I read this online ABC News dated Today: It concerns Ballard trip to the Titanic in June

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Travel/World/Titanic_revisited_040426-1.html

A lot of people seem to think this is a bad thing, but is it? I think anything that keeps [i:a8d37cfaba]Titanic[/i:a8d37cfaba] alive is a good idea.

Well, Teamtuna,
I think Ballard wants to see for himself what shape Titanic is in as it rests on the bottom today. Myself, (which I think I expressed before) is that he will definitely be disappointed when he sees the ship. But IMO, I do not think he can blame it on other people or trips by tourists, etc. to the ship. Titanic is almost 100 years old it is going to decay.

I read he wants to keep it a memorial and the artifacts with it, I would like the artifacts if there are any left to be retrieved to go to museums so we can all enjoy looking at them and reliving history. I also know he would disagree with this, but it gives us a chance to "relive history" so to speak.

I also agree, and many of us "Titanic Addicts" lovers also will that yes, it does keep Titanic alive, for us anywa

I agree - one of the things I've noticed is that a [i:579b3a9731]lot[/i:579b3a9731] of the people who want to keep [i:579b3a9731]Titanic[/i:579b3a9731] "off limits" in one way or another - keeping the ship itself from becoming a destination, or not bringing the artifacts up - have been down there, and frankly that smacks of a ccertain amount of elitism. Unconcious, perhaps, but there is a pattern there. One of the most useful things the exhibit does is bring the ship to thousands who will never get a chance to get close to it in real life.

Please notice I am not saying everyone who objects to artifact retrieval is someone who has been down there - only that a lot of the more vocal leaders have, and there is a pattern there.

I very much agree with you Tuna. I would never have been able to make it to the actualy Titanic resting site, nor would I be able to make it to the gravesites of passengers, or Southampton for that matter. So, when I went to 2 different museums hosting a Titanic Exhibit I was so thrilled just to see some of the many artifacts, because, you're exactly right, it gives us a link to the ship which we would otherwise never have. I say bring up anything and everything they can!

I agree that any artifacts that can be brought up should be brought up. I don't think that taking chunks of wood and metal (for display purposes)would be appropriate but loose artifacts that are just strewn about, I would love to see some of those. I've only been to one Titanic exhibit, it was held on the Queen Mary in Long Beach and the amount of things that were there, while not a tremendous amount, were absolutely fascinating. The kind of people in this forum could definitely appreciate those things.

PS. Isn't that idea for an underwater camera cool? I think it would be awesome to go to a website and look at Titanic, underwater, and see it as it looks at that exact time.

I love the idea, but can you give me more details? And how are they going to be lighting it? I know that one of the reasons something like that would be prohibatively expensive s they need specially-made light bulbs that can manage the pressure down there and that don't need changing.

I have no idea; excellent question. I don't think that that article said how the camera idea would be accomplished (which is probably why it hasn't been done yet) There are already lights that can stand the pressure, how else would they be able to see when they go down there? For long term use though, I have no idea what lighting technology they would need. :?