Honestly the 100 year campaign to melt all the icebergs seems like overkill as retaliation, I know we where all sad when T sunk but these new boats wouldnt even be pressed by an iceberg and we still merc'd em all.
For shame... šāāļø
You are 100% correct. My uncle worked as a janitor at Macy's corporate and found the documents. It's all due to big Macy and the thanksgiving day parade. They seek vengeance to this day for Isidor and Ida.
Physics is so funny. So many tons of metal. Yet it floats. I know it's used for thousands of years by now, I still find the juxtaposition of those swimming hunks of metal funny.
They make bridges that are floating boxes of concrete. They have highways and even trains running over them! But if you put concrete boots on the guy, he sinks right to the bottom. Physics is wacky!
Fun fact, during WW2, the British worked on, but ultimately abandoned, pykrete, a durable mix of wood pulp and ice to be used to construct giant aircraft carriers.
Don't go there lmao. The whole thing is solely designed to take as much of your money as possible.
Don't get me wrong they are also massive feats of engineering and truly beautiful things design wise, but I definitely prefer working on them instead of actually spending a holiday on one.
I found the one cruise i've ever done to be economical for what you get. A week of included meals, port cities, entertainment and sightseeing. When I try to price out a week long trip to NZ I start panicking about finances
Car camping road trips and crown land is often far more economical if we're just strictly talking about a trip itself and the journey before the destination
Fair that's true. I personally hate casinos, malls and nightclubs so being stuck on a floating casinomallclub for weeks sounds quite horrible. I much prefer camping.
Modern ships have features like much stronger steel, welded construction and double hulls that make them more likely to survive. Not to mention they're a lot more manoeuvrable and have navigation and communication technology that the Titanic crew could never have even dreamed of. So hitting an iceberg is less likely in the first place.
Yes. it is important to note that Titanic was considered very manoeuvrable during her trials for a ship of her size in 1912, but she'd hold no candle to modern ships with bow thrusters or azipods.
Most modern cruise ships don't have double hull. Heck, even RMS Queen Mary 2 does not have a double hull. Drill a hole to the side below the waterline and you'll flood either an engineering space or a crew cabin.
However, they have otherwise much more damage-resistant subdivision ā unless you peel the side open across multiple watertight bulkheads like what happened with Costa Concordia.
Yes you're right, there's more nuance than I listed in my post. Passenger ships generally have either a double bottom or a double hull. The Queen Mary 2 has a single hull but it's thicker than most cruise ship hulls.
Queen Mary 2 is an ocean liner. Itās why her hull is thicker. Shes designed for regular transatlantic crossings cruise ships are designed for occasional crossings sticking mainly to calmer waters.
Titanic had a partial double hull. She was also very maneuverable and had the best wireless system of the era. The captains of her two sisters said those ships sailed like a dream.
A reminder that the TItanic tried to evade the iceberg, and as a consequence the choc was along its side, on multiple sections. The Titanic could have survived the iceberg by just going straight toward it.
I do not know what would have happened to the crew and passengers if it had done that, though.
It wouldn't have sunk but it would've crushed the bow where lots of crew and 3rd class passengers were housed. The casualties and the fallout of it is debatable but it's safe to say there would be loads of deaths and injuries. Murdoch did exactly was he was supposed to do when he made the attempt to port around the berg.
I don't remember the source for this but I heard the titanic on top of the navigation problems had a fire in the bow of the ship that weakened the hull before the journey. Take this with a grain of salt though because the only evidence I remember for it was a visibly darkened spot visible before its final voyage.
Guarda Costa concordia, la nave affondata qua in Italia. Ha preso uno scoglio molto piĆ¹ piccolo e ha subito un danno simile al Titanic ma ĆØ affondata senza se e senza ma in molto meno tempo
This looks like it's being compared to one of the Royal Caribbean International's 'of the seas' ships (Icon, Star, Legend, etc.), which are basically floating theme parks and known for being ridiculously large to allow the ship to host other events that will generate revenue besides a ticket aboard.
Modern cruise ships are usually 2-3x as big, but the Titanic was made long before any digital 3D modelling technology.
