Titanic tourist submersible goes missing with search under way

And to think, this probably would have evolved into a full-on tourist industry.

Gonna clobber together the 500-person submersible.

You really can't mess around with 12.5k of water around you. Honestly I think there was to many people onboard too. They could of descend to fast with the extra weight of people onboard. The vessel cannot adjust the pressure quick enough. The question is did they actually test all this stuff rigorously? I figure if you can rig it up to use a wireless controller, then you can make the entire vessel wireless, tethered, or completely automatic for testing purposes. Where it ascends down and then does it's experiments and then ascends completely automatic with no one onboard.

They have a fin shape on one side what is under that? All that is a depth crush shape in my opinion unless you have a thick hull like a real navy sub. Generally a round sphere thick hull can take massive pressure and all the stress points are spread out. I think the best way to make a submersible is to have a frame, but the capsule itself being a sphere in the middle, it can in an emergency be detached from the rest and make a emergency ascent. Just break away, drop weight blow pressure into the outer hull ballast and off you go. Then on surface have GPS, pinger, strobes, dye ink, raft etc...

a reply to: carewemust

Everything about this sub was built as cheaply as possible, without going through any regulator. There's very little chance that they had a black box on board. This was the first sub built to dive to those depths using carbon fiber. There was no fatigue testing or NDI testing done to determine how carbon fiber would hold up at those pressures.

Like a field-trip:

"OK kids, today we're going to visit The Titanic ... any questions"?

Is there ice cream?

a reply to: carewemust

What the Beyondknowledge2 said.

It's obliterated in an instant without warning.

There is something that bugs me.

The deep diving (for attack subs) USS Seawolf (SSN-21) has emergency deep test depth to 1600 (and leeway to overshoot target depth), with Jane's saying it can safely go to 2000, and others speculating it may be able to get to 3000. But there's only 3 in that class and they never really pushed it. Point is, they will only take it to about 60% the absolute crush depth. And that's with a much less defect prone hull of HY-100 steel.

This guy was taking his untested carbon fiber hulled sub to 93% its estimated and assumed crush depth. Could go to 13,400 before and he'd take it down to 12,500. And cycle the hull over and over. That's freaking insane.

Added: What sane person makes their test depth 93% the design depth? USA is 66%, UK is 57%, and Germany is 50%.

Is that a North Korea standard or something? The CEO's recklessness irks me.

Although, thinking tourism, I'd also consider a very long pipe.

You climb in around Newfoundland, and wooosh ,,, you're at The Titanic.

Still very basic, but I think it's got flippers.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: carewemust

Everything about this sub was built as cheaply as possible, without going through any regulator. There's very little chance that they had a black box on board. This was the first sub built to dive to those depths using carbon fiber. There was no fatigue testing or NDI testing done to determine how carbon fiber would hold up at those pressures.

For laymens terms for people of lower astutness to all the terms going on in your post, do you mean it was a "hold my beer and watch this" kind of thing? Or was there real development to make a minimalist sub to achieve a goal with some solid ideas and some cheaped out stuff? Or just complete trash or in the middle?

originally posted by: Degradation33
This guy was taking his untested carbon fiber hulled sub to 93% its estimated and assumed crush depth. Could go to 13,400 and he'd take it down to 12,500. And cycle the hull over and over. That's freaking insane.

You think that's bad? (You're right). What about the view port rating? Even worse!

www.livescience.com...

The viewpoint's manufacturer only certified it as safe at depths of 4,265 feet (1,300 meters). The Titanic wreck sits about 12,500 feet (3,800 m) below the surface.

OK, 12,500 feet / 4265 feet = 293%

So if taking it to 93% its estimated and assumed crush depth of the carbon fiber is "freaking insane", then what do you call taking it to 293% of the certified safe depth of the viewport?

I'm glad they didn't die a slow, painful, suffocating death, but I was hoping the CEO on board who fired his employee for raising these safety concerns was at least able to hear some creaking noises before the implosion so he had a couple of seconds to regret his decision to fire that employee and not consider the safety concerns raised more seriously.

At least the CEO let everybody knew the sub was "experimental", and apparently he either thought it was safe since he was on board, or else he was playing a game of "Russian roulette" risking his life with things his former employee told him were unsafe. I suppose this means the experiment failed. Experimental aircraft don't have the greatest safety record either.

The Safety of Experimental Amateur-Built Aircraft

Experimental amateur-built (E-AB) aircraft represent nearly 10 percent of the U.S. general aviation fleet, but these aircraft accounted for approximately 15 percent of the total-and 21 percent of the fatal-U.S. general aviation (GA) accidents in 2011.

Something to think about before getting on any "experimental" subs or aircraft.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

How did it not fail sooner?

And the answer is "criminal". Criminal to downplay the accident waiting to happen that was that craft. I wonder how they spun and downplayed that even more ominous liability waiver? That actually sorta sickens me they would knowingly exceed the viewport design limit 3 times over and then nonchalantly have paying customers sign it anyway.

I had actually thought that it looked too big for a deep sea sub, but dismissed it thinking maybe technology has come along. Guess not.

Pressure vessels are not something you go all maverick with.

My initial thought that it reminded me of The DeHavilland Comet was troublingly close.

originally posted by: Encia22

originally posted by: face23785

I have to think they died pretty quickly.

