Possibly. I wouldn't have to travel very far to ride it xD . Besides, you can bet the precautions would be up the arse to prevent the same thing happening.
Apparently the Titanic isn't even big compared to today's large cruise ships.
no i wouldn't cuz then we'd sink
Only if there was a replica iceberg.
Gotta be authentic or it's just a rip-off.
it's not an authentic replica experience if 1500 people don't die
The original had bad metals, but even then, had they slowed down, and the watch had the binoculars like they should have, they wouldn't have sunk. It was multiple failures that sank it.
Would I ride a new one, not for longer than a day or two.
Ignoring safety and even if it stayed south, doesn't matter. How many days could you stay on it before you were bored out of your mind. Not to mention the health risks, how many of those boats have come back with an entire boat load of people with an illness? This doesn't apply just to a Titanic replica, but any cruise. Oh, and don't forget, riding Titanic sucked if you weren't in first class.
Think of it this way, you have a week to go to Hawaii. You can take the slow cruise ship leaving you 2 days to take it in (then fly home) or you can fly there, and spend 6 days in Hawaii. I'm flying. I can take a fishing boat out while there if I want.
whatcha smoking son?
whatcha smoking son?
Asked the one wearing a pink bunny body-suit.
whatcha smoking son?
Asked the one wearing a pink bunny body-suit.
Have you not seen the best Christmas movie ever?
whatcha smoking son?
Asked the one wearing a pink bunny body-suit.
Have you not seen the best Christmas movie ever?
That's not the point, the entire point is reenactment. This ship isn't supposed to offer the same comfort and security as modern cruise ships, because it's not a cruise ship in the first place.Soooo, even less to do then, yeah, no thanks.
The Point of this is not security, its the magic behind such thing, and there cannot be magic when there is security. Do you know why there weren't enough life boats in the first place? The number of life boats was very much sufficing in compliance with maritime safety regulations of the time, since the amount of lifeboats was not determinate by the number of passengers, but the weight of the ship (they had been intended to regulate vessels of only up to 10,000 tons).Magic?
Also the titanic did not use "bad metals', is was build of "thousands of one inch-thick mild steel plates and two million steel and wrought iron rivets and equipped with the latest technology at the time."Like every major disaster it's almost always a series of events or failures, in Titanic... The life boats are well known.
"However, slow bend testing, a more likely applicable strain rate, of four hull plate samples showed average toughness of 55 MPa-m1/2 at 0°C, quite reasonable for this application."
From: http://www.materialstoday.com/metals-alloys/news/what-really-sank-the-titanic/
Even if the rivets where bad, this was more then unlikely the cause if it sinking.And keep in mind we are still talking about tests with 100 year old parts of metal from the bottom of the ocean.
That's not the point, the entire point is reenactment. This ship isn't supposed to offer the same comfort and security as modern cruise ships, because it's not a cruise ship in the first place.Soooo, even less to do then, yeah, no thanks.
Comfort and security on a modern ship... Have you not seen how many ships have limped back to port with a full load of passengers sick from something that spread throughout the boat? The last one, the passengers shut down the toilet system as well. You won't get me on a modern ship today, probably come back with Zika or something.
Oh, and as for modern being safer..
In ship design you have a choice, less wobbly (less seasickness) but unable to recover, or more tippy (more seasickness), but able to right itself. Care to guess what new cruise ships use? One good rogue wave, and a modern ship will be on it's side in 2 seconds flat. As they make bigger and more stable ships, the odds actually increase of this happening.The Point of this is not security, its the magic behind such thing, and there cannot be magic when there is security. Do you know why there weren't enough life boats in the first place? The number of life boats was very much sufficing in compliance with maritime safety regulations of the time, since the amount of lifeboats was not determinate by the number of passengers, but the weight of the ship (they had been intended to regulate vessels of only up to 10,000 tons).Magic?
Above deck was glamorous, below deck was a normal ship of the day.
Unless you had a first class cabin, you were below deck (think 1 star hotel, worse for steerage class), which is far from magic. Only the wealthy were up on deck and in the ball room. It's not a modern cruise ship where everyone dines in the dining room with the captain, even in the movie, Jack only dines up there because he snuck up there (which would have been difficult or impossible). Worse though, when they hit the iceberg, the crew locked the stairwells down to the lower decks so that the lower classes would stay below and remained that way so that the wealthy could get the lifeboats. Most of the people who died never even managed to get up on the deck despite plenty of time to do so.
Be careful glamorizing the past as it's usually only the tales of the wealthy that get told.Also the titanic did not use "bad metals', is was build of "thousands of one inch-thick mild steel plates and two million steel and wrought iron rivets and equipped with the latest technology at the time."Like every major disaster it's almost always a series of events or failures, in Titanic... The life boats are well known.
"However, slow bend testing, a more likely applicable strain rate, of four hull plate samples showed average toughness of 55 MPa-m1/2 at 0°C, quite reasonable for this application."
From: http://www.materialstoday.com/metals-alloys/news/what-really-sank-the-titanic/
Even if the rivets where bad, this was more then unlikely the cause if it sinking.And keep in mind we are still talking about tests with 100 year old parts of metal from the bottom of the ocean.
Less known is that the binoculars for the watch who were looking for icebergs were locked in a locker, the only person with keys was left behind in England due to a last minute crew change. Without binoculars, they couldn't spot the iceberg soon enough. They were repeatedly warned of icebergs in the area, and despite no binoculars they sped on and at those speeds, they never had a chance to avoid it. They were so arrogant, they turned off the radio after getting annoyed by all of the iceberg warnings.