I get that you're trying to downplay the difference between modern cruise ships and the Titanic, but I still think this is a great comparison of "the best of the best today" vs "the best of the best of back then"
Edit: changed shops to ships, though I'm sure cruise ships have shops on them š¤£
Just while we're being pedantic, all of RCCL'S ships are called [Name] Of The Seas, even the comparatively small ones.
The one pictured is an Oasis-Class, which is the second-biggest class - they carry just under 7,000 passengers, compared to the three Icon-Class ships, which can take 7,600. The largest two classes are entirely populated by RCCL ships, and you have to go all the way to 10th on the list of biggest ships to find one owned by someone else (MSC's World America).
I sailed to Nassau on the Margaritaville at Sea Paradise, which is a honking big ship, and let me tell you, standing on the top deck craning my neck to look up at the lifeboats of the Allure of the Seas was a surreal experience. I swear you could see that sucker from anywhere on the island.
It isn't. It's basically heavy pieces of machinery, fuel, any balast tanks in the lower fourth mostly below the water-line, and mostly light but sturdy materials and empty space above. The whole "hotel/resort" part is when you think about it mostly empty space. Furniture and decore is negligable if compared to heavy machinery.
It's interesting to compare them to containerships, which hold cargo. Even with them, the heaviest containers are below the water line, while light cargo containers are build up on top.
Hence if containerships lose cargo in storms, it's usually light containers from the top.
Because if you go from port 1 to 2 to 3, and the heavy container needs to be loaded off at port 2 but the light ones on top only later at port 3 then how do you organise them so you don't have to unload and reload the entire ship at port 2?
Actually not really, youād be surprised to learn it only goes down a couple decks. They use some other more modern techniques to keep it bottom heavy.
it's massive. I used to walk 10-15km every day on it front and back up and down with work and R&R. Crew bar is front of ship/bow (old ones have it at the backend/aft).
Ballast. Itās how theyāve done it for centuries. You weigh down the bottom to help keep it from tipping. That being said larger ships can roll if they arenāt designed for regular trips in rough waters. Cruise ships are designed to stay in calm waters though they can cross the ocean if need be. Titanic was an ocean liner so it was purpose built to cross the ocean smoothly in all types of conditions. Ocean liners typically stay lower down in terms of height to help prevent rolling on ocean crossings. Cruise ships donāt have to worry about rolling because they donāt go into rough waters very often.
There is always the possibility of incompetence but a huge issue for the titanic was metallurgy. Titanicās hull was fairly low quality steel even for the day and was riveted with essentially iron rivets. Every part of the hull of a modern ship is just better.
Besides all the lessons weāve learned from the titanic and other vessels (especially from WW2) modern materials are worlds ahead of where they were back then.
Whatās pictured here is one of the āā¦of the seasā cruise ships but plenty of cruise ships have ice rated hulls meant for tourism where ice is common occurrence (a funny event a few years back was when a Venezuelan patrol ship rammed the ice rated RCGS Resolute trying to stop it and sank itself).
All the info about her metallurgy i have been able to find was that it was perfectly fine for a merchant ship of 1912, where is the claim that it was not good even by the era's standards?
On top of much better designs which allow entire decks sections to flood without sinking, modern cruise ships have also a real-time feed from sensors all over the ship which would allow the bridge crew to selectively seal areas of the ship with the press of a few buttons.
Yes, the assessing of the damage is something people don't really think about when it comes to the sinking of Titanic- they spent maybe half to an entire hour trying to localize which compartments were flooding, and calculate what that meant for the ship. That is a LOT of lost time for evacuation.
Yes, BUT. Ocean liners were basically buses to cross the ocean with a few amenities for rich people. Cruises are Disneyland parks on the sea. They were built for different purposes...
I hate this image because itās not representing the comparison very well. This image makes Titanic look much smaller than it actually was. Also Titanic wasnāt a cruise ship so making that comparison also isnāt fair. Queen Mary 2 is the only modern equivalent because it was a purpose built ocean liner like Titanic. Both were purpose built to cross the ocean in all weather whereas cruise ships are designed to be floating resorts that mainly stick to shore and coasts rarely making crossings and they typically roll when crossing rough waters.
