Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”
https://twitter.com/GioBenitez/status/1671954007261151237
206 comments
> Sometimes they stick their neck out because they don't actually understand the risks and consequences, but they are pretending that they do.
Or they are just adrenaline junkies with far smaller risk threshold than typical human.
In general there was a ton of red flags but as probably nobody gets to that level of money without ability to sell the stuff they are pedding, he probably sold the fact the submarine has successfully dived so it is "tested".
Or they are just adrenaline junkies with far smaller risk threshold than typical human.
In general there was a ton of red flags but as probably nobody gets to that level of money without ability to sell the stuff they are pedding, he probably sold the fact the submarine has successfully dived so it is "tested".
If the rumors about the window being certified to a maximum safe depth of 1300m are true, we’re well in “crazy negligent” territory. It’d be a surprise the sub survived so long.
Probably. He'd probably think Russian roulette was a safe game if he survived a round of it.
3) Something else than naive
"The OceanGate CEO who is trapped on a 22-foot submersible on an ill-fated voyage to see the Titanic wreck once explained how he didn’t hire “50-year-old white guys” with military experience to captain his vessels because they weren’t “inspirational.”
The CEO, Stockton Rush, added that “expertise was unnecessary” because “anybody can drive the sub” with a $30 video game controller." [0]
[0] https://www.outkick.com/trapped-oceangate-ceo-refused-to-hir...
"The OceanGate CEO who is trapped on a 22-foot submersible on an ill-fated voyage to see the Titanic wreck once explained how he didn’t hire “50-year-old white guys” with military experience to captain his vessels because they weren’t “inspirational.”
The CEO, Stockton Rush, added that “expertise was unnecessary” because “anybody can drive the sub” with a $30 video game controller." [0]
[0] https://www.outkick.com/trapped-oceangate-ceo-refused-to-hir...
The target of the adventure is also surprisingly ironic.
The Titanic is one of the most notorious icons of human hubris. And these tourists died to the same.
The Titanic is one of the most notorious icons of human hubris. And these tourists died to the same.
Is it an icon of human hubris or simply a tragedy that they didn’t think could happen? I.e. did they take undue risks because of the belief that it was unsinkable? There was another boat not too far off when it sank so presumably they were taking normal risks and it was just an unfortunate way to learn that their belief that it was unsinkable was wrong.
Or are you referring to the insufficient number of lifeboats? I haven’t seen any evidence that other ships carried a larger number of lifeboats relative to their size.
Or are you referring to the insufficient number of lifeboats? I haven’t seen any evidence that other ships carried a larger number of lifeboats relative to their size.
> Is it an icon of human hubris or simply a tragedy that they didn’t think could happen?
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120402-the-myth-of-the-... (Titanic anniversary: The myth of the unsinkable ship)
"There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable and nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers." Phillip Franklin, White Star Line vice-president, 1912
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20120402-the-myth-of-the-... (Titanic anniversary: The myth of the unsinkable ship)
"There is no danger that Titanic will sink. The boat is unsinkable and nothing but inconvenience will be suffered by the passengers." Phillip Franklin, White Star Line vice-president, 1912
I don’t deny that this was the prevailing wisdom but did it lead to them taking any extra risk (relative to what other ships did at the time) as a result?
It's been argued both ways for a hundred and eleven years now, but my understanding of the current historical consensus is that they weren't doing anything especially unusual for ocean liners of the day, either in design or in operation, and indeed had altered course further south in response to iceberg warnings received by radio on the 14th.
It's considered to be true that the prioritization of on-time arrival and the belief that the ships of the day were too well designed to founder contributed to the disaster, but rather than representing unique hubris on the part of Titanic's builders and captain, these are understood to have been common throughout the passenger shipping industry of the day.
It's considered to be true that the prioritization of on-time arrival and the belief that the ships of the day were too well designed to founder contributed to the disaster, but rather than representing unique hubris on the part of Titanic's builders and captain, these are understood to have been common throughout the passenger shipping industry of the day.
Uh, the Titanic ran into an gigantic piece of ice which caused it to sink, the previous quote is the context for that.
This submarine likely decompressed, killing the CEO and I believe 3 rich tourists because they didn't believe they needed to check the health of their submersible, firing the people that raised security concerns.
I think it's safe to say that both captains were full of hubris
This submarine likely decompressed, killing the CEO and I believe 3 rich tourists because they didn't believe they needed to check the health of their submersible, firing the people that raised security concerns.
I think it's safe to say that both captains were full of hubris
Well, this explains a lot... they didn't have a window rated for the right depth and weren't really testing whether the hull was de-laminating according to the whistleblower, so we have a few guesses as to why the sub would just implode.
The lack of contact would be because nobody was alive to contact, which is honestly better, at least they had a quick death instead of slow suffocation.
And the banging noises are probably either the sub imploding or from debris falling to the ocean floor.
The lack of contact would be because nobody was alive to contact, which is honestly better, at least they had a quick death instead of slow suffocation.
And the banging noises are probably either the sub imploding or from debris falling to the ocean floor.
> And the banging noises are probably either the sub imploding or from debris falling to the ocean floor.
Or something else entirely. There's a surprising amount of unexplained noise picked up from the ocean.
Or something else entirely. There's a surprising amount of unexplained noise picked up from the ocean.
Coast guard people said the noises were unrelated
The USN said they detected noises "consistent with an implosion":
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65994405
However there may have been multiple noise events.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65994405
However there may have been multiple noise events.
In the press-conference they said both end bells were found separately - no mention of whether the window was still intact. It'll be interesting to see the failure analysis.
[Edit] Link to video with a description of the major debris found: https://youtu.be/A0xJ220Fod4?t=263
"the front end-bell of the pressure hull - that was the first indication that there was a catastrophic event"
"the aft end-bell which basically...comprised the totality of that pressure vessel"
[Edit] Link to video with a description of the major debris found: https://youtu.be/A0xJ220Fod4?t=263
"the front end-bell of the pressure hull - that was the first indication that there was a catastrophic event"
"the aft end-bell which basically...comprised the totality of that pressure vessel"
Sounds like if the bells were found, but not the tube, we have the answer.
If the window failed, I would expect to have none or one bell separated from the tube, but not both. I imagine the glass being shot inside the tube and the water jet would vaporize the people inside and maybe blow one bell off.
If the tube failed, would expect both bells to be sitting on the ocean floor.
I’m not a professional mechanical engineer, just a guess.
If the window failed, I would expect to have none or one bell separated from the tube, but not both. I imagine the glass being shot inside the tube and the water jet would vaporize the people inside and maybe blow one bell off.
If the tube failed, would expect both bells to be sitting on the ocean floor.
I’m not a professional mechanical engineer, just a guess.
Agree, although if the bells are destroyed, that doesn't mean they were the failure mechanism either. It's entirely possible the tube collapsing would result in a huge water hammer effect on the bells, causing them to be shattered.
It's going to be interesting to see to what level (if any), this gets root-caused. It's not trivial to do when stuff is miles down on the ocean floor.
I assume there isn't a regulatory requirement (like a plane crash). I wonder if it's even needed from an ensuing lawsuit situation; it seems like there's plenty of evidence to support a negligence argument, without getting into the specifics of whether it's the hull that failed or the diving bell, etc.
It's going to be interesting to see to what level (if any), this gets root-caused. It's not trivial to do when stuff is miles down on the ocean floor.
I assume there isn't a regulatory requirement (like a plane crash). I wonder if it's even needed from an ensuing lawsuit situation; it seems like there's plenty of evidence to support a negligence argument, without getting into the specifics of whether it's the hull that failed or the diving bell, etc.
