of Titanic's rockets was only one provided by the fuse, rather than buy design, the distance between Titanic and Californian becomes all the more confounding.

It seems that if Californian was close enough to discern the "trail" of the rocket as it went up, it must also have been close enough to hear the very loud report of those tonite socket signals. Then when we add the height of the rockets observed by Californian against the masthead lights on what is speculated to be Titanic we get a very strange picture.

You have Californian being close enough to Titanic to see the insignificant trail of the rocket as it goes up, but not close enough to hear, from what I understand, is one of the loudest and longest carrying sounding explosives ever made. Additionally we have an observation of the height of the explosions being much, much lower than reported by those on Titanic.

*edit

I'm confused about one thing, are we coming back around and concluding that some of Titanic's socket distress signals may have been colored, or at least have been "multicolored" in some respect? If so, that opens a whole new, well not new, rather "other" can of worms.

 

[Jim Currie]

Hello Scott,

You are spot-on about the sound these things made. I have heard them close up and it's mind -bending to say the least. I and many others have heard th sound of gunfire at sea... heard it from ship well over the horizon. You can bet your 'cotton socks; that if the ship firing socket signals had been above the horizon from Californian, the people on the latter would have heard them. Not only that, if these ships had been within 5 or 6 miles of each other, the sound of the steam venting would also have been audible. Yet again, there would possibly have been temperature inversion that night.. i.e. the air would get warmer with altitude. This being the case and there being no wind, it is highly likely that Titanic would have had a huge cloud of steam vapour hanging above her. It and the ship would have been illuminated every time a rocket burst 600 odd feet above her. Too many people forget this combination of events which would have been even more dramatic when seen from the brightly lit, biggest ship in the world at that time.
As for rocket colors: We have all seen what happens when light is seen through water droplets. The steam vapour hanging round Titanic might posibly have had the effect of splitting-up the white light into it's various constituents to those seeing it from below.

As for the 'trail': this was from the fuse.. nothing at all like the bright propellent trail of a conventional rocket and certainly not visible more than 5 miles away.

Jim C.

Jim C.