Re: Let's go after the easy ones first. -- The First Class Reception Room

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:51:19 02/10/00 Thu
Author: Richard Jenkins
Subject: Re: Let's go after the easy ones first.
In reply to: Scott Reigel 's message, "Let's go after the easy ones first." on 16:42:09 12/29/99 Wed

While it would be great to see a classic four-stacker afloat again, I don't realistically think the Britannic could be raised. Not that it's technically impossible, just prohibitively expensive.

Although the war grave issue would be an obstacle, it should be noted that most of those who died when she went down were already off the ship, in the lifeboat that was sucked into the propeller, so is the Britannic really their grave? Also, many ships that are currently preserved (particularly warships) suffered greater losses of life in their careers without sinking. Does the fact that the Britannic sank make her any less worthy of preservation afloat? I always thought that she would be a more fitting memorial to those who died if people could actually see her.

On the other hand, I have very little faith in the preservation of large merchant ships these days. Look at all the problems the Queen Mary has had over the years, and yes, look at the United States. Look at all the other classic ships that have gone to the scrappers in recent years, like the Princess Marguerite (a shoe-in for preservation if there ever was one) or some of the last vintage steam freighters on the Great Lakes. Preservation takes a lot of money and effort, and actually raising the ship is only the beginning. Just ask any of the struggling (but determined) preservation groups trying to save smaller vessels like the Nobska, Canadiana, Columbia, Catalina, Medway Queen, the list goes on. Anyone seriously considering raising the Britannic would have to think long and hard about these two questions: Where would the money come from? And what happens to her when the money runs out? In all honesty, she's probably much better off where she is.

> I don't think she could realistically be raised, even
> with nearly unlimited resources. And once you
> -hypothetically- brought her back, then what?
>
> We first need to save another great liner, who never
> sank, still has her engines in working order, and
> whose hull, 50 years after construction is still
> stronger than Britannic ever was. If we cannot find
> the funds to keep the SS United States from the
> breakers, how would we ever hope to raise an 800 foot
> ship from the bottom of the sea?
>
> I think Dr. Ballard's suggestion to open Britannic as
> a "virtual museum", where visitors can explore using
> remote operable vehicles, is the closest we may ever
> get to her. In the mean time: Save the Big-U!

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Let's go after the easy ones first. -- derek, 19:52:14 05/02/04 Sun