The NTSB is responsible for investigating maritime accidents especially if they result in death but I think it depends on which flag the mothership sailed under.
The bells are titanium iirc, I wouldn’t think they would shatter. I thought the report is they were 100+ feet apart, it’s a crazy amount of force.
They could just glide apart from whatever depth the implosion happened. The force is unfathomable but the distance is not related to it I think.
That’s fair. In my head they were at the bottom when this happened, but there is no reason to think that other than I imagined it.
Wow, that's incredible. At what depth does the water pressure reach the level that will vaporize human bodies?
Pretty good guess though.
Turns out it was. Only 20 years of composites work and I can make an OK guess!
Report I saw was de-lam or otherwise failed tube.
I wonder if it made a noise first? Like I assume that depth you get all sorts of noises anyhow but a 5” carbon tube, I wonder if it crackled first?
Report I saw was de-lam or otherwise failed tube.
I wonder if it made a noise first? Like I assume that depth you get all sorts of noises anyhow but a 5” carbon tube, I wonder if it crackled first?
This is a really great question.
That suggests it was the carbon fibre shell that failed.
If it was the Plexiglas that failed (or other part of the end bell assembly), I'd expect the pressure to quickly equalise though the failure point and the carbon fibre shell to remain relatively intact and hold those end bells together.
Though, I'm not an engineer. Maybe the rapid change in loading could result in the carbon fibre shattering.
If it was the Plexiglas that failed (or other part of the end bell assembly), I'd expect the pressure to quickly equalise though the failure point and the carbon fibre shell to remain relatively intact and hold those end bells together.
Though, I'm not an engineer. Maybe the rapid change in loading could result in the carbon fibre shattering.
No, even if the window failed the carbon shell would be blown to pieces due to the asymmetric load during the inrush phase. At that pressure difference there is nothing strong enough to withstand asymmetric loading.
Time will tell. But plexiglass has better cycling properties than carbon fiber so my guess is that hull went first.
Time will tell. But plexiglass has better cycling properties than carbon fiber so my guess is that hull went first.
I'm curious why Stockton Rush thought carbon fibre would be enough? I'm trying to find out how it would be sufficient. I'm sure we'll find out more later why it failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OceanGate#Design_and_construct...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OceanGate#Design_and_construct...
"Titan is equipped with a real-time acoustic monitoring system, which OceanGate claims can detect the onset of buckling in the carbon fiber hull prior to catastrophic failure."
I see a number of potential flaws with that plan. You are assuming it will fail in a way that produces a warning and then stays intact enough to resurface. You are also relying on an electronic device to not fail. And audio processing algorithms... how many of these carbon fibre pressure vessels did they test to destruction to get test data? Zero?
"Rush holds a patent on the system."
Ok.... I guess that explains it. I'm getting an impression of real "I'll just invent a magic device that makes it safe" energy here.
I see a number of potential flaws with that plan. You are assuming it will fail in a way that produces a warning and then stays intact enough to resurface. You are also relying on an electronic device to not fail. And audio processing algorithms... how many of these carbon fibre pressure vessels did they test to destruction to get test data? Zero?
"Rush holds a patent on the system."
Ok.... I guess that explains it. I'm getting an impression of real "I'll just invent a magic device that makes it safe" energy here.
I concur. I find that the odds of an at-scale, full production version of such a system being implemented with what was shown to be available in the vessel is highly dubious.
Besides which, it's entirely possible as well that adhesive was progressively chemically compromised, with no attempts to measure it... I can think of myriad directions to investigate
Then again, I don't have access to schemata either.... So I should really just stop. It just kills me though, because this entire event has 'preventable but I didn't want to bother' written all over it.
Besides which, it's entirely possible as well that adhesive was progressively chemically compromised, with no attempts to measure it... I can think of myriad directions to investigate
Then again, I don't have access to schemata either.... So I should really just stop. It just kills me though, because this entire event has 'preventable but I didn't want to bother' written all over it.
> this entire event has 'preventable but I didn't want to bother' written all over it.
Yes, this is precisely it. None of this had to happen, it's a combination of greed and hubris.
Yes, this is precisely it. None of this had to happen, it's a combination of greed and hubris.
Apparently another sub was made with carbon fiber and it worked fine, however that one only had a single dive because they knew that it would lose strength after each dive. It may be feasible if they had replaced it more often (I don't think they ever replaced it, and there were former staff who claim to have brought up concerns about its condition).
Doesn't directly answer your question, but somewhere I read that by using carbon fibre, the craft was positively buoyant on its own (then weighed down with ballast).
Otherwise it would need expensive pressure-resistant floatation devices.
Otherwise it would need expensive pressure-resistant floatation devices.
The root cause was just hubris.
Ironically.
Ironically.
The sub would have imploded long before they were monitoring for noises, so it's something completely different.
> they didn't have a window rated for the right depth
As I understood it, this was for the 1/3 scale model.
I still haven't seen a comprehensive write-up that assigns facts to the model vs. the final article or compares them.
As I understood it, this was for the 1/3 scale model.
I still haven't seen a comprehensive write-up that assigns facts to the model vs. the final article or compares them.
> The lack of contact would be because nobody was alive to contact
also no radio left to contact somebody with
also no radio left to contact somebody with
Sub debris found: The tail cone of the submersible was found approximately 1,600 feet from the bow of the Titanic on the sea floor, the US Coast Guard said Thursday. Officials said it was consistent with a "catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber."
"catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber" is a much better way to die than slowly running out of air in a super cramped container with a bunch of people.
It could have been the latter, followed by the former.
They said the sonar buoys would have heard the explosion so it likely happened during the initial dive
I thought they said that during the rescue effort they've been listening and haven't heard anything that sounds like what a rapid implosion would sound like. So the conclusion (publicly at least) seems to be that the implosion happened before they suffocated.
Oceangate's 2019 blog post Why Isn't Titan Classed (now only available in internet caches), is a stunning display of either deeply flawed logical thinking or a willful attempt to confuse people.
The post basically says, (1) the "vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents are the result of operator error, not mechanical failure", and (2) the vehicle classification guidelines are too stringent and stymie innovation.
A rationale person might interpret that as: (1) mechanical-related incidents are very infrequent as a percentage of total incidents, because (2) vehicle guidelines successfully minimize rates of mechanical failure, such that remaining incidents are generally operational in nature.
Oceangate ignores this implication and bluffs its way from pointing out that most incidents are operational in nature (for a sample set of largely mechanically certified crafts) to implying that a focus on operational safety is a reasonable way to minimize total risk (for an uncertified craft).
ref: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y_6Rrx...
The post basically says, (1) the "vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents are the result of operator error, not mechanical failure", and (2) the vehicle classification guidelines are too stringent and stymie innovation.
A rationale person might interpret that as: (1) mechanical-related incidents are very infrequent as a percentage of total incidents, because (2) vehicle guidelines successfully minimize rates of mechanical failure, such that remaining incidents are generally operational in nature.
Oceangate ignores this implication and bluffs its way from pointing out that most incidents are operational in nature (for a sample set of largely mechanically certified crafts) to implying that a focus on operational safety is a reasonable way to minimize total risk (for an uncertified craft).
ref: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y_6Rrx...
Move fast, break things, ignore safety protocols :-(
You're not ignoring safety protocols if you don't have them to begin with.
Safety regulations are written in blood as they say.
Sink deep, crush self.
