Beta

×

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!

Plans Unveiled For Full Scale Replica of the Titanic

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.

Transportation 292

Hugh Pickens writes "USA Today reports that Australian billionaire Clive Palmer has unveiled plans for construction of Titanic II, a cruise ship designed as a 'full-scale re-creation' of the Titanic, adding that the ship will be built in China and begin carrying passengers in 2016. The Titanic II will be built 883 feet long – 3 inches longer than the original Titanic – and weigh 55,800 gross tons, according to Palmer, who stopped short of calling the vessel unsinkable. It will carry a maximum of 2,435 passengers and 900 crew members, and include a gymnasium, Turkish baths, a squash court, a swimming pool, a theater and a casino. Like the original ship, there will no TVs aboard and probably no Internet service, Palmer says. Passengers will be able to dress in 1912-style clothing, giving them an opportunity to step back in time, or pretend they are Leo DiCaprio or Kate Winslet, who starred in James Cameron's 1997 blockbuster movie. But industry insiders are skeptical about the commercial viability of the ship. 'Titanic II is a curiosity and may have a draw as a floating hotel, but the idea of spending close to a week at sea on a vessel built around such a thin premise is seen as a stretch, at least by many within the industry,' says Michael Driscoll, editor of industry newsletter Cruise Week. Driscoll adds that he is skeptical about the future of Titanic II in the aftermath of the Carnival Triumph fire and last year's shipwreck of the Costa Concordia off the coast of Tuscany. Paul Kurzman, whose great-grandparents, Isidor and Ida Straus, died on the Titanic, says he has 'no problem' with the construction of Titanic II. 'I don't think they would have had any problem whatsoever, as long as the Titanic II steers clear of icebergs.'"

cancel ×

292 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022687)

It's born to sink...

Re:I think (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023005)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17890754 [bbc.co.uk] Australian billionaire Clive Palmer to build Titanic II 30 April 2012

Little slow on the news /.

Re:I think (1)

wylf (657051) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023135)

There's been renewed media interest on this topic recently in Australia, not sure what brought it about though.

Seperation of classes (5, Interesting)

matthewlw (1351307) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022693)

I would have to wonder if they will effectively separate classes on a ship as they did in that time, this hardly seems like it would be a popular concept in modern day, however it is hardly an accurate recreation if they ignore this aspect.

Re:Seperation of classes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022725)

1st class: Absurdly rich
2nd class: Slightly less absurdly rich
3rd class: Mere millionaire peasants

Re:Seperation of classes (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022969)

How do you define "absurdly rich"?

As long as the wealth is created in a free market, that wealth is a reflection of merit, either of the individual in possession of the wealth or of someone who left it to them voluntarily. Force wealth from the possession of the minds that created it, and you create a power vacuum that is inevitably be filled with demeritorious tyranny! Of course the "free market" is an emergent civilizational achievement, not yet entirely reached anywhere in the world - everyone's wealth is tainted to some degree. But then you should be criticizing the specific pre-capitalist transgressions involved -- theft, fraud, government cronyism, etc -- not the concept or quantity of wealth itself!

Those who criticize wealth reject civilization. Those who criticize inequality of wealth ignore economic reality - not everyone contributes to civilization equally. A more appropriate phrase would be "absurdly poor" (which happens to apply to me at the moment), but it's no crime to be poor, of course, just as long as you don't use force or fraud against others. Everyone is equal in their negative Rights - but everything else has to be earned.

--libman

Re:Seperation of classes (4, Insightful)

pkbarbiedoll (851110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023151)

Because historically, extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a few coincides with recession/depression and high levels of national debt. This is not hard to understand. Redistributing wealth to a smaller group of people means the larger group of people have less to spend. The smaller group owning the majority of the wealth will not spend their money the same way someone from the lower classes will.

The reason we had such a great economy in the 1950s was in part due to the low income inequality via high taxation on the rich. Capitalism worked beautifully then, lifting the standards of practically every American. One can argue the same is not true today.

Re:Seperation of classes (0)

ralatalo (673742) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023205)

Ignoring everything except "As long as the wealth is created in a free market, that wealth is a reflection of merit"

I have to ask 2 questions:
1) What merit is reflected into ones birth that causes the reflection of wealth there?

