I often wonder why people keep stressing the number of lifeboats the Titanic had when they didn't even successfully launch all of them. The last collapsible floated away and the other overturned. Could you imagine the chaos if they had to deal with the davits that would have several lifeboats stacked up.

There was a plan, but it just wasn't good enough for the situation. Prior to
Titanic
, there had never been (or at least not in recent memory) an incident that required evacuating the
entire
ship at once. Lifeboats were never intended to hold every person at one time. It was assumed that ships would be close enough to quickly provide aid and lifeboats would be used to ferry people to safety, then return for more people. Ships were designed with that idea in mind in order to keep them afloat for as long as possible to give crews the time to evacuate.
Titanic
, though, broke all those assumptions. While she had more time than originally thought (Andrews thought the ship had about an hour and a half after his inspection), didn't have the time, manpower, or rescue ships in the area to make that work (I know
Californian
was roughly in the area, but she wasn't nearly big enough to hold everyone, and likely would not have been able to arrive in time to do much).
This is also why the lifeboat argument is a little overblown. While I'm sure nobody would argue that having enough lifeboats is a bad thing, in a lot of cases, including
Titanic
's, they're not all that helpful. You have to have the time to launch them, crew to man and lower them, and a level enough deck to launch from.
Titanic
was extremely lucky in she sank more or less on an even keel, and her port list didn't seriously impede the boat launching. However, as it was, the crew barely had enough time to launch 18 of the 20 boats she did have, and each boat took more of the crew off the ship that was capable of lowering to boats (the deck crew was only 66 people, which includes the 7 officers, and you need 5-6 on the ship to launch a boat). More people almost certainly would have been saved by more lifeboats, but not all, and it more likely than not that some of those boats would have had to be cut loose and left the ship empty or even gone down with the ship.
This isn't to say that the evacuation was perfect. It definitely wasn't, but all-in-all, I think it went fairly well given the situation the officers found themselves in.

It was interesting that they seemed to know exactly how long the Titanic would stay afloat. 2+ hours I think. The disaster wouldn't have been so tragic if they had just had enough lifeboats, and a little training in what to do in an emergency. An "unsinkable" ship and no plan equals disaster. I guess the lifeboats were just there for decoration. Plus, if you are going too fast to avoid a collision, the captain is at fault.

While no ship is unsinkablethe means to send and receive a distress signal, and respond to that signal, is obviously far greater today than it was then.
But of course disasters at sea still occur.

This message has been deleted.

It's worth noting that the half sister 'Britannic' sank after 1 torpedo hit in WW1 while acting as a hospital ship-and she had the post iceberg modifications built in. As far as people travelling by ship, far more do it now as cruise liner passengers than were doing it for actual transportation in 1912. One of the ironies of the modern age.
'What is an Oprah?'-Teal'c.

Regarding the Costa Concordia, I'd be very interested in how the ship ran aground. Will it be faulty electronics or the captain's muff of a tricky situation? The Titanic was a tech marvel in its day. Only thing there's a human dimension that had to be applied to the rudders, screws and engine room. The confluence of that surely determines success or failure as a ship moves through the water.

This message has been deleted.

No ship is unsinkable.
Neither was Titanic. She was never claimed to be by the White Star Line themselves. However popular media called her "practically unsinkable", and they had the watertight compartments to back that claim up. This became "unsinkable" in the minds of the people.
Especially AFTER it sank.

Yes, it was.

I haven't heard any news about the Costa Concordia lately.
Has it been uprighted yet?

Yes. It was well known among the designers and White Star that the ship could not survive with damage in more than four compartments.

Problem was Titanic took on more damage than Harland and Wolff ever dreamed she would encounter.
So do you think that they knew 5 was the killer for the ship when they designed it?

Maybe, but every design has flaws and weak points. There is always a point where it will fail. The Olympic-class ships were designed to withstand the common incidents of the time and then some. Problem was
Titanic
took on more damage than Harland and Wolff ever dreamed she would encounter. Being able to survive with four compartments flooded is pretty good, and the subdivision on those ships would rival that of a lot of ships in service today.

Titanic's design and construction was actually very well done. No ship since has had a third of her length open to the sea and still lasted as long as she did.
With regard to the design of the "water-tight" compratments could one argue, post-sinking, that the design was flawed, i.e. that it did not take in particular conditions and catastrophic situations? I'd have to think there's a psychology and pragmatism when constructing a ship.

The only "unsinkable" ships are the ones that don't ever enter the water. Anything ship can sink. Ship construction has come along way since
Titanic
, but its still possible for a ship to take on enough damage to lose buoyancy. The
Costa Concordia
proves that.
Titanic
's design and construction was actually very well done. No ship since has had a third of her length open to the sea and still lasted as long as she did.

This message has been deleted.

The Zimmermann telegram was a message sent by a German official to the Mexican government encouraging them to attack and start a war against the US, with the Germans offering support as allies. The Germans were about to restart open submarine warfare and thought it might bring the US into the war, so they were trying to broker an alliance against the US if they did. In exchange, the Germans promised southwestern US land back to Mexico, like Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona.
This, along with the resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare swayed a lot of opinion against the Germans, which then lead up to the US declaring war on Germany a couple of months later.

Hello chimaera1249,
I'm afraid my knowledge of history is a bit faulty (age?).
What is this "Zimmerman telegram", and how did it lead America into that war?

Lusitania
was built before
Titanic
, not after. Her sinking also didn't do anything to bring the US into the war. The US stayed neutral for another two years, until the Zimmerman telegram was sent to Mexico.

While I'm not certain, perhaps the British liner "Lusitania" was constructed according to post-"Titanic" plans, yet was sunk by a German U-boatpulling the US into WW1.

hmmm..just wondering what are the odds today of the QM staying up getting two torpedoes one fore the other aft from a rogue sub?

The ship that was wrecked off the coast of Italy, The "Costa Concordia" did not sink.yet.only because it is lying on its side on a shelf of rock.
Ships today are welded, not riveted, and made of high tensile steel which is stronger.
The Queen Mary 2 still crosses the Atlantic.