Did Oceangate or its founder(s) say they intended to 'move fast and break things', or are you just imputing that they held those beliefs? The company purported to "maintain[] high-level operational safety".
> Metro reports that last year, when asked about the safety of the Titan submersible, Stockton Rush, OceanGate’s CEO, said, “You know, there’s a limit. At some point safety just is pure waste. I mean if you just want to be safe, don’t get out of bed. Don’t get in your car. Don’t do anything. At some point, you’re going to take some risk, and it really is a risk/reward question. I think I can do this just as safely by breaking the rules.”
https://jalopnik.com/oceangate-ceo-called-safety-a-waste-sui...
https://jalopnik.com/oceangate-ceo-called-safety-a-waste-sui...
I believe the kids call this "finding out." Or, as Feynman once put it: "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
> it really is a risk/reward question
risk: die
reward: cool pic on instagram
risk: die
reward: cool pic on instagram
Depends on the risk probability, I guess. Walking across the street has nonzero chance of dying. By that logic going to a shop for an icecream has low reward (icecream) and high risk (death).
High penalty. The risk is still a statistic, and fairly low. This guys sub had the same penalty but much higher risk.
[deleted]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OceanGate
> Rush's experience and research led him to two basic conclusions: one, that submersibles had an unwarranted reputation as dangerous vehicles due to their use in ferrying commercial divers, and two, the Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 1993 "needlessly prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation".
> Rush's experience and research led him to two basic conclusions: one, that submersibles had an unwarranted reputation as dangerous vehicles due to their use in ferrying commercial divers, and two, the Passenger Vessel Safety Act of 1993 "needlessly prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation".
Yes. The founder is on record as saying that he thinks safety is wasteful or something to that effect and many other choice quotes besides.
https://www.google.com/search?q=stockton+rush+quotes
https://www.google.com/search?q=stockton+rush+quotes
GoToRO(2)
https://web.archive.org/web/20230619161930/https://oceangate...
Pretty much says it there along with a rationalization about why the company should ignore any outside experts due to "innovation".
Pretty much says it there along with a rationalization about why the company should ignore any outside experts due to "innovation".
If the sub imploded shortly after reaching the titanic, how exactly did the people on board die? Was it an instant pressurized death? Do they drown or something?
Pressure at that depth is about 5800 psi. Imagine 3 ton, 1 cubic inch cubes being dropped on every square inch of your body from every side all at once and you'll have your answer.
Hmm, but human body is mostly solids and liquids, not very compressible. Their lungs and airways, sure, would be compressed to nothing, but what of the rest of their bodies?
Eg I'd imagine the poor souls on the Titanic next door are not crushed by the pressure, for the same reason.
Or with scuba diving, deep scuba is complicated and dangerous for many reasons, but the pressure compressing the body is not one of them.
Eg I'd imagine the poor souls on the Titanic next door are not crushed by the pressure, for the same reason.
Or with scuba diving, deep scuba is complicated and dangerous for many reasons, but the pressure compressing the body is not one of them.
Think about why a parachute works. It’s the same concept.
i'd assume the air forced into various cavities (especially the skull) would send shock waves into neighbouring tissue ripping everything apart upon surge of pressure. also probably lots of turbulence creating shearing forces also ripping everything apart. so, everybody ripped apart. titanic victims sank slowly allowing for continuous evacuation of cavities. air streaming out and water in.
Yeah but the pressure equalization happens so fast you’d almost certainly feel nothing.
Their bodies are also pressurized at 1 atms, after being exposed to 400 atms they instantly died. My guess is that they were effectively vaporized/liquified.
Much better way to go then suffocate in darkness.
Much better way to go then suffocate in darkness.
It's a good guess.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin
> Investigation by forensic pathologists determined that Hellevik, being exposed to the highest pressure gradient and in the process of moving to secure the inner door, was forced through the crescent-shaped opening measuring 60 centimetres (24 in) long created by the jammed interior trunk door. With the escaping air and pressure, it included bisection of his thoracoabdominal cavity, which resulted in fragmentation of his body, followed by expulsion of all of the internal organs of his chest and abdomen, except the trachea and a section of small intestine, and of the thoracic spine. These were projected some distance, one section being found 10 metres (30 ft) vertically above the exterior pressure door.
That's with a nine atmosphere pressure differential. The Titanic is at about 400 atmospheres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin
> Investigation by forensic pathologists determined that Hellevik, being exposed to the highest pressure gradient and in the process of moving to secure the inner door, was forced through the crescent-shaped opening measuring 60 centimetres (24 in) long created by the jammed interior trunk door. With the escaping air and pressure, it included bisection of his thoracoabdominal cavity, which resulted in fragmentation of his body, followed by expulsion of all of the internal organs of his chest and abdomen, except the trachea and a section of small intestine, and of the thoracic spine. These were projected some distance, one section being found 10 metres (30 ft) vertically above the exterior pressure door.
That's with a nine atmosphere pressure differential. The Titanic is at about 400 atmospheres.
That wiki page describes a decompression injury, which AFAIU is the opposite of implosion:
> This resulted in the chamber being explosively decompressed from a pressure of nine atmospheres to the one atmosphere of the unsealed chamber system.
Whereas an analogous description of the submarine implosion would describe the opposite, i.e. "explosively compressed from a pressure of one atmosphere to 400 atmospheres."
> This resulted in the chamber being explosively decompressed from a pressure of nine atmospheres to the one atmosphere of the unsealed chamber system.
Whereas an analogous description of the submarine implosion would describe the opposite, i.e. "explosively compressed from a pressure of one atmosphere to 400 atmospheres."
The point is the extreme, rapid force involved.
Imploding or exploding, nine atmospheres is gonna suck. 400 atmospheres is... like standing under a nuclear bomb. The good news is it doesn't hurt, at all.
Someone else on the thread posted a video of a one atmosphere implosion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz95_VvTxZM). 400x the pressure here.
Imploding or exploding, nine atmospheres is gonna suck. 400 atmospheres is... like standing under a nuclear bomb. The good news is it doesn't hurt, at all.
Someone else on the thread posted a video of a one atmosphere implosion (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz95_VvTxZM). 400x the pressure here.
Indeed. I'd be curious if there would even be a body to find. I have to imagine it'd be compressed into paste. It's very disturbing to think about, but also a preferable way to die compared to suffering through 96 hours of uncertainty before slowly asphyxiating.
I tried to find [1] how much pressure explosion of a grenade would cause. It would take a lot of grenades to get to 400 atmospheres...
- [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514183/#:~:tex...
- [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514183/#:~:tex...
I wonder if you even could, given the fact that that stuff is trying to get away from each other you'd have to get the timing right to a ridiculous degree of precision.
[deleted]
Probably combusted? At 400 atms their biomass would compress into a gelatinous hydrocarbon fat blob with the oxygen present, resulting in automatic combustion. The amount of compression their bodies would experience is an order of magnitude greater than a diesel engine cylinder. The explosion would immediately be quenched by the surrounding water and the only thing remaining of the occupants would be ash.
This would happen on the order of milliseconds.
This would happen on the order of milliseconds.
When it happened in that accident referred to elsewhere in the thread the water temp was elevated massively in that area (enclosed so measurable).
Their blood would combust instantly.
They found cooked blood after that accident too.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin
Their blood would combust instantly.
They found cooked blood after that accident too.
Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin
That accident was only 132 psi. A diesel engine causes combustion at around 300-500 psi. This accident was 3000-6000 psi, so I think it's safe to assume that the organic matter would combust almost instantly.
