Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

stellvia2016 t1_j99aaed wrote

Yeah I was going to say, I heard it's decaying rapidly at this point, so I wonder how much is still left that looks like the documentaries we've seen from the 80s and 90s.

83

Fireantstirfry t1_j99mnhu wrote

It's funny, you hear so much conflicting information these days with the Titanic. I've heard everything ranging from "she's going to completely collapse imminently and will be a pile of unrecognizable rust within decades" to "we overestimated how much she's degrading and while some recognizable landmarks have collapsed or disappeared, her superstructure is still sound and will probably remain so for the foreseeable future".

63

Mugwumpen t1_j9awxx0 wrote

Yeah, there seems to be a significant disagreement in the academia how fast she's deteriorating - I just remembered how Ballard (or Cameron, but I believe it was Ballard) made a new documentary a while back, possibly for the 100 year anniversary for her sinking, where he observed how much or fast she had deteriorated compared to when he first discovered her. That while she's not in an immediate danger of turning into a heap of rust, she's deteriorating much faster now than 50 years ago and these damages or changes can easily be documented with each new dive.

17

anally_ExpressUrself t1_j9bx8o8 wrote

Why is it deteriorating faster?

2

TheSchlaf t1_j9cbj5i wrote

Rusticles have eaten away supporting sections of the ship causing other parts to collapse.

8

05110909 t1_j9cpfjc wrote

As small sections collapse they put strain on other weakened parts, which makes them collapse faster, etc. It's a cumulative effect.

6

Mugwumpen t1_j9cfvbg wrote

What TheSchlaf said.

Rusticles (an iron eating bacteria) have weakend the iron over time, combined with currents and wear and tear from visiting submarines, escpecially those who seek to retrieve stuff from the wreckage.

3