MMarsh Ars Praefectus
10y
4,490
Subscriptor
p-chapman said:
Ok, if Shackleton would have known about what seemed to work in the Antarctic ice, why did Shackleton cheap out for the Endurance?
Wikipedia suggests that the fully equipped, custom-built Discovery cost 51,000 pounds.
Ignoring British inflation adjustments over the next decade or so, Endurance was bought for 11,600 pounds. (And he also spent 3,200 pounds on the Aurora, the smaller 2nd ship for the expedition group at the other side of the Antarctic continent -- this was all about an Antarctic land crossing, after all.) However, the Discovery was slightly over twice the GRT (gross registered tonnage) of the Endurance. (GRT isn't always the best metric, as for example the bulbous Fram, shorter than the Endurance, still has a larger GRT.)
So let's say that a smaller custom-built ship the size of the Endurance would have been, say 2/3rds the cost (as cost won't scale linearly). Thus something like 34k custom build cost vs. 12k for the actual Endurance. Plus some additional customization costs for the Endurance that must have been added on afterwards.
In any case, well over twice the cost to buy a custom ship for likely the biggest expense of the expedition!
(I suppose the cost ratio would have been guessed by anyone buying a depreciated used car vs. a new one...)
What about the diagonally reinforced Deutschland ship, mentioned in this article?
Shackleton was well aware of it, as he had wanted to buy it for his earlier 1907 expedition. But as wikipedia notes:
Thus at one point even 11,000 pounds, less than Endurance's cost, was too much for his finances.
So I won't write Shackleton off as being a dumbass when it came to choosing a ship. But it still bears looking into, just what the Endurance's structure was, how it compares to the Fram and Discovery and Deutschland -- and whether any useful reinforcements could have added at moderate cost within a reasonable time.
Cost was certainly a factor. If you don't have £50,000 available, but can scrounge up £11,600, then your choices are to either go in the cheaper ship or don't go at all. Men like Shackleton don't wait for the money to turn up. They do what they can with what they can get now.
Also worth noting is that the design compromises required to make a ship really good at freezing into pack ice tend to make it relatively miserable to live with at other times. It'll have a hull shape that yields a less comfortable motion in ocean waves. It'll be heavier for its length and beam, thus slower and less able to get out of the way of bad weather. It'll be crisscrossed internally by beams and braces that make it awkward to live and work aboard. A higher percentage of its total displacement will be its own structure, leaving less for people and cargo; thus, it needs to be bigger for the same usable capacity. That, in turn, makes it more expensive to maintain and operate after you've paid off the higher initial cost.
Designing Endurance to handle bumping into ice floes, but not to freeze into pack ice, was a perfectly reasonable decision for the ship's original mission. Picking it for the expedition was a justified risk, against the backdrop of all the other insane risks being taken by the very nature of the expedition. Letting it freeze into the pack ice was not planned or wanted – it was simply the only possible option left to Shackleton after all other options had been closed off by conditions that, until they happened, could only be foreseen as a vague and imprecise probability or possibility. //
atomicpowerrobot Smack-Fu Master, in training
3y
66
ramases said:
It is called the Action Fallacy. It describes our tendency to elevate leaders who appear decisive in a crisis over leaders who manage to avoid the crisis in the first place.
Martin Gutmann talks about it specifically within the context of Ernest Shackleton:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Z9IpTVfUg
Click to expand...
The Action Fallacy isn't really appropriate here b/c the bar isn't "not getting stuck in the Antarctic Ice" but rather "crossing the Antarctic continent by land first". First being a critical part of that bar. It was difficult enough to secure funding for these "Exploration Age" adventures but nobody was going to fund anyone to do it second.
By the definition of the Action Fallacy, you are a better leader than Shackleton b/c you did not get a bunch of men stuck in the ice in the Antarctic by choosing the wrong ship. But you also didn't attempt to be the first person to cross the Antarctic continent by land.
Shackleton had previously nearly made it to be the first person to reach the South Pole, having to turn around and very nearly starving on his return journey, after which he lost out on that particular honor to Roald Amundsen. His "settling" for the Endurance was likely a concession made in an attempt to win honors for himself, his (volunteer) crew, and his country.
Of course you evaluate the risks, but at a certain point, for the immortal honors of doing something first, you pays your moneys and you takes your chances.
His legendary advertisement for the expedition read:
"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success."
Now that may have been real, or it may have been apocryphal, but it does accurately represent the situation that all of the men knowingly signed up for.
icosapode said:
I personally think it's important to have a clear eyed understanding of people who are often held up as heroes. A more nuanced picture that includes their faults as well as strengths doesn't diminish the things they did achieve after all.
