New study reveals Ernest Shackleton knew 'Endurance' had structural weaknesses before its demise in 1915

Some eye-opening insights regarding the legendary "Endurance" ship have arrived. The shipwreck has sat at the bottom of Antarctica's Weddell Sea since November 1915. New findings regarding the shipwreck have been published in the journal Polar Record. Apparently, the ship went down its tragic route due to a clash with sea ice. For a long time, experts thought that it was the weakness in the ship's rudder that spelled its doom. However, this new evaluation suggests otherwise. The study claims that the ship had many flaws, and shockingly, the explorer who was aboard the vessel at the time of its sinking, Sir Ernest Shackleton, allegedly knew about them.

Legacy of Endurance

Endurance was considered the strongest polar ship ever built, according to Popular Science. The analysis by ice researcher and mechanical engineer Jukka Tuhkuri of Aalto University in Finland suggests otherwise. After around a century of its tragic sinking, the shipwreck of Endurance was discovered in 2022. Tuhkuri was also part of the mission behind its discovery. Records showcase that the vessel was carrying a 27-person crew, including Shackleton, on its last voyage.

Through the vessel Shackleton wanted to explore the coldest continent in the world, as per his journal entry on October 27, 1915, as reported by CNN. Fortunately, the entire crew was able to get out before the ship sank, and their tale of survival shot both the vessel and them into the spotlight. Shackleton's dream of completing the first overland crossing in Antarctica remained unfulfilled, but his bravery in getting every one of his crew members to safety made him a national hero and also earned him a telegram of personal congratulations from the United Kingdom's King George V. 

Challenging Shackleton

Shackleton, who led the crew, claimed that the rudder's weakness was the culprit, and experts accepted the explanation. However, Tuhkuri considered both his in-depth investigation of the remains and personal communication conducted by Shackleton and concluded that the aforementioned cause was not the reason. He claimed that the vessel had a structural weakness, which caused it to get ice-locked. Endurance did not have any diagonal beams, which contributed to its demise.

Tuhkuri explained that wooden vessels for polar exploration must have their hulls internally reinforced with diagonal support beams. This arrangement protected the ship from lateral compression provided by sea ice. Endurance, not having these beams, made them vulnerable to sea ice. "It was not designed to take pressure," Tuhkuri added. After going through Shackleton's correspondence, Tuhkuri speculates that the explorer was possibly aware of this weakness. If this assertion is true, then many of his actions may come into question.

Shackleton bought Endurance, supposedly even after knowing its misgivings. Tuhkuri believes Shackleton decided, as it was the best possible vessel he could afford at the time, for his Antarctica objective. Endurance was built for tourist visits to the Arctic during the summer, and hence, possibly did not consider the dangers of sea ice in Antarctica. The manufacturers sold it to Shackleton before the ship embarked on any Arctic tours, as they were unsure if such voyages would be possible in the upcoming World War I. Shackleton, on the other hand, may have wanted to get his Antarctic voyage on the road before World War I, and found Endurance to be an ideal candidate. 

Shackleton's claims on Endurance

Shackleton bought the ship in early 1914 and started his voyage a few months later. "If he had waited for longer, maybe he would have lost the funding he had," Tuhkuri said. "And then the war came. So maybe if he hadn't started, he would have never gone." Proof of Shackleton knowing about the importance of diagonal beams came from his communication with German explorer Wilhelm Filchner, where he advised the latter to incorporate the feature into his ship. His doubts about Endurance were illuminated in the letters to his wife, where he accepted that the current vessel was not as strong as his previous one, named "Nimrod." "I would exchange her for the old Nimrod any day now," he wrote.

Tuhkuri is unsure why Shackleton went ahead with the voyage even though he supposedly had doubts about Endurance's integrity. Dr. Ross MacPhee, senior curator in residence at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, believes that Shackleton may have taken a calculated risk. During Shackleton's time, it wasn't unheard of for explorers to go ahead with their voyages, even when the preparation wasn't up to the mark. "You have to hope for the best, do the best you can," MacPhee said of the explorer mindset during Shackleton's time. "Some decisions are not necessarily balanced decisions, because ambition very frequently trumps everything else."

Even after the ship sank, Shackleton continued to claim that Endurance was the strongest wooden ship of its time. Nobody cross-checked the claim for decades. "When somebody is a legend, it narrows our view," Tuhkuri said. "It's easy to accept the story as it is." The study challenges not only the claims regarding Endurance's strength but also cites the actual cause behind its demise, presenting a more accurate picture for future generations, rather than one dipped in fiction.