I love the way you delivered the punchline - very reminiscent of Douglas Adams
Comment on The Titanic, Sinclair C5 and Brexit: the Museum of Failure is coming to the UK
UncleArthur@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
There was nothing wrong with RMS Titanic. Her first sister, RMS Olympic, trundled along until being scapped in 1936 after the merger with Cunard. The issue with the Titanic was that she was driven into an iceberg.
icerunner_origin@startrek.website 13 hours ago
MurrayL@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
You’re confusing design failure with failure in the broader, catastrophic sense.
As Picard said, it is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose.
UncleArthur@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Possibly. It was never said to be unsinkable, that was a myth. Certainly any ship can be sunk by poor seamanship or adverse circumstances.
Denjin@feddit.uk 12 hours ago
And the coal bunkers were on fire before she even left port but safety concerns were ignored by her owners because of the bad PR of delaying to deal with it. This may have contributed to the rapid sinking as the structure was damaged before she set to sea and broke apart faster than she might otherwise have done.
UncleArthur@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
This was common with coal-fired ships in those days. It had no impact on the sinking.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 10 hours ago
Bunker fires were very common and it didn’t in any way compromise the structure. If anything it kept the ship afloat and uprignt longer by necessitating the use of coal from the starboard first, resulting in a port list.
Eheran@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Nothing wrong except those key oversights like not actually compartmentalizing the sections but only doing it 80 % of the way such that it will flood no matter what.
UncleArthur@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
That was absolutely not an issue. Titanic was a 4 compartment ship: any 4 compartments could be flooded without the ship sinking. Thus was WAY superior to the vast majority of ships sailing in 1912. Her design was superb.
When she hit the iceberg, 5 compartments were holed. No-one foresaw such severe damage as a possibility and it only happened because of the unique circumstances of the collision (actually, the alliision) with the 'berg.
In short, RMS Titanic was designed and built superbly.
Eheran@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Absolutely not? It only sank because of that. Had they compartmentalized all the way, we might have it as a museum floating somewhere. Sure it was built better than things at the time usually were, that does not make it good in absolute numbers. Especially when you look at how much regulations changed because of this. If they were adequate and this a freak accident, there would be no need to change so much.
UncleArthur@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
The SOLAS regulations that came into effect were mainly around lifeboat provision.
One cannot build a liner with full compartmentalisation, and nothing in the two Enquiries said otherwise. Titanic wasn’t a warship. No other civilian ship - even today - has fully watertight compartments.
It didn’t sink because of its design. It sank because it was driven at 22.5 knots into an iceberg. If you want to know more, read the book I linked in my original reply to OP or visit Encyclopedia Titanica.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
“The Toyota Corolla is an absolute failure”
“Really, how so?”
“My uncle crashed his into a lamppost and then it was rendered un-drivable”