Considering the hull was 5 inch thick carbon fiber, which delaminates, an implosion at that depth would be akin to being invested simultaneously and from 360°, by a million razor blades... all this in a split second. I doubt they even had time to see or feel it happen.

That was a split second after it burned them to a crisp with the oxygen catching fire from dieseling at that high pressure. its one reason why the debris is spread out like it is.

1 second they are in the water,the next on a bench waiting for saint peter to say next.

a reply to: yuppa

If i go terminally ill can i reserve a ride?

a reply to: Brotherman

For laymens terms for people of lower astutness to all the terms going on in your post, do you mean it was a "hold my beer and watch this" kind of thing? Or was there real development to make a minimalist sub to achieve a goal with some solid ideas and some cheaped out stuff? Or just complete trash or in the middle?

i'd say he was a cheap bastard just looking to make a buck. i mean come on when you have to rock the boat to release the ballast and if it didn't work, the only safety system for the ballast didn't activate for 24 hrs. that's a cheap rig right there.

it was always the most likely outcome, its a shame the ceo was a cheap sob and this was always going to be the end result when I saw he used a 30 dollar controller and other off the shelf materials for the sub, just a matter of when.

a reply to: Brotherman

There was an attempt at actual development, but they did everything as cheaply as possible. It looks like he thought he was the smartest in the room, and wanted to keep everything cheap. The window that was used was rated to 1300 meters, because they didn't want to take the time and spend the money to develop a new window that was rated that deep. They claimed that there was no NDI tech that would allow fatigue testing of the carbon fiber at pressures that high, and when the safety director raised objections to the development of the sub, he was fired.

The CEO came out and said he didn't want to hire 50 year old white guys with submarine experience, because "they wouldn't inspire people". He also said the ship and sub building industries are over regulated, but incredibly safe already.

a reply to: Zaphod58

he didn't bring coins to pay the ferryman. when visiting a tomb to boot, and then paid with his life and others.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: carewemust

Everything about this sub was built as cheaply as possible, without going through any regulator. There's very little chance that they had a black box on board. This was the first sub built to dive to those depths using carbon fiber. There was no fatigue testing or NDI testing done to determine how carbon fiber would hold up at those pressures.

Here he admitted that he knew he was breaking some fundamental rules, yet did it anyway to be a pioneer... playing with the lives of the people who would fund him.

In an old undated video posted online following news of the implosion, the CEO of OceanGate Stockton Rush can be seen admitting that he broke some rules to create the submersible.

“I’d like to be remembered as an innovator. I think it was general McArthurr that said, ‘You’re remembered for the rules you break.’

I have broken some rules to make this. I think I’ve broken them with logic and good engineering behind me. The carbon fibre and titanium there is a rule that you don’t do that. Well, I did,” Stockton said, referring to a combination of two materials that can cause a galvanic corrosion.

twitter.com...

Quote from the Guardian live feed

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: vonclod

The underwater network would have easily heard if it went, but the problem is that the guys running the network almost certainly aren't going to release that until they clean up a lot of information about how sensitive the network is.

Spot on.

After the craft was reported missing, the U.S. Navy went back and analyzed its acoustic data and found an anomaly that was “consistent with an implosion or explosion in the general vicinity of where the Titan submersible was operating when communications were lost,” a senior Navy official told The Associated Press on Thursday.

apnews.com...

If I'm not mistaken, the process for shrinking heads is to weight them down and drop them deep into the ocean, then retrieve them using ropes.

If the recovery does recover the bodies, I wouldn't be surprised, they are the size of monkeys. I suspect 6000 PSI would do that.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

Another design aspect of this craft is that most deep diving vessels are spherical in shape, which makes for equal pressures on all sides. This death tube was cylindrical in nature, so pressures were not uniform. I can imagine the hull crimping in the middle from the excess force load.

The CEO claimed to have made test dives to this depth, but given his other cost-cutting and use of under-rated materials, who believes that? And even as is was, the hull showed signs cyclic fatigue.


Rush, the CEO is purported to have said:

I’d like to be remembered as an innovator. I think it was general MacArthur that said, ‘You’re remembered for the rules you break.’

Whoever said it, this guy will definitely be remembered for having broken the rules.

As for the deep-sea tourists involved, I hope they felt the cost of the ride was money well spent.

And what was the pilot thinking? He was evidently a very experience deep diver in conventional submersible craft? Seems like hubris and stupidity from top to bottom.

$750k gross net on an operation that is still spendy and likely requires frequent recasting of the hull under the best of circumstances, and uses under-rated materials just seems the worst kind of crap shoot, with the risk-to-benefit ratio essentially being a singularity.

a reply to: MrInquisitive

And what was the pilot thinking?And what was the pilot thinking? He was evidently a very experience deep diver in conventional submersible craft? Seems like hubris and stupidity from top to bottom.

rush the CEO was the pilot.

abc reprint of a Associated Press article.

Although his background is in aerospace and technology, Rush founded OceanGate Inc. in 2009 to provide crewed submersibles for undersea researchers and explorers, according to the company's website. Rush was the Titan's pilot, said company spokesperson Andrew Von Kerens.
A Titanic expert, an adventurer, a CEO, and a father and son were killed in Titan's implosion

probably explains the hubris and stupidity