Titanic

[ed84c]

The titanic sunk because there was a large gash which whent through 4 bulkeheads, and 3 was the max to stop the ship sinking.

 

In hindsight, would it have been a better idea to not try and avoid the iceberg, and hit it head on so that only 1 bulkhead (the front) would have burst?

[Bettina]

The titanic sunk because there was a large gash which whent through 4 bulkeheads' date=' and 3 was the max to stop the ship sinking.

 

In hindsight, would it have been a better idea to not try and avoid the iceberg, and hit it head on so that only 1 bulkhead (the front) would have burst?[/quote']

 

IMO.... It would have made no difference. The fact is the Titanic was travelling way too fast and impacting an object the size of that iceberg, which would not have moved, would surely have buckled the Titanics hull plates.

 

When Ballard showed photos of the sunken Titanic, he showed where rivets were pulled out by buckling plates. So, IMO, I believe the head-on scenario would have done far more damage causing it to sink quicker.

 

Bettina

[mmalluck]

I think it's the deceptivly slow sinking of the titanic that made the disaster far worse.

 

If appearently major damage occured, I believe more of the lifeboats would have been filled to a greater capacity.

[Bettina]

I think it's the deceptivly slow sinking of the titanic that made the disaster far worse.

 

If appearently major damage occured' date=' I believe more of the lifeboats would have been filled to a greater capacity.[/quote']

 

Interesting....I would have thought sinking faster would have created more panic. With that rush to the lifeboats, more women and children would have been left behind.

 

Bettina

[ydoaPs]

i saw a commercial for a show on discovery that was talking about the coal fire made it worse or something.

[LucidDreamer]

I think hitting it strait on would have probably saved the ship. Like the original poster pointed out, the ship was designed to still float if 3 bulkheads were flooded. It was the fact that they sideswiped the iceberg and tore a huge gash along the side of the ship that sunk it.

[Bettina]

I think hitting it strait on would have probably saved the ship. Like the original poster pointed out, the ship was designed to still float if 3 bulkheads were flooded. It was the fact that they sideswiped the iceberg and tore a huge gash along the side of the ship that sunk it.

 

The Titanic was doing aprox 25 miles an hour when it hit the iceberg.

I am looking at the mass of that ship, travelling 25 mph, and contacting an immovable object. IMO, I think the metal plates along each side of that ship would have ruptured and breached more bulkheads than just three.

 

Also, I think the bulkheads were open on top, so water flowed to the others.

 

I am interested now.......on other opinions....Interesting question.

 

Bettina

[jutntog1]

I had always been let on, almost certainly from the movie, that the disaster would have been avoided by hitting the iceberg strait on, however i do not know anything for real on the topic. I am wondering did the movie indicate that a strait on hit would have been better, if so why?

[ed84c]

damn why didnt they know of crumple zones then.

[coquina]

I'm in agreement with Bettina. It takes a ship going that fast a distance of 5 miles to stop. With all that mass behind it, if it had struck the iceberg head on it would have probably crushed a fourth of the ship. Also, many of the passengers would have been seriously injured. Anyone in the forward area of the ship would have been killed, and others would have been thrown down companionways, or had things fall on them.

 

The only advantage I can think of is that is would have probably enabled more of the life boats to be lowered, because the ship wouldn't have listed to one side. The boats were on davits, and when the ship started to list, the ones on the lower side swung away from the ship, making it difficult for people to board, but the ones on the high side swung inwards over the deck, making them impossible to launch.

 

They learned something from that - many ships now have bulkheads that run longitudinally, so that water from a hole in the side can't flow all the way across the ship.

[mmalluck]

With all that mass behind it, if it had struck the iceberg head on it would have probably crushed a fourth of the ship.

 

I also agree. Somewhere I saw a video clip where a loaded barge struck a bridge at a mesley 5 mph, but wouldn't you know, it pulverized the piling and caused a span of the bridge to collapse.

 

With the titanic were talking about a bigger boat and a faster speed.

 

It was traveling around 20.5 knots when it hit the iceburg (10.5 meters/second) and the boat weighs 46,328 tons (42028054.6 kilograms).

 

Kinetic energy is 1/2 * Mass * Velocity^2...

So the Titanic had 2.31 × 10^9 joules of kinetic energy when it struct the iceburg. Thats the same energy as a 1000 pounds of TNT!

 

I don't think there would have been much of any boat left if it struct the iceburg head-on.