Would the stern section sink if port windows were closed?

[cousineddy]

Would the stern section have stayed afloat if all port windows were ordered closed? The stern section had the water tight doors closed, and with the ports closed, would the stern have stayed afloat long enough for the Carpathia to get there?

The ship broke behind the third funnel, but it was still attached at the keel. This caused the stern to go vertical. And it was reported that is stopped sinking for a few minutes before it plunged. If all the windows were closed, would it have trapped enough air to stay buoyant longer?

 

[Kyle Naber]

I’d say it’s very unlikely. Even with the windows closed, the stern section wouldn’t have survived for 2 hours in a vertical position. Even then, what does the evacuation process look like?

 

[Alex Kiehl]

Can you believe today (April 30) marks exactly 116 years since the idea for the Titanic was conceived? It was this day back in 1907 that Ismay and Pirrie came up with the idea to build the three Olympic Class liners. Now the Titanic is only a few years away from complete disintegration. My, how time flies....

 

[James T. Shorter]

Would the stern section have stayed afloat if all port windows were ordered closed? The stern section had the water tight doors closed, and with the ports closed, would the stern have stayed afloat long enough for the Carpathia to get there?

The ship broke behind the third funnel, but it was still attached at the keel. This caused the stern to go vertical. And it was reported that is stopped sinking for a few minutes before it plunged. If all the windows were closed, would it have trapped enough air to stay buoyant longer?

No It's just not possible she would begin to take on from areas ripped away during the break up water and then it would make it worse once she ell back down becasue she could not have stayed in the vertical position I hope this helps

 

[cousineddy]

I was thinking, if the stern section fell back level after the breakup like in the movie, with the water tight bulkheads in place, wouldn’t it float? It has no water in it because it was above the water line.

But, it couldn’t go back level because it was still attached at the keel. With the stern in the air, the keel is loaded in compression from bending. So the bow section didn’t break completely loose. It was hanging. This would cause the stern to raise up vertical like buoy. It may have broken completely away after slipping below the surface. If stern section held air, then it can’t sink. I guess if the bow section was heavy enough, it could pull it down even if its trapped full of air. But if the bow section detached before it sank, then maybe it would stay afloat.

People could have hung on and stayed out of the water longer. Maybe avoiding hypothermia. So, if I could go back to 1912, and be on the ship, would tell everyone to close all ports, hatches and doors…..Well, after I told them to watch out for Ice, and to hit it head on if it cant be avoided.

 

[James T. Shorter]

I was thinking, if the stern section fell back level after the breakup like in the movie, with the water tight bulkheads in place, wouldn’t it float? It has no water in it because it was above the water line.

But, it couldn’t go back level because it was still attached at the keel. With the stern in the air, the keel is loaded in compression from bending. So the bow section didn’t break completely loose. It was hanging. This would cause the stern to raise up vertical like buoy. It may have broken completely away after slipping below the surface. If stern section held air, then it can’t sink. I guess if the bow section was heavy enough, it could pull it down even if its trapped full of air. But if the bow section detached before it sank, then maybe it would stay afloat.

People could have hung on and stayed out of the water longer. Maybe avoiding hypothermia. So, if I could go back to 1912, and be on the ship, would tell everyone to close all ports, hatches and doors…..Well, after I told them to watch out for Ice, and to hit it head on if it cant be avoided.

Maybe you are right I mean it all makes sense but would her buoyancy be the same you know missing the bow section completely so it would fall back in an awkward way but in theory yes!! you are absolutely correct

 

[RonJF2]

The ship broke after the second funnel and before the 3rd. Even Cameron admitted his mistake.

 

[Jason D. Tiller]

The ship broke after the second funnel and before the 3rd. Even Cameron admitted his mistake.

Yes he showed it in his documentary "The Final Word: 20 Years With James Cameron". Here's an image from that production.

Credit: National Geographic

 

[cousineddy]

My mistake. But then even more potential buoyancy.

 

[James T. Shorter]

My mistake. But then even more potential buoyancy.

Yes maybe but it would still have the weight of the engines wouldn't it
would this cause any change at all to the buoyancy I know a little on how buoyancy works but not a lot so I could be wrong.

 

[cousineddy]

Witnesses state the stern went vertical, and appeared to stop sinking for a moment. So, the buoyancy to keep it afloat was there temporarily. But, the dry stern section did not stay dry for long. Probably because of the many open port windows, hatches and doors. Or maybe the high air pressure generated by the piston effect of the sinking would have just blown the windows and doors out, even if they were all closed. When a ship sinks, you always see those geysers shooting up from air escaping. Maybe there’s no way to contain it.

But, what if all doors and hatches on the entire ship were closed immediately. Would this be enough to slow water entering into the vessel, such that it lasted 2 hours longer. Im sure there are some vents that can’t be closed. But, water cant enter until the air escapes.

 

[RonJF2]

The thing that always bugged me is why didn't Captain Smith order the stewards to inform passengers to close their portholes as they were telling them to get lifebelts on and go on deck. He knew the ship was sinking and common sense should tell you that open portholes would only make the process speed up. And I don't want to hear the "he was trying to avert panic" excuse again. And for that matter Captain Smith also should have told Lightoller the seriousness of the situation so maybe he wouldn't have opened the gangway doors which became a huge focal point for flooding and also cost him the use of 6 seamen.

 

[Chris Morrison]

There has been a lot of debate about the stern breaking and how it happened. Top down, bottom up, banana peel. Unlike Cameron’s theory, it is now believed the most of the sterns visible damage occurred during the breakup. It wasn’t really a clean break and then hydrodynamic forces caused they remaining damage. At the point of failure, compression at the keel AND hull failure from the top down, you would have the major damage of both “tower” sections that tore off happen during the break. This amount of damage would open up the stern to the sea in many places. It settles back, but the tower sections don’t fully settle back causing larger gaps at the upper decks. The stern is then pulled back up by massive flooding and then still connected parts of the bow. Once fully disconnected the stern would have an untold amount of access points for water at the break point and subsequent damage. As the stern gradually slipped lower, this leads to implosions causing more damage. It was the very after part of titanic that went mostly vertical, not the entire stern from the breaking point. It may have appeared that the stern stayed there for a long time upright. But in reality it is more likely it’s was slowly pulled upright by flooding and then as the flooding progressed it gradually slipped down in that position. From the break to the stern disappearing took 3-7 minutes with modern studies best estimates. That speaks to major damage and massive water intake. Open portholes would have made no difference in my view.

 

[Bob Read]

Open portholes would have made no difference in my view.

I have no doubt about it.

 

[cousineddy]

There was massive damage, but I am saying there wasn’t massive water intake. The bow section was still attached at the keel after the brake. Probably even attached further up along the sides since structures don’t break when loaded in compression, they buckle. So, the weight of the bow section still attached caused the stern section to rise vertically like a buoy. It did not fall back horizontal like the movie. Jim Cameron also admitted. So, with the stern vertical, water won’t be pouring in. Like when you put a bucket over your head and go under water, you can still breathe, because air is trapped. Now there is no doubt that the bow section eventually pulled the stern section down with air trapped in it. Its the reason it emploded as it sank in the imense pressures of the deep. Explosions under water were heard after the ship went down.

So, what I am saying that since the stern section momentarily stopped sinking after the brake up, when it first went vertical, there is potential that it could have stayed afloat longer if the air didn’t escape so rapidly.