The "Was the rudder big enough or not" question is relative. Was it big enough to do what they needed the ship to do 99% of the time? Yes. Was it big enough to turn the ship in the circumstances they were faced with to avoid the berg? No. Did the designers forsee a circumstance like that? No. They thought that anything big enough to sink the Titanic could have been spotted in time. That particular berg would have been spotted had the lookouts had binoculars.

As far as Murdoch losing his rank, job, and basically whole life if he had rammed the berg head on, if the designers had intended any bergs to be rammed head on, and designed the ship that way, then wouldn't he have been acquitted of all wrongdoing at a trial?

The arcitechs of Titanic and her sisters where under the impression, anything big enough to sink her, would be seen well in enough time for her to turn, so making a bigger ruder, was not seen as necessary.

I think the Titanic would have turned more quickly simply because that is just the way hydro(and aero really)dynamics works. Both in the air and in the water, you're going to have a quicker and better response at a higher speed than at a lower speed. Only problem is that if there is too much speed, the inertia might be overwhelming. I certainly don't thing this would have been a problem with Titanic though, she was heavy, long, and enough of the hull was submerged.

Jessica

I agree with first_matey. There should have been binoculars. It is that fact which has contribured to the disaster far greater than the size of the rudder.

they were probly also guessing that if she ever did sink it would be during the middle of the day. how often do ships sink at night? the ship was designed with the idea that there would be plenty of clearance between her and what she was trying to avoid. the makers of the ship figured that she'd at least be able to see what it was that was an obsticle and then avoid it

Maybe the ship was not designed that well at all. Having watretight bulkheads only extending halfway was rather dumb.

The ship was designed quite well, it's just that Andrews was ignored on some pretty important things (double-hull, life boats, bulkheads, etc.). I actually think she was quite amazing as she was for that time period. I mean, look at what those men came up with, and without all that college education in engineering that we have now. How well Andrews thought everything out I think is amazing.

Jessica

Andrew would have implemented them where it not for one fact, "COST", these measures mentioned would have been both costly, and unusual for the time. They also figured that if the ship was damaged enough for the height of bulkheads to make a difference, that indicates she has taken in more than a survivable weight of water, and the ship would experience a fatal loss of bouncy, and she would have went down.

With regards to the lifeboats, Andrews didn't ignore them. He actually installed a relatively new type of davit that could carry and extra row of boats, and therefore be able to carry everyone. But "Upper Management" declined to put in the extra boats because they thought the deck would look too cluttered. Plus, the ship was unsinkable, right?

Quote:
college education would hav helped