Why would anything, except possibly something particularly easy to ignite on a surface, ignite? The only thing being heated dramatically is the air, and a whole lot of cool water would be spraying everywhere at the same time.
Same way bubbles imploding have localised temps hotter than the sun, just that writ larger and at 400 times atmosphere.
This: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/divers-bloo...
was 'only' at nine atmospheres the titanic is at four hundred!
This: https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/divers-bloo...
was 'only' at nine atmospheres the titanic is at four hundred!
Adiabatic compression of air to 400 bar increases the absolute temperature by about a factor of 5.5, which would be the temperature of a flame.
Water, fat, etc are not nearly as compressible as air, and the thermal mass of the air involved would be a couple orders of magnitude lower than everything else.
400 bar is (from some quick searching) fairly mild for industrial hydraulic systems, and hydraulic fluid doesn’t get especially hot while in use.
On the other hand, a leak in a pressurized hydraulic system is extremely dangerous if you’re around it due to the extreme velocity of ejected fluid.
400 bar is (from some quick searching) fairly mild for industrial hydraulic systems, and hydraulic fluid doesn’t get especially hot while in use.
On the other hand, a leak in a pressurized hydraulic system is extremely dangerous if you’re around it due to the extreme velocity of ejected fluid.
Hydraulics don't get hot while in use unless you introduce air into the system, in which case they do get hot and explosive. This is called hydraulic dieseling and microdieseling. The passengers would have been surrounded by oxygen and CO2 gas, and the oxygen tank would rupture as soon as the capsule imploded.
Someone put Mythbusters on the case
They sorta did one like this ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEY3fN4N3D8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEY3fN4N3D8
Yeah, it would be curious (if morbid) to see what happens to something like an animal carcass. In most cases of submarine failure at depth e.g. the USS Scorpion no bodies are ever found.
Went to see titanic only to get turned into diesel, horrible fate
Why are people assuming this? How about a leak that fills the sub with water? Is a leak impossible to keep stable at those depths?
It depends on the depth.
But if the leak is noticed at say 20m they would have surfaced.
A leak with the amount of pressure at 1000m would cause a high speed jet like from a water cutter. That in turn would cause the material around the leak to be ground away.
This is really bad for the structural integrity and boom the whole thing implodes in a fraction of a second.
But if the leak is noticed at say 20m they would have surfaced.
A leak with the amount of pressure at 1000m would cause a high speed jet like from a water cutter. That in turn would cause the material around the leak to be ground away.
This is really bad for the structural integrity and boom the whole thing implodes in a fraction of a second.
A slow leak that filled the sub would not necessarily have lead to the vessel's destruction.
That said, you can get leaks. I participated on a research cruise with a French submersible, and there was talk of small leaks with the main hatch seal occurring during descent. The "fix" was to go deeper so the pressure would essentially seal the hatch shut.
That said, you can get leaks. I participated on a research cruise with a French submersible, and there was talk of small leaks with the main hatch seal occurring during descent. The "fix" was to go deeper so the pressure would essentially seal the hatch shut.
At 5800PSI, A leak with an area of 1/100th of a square inch would have 58 pounds of force behind the water coming in and a flow rate of about a half-a-gallon per second.
Sure I get that. A hole will be like a water cutter.
I was thinking more like a screw with resistance along the threads such that the pressure goes from 5800 psi to say 20 psi at the last thread or whatever. Then you might get a stable leak.
I was thinking more like a screw with resistance along the threads such that the pressure goes from 5800 psi to say 20 psi at the last thread or whatever. Then you might get a stable leak.
At that point, you're counting on the material that thread is sunk into to be capable of withstanding that pressure without brittle fracture, and from the wrong side.
A screw is there to resist being pulled out. If water got to those screw threads as you posit, that'd basically be like reversing the forces to which that fastener was meant to resist. You go from "big chunk of material to hold in screw" to "little triangular threadforms trying to stay joined to the material around them in spite of 5800 psi trying to transit a pressure gradient insisting otherwise."
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying if I remotely thought it was possible to end up in that situation, I'd be going back to the drawing board to try to rule out that possibility. My brain just shows me visions of a screw turned into a bullet that barely gets slowed down going through a human body after threadforms crush like tortilla chips, a water cutter blasting through somebody into the opposite ablating a hole and causing a cascaded failure that then shortly thereafter becomes diesel thoomp.
If you'll excuse me, I'm abandoning this train of thought.
A screw is there to resist being pulled out. If water got to those screw threads as you posit, that'd basically be like reversing the forces to which that fastener was meant to resist. You go from "big chunk of material to hold in screw" to "little triangular threadforms trying to stay joined to the material around them in spite of 5800 psi trying to transit a pressure gradient insisting otherwise."
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying if I remotely thought it was possible to end up in that situation, I'd be going back to the drawing board to try to rule out that possibility. My brain just shows me visions of a screw turned into a bullet that barely gets slowed down going through a human body after threadforms crush like tortilla chips, a water cutter blasting through somebody into the opposite ablating a hole and causing a cascaded failure that then shortly thereafter becomes diesel thoomp.
If you'll excuse me, I'm abandoning this train of thought.
> Why are people assuming this? How about a leak that fills the sub with water? Is a leak impossible to keep stable at those depths?
Part of this is the use of carbon fibre, which is a very brittle material. In bike frame failures, for example, carbon fibre doesn't tend to rip a little or bend, it often fractures greatly or even shatters.
Add the enormous pressure difference, and this is why most people assume instant catastrophic failure.
Part of this is the use of carbon fibre, which is a very brittle material. In bike frame failures, for example, carbon fibre doesn't tend to rip a little or bend, it often fractures greatly or even shatters.
Add the enormous pressure difference, and this is why most people assume instant catastrophic failure.
They found a debris field. That's pretty conclusively not a slow leak.
i think any small breach is an instant implosion at 400 atm
Someone on reddit did out the math- they were crushed before they had any idea what happened.
There's obvious differences between the Oceangate sub and this (1 atm difference, this is a thinner steel(?) railroad tanker not a sub), but I think it effectively demonstrates how violent and quick an implosion would be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz95_VvTxZM
Video contents: An experiment where the vacuum safety valves were removed from an oil tanker railroad car, and a vacuum was placed inside the car, resulting in it crumpling in an implosion. There is no gore or other specific disturbing content
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz95_VvTxZM
Video contents: An experiment where the vacuum safety valves were removed from an oil tanker railroad car, and a vacuum was placed inside the car, resulting in it crumpling in an implosion. There is no gore or other specific disturbing content
The sub wasn't steel, it was a carbon fibre weave. The tiniest crack would have caused catastrophic shattering of the hull.
For every ten meters of descent, pressure increases by 1 atmosphere. At 4000 meters, that's 400 atm, or ~40 Mega Pascals, which is significantly higher than the pressure caused by the bomb that leveled a building in Oklahoma.
The hull shattered catastrophically, and the pressure wave liquified the occupants instantly. It's horrifying, but at least it was painless.
For every ten meters of descent, pressure increases by 1 atmosphere. At 4000 meters, that's 400 atm, or ~40 Mega Pascals, which is significantly higher than the pressure caused by the bomb that leveled a building in Oklahoma.
The hull shattered catastrophically, and the pressure wave liquified the occupants instantly. It's horrifying, but at least it was painless.
Yup - and if someone had been inside the tank in that YouTube video they’d likely have been dead almost instantly too when it imploded. (Even if we forget about the vacuum)
Probably the fastest and least painful way to die, short of sitting on a 2000 lb bomb or the like when it goes off.
Probably the fastest and least painful way to die, short of sitting on a 2000 lb bomb or the like when it goes off.
