# Australian billionaire announces construction of Titanic II, a high-tech replica



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

In this April 25, 2012 photo provided by Crook Publicity, Australian billionaire Clive Palmer poses in front of an artist impression of the Titanic ll at MGM Studios in Los Angeles, Ca. Palmer said Monday, April 30, 2012, that he'll build a high-tech replica of the Titanic at a Chinese shipyard and its maiden voyage in late 2016 will be from England to New York, just like its namesake planned. (AP/Crook Publicity)
An Australian billionaire has announced the construction of the Titanic II: a replica of the iconic ship with the same dimensions, rooms and smokestacks, but with a 21st-century interior makeover.
Weeks after the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the original Titanic, Clive Palmer said Monday he has signed a memorandum of understanding with state-owned Chinese company CSC Jinling Shipyard to build the Titanic II. Construction of the ship will begin in late 2013, the Australian reports, with its maiden voyage from England to New York set for 2016.
"It will be every bit as luxurious as the original Titanic, but ... will have state-of-the-art 21st-century technology and the latest navigation and safety systems," Palmer said in a statement. He called the project "a tribute to the spirit of the men and women who worked on the original Titanic."
The Titanic II will have 840 rooms on nine decks, like the original, along with gymnasiums and swimming pools, Palmer said, according to Bloomberg.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/04/30/tycoon-titanic-ii-will-make-maiden-voyage-from-uk-to-ny/#ixzz1tY4R5jQm


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2012)

Ooooh.....bad ju-ju.

I would never sail on that ship.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

Why not the Arizona 2, or the Pequod 2? Not that I could afford a room on his ship, but that's just tempting fate with that name.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2012)

Johnny Law said:


> Why not the Arizona 2, or the Pequod 2? Not that I could afford a room on his ship, but that's just tempting fate with that name.


It's actually acceptable within the Navy to recycle the name of a ship that was sunk in action (_Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet, Quincy, _etc.) but it's unheard of with civilian ships where they sank with loss of life.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

Delta784 said:


> It's actually acceptable within the Navy to recycle the name of a ship that was sunk in action (_Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet, Quincy, _etc.) but it's unheard of with civilian ships where they sank with loss of life.


Admittedly I don't know much about the Navy or their history, but thanks for enlightening me on that.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2012)

Johnny Law said:


> Admittedly I don't know much about the Navy or their history, but thanks for enlightening me on that.


There will never be another USS _Arizona, _considering the battleship is a graveyard for so many Sailors and Marines, but many ships sunk in WWII had their names transferred to new ships as a kind of "fuck you" to the enemy.


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

Delta784 said:


> Ooooh.....bad ju-ju.
> 
> I would never sail on that ship.


Not only the name, but it's made in China...I'm sick of buying cheap shit that was made in China and have it break or fall apart on me.



Delta784 said:


> There will never be another USS _Arizona,_considering the battleship is a graveyard for so many Sailors and Marines, but many ships sunk in WWII had their names transferred to new ships as a kind of "fuck you" to the enemy.


USS Yorktown and USS Lexington come to mind. It's sad that we don't have very many ships carrying on the legacy of many of the ship names used in WWII (and before), but that may have something to do with a few of them being maintained as museum ships.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

Delta784 said:


> Ooooh.....bad ju-ju.
> 
> I would never sail on that ship.


 just coincidental Im sure but that cruise ship that rolled on its side in Italy a few months ago WAS playing " Theme from the Titanic" at the time.


----------



## mpd61 (Aug 7, 2002)

I served on the Batfish SSN-681, namesake for WWII Batfish SS-310

_Batfish_'s war operations spanned a period from December 11, 1943 to August 26, 1945 during which she completed seven war patrols. She is credited with having sunk nine Japanese ships totaling 10,658 tons while operating east of Japan, in the Philippine Sea, Luzon Strait, and South China Sea. _Batfish_ received the Presidential Unit Citation for her sixth war patrol in the South China Sea during which she sank the three Japanese submarines. She was also awarded six battle stars for her World War II service.[

Please check this out for a laugh!


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

frank said:


> Not only the name, but it's made in China...I'm sick of buying cheap shit that was made in China and have it break or fall apart on me.


