Death at the bottom of the ocean

@torunn said
FMF, my understanding of the unfortunate tragedy is what I have from documentaries, recent and older, nothing to discuss.

It sounds like you’ve done a lot of reading and research on this. I imagine you know more than any of us here on the subject.

@torunn said
That's right, but they were not designed the same way as Titanic and were not designed as unsinkable.

The titanic was not “designed to be unsinkable” and all ships are designed differently for their different purposes. Many ships of different designs have been lost to iceberg collisions. Do you also feel that those ships were “experiential” and “not ready for passengers”?

@torunn said
I have said what I have learned, I don't want to speculate.

But you are speculating LOL

@drewnogal said
It sounds like you’ve done a lot of reading and research on this. I imagine you know more than any of us here on the subject.

There are interesting theories that I have come across - not speculations but views and explanations by experts and experienced people how it happened and what went wrong - not one reason but several.

@torunn said
There are interesting theories that I have come across - not speculations but views and explanations by experts and experienced people how it happened and what went wrong - not one reason but several.

But that doesn’t mean Titanic was “experimental” and not “ready to carry passengers”.

Would you say the Space Shuttle Challenger (which exploded 70 odd seconds into a flight) was an “experimental” vehicle?

@divegeester said
Nonsense; lots of ships have been lost due to then having iceberg collisions.

I wonder if an “Icebreaker” would sink if it hit an iceberg? After all they are built to go through ice and an iceberg is just a large chunk of ice.🤔

@divegeester said
But that doesn’t mean Titanic was “experimental” and not “ready to carry passengers”.

Would you say the Space Shuttle Challenger (which exploded 70 odd seconds into a flight) was an “experimental” vehicle?

I say Dive that creators of Titanic, ignoring to provide sufficient lifeboats, are trusting their good luck and that, to me, is experimental.

@torunn said
I say Dive that creators of Titanic, ignoring to provide sufficient lifeboats, are trusting their good luck and that, to me, is experimental.

I’d say it was reckless neglect, not experimental.

@great-big-stees said
I wonder if an “Icebreaker” would sink if it hit an iceberg? After all they are built to go through ice and an iceberg is just a large chunk of ice.🤔

Some ships are ice strengthened if it is expected they will regularly encounter ice. Whether the vessel would sink if it hit an iceberg would depend upon a number of factors including the speed the vessel was travelling just before impact.
'Icebreakers' like the ones used by the Canadian Coastguard to break out ships that have become stuck in the St. Lawrence would be unlikely to sink if they hit an iceberg.

@fmf said
I alone made the ironic comment, that much is true.

Ironic or moronic?

@divegeester said
I’d say it was reckless neglect, not experimental.

They are just words, Dive - it just was the wrong thing to do and was one of the causes for the disaster.

@the-gravedigger said
Some ships are ice strengthened if it is expected they will regularly encounter ice. Whether the vessel would sink if it hit an iceberg would depend upon a number of factors including the speed the vessel was travelling just before impact.
'Icebreakers' like the ones used by the Canadian Coastguard to break out ships that have become stuck in the St. Lawrence would be unlikely to sink if they hit an iceberg.

The construction of the Titanic was, as I understand it, strong enough for a front collision but it hit the iceberg on the side where it was weaker and that was to avoid a collision at all, and the ice cut through the material like a razor.
That is what I have learned.

Edit: many edits 🙂

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Ironic or moronic?

Ironic, clearly.

@torunn said
The construction of the Titanic was, as I understand it, strong enough for a front collision but it hit the iceberg on the side where it was weaker and that was to avoid a collision at all, and the ice cut through the material like a razor.
That is what I have learned.

Edit: many edits 🙂

I think the cutting through the steel like a razor is a bit of a myth tbh; it was more of a pressure impact than an actual cut. Titanic nearly missed the iceberg but as it scraped along the iceberg, (which weighed about 75 million tons and was effectively an immovable object) the pressure popped the rivets holding the steel plates together along the bow, allowing water in along a critical length of the hull. It was game over from then on.

@fmf said
OceanGate was a company in the tourism sector.

Using the pass tense word 'was', are you saying OceanGate is out of business now?

-VR