101 Years Ago

[A Theist]

101 years ago, 2:20 am, April 15, 1912, the Titanic sank in the Atlantic Ocean after colliding with an iceberg.

April 14th, 1912 @ 11:40 pm, the Titanic collided with the iceberg...In less than three hours afterward, April 15th @ 2:20 am the Titanic sank...Better than 1500 people lost their lives...there were only a little more than 700 survivors...

[Minimalist]

Poor design, shoddy construction and a lot of damned bad luck.

[Rayaan]

Better than 1500 people lost their lives...

More than, not "better."

[Anomalocaris]

Poor design, shoddy construction and a lot of damned bad luck.

Actually, no. It's design was as good as any of the era and well above what was considered to be adequate. It's construction was also well above standard and probably as good as any. It's silly to say she would not meet 2010 Safety of Life at Sea standards and therefore a poor design for her time.

As it happens, she probably would have survived the damage that sank the 2006 Costia Concordia last year.

But very bad luck indeed.

[Darkstar]

But very bad luck indeed.

And poor communication.

[Brayton.l]

Weren't the hulls of ships of that day made almost exclusively using "pig iron"? Seems I listened or read something years ago that claimed that the Titanic took so much damage due to having a pig iron hull that was very brittle. I dunno.

[CapnAwesome]

Actually, no. It's design was as good as any of the era and well above what was considered to be adequate. It's construction was also well above standard and probably as good as any. It's silly to say she would not meet 2010 Safety of Life at Sea standards and therefore a poor design for her time.

As it happens, she probably would have survived the damage that sank the 2006 Costia Concordia last year.

But very bad luck indeed.

I don't know, considering that the Titanic was one of two ships of that design. It's sister ship was called the Britannic. You know what happened to it? It sank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Britannic

[Ryantology]

... Bioshock: Infinite takes place?

[Minimalist]

Poor design, shoddy construction and a lot of damned bad luck.

Actually, no. It's design was as good as any of the era and well above what was considered to be adequate. It's construction was also well above standard and probably as good as any. It's silly to say she would not meet 2010 Safety of Life at Sea standards and therefore a poor design for her time.

As it happens, she probably would have survived the damage that sank the 2006 Costia Concordia last year.

But very bad luck indeed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...liner.html

In the rush to beat competition from Cunard, the White Star liner was supplied with a vessel that was made using substandard materials.

McCarty and Foecke tested 48 rivets recovered from the wreck and found they had high levels of slag, a result of smelting that can make the iron brittle. If put under intense pressure, the rivets made from it would have been liable to splinter.

Plus the bulkheads did not go all the way up (poor design) there were too few lifeboats ( criminally negligent homicide!) and rescue ships with radio capability were too far away...but they were only too far away because the ship sank so fast.

[Jackalope]

Actually, no. It's design was as good as any of the era and well above what was considered to be adequate. It's construction was also well above standard and probably as good as any. It's silly to say she would not meet 2010 Safety of Life at Sea standards and therefore a poor design for her time.

As it happens, she probably would have survived the damage that sank the 2006 Costia Concordia last year.

But very bad luck indeed.

I don't know, considering that the Titanic was one of two ships of that design. It's sister ship was called the Britannic. You know what happened to it? It sank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMHS_Britannic

Three. There was also the RMS Olympic, which did not sink.