What do you think Titanic wreck has left 2555 years


G

Guest (R17)

Guest
Pardon me if this has been talked about before, but I remember there being some talk about how long the Titanic had left... What do you think ? Some say 25 years, others 50 years. I know the wood parts of the gym have fallen in but when they took a sample of the Titanic's metal/steal ( to find out if she had faulty metal & if this played one of the main factors in her sinking ) under all that rust the sample was as good as new.... I'm sure you all remember when there was all the talk about Titanic's metal/steal having a fault etc, but do you remember the perfect condition of her steal when the upper layers had been removed? All shinny it was
happy.gif
This makes me wonder... although of course things will cave in and the wood get eaten away if the Titanic's steal is almost like knew underneath ( as this sample seemed to show ) maybe she will hold up longer than we think.

It’s not long until it will be 20 years since the finding of the Titanic and she looks pretty much the same to me give or take one or 2 things like the gymnasium roof. In-fact she seems to be more in-tact than in 1987 - but then that’s just because technology is has brought us better more stunning pictures than ever before. Anyway what do you think before she is just a pile of Titanic on the sea floor ? Can you imagine what interesting artefacts will come to light in such a debri field when this does one day happen !

Also maybe a new idea for marketing might come from Titanic metal ! They could start selling Titanic pets - own your own living Titanic pet complete with metal sample to live and feed off
happy.gif
 
Jan 21, 2003
271
2
171
Hate to burst your bubble but her parts of the hull may look new but they're far into deterioration. If i remember right I think over 25% of her hull has been eaten by the rusticles (correct me if i'm wrong on that) Her condition has also greatly deteriorated, picture i've seen of the boat deck show it has greatly collapsed since 87. If anything i have said is incorrect to anyone please correct me.
 
G

Guest (R17)

Guest
I might be wrong also. I understand that the little Titanic pets are eating away at a fast rate. But still this sample of steal from the Titanic which were used for these tests underneath the rust was like new, this is why I raised the question. There has been talk about the Titanic not having long to go on television but I try not to believe everything on television - I am by no means saying you do ether. That said I think you are probably correct.

When you say Titanic’s metal has eaten away by 25% do you mean since 1987 or since 1912. With this information I suppose you could more or less work out how long she will hold up before a major cave in occurs. The fact that her steal from this sample when stripped away of rust seemed to be as good as new made me think. When there has been major damage to the boat deck for example the gymnasium roof is that not more to do with the fact that this part of the ship was made of wood rather than metal? And the little Titanic pets prefer wood to metal — no ? But then each deck of the Titanic was made of wood so I suppose it does not matter if the steal were in good condition or not under all that rust.

.
 

Wesley Burton

Member
Apr 22, 2004
178
2
111
I am sure there were metal supports on the roof of the gymnasium. But they were not as strong as the hull I am sure. In GOTA they showed some wood in fairly good condition in the dining saloon and reception area.
I think the figure is 25% since 1985. It takes time for rusticles to grow. But once they start, they really eat. I could be wrong though.

I would guess Titanic has 30 years or so. The bow anyway, the stern doesnt really have any thing left to collapse.
 
G

Guest (R17)

Guest
Only 30 years.. I suppose that is realistic tho.
In some ways she seems to be more intact than in 1987 because the recent pictures show us far better clearer and recognisable features from her interior than in 1987. Anyway is that what most people think ? about 30 years, maybe less ? Once the ship has fallen apart then they might be able to bring more big pieces up.

I also wonder if the wreck still being down there helps keep more interest alive in the Titanic and once it has finally gone will a certain amount of interest die down ? Or is it safe to say people will always be hugely fascinated by the Titanic like they are today... I'm prob not making any sense. Anyways
happy.gif
 
G

Guest (R17)

Guest
I’m actually changing my mind about bringing stuff up, as in the long run it will go towards helping the Titanic be remembered.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
693
483
Easley South Carolina
I don't think there's any way to know for sure as much depends on the conditions where the wreck lies. Generally, ships sunk in warmer waters don't last as long but factors such as marine growth can change the picture dramatically. The growth of corals for example, or encrustation with barnacles (As with Britannic) can make for a wreck which lasts a long time. Other's...such as the CSS Hunley...can be preserved in remarkably good condition if buried in the mud. The Swedish Vasa is an example of a 16th century wooded warship preserved virtually intact that way. The Andrea Doria...a wreck of 1956 vintage...is in far worse shape because of warmer waters and nothing growing to protect the hull. (The superstructure is known to have fallen away almost down to the level of the main deck!)

