Titanic will be gone by 2028
-
bbbcouple — 19 years ago(February 14, 2007 02:21 AM)
The wreck is deteriorating because of damage caused by visitors to the site. The foremast crows nest was destroyed by the French expedition attempting to recover the ships' bell rung by lookout Frederick Fleet when he sighted the iceberg. The roof above the gymnasium is collapsing due to submersibles "landing" there to deploy ROV cameras. The entire "Titanic is falling apart" thing is to justify raping the wreck for anything of monetary value. There are no archaeological benefits to be had in exploiting the site. The construction and all other aspects of the vessel were well documented at the time of the sailing. We are not talking about an ancient shipwreck containing amphorae here. This ship went down within living memory, and there are presently two living survivors (Elizabeth Dean and Barbara West) of the disaster. There are the remains of 1496 passengers and crew down there.
How would you feel if someone dug up the grave of one of your ancestors that died in 1912, pried the rings from their fingers, pulled off their burial shrouds and put them on display for profit? Would you be satisfied with the explanation given?
"We need to document this, before it falls apart"
IT'S FALLING APART BECAUSE YOU WON'T LEAVE IT ALONE!!
If those responsible for looting the wreck were to display the artefacts at no charge, as a tribute to the victimsfine. But to profit from grave robbing is morally reprehensible. -
bbbcouple — 19 years ago(February 14, 2007 12:07 PM)
Why, thank you, stealthman.
I just wanted to add something. Scientists estimate that 200 pounds of steel are consumed daily by bacteria and converted into "rusticles". The hull of Titanic displaced 24,360 tons, the overall gross tonnage was 46,328. Now not all of the vessel is metal, but just the hull alone is almost 49 million pounds. At 200 pounds a day times 34,675 days (95 years) equals 6,935,000 pounds (approximately)of the hull consumed to date.
That leaves around 42 million pounds. At 73,000 pounds a year consumed, it should last until 2582 AD.
And that's just the hull. -
jimpoz — 19 years ago(March 24, 2007 08:12 PM)
Ironic, isn't it? Had Titanic never sunk, she probably would have followed Olympic to the Inverkeithing scrapyards in the late 1930's, thus already having disappeared forever. It's only because she was destroyed that she still exists.
-
mitcherz — 18 years ago(April 06, 2007 02:25 AM)
Yes, one day it will just be a big stain on the bottom of the ocean. There are a few things that will be there forever though, like the propellers.
"I have no interest in prisoners. Kill them all."- White Witch
-
hobnob53 — 18 years ago(April 19, 2007 10:22 AM)
How do you paint a wreck 2 miles under water, covered with rusticles? I'm surprised Ballard would seem to advocate such a proposal. He's the number one proponent of leaving the wreck alone. Its fate should be left to natural processes. Anyway, paint would only mask rust, not eradicate it the whole thing sounds stupid and senseless.
I have mixed emotions about what some call "looting" the wreck. I used to agree that it should be left entirely alone, nothing taken, etc. But over time I've changed my mind, at least to some extent. What good to leave all those items at the bottom of the ocean? Retrieving what can be salvaged without destroying the structure of the wreck itself now seems to me to be reasonable things like dishes, bottles, even various personal effects. I wouldn't disturb items like the sadly famous pair of shoes lying on the seabed, where once a body obviously lay. On the other hand, retrieving and identifying less sensitive personal effects and giving them to their owners' descendents seems fair, as has been done in a few cases. I'm a little less sure about removing items belonging to the ship itself. Perhaps, if doing so did not undermine the wreck's remaining structural integrity. (The ship's brass wheel base, for example.) But cutting out large swaths of the ship, or salvaging objects that are part of the ship's basic infrastrucutre, seems unnecessary.
Obviously one's motive in bringing up artifacts counts for something morally. But let's face it, we routinely sift through and remove things from wrecks, gravesites, ancient buildings, everything. We even relocate actual graves if they're discovered on building sites. Whether we should do these things is one issue; the fact is this happens literally on a daily basis on one level or another. Why the Titanic should be singled out when so much other retrieval/removal/looting goes on at sea and on land is beyond me. You can't decry removing artifacts from the Titanic, for example, then blithely go buy tickets to see, say, the Tutankhamen exhibit as I'm sure many have.