[deleted]
Interesting a commenter on the video notes the pressure there is equivalent to only 10 meters underwater. Imagine the force 2 miles below
10 meters of water is one atmosphere, so they're right - 0 on the inside and 1 on the outside is a pressure differential of one atmosphere.
"almost 4000 meters of water" is "almost 400 atmospheres". About 2.7 tons per square inch. I find that that absolutely unimaginable. - I can't find any equivalence that my brain can make sense of.
"almost 4000 meters of water" is "almost 400 atmospheres". About 2.7 tons per square inch. I find that that absolutely unimaginable. - I can't find any equivalence that my brain can make sense of.
I am probably too stupid, but how is that possible? A lot of divers go 10 meters underwater and don't die of pressure, right?
Well, sea level is at 1 atm already, so an increase to 2 atm isn't immediately catastrophic. However, if you took that tank filled entirely with sea level air and shoved it down 30 feet under the water the same thing would happen. It instantly crumples because its hollow. We're full of water with some air in a couple places. We'd crumple too if we were just a layer of skin over an air sac. But as it stands, the human body can withstand that pressure alright
Pressure equalizes as they descend slowly. It's different from descending 4000m inside an armoured can and have it all released upon you in a split second.
Humans are less compressible than an empty steel tank (being mostly water) and when they dive they don't teleport from 0 to 10 meters in an instant.
When death occurs faster than nerve impulses can travel to/in the brain, yeah.
For context, some numbers I saw estimated the implosion would take about 1ms, and it takes about 25ms for signals to travel from nerve endings to the brain.
So what you're saying is, there is a reliable means of death that is, in all likelihood, more humane than any practiced by states with capital punishment?
It's a good question, I was wondering the same. Do we even have any sort of artificial means for generating that kind of pressure? I suppose we could drop someone into a trash compactor, but it might be difficult to convince people that's more humane than a simple injection, even if it technically is.
Explosives.
No time to drown, when the pressure vessel failed they basically found themselves in a hydraulic press. The entire thing would have imploded as the pressure inside the vessel went from 1 to 400atm.
Instantly too, as carbon fibre is brittle, this would not have been a progressive process.
Instantly too, as carbon fibre is brittle, this would not have been a progressive process.
I am wondering the same. Everyone is talking about the rapid implosion of the sub, but can we assume that the bodies just got instantly crushed into nothing?
Lets put it this way.
If it was structurally compromised, the implosion would be so fast, a combustion event a la what happens in diesel engines would have occurred.
There would be no bodies. There would only be shreds of pressure hull.
The titanium hemispheres may have maintained their shape. There is a slight chance it may have been a pinhole leak, and someone had a second to go "Uh..." before the rest of the structure started giving way.
It is clear that even these "strain gauges and microphones" to detect compromise of the structure were useless, or that the issure ultimately rested on the window in the front.
The main point to keep in mind is that short of finding the two hemispheres in the next day or so, we'll likely not know the full details with regard to the course of events of the unmaking of the vehicle.
The Sea has claimed them, and she is wont to give up her dead. Hubris, met by the cold hard edge of reality, has proven to be an insufficient aegis once again.
May they rest in peace.
If it was structurally compromised, the implosion would be so fast, a combustion event a la what happens in diesel engines would have occurred.
There would be no bodies. There would only be shreds of pressure hull.
The titanium hemispheres may have maintained their shape. There is a slight chance it may have been a pinhole leak, and someone had a second to go "Uh..." before the rest of the structure started giving way.
It is clear that even these "strain gauges and microphones" to detect compromise of the structure were useless, or that the issure ultimately rested on the window in the front.
The main point to keep in mind is that short of finding the two hemispheres in the next day or so, we'll likely not know the full details with regard to the course of events of the unmaking of the vehicle.
The Sea has claimed them, and she is wont to give up her dead. Hubris, met by the cold hard edge of reality, has proven to be an insufficient aegis once again.
May they rest in peace.
Update: they found the two ends.
Implying the middle carbon fiber imploded.
Implying the middle carbon fiber imploded.
Not finding the CF cylinder really does seem like the most telling part here. Given they've found the front, the back, and the bottom, you'd think the single largest component would be laying around in the same area. Unless ..
[deleted]
[deleted]
> can we assume that the bodies just got instantly crushed into nothing?
Bodies are mostly water, which is not compressible. So not really. But all the voids would have filled very quickly: the sinuses, ears, trachea, and lungs would have collapsed instantly. The bodies would also have been "pasted" against the opposite bulkhead to the failure, as unlike water the air around them would have been very compressible indeed.
Bodies are mostly water, which is not compressible. So not really. But all the voids would have filled very quickly: the sinuses, ears, trachea, and lungs would have collapsed instantly. The bodies would also have been "pasted" against the opposite bulkhead to the failure, as unlike water the air around them would have been very compressible indeed.
Depending on your definition of 'instantly' and 'crushed' yes.
Milliseconds, at most.
Milliseconds, at most.
I think "before realization, fear, or even pain set in" is well within everyone's definition of instant death.
Yes, that was the point. You wouldn't even know what happened. That cargo wagon depressurization and implosion video linked from elsewhere in this thread is a very nice demo, but it only has one atmosphere to work with. And I can't even see the state change on the frame-by-frame, just a very brief hint that something is about to happen (slight deformation), and in the next frame it's all crumpled up and bent.
Well, if you had to die, that's sure a nice way to go about it.
Not that anyone had to die.
I'll watch the drone footage of the deep ocean, thanks.
Not that anyone had to die.
I'll watch the drone footage of the deep ocean, thanks.
It's explosives-induced explosion level of pressure. Big explosion
[dupe] or merge
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36437120
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36437120
Almost as interesting as this story has been the comments online.
Everyone, everywhere just parroting and re-parroting the same comments, attitude, pretending to understand the engineering with snippets from comments they’ve read, reactive talking points, etc…
Very strange.
Did anyone else feel like an alien following this story online?
Everyone, everywhere just parroting and re-parroting the same comments, attitude, pretending to understand the engineering with snippets from comments they’ve read, reactive talking points, etc…
Very strange.
Did anyone else feel like an alien following this story online?
Not really. I work with a company that does this kind of stuff (deep see exploration vehicle design), materials science is a tricky but very interesting subject. When someone seemingly does 'the impossible', subjects paying passengers to extreme risks and throws the rulebook on safe design out of the porthole you can bet there will be an entry in 'Risks Digest' at some point or another.
Carbon fiber is a great material, if used where it shines. For this application I don't think it is a good choice, even if it worked a few times. What I didn't understand is the focus on the electronics and the control system, those are irrelevant if the hull isn't going to work out.
Carbon fiber is a great material, if used where it shines. For this application I don't think it is a good choice, even if it worked a few times. What I didn't understand is the focus on the electronics and the control system, those are irrelevant if the hull isn't going to work out.
> What I didn't understand is the focus on the electronics and the control system, those are irrelevant if the hull isn't going to work out.
Two reasons, I think. First, the (apparent) shoddiness of a control mechanism is easily understood, whereas the reasons why carbon fiber makes a poor choice for a pressure hull are more difficult to understand. Consequently, the use of a game controller is a more salient example of a company cutting corners than their choice of material in the pressure hull. (This is somewhat undermined by the fact that a game controller actually isn't necessarily a problem--Ars Technica ended up running articles on consecutive days with the first one being a tee-hee-they're-using-a-game-controller article and the second one being a why-the-military-uses-game-controllers article.)