The Titanic has no such protection as corals and barnacles don't grow that far down. My bet is that what we'll see is a gradual collapse over the next century with the reletively lightly built superstructure caving in first. I would think that the portions of hull below the mudline will last for quite some time, but nobody will be able to get to that.

Any way you look at it, I don't think we'll get any hard and fast answers on this beyond the obvious fact that nature is just doing it's thing. As Dr. Cullimore himself said on one of the Discovery documentaries, "Absolutely everything recycles." This will happen with Titanic, but we just won't see the end of the process in our lifetimes.
 
G

Guest (R17)

Guest
I thought the Andrea Doria was in good condition but I must be wrong. I remember a picture Ken Marshall did of her lying on her side and she looked intact - however that must have been an impression.

Britannic is in good condition - but you think Titanic may last longer than 30 years ? I hope so
happy.gif
Are there any decent areas of the Titanic that could be explored still or have we got to most of them ?

.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
693
483
Easley South Carolina
>>I thought the Andrea Doria was in good condition but I must be wrong. I remember a picture Ken Marshall did of her lying on her side and she looked intact - however that must have been an impression.<<

The artists impression you saw was current to around 1990 and you can see a copy in Lost Liners. Unfortunately, a lot has changed in only 14 years. Ken revised the painting by reworking the image on a computer and this image was seen on an edition of Deep Sea Detectives. Divers report that the wreck is a noisy one and constantly changing, so diving on this ship is not for amatures or the faint hearted. I can see the time coming when the wreck will become so dangerous that the authorities will have to declare her off limits to divers.
 
G

Guest (R17)

Guest
Yeah it was about 1990 on a cover of the Titanic Commutator. I'd love to see the recent revised image. How far down is it compared to the Britannic and Lusitania ? Lusitania is a pitiful wreck - nothing much to look at. From what I have seen of her she is just a flattened heap on the sea floor. Does not seem to be any rooms to go into. I understand that Britannic is in good condition and I am surprised more attention is not paid to her, after all she is almost like an intact Titanic. Don't they sometimes build walls round ships and pump the water out — a mad I idea I know to do with the Britannic. I think it might well be possible to bring the Britannic up but I doubt anyone would finance it and if you did what would happen once she were brought up ? You could not really restore it and she would continue to rust and fall apart.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
693
483
Easley South Carolina
As I understand it, the Lusitania, Britannic, and Andrea Doria lie at about the same depth of approximately 400 feet, give or take a dozen or so. Lustitania owes her deplorable condition to such factors as time and also that during the Second World War she was used as a target for ASW exersizes. Depth charges don't do a lot of good to any ship's structure.

Britannic will never go to the surface, but not for the reasons you mentioned. She's listed as a war grave so that means that even diving on the wreck requires all kinds of bureaucratic hoop jumping to get permission. As the Greeks don't take kindly to trespassers, one would be wise to have everything in order befor even so much as going down for a look. Also, the ship has an owner in the person of Simon Mills, who's made it pretty clear that the ship is going nowhere. You might want to parse the details on This FAQS Page for some more insights into that and other issues.

If you want to see what the Andrea Doria looks like today, you might want to Go HERE to order the vidio.
 
G

Guest (R17)

Guest
Dose ASW mean it was used for target practice ?That's is such a shame, but I suppose in WW2 the time between the Lusitania's sinking was fairly recent so they would not have understood the historical interest that we have today. Thanks for the links. I will have a look at them now.
.
 
Dec 2, 2000
58,614
693
483
Easley South Carolina
ASW means Anti-Submarine Warfare. What this means as a practical matter is that the ship was used for target practice. She made for a large enough sonar target so it wasn't the easiest to miss. How much effect this had, I can't say. The depth charges may have been set to go off at a reletively shallow depth (Which would explain why the ship wasn't in such bad condition up to the 1960's) but I doubt it helped.

I understand there are unexploded depth charges near the wreck so carelessly poking around there wouldn't be such a swift idea.
 
Aug 15, 2005
908
5
111
34
Darwen, United Kingdom
Not long, as I believe that the foremast was found to have collapsed last week. Two years ago, it was given an estimate of ten years before collapse. It seems to be getting quicker and quicker by the day.
I hope it doesn't get too bad; I want something to look at when I go down on the 100th anniversary.
 

Similar threads

Similar threads