Asgard no more.

Run_to_da_hills

Charlie Haughy is currently turning in his grave at this news.

Minister for Defence Willie O'Dea has announced that he has accepted the recommendation of the Asgard Committee, Coiste an Asgard, to leave the ship where it is and not be lifted.

Minister O'Dea said that there was a risk that €2m could be spent on a salvage effort and maintenance that might be wasted.

AdvertisementThe Minister's statement reveals that Coiste an Asgard feared parents would not let their children sail on a vessel that had already sunk once.

The founder of a campaign to raise the vessel, Gerry Burns, has described the Government's decision as a national disgrace.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0223/breaking40.htm

diverdriver

I've watched enough Discovery channel programmes on the subject of salvage and deep sea diving, (thus making me an instant expert), to realise that for once the minister it probably right. Salvage carries a lot of risks of failure, even if it succeeds there is the question of the re-fit and the cost of that. Any damage done during the salvage could rack up the cost significantly. I think it's the right decision, unfortunately.

Edit: Having read the Times article. I see that it more or less said the same thing as me. Which means my Discovery Channel education is good!

christophicus

diverdriver wrote: »

Edit: Having read the Times article. I see that it more or less said the same thing as me. Which means my Discovery Channel education is good!

Or the guys writing the article were watching the discovery channel too :P

EvilMonkey

Did they ever find out why it sank?

The Minister's statement reveals that Coiste an Asgard feared parents would not let their children sail on a vessel that had already sunk once.

Will they let their children on a new vessel with the same captain and crew that have lost one already and we don't know why.

diverdriver

From what I read, they don't know. They think it was a floating object. Which would be convenient because if there was a failure in the hull of some sort that would be inconvenient.

You don't really hear much of ships, even wooden ships sinking because of floating objects.

Time to check out Discovery channel again.

Manic Moran

You don't really hear much of ships, even wooden ships sinking because of floating objects.

Was not RMS Titanic sunk by a floating object?

NTM

diverdriver

diverdriver wrote: »

From what I read, they don't know. They think it was a floating object. Which would be convenient because if there was a failure in the hull of some sort that would be inconvenient.

You don't really hear much of ships, even wooden ships sinking because of floating objects.

Time to check out Discovery channel again.

You be suprised what you see out there. Even Containers, timber, etc, especially after a storm..

wylo

Id say O'Dea was in no form to be harassed by the likes of Matt Cooper and the rest over spending ridiculous money on raising an unsafe ship that could cost even more once its raised
Not to mention the kind of info that could get out if there was a major safety issue that was overlooked that caused it to sink, easier just to keep it down there.
good Move by Willie

That Picture gets better...

I say Willie wish he could bury it with the Asgard.

Tipsy Mac

If it was going to be raised it needed to be done as soon as was possibly, ideally in weeks not months after it went down to have any chance of her being saved. Glad to see no more cash being spent on saving it, better to start fresh. Maybe have somebody sponser the new one "Guinness Yacht" or something fitting in these cash strapped times so we are not waiting 10 years for a new one.

diverdriver

Manic Moran wrote: »

Was not RMS Titanic sunk by a floating object?

NTM

Yes indeed, that was 1912 wasn't it:P Bit of gap since!:D