The second reason may be that some people would rather focus on the potential failure that admits a possibility that the inhabitants are alive instead of potential the failure that guaranteed their death before the search started.
Two reasons, I think. First, the (apparent) shoddiness of a control mechanism is easily understood, whereas the reasons why carbon fiber makes a poor choice for a pressure hull are more difficult to understand. Consequently, the use of a game controller is a more salient example of a company cutting corners than their choice of material in the pressure hull. (This is somewhat undermined by the fact that a game controller actually isn't necessarily a problem--Ars Technica ended up running articles on consecutive days with the first one being a tee-hee-they're-using-a-game-controller article and the second one being a why-the-military-uses-game-controllers article.)
The second reason may be that some people would rather focus on the potential failure that admits a possibility that the inhabitants are alive instead of potential the failure that guaranteed their death before the search started.
> Carbon fiber is a great material, if used where it shines. For this application I don't think it is a good choice, even if it worked a few times. What I didn't understand is the focus on the electronics and the control system, those are irrelevant if the hull isn't going to work out.
That's all true, but the use of the Logitech game controller and and other consumer-grade electronics rightfully drew scorn of its own.
I deal with automotive electronics, which is less rigorous than aerospace and/or military applications, never mind deep sea operation. Even so, in the automotive space, there is considerable attention paid to making the housings, cables and the electronics themselves robust with regards to the environmental conditions. Heat, cold, moisture, dirt, vibration, salt, etc. The idea of using non-redundant, consumer grade electronics to control a deep sea vessel is ridiculous. Just being regularly exposed to salty air could induce corrosion in critical components.
That's all true, but the use of the Logitech game controller and and other consumer-grade electronics rightfully drew scorn of its own.
I deal with automotive electronics, which is less rigorous than aerospace and/or military applications, never mind deep sea operation. Even so, in the automotive space, there is considerable attention paid to making the housings, cables and the electronics themselves robust with regards to the environmental conditions. Heat, cold, moisture, dirt, vibration, salt, etc. The idea of using non-redundant, consumer grade electronics to control a deep sea vessel is ridiculous. Just being regularly exposed to salty air could induce corrosion in critical components.
I think you're under estimating the controller and over estimating your understanding of the conditions it would live on the vessel. Why it's non redundant? There were likely spares around, if it misbehaves you can get a new one in seconds.
> Why it's non redundant? There were likely spares around, if it misbehaves you can get a new one in seconds.
So you are saying they were carrying around a spare controller, and a spare everything else inside the sub? At all times?
So you are saying they were carrying around a spare controller, and a spare everything else inside the sub? At all times?
They in fact did say somewhere that they carry 'a couple of spares'.
It really depends on the environmental conditions. In the case of a deep sea submersible you might expect that the controller will always be in controlled indoor conditions, depending on when/where they open the hatch. In normal operation it's going to be dry, and if there's a leak the controller probably isn't going to be of much use anyway. (same goes with the rest of the electronics).
A car is of course much different, most components have to operate for years without maintenance in a very uncontrolled, varied set of environments.
A car is of course much different, most components have to operate for years without maintenance in a very uncontrolled, varied set of environments.
Salty sea air and sea spray are all around you on a ocean-going ship. I'm sure they weren't intentionally dunking the Logitech controller into sea water, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't possibly be effected by the environment.
https://pomametals.com/salt-air-inland-distance-for-metal/
The Logitech controller isn't sealed for moisture. A single drop of sea water on it can slide inside and start the corrosion process. It looks fine on the outside, because the plastic isn't as affected.
Most of the buttons on a commercial grade PC input device use conductive carbon pads pressing against bare metal contacts on a PCB. Yes, the contacts may be gold plated, but there is still exposed copper on the sides.
Heck, even ordinary contamination from skin oil has caused one my keyboard's keys to stop working. I was able to take the keyboard apart and clean it, fixing the problem. The keyboard was never exposed to anything beyond a normal office environment, and never had liquid spilled on it.
Marine grade switches are waterproof and dustproof:
https://newwiremarine.com/marine-grade-switches/
If you take care and seal the soldered wires to the switch electrical contacts, it should be good for years and years of use, even at sea.
https://pomametals.com/salt-air-inland-distance-for-metal/
The Logitech controller isn't sealed for moisture. A single drop of sea water on it can slide inside and start the corrosion process. It looks fine on the outside, because the plastic isn't as affected.
Most of the buttons on a commercial grade PC input device use conductive carbon pads pressing against bare metal contacts on a PCB. Yes, the contacts may be gold plated, but there is still exposed copper on the sides.
Heck, even ordinary contamination from skin oil has caused one my keyboard's keys to stop working. I was able to take the keyboard apart and clean it, fixing the problem. The keyboard was never exposed to anything beyond a normal office environment, and never had liquid spilled on it.
Marine grade switches are waterproof and dustproof:
https://newwiremarine.com/marine-grade-switches/
If you take care and seal the soldered wires to the switch electrical contacts, it should be good for years and years of use, even at sea.
My point was highlighting how strange it has been reading commentary of the event online. I mean no offense at all (!) but even your comment plays into it perfectly in a way.
If this is the first time you observe this then you're going to be pretty bored soon because most discussion about such subjects follow that exact same pattern.
And weird focus on that fucking gamepad that they were using, which was probably the least of engineering problems
i didn’t see the game pad as the cause, but an indicator of where they would cut corners.
it’s strange on its face to use a game controller when we’ve all spilled soda or water on one and watched it become useless and they’re taking this into… the ocean… and just to add insult to injury, playing on offbrand controllers always irritated me so to see them cut even further was super strange.
more than anything it is that combined with the stuff he bragged about buying from camper world—just a sign of strange corner cutting indicating their was likely more that we weren’t seeing.
it’s strange on its face to use a game controller when we’ve all spilled soda or water on one and watched it become useless and they’re taking this into… the ocean… and just to add insult to injury, playing on offbrand controllers always irritated me so to see them cut even further was super strange.
more than anything it is that combined with the stuff he bragged about buying from camper world—just a sign of strange corner cutting indicating their was likely more that we weren’t seeing.
> it’s strange on its face to use a game controller when we’ve all spilled soda or water on one and watched it become useless and they’re taking this into… the ocean… and just to add insult to injury,
I mean the buttons got sticky but that's the worst I saw, nothing a bit of IPA wouldn't fix.
But yeah, definitely red flag, especially that they used wireless one. Industrial (and so protected from dust and at least humidity) ones are not that expensive compared to the price of massive carbon tube at least
> playing on offbrand controllers always irritated me so to see them cut even further was super strange.
Lmao "offbrand" Logitech is one of biggest makes of accessories. They have both good and cheap stuff, this one is some midrange one so I doubt quality is a problem.
Also it's a PC controller, what "brand" would they be offing ?
I mean the buttons got sticky but that's the worst I saw, nothing a bit of IPA wouldn't fix.
But yeah, definitely red flag, especially that they used wireless one. Industrial (and so protected from dust and at least humidity) ones are not that expensive compared to the price of massive carbon tube at least
> playing on offbrand controllers always irritated me so to see them cut even further was super strange.
Lmao "offbrand" Logitech is one of biggest makes of accessories. They have both good and cheap stuff, this one is some midrange one so I doubt quality is a problem.
Also it's a PC controller, what "brand" would they be offing ?
Even wireless doesn't seem that much of an issue. There isn't going to be any external interference down there, so as long as they've tested all the systems it should be OK. Also it's not going to be dusty, and it's not humid (if anything the humidity is going to be very low as the water outside is cold, any moisture in the air will condense on the hull)
In a sense, the game pad was a canary (if unintentionally so).