2) What is the reflection of merit when the increase in wealth before expenses would be the same percentage but due to the starting point of rich over poor. The Rich's expenses are well under that percentage and his wealth grows, but the Poor's expenses vary around that percentage and while occasionally the wealth grows, it also often shrinks. Bonus points if you don't fall back on living within one's means and extol the virtues of living as a pauper or working 24x7 so as to avoid needing to have a place to sleep.

Re:Seperation of classes (4, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022733)

Rose had plenty of fun in the the third class "Irish Jig" bar

Plus it got her drunk/horny enough to grab Jack and do him in the back seat of a car so maybe it isn't all bad.

The whole point of going on it is role playing so it should be a big hit in the orient even if whiny westerners don't think they can live a week without Facebook .

Re:Seperation of classes (3, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023089)

The point is that she never would have been there...the movie was a work of FICTION. Imagine an elegant society woman going to a hoedown with the hillbillies to understand how ridiculous the concept is.

Re:Seperation of classes (3, Funny)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022801)

Perhaps passengers on this thing can get a taste of each. 2 days in 1st class, 2 days in 2nd and 2 days in 3rd. And 1 day shoveling coal into a furnace...

Re:Seperation of classes (4, Funny)

meddle99 (1946010) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023077)

and another day floating in a life raft, you know, to complete the experience.

Re:Seperation of classes (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022817)

well exactly.

nobody in their right mind would build an exact replica at this day and age. where the fuck would they find passengers for the lower decks??????? it's not like australia, usa or wherever this thing cruises to would be taking in passengers just wanting to transit from shore a to shore b.

Re:Seperation of classes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022871)

well exactly.

nobody in their right mind would build an exact replica at this day and age. where the fuck would they find passengers for the lower decks??????? it's not like australia, usa or wherever this thing cruises to would be taking in passengers just wanting to transit from shore a to shore b.

They could take illegal immigrants home on the back leg

Re:Seperation of classes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022983)

well exactly.

nobody in their right mind would build an exact replica at this day and age. where the fuck would they find passengers for the lower decks??????? it's not like australia, usa or wherever this thing cruises to would be taking in passengers just wanting to transit from shore a to shore b.

They could take illegal immigrants home on the back leg

And Wal-Mart shoppers. They'll put up with anything to get The Low Price.

Re:Seperation of classes (4, Insightful)

sg_oneill (159032) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022855)

Clive Palmer is actually completely fecking bonkers. People here in australia treat him as sort of a scary/facinating madman who got all the dollars but none of the sense that one might associate with being a billionaire. Granted its not uncommon with australian billionaires to be a bit cranky (See rupert murdoch, gina rinehart, and so on).

That said. I want someone to convince him to spend his billions on space travel. He's just far enough off his rocker to actually consider it.

Re:Seperation of classes [is good] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022867)

Criticism of different passenger service levels is economically insane! Some people want better service during their long and turbulent voyage, and some people want a cheaper ticket. Force everyone into the same service level in the middle, and some people will be disappointed with the quality of the voyage, and some will not be able to afford to go. This regulation would result in there being separate ships: one better quality, one better value, etc. Cost-efficiency will be lost by having several small ships where one would do, which means everyone is worse off. And when you take away people's ability to get what they want for their money, like crossing the ocean in ideal comfort, the incentive to contribute to the economy to make money is greatly diminished, resulting in a tremendous loss for the economy as a whole.

Oh, and many commie Hollywood myths [bbc.co.uk] are greatly exaggerated, or just completely made up...

Ships have been sinking since the dawn of history. In spite of the specific famous disasters like Titanic, crossing the Atlantic has become MUCH safer as the result of the Industrial Revolution, which has been made possible by (relatively) free market capitalism. Capitalism is what has created the opportunities in America that those immigrants were seeking, without which they'd have no choice but stay in the inferior conditions they were trying to leave behind. Millions of people have made it across the ocean on ships similar to the Titanic (though smaller); only a few thousand had perished. Why do some people always want to focus on the negative, and make baseless bashing of capitalism the main narrative of every story they tell?!

