From CNN Travel news:

Journey to the bottom of the sea

Travel firm offers submarine trips to see Titanic wreckage

February 26, 1998 Web posted at: 12:13 p.m. EDT (1213 GMT)

LONDON (AP) -- A British tourist agency has announced the latest in adventure vacations -- submarine trips to view the wreck of the Titanic.

WildWings said deep-diving submarines will head to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean to tour the wreck of the luxury liner, which sank in 1912, killing 1,513 out of the 2,224 people aboard.

"There will be no physical contact and no attempt will be made to remove souvenirs or anything like that. We will respect the vessel as a grave at all times," the firm's managing director John Brodie-Good said Wednesday.

Brodie-Good said the trips, which will cost $30,000, would start in early August. Two mini-submarines, carrying two tourists and a pilot each, will journey to the ill-fated White Star liner, which lies about 12,460 feet (3,800 meters) under the surface of the ocean.

-- Rose (rose364@earthlink.net), February 28, 1998

Answers

Personally, I believe that they are pushing the envelope a little too much. Going down to the ship is not an easy thing to do and involves much risk. This is about as intricate and dangerous as space travel and I think it is inviting another Titanic tragedy. Just my opinion.

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), February 28, 1998.

Rose, (trust you to spot this as well!) anyway this has sparked controversy here in the UK. Millvina Dean (Titanic survivor) was quoted in The Times(Thursday) as saying that this was a travesty to good taste and that it was people trying to cash in on the massive popularity of Titanic. Then we had somebody else write a scathing editorial on it. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with these people. But I'd be interested to hear what other people think - indeed any one got their booking in yet?

-- Simon (ia501060@ntu.ac.uk), March 02, 1998.

I agree that this whole idea seems like it's an invitation to another disaster. Read Cameron's dive journal in Wired. He makes it pretty clear that it was not a drive in the park and that there were a couple of times that he wasn't sure he was going to make it back to the top. I am also concerned with the safety of Titanic herself. The increase traffic is bound to cause damage. Even Cameron with his need to keep the Titanic undamaged for his film ran into the wreck several times during filming. The ocean at that depth is unpredictable. Like our National Forests you have the irony of people causing damage to the very thing they are trying to admire.

Crystal But you know that they'll get people to go with more money than sense. I hope that at least one person goes

-- crystal smithwick (crystal@9v.com), March 02, 1998.

Let's see: I can spend $30K US so I can skrunch myself into an 8-foot diameter titanium sphere (with no bathroom) and curl up into a fetal position for a cold, damp two hours ride to the bottom, just so I can peek through a 6-inch diameter porthole with foot-thick glass (while still in the fetal position) to look at a poorly-lit Titanic for a few minutes, then spend another two hours (still in the fetal position) riding back to the surface, all at considerable risk, **or** I can take 15 minutes and drive myself to the local cineplex, spend $5 US for a matinee showing of Titanic, sit in a comfortable seat in a theatre with lots of bathrooms, snack bar, etc., and look at a well-lighted Titanic on a 50-foot wide screen. What a tough decision!

Cheers!

-- Kip Henry (kip-henry@ouhsc.edu), March 02, 1998.

I had thought going down and seeing the wreck would be enjoyable, until I saw some of the footage from the movie and TV shows with people peering through the 6-inch windows Kip mentioned. That pretty much ended that idea.

I have heard rumors that some people have suggested running regular trips of tourists down to see the Britannic, which is in somewhat better shape than the Titanic and lies only 300-400 feet below the surface, in the Agean Sea, near the Greek coast. I heard somewhere that Bob Ballard had even talked about this possibility. That would interest me.

-- Thomas Shoebotham (cathytom@ix.netcom.com), March 02, 1998.

That is really off! When I bought the Titanic game, my husband accused me of being ghoulish. I have always been fascinated by the story and I wanted to explore the ship, and it was great. It made it a lot more personal to me, just as the movie did for a lot of people. But I think touring the site will cause damage to it, much faster than it would normally decay, and it is dangerous, and I wouldn't even dream of going down there. But to go there to sightsee? That is ghoulish!

-- Lianne (liannegraham@one.net.au), March 05, 1998.

I would recommend that anyone who has an interest in Bob Ballard's future plans regarding "Britannic" and other projects, go to this site and listen to his presentation concerning that and Titanic and the rest of his association with the National Geographic Society. He is a great speaker and it is most interesting. It runs about an hour and a half and you will need the Real Audio player to hear it. Get a cup of coffee (or whatever) and sit back and listen. In my opinion, you won't be dissapointed! Here is the site:

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/society/ngo/lectures/98spring/ballard.html

Regards, Peter

-- Peter Nivling (pcnivling@capecod.net), March 06, 1998.

Robert Ballard, who found Titanic, I think that he wanted the site protected.I would like to go down to the Titanic, but don't have the money.People who go down and look at the ship, should realize that the Titanic wreck site should be protected.When I heard about the Titanic 6 years ago, I thought was just made up. Now I know the truth about the Titanic.

-- Michael Scott Maxey (darlene@4wizzard.net), August 17, 1999.