Titanic Moon etc?

[spanner570]

I've got all the stuff together to have a crack at the actual sinking of the Titanic. I've long wanted to have a go at this, but I want to get everything clear in my minds eye, so......


My questions are...At what phase was the moon in at the night of the sinking? I know the sea was calm and the air frosty.


Also, what was the ship like just before she slid beneath the waves? The films show her in one piece, but when I see wreck footage with the stern missing, I wonder if this part of the ship broke off as it was pointing skyward before her final plunge, so I might just use a bit of licence....Unless anyone on here ever found out - for sure, 100% - how she looked in those last few minutes of her short life.


I could easily look them up, but I thought I would give my buddies on here something to chase up on these damp, miserable autumn days.


Cheers,


Ron

[Guest]

No idea about the phase of the Moon Ron, although a full one would be cool.


I read the book of the guy who first located the wreak & he said that as the ship descended, the boilers detached from their mountings & broke through the bow.


This caused the stern to break off - I'm hoping memory serves, otherwise I'll be leading you astray!

[spanner570]

Yes indeedy Patrick, a full moon would look great, but unfortunately it might not have been even out on the night...hence my question, and I do want to get it summat like right, but let's hope it was full, eh?


I too have read Bob Ballard's book, but he gives no indication just when the stern broke off. It's was (not surprisingly) all speculation. Ideally I would love to model it with the stern breaking off just before the ship vanished...Not nice I know, but I think it could have easily happened...Hopefully the correct answer can also be found to this question too....


Thanks for your input.


Ron

[Gern]

Pics here if they're any good to you Ron.


http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Wreck+Of+The++Rms+Titanic&FORM=R5FD0

[dave]

Here is a link to the lunar calendar for that period it was a very fine crescent moon just about to become a new moon.


http://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/1912/april

[peterairfix]

As i have a bit of interest in the titanic i do belive the stern broke before she sank because of the stress on the hull as the stern rose higher, she broke in the weak area where the open spaces were

[Dave Jay]

"Quote by dubster" I read the book of the guy who first located the wreak & he said that as the ship descended, the boilers detached from their mountings & broke through the bow.


Doctor Ballard was the name........also responsible for the Bismarck discovery as well as the ships of Gauadacanal and many many other deep sea wrecks

[Dave Jay]

Apparently the bow section dragged the stern section down with it and because it was already fractured amidships and only being held together by mainly the keel and longitudinal spars, the bow section began to corkscrew due to its hydrodynamic shape and also because the stern section was largely full of air which was quickly being displaced by water the stern kind of held the bow back, this combined with the twisting action was enough to set the bow free, now because of its more sleek section, the bow was free to reach the sea bed much faster than the bulkhead fronted stern section. The bow descended rapidly and remained upright just before hitting the sea bed at such an acute angle very similar to the glide path of an aircraft, this combined with the speed, angle, bow shape and relatively hard bed rock allowed the Titanic to virtually sail along the sea bed for some considerable distance before coming to rest, the stern section had a much slower and different descent and kind of explains why that section ended up so far away and why the debris field is so widespread.


Hope I haven't rambled too much and have been of help!

[spanner570]

I knew my boys wouldn't let me down!


Some nice research going on, excellent stuff and thanks for all your help...


Thanks to Dave, we now know the exact phase of the moon....B***er! Virtually pitch black.....


So, the question of the stern section and when it departed company with the rest.......It seems clear it that due to stress, it possibly snapped off or more than likely fractured/ bent, just prior to the ship finally sinking and finally parted company with the rest of the ship during it's passage to the sea bed. Is this worth considering as a possibility?


I've just remembered another puzzle - The funnels. I've seen images of the sinking vessels funnels either missing, crashing down on poor souls in the water or all four intact. Any thoughts on this?


Great stuff so far and thanks for all your help.......

[Gern]

There are a few videos showing simulated versions of what happened. Here's one that seems feasible:


http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=simulated+sinking+of+Titanic&FORM=HDRSC3# view=detail&mid=E9C8640FE932D673A84EE9C8640FE932D6 73A84E


Looking at some of the others there's lots of similarities between them, but you pays your money and you takes your chance.

[eddiesolo]

The Titanic is one of my passions Ron.


No moon in the sky although it was clear.


The ship was in one piece on surface and broke in two under the water with the stern still out of the water, the ship bow and midsection broke away leaving the stern to fully upend itself and sit upright before its plunge.


The first funnel fell and hit swimmers the other funnels, davits etc were swept away by the bow section knifing through the water, cables also added to this.


The stern was still full of air when started to plunge and that is why she is so badly damaged. The poop deck was peeled back by the force of water rushing into it and the trapped air imploding/exploding, the stern then righted itself due to the weight of the engines and fell in a slow spiral until it hit the seabed and the weakened decks and structure just exploded and collapsed on each other-hence why it looks a mess.


The bow was filled with water when she broke away at the surface and planed away reaching a speed of around 30mph before knifing into the mud and coming to a stop, hence the bent plates and structure just before the bridge area.

[spanner570]

Brilliant! Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread, answered my questions and more........I had every confidence you would come up with the answers and save me the tiresome business of looking it all up myself, apart from that it was fun!


Thanks chaps, I'm now well and truly sorted. What a great bunch of people we have on here. Top marks to you all.


Ron

[Dave Jay]

It was a pleasure to have an input, whether mine was helpful or not I'm not sure!

[spanner570]

It was a pleasure to have an input, whether mine was helpful or not I'm not sure!

Dave, I mentioned that it was you who sorted out the moon phase and I did thank you all .....But thanks again anyway. You were a great help.


P.S. Great pity about the moon, it would have been fun trying to model the effects of a full one!


Cheers,


Ron

[Guest]

There was a really good documentary about the titanic and its demise, I watched it with great interest, as many of the so called reports had major failures in fact.


I'll agree totally, the sky was pitch black, moon wasn't even poking through, which collaborates with the eyewitness reports claiming it was so dark. Also they spent a long time investigating the way she sunk, because of where the ship was holed, how she became waterlogged, and how that affected the ship.


The stories and the ridiculously wild film shows the ship going nose first and rising stern high, before it cracks in half and then sinks.


They found that this was probably more exaggeration, fear and totally incorrect, as they tried various ways to make a ship of its size and compartmental hull design actually do it.


What the documentary said was the ship holed on its starboard side a third of the way down the side meant the lower hull portion flooded fairly quickly. However, they noticed the ship models they built and tested kept the ship above water for a long period.


Once the ship begun to get below deck height with water level, the stern did rise a small amount, but nowhere near the excessive amounts portrayed.


They then said the force of the water pushing against the air pressure as she defended meant the ship actually sank whole, or at the least went below the surface as a whole ship.


Once the air struggled to escape, the water pushed under the air, and forced it abnormally towards the middle two thirds of the ship, an area that was weakened by the stress of the sinking, and forced itself out, at the weakest point where she split. This they said did not happen until the ship had descended 30-60 meters below the surface.


Their evidence for this is that if the ship had broken apart at surface, then the debris field would have been a lot lot larger than it was, and therefore, with the decent of a fully flooded ship broken apart in deep water, the debris field is indicative of that of the titanic.


It does kind of make sense.