Matthew, I would strongly suggest that you go to Amazon or whatever bookseller you like to deal with and get a copy of that book I recommended to you. Not to be rude, but what you're suggesting is fantasy of the highest order.
>>your right i have a better idea to build a GIANT tube around the wreck and then once the tube is about 10 feet above the surface begin to pump the seawater out and in about 2 monthes the tube and the titanic will be dry <<
No it won't.
Even if the structure could be made watertight...and it can't because the decomposition is eating new holes in it every day...pumping the water out and leaving it dry would result in the wreck imploding from the water pressure. It's a cool 3 1/2 tons per square inch.
And a tube two and a half miles long just to get down there to say nothing of the support vessels that would have to remain on station in a notoriously dangerous and stormy patch of ocean?
And at some point, you're going to have to find some way of physically lifting the wreck without having the thing just fall apart on you. Again...not happening. The hull is too fragile for that, and there is nothing on the planet capable of doing this. Nor is there one good economical reason to try.
As Parks pointed out, we can learn a hell of a lot more by leaving the wreck in situ and having research vehicals collect the evidence for a proper forensics analysis.
You would also do well to pay attention to what Colleen said about environmental impact concerns. The states having the jurisdictions don't waiver this sort of thing.
unless we raise the ship i a cage like the mary rose unless you havnt heard about it.
The mary rose was a 17th century!!!! warship and they found the wreck and brought it up in a cage.
The mary rose has been at the bottom longer than titanic and yes it was more fragil so you see we bring the titanic up in a cage to make sure it dosent fall apart.
LOOK go on the internet and typ down the raiseing of the mary rose and you will find on one of the sites photos and you will see what i mean!!!!!!!
OH I WILL NEVER GIVE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've seen the Mary Rose in Portsmouth a few times - was down there just the other week, in point of fact.
The salvage of this wreck is in no way comparable to your proposed salvage of the Titanic.
What was raised of the Mary Rose was not an entire vessel, but only the part of her hull still intact after having been buried in sediment - a sort of fascinating cross section of the ship. A special 'cradle' was constructed to raise her, weighing - with the piece of the ship on it - some 580 tons when they brought it to the surface. It took a giant floating crane to lift her into the cradle - quite a feat even for something the size of the Mary Rose. Impossible for something the size of Titanic (picture, if you will, the floating crane that can operate from the surface and lift the Titanic!)
The Mary Rose was a structure of comparative simplicity, as she was not entirely intact. Nor was she ever a massive structure on anything like the scale of the Titanic. While certainly fragile, she was made of wood and preserved in the debris of the Solent - the Titanic, on the other had, is a metal structure rusting away.
12 years after she was raised, in order to preserve the section of the hull, it is necessary to continually pour water-soluble wax polyethylene glycol over her. It's intriguing to go into the building and observe this taking place, as it's still an ongoing process.
The Mary Rose was at the bottom of the Solent. This is in no way comparable to being at the bottom of the North Atlantic - if the ocean were a swimming pool, the Tudor warship's depth would be just a couple of inches from the surface...the great WSL ship would be in the deep end. Salvage attempts on the Mary Rose were made in the intervening centuries since she sank, but it was only in 1982 they succeeded. While this was a phenomenal achievement, it is in no way equivalent to the raising of a ship almost three miles deep. Look at the difficulty merely in raising a fragment of the Titanic's hull!
Another point - please read the rules of this board before posting. Extensive use of 'ALL CAPS' is considered bad netiquette and extremely rude - the equivalent of shouting.
<sigh> Matthew, I know about the Mary Rose and I also know...as Inger pointed out...that the wreck was
a)In much shallower water.
b)Was signifigently smaller then the Titanic
c)Yet still took a lot of support equipment, time and effort to bring up.
I also know about the three ring circus which Inger mentioned to bring up a small section of hull plating from 2 1/2 miles down. It involved two seperate expeditions because the section was lost the first time and on the second attempt, they nearly lost it anyway.
You cannot compare the effort to bring a small section of a decayed wooden hullto the surface from shallow waters to the effort that would be required to bring up nearly 30,000 tons of wreckage from 2 1/2 miles down and try to bring it up in one peice.
Bluntly, the technology doesn't exist, the economic justification does not exist, and by the time one or both does come into existance...if at all...there won't be anything left to recover.
I agree totally with your conclusion, but I would like to point out that when the money is available, we humans can do pretty damn near anything we decide to. Project Apollo comes immediately to mind, but other examples are legion.
Short form: it's the money. If someone figured out a way to make it profitable, it would be on dry land within a year or two.
It's about the project to raise Tricolor from the English Channel. She's about the same GRT as Titanic, she's in one piece and she's only in about 30 metres of water. Have look at the resouces required and the cost. Then go and have nice lie-down.
>>Short form: it's the money. If someone figured out a way to make it profitable, it would be on dry land within a year or two.<<
Probably, in fact, extremly likely that's true...uh...once somebody managed to develop the technology needed to make it happen.
