Raise the Britannic

[GLaDOS2]

I have to agree with the impossibility of raising Britannic and personally I would rather see her left where she is even if it was possible to raise her without causing much damage.

I came up with many of these reasons when I was writing about the wreck some time ago; I must agree with Adam and emphasize that the wreck's owner Simon Mills is positively anti-salvage, a stance which I heartily agree with.

Best regards,

Mark.

really no

we need to buy the wreck and sell it for scrap to end it all

 

[Itsstillthinking]

I dont even know how to respond to this :/

 

[Mark Baber]

I don't think any response is warranted.

 

[Andrew Wood]

Michael,


Well the Costa Concordia, ....it will probably be much easier to refloat a boat that is not 100 years old, and is not totally submerged in shallow water.

As to the smell you mentioned, I don't think I'd want to be downwind of it. Phew!

No one seems to have mentioned the Mary Rose, which although only in about 36 feet of water was wooden and had been on the seabed for

What is this endless fascination with attempting to raise every piece of rotting junk from the sea floor?....All that's left is decomposing wreckage of no value whatsoever, at any rate in propotion to what it would cost to salvage from the depths.
the idea of spending zillions and risking lives to try and raise something which in a sense doesn't even exist any more is futility at its highest.

No one seems to have mentioned the Mary Rose, which although only in about 36 feet of water was wooden and had been on the seabed for 437 years. It was raised as 'rotting junk' and has been preserved as a popular museum in itself so people who arent divers which 99% of the population arent, can see and apprecate her size and construction so i dont think its fair to say there is no value or interest in raising and preserving ships. The practical aspects of such a big one down much deeper on the other hand is a different matter

 

[Michael H. Standart]

No one seems to have mentioned the Mary Rose, which although only in about 36 feet of water was wooden and had been on the seabed for



No one seems to have mentioned the Mary Rose, which although only in about 36 feet of water was wooden and had been on the seabed for 437 years. It was raised as 'rotting junk' and has been preserved as a popular museum in itself so people who arent divers which 99% of the population arent, can see and apprecate her size and construction so i dont think its fair to say there is no value or interest in raising and preserving ships. The practical aspects of such a big one down much deeper on the other hand is a different matter

There is a HUGE difference between bringing up a mass of maybe a 400 to 500 tons in relatively shallow water as opposed to bringing up a mass of 52,000 tons from even deeper water.

The first can be achieved with existing tools and equipment and there is a wealth of historical information which can be recovered from the remains which has otherwise been lost to the historical record.

The second may become possible within even my lifetime but what would be the point?
-Most of the documentation surrounding the Britannic still exists, and the cause of the sinking is known.
-The fittings put aboard are known and understood,
-There is nothing of any kind aboard of any intrinsic value which could possibly pay back the investment,
-The ship would be useless in any sort of trade,
-and finally, preservation would have to be accomplished in an immersion tank with a fresh water constantly being supplied along with chemical electrolytes AND electricity to get the salt out of the steel so the hulk doesn't collapse in a pile of rust as soon as it's hit with air.

Can more be learned from the wreck?

More can always be learned, but the preservation required to give examiners the time to do that is best accomplished by leaving the ship right where she is.