First thought would be wood dining tables, doors, wood chairs.... But launching it, not having it swept away by the turbulence from the sinking boat, are problematic. How about all the debris from the boat falling and churning in the water that could strike you? And as someone else pointed out, if you wound up in that water, you would only have a few minutes at best where you could still function. And even then, if you're soaked with that freezing water and clinging to the top of a makeshift raft, I'm not sure how long the survival time is either.
I wonder if it's possible to recover the Titanic, and get it working again? Some giant air bags to float it off the bottom, and then tug boats to get it closer to shore. It would be a massive expense, but it would be interesting just the same.
Not to mention that the stern section hit the sea bed props-first at a high speed, with most of the deck and hull plating peeling off.
As it happens, I've got a copy of the book of Raise the Titanic in the van which I got from a junk store a couple of months ago, having spotted it and remembered seeing the movie when I was a kid - I hadn't even realized then that the 100yr anniversary was coming up. The wreck wasn't discovered[1] until five years after the movie (and eight years after the book), so I suppose the movie makers can be forgiven a bit of Hollywood fantasy :-)
[1] unless you buy into the potential discovery by the Royal Navy in
1977, but I think the exact details of that aren't due to be declassified for a few decades...
IIRC, the ship sank after iceberg tore open four sections of compartment. So, there was that damage plus any subsequent damage. Might not be possible to raise the wreck in one piece. IIRC, the stern sank first, due to weight of the engines.
It's a fun idea, to consider raising the wreck, and see what can be found.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
formatting link
.
Not to mention that the stern section hit the sea bed props-first at a high speed, with most of the deck and hull plating peeling off.
As it happens, I've got a copy of the book of Raise the Titanic in the van which I got from a junk store a couple of months ago, having spotted it and remembered seeing the movie when I was a kid - I hadn't even realized then that the 100yr anniversary was coming up. The wreck wasn't discovered[1] until five years after the movie (and eight years after the book), so I suppose the movie makers can be forgiven a bit of Hollywood fantasy :-)
[1] unless you buy into the potential discovery by the Royal Navy in
1977, but I think the exact details of that aren't due to be declassified for a few decades...
It is in hundreds of pieces, but mainly, it is split in half. If you get National Geographic channel, there is a good 2 hour show with James Cameron. No way that is coming up from 12,000 feet down.
Interesting. I think the last I'd heard - and this is going back a few years - the steel hull plates were deemed good enough for the job, but there was a question hanging over the quality of the rivets used to hold them together (my hazy memory says that it was typical practice to use a better quality for certain sections, but someone at Harland and Wolff had decided to use the lower quality rivets that were used on less-critical parts of the ship as a way of saving money).
The theory at the time was that the rivets had popped when the berg was struck, creating a far bigger hole than might otherwise have occurred. I'm not sure what analysis has been done on the actual wreck since to prove or disprove this, though...
As for the breaking in two, when the bow went under the rear third or so of the ship lifted out of the water, creating far more strain on the structure than it was ever designed for - it's not surprising that it tore apart.
When you read the book, you'll discover that getting the ship to the surface was the LEAST of the problems the protagonists faced. There were Russian spies and saboteurs, the minining of extremely rare ores just a little bit before the launch of the Titanic (these ores were part of the cargo), and so on.
I was trying to think of already airtight containers, whose contents would likely have to be dumped first, then lashed together with those tables and whatnot. What were the bunks made of?
What about inner tubes from the cars in the holds? What else was in the holds?
Would being slathered in grease add any time to water survival?
At best, all this 100 year quarter backing might have saved a hanful of people when just fully utilizing the boats they actually had would have saved more.
I watched a documentary, some years ago. Aparently, the ship builders had some new high strength rivets, that needed a press machine to install, and expand the rivets. Part of the hull, they could not get the press to fit in, and so they used the weaker old style rivets. That may have been one of the reason the hull ripped open, the old style, weaker rivets.
That's interesting thought, to make improvised floatation devices. Makes sense, though.
I don't have the data at hand, but the US military did study the question of cold water survival, during world war two. They found that fatter soldiers survive longer. And that clothing helps, especially wool. Helps hold the sailors heat in. I'm not sure about the grease, I think it would help retain heat.
They do make body suits for this kind of thing. The TV show Ice Pilots had such a situation. They had to transport a plane that wasn't really designed for crossing the ocean. The crew had zip up body suits to wear. The suits were hot and uncomfortable.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus
formatting link
.
I was trying to think of already airtight containers, whose contents would likely have to be dumped first, then lashed together with those tables and whatnot. What were the bunks made of?
What about inner tubes from the cars in the holds? What else was in the holds?
Would being slathered in grease add any time to water survival?
At best, all this 100 year quarter backing might have saved a hanful of people when just fully utilizing the boats they actually had would have saved more.
Even with something to cling to, the water temperature was thought to have been around 28°F. This is cold enough to kill an average person through hypothermia in 15-45 minutes. Unconsciousness would occur after a few minutes. o_O
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.