The type of gamepad is important.
It was a cheap third party Xbox controller. i.e. it's the spare controller you made your friend use when he came over to play Halo 2 that one time.
Nobody thought the gamepad was the actual cause of failure. They thought the gamepad was funny in the context of Stockton Rush cutting corners.
It was a cheap third party Xbox controller. i.e. it's the spare controller you made your friend use when he came over to play Halo 2 that one time.
Nobody thought the gamepad was the actual cause of failure. They thought the gamepad was funny in the context of Stockton Rush cutting corners.
That is standard human behaviour. We're all like this on almost every topic. Think about how much of your opinions are shaped similarly.
Welcome to the internet!
"The Titan began its descent Sunday to explore the wreckage of the Titanic, located about 13,000 feet below sea level in the North Atlantic Ocean, with an estimated 96 hours of life support. The expedition was billed as “a chance to step outside of everyday life and discover something truly extraordinary” and cost each participant $250,000, an archived version of OceanGate’s website shows.
"However, the cramped vessel lost contact with its mother ship about 1 hour and 45 minutes into its dive, did not surface as expected and has not been heard from since.
"Aboard the Titan were Rush, the OceanGate CEO and founder, along with Harding, a British businessman; Pakistani billionaire Shahzada Dawood and his son Suleman Dawood; and Nargeolet, a French diver, according to relatives and social media posts.
"Earlier Thursday, the US Coast Guard said it found a “debris field” in the search area near the Titanic that, according to a memo obtained by CNN, has been assessed to be from the external body of the submersible." [1]
The ocean is very, very deep. The Titanic is 13,000 feet below sea level, and the submersible was scheduled to take 2.5 hours just for the descent.
EDIT: corrected feet/meters
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/us/submersible-titanic-oceang...
"However, the cramped vessel lost contact with its mother ship about 1 hour and 45 minutes into its dive, did not surface as expected and has not been heard from since.
"Aboard the Titan were Rush, the OceanGate CEO and founder, along with Harding, a British businessman; Pakistani billionaire Shahzada Dawood and his son Suleman Dawood; and Nargeolet, a French diver, according to relatives and social media posts.
"Earlier Thursday, the US Coast Guard said it found a “debris field” in the search area near the Titanic that, according to a memo obtained by CNN, has been assessed to be from the external body of the submersible." [1]
The ocean is very, very deep. The Titanic is 13,000 feet below sea level, and the submersible was scheduled to take 2.5 hours just for the descent.
EDIT: corrected feet/meters
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/us/submersible-titanic-oceang...
From that same article, I guess he got the recognition he always wanted.
Rush, the CEO of OceanGate Expeditions, told a Mexican travel blogger in 2021 he wanted to be known as an innovator who broke the rules.
“I think it was (US Army) Gen. (Douglas) MacArthur who said, ‘You’re remembered for the rules you break,’” Rush told Alan Estrada, who documented his trip to the Titanic, including an aborted attempt in July 2021 before a successful visit in 2022.
“And you know,” Rush added, “I’ve broken some rules to make this.”
Rush, the CEO of OceanGate Expeditions, told a Mexican travel blogger in 2021 he wanted to be known as an innovator who broke the rules.
“I think it was (US Army) Gen. (Douglas) MacArthur who said, ‘You’re remembered for the rules you break,’” Rush told Alan Estrada, who documented his trip to the Titanic, including an aborted attempt in July 2021 before a successful visit in 2022.
“And you know,” Rush added, “I’ve broken some rules to make this.”
Wasnt MacArthur the one who wanted to start a nuclear war with China during the Korean war and got sacked by Truman or Eisenhower?
MacArthur's solution [0] to every military problem after 1945 was to drop a nuke on it:
> On 24 December 1950, while responding to a formal request from the Pentagon, specifically Major General Charles L. Bolte, about a hypothetical question regarding which targets should be bombed with atomic weapons if the Soviets got directly involved in the Korean War or if the Chinese military sent bombers to bomb UN forces in Korea and Japan from mainland China, MacArthur submitted a list of "retardation targets" in Korea, Manchuria and other parts of China, for which 34 atomic bombs would be required.
And from that same link, here's a direct quote from an interview with MacArthur which was published posthumously:
> Of all the campaigns of my life, 20 major ones to be exact, [Korea was] the one I felt most sure of was the one I was deprived of waging. I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days.... I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur#Nu...
> On 24 December 1950, while responding to a formal request from the Pentagon, specifically Major General Charles L. Bolte, about a hypothetical question regarding which targets should be bombed with atomic weapons if the Soviets got directly involved in the Korean War or if the Chinese military sent bombers to bomb UN forces in Korea and Japan from mainland China, MacArthur submitted a list of "retardation targets" in Korea, Manchuria and other parts of China, for which 34 atomic bombs would be required.
And from that same link, here's a direct quote from an interview with MacArthur which was published posthumously:
> Of all the campaigns of my life, 20 major ones to be exact, [Korea was] the one I felt most sure of was the one I was deprived of waging. I could have won the war in Korea in a maximum of 10 days.... I would have dropped between 30 and 50 atomic bombs on his air bases and other depots strung across the neck of Manchuria
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relief_of_Douglas_MacArthur#Nu...
It's a little weird to avoid quoting the rest of the passage:
> In January 1951, MacArthur refused to entertain proposals for the forward deployment of nuclear weapons. On a similar note, showing MacArthur directly rejecting the use of weapons of mass destruction when he had the power to answer a subordinate, in January 1951 he immediately rejected Lieutenant General Matthew Ridgway's urgent request to use chemical weapons on Chinese and North Korean soldiers. Though MacArthur made many statements regarding nuclear weapons after 1951, there has never been evidence, like memos or transcriptions of meetings, provided by anyone that MacArthur ever requested to use nuclear weapons or tried to push Truman or other Pentagon officials to use them during the Korean War while he was the UN Commander.
MacArthur may have been pro-nuke in public statements, but I think it's telling that, when the actual, real-world opportunities presented themselves, he actively refused to entertain the idea of nuking anything. He wouldn't even authorize the use of chemical weapons.
I don't know a lot about MacArthur, and have no dog in this race; I'm just reading more at the link you provided.
> In January 1951, MacArthur refused to entertain proposals for the forward deployment of nuclear weapons. On a similar note, showing MacArthur directly rejecting the use of weapons of mass destruction when he had the power to answer a subordinate, in January 1951 he immediately rejected Lieutenant General Matthew Ridgway's urgent request to use chemical weapons on Chinese and North Korean soldiers. Though MacArthur made many statements regarding nuclear weapons after 1951, there has never been evidence, like memos or transcriptions of meetings, provided by anyone that MacArthur ever requested to use nuclear weapons or tried to push Truman or other Pentagon officials to use them during the Korean War while he was the UN Commander.
MacArthur may have been pro-nuke in public statements, but I think it's telling that, when the actual, real-world opportunities presented themselves, he actively refused to entertain the idea of nuking anything. He wouldn't even authorize the use of chemical weapons.
I don't know a lot about MacArthur, and have no dog in this race; I'm just reading more at the link you provided.
You can't break the rules of physics.
Well, it worked, a few times. The problem isn't so much the rules of physics it is the materials science underpinned by those rules of physics. This particular material for a hull is in my opinion a mis-application if you plan on using it repeatedly or for carrying people.
