Titanic today


S

Sonja Ilic

Guest
Can anyone tell me what is going to be done with the Titanic in the near future? I mean, we can't just let it rot down there, it would destroy so much evidence we can learn from, and yet touching it would be very risky, there is a very good chance it would fall apart, right? So does anyone know about any theories as to what is to be done with it?
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
>>Can anyone tell me what is going to be done with the Titanic in the near future? <<

Beyond exploration, and perhaps some artifact recovery, not a thing.

>>I mean, we can't just let it rot down there<<

It's out of our hands I'm afraid. The fact is that technology which might stand a chance of preserving the ship simply doesn't exist.
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
There able to put small electrical current through the water baths on some artifacts and it stunts the rust from going along too quickly or possibly all together. But the problem is that we dont have the technology to do the whole wreck. Look at Ballard he wanted to back int he mid 90`s when he went to Britannic to create a under water musuem with web cams that broadcasted live but that never came about.

Its best to just explore the ship and let the course contune that is being taken. The more the wreck decays the more areas we have the possibility of entering.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
>>But the problem is that we dont have the technology to do the whole wreck.<<

It's worse then that. The ship lies in salt water. One of the ideas behind using electricity is to remove the salt from the metal. For that, you need the artifact to be in fresh water, such as what's being done with the CSS H. L. Hunley. Even with this small submarine, the conservation process is taking a minimum of ten years to accomplish.

Anyone care to guess how long it would take with a ship the size of Titanic?
 
M

Matt Pereira

Guest
Oh i agree. It would be pointless to try and remove the salt from a hulk that is still in salt water. I accepted long ago not much can be done with where technology is today. I would rather see her explored before the end and get history wrote down and pictures. To be honest I cant stand to look at the wreck nowadays. She looks so much worse now than she did in 1995
 

Liam Thomas

Member
Jul 11, 2007
8
0
71
Titanic probably will have dissapeared by 2050. It is continuously deteriorating and will eventually dissapear. Someone better preserve Titanic or it will be gone forever in the next 50 years

[Moderator's Note: This message, originally posted to an unrelated thread in the "Titanic Movies" topic, has been moved to this pre-existing thread addressing the same subject. MAB]
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
>>Someone better preserve Titanic or it will be gone forever in the next 50 years.<<

Liam, you just don't preserve anything which is completely immersed in salt water, which is the most relentlessly corrosive substance on the face of the Earth. If something doesn't grow on it to protect it...like coral or barnacles...or if it's not completely protected by mud, it eventually dissolves. This is especially true of anything as chemically active as iron.

In any event, hystrical media reports notwithstanding, I don't think you need to worry about Titanic being gone in 50 years. The biological and chemical processes which are destroying the wreck may be relentless, but they are also slow.
 

Sean Hankins

Member
May 15, 2004
110
0
111
"In any event, hystrical media reports notwithstanding, I don't think you need to worry about Titanic being gone in 50 years. The biological and chemical processes which are destroying the wreck may be relentless, but they are also slow."

Agreed. While the superstructure may have fallen apart by then. the hull itself will be around much longer.
 
Aug 11, 2008
45
0
46
i think if there is a possibility of that is to just take the front half of the titanic which is in much better condition. as seen in the 3D video the stern basically lost almost all its parts, so imagine how it is now...I would say save the bow and leave the stern.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
>>i think if there is a possibility of that is to just take the front half of the titanic which is in much better condition.<<

Reletive to what? While it may look sound on the outside, corrosion is doing it's relentless thing and the rate of collapse is starting to snowball.
 
Aug 11, 2008
45
0
46
I am aware of that....that's where being extremely careful and being precise is all about...for example...it is better to have something attached to the very tip of the bow and find a perfect spot to also pull it on the end of the half instead of just pulling it from one side...if the second occurs then valuable things from the ship will be lost and the people who would be responsible for this job would no that they can't afford for that to happen...at least to my knowledge...
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
Jorge, I'm not sure what you're driving at but trust me, nothing in the way of any attempt is ever going to be made to do anything to the structure of the ship, and that includes any attempt at pulling it together. Nobody is going to pull on or build on to anything. The technical means to do so at 12,500 feet just doesn't exist except in a Hollywood fantasy.
 
Aug 11, 2008
45
0
46
Well i know fantasy, but I do believe that when there is a will there is a way. Trust me I have seen plenty of things out of anyone's imagination so I do believe that there is a way to rise that first half of that ship. I wont lie, for the rear half there is no hope for it since its basically to the floor already. And this conversation is a "what if.." type of question. I have no knowledge if it is a possibility but out of all the things i have seen in my life i am positive that there is a way to rise the front half of the Titanic to the surface. How? I have no clue, but, i do bet that if researchers would set their minds to it they would do just about any crazy thing they can think of. Like I said...I hope you can see my point of view and know where I am coming from...
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
>>but I do believe that when there is a will there is a way.<<

With what and for what?

>>I have no knowledge if it is a possibility <<

I do. It's not.

Sorry, but that's the cold reality. The technical means just doesn't exist. I'll grant that sometime in the future, the technical means may be developed, but if it is, one has to justify using it. At the present time, it takes lavish support equipment and ships just to support one or two manned submerisibles and around $35,000 to make even a single dive.

To do what you propose would take a massively expensive research, development, testing, and evaluation program along with an equally massive industrial effort to build all the hardware, and for what? Nobody is going to go to that sort of trouble for a century old pile of rusting steel on the bottom no matter what sentimental value it may have.
 
May 3, 2005
2,508
222
258
Have there been any underwater explorations to wrecks older than Titanic ?

For example, something dating back to around the 1850's or so ?

Or would any ship of that era not be of iron construction in the first place ?

But if there should be any wrecks of 1850's iron ships, how would the condition of the remains compare with Titanic's (1912) ?
 

James Smith

Member
Dec 5, 2001
490
1
171
Robert, I think the condition of a shipwreck often depends on the surrounding environment--temperature of water, the presence and composition of any sediment covering the wreckage, current, presence or absence of organisms that devour the structural materials of the ship, and that kind of thing.

The Civil War submarine CSS Hunley has been raised and, if I remember correctly, is in reasonable shape. The USS Monitor's turret section has been raised, but my understanding is that it will be in a preservative bath for the next ten years or so.

--Jim
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,643
462
453
Easley South Carolina
Iron hull construction got it's start in the 1850's if I recall correctly. There are some iron hulled wrecks to be found and some like the CSS Hunley are in remarkable shape. It helps to know that for most of the time, she was buried in mud and that made a big difference. I've seen the craft twice and the conservation is coming along nicely.

The USS Monitor however, wasn't so fortunate as to be buried in mud and the consequences are there for all to see. The turret was made of very thick plates so they held up quite well. The hull however, is essentially a skeleton, and that may explain why no attempt was made to raise it.
 
May 3, 2005
2,508
222
258
Considering all the factors involved, does the depth have much of a factor on the speed of the deterioration ? Titanic is at a much greater depth than Hunley and Monitor, so is it disintegrating faster or slower ?
 

Similar threads