The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-Opened

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
What type of deformation did they find?
Click to expand...

'Shock loading' / 'twinning'/ 'running shear fracture' (South West Research Institute, Texas, US lab) / 'consistent with high detonation material, such as Semtex or Hexa composite' (Brandenburg State Lab, Germany, who said the metal piece taken by divers from the Estonia indicated a force with a velocity of >5,000 metres per second). The third lab, Institut fuer Materialpruefung, Clausthal-Zellerfeld, Germany, said the metal showed signs of heat up to 700°-720°c during cracking (deformation) and as this had not ben done in a lab it must have been by detonation or by some projectile). South West Research were said to be amused by Der Spiegal's BAM claim it could have been caused by shot peening. And note how Associated Press presented the whole thing as a negative result.
 
LondonJohn said:
It's this sort of stultifyingly ignorant and scientifically-illiterate nonsense which makes this the threat that just keeps on giving....

It's palpably ridiculous to propose - as Vixen appears to be doing here - that the Atlantic Ocean is "much deeper by a country mile" than the Baltic Sea. I'd hope the sheer wrongness of such a statement would be immediately apparent.

And for the record, TWA800 sank to around 36m. The Estonia sank to around 90m. The difference - wrt the relative ease of exploration and recovery - is actually huge. For example, someone with my scuba certification could have dived to TWA800 three times per day, and would be able to spend an average time of around 20-25 mins per dive at the wreck site. By contrast, the Estonia could only be reached by either a tech diver, high-pressure manned submersible, or ROV*. In the first of those possibilities (the only one where humans could actually touch the wreck with their (gloved) hands) the divers would only have been able to spend around 15 mins at the wreck site, and would only be able to dive once per day.


** And NB to Vixen (or nota bene :D), "ROV" stands for "Remotely Operate Vehicle". It does not, ceteris paribus, stand for anything else. Kimo sabi?
Click to expand...

It's this sort of stultifyingly ignorant and scientifically-illiterate nonsense which makes this the threat that just keeps on giving....

What you do to recover bodies from a ship in deep waters (and the Estonia is in waters 60 - 80 metres deep, which is relatively shallow) is to move it to a more shallow part. The divers can go down in a mini-sub or diving platform.
 
Axxman300 said:
But you clearly haven't read the report you keep citing. A crew member was on the car deck a few meters from the bow and reported that the loud bang occurred as a large wave struck the front of the ship. And then water began to rush in.

I have been within 500 meters of a controlled detonation of C-4 used on an old 75mm anti-tank round. It was loud. It sounded like it was much closer making me duck to avoid debris. Again, just a layman, but I suspect explosives detonating INSIDE a ship would be noticeable to someone standing a few meters away.
Click to expand...

At least 29 of the survivors heard the series of bangs before the bow visor came off. You can't know if the visor came off as a result of the bangs from elsewhere or not as the JAIC never investigated it.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Just to amplify on the Ehime Maru she was 741grt and 48m in length.

Estonia was 15,598grt and 157m in length.

Can you think why it may have been possible to move one and not the other?
Click to expand...

Both a Norwegian diving company and a Dutch one agreed it was salvageable and agreed to do it. The Rockwater divers brought in by the JAIC also said it was salvageable.

The refusal by the Swedish government to allow it, was a political one.
 
lobosrul5 said:
And it wasn't a "simple" operation (Vixens most said "simply"), it cost around $60mil USD to drag the vessel to shallower water and dive on it. The way pacific islands work, there is usually a nice steady rising gradient between deep water and an island, since they're volcanic. The same technic may not have worked in the Baltic. Or, they may have needed to tow the ship many times further. One that weighted roughly 20 times more.
Click to expand...

The Russians spent $144m to pull up the bodies from the Kursk lying at 30m, in a contaminated situation, from inside a submarine.
 
JayUtah said:
Dramatic, and completely unnecessary for engineering purposes.

Also, the professor notes the double crease in the deepest part of the indentation and says this indicates tremendous impact force. He is simply wrong. A double crease indicates the material was compressed in-plane. Indentation due to impact stretches the material in-plane, often leading to tensile failure and fracture. That's another data point in favor of a stress fracture and counterindicative of collision.
Click to expand...

Er, Professor Amdahl is an expert in marine collisions.
 
RolandRat said:
"Since he commenced working with us Lt. Commander Braidwood has made himself acquainted with the condition of the wreck and the merits of the case by prolonged watching of video footage, studying drawings and reports as well as long discussions with our expert team, where after he drew up his Investigation Report. – See Chapter 34.7 of our Report. Only thereafter, viz. in August 2000 after completion of the Rabe/Bemis diving expedition, the samples cut off the wreck were brought ashore for examination."

https://www.estoniaferrydisaster.net/chapter05/05-0.html

Can't see anywhere where it states he dived on the wreck.
Click to expand...

Divers managed by him (they are not named, so may or may not include him in person). They took a cutting torch and cut out two metal pieces.
 
Vixen said:
It's this sort of stultifyingly ignorant and scientifically-illiterate nonsense which makes this the threat that just keeps on giving....

What you do to recover bodies from a ship in deep waters (and the Estonia is in waters 60 - 80 metres deep, which is relatively shallow) is to move it to a more shallow part. The divers can go down in a mini-sub or diving platform.
Click to expand...

How would they move a ship of that size and weight?
 
Vixen said:
At least 29 of the survivors heard the series of bangs before the bow visor came off. You can't know if the visor came off as a result of the bangs from elsewhere or not as the JAIC never investigated it.
Click to expand...

Bangs do not mean explosions.
 
Vixen said:
Both a Norwegian diving company and a Dutch one agreed it was salvageable and agreed to do it. The Rockwater divers brought in by the JAIC also said it was salvageable.

The refusal by the Swedish government to allow it, was a political one.
Click to expand...

Did they say how they would salvage it?

Estonia is over 15,000grt and 150m in length.

Where has this been done before?

What techniques were used?
 
Vixen said:
The Russians spent $144m to pull up the bodies from the Kursk lying at 30m, in a contaminated situation, from inside a submarine.
Click to expand...

A submarine is smaller and stronger than a ferry.
They only raised a part of the hull by cutting holes and passing lines through it. A submarine has a thick, strong steel pressure hull able to support it's own weight while being lifted.
A ferry would fall apart if the same technique was tried.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom