×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Australian Billionaire Plans To Build Titanic II

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the of-course-he-does dept.

Australia 289

SchrodingerZ writes "Just in time to miss the 100-year anniversary of the fatal voyage of the Titanic, Australian mining billionaire Clive Palmer announced he has plans to recreate the Titanic, calling it Titanic II. 'It will be every bit as luxurious as the original Titanic but of course it will have state-of-the-art 21st Century technology and the latest navigation and safety systems,' says Palmer. He stated it was to be as close to the original as possible, with some modern adjustments. Its maiden voyage is set for 2016."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

289 comments

Go Ballmer! (5, Funny)

TechCar (2628639) | about 2 years ago | (#39847513)

It would be nice to take a sail on such stylish, vintage ship. I hope they also have dress codes for women so they will wear vintage dresses. After having a nice dinner I will take some nice lady to her room and draw her naked. Then have sex with her in a vintage car. And die after we crash into New Zealand.

Re:Go Ballmer! (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39847553)

Sounds a little bit like a Renaissance fair, but obviously set in the early 1900s. I could see it being a nice theme cruise. Extra points if they design it to break in half and sink.

Re:Go Ballmer! (5, Funny)

sentientbeing (688713) | about 2 years ago | (#39848373)

'Of course it will sink if you put a hole in it,' Mr Palmer said in response to questions from reporters on whether the Titanic replica would sink.

Lowering the bar a bit this time, then.

Re:Go Ballmer! (4, Funny)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#39847793)

I hope they also have dress codes for women so they will wear vintage dresses.

Yes, this is an interesting issue. As I recall the titanic was originally designed for Extreme separation of the classes, it would almost be physically impossible for steerage class and first class to ever see each other. However, the modern trend is for uniclass, with at most a slight variation in rooms which you never spend any time in anyway, as I saw on my honeymoon cruise some years ago.

I predict much heartache, because every walmart shopping, tramp stamp wearing, pork rind munching bubbette is gonna expect she will be in first class, so she's either gonna be disappointed when she spends her cruise in steerage with, perhaps at most, a guided tour of the 1st class digs, or, she's going to be all wound up about having to pack 13 pairs of shoes because clearly the grand dining room is not going to accept thongs and flipflops in its dress code. Or she tolerates all the packing and getting dressed up and goes to the fancy dinner hoping for movie re-enactment scenes where everyone dressed up as much as herself, only to find it overrun by hoodies.

As for the guys, all we want in a cruise ship is bikini suntanning area on the main deck and clothing optional tanning on the upper deck, which unfortunately does not fit the original plans as far as I know. So this will be boring.

My cruise experience showed a bimodal distribution of ages, where about 1/3 where 20-something honeymooners like my wife and myself, and 2/3 were extreme senior citizens. I can see how they needed to wait 100 years for todays oldest cruiser who was just a kid during the original Titanic sinking to have died off.

Re:Go Ballmer! (4, Informative)

DarkOx (621550) | about 2 years ago | (#39848251)

Another interesting economic question, "is the scale of Titanic" correct for the modern era?

Titanic:
Length: 882 ft 6 in
Beam: 92 ft

Costa Concordia:
Length: 952 ft 1 in
Beam: 116 ft 6 in

Queen Mary 2:
Length: 1,132 ft
Beam: 147.5 ft

As far as "upscale" goes the QM2, is probably near the top today. Even an affordable cruise is typically a bigger ship, Concordia class, than Titanic. While a Concordia is not much bigger, if you going to book some time on fancy floating palace don't you want to be on the very biggest? Was that not part of the Titanic's initial draw?

Re:Go Ballmer! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | about 2 years ago | (#39848247)

New Zealand is a giant iceberg? Cripes, first that thing week with the Javanese being our enemy in WW2 and now this!

I really need to get out more.

Does this guy say... (2, Funny)

LostCluster (625375) | about 2 years ago | (#39847515)

I'M KING OF THE WORLD!?!

Well, that sounds unsinkable (5, Funny)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#39847557)

but of course it will have state-of-the-art 21st Century technology and the latest navigation and safety systems

No way to sink that, then.

Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable (4, Interesting)

Tyr07 (2300912) | about 2 years ago | (#39847735)

The design wasn't flawed, the thought that a ship was unsinkable was.

As long as they accept they face the same dangers of any other cruise ship, I assume it will have similar or better success.

Given the money, size, and importance of it, I assume they'll take extra precautions to make sure the same incident doesn't happen.
Also will likely include things like, enough life rafts for everyone.

Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable (2)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 2 years ago | (#39847847)

I don't think anyone who had anything to do with the design or build of the Titanic said it was unsinkable - that was the press.

It should be noted the sister ship RMS Olympic survived until 1935 - 24 years at sea. RMS Britannic was sunk in 1916 by a German mine.

Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#39847853)

As long as they accept they face the same dangers of any other cruise ship, I assume it will have similar or better success.

Similar or better than the Titanic I shouldn't be hard to do.

Or did you mean that cruise ship lying on its side that I saw out of the window of the plane I flew to Italy on recently?

Re:Well, that sounds unsinkable (4, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 2 years ago | (#39848017)

I seem to recall that the Titanic I had state-of-the-art 20th Century technology and the latest navigation and safety systems. Just sayin'.

Probably strike a coral reef and sink (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#39847587)

Yeah, that would be hilarious. Oh, wait, the Italians beat him to it.

Re:Probably strike a coral reef and sink (2, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 2 years ago | (#39848143)

No, what's hilarious is that a filthy rich guy plans on building a ship that was created during an economic downturn, filling it full of people, and then going on a long trip where... after it hits an iceberg, all the poor people will be locked below and the ship will sink, which is not in any way a parallel to today's economy where we are bailing out billionaires 'too big to fail', and setting people up for a lifetime of loan repayment and wage slavery.

Next to 'Irony' in the dictionary will be a picture of this man standing next to his ship.

Already Sank (4, Informative)

yogidog98 (1800862) | about 2 years ago | (#39847589)

There is already a movie (using the term loosely) about the Titanic II from 2010. Spoiler Alert: Both the ship and the movie sank.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640571/ [imdb.com]

Re:Already Sank (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | about 2 years ago | (#39848085)

Kylie Minogue didn't use the name "Titanic II", but her Doctor Who episode [wikipedia.org] features a luxury liner named the "Titanic" that is on a collision course with the earth, and will wipe out all life on the planet.

"Titanic II" may have flopped because it was too silly. But, "Voyage of the Damned" had 13+ million viewers. Clearly the secret was making it even more silly, adding Kylie Minogue, and marketing it to the British.

Re:Already Sank (1)

sarysa (1089739) | about 2 years ago | (#39848417)

The movie technically didn't sink. The Asylum is renowned for always making a profit on their films.

Shane Van Dyke is starting to grow on me. Not sure if it's cancerous...

Will it provide the full Titanic experience? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847597)

Will it provide the full Titanic experience?

Re:Will it provide the full Titanic experience? (1)

ClickOnThis (137803) | about 2 years ago | (#39848087)

Will it provide the full Titanic experience?

You mean "will Kate Winslet pose for you and then have sex with you in a classic car?" I doubt it. Unless they're really serious when they say the ship "will have 21st Century state-of-the-art technology".

Re:Will it provide the full Titanic experience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39848269)

Eh, she's in her late 30s... how about not.

Re:Will it provide the full Titanic experience? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39848371)

Eh, she's in her late 30s... how about not.

I'm Kate Winslet, you insensitive clod!

Re:Will it provide the full Titanic experience? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39848465)

Newsflash here: Women, like fine wine, get better with age. Also like fine wine, there is a point where they stop getting better and turn into vinegar.

i already saw this movie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847603)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_II

So, he's building a steampunk ship? (4, Funny)

Narrowband (2602733) | about 2 years ago | (#39847613)

"As close to the original as possible" with "state of the art 21st Century technology..." hmm.

Re:So, he's building a steampunk ship? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847829)

I realize that you're make a bit of a joke but I will tell you that you have no idea what a ship can be if you've never been on a cruise ship made in the first half of the 20th century. It's a whole different ball park than your average Carnival cruise liner. Not to say that Carnival is bad but you could make a ship like the old White Stars or Cunards and still have a reasonable ticket price to go with it.

Re:So, he's building a steampunk ship? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#39847987)

... and yet he wants it to be as close to the original as possible, which means using a lot of designs which are no longer used for a reason...

Re:So, he's building a steampunk ship? (1)

amRadioHed (463061) | about 2 years ago | (#39848181)

Do you not understand what "as close to the original as possible" means? Clearly that means they are aware there are parts of the original design that would not be possible to reproduce. Any parts of the original design which are no longer allowed for whatever reason would among them.

Re:So, he's building a steampunk ship? (1)

demonbug (309515) | about 2 years ago | (#39848239)

Do you not understand what "as close to the original as possible" means? Clearly that means they are aware there are parts of the original design that would not be possible to reproduce. Any parts of the original design which are no longer allowed for whatever reason would among them.

Yeah, I'm guessing "as close to the original as possible" means it will have four raked funnels and be painted black about 4-6 stories above the waterline; should be close enough to fool most cruise-goers.

Re:So, he's building a steampunk ship? (3, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#39848517)

I think he means aesthetically...

Give it the same general shape and layout. Keep the iconic grand ballroom. Give it fake smokestacks.

But under water, give it a bulbous hull. Bow thrusters. Weld the thing together. Naturally, give it a proper rudder :)

Inside the ship, use the huge space freed up by the change in propulsion technology and the lack of demand for "steerage" to do more traditional cruise-ship things. Cabins should look old, but be brought up to modern standards... perhaps keep a few historically accurate for people who want such things.

They will probably want to make it a little bigger - the Titanic was big for it's day, but much smaller (about 1/3 the size in tonnage) of the Queen Mary 2. Mainly, it was too narrow - under 100 feet at it's widest. Queen Mary 2 is almost 150 feet wide. I think they could fatten it without giving up too much aesthetically. More room for lifeboats :)

Ah... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847619)

In April 2012 Palmer announced he had commissioned a Chinese state-owned company to build a 21st Century version of the Titanic.

So it is going to sink.

I think we've seen this before .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847631)

I smell a James Cameron sequel!

I plan to build Iceberg II (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847641)

It'll be pretty much like the original, but with state-of-the-art 21st Century technology like pykrete to survive in more temperate waters, and the latest targeting and weapons systems.

AC for obvious reasons, MUAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!

More lifeboats. (4, Interesting)

hessian (467078) | about 2 years ago | (#39847655)

Just a suggestion, but this time try having lifeboat space for every passenger, not every other passenger?

As history teaches us, the reason the Titanic sinking was a disaster, and not just a misfortune [wsj.com] was that it had enough lifeboats for the government regulations of the day, which is to say, one person-space in a lifeboat for every two passengers.

Re:More lifeboats. (5, Funny)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 2 years ago | (#39847747)

Are you suggesting more government regulation is the solution? What about the passengers' inalienable right to die a horrible death in the icy waters without the nanny-state commie lifeboats oppressing them? Why do you hate liberty?

Re:More lifeboats. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39848071)

I agree. Let the free market decide. If a company builds a ship with only enough life boats for half the people then the half of the people that die won't use that company again thereby correcting the problem.

Re:More lifeboats. (5, Insightful)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#39848099)

Suppose your liner sank in the middle of the Atlantic in 1880 and everyone got in the life boats.

Then what?

You had no radio to contact any other ships, so you're just floating around in the water with very limited supplies and little chance of rescue. Unless you were lucky and some other ship saw you sink or saw any flares you were able to launch, the odds were that you would die a slow death waiting for help.

The Titanic was probably the first such sinking where there would have been a good chance of everyone surviving if they carried enough life boats. And people learned from that.

Re:More lifeboats. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39848301)

My liner? 1880? That's going to be time travel, and while I can imagine some concerns about temporal stability and what not, as situations go, I can understand not expending much effort thereby.

However, regarded of the situation, you drown quickly, you die. In a life boat, you can live, and it is not impossible or implausible to encounter or signal another vessel even with radio.

As options go, I'll take the slow death with a chance over a sure one.

Re:More lifeboats. (4, Interesting)

nyctopterus (717502) | about 2 years ago | (#39848405)

Actually, the atlantic shipping lanes were quite busy (even in the 1880s), which may have been part of the problem. They saw lifeboats as ferries from one ship to another, which was expected to arrive in short order.

Re:More lifeboats. (1)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 2 years ago | (#39848211)

640 lifeboat seats should be enough for anyone.

Re:More lifeboats. (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about 2 years ago | (#39848379)

640 lifeboat seats should be enough for anyone.

There were enough lifeboats for first class. If the riff raff hadn't got on the lifeboats there would ave been plenty of room for the ' important' passengers.

Re:More lifeboats. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847765)

During that time it wasn't a government regulation to have space for every passenger. The thought was that you would send a distress call and the life boats would be used to ferry people between the boats, not have people sitting in them for hours.

Re:More lifeboats. (2)

RogL (608926) | about 2 years ago | (#39847953)

Just a suggestion, but this time try having lifeboat space for every passenger, not every other passenger?

As history teaches us, the reason the Titanic sinking was a disaster, and not just a misfortune [wsj.com] was that it had enough lifeboats for the government regulations of the day, which is to say, one person-space in a lifeboat for every two passengers.

Just build Titanic III at the same time, and have it cruise alongside empty.

If Titanic II starts sinking, leave the buffet, grab your luggage, stroll across the walkway to Titanic III, find your cabin (you'll keep the same cabin number) and Bob's your uncle.

Do you suppose the steerage class wasn't meant... (2)

swb (14022) | about 2 years ago | (#39848205)

...to use the lifeboats?

Given the classism of the era, you almost expect them to have enough spots for the passengers above a certain level but basically exclude the steerage and other lower classes from rescue.

Re:Do you suppose the steerage class wasn't meant. (2)

geoffrobinson (109879) | about 2 years ago | (#39848387)

The only thing is that there were plenty of first class men who gave up their spot. Yes, losses were heavier in the steerage class.

For all of the classism of the era, there was also a "women and children first" ethic.

Re:Do you suppose the steerage class wasn't meant. (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | about 2 years ago | (#39848453)

They were, but lifeboats were seen as ferries from on ship to another. The atlantic shipping lanes were busy enough that it seemed very unlikely that a sinking ship would be too far from other ships for this to be an option.

Titanic not luxurious by today's standards (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847659)

Every bit as luxurious as the original is not very good by today's cruise ship standards. The first class cabins on the Titanic were about 1/2 the size of typical cabins on modern cruise ships. They did not have balconies or in room bathrooms and the windows were tiny.

Re:Titanic not luxurious by today's standards (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#39847821)

Just like Europe of a half millennium ago was a backwater hellhole compared to even the ghetto of modern cities, but for some reason people still dress up and play the part for fun...

I'd rather swim (1)

jjp9999 (2180664) | about 2 years ago | (#39847671)

I would never, in my wildest dreams, get on that boat.

Re:I'd rather swim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847781)

Exactly how superstitious are you?

Re:I'd rather swim (2)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#39847913)

Exactly how superstitious are you?

I think he's expecting the floating fail whale rather than having it sink underneath him. The "authentic dress up" crowd is going to be at the throats of the "just wanna wear my hoodie" crowd. The modern cruisers are going to be pissed off that its amenities are ancient. The traditionalists are going to be pissed off that it doesn't have genuine coal fueled steam engines and has too many lifeboats.

I would not be scared of being on board, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to be surrounded by pissed off people.

Their only hope is theme cruises. "Bubba goes boatin' cruise" where nobody dresses up, and "floating ren fair" where everyone dresses up and uses fake british accents. Mixing those two crowds is not gonna be fun.

Re:I'd rather swim (5, Funny)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | about 2 years ago | (#39848525)

Exactly how superstitious are you?

I would estimate about thirteen times the national average, which is unfortunate.

trolololololol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847675)

I hope he fills it with people and rams it into the nearest Iceberg. That would be trolololol

Uh Hello, Airplanes? It's blimps. You win! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847745)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq-N3_plNq8 pretty much sums it up

Max Capricorn Cruises.. (4, Funny)

DC2088 (2343764) | about 2 years ago | (#39847753)

The fastest, the furthest. The best. And I should know, because... My name is Max!

What I heard... (3, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | about 2 years ago | (#39847791)

I heard he's consulting with Abercrombie & Fitch on aesthetics and design. As I understand it, the hull will be pre-distressed and cost twice what a typical cruise ship costs.

Built in government-owned shipyard in China (3, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#39847807)

He's having it built by a government-owned shipyard in China. One that has never built a passenger ship. Jinling builds large single-engine tankers, container ships, and RORO (roll-on, roll-off) vessels. Five shipyards in Finland, France, Italy, Germany, and South Korea build most of the passenger ships in the world, and Jinling isn't one of them.

Re:Built in government-owned shipyard in China (3, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 2 years ago | (#39848107)

He's having it built by a government-owned shipyard in China. One that has never built a passenger ship. Jinling builds large single-engine tankers, container ships, and RORO (roll-on, roll-off) vessels. Five shipyards in Finland, France, Italy, Germany, and South Korea build most of the passenger ships in the world, and Jinling isn't one of them.

This might not be as far fetched a decision as it first sounds.

Having experience with large Container ships and RORO's is perfect engineering practice for the dealing with the unique, shall we say, attributes, of the average American passenger.

Ohhh! Ohhh!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847811)

I know! We can combine other delusions together! Let's make this ship from asteroid-mined iron!!!

boarding will be hilarious (1)

Dan667 (564390) | about 2 years ago | (#39847825)

each woman will be given a chunk of blue glass to throw off the back when at sea.

This ship may very well haunt itself (2)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 2 years ago | (#39847837)

There are some things so engrained in the human consciousness as bad or cursed and should not be brought up again, aside from reverence.
Making a Liner called the Titanic 2 or Dirigible called the Hindenburg Zwei only stand to bring forth such horrific notions and blatantly invite self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sure, feel free to spit and damn "superstition" all you want, there is something to be said about the imaginings of a mass consciousness that can actually have an effect, if only on a purely psychosomatic level -- but that's all it takes to sink a ship all over again.

Re:This ship may very well haunt itself (1)

Jetra (2622687) | about 2 years ago | (#39847935)

And this is why I believe in all things supernatural. So much of my life has just been so unexplainable, I took up the Karma System to lower the events. It has worked so far. Titanic II will follow it's mother down into the depths ot the ocean, exactly where it sank or close enough.

As close to the original... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847905)

A lot of people know of the Grand Staircase in the first-class salon, but if you have ever attended a Titanic exhibit you know that even the first-class accommodations were actively shabby with modern standards. Roomy, yes, but shabby. Second class and below are beyond belief.

Freedom ship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847921)

Hopefully it'll take off better than the gigantic Freedom ship [freedomship.com] (check out the pictures). The Freedom Ship seems like a giant scam to me.

Anyone notice the irony? (4, Interesting)

SailorSpork (1080153) | about 2 years ago | (#39847923)

I find it ironic that Palmer, a mining billionaire, is trying to recreate the Titanic, while the entertainment billionaire James Cameron, who has done the most in the public eye with the Titanic in the past decade or so, is using his billions to mine asteroids (and arguably is doing more to potentially advance mankind in the process).

An Australian Billionare Already Built It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39847945)

It's Called Fox News only its drowning all of us this time instead of just the people on the boat....

Ob. Futurama reference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39848147)

It'll be the "Land Titanic" this time!

Why Not Build Something New And Useful Instead? (1)

assertation (1255714) | about 2 years ago | (#39848213)

Why not invest the money in Tesla, bullet trains, solar/wind generated electricity, vaccines for 3rd world children, developing a compressed air battery car further, etc?

The world doesn't need a working replica of an obsolete ship.

Re:Why Not Build Something New And Useful Instead? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | about 2 years ago | (#39848285)

Because billionaires have no idea how the real world works.

Re:Why Not Build Something New And Useful Instead? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39848423)

So do you actually promote some kind of new-wave eco-ascetic existence, or is this just sour grapes over how much money the man has?

Obligatory quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39848241)

"The starship titanic, the ship that cannot possibly go wrong."

It will be every bit as luxurious as the original (1)

JohnHegarty (453016) | about 2 years ago | (#39848289)

He is saying "It will be every bit as luxurious as the original Titanic" and also "as similar as possible to the original Titanic in design and specifications".

But the Titanic design wouldn't be anything near luxurious in 2012. For starts not cabins except for the best first class cabins had bathrooms. Adding them to cabins would require a major redesign of the layout.

In 2012 no one would travel in the cabins from 2nd and 3rd classes.

The ship also won't have anything near the facilitates that's expected these days. The Titanic may have been a very large ship in 1912 , but in 2012 it would considered very small.

Re:It will be every bit as luxurious as the origin (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#39848461)

The Titanic may have been a very large ship in 1912 , but in 2012 it would considered very small.

Would it? Modern car ferries plying the Irish Sea are smaller. Some cruise ships are smaller. Until the Carnival Destiny was built, no purpose-built cruise ship was bigger than the old ocean liners.

Proof of Unsinkability (1)

XPulga (1242) | about 2 years ago | (#39848401)

To properly prove this design to be unsinkable, they should hire Francesco Schettino to captain it.

Not much detail (1)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 2 years ago | (#39848419)

Not much detail in the article about how similar it would be to the original. I would hope that it would be "every bit as luxurious" as modern uniclass cruise ships which are more comfortable than first class was in the old Olympic class liners and Cunard queens. Today's passengers would probably prefer to have a bathroom in their own cabin rather than having to go down the hall.

I wonder what they're going to do below decks. Steerage accommodation probably wouldn't be much of a tourist attraction, unless there's going to be a handful of steerage rooms in the old style just for people to look at and "get a feel" for it without having to actually stay in it, like the cell block at Alcatraz.

Then there's the matter of propulsion. Obviously it'd have to be a diesel engine. I'd be interested in seeing a replica of the old boiler-turbine setup though. James Cameron's film showed the ship as having piston engines, but I suspect that was more for dramatic effect. That baby had a steam turbine.

Follow the Canadian naming model (1)

s21825 (946313) | about 2 years ago | (#39848449)

Much like the Canadian Loonie ($1 coin) and Toonie ($2 coin), they should call this the Tootanic.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...