That's interesting. You seem to be implying that the image isn't strictly inaccurate, but somehow gives the wrong impression anyway about relative size. If so, could you say more about how it's doing that?
If you go in with the right expectations it can be a good time. Those expectations being that you're going to be a dedicated lazy glutton for a few days. It's fun from time to time.
I think it depends largely on what you want out of an ideal vacation, and that would determine how you would feel about cruises.
My favorite vacations have all been on cruise ships, because for me total relaxation and not needing to do or worry about ANYTHING is ideal. Cruises provide that in SPADES.
Depends on the type. Most people assume cruise ships are to sit around on ur ass and shotgun a beach chair on the deck for a week while eating junk food and drinks in daytime buffets. Then dress urself up to feel a little fancy for a dinner or some other night entertainment and repeat the gluttony over the carribean for a week or more while developing a greasy sunburn. But there are other types.
Norway for instance have much smaller compact looking ships with 500-600 ppl that feel like a cruise ship; and travel up the shoreline for 6-12 days up to the northern towns. 90% of the time ur outside just being blown away by the views and nature of fjords and landscape. Or attending a lecture put on to learn about wildlife, history, etc. Options to get off at various stops and do thinks like nature hike or local history tours n things.
Foods aren't all inclusive resort type - its local cultural food brought on at each stop reflective of the region, like reindeer, halibut, artic char, etc. A couple we're friends with went on one- aren't cheap but the pictures and quality of it looked second to none and wasn't the 'ur get burned on a sundeck in the carribean like a drunken sloth all week' type get away. You wear more windbreaker jackets and pants than beach shorts
So there are other options, just need to look for em outside the US
I don't really go for big hotels / resorts either, but they seem pretty popular. A cruise ship is pretty much a giant resort with all the amenities on board, but you can stop off in a different location each day.
It's not for me, but I can understand why it appeals to others.
For what you get (24/7 accommodation, entertainment, food, catering, travel, etc) cruises are VERY cheap. For a lot of people, a week of good cheap fun with no responsibilities at all is enticing.
I was never really into cruises but my partner and I did a virgin cruise a few years ago. It was kind of spontaneous as they were having a good deal. They ended up bumping us up to a balcony room, and you get free food and really good restaurants for free. There's amazing events, dances, and they stop at various nice places. Including an all-inclusive Beach. So, for what it was it was a really good experience. I'm aware of the amount of pollution and destruction to the environment, but Virgin was no kids. And just a very fun time.
Yeah, but because of those yellow blobs on the side, the Iceberg would only be victorious over the owners of the modern cruise ship, not the passengers.
Titanic wasn't a cruise ship. It was an ocean liner. The comparison is moot. Titanic was built for speed from point A to point B, as necessary transport. A cruise ship is built as a moving vacation.
Funnily enough that "modern cruise" ship in the op photo is Allure OTS, an Oasis Class RCCL ship which launched in 2009. The Oasis class were the world's largest passenger vessels until the Icon class launched in 2024 which is about 10% larger by gross tonnage, so this photo is already out dated and an Icon class ship would be even larger.
can you imagine at the launch of the Titanic, the world biggest ship, then this massive thing pulls up behind it... Leo would lose his mind, Billy Zane would poop is pantaloons
I live in La Spezia and the cruise docks is right in front of the city. Whenever a cruise ship docks, it is like having a new building that got built overnight, on the other side of the intersection.
Modern cruise ships rarely cross the deep oceans anymore. They are vacation ships only. There is only one ocean liner left and it will probably be the last one.
All these comparisons show is that the Titanic can be used as a form of measurement. She sat at over 887 feet long, most cruise ships sit at 1000 or more feet long so she's definitely got some length to her. With width she's not that far off either. To call her tiny would be an understatement. If we really want to show a tiny ship, put the Mauretania in this comparison and then saw it's tiny because Titanic (and to that extent her other sisters) would hold up well as a budget cruise ship.
Titanic wasn't a cruise ship so its like comparing apples and oranges. Titanic was a ocean liner. Compare the titanic with RMS queen mary 2 which is the only ocean liner in the world
3.3k
u/WaylandYutani 1d ago
Their natural predators are all melting away, so they are multiplying and evolving to become enormous. What is this phenomenon called in biology?