(Oh, and despite an earlier contributor's rants about "Yanks" looting the ship for mercenary reasons, the fact is most "looters" have been Europeans; it's the US Congress that tried to control salvaging operations at the wreck, though without jurisdiction that's impossible. Just a corrective touch of jingoism.)
As to the "graveyard" issue.Many people have said this is the grave of 1500 people and should be left undisturbed because of that. Unhappily, that's emotion and hyperbole. The fact is most people who died on Titanic died in the water (some in lifeboats), not on the ship itself. Hundreds of bodies were later recovered and buried ashore. Some people did indeed "go down with the ship" in the literal sense, and other unrecovered bodies would have eventually sunk to the ocean floor, though all of these most certainly would have fallen miles from the wreck after being carried along by the currents. Yes, the ship itself is the gravesite for some people and needs to be respected because of that. But the fact is it is not the grave of the vast majority of the people lost that night.
One thing that should stop is every expedition dropping their own little plaque on the wreck. That's selfish and obscene (and when the wreck finaly collapses, pointless). These should all be removed, even Ballard's original plaque we can blame him for starting this "tradition", though he surely didn't understand the precedent he was setting.
By the way, Ballard in one of his books said he expected Titanic to last another 75 years before it disintegrated, although a rusty stain amid non-decaying debris will always remain at the place. That would be, from his time of writing, about 2065. Disintegration seems to be accelerating, however, so whether it's 2028 or later it's clear the wreck as we've come to know it won't survive many more decades certainly not until the year 2500 or so, as stated in an earlier post.
Sorry for the lengthy post, there's a lot of topics covered here. Thanks for reading! -
valerie_lp — 18 years ago(April 20, 2007 02:02 PM)
He was quite sure it can be done. They have the technology to paint Navy tankers that never come out of the water. The paint (which contains an antioxidant preservative) dries underwater. (Trust me, my explanation is not doing justice to the planhis version was a lot more scientific.)
Balalrd is anti-salvage, but not pro-leaving-it-totally-alone. He's fine with people visiting it, he just doesn't approve of taking stuff from the wreck or landing submersibles on the deck and crushing it (as the Russians tend to do). He's very interested in preserving Titanic as it is for eternity, to be enjoyed and visited virtually through robotic submersibles that we will one day be able to receive signals from at will.
His website can probably tell you more. -
hobnob53 — 18 years ago(April 22, 2007 08:14 PM)
Thanks. I have a vague idea of the kind of thing you're talking about. I'm sure "preservation" efforts could be made, but that would transform the ship into something else, certainly not the "beautiful ruin" it is. We can't restore Titanic, and really can't keep it around forever, so I think leaving it to its natural fate is best. But you're right, we should stop further man-caused degradation of the fragile wreck.
-
hobnob53 — 16 years ago(October 06, 2009 08:49 PM)
Well, do you mind looting pyramids for their artifacts? That's a tomb. What about the
Andrea Doria
? Thousands of items have been removed from that vessel, which carried 40 or more people down with her. As I wrote a couple of years ago, right or wrong, this sort of thing has always gone on. Where do we draw the line?
As to your specific question, again, where do you say "stop"? Other "war graves" not only from both world wars but dating back thousands of years have had articles removed from them. Why single out these two vessels or any? Now I agree, I can't see any reason to take anything from either
Hood
or
Bismarck
, and think they should be left alone, but that's a call based in part on the historical information that might be gained from removing an item from either ship, which I think is limited. But let's face it, most sunken ships can be termed "graves", even if somewhat inaccurately or hyperbolically, and few people oppose retrieving artifacts from them. How does one make an exception for
Hood, Bismarck
or
Titanic
, but not others? Perhaps you personally apply this philosophy to all ships, and if so I commend you for your consistency, but it's a tricky issue with, to me, no clear resolution.
I think respecting the wreck, and not disturbing any bodies or remains, is the paramount thing. The families of the sunken Great Lakes freighter
Edmund Fitzgerald
agreed to have the ship's bell brought to the surface but otherwise want the wreck left alone. Since it really is the site of the bodies of all (or nearly all) of the crew that perished, and there is little of historic interest aboard the ship itself, this solution seems fair. But not all wrecks are so neatly dealt with. Even where artifact-retrieval isn't an issue, sometimes a ship is raised or dismembered, or items brought up, because of the need to investigate the cause of its sinking, or other scientific or technical considerations. The Russian submarine
Kursk
was raised to retrieve the bodies, but after these were removed would the sub constitute an inviolable "grave"? I don't think there's a black-and-white policy applicable in all instances. -
The_Dying_Flutchman — 16 years ago(October 07, 2009 08:48 AM)
From what I know of sunken ships that went down long ago, human remains have long since been devoured by the salt water as they do not last more than a few decades if even that long. As an underwater archaeologist enthusiast this is where my knowledge comes from.
