Opinion - 02 June 2002

  

 

She was built at the Stockholm shipyard to be the mightiest warship in the world, armed with 64 guns on two gun decks.

On Sunday, August 10, 1628 she undertook her maiden voyage, an act of propaganda for the King who was off beating up the Poles.

A few minutes underway and the Vasa began to heel over. Water gushed  in through the open gun ports, and, "the world's mightiest warship" sank.

Why?

The governmental enquiry at the time condemned no one, concluding that the ship was "well built -- but badly proportioned." But in the 17th century there were no scientific methods of calculating a ship's stability. Instead a system of reckonings was used based on previous observations of which ships were stable, which unstable. As often happened the "reckonings", as ship design outstripped the core of knowledge regarding stability, were not only unreliable but known to be so. With two gun decks and the larger cannon on the upper deck, the ship's builders reckoned several tons of stone ballast resting near the keel ought to do it. The principal reason for the Vasa capsizing was that the ballast was an insufficient counterweight to the guns, the upper hull, masts and sails of the ship.

Who, ought to carry the blame for the debacle that cost some 30 - 50 lives?

The Admiral in charge of the Swedish Navy? He could have stopped the voyage after a stability test had previously shown that there were serious questions concerning the Vasa's sea worthiness.
    On the other hand King Gustavus Adolphus was pressuring the navy to deliver. He wanted a ship with as many heavy guns as possible. And he had approved the Vasa's dimensions while it was the shipbuilder, Henrik Hybertsson, who was responsible for and defended the narrowness of the hull.

Yet the main reason for the tragic shambles was insufficient theoretical knowledge and competence of the period.
 


It ought to have a familiar ring. The Prime Minister schedules a meeting of the Prime Ministerial Scientific, Engineering and Innovation Council, but misses the meeting, the first one in eleven months, rather than rescheduling it, in order to attend the State Funeral of former Prime Minister John Gorton.

The Minister for Education, Science and Training, Brendan Nelson, who knows better than to believe the Nation's senior academics who have repeatedly counseled that Australia's university system is in crisis; sets up yet another Higher Education Review Consultation Process in such a way as to call into question the objectivity of the process and giving the impression all that is required is a reshuffling of the deck to fix any problems such as there may be.

The junior Minister for Science, Peter McGauran, rushes at setting up a National Research Priorities Taskforce with a consultative panel top heavy with industrialists, an engineer and scientists exclusive of, mathematicians, physicists and chemists.

There is the strong smell of instant gratification emanating from a government determinedly building a flimsy, top heavy superstructure resting on a crumbling foundation. It won't capsize during the term of this Government but it will continue to inexorably decline.

And despite the posturing of Dr. Nelson and his colleagues, palliative care is insufficient. It is after all only meant to ease the pain of the terminally ill.

Alex Reisner
The Funneled Web