Comments on: Why We’re Still Learning the Lessons of the “Titanic.” https://habitablezone.com/2012/04/11/why-were-still-learning-the-lessons-of-the-titanic/ Wed, 22 Apr 2026 23:14:20 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: TB https://habitablezone.com/2012/04/11/why-were-still-learning-the-lessons-of-the-titanic/#comment-13579 TB Thu, 12 Apr 2012 04:20:11 +0000 http://habitablezone.com/?p=12851#comment-13579 <p>Maybe the fault lies not in ourselves, but in the stars?</p> <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/07/uk-titanic-moon-idUSLNE82601520120307" rel="nofollow">Tides and icebergs</a> Maybe the fault lies not in ourselves, but in the stars?

Tides and icebergs

]]> By: ER https://habitablezone.com/2012/04/11/why-were-still-learning-the-lessons-of-the-titanic/#comment-13575 ER Thu, 12 Apr 2012 04:10:42 +0000 http://habitablezone.com/?p=12851#comment-13575 I'm no metallurgist, but I don't think anyone back then could be blamed for not knowing the properties of steel at those temperatures, if that indeed was a factor. Likewise, it is hard to blame anyone for not anticipating the flaw about the water pouring from one WT compartment to another. I doubt anyone could have anticipated that many compartments would be punctured in just one accident. Colliding with an obstacle, even another ship, was a possibility. A continuous below the waterline rupture stretching fore-and-aft that far was probably never considered. It was truly a freak accident. Of course, all accidents are freak accidents the first time. The major problem is that the crew and passengers were not drilled in evacuating the ship, so many lifeboats left only half-full. That's not bad engineering. That's irresponsible, criminally negligent management. At sea, management is called "seamanship". Also, there may not have been enough lifeboats even if they had been loaded and launched in an orderly fashion. The third class passengers never had a chance. The mindset that the ship was unsinkable no doubt led to the loss of life. But even a truly unsinkable (if such a thing even existed) ship can still catch fire. And a severe list can make all the lifeboats on one side of the ship non-deployable. The small rudder was not a design issue, ocean liners were designed for speed, not maneuverability. Big rudders would slow them down. In harbor, they rely on tugs to maneuver. Another major factor was speed. For marketing reasons, the Company was determined to make a passage speed record, which meant sticking to the Great Circle route between the UK and NY. This took it too close to the ice line, near Labrador. A more southely route would have missed the ice, but added time to the trip. I’m no metallurgist, but I don’t think anyone back then could be blamed for not knowing the properties of steel at those temperatures, if that indeed was a factor. Likewise, it is hard to blame anyone for not anticipating the flaw about the water pouring from one WT compartment to another. I doubt anyone could have anticipated that many compartments would be punctured in just one accident. Colliding with an obstacle, even another ship, was a possibility. A continuous below the waterline rupture stretching fore-and-aft that far was probably never considered. It was truly a freak accident. Of course, all accidents are freak accidents the first time.

The major problem is that the crew and passengers were not drilled in evacuating the ship, so many lifeboats left only half-full. That’s not bad engineering. That’s irresponsible, criminally negligent management. At sea, management is called “seamanship”. Also, there may not have been enough lifeboats even if they had been loaded and launched in an orderly fashion. The third class passengers never had a chance.

The mindset that the ship was unsinkable no doubt led to the loss of life. But even a truly unsinkable (if such a thing even existed) ship can still catch fire. And a severe list can make all the lifeboats on one side of the ship non-deployable.

The small rudder was not a design issue, ocean liners were designed for speed, not maneuverability. Big rudders would slow them down. In harbor, they rely on tugs to maneuver.

Another major factor was speed. For marketing reasons, the Company was determined to make a passage speed record, which meant sticking to the Great Circle route between the UK and NY. This took it too close to the ice line, near Labrador. A more southely route would have missed the ice, but added time to the trip.

]]> By: VelociraptorBlade https://habitablezone.com/2012/04/11/why-were-still-learning-the-lessons-of-the-titanic/#comment-13560 VelociraptorBlade Thu, 12 Apr 2012 02:37:56 +0000 http://habitablezone.com/?p=12851#comment-13560 I loved the Titanic, but it was an empty shell. As the article stated, the lifeboats were few, the watertight compartments were uncapped, and the rudder was too small. What it didn't mention was the quality of the steel plates used to make the ship. Under cold temperatures, the steel would become brittle and rigid ,allowing it to break easily. I loved the Titanic, but it was an empty shell. As the article stated, the lifeboats were few, the watertight compartments were uncapped, and the rudder was too small. What it didn’t mention was the quality of the steel plates used to make the ship. Under cold temperatures, the steel would become brittle and rigid ,allowing it to break easily.

]]>