This. Not only is bad luck to rebuild the Titanic and tempt fate, but you're going to do it on a ship built by the lowest bidder using 10 year old kids and questionable parts.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2012)

HistoryHound said:


> This. Not only is bad luck to rebuild the Titanic and tempt fate, but you're going to do it on a ship built by the lowest bidder using 10 year old kids and questionable parts.


Sounds like a solid plan then. Can we book it for the next Democratic Convention?


----------



## GARDA (Dec 30, 2003)

*"The Chinese Navy will escort the ship to London after its completion, Bloomberg reports."*​Isn't that just great. ​
The new Titanic should be fine as long as it is not captained by a Brit... 

"It took a thousand Irishmen to build her, and only one Englishman to sink her." 

A standard refrain in Belfast where she was built is: "She was fine when she left here." 

​​


----------



## sdb29 (Jul 17, 2002)

It's a great idea. You can do a New York to Southampton transatlantic on the Titanic II one way, and fly back to New Jersey on the Hindenburg II.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2012)

frank said:


> USS Yorktown and USS Lexington come to mind. It's sad that we don't have very many ships carrying on the legacy of many of the ship names used in WWII (and before), but that may have something to do with a few of them being maintained as museum ships.


That's one of my pet peeves. Some Presidents are worthy of having carriers named after them....Reagan revived our military, Bush 41 was a Naval aviator in WWII, Ford was a Navy officer on a light carrier in WWII, Eisenhower was a WWII hero, Teddy Roosevelt was a war hero, etc.

However, I don't see the justification to name a carrier after Clinton, Bush 43, or Obama, so I hope the next carrier after the USS _Gerald Ford _is named for a famous WWII carrier like the _Yorktown, Lexington, Wasp, Hornet, _etc.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2012)

GARDA said:


> *"The Chinese Navy will escort the ship to London after its completion, Bloomberg reports."*​Isn't that just great. ​
> The new Titanic should be fine as long as it is not captained by a Brit...
> 
> "It took a thousand Irishmen to build her, and only one Englishman to sink her."
> ...


Actually, one of the contributing factors in the sinking was weak metal and poor rivets, which popped open easily. The ship was going to sink regardless, but with better metal and rivets, it might have stayed afloat long enough for the _Carpathia _to arrive.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Ha it is Made in China and it has the name sake Titanic II it is doomed to sink.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

I heard the Chinese are going to recycle the metal from the original Titanic to make the next Titanic. They hired James Cameron to bring up pieces on his next jaunt.


----------



## GARDA (Dec 30, 2003)

Delta784 said:


> Actually, one of the contributing factors in the sinking was weak metal and poor rivets, which popped open easily. The ship was going to sink regardless, but with better metal and rivets, it might have stayed afloat long enough for the _Carpathia _to arrive.


I believe "contributing" factors in her sinking (after collision with iceberg) should be distinguished from "causal" ones (which led to the collision).

Steaming at essentially full speed, on a moonless night, refusing to alter course or speed in an area known to have icebergs (conveyed to RMS Titanic by atleast six other ships prior to impact) are lessons in the danger of overconfidence and neglected warnings.

As it is in every pub, and apparently as it was to Capt. Smith in the North Atlantic a hundred years ago, the ice and advice were free for him to refuse and avoid. Shame on him for believing that neither man nor God could sink her.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Smithsonian channel just had a bunch of shows about the sinking of the Titanic. One of them was the "Titanic's Final Mystery". It was pretty interesting. After years of investigating, they came to the conclusion that there were a number of factors that all contributed to the sinking and loss of life. One reason was because the iceberg punctured 5 of the compartments when it side swiped the iceberg. If it had only punctured 4 or hit the iceberg head on it would have been able to stay afloat. They also looked into logs of other ships and found that the weather conditions created an optical illusion which essentially hid the iceberg from sight until they were right on it. Those conditions contributed to light refraction which played a part in the Californian failing to come to Titanic's rescue. It's supposed to be on again later this week, if you get the Smithsonian channel it's pretty interesting to watch.