That negates the point of having heroes though. We don't celebrate heroes for their faults. We all have faults - pointing out that they are no different is counterproductive. We celebrate them for the things they DID achieve beyond the standard works of men and women. Sniping at dead men who did great things b/c they weren't perfect is petty and driven by envy.
You don't have to idolize Shackleton's trip planning to recognize him as the type of man you want when the chips are down. As was said of him:
“For scientific discovery give me Scott; for speed and efficiency of travel give me Amundsen; but when disaster strikes and all hope is gone, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton.”
p-chapman Ars Centurion
7y
220
Continuing trying to be an amateur historian in the time span of only a few minutes -- There's a lot more back and forth one can get into, regarding Shackelton's knowledge of ice and choice of ships.
Shackleton certainly knew something about building for ice, so he wasn't entirely ignorant:
[Edit: That's sort of the TL;DR of this long winded post. Shackleton certainly had some experience with ships for ice. Getting a custom built ship probably was far too much for his finances. As arjalon wrote, it was likely Endurance or nothing.]
For a 1902 British government expedition, with Robert F. Scott in charge, and Shackleton as 3rd officer or something, the custom built ship RRS Discovery was described this way:
Having observed previous expedition boats, particularly Nansen’s Fram, he [Scott] knew how to maximize the Discovery’s chances of not becoming enmeshed in the ice. The ship had therefore been designed with a well-rounded, bulbous hull made from thick wooden beams which meant it could rise up without being crushed by the extreme pressure caused by million-ton ice floes on the move.
[in Ranulph Fiennes' book on Shackleton]
Well, a quick look at pics makes the Discovery look fairly conventional, with some slab sides up top at least, and wikipedia says this:
Early discussions on building a dedicated polar exploration ship considered replicating Fridtjof Nansen's ship Fram, but that vessel was designed specifically for working through the pack ice of the Arctic. The British ship would have to cross thousands of miles of open ocean before reaching the Antarctic, so a more conventional design was chosen.
Still, it goes on to describe all the various heavy wooden construction used in the ship, so it was heavily reinforced, in some manner. But I don't know about whether diagonal reinforcing, as opposed to heavier hull, ribs, and cross beams. (The Fram had some diagonals.)
Whatever the details of its construction, the Discovery was stuck in Antarctic ice for two years. And came out OK.
So it might not have been a Fram-like gold standard, but would have been well regarded as very suitable.
Ok, if Shackleton would have known about what seemed to work in the Antarctic ice, why did Shackleton cheap out for the Endurance?
Wikipedia suggests that the fully equipped, custom-built Discovery cost 51,000 pounds.
Ignoring British inflation adjustments over the next decade or so, Endurance was bought for 11,600 pounds. (And he also spent 3,200 pounds on the Aurora, the smaller 2nd ship for the expedition group at the other side of the Antarctic continent -- this was all about an Antarctic land crossing, after all.) However, the Discovery was slightly over twice the GRT (gross registered tonnage) of the Endurance. (GRT isn't always the best metric, as for example the bulbous Fram, shorter than the Endurance, still has a larger GRT.)
So let's say that a smaller custom-built ship the size of the Endurance would have been, say 2/3rds the cost (as cost won't scale linearly). Thus something like 34k custom build cost vs. 12k for the actual Endurance. Plus some additional customization costs for the Endurance that must have been added on afterwards.
In any case, well over twice the cost to buy a custom ship for likely the biggest expense of the expedition!
(I suppose the cost ratio would have been guessed by anyone buying a depreciated used car vs. a new one...)
What about the diagonally reinforced Deutschland ship, mentioned in this article?
Shackleton was well aware of it, as he had wanted to buy it for his earlier 1907 expedition. But as wikipedia notes:
Unfortunately, Christiansen's price – £11,000, or approximately £1,150,000 in 2018 terms[3] – was beyond Shackleton's means; he eventually acquired the much older, smaller Nimrod for around half of Bjørn's price
Thus at one point even 11,000 pounds, less than Endurance's cost, was too much for his finances.
So I won't write Shackleton off as being a dumbass when it came to choosing a ship. But it still bears looking into, just what the Endurance's structure was, how it compares to the Fram and Discovery and Deutschlan -- and whether any useful reinforcements could have added at moderate cost within a reasonable time.
Again, this is all a quick & dirty look at the subject and I'm sure one can find more and better evidence for all sorts of opinions & counter opinions.
Rirere Ars Centurion
12y
263
Subscriptor++
Wheels Of Confusion said:
Seems to me competence might include not making a voyage in a ship you're well-informed isn't up to the task. That's like having to make an important cross-continental road trip on a beater with bad spark plugs.
Now now, I didn't say that the competence was all Shackleton!