Carbon fiber is notorious for sudden unexpected failures due to invisible cracking inside it after it gets loaded too much. Definitely a bad material choice. Even steel can form stress fractures under those kinds of pressures,
pressure in Pa = water density x depth x gravity
if they lost contact at around 1h45m in a 2hr descent, maybe they were at 3000m depth (approx)? Therefore:
29341710 Pa = 997 x 3000 x 9.81 = 4255.6 lbs per square inch
if they lost contact at around 1h45m in a 2hr descent, maybe they were at 3000m depth (approx)? Therefore:
29341710 Pa = 997 x 3000 x 9.81 = 4255.6 lbs per square inch
Move fast and break things.
I think you meant 3800 meters which is about 12500 feet
> The ocean is very, very deep. The Titanic is "relatively" shallow, only 3800 feet below sea level
It's 3800 meters, 13000 feet as you wrote in the first paragraph.
Nothing shallow about 3800m deep, that's abyssal plains level, it's basically the bottom of the "normal" ocean (the abnormal ocean being the hadal zone of the trenches). It's a land of no light, little to no oxygen, and literally freezing cold.
It's 3800 meters, 13000 feet as you wrote in the first paragraph.
Nothing shallow about 3800m deep, that's abyssal plains level, it's basically the bottom of the "normal" ocean (the abnormal ocean being the hadal zone of the trenches). It's a land of no light, little to no oxygen, and literally freezing cold.
Your edit is wrong. The Titanic is 13,000 feet below sea level, not 3,800 feet.
The Titanic also began its descent on a Sunday.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Regarding the quality issues of the submarine
"Mechanic on ‘record-setting’ Titan dive dismisses criticism from ‘armchair experts’"
https://news.yahoo.com/mechanic-record-setting-titan-dive-19...
"Mechanic on ‘record-setting’ Titan dive dismisses criticism from ‘armchair experts’"
https://news.yahoo.com/mechanic-record-setting-titan-dive-19...
Well it turns out he was wrong and the "armchair experts" were right.
Though insinuating all critics were "armchair experts" is pretty disingenuous. There were plenty of real experts raising serious safety concerns, including the guy who got fired for not approving manned test dives because of them. If there was a strong consenus among real experts that this thing was safe, then they would have had no trouble getting the relevant safety certifications.
Though insinuating all critics were "armchair experts" is pretty disingenuous. There were plenty of real experts raising serious safety concerns, including the guy who got fired for not approving manned test dives because of them. If there was a strong consenus among real experts that this thing was safe, then they would have had no trouble getting the relevant safety certifications.
"Mathioudakis said that the safety concerns raised by the two former OceanGate employees in 2018, as well as the letter from industry leaders, were "before the extensive testing completed in 2019." He added that OceanGate had responded to those concerns in the past and changed the hull to increase the level of safety."
We still don't know what happened, so we don't know who was right.
Did this project yield any lasting benefits? New productions methods, or science, et cetera?
Composite hulls don't work for reusable Full Ocean Depth (FOD) submersibles.
[deleted]
Was there a black box on board? Will an attempt to recover it be made?
Does this qualify for a Darwin award?
Probably. Ignore industry practices while bragging about doing same people space companies do (which deal with 0 to 1 atm of pressure), firing guy yelling that's unsafe, shooting potshots at veterans of industry being just not hip enough.
And then conning few other people to go into something that looked like what mythbusters built in a week (and if THEY did it it would probably not implode...)
And then conning few other people to go into something that looked like what mythbusters built in a week (and if THEY did it it would probably not implode...)
Yesterday, people involved with the Darwin awards were saying "let's wait 24 hours".
For the pilot and co-founder, yes, he deserves the award. For the passengers, I predict lawsuits. But apparently the contract included a clause about accidental death.
The guy who brought his son also probably deserves a Darwin award.
For the pilot and co-founder, yes, he deserves the award. For the passengers, I predict lawsuits. But apparently the contract included a clause about accidental death.
The guy who brought his son also probably deserves a Darwin award.
This is not an accident though, this is gross negligence and I somewhat doubt you can contract your way out of that.
An accident is when something unexpectedly goes wrong. This end result was baked into the design and it was merely a question of how many times you could cycle that hull before it would implode, not if it would. Death lottery.
An accident is when something unexpectedly goes wrong. This end result was baked into the design and it was merely a question of how many times you could cycle that hull before it would implode, not if it would. Death lottery.
I think you're right. There are proven ways to do this without the fatal result, and this company ignored many of the industry best practices. I look forward to seeing this play out in court, because it has the potential to create a really good precedent.
wonder if the window imploded or the whole thing just crushed like a soda can experiment
It's carbon fiber.
It doesn't break like soda can, it breaks like eggshells or hard plastic. It would probably look like something exploded on side of it, when any small hole/crack started it would just isntantly make rest of it rip till the pressure equalizes
It doesn't break like soda can, it breaks like eggshells or hard plastic. It would probably look like something exploded on side of it, when any small hole/crack started it would just isntantly make rest of it rip till the pressure equalizes
Empty eggshells implode into thousands of increasingly smaller little shards. Is that what happened here?
Depends on the speed of the change. The pressure differential is what causes the material to fracture, the longer the differential exists the more fracturing you will get.
Carbon fiber fails much like wood, you'll end up with a couple of larger fragments and a much larger number of smaller fragments, some too small to even see with the unaided eye.
Unlike say a metal vessel during an implosion which would remain mostly connected but crushed or ripped into a few larger chunks depending on where the initial fault was.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VNvEpDyUhvo
Shows nicely how a fault propagates through carbon fiber.
Carbon fiber fails much like wood, you'll end up with a couple of larger fragments and a much larger number of smaller fragments, some too small to even see with the unaided eye.
Unlike say a metal vessel during an implosion which would remain mostly connected but crushed or ripped into a few larger chunks depending on where the initial fault was.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/VNvEpDyUhvo
Shows nicely how a fault propagates through carbon fiber.
> Shows nicely how a fault propagates through carbon fiber.
That's tensile fault, in sub it would be compressed, for which carbon fiber is much worse for. But yeah, it would be equally if not more violent
Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYqOMjoz_i8
https://youtu.be/PlvyZ1r1DCM?t=266
https://youtu.be/Iedj9OZlEfI?t=330
not explosive because hydraulic press doesn't move as much but still shows it will instantly lose strength the second it is breaking
That's tensile fault, in sub it would be compressed, for which carbon fiber is much worse for. But yeah, it would be equally if not more violent
Edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYqOMjoz_i8
https://youtu.be/PlvyZ1r1DCM?t=266
https://youtu.be/Iedj9OZlEfI?t=330
not explosive because hydraulic press doesn't move as much but still shows it will instantly lose strength the second it is breaking
At some fraction of milliseconds, maybe ? We're talking about pressure difference comparable to big explosion so any break would most likely, on top of near-immediately expanding the hole, compress everything into the sub and possibly heat it enough to combust.
400 atm is only one order of magnitude of a difference from what water cutters use. It's insane amount of force, there is no "small leak" nor "small leak expanding", just "boom"
400 atm is only one order of magnitude of a difference from what water cutters use. It's insane amount of force, there is no "small leak" nor "small leak expanding", just "boom"
Stockton was the CEO, PH was GOAT of sea expeditions, Hamish had experience with sooo many expeditions above and beyond, the 2 odd ones were Shahzada and Suleman. Them 2 would have been the most panicked about this situation, that is, if they were given time to think by God.
In this case, the CEO risking his life on this third(!) voyage means 1 of 2 possibilities: 1) The CEO has done the due diligence and has a thorough understanding of the risks and the safety protocols involved to minimize those risks. 2) The CEO is naive.