--libman

Re:Seperation of classes [is good] (1)

oreaq (817314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023029)

Millions of people have made it across the ocean on ships similar to the Titanic (though smaller); only a few thousand had perished.

You might want to check your numbers [answers.com] : "It is suspected that of 11 million slaves transported, this represented a third of the slaves from the start. so approximately 22 million slaves died on the slaves ships in the Indies and Americas alone."

Re:Seperation of classes [is good] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43023069)

If you read what I wrote in context, it is obvious that I meant industrial-era steamships "similar to the Titanic", where passengers bought tickets in several service classes. (The last ocean-crossing slave ship to the United States was a two-masted schooner [wikipedia.org] .)

Slavery is the very antithesis of capitalism, which is the economic paradigm that finally ended it.

--libman

Re:Seperation of classes (4, Insightful)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022885)

What do you mean not a popular concept in modern day?

Flights have cattle class, business class, first class etc don't they?

Re:Seperation of classes (1)

mabinogi (74033) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022911)

Just remember that the same person that wants to build this, also declared that Greenpeace was a CIA plot to destroy Australia's mining sector...

Re:Seperation of classes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022939)

I would have to wonder if they will effectively separate classes on a ship as they did in that time, this hardly seems like it would be a popular concept in modern day, however it is hardly an accurate recreation if they ignore this aspect.

Don't kid yourself. There are still classes. Only difference today is it's been boiled down to the 99% and the 1%. They fucking bought everyone else out.

We can only dream about a "middle" class now.

And you better believe the 1% lives in a world unto themselves. We're the ones paying for it all.

Re:Seperation of classes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43023027)

Everything you currently believe about economics is bullshit, but it would take years of serious education for you to understand why. The odds of you ever actually picking up a serious economics book are very low, so... well... fuck off and die in wood-chipper accident (feet first).

--libman

Re:Seperation of classes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43023097)

Physician, heal thyself... and if you're going to sign all your posts just create a damn account

Re:Seperation of classes (2)

CAIMLAS (41445) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023103)

They're going to have to redesign the decks for the simple fact that the Titanic was not a cruise ship, it was a passage (aka passenger) ship. Cruise ships are going to have to have a lot more comfort and room available.

That said, drinking, eating, and sitting around doing nothing are the primary activities on a cruise (I'd imagine). You can do that in any 'class' on the ship, conceivably. But I do imagine they'd improve berthing a bit for the 'general transport' class to more effectively use the space.

Honestly, I think it's a splendid idea for those who want to 'disconnect' from modern distractions for a while. There are a lot of us who do. We need a detox, and being able to say "Sorry boss, I won't be available for the next week. At all." has a lot of appeal. You've only got a couple ways to do it now:

* Go on a normal vacation but leave your phone off. This puts the burden of responsibility for missed calls squarely on you. And you're still likely to 'check in' because you're addicted.
* Go to a very, very remote 'destination' vacation: remote to the point where you have neither a hotel or coffee shop near by, or cell service. I can only think of like, one or two places in WY and SD where this applies, but I'm sure AK has a couple, too...

This is a 'guilt free' option. Honestly, the only downside I can see to a Victorian era cruise aside from how fake it'll be (I don't doubt they'll skimp on the decorations and use eg. cheaper woods and furnishing materials) is the lack of air conditioning (and/or heat?). But maybe they'll provide that, too.

Re:Seperation of classes (1)

sjwt (161428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023127)

Clive menchion something about that on the news tonight, and also stated that he would be staying in 3rd class for the maiden voyage.

I really don't think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022699)

... that this is a bad idea. Alot of people are dreaming of a way out, a way to escape modern society.
This may be a bigger hit than expected. Just a stressless cultural experience. Live music, dancing, shows and participation. Skilled artists, great shows, probobly great food too.

Re:I really don't think (1, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022753)

This may be a bigger hit than expected. Just a stressless cultural experience. Live music, dancing, shows and participation. Skilled artists, great shows, probobly great food too.

I agree.

Slashdot might not be the best place to vote whether an attraction with no WiFi will be a success or not.

And the movie already exists! (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022705)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640571/ [imdb.com] For those who are interested, the expression on the ship's funnel indicates just how good a film this is.

First Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022707)

Zap Brannigan will be the captain

Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica... (5, Funny)

jonwil (467024) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022711)

There are some parts of the old ship that most definitely should NOT be replicated on the new one.
Like the lifeboats.
And the engines.
And the bridge (and its navigation equipment and iceburg detection systems)
And the kitchens

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (4, Funny)

a_hanso (1891616) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022727)

There are some parts of the old ship that most definitely should NOT be replicated on the new one.
Like the lifeboats.
And the engines.
And the bridge (and its navigation equipment and iceburg detection systems)
And the kitchens

And the iceberg itself. I don't think I'll be comfortable in a recreation of a scenario that ends in people freezing to death.

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022813)

The iceberg itself is only a problem if the get a full scale model for that one as well... and hit it...
Nevertheless I think that it would be a nice way to travel about for some folks, think of all the goths that are breaking their piggy-banks *right now* to have a cruise their way! :-)

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022853)

Na. He’s cool with it. ;)

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (4, Funny)

Zaatxe (939368) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022899)

Don't worry, global warming took care of this one!

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022999)

There are some parts of the old ship that most definitely should NOT be replicated on the new one.
Like the lifeboats.
And the engines.
And the bridge (and its navigation equipment and iceburg detection systems)
And the kitchens

And the iceberg itself. I don't think I'll be comfortable in a recreation of a scenario that ends in people freezing to death.

And don't forget the best one of all - a double-hull construction using brittle steel where water, once entered into one of the compartments can then pour over the top into the other compartments!

Having an iceberg in the water doesn't make people freeze to death, though. Being in water cold enough that the icebergs are common, however...

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (1)

Joska (78000) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023201)

The junk steel and the compartment divisions that stop short of the ceiling are the bits of authenticity that are most troubling. Seriously though, it's not a remarkable object with the benefit of hindsight and scarcely merits a replica. Maybe he can be persuaded instead to sink some money into architecture and rebuild Frank Lloyd Wright's 1906 Larkin Building in Buffalo, NY. This would rectify a very real loss to history with the added benefit of a significantly decreased iceberg threat. It's a win/ win.

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43023207)

Well, it was designed to withstand a breach of two compartments, but three were breached which exceeded the design spec. It was not intended that they drive it directly into icebergs.

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022739)

There are some parts of the old ship that most definitely should NOT be replicated on the new one.
Like the lifeboats.
And the engines.
And the bridge (and its navigation equipment and iceburg detection systems)
And the kitchens

What was wrong with the kitchens?

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022777)

What was wrong with the kitchens?

They sank?

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (5, Funny)

leathered (780018) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022807)

They had British chefs.

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022879)

They had British chefs.

Can we send Jamie Oliver off in the replica please

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43023125)

So, in this Titanic 2.0 we're going to have Gordon Ramsey, Jamie Oliver and Nigella Lawson?

Nothing wrong with the equipment... (3, Insightful)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022953)

...or indeed with the iceberg detection. The problem was with the owners and the officers, and they aren't around any more.

Here's a hint: there were other ships in the area and none of them sank due to icebergs.

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022751)

Like the lifeboats.

The original design had plenty. They just took a lot off because it looked nicer.

And the bridge (and its navigation equipment and iceburg detection systems).

Well, they could at least give the crew binoculars:)

Seriously though, replica ships do make some compromises for modern safety laws. The replica of The Matthew [wikipedia.org] for example has a Diesel engine in there.

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022959)

Well, they could at least give the crew binoculars:)

The lack of binoculars and that affecting the lookouts ability to see the iceberg is a bullshit myth. Even with today's binoculars it's easier to see things in the dark with just bare eyes simply because when you're staring at almost complete darkness with binoculars you have no references you can see when you look around so it's pure luck if you spot something. However, with bare eyes you can easily spot even a tiny difference from the complete darkness ahead (when your eyes have adjusted, which takes 15-20 minutes). Then you use night vision binoculars to figure out what exactly it is that you see. Back then optics were complete shit compared with today's motion stabilized binoculars and nobody back then had even envisioned night vision binoculars.

Because bare eyes are still the best way to notice things in the widest possible field of vision in the dark, ships' lightning is designed very carefully so that none of the lanterns or cabin lights or any other lights are reflected to the bridge windows. If you look closely, you can see that this is the case even with extremely well lit cruise ships at night.