Titanic would probably have survived had White Star used the original design, it was almost unsinkable, it's how modern ships are designed today. The designer had the right idea, he was just too far ahead of his time for them to understand it (White Star was also almost broke). White Star had trimmed the bulkheads down to save costs, this was what allowed water to spill over from one compartment into another, ultimately sinking the ship. Had they remained full height, the ship probably would not have sunk, but even if it had, it would have taken much, much longer. Not only would nearby ships have reached them in time, but more than likely it would have made it back to port on it's own.
Going back to the metal, the metal for the rivets was not great, even for the time. However, a hull is under compression, so no, the metal didn't sink it. Had they not hit the iceberg, the hull would have survived for decades, as proven by the Olympic. However, when the hull was hit, it did allow it to open a larger gash than it should have. Causing a faster sink rate, and water to go over the bulkheads. The rivets played a role in the sinking, but they didn't sink it.
Change anything in that chain of events and Titanic would have survived.
Binoculars or simply slowing down would have allowed them to avoid the iceberg, or at least lessen the damage.
Better metals would have reduced the sink rate and damage.
Proper design would have slowed or eliminated the sinking.
A better trained crew could have gotten more people into the life boats.
More lifeboats would have saved more people.
The whole thing was a sh*t show from start to finish.
I am not saying that what you claim is wrong, but I will say that you didn't really understood what I meant. With magic I mean the experience, not that the entire ships is pure luxury and comfort, but this is what its all about. Its the same with using old tech like a typewriter or a manual camera, you don't do this because its "better", more efficient or because it gives you better results at the end, you are doing it because you are enjoying the process and way of doing it. This is all for providing an authentic experience, and many peole will only do this once in their life, but for this one time it will be fascinating, regardless of if you are 1st or 3rd class, because that's what you came here to do in the first place, to experience that, and you know what to expect, its part of it. I am well aware of all what you mentioned, but this is not about discussing what could have been done better, because it don't change anything, it happened over 100 years ago. Its not about safety, its about the experience, its the same reason you visit a old castle or drive old cars, even though you could slip and fall down a brittle wall or your car could fail on the middle of the highway.I can (and have) visited the Queen Mary, I didn't have to be stuck on it for a week to get an idea of how things were or what it was like. Would I tour a Titanic clone, yes, I would even love to do a ballroom dance there, but would I go on a 7 day cruise? Absolutely not. Even if it was first class. Even as opulent as first class was, ignoring the safety issues, health issues and more... It's 7 days on a ship with little to do. That's not my idea of a good time.
Water flowing over the bulkheads is unlikely to have caused a significant speed-up in sinking, that is more of a myth. The bulkheads where very much properly designed. Before the water could " flow over the bulkheads" it would first flow in the opposite direction (the direction of the ship's bow) because of the angle. It wouldn't flow over the bulkheads until the entire bow would be full of water. And keep in mind that the bulkheads are not just giant high walls whish are open at the top (where water could simply flow over them), they are separated by the deck's floors.
Safety and comfort is rarely compatible, its always a compromise, that is especially true with passenger ships like ocean liners and cruise ships. Increasing the safety of the ship means taking away from the comfort provided to the passengers, you WILL have to make a compromise, that starts with things like using bulkheads in the first place. I don't think the white star line made a poor design decision there. Back then comfort and luxury where more important then safety relations, it was the way of thinking. It changed, nowadays we have too much safety and not enough freedom, and it will change again in the future.
Water flowing over the bulkheads is unlikely to have caused a significant speed-up in sinking, that is more of a myth. The bulkheads where very much properly designed. Before the water could " flow over the bulkheads" it would first flow in the opposite direction (the direction of the ship's bow) because of the angle. It wouldn't flow over the bulkheads until the entire bow would be full of water. And keep in mind that the bulkheads are not just giant high walls whish are open at the top (where water could simply flow over them), they are separated by the deck's floors.
Safety and comfort is rarely compatible, its always a compromise, that is especially true with passenger ships like ocean liners and cruise ships. Increasing the safety of the ship means taking away from the comfort provided to the passengers, you WILL have to make a compromise, that starts with things like using bulkheads in the first place. I don't think the white star line made a poor design decision there.
I can't breath underwater, Can you ?
I can't breath underwater, Can you ?
Sure can, for a whole two hours (A99 aquata breather). But that won't matter if we do this in freezing water..
No thanks.Meh, I'd much prefer NCC-1701- D or NCC-74656
Only big ship I want to go on is a CVN-21. :thumb:
Meh, I'd much prefer NCC-1701- D or NCC-74656
Also, the Titanic is quite small compared to modern Cruise ships..
It was probably very boring on the Titanic.. because they simply don't have the space for all the fun stuff..Show Image(http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/hehe-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862507)
Also, the Titanic is quite small compared to modern Cruise ships..
It was probably very boring on the Titanic.. because they simply don't have the space for all the fun stuff..Show Image(http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticons/onion-head/hehe-onion-head-emoticon.gif?1292862507)
Yes, I also posted a diagram regarding that. The Titanic was a Ocean liner, which point it is to simply bring you to your destination. Today there are planes for that. Such a trip normally takes about 6 days, not weeks like in some cruise ships. Unlike on liners, the trip with a cruise ship is the destination itself.