What's next for the wreck?

[Matthew Smathers]

Have any of you titanic buffs out there seen the movie or read the book RAISE THE TITANIC that is where my idea came from!!!!!!
think about it wont you!!! RAISE THE TITANIC!!!

 

[Matthew Smathers]

JUST answer this i know sme of you dont like the idea so one at a time list to me the problems
BUT those of you who like the idea i THANK YOU!!!
so i've got a pencile and paper what are the problems??????
i will work them ALL out
so what are they?

 

[Fiona Nitschke]

Hello Matthew,

If you check out some of the other threads on this board you'll see that quite a lot of ET members have read and enjoyed the book Raise the Titanic! - some even enjoyed the film.

Raising or preserving Titanic is a constant topic of discussion here, but SHOUTING!!!!!! and carrying on like a two bob watch!!!! is a quick way to not be taken seriously. Give people a chance and they'll extend the same courtesy to you. Check out the 'joining in' section of the forum rules.

In most cases it's not that people dislike the idea of raising Titanic, they're looking at the practicalities.

Cheers,
Fiona
ET Moderator

 

[Bob Godfrey]

Matthew, bear in mind that the two largest sections of the wreck which you want to weld together are half a mile apart and facing in opposite directions. Then, if you have or can get hold of a copy of 'Titanic: An Illustrated History' take a look at the picture of the wreck on page 204. If that doesn't convince you she's there to stay, nothing will.

 

[Michael H. Standart]

>>I am just as much a titanic buff as you all are!! <<

And this validates your original proposal...how?

And Matthew, I think you'll find that a number of us are considerably more then just "buffs". Quite a few of the members here are bona fide historians who either persue this out of personal interest or who do so professionally. There is also a very wide range of professional qualifications here including mariners ranging from deckplate sailors such as myself to ships masters such as Erik Wood who drove the big boys for a living and who now does accident investigation.

>>BUT I AM NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN TO REPORTS OF IT FALLING APART!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! <<

Well, that's your right, but in the meantime, about the only replies you'll likely get are from people who know why you're proposal will not work.

>>Have any of you titanic buffs out there seen the movie or read the book RAISE THE TITANIC that is where my idea came from!!!!!! <<

Yes we have. One of our members even had a hand in a highly theoretical exercise on how the job might be done assuming that the technology could be developed or already existed, that the wreck had the ice damage that it was believed to have had at the time (The 300 ft gash...perhaps you've heard that one.) that no further damage was done to the hull, and that above all else, that the hull was intact.

Well, guess what, there are several glaring problems with all of that.

(a)The technology does not exist.

(b)While it's conceivable that some of that technology could be developed, you're talking about years of research, development, and testing that would cost billions of dollars which nobody will spend unless they have reason to believe that they'll get a substantial return on that investment.

(c)The damage is very different from what was expected when Clive Cussler penned "Raise The Titanic" and

(d)The hull is not intact but is resting on the bottom in peices. Two big ones, a medium sized chunk, and thousands of little ones.

Oh one other thing: "Raise The Titanic" the movie is just that...a movie. Fantasy plain and simple. It is not reality. If you want to read a valid textbook on salvage as it actually is at the current state of the art, then I would reccommend Modern Marine Salvage by William I Milwee. It's expensive, but well worth it. You can get a copy from Amazon.com.

You can shout and scream all you want, but it won't change anything and I'm not in the habit of indulging unrealistic fantasys. Like it or not, what's left of the Titanic is there to stay.

 

[Deborah Russes]

I also think another drawback, if I remember correctly, is that the bow of the ship was buried in about 50+ feet of sediment. The ship was going at a fairly fast rate of speed as it descended to the bottom I think.

I didn't see Raise The Titanic but I read Clive Cussler's book. I enjoyed the book. I think Mr. Cussler is a great action/fiction writer. But he only wrote it as a "what-if" kind of fantasy story (can't think of another way to explain myself). It wasn't meant as a blueprint to rescue the ship.