(Yes, I am cruise ship bridge crew.)

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022757)

Here's one thing that will definitely not be replicated:
ticket prices, which apparently started at £3

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (1)

Millennium (2451) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022941)

And the lack of adequate sealing in the lower compartments. It might actually have stayed afloat long enough for help to arrive if they'd been sealed at the top.

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (1)

Peter Simpson (112887) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023047)

There are some parts of the old ship that most definitely should NOT be replicated on the new one. Like the lifeboats. And the engines. And the bridge (and its navigation equipment and iceburg detection systems) And the kitchens

And the "watertight" compartments. IIRC, they only went up a couple of decks, so when the water level got high enough, they all flooded.

Re:Please tell me it wont be an accurate replica.. (2)

westlake (615356) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023107)

There are some parts of the old ship that most definitely should NOT be replicated on the new one.

Olympic, Titanic's twin sister, was in service for 24 years on the North Atlantic run.

I don't see any problem with the engines.

If your complaint is about the inefficacies of coal or the manning requirements and working conditions aboard a coal-fired ship, take it up with Winston Churchill. Naval innovation: From coal to oil [epmag.com]

If you are First Lord of the Admiralty. you can make these things happen.

I don't see any problems with the kitchens.

Last Dinner On the Titanic: Menus and Recipes from the Great Liner, [amazon.com] in print since 1997, and a particularly fine example of the cookbook as art and history, is far from obsessed with the first class service alone.

Well spent monay, not. (5, Funny)

u64 (1450711) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022737)

What's next, Hindenburg replica?

Re:Well spent monay, not. (5, Interesting)

heypete (60671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022771)

What's next, Hindenburg replica?

Why not? Traveling by airship would be a unique experience for many people.

With proper precautions, hydrogen as a lifting gas is not considerably more hazardous than jet aircraft loaded with gobs of jet fuel /covering the fabric of the airship with highly flammable chemicals seems like a bad idea

Re:Well spent monay, not. (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022963)

Given what happened to the R101, travelling by airship could literally be a unique experience for the last lot of passengers. And indeed, their last ever experience.

Face it, balloons either use an irreplaceable resource far too important to waste on vanity projects (helium), or they are insanely dangerous by modern standards.

Re:Well spent monay, not. (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023149)

From memory, the R101 disaster was caused by structural failures (in turn caused by poor design decisions in turn caused by political problems with the project.) R101 didn't catch fire until after it crashed. Had it been a plane with the same problems, the same thing would have happened, except there'd have been no survivors from a plane crashing into the ground at standard cruise speeds.

Further I don't think one can reasonably travel across the Atlantic in a 747 pumped full of jet fuel, and then, on reaching the other side, complain that hydrogen lifted airships are a bad thing because they might catch fire, especially as the Hindenberg experience, if anything, proved hydrogen's relative safety - a plane catching fire at the same height would not have had anything like the same survival rate.

The problems with 1930s airships are mostly to do with the difficulty at that time of creating a massive, skyscraper sized, object that was also lightweight and able to move at speeds of up to 100mph. Hydrogen? Outside of its corrosive properties, that had to be handled and probably weren't to the degree needed, it was never the major problem.

Re:Well spent monay, not. (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023173)

Airships have to have light superstructures to be able to have adequate lift, and they have a very large surface area. To the best of my knowledge nobody has come up with a convincing way of safely landing (or taking off) an airship in high winds. Modern materials, good as they are, are still not sufficiently stronger than materials available in the 1930s to make a safe airship.

I wasn't aware that hydrogen was corrosive.It can cause embrittlement of steels, but that is quite a separate issue.

Re:Well spent monay, not. (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022795)

I'd actually pay for a trip on that, though perhaps not if it'll use hydrogen as its lifting gas like the original.

Re:Well spent monay, not. (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023015)

I'd actually pay for a trip on that, though perhaps not if it'll use hydrogen as its lifting gas like the original.

More recently it has been noted that the hydrogen gas was hardly the only major flammable thing about the Hindenberg.

wtc (2)

leuk_he (194174) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023087)

build a replica of the new york WTC. What are the odds a place will fly into it twice?

Looney (5, Informative)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022747)

For those outside Australia, Clive Palmer is well known looney tunes. He has a habit of making outlandish claims (such as the CIA is funding the Green (hippie) party purely to destabilise our coal industry), I'd be surprised if this ever sees the light of day.

Re:Looney (4, Informative)

mad flyer (589291) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022787)

And nobody tell the guys that the titanic had -from memory- at least one sistership who went on with her own commercial career without anykind of troubles...

Re:Looney (4, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022849)

Almost any kind of troubles. The Olympic did crash into a British warship, the collision holing her both below and above the waterline, but no one was hurt in that one and neither the Olympic nor the warship sank.

According to Wikipedia, one of the passengers on the Olympic when it crashed later was later on the Titanic when she sank (and survived that ordeal), and later was on the Britannic when it sank (surviving that one too).

Re:Looney (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022933)

According to Wikipedia, one of the passengers on the Olympic when it crashed later was later on the Titanic when she sank (and survived that ordeal), and later was on the Britannic when it sank (surviving that one too).

Slightly luckier than the Tsutomu Yamaguchi who got hit by two nukes. (and survived that ordeal.)

Actually... (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022881)

It would be more accurate to say he comes across as a Looney. Most of his controversy is carefully planned to generate some distraction in the media.

What else give me hope that this is not a hoax is that most of his outlandish claims are only repeated once and then he disappears into the rather. This on the other hand is the fourth time in a year I've heard him talk about this idea.

Re:Looney (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023055)

That's what (the generic) you said when he first floated (pardon the pun) this idea a year or so back... looney tunes or not, he's making progress on his plans. (Granted it's a long way to to completion.)

Guess the forgot the song (1)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022749)

So they built another ship called Titanic number 2,
This time they thought they had a ship to sail the ocean blue,
So they christened it with beer and she sunk right off the peer.

It was sad when the great ship went down.
To the bottoms of the sea.

Uncles and ants many many lost the pants,
It was sad when the great ship went down

If they're going to do it... (2)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022755)

I'd prefer it to be called the Olympic - the one of the three that didn't sink.

Re:If they're going to do it... (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023007)

I'd prefer it to be called the Olympic - the one of the three that didn't sink.

In fairness to the Britannic it hit a mine which are designed specifically to snik ships, and almost everyone survived.

Apparently one person survived the sinking of both ships and a near sinking of the third.

steers clear of icebergs? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022759)

I think they should reenact the entire voyage more accurately. Just restrict ticket sales to bankers, lawyers, and politicians.

No internet (2)

DFJA (680282) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022761)

I never knew the original Titanic didn't have internet access. I thought it was supposed to be a luxury ship!

Re:No internet (1)

ccguy (1116865) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022781)

I never knew the original Titanic didn't have internet access.

It did, but being telegraph based the bandwidth was horrible, and with Hamming codes not having been invented yet transmission errors were a real issue.

Re:No internet (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022975)

In one of the ironies of history, the Titanic was equipped with wireless but the operator was too busy sending the important messages of the VIP travellers to make distress calls. It was the early 20th century equivalent of people making Facebook status updates "Ship is sinking, lol" rather than dialling 911.

Good news everyone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022789)

I'm sure I've seen that ship on Futurama

Obligatory Lew Grade.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022797)

"Raise the Titanic? - Woulda been cheaper Lowering the Atlantic.."

- Bottom of the Atlantic being probably where this idea best remains, if only on grounds of good taste alone.

Old Story (April 2012) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022799)

this has been around for months
Old story [theaustralian.com.au]

Sounds like a comic book story (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022809)

Somewhere a millionaire supervillain is making a steerable iceberg!

Re:Sounds like a comic book story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022883)

I think Clive Palmer might be the millionaire supervillain.

Brainz ... i haz them somewhere (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022815)

Paul Kurzman, whose great-grandparents, Isidor and Ida Straus, died on the Titanic, says he has 'no problem' with the construction of Titanic II. 'I don't think they would have had any problem whatsoever, as long as the Titanic II steers clear of icebergs.'