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/site/sn/show.do?show=141474


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2012)

GARDA said:


> I believe "contributing" factors in her sinking (after collision with iceberg) should be distinguished from "causal" ones (which led to the collision).
> 
> Steaming at essentially full speed, on a moonless night, refusing to alter course or speed in an area known to have icebergs (conveyed to RMS Titanic by atleast six other ships prior to impact) are lessons in the danger of overconfidence and neglected warnings.
> 
> As it is in every pub, and apparently as it was to Capt. Smith in the North Atlantic a hundred years ago, the ice and advice were free for him to refuse and avoid. Shame on him for believing that neither man nor God could sink her.


Like I said, the ship was sinking anyway, but to suggest it was solely the fault of a captain who happened to be English is absurd.

There is lots of blame to spread around, from Captain Smith, to whoever forged the hull plates, to whoever installed the rivets, to the designer who only included half the lifeboats necessary to save all the passengers and crew.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Delta784 said:


> Like I said, the ship was sinking anyway, but to suggest it was solely the fault of a captain who happened to be English is absurd.
> 
> There is lots of blame to spread around, from Captain Smith, to whoever forged the hull plates, to whoever installed the rivets, to the designer who only included half the lifeboats necessary to save all the passengers and crew.


The life boats are one of the issues that they addressed in one of those shows I was watching. The theory was that they didn't need enough life boats for everyone because they were only supposed to be used to ferry passengers to the rescue boats and then return to the ship to collect more passengers. Which was one of the criticisms of the captain of the Californian. Had his ship responded to the signals from the Titanic, they may have been able to use the lifeboats as ferries as they intended. They were so secure in the knowledge that the ship would stay afloat until a rescue ship arrived that some of the lifeboats left before they were full. Some of the first hand accounts said that people were more afraid to get in the lifeboats than to stay on the ship until help arrived. There was a huge failure on so many levels and the saddest part is that it would seem that while people did things wrong they weren't technically negligent based on the practices of the day and the unusual weather conditions.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

It also would have helped if they Filled the life boats they had.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2012)

HistoryHound said:


> The life boats are one of the issues that they addressed in one of those shows I was watching. The theory was that they didn't need enough life boats for everyone because they were only supposed to be used to ferry passengers to the rescue boats and then return to the ship to collect more passengers. Which was one of the criticisms of the captain of the Californian. Had his ship responded to the signals from the Titanic, they may have been able to use the lifeboats as ferries as they intended. They were so secure in the knowledge that the ship would stay afloat until a rescue ship arrived that some of the lifeboats left before they were full. Some of the first hand accounts said that people were more afraid to get in the lifeboats than to stay on the ship until help arrived. There was a huge failure on so many levels and the saddest part is that it would seem that while people did things wrong they weren't technically negligent based on the practices of the day and the unusual weather conditions.


IIRC, the _Californian, _like most ships of that day, didn't staff their Marconi room 24/7, which is astonishing in retrospect.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

I believe that is correct the Marconi operator had retired for the evening. It was reported that the lookout on deck had seen what they believed to be a signal from a ship and that they signaled back, but got no response so they thought they were mistaken and that it was just random lights. The crew of the Titanic was reported to have seen a mystery light (later determined to be the Californian) that did not respond to their signal. The captain of the Californian was convinced that the ship he had seen was much smaller than the Titanic which is why it never occurred to him that the ship could be in trouble. They're saying that the optical illusion brought on by the light refraction and other conditions is what caused the crews on both ships to not see the light signals from the other ship.


----------



## GARDA (Dec 30, 2003)

Delta784 said:


> Like I said, the ship was sinking anyway, but to suggest it was solely the fault of a captain who happened to be English is absurd.
> 
> There is lots of blame to spread around, from Captain Smith, to whoever forged the hull plates, to whoever installed the rivets, to the designer who only included half the lifeboats necessary to save all the passengers and crew.


The ship's sinking was no more "inevitable" than she was "unsinkable".

The matters of metallurgy and ship design don't come in to play* unless* a Capt.'s lack of piety and human arrogance does first. The fact that he was English is a mere convenience for the irreverent Irish to remind the world of it in the form of a joke. 

It was a calamity of human errors for sure, but none more dooming than the one which was made by a Captain (sorry, but he happened to be English) when he chose to put an agenda (the historical, transatlantic crossing of Titanic) ahead of the lives that were lost.

(Which, I might add happened to include his own life and that of the ship's designer, who had also been on board...)

_AIN'T KARMA A BITCH?_


----------