 

[Parks Stephenson]

Even if the wreck could be raised, I prefer to have it stay right where it is, thank you very much. There's so much that the wreck can tell us about life in 1912 and the cause and effect of the sinking. If the wreck were to somehow be raised, that evidence would be destroyed in the process. We'd be left with a mute, desiccated corpse. To use a currently-popular analogy, it would be akin to moving the corpse and cleaning the crime scene before the CSI team could complete their work. And what could be recovered would still be isolated from real contact...housed within tanks of salt water or locked inside layers of perservative. I touched the Big Piece, but I didn't touch Titanic. What I was touching instead was some synthetic covering that had been applied to the iron the year before to help prevent oxygen (and my skin oils) from reaching and further corroding the original steel. But when details of Titanic's Silent Room began to emerge from the gloom on my monitor, I felt that I was finally "touching" Titanic.

I am not saying that everyone has to see things my way, just adding my personal point of view to the others expressed here. If this were a vote, I would cast my lot for the wreck to stay right where it is. However, I would like to see the wreck better protected from the very real possibility of plunder.

Parks

 

[Erik Wood]

The list asked for above would take to much time for me to write, so I will be brief:

1)You are dealing with a wreck that has been down there for 90+ years. Moving it even just a little could result in the structure collapsing.

2)Pulling it up from the suction of the mud would be quite an effort. One that as of this moment no techonolgy exists to get the job done.

3)You would have to haul the remants to a far off country or put them on a barge. If you tried to tow it, the U.S. Coast Guard wouldn't let you in any port and I doubt the well governed nations of the world would either. If you barged it, that would mean you would have to lift it, or place it on one of those fancy ships that sinks and comes back. The ship is full of mud in places which will add weight.

To me the thought of raising (taking out my personal opinion) would be a venture that would result in the loss (complete loss) of the ship. It would end up being just a pile of steel.

I am pretty sure that no Titanic enthusist wants that to happen.

 

[Colleen Collier]

Matthew from Whittier California.
I have not seen one person, or organization, step forward and state they would even attempt to finance what you propose. She is not going to levitate on her own. She is a grave marker, and a reminder of a tragic event of the past.
Let's delve a little deeper on an issue that has not been brought up yet. Say, for the benefit of argument that she can be brought up. (Not that I personally believe she can be, given her state after all this time, and the metal being contaminated.)
Let's talk about rusticles... Live microbiologic organisms, and their waste. Do you know what would happen if you went down and started to stir up all the muck, and dislodge it from the ship? How would you propose it to be cleaned from the ship, disposed of in a manner that would be acceptable to the nation you represent, and how would you contend with the ecological issues in getting her surfaced, and environmental problems once surfaced? How would you deal with the rot and stench once the organisms started to die? NO, I repeat ~NO~ port would take her, as it would be so putrid in the area, everyone in the city would probably become ill, and would not take very long before they'd be screaming (and rightly so). I know the state of California would not even consider such a venture. Why?? Several reasons. 1. The decontamination of the ship would take years, the cost would be astronomical. 2. Given the laws I am aware of in my own state that consist of mold spores issues in wet wood, houses with lead based paint, and OSHA issues that would play a part in people involved in restoration of this ship, the liability would be too great. I would venture to say that this would extend to other states as well.
Furthermore, I believe that even if a company got the go ahead to attempt to raise her, it would be immediately bogged down in court by environmental organizations, until it is too late.
What makes ~this~ ship special enough to go to such extreme? Why not Britannic, Lusitania, Andrea Doria, or for that matter, the U.S.S. Arizona?
Colleen. (originally from Hac. Hghts. Ca.)

 

[Matthew Smathers]

your right i have a better idea to build a GIANT tube around the wreck and then once the tube is about 10 feet above the surface begin to pump the seawater out and in about 2 monthes the tube and the titanic will be dry THEN water filled with special chemicals will be pumped in to replace the seawater and in about another 3 months the "tank" will be full and in this tank the titanic will be preserved and will be able to be shown to the public by adding a building with a elevater to get to the wreck.
kinda like them aquariums where you step underwater in a airlock and see the fish!
exept instead of fish youll see titanic WELL THERE YOU HAVE IT
the titaic stays were it is and people get to see it WERE IT IS!!!!!!!! WELL WHAT DO YOU THINK!!!!!
BETTER OR NOT

 

[Matthew Smathers]

Maby those other ships besides the arizona can have the same thing done to them REMEMBER Dr Robert Ballard the man who found the titanic wanted the titanic to be a "underwater museum"
REMEMBER

 

[Matthew Smathers]

OH and if anyone from the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS (my favorit magazine!) sees this tell them to make it official!!!!!! you will find it no hard task to make a illistration of my plan!