Nonono, this is a replica of the Titanic, it only has to steer clear of the replica of the iceberg that sunk the original. Other than that, it's totally unsinkable. Well, almost - it's a chinese replica after all.

Really? (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022821)

What is the fascination with this silly, sunken Deathtrap?

Re:Really? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022877)

Romantism.

Re:Really? (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022997)

One of the greatest European epics, the Chanson de Roland, is about a lost battle. Then there are the Greek tragedies. The Titanic story is a pure tragedy because the builders and the operators of the ship were brought low by hubris and by tempting Fate. That is why it has cultural resonance.

Something about this (1)

shikitohno (2559719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022833)

gives me a terrible, sinking feeling.

And the next /. poll question is... (1)

tigersha (151319) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022873)

Would you take a ride on Titanic 2?

a) No!!!!!
b) Oh yeah!!!!
c) No, but I would pay for CowboyNeal's ticket

Finally, the ship for the movie (3, Funny)

Doalwa (610578) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022875)

I was wondering when somebody would step up to the challenge and finally build a ship based on that wonderful movie from a few years back: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1640571/?ref_=fn_al_tt_9 [imdb.com]

Re:Finally, the ship for the movie (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022951)

You know it's quality cinema when the same individual is directing, writing, and starring...

Dilation (1)

Zaatxe (939368) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022893)

The Titanic II will be built 883 feet long – 3 inches longer than the original Titanic

At what temperature? A ship this big could not dilate more than 3 inches if the temperature increases?
(I just thought this size difference detail might be pointless...)

Re:Dilation (3, Funny)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023001)

Three inches extra dilation? She seemed to think it was important.

I'm sure it'll be fine.. (1)

mabinogi (74033) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022925)

I'm sure it'll be fine....as long as the front doesn't fall off...

the designers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43022965)

The Titanic II is designed by Finnish Deltamarin [deltamarin.com] , who also has been involved with projects like Oasis of the Seas [wikipedia.org]

unsinkable (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43022989)

> to Palmer, who stopped short of calling the vessel unsinkable.

Also like the original Titanic then, which was also never called unsinkable until after it had sunk.

Re:unsinkable (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023061)

Well...

publications such as the Irish News and Belfast Morning News and Shipbuilder printed detailed articles about the ship's construction and noted that "The Captain may, by simply moving an electric switch, instantly close the doors throughout and make the vessel practically unsinkable."

a White Star promotional flyer for the Olympic and Titanic ... claimed "as far as it is possible to do, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable."

Re:unsinkable (2)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023085)

I designed my statement to be practically correct.

Driscoll ... that name rings a bell (1)

skegg (666571) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023011)

says Michael Driscoll, editor of industry newsletter Cruise Week

Yup, the name of someone else [wikipedia.org] whose boat journey could have gone better.

Why three inches longer? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023013)

Why is it three inches longer?

Like the original ship, there will no TVs aboard and probably no Internet service

What, the original Titanic only probably had no internet service?

Dress Code (1)

Psychotria (953670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023025)

Passengers will be able to dress in 1912-style clothing, giving them an opportunity to step back in time [...]

I am so glad they have given permission to dress as one sees fit. But, Mr Palmer and associates, if I want to dress in 1912-stlye clothing I'd do it with or without your permission, so please stay the fuck out of my personal life and dictation of how I should dress. Thank you. Am I allowed to abstain from shaving?

Futurama reminiscence (1)

nu1x (992092) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023041)

Now why after reading all this I am reminded of a certain Futurama episode ?

I honestly find the whole situation really funny.

Now all we need is Iceberg MKII, and we're set.

Commercial viability (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023073)

Disney's ships hold about 40% more passengers and they are priced at the higher end of the mass market lines. Given operational costs such as fuel are relative fixed it would seem their cruise costs would be significantly higher. The question is is the T2 experience compelling enough to attract capacity crowds and repeat business to be a viable long term business?

afloat (1)

ssam (2723487) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023109)

will it take an HP lawsuit to keep it afloat?

In this week's fear factor (1)

WinstonWolfIT (1550079) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023113)

Titanic II through the north Atlantic with half of its lifeboats.

Party on, Clive! (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | about a year and a half ago | (#43023177)

What's that old saying, "A fool and his money are soon partying"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>