Good Morning America


T

Trent Pheifer

Guest
Did any one else see good morning american? On the show is said the stern did a summer sault and landed upside down on the ocean floor....it was crazy to me, I am going to gma message board and post the problem....it was also sad it was the first time I had seen the foward mast without its crownest and it also showed some trash left by past visitors ......well igtg what do you think??
 
T

Tracey McIntire

Guest
Hi Trent--
I missed this show but from what you said it sounds like they don't know what they are talking about. The stern landed upside down!? I've also seen lots of photos of the forward mast without the crow's nest. I've heard rumors of beer cans littering the wreck from the latest expedition but I don't know if there is any substance to them. What did they show for "trash" on the wreck? Any discussion of how fast the wreck is deteriorating?
Thanks for your input!
Sincerely,
Tracey McIntire
 
T

Trent Pheifer

Guest
Hey Tracie they didnt say anything about deteriorating...I too now agree with many other that it was a scam....the trash that they had shown couldnt really depic what it was it looked like a net type thing...I dont know lol I just sent a email to Abc about the stern so maybe I'll get a reply.....well if you have anymore ?? about the show I taped it so I can possibly find something lol cya
-Trent
 
K

Karen Angstadt

Guest
Maybe I don't understand some things, but how could beer cans get out of one of those subs?
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
5,045
316
353
I can vouch for the fact that the area of the wreck is littered with nets containing ballast dropped from Mir. I'm not sure about them being on the wreck itself. I'll ask a mate who was there recently.
 
Jun 18, 2007
393
7
113
47
Trust me, one is on the wreck itself! The video shot for the segment clearly shows a white net of smallish size on some part of the bow, I'm not precisely sure where. I taped it so maybe I could freeze-frame the shot and tell you where precisely.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
688
483
Easley South Carolina
Hi Trent, I'll have to do a more thorough back check on the sinking, but my understanding is that as it was going down, the stern rotated about 90 degrees to port as it settled. A certain sure fact is that it didn't land upside down. The stern...what's left of it...is sitting upright and is oriented more or less towards the south.

This claim made on Good Morning America is a good example of why one should arm him/herself with information from more qualified sources. Regrettably, some media types aren't as careful as they should be.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
688
483
Easley South Carolina
Addendum; take the rotation of the stern thing with a large grain of salt as it's just one of several scenarios that I've encountered, and I cant see how it could happen that way unless the stern was completely broken away befor the entire ship was submerged.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
T

Trent Pheifer

Guest
Hey Michael

I do totally agree with you I know for sure that it didnt land up side down and I agree about what you said about the media too
-Trent
 
Dec 2, 2000
1,513
5
223
Mike,

I am not a reporter, but I am glad you added the part about Bob. There are responsible media out there. But I have personally seen too many times when others, perhaps in haste, misquote or do not research quite enough. It becomes like bad gossip that hurts people and destroys careers at times.

Also, just curious, if the ship did sever in half prior to sinking...could that explain the lack of suction (sinking suction discussion)?
Thanks. Maureen.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
688
483
Easley South Carolina
Hello Maureen, and now you know why I'm hoping somebody with expertise in hydrodynamics will pop in and try and explain this.

As to the media, I have a background in the military, and aviation(I have 80.7 hours flying time in my logbook. Just wish I could have finished what I started, but that's life.), to say nothing of ships and the sea. The things that the media gets wrong is enough to make me scream at times when they cover those topics, and it doesn't inspire confidence in anything else they cover. It gives the responsible thorough reporters a very bad name.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Dec 2, 2000
1,513
5
223
I feel pretty much the same way, but glad that there are the Bob's of the world. It has to be frustrating for a guy like Bob but he is a shining star and maybe that will lift him up professionally as someone who can be trusted.

There are all kinds of people at my job who do all kinds of stuff...I'll ask around about the hydrodynamics topic and get back with you.
Maureen.
 
T

Tracey McIntire

Guest
Hey everyone!
I just wanted to confirm that Bob Mervine is a great reporter! He got Harris to tell us what was actually recovered when everyone else at RMST was being very vague. He puts GMA to shame. I've had the pleasure of speaking with him a couple of times and I am looking forward to any other stories he might write.
Sincerely,
Tracey McIntire
 

Bob Mervine

Member
Aug 22, 2007
29
1
71
Just a word of thanks to Maureen, Michael and Tracey for your kind words. I'm actually blushing as I read your posts -- I just checked Tracey's message and scrolled up to read the others.

RE: the matter of the MIR ballast. According to Mike Harris -- who should know -- the MIR craft uses water for ballast and does not drop anything when they surface. The ballast in place came from the earlier ALVIN dives -- Harris' quote is to the effect that the ballast actually says ALVIN on it.

Also, RE : the beer cans. Mike said the reporter from Der Speigel took his comments out of context. He expressed frustration at two different instances of spotting an object, taking 30 minutes to get the submersible adjusted, picking it up and seeing in one case, the Heiniken label and in the other a large silver can with a gold colored insides -- an old 2 gallon can that once held spaghetti sauce. He indicated to the reporter that he wished they could put up a sign on a buoy to stop people from dropping trash. he said he told her that people know the wreck location and that they stop to toast and then throw empty bottles and cans overboard. Somehow that became a quote about his crew littering the bottom with beer cans.

The language barrier might have been an issue, and I suspect the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, but I did get a stong sense that Harris was strongly opposed to anyone dropping anything overboard at the site. He said, "Tulloch got yelled at once for throwing a rock overboard. You never know what that stuff might hit and break."
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
688
483
Easley South Carolina
Bob, thanks for clearing this up. I'm a tad surprised at the Mirs using water ballast as most submersibles I know of use iron shot or something similar, and my bet is that it's easier to drop shot at extreme depths then to blow out water ballast. That must be SOME system they have on the MIRs to be able to work at those pressures.

As to the glowing reveiws you're getting from the board members, it's because you do everything you can to deserve it. As you may have figured out, I don't have a very high opinion of reporters. To find one such as yourself who tries to be genuinely objective, who checks his facts and corrects his mistakes as soon as he becomes aware of them is most refreshing. Keep it up. ;-)

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 
Dec 2, 2000
1,513
5
223
I agree with Michael. It is truly refreshing for a reporter to even say...oops, sorry or anything like that. You are worth your weight in gold.

Also, I am not sure of my facts...get ready Erik...but...I think that water at that level is better due to the way that they can force it in and out of the submerisble for some reason I believe that it helps with the pressure...I don't know if I read that somewhere...dreamed it or if Geoff told me that...just kidding Geoff... anyone have any ideas?
Maureen.
 

Jason D. Tiller

Moderator
Member
Dec 3, 2000
8,243
22
308
Niagara Falls, Ontario
I also agree with Michael. It's almost unbelievable to see a reporter like yourself and to be able to check your facts and admit your mistakes when they happen.

Thank you for all the news that you have given us where as RMST has said hardly anything.

Best regards,

Jason D. Tiller
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
688
483
Easley South Carolina
Hello maureen, My concern on the water ballast at those depths is because of the enormous back pressure that any system would have to fight in order to force the water out of the ballast tank, yet keep enough air pressure in the tank(Or build it tough enough) to prevent a violent implosion. At the depth the Titanic lies, it's something like 3000 pounds per square inch.

Cordially,
Michael H. Standart
 

Similar threads

Similar threads