While I do think Shackleton demonstrated some admirable on-the-ice leadership (but also some questionable decisions, of which the most infamous is probably his treatment of the carpenter, McNish), the name I was actually thinking of was Frank Worsley, who navigated during the journey of the James Caird through 800 miles of the nastiest weather and waves imaginable using a sextant and brief moments of sun, hitting an island at that distance that was more or less the size of a speck compared to the open seas.
wow, that's a long sentence oops //
ramases Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
14y
8,332
Subscriptor++
Wheels Of Confusion said:
Seems to me competence might include not making a voyage in a ship you're well-informed isn't up to the task. That's like having to make an important cross-continental road trip on a beater with bad spark plugs.
It is called the Action Fallacy. It describes our tendency to elevate leaders who appear decisive in a crisis over leaders who manage to avoid the crisis in the first place.
Martin Gutmann talks about it specifically within the context of Ernest Shackleton:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0Z9IpTVfUg //
Nooge Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
11y
188
Subscriptor
TheColinous said:
There is no accounting for the urge "If I don't get there first, the wrong 'un will get there before me" to explain why people take risks that in hindsight prove less than intelligent.
The thing is this was his already his third trip to Antartica, having failed twice (on the Discovery and Nimrod expeditions) to be first to the pole (Amundsen was first). He was already knighted. But he wanted to be first to cross the entire Antarctic from sea to sea. Despite his failure on Endurance he chose to return to the Antarctic a fourth time but died of a heart attack en route. The guy just couldn’t get enough.
There’s a podcast called Cautionary Tales that I highly recommend in general, but especially the mini series on the Antarctic expeditions of Scott and Amundsen, the two explorers whose race to the South Pole was intertwined. It explores the motivations of the men and how that affected their decisions and errors.
Here’s the first episode
View: https://omny.fm/shows/cautionary-tales-with-tim-harford/south-pole-race-david-and-goliath-on-ice //
c1josh Seniorius Lurkius
15y
5
When the 'Endurance' was launched (as 'Polaris') in Dec. 1912, as a ship designed for interaction with ice, it was not designed for extended polar exploration. It was built to bring wealthy tourists to the edges of the ice for hunting big game. 'Fram' a true polar exploration ship was launched 20 years earlier and successfully survived extended periods of time frozen into pack ice in the Arctic. She was designed by Colin Archer for the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen.
The key design feature was a hull that didn't include any vertical portions below the waterline. It was designed to be lifted by the ice as the pressure increased, not crushed. And it was build HEAVILY, at 5m shorter and 50 tons heavier than 'Endurance'. //
Oldmanalex Ars Legatus Legionis
13y
11,321
Subscriptor++
citizencoyote said:
It's not criticizing Shackleton, it's asking a very valid question: why did someone with so much experience, knowledge, and preparation make such an obvious mistake/gamble? Was it hubris? Lack of funding? A combination of both? Some other reason? We won't ever know because Shackleton never explained his reasoning.
In a nutshell: the article doesn't say, "Wow, what a bonehead Shackleton was," it asks, "Why would someone otherwise so experienced make this choice?"
Because it was that or nothing. And Shackleton, like the other great explorers of the age, was a risk-taker. Any person who would take a wooden boat deep into the Weddell (or the Beaufort) Sea is someone who has more than my tolerance for risk. And risk-taking involves an assumption that bad luck will not occur. Erebus and Terror sailed on an assumption that they would not enter the Arctic in the three coldest successive years of the 19th century, and when they did, they were buggered. Scott did not assume that the Antarctic winter would be so unusually cold that his sled runners would be unable to melt a lubricating water layer, and Shackleton did not assume that he would be caught in an unusually bad Antarctic ice season.
And look at the timing. In August 1914, there were other things on most peoples' minds. And Shackleton's misjudgments here cost several men great hardship, and one several appendages. At the same time, the world leaders made decisions that killed over 20 million.
And look at ourselves. We know the risks we are taking, and the consequences. But, we are drifting into both a loss of our (relative) freedom, and a possible human extinction, because we cannot tell a few hundred greedy psychopaths to change course on global destruction. I think Shackleton would have been embarrassed on our behalf. //
matt_w Ars Scholae Palatinae
17y
1,169
One of my favorite songs is a Chris Thile cover of a Josh Ritter song that romanticizes this story.
You could feel the tension—passengers staring at their watches, refreshing airline apps, sighing loudly, and shifting uncomfortably in their seats.
After we had all boarded and settled into the growing frustration of the unknown, the pilot stepped out of the cockpit, walked into the cabin, stood where we could all see him, and addressed the entire plane face-to-face.
“I want to start with an apology,” he said.
Just one sentence—seven words, to be precise—is all it took to make a huge difference in the overall experience for everyone on board. Nothing about the delay was his fault. Pilots don’t schedule thunderstorms or control air traffic flow. He hadn’t caused the delay, and he certainly wasn’t to blame for the chain reaction it was causing in all of our carefully planned travel itineraries. But he still began with an apology.
In that moment, the mood on the plane shifted. The pilot didn’t magically make the delay go away, and it didn’t guarantee that everyone would make their connection, but it did something almost as powerful—it made everyone feel seen. It made everyone on the plane feel like someone understood how frustrating the situation was and cared enough to acknowledge it. //
What the captain did at that moment offers three lessons every leader should remember:
He came to us
He started with empathy
He made it clear he was on our side
History and current society are exceptionally harsh on conservative leaders. Because conservatism often finds itself on the side of rules and law, the leaders end up like a parent who always has to say no. Modern liberalism is rooted in essentially telling everyone yes, every time. Liberal leaders’ loyalty is to the whims of the crowd. Conservativism is loyal to moral law. Conservatives are willing to draw a line, whether people are offended or not, and it usually doesn’t go over well.
Things change in a crisis, though. //
In a crisis the people want leaders who have something else as their anchor – something above the noise of the crowd – something called conviction.
Netanyahu may be many things. He may be overbearing, he may sometimes come on too strong, and he may sometimes drift amiss in his zeal. But one thing that cannot said of him is that he does not love his country enough to do the hard things for them. He is willing to be hated to do what he believes is right. He has endured criticism on literally every side. He has been immovable when the whole world was against him, literally. //
Whether it be days, weeks, months, or years that Netanyahu has left in office, eventually, the next leader will come. They will have their chance to leave their legacy and make decisions that chart the course for the nation of Israel. We will elect our own president at the end of this year. Whatever the course may be, for both of our nations, let us hope that we are led by strong men or women of courage and moral fortitude, for it is a pitiful thing for a great nation to be led by a coward.
all the tags from https://b.plas.ml
1st-amendment 2nd-amendment 4th-amendment 5th-amendment 9/11 a8 abortion acl adhd afghanistan africa a/i air-conditioning amateur-radio amazon america american android animals anti-americanism antifa anti-semitism antiv antivirus aoip apollo apple appliances archaeology architecture archive art astronomy audio automation avatar aviation backup bash batteries belleville bible biden bill-of-rights biology bookmarks books borg bush business calibre camping capitalism cellphone censorship chemistry children china christianity church cia clinton cloud coldwar communication communist composed computers congress conservatives constitution construction cooking copyleft copyright corruption cosmology counseling creation crime cron crypto culture culture-of-death cummins data database ddt dd-wrt defense democrats depression desantis development diagrams diamonds disinformation diy dns documentation dokuwiki domains dprk drm drm-tpm drugs dvd dysautonomia earth ebay ebola ebook economics education efficiency electricity electronics elements elwa email energy engineering english environment environmentalism epa ethernet ethics europe euthanasia evolution faa facebook family fbi fcc feminism finance firewall flightsim flowers fonts français france fraud freebsd free-speech fun games gardening genealogy generation generators geography geology gifts git global-warming google gop government gpl gps graphics green-energy grounding hdd-test healthcare help history hollywood homeschool hormones hosting houses hp html humor hunting hvac hymns hyper-v imap immigration india infosec infotech insects instruments interesting internet investing ip-addressing iran iraq irs islam israel itec j6 journalism jumpcloud justice kindle kodi language ldap leadership leftist leftists legal lego lgbt liberia liberty linguistics linux literature locks make malaria malware management maps markdown marriage mars math media medical meshcentral metatek metric microbit microsoft mikrotik military minecraft minidisc missions moon morality mothers motorola movies mp3 museum music mythtv names nasa nature navigation navy network news nextcloud ntp nuclear obama ocean omega opensource organizing ortlip osmc oxygen paint palemoon paper parents passwords patents patriotism pdf petroleum pets pews photography photo-mgmt physics piano picasa plesk podcast poetry police politics pollution pornography pots prayer pregnancy presentations press printers privacy programming progressive progressives prolife psychology purchasing python quotes rabbits rabies racism radiation radio railroad reagan recipes recording recycling reference regulations religion renewables republicans resume riots rockets r-pi russia russiagate safety samba satellites sbe science sci-fi scotus secularism security servers shipping ships shooting shortwave signal sjw slavery sleep snakes socialism social-media software solar space spacex spam spf spideroak sports ssh statistics steampowered streaming supplement surveillance sync tarsnap taxes tck tds technology telephones television terrorism tesla theology thorium thumbnail thunderbird time tls tools toyota trains transformers travel trump tsa twitter typography ukraine unions united.nations unix ups usa vaccinations vangelis vehicles veracrypt video virtualbox virus vitamin vivaldi vlc voting vpn w3w war water weather web whatsapp who wifi wikipedia windows wordpress wuflu ww2 xigmanas xkcd youtube zfs