What is the sound an imploding pimp makes? -
caronia30 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 04:03 AM)
I was just giving Hood and Bismarck as examples, as the law stands its illegal to loot military wrecks like to afore mentioned ships.
Unfortuantly ships like the Titanic and Lusitania are not covered by that law.
From what Ive heard most people who raid the Titanic do so out of personal gain, that it what I have the problem with and dont get me started on that couple who got married in a sub after the film came out (yes I know its slightly of the point but its all linking to the fact that its destroying the Titanic.)
I agree that its not black and white.. i suppose there is a massive difference between millenia old tombs and ships which sank a matter of years ago. -
chimaera1249 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 06:47 AM)
Actually, the
Titanic
is protected. There are treaties between the US, Britain, Russia, and some other countries that are designed to protect the wreck and limit the expeditions down there. As it is right now, it is illegal to remove items from the actual ship (debris field is fair game), and it is illegal to sell anything recovered. Don't know about the
Lusitania
.
I don't think many of the trips to the
Titanic
are personal trips. Its very expensive to travel to the wreck and there are only a handful of submarines that can even descend to the depth the
Titanic
sits at, all of which are in government control (such as the Russian
MIR
's) or owned by research institutions (such as Woods Hole). This isn't to say there are
some
personal trips, because I'm sure there have been some, but I don't think its as prevalent as you think/heard. -
hobnob53 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 11:02 AM)
I don't know whether the
Lusitania
is protected either, but the British government went crazy when early explorations of the wreck were made, even though there was little they could do about them. From what I heard it had nothing to do with "disturbing the site" or respect for the dead, but rather for national security reasons translation: fear of national embarrassment, since there's been little of national security concerns stemming from events of World War One for decades. Rumor says they're worried someone might turn up evidence that the ship was carrying munitions or other contraband in violation of US neutrality, or some other such embarrassment. Whether this is accurate or not, the British have always been touchy about this wreck, which of course now lies outside their jurisdiction, off Irish waters. In fact, didn't they successfully stop an expedition as early as 1954 or so? It seems to me I heard such a thing long ago. In any event,
Lusitania
is an interesting hybrid of war wreck and civilian ship disaster, which makes it uniquely different from, say,
Titanic
or
Bismarck
. And I also understand the wreck is now in very bad shape and virtually inaccessible (i.e., actually getting inside the hulk itself). -
caronia30 — 16 years ago(October 22, 2009 08:19 AM)
Doesnt suprise me about divers not getting into the Lusitania, I saw some pictures of her a few years ago, the wreck looks like a boomerang or something. I think thats how she landed on the seabed.
Thank you for the intellegent discussion, I dont get much chance to talk ships, no one seems interested these days.
-
chimaera1249 — 16 years ago(October 22, 2009 01:26 PM)
Not only that, but the ship is draped by a ton of fishing nets that have gotten snagged on the wreckage. I was watching a documentary a few months back where a ROV was nearly lost because it got tangled in one. Its one of the most dangerous wrecks to explore.
-
hobnob53 — 16 years ago(October 15, 2009 10:48 AM)
Basically I think we're pretty much in agreement. Grabbing stuff from wrecks purely for personal gain is an unworthy practice. The salvagers' reasoning would say that (a) they had to recover their expenses (but then why do it at all, since profit remains a principle, if not sole, motive, and they certainly don't stop making profits after recouping their costs?), and (b) that but for their efforts these things would remain hidden from the world.
Yet even here, it's not entirely a good/bad issue. Does it serve a purpose for items of genuine historical interest to remain hidden from sight and left to disintegrate in the deep ocean? As I said, I wish there was an easy answer applicable to all situations, balancing legitimate archeological and historical concerns with proper respect for the sites and the lives lost.
Maybe it's a case of simply "knowing" when something's being done that falls outside the bounds of propriety or legitimacy, vs. research and salvage that's being done for reasons of historical preservation and with the requisite respect for the wreck and its dead. An imperfect method, I grant you, but it might be all we can rely on common sense and a sense of decency and responsibility.