PDA

View Full Version : The Titanic soon to be only a memory.. and a rust stain.



rommel543
2010-Dec-06, 08:33 PM
Titanic dissolving faster than expected: engineer (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/nova-scotia/story/2010/12/06/tech-titanic-dissolve-bacteria.html)


The Titanic is disintegrating faster than previously thought, says a Dalhousie University engineer who predicts researchers have about 15 years before natural bacteria dissolve most of the shipwreck.

Hard to believe that something like that will be gone. Like stated in the article, you tend to think of sunken ships to be like time capsules that will always be there.

Swift
2010-Dec-06, 09:08 PM
I remember someone, I'm pretty sure it was Bob Ballard, talking about how non-obvious the rate of decay of various materials underwater was to people who don't study shipwrecks. Things we think of as fragile, like ceramics, may last thousands of years; things we think of as durable, like steel, last decades.

Trebuchet
2010-Dec-06, 09:28 PM
There may be wooden parts that last longer than the steel. The bronze propellers, on the other hand, will likely be there a long time unless someone recovers them.

kleindoofy
2010-Dec-06, 10:27 PM
... Hard to believe that something like that will be gone. ...
Really? Why?

rommel543
2010-Dec-07, 03:23 PM
Really? Why?

Like I stated, you grow up hearing stories about the Titanic, about people finding shipwrecks hundreds to thousands of years old, then they find the Titanic but now they say it's gone soon when it's only about 100 years old. It's that kind of feeling that leaves you there going "but..but..but...no"

AndreasJ
2010-Dec-07, 03:27 PM
I remember someone, I'm pretty sure it was Bob Ballard, talking about how non-obvious the rate of decay of various materials underwater was to people who don't study shipwrecks. Things we think of as fragile, like ceramics, may last thousands of years; things we think of as durable, like steel, last decades.

I know little of shipwrecks, but anyone who has read a little archaeology is likely to think of ceramic shards as nigh indestructible.

KaiYeves
2010-Dec-08, 08:46 PM
Like I stated, you grow up hearing stories about the Titanic, about people finding shipwrecks hundreds to thousands of years old, then they find the Titanic but now they say it's gone soon when it's only about 100 years old. It's that kind of feeling that leaves you there going "but..but..but...no"

Same.

Swift
2010-Dec-09, 02:32 AM
I assume the appropriate song lyric for this thread would be "Rust in the wind. All we are is rust in the wind."
;)

SeanF
2010-Dec-09, 03:49 PM
I assume the appropriate song lyric for this thread would be "Rust in the wind. All we are is rust in the wind."
;)
Except the Titanic's under water. "Rust in the current," maybe? ;)

rommel543
2010-Dec-09, 04:00 PM
I assume the appropriate song lyric for this thread would be "Rust in the wind. All we are is rust in the wind."
;)

I wonder if that means I can sue a ship builder if I get silicosis.....

KaiYeves
2010-Dec-10, 01:15 AM
And the dripping rusticles...

Trebuchet
2010-Dec-10, 02:08 AM
"Soon" is a relative term. The Titanic will certainly be around, in recognizable form, for the 100th anniversary of it's sinking, only about 16 months from now. The famous crystal chandeliers -- well, the crystals anyway -- will be around for a very long time, like the ceramics. Probably not much current action down there to grind them back into the sand from which they were made. The coal in the debris field will likely probably last a goodly while.

Another rusting mass of steel that's going to go away is the USS Arizona, still on the bottom of Pearl Harbor. It's perhaps the most studied shipwreck in the world. It's been down there about 29 years less than Titanic, so it'll be around a while. It's still slowly leaking oil. RIP, Arizona, and the men who went down with you.

Githyanki
2010-Dec-10, 02:48 AM
I know little of shipwrecks, but anyone who has read a little archaeology is likely to think of ceramic shards as nigh indestructible.

I'm a bit rusty on my archaeology.

CJSF
2010-Dec-10, 03:39 AM
I remember reading and hearing about the rust/iron eating bacteria years ago and how quickly the steel portions of the wreck would be gone. None of this "new" news is "new" to me. I swear, I am seeing so many recycled stories from years past lately passed on as new ideas, even with "new" references, that I can almost see where some conspiracists come from (I'm not being totally serious).

CJSF

kleindoofy
2010-Dec-10, 03:51 AM
... The famous crystal chandeliers -- well, the crystals anyway -- will be around for a very long time, like the ceramics. Probably not much current action down there to grind them back into the sand from which they were made. The coal in the debris field will likely probably last a goodly while. ...
A great deal of that will probably be pristine and undisturbed when humanity is long gone.

The Titanic? What, me worry?

Donnie B.
2010-Dec-12, 02:35 PM
Anybody remember that awful movie Raise the Titanic? Now we know what the last scene should have been: they bring the ship to the surface and it crumbles to powder in seconds.

Romanus
2010-Dec-12, 04:27 PM
Agree with the author; I think "we" will get a few more decades of a recognizable shipwreck. Then again, that's only if you're talking about the bow section; the stern's been unrecognizable from the first time we saw it. I suspect there's some kind of feedback mechanism going on, where the more the ship rusts and exposes metal the faster the process goes. One thing I've always wondered, though, is why Titanic seems to be the only wreck graced with so many rusticles. The Bismarck is in much better shape (though of course it's decades younger); the Yorktown looks like it sank last week. Perhaps the steel used in Titanic is especially nourishing, among other factors (e.g., paints).