 

[Michael H. Standart]

Matthew, I would strongly suggest that you go to Amazon or whatever bookseller you like to deal with and get a copy of that book I recommended to you. Not to be rude, but what you're suggesting is fantasy of the highest order.

>>your right i have a better idea to build a GIANT tube around the wreck and then once the tube is about 10 feet above the surface begin to pump the seawater out and in about 2 monthes the tube and the titanic will be dry <<

No it won't.

Even if the structure could be made watertight...and it can't because the decomposition is eating new holes in it every day...pumping the water out and leaving it dry would result in the wreck imploding from the water pressure. It's a cool 3 1/2 tons per square inch.

And a tube two and a half miles long just to get down there to say nothing of the support vessels that would have to remain on station in a notoriously dangerous and stormy patch of ocean?

Not happening.

And at some point, you're going to have to find some way of physically lifting the wreck without having the thing just fall apart on you. Again...not happening. The hull is too fragile for that, and there is nothing on the planet capable of doing this. Nor is there one good economical reason to try.

As Parks pointed out, we can learn a hell of a lot more by leaving the wreck in situ and having research vehicals collect the evidence for a proper forensics analysis.

You would also do well to pay attention to what Colleen said about environmental impact concerns. The states having the jurisdictions don't waiver this sort of thing.

Time to give this thing a rest.

 

[Matthew Smathers]

unless we raise the ship i a cage like the mary rose unless you havnt heard about it.
The mary rose was a 17th century!!!! warship and they found the wreck and brought it up in a cage.
The mary rose has been at the bottom longer than titanic and yes it was more fragil so you see we bring the titanic up in a cage to make sure it dosent fall apart.
LOOK go on the internet and typ down the raiseing of the mary rose and you will find on one of the sites photos and you will see what i mean!!!!!!!
OH I WILL NEVER GIVE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Inger Sheil]

I've seen the Mary Rose in Portsmouth a few times - was down there just the other week, in point of fact.

The salvage of this wreck is in no way comparable to your proposed salvage of the Titanic.

What was raised of the Mary Rose was not an entire vessel, but only the part of her hull still intact after having been buried in sediment - a sort of fascinating cross section of the ship. A special 'cradle' was constructed to raise her, weighing - with the piece of the ship on it - some 580 tons when they brought it to the surface. It took a giant floating crane to lift her into the cradle - quite a feat even for something the size of the Mary Rose. Impossible for something the size of Titanic (picture, if you will, the floating crane that can operate from the surface and lift the Titanic!)

The Mary Rose was a structure of comparative simplicity, as she was not entirely intact. Nor was she ever a massive structure on anything like the scale of the Titanic. While certainly fragile, she was made of wood and preserved in the debris of the Solent - the Titanic, on the other had, is a metal structure rusting away.

12 years after she was raised, in order to preserve the section of the hull, it is necessary to continually pour water-soluble wax polyethylene glycol over her. It's intriguing to go into the building and observe this taking place, as it's still an ongoing process.

The Mary Rose was at the bottom of the Solent. This is in no way comparable to being at the bottom of the North Atlantic - if the ocean were a swimming pool, the Tudor warship's depth would be just a couple of inches from the surface...the great WSL ship would be in the deep end. Salvage attempts on the Mary Rose were made in the intervening centuries since she sank, but it was only in 1982 they succeeded. While this was a phenomenal achievement, it is in no way equivalent to the raising of a ship almost three miles deep. Look at the difficulty merely in raising a fragment of the Titanic's hull!

Another point - please read the rules of this board before posting. Extensive use of 'ALL CAPS' is considered bad netiquette and extremely rude - the equivalent of shouting.