The trouble is two fold;
a)Nobody has yet figured out a practical and economic way of making it happen and,
b)If the object is to make an exhibet/museum out of the Titanic's bones, they'll have a helluva time just breaking even.
Look at the trouble existing martime museums have making ends meet, and that's with intact ships that they tend to get in pretty decent shape. Some of them still fail too. I suspect that if the Titanic ever made it to dry land, she would be quite a draw for a spell, but then the novelty of it all would wear off as soon as the "Been there done that" mentality set in.
Then the owners of the museum would be in real trouble.
That Tricolor site points to $30,000,000 in the insurance pool to cover costs, and they expect that to be exceeded. All this just to bring up a ship that's only going to be scrapped starting from Day One.
>>mathew is definatly a sandwich or 2 short of a picknick!!<<
MmmmmmmmHmmmmmmmm...missed this gem on my first looksee. Roger, I'm sure some would agree with that observation. I'm more inclined to chalk it up to very youthful exhuberance and enthusiasm. Nevertheless, that observation does qualify as a personal attack, and that's simply not permitted on this forum.
The points made are fair game for attack.
The person making them is not.
For more information, please take a moment to read through the forum rules which are available in the links at the top of the page.
Have their been any more predictions on when the ship is going to collapse? and if not what was the last prediction? I am extremley behind on this area of the titanic, and wish to know more about this. Has anybody actually estimated the cost of raising the titanic? also, when was the last expedition?
Breanna, I don't think anybody's even tried to estimate the cost because right now, one would have a bear of a task finding any salvage operation stupid enough to even think of it...much less consider trying it...beyond perhaps a theoretical exercise discussed over a few beers. It's rediculously easy to lose money on the jobs they already know can be done.
Since the technical means does not as yet even exist, there would be the matter of underwriting all of the research, development, testing and evaluation of the technology then there would be the matter of building the ships, submersibles, and the equipment needed to do the job.
As to predictions about when the ship will ultimately collapse, I don't know one way or another that anyone's tried it. As it stands, the process itself has been going on for a very long time.
It could be raised and yes a lot of new technology would have to be created to overcome the problems but if their is a will their is a way. The biggest problem is the project could never pay for itself.
The last time a salvage project of that size was taken was in the early 1970's when the US worked with Hughes in attempting to raise the Russian sub from Hawaian waters. That was a much smaller vessel but it was considerable deeper ( 3 miles?)
and the ship was said to be broken in two during the attempt. Again they had the money they needed, the US wanted the Russian code books and that was worth the money to them, what does the Titanic have worth the price?
I don't know if it can be raised without changing the composition when it hits air and light...doesn't the temperature of the sea and the pressure have something to do with the condition it is in now? We would have to have some kind of new technology that we probably haven't even been able to imagine.
I don't remember how deep the Russian sub (that Simon mentions) was but I do believe that the Titanic was about 2 miles deep. Just to picture the depth...isn't 2 miles equivalent to the circumference of 8 football fields?
Simon, the project your talking about involved a large derrick not unlike an oil rig on the hull of a very large ship along with a big grappling cradle that literally scooped the sub up. Unfortunately, there were some problems where the grapple came unglued and the sub broke in two on the way up. All they got was the bow section.
Whatever else they got may not be known for a long time to come as much of it is still classified information. Rumours suggested that the recovered items included two nuclear warheads from the torpedos. Given the way any of the actual information is held, I have no idea whether or not any of this was true.
What's germane in this case is noting that the submarine was a very small vessel...especially when compared to the Titanic...and was in reletively good shape. Despite that, the operation still went badly wrong and nothing even remotely similar has been attempted since then.
Technological wherewithal = f(money) - and that applies both to raising the wreckage and preserving it.
Let's face it, there is no commercially viable means of putting people on the Moon. But we've done it. Twelve men, in six missions. All that was required for that first trip (launched 34 years ago tomorrow, by the way) was $43 billion and 8 years. The technology was developed, tested, refined, and perfected because the funding was available.
Hell, if the politics of greed weren't preventing it, we'd probably be powering our vehicles (not to mention our cities) with electricity generated by hydrogen fusion.
Michael, thanks for explaining the details , I am sure we have many members who had not heard of the project. My bad for not being as complete as I should. However, I didn't mean to infer the same concept would work for Titanic but I really wanted to point out in 1970 we undertook a very challenging salvage operation that at that time would have been almost considered to be Science Fiction. A giant clamp picking up a sunken sub from three miles bellow. Still sounds like science fiction.
So what ideas come up ( I doubt if they will come to pass.) about raising Titanic I won't be as quick to push them aside. As for the Jennifer project, we were never meant to know, so something similar might have happened since then, remember the CIA was working on going back to get the other piece, that project was ended when the LA times broke the story.
Hopefully we will get to know the whole story of the Jennifer project in our life time.