Titanic submersible confirmed destroyed with loss of all five souls onboard.

[Minstadave]

They could construct some new hulls to test the limits although I'm not sure how viable that is in terms of costs and how CF works in regards to slight nuances in the weave may react differently

Is there any need to figure our the failure? If it failed within a regulated framework I could understand that being important. Given that is was knocked up without a care for safety or regulation can't it just be chalked up to "play silly games, win silly prizes".

 

[Bubo]

I have no idea how they are going to remotely figure out the exact failure mode..

The problem with the CF Hull is if anything fails, the window, the joint to the titanium end rings, the general structure of the CF cylinder.. it'll probably just instantly shatter the CF and you lose all pertinent information.

I'm also interested in what kind of 'remains' they've found, I know Scott Manley was thinking if maybe the microSD cards may have survived in the GoPros etc.. that might give a clue, they may lack the final few milliseconds/seconds since that is generally buffered to the card, but if they did drop the weights and there is conversation about why, that might be a big help.

If there was a significant delay between them hearing the first creak in the hull, and the actual implosion during which they went "oh ****!" in unison, dropped the ballast and tried to surface, then sat there until it went the suck equivalent of a bang, then if it was a few minutes they could in theory have scrawled a message on the titanium end caps. Easy to think about it now, if there was time, but obviously probably the last thing on their minds in the actual event, but if they did have long enough one of them might have got a permanent marker out and written "**** Stockten Rush as his half arsed so called 'Sub Marine'!!", or a message to their mothers perhaps.

 

[Neil79]

Probably heard a creak, and the CEO went " Nothing to worry about, let me just check my laptop and drop the ballast to head to the service for a check "

BOOM

 

[Hotwired]

decades ahead

Being filthy expensive to do because of physics is not being decades ahead. Mir/alvin were bankrolled by soviet russia and america

Having the subs in use decades later means the major problems were well understood decades ago and were able to be solved decades ago and the numbers are still good to this day.

This lot are dead because of cost cutting (how about a big CF tube instead of the classic bathysphere of metal) and arrogance (testing? nah). Waiting a few more decades won't cure that.

 

[drakulton]

the suck equivalent of a bang,

GNAB!

 

[Minusorange]

Is there any need to figure our the failure? If it failed within a regulated framework I could understand that being important. Given that is was knocked up without a care for safety or regulation can't it just be chalked up to "play silly games, win silly prizes".

It would prove the failure, might be important for any regulation going forward or potential legal matters

 

[mrk]

The wreckage looks pretty intact?

The implosion would ejected fragments all over the place, so not everything turns to dust. Human remains too apparently :/

 

[danlightbulb]

The implosion would ejected fragments all over the place, so not everything turns to dust. Human remains too apparently :/

A steel ball implosion didn't rebound in this video: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsi...hjy/implosion_of_a_steel_ball_under_pressure/

But yeah, the Titan would likely have shattered, not even fully compressing down to its minimum size before doing so. In a steel vessel I think its the metal that would crush you as it deforms, squashing you into mush. In this vessel I reckon it would have been a bombardment of chunks of high velocity carbon fibre and water. Its possible that in this shrapnel situation that identifiable chunks of human parts did remain.

 

[Blackjack Davy]

The wreckage looks pretty intact?

Looks like the tail section with the electrics in which was presumably unpressurised. Landing gear too. The only part of the pressure vessel that looks intact is the titanium end caps which you would expect to survive, the acrylic viewport did not apparently

 

[Scrutinize]

Being filthy expensive to do because of physics is not being decades ahead. Mir/alvin were bankrolled by soviet russia and america

Having the subs in use decades later means the major problems were well understood decades ago and were able to be solved decades ago and the numbers are still good to this day.

This lot are dead because of cost cutting (how about a big CF tube instead of the classic bathysphere of metal) and arrogance (testing? nah). Waiting a few more decades won't cure that.

Haven't imploded though have they. High cost is evidently a very pertinent factor in Deep Sea.

The shape, material and construction of deep sea pressure vessels has been well tested and proven over 60 years.

However, there is no way to avoid the properties that make CF unrivaled in some applications but evidently flawed here.

If for example these were single use submersibles, Carbon Fibre could be ideal. After all, it worked successfully for a time.

You could adapt the design and shape so the titanium parts are all integrated into the hull and so it is more comparable to the cast alloys. However, the weaknesses of the resin bonded laminate properties of CF cannot be overcome for extended service life under deep sea pressures to prevent fatigue, unless engineered to a point cost is likely comparable to cast alloy submersibles. Ie a significant shell thickness and routine inspection, repair and re building/re lamination at high cost after each use.

The reason the other submersibles don't have sensors like Ocean Gate does for the pressure vessel's shell is quite simply that the cockpit pressure vessel element doesn't fail and has been designed not to fail in every other deep sea application. It's an absolute because at those depths monitoring is irrelevant.

 

[Kyo]

The implosion would ejected fragments all over the place, so not everything turns to dust. Human remains too apparently :/

Looks like the front section with the window is still intact but the whole glass section is gone. So not sure if it glass was knocked out or it was part of the impulsion itself.

 

[danlightbulb]

Looks like the front section with the window is still intact but the whole glass section is gone. So not sure if it glass was knocked out or it was part of the impulsion itself.

Probably designed to resist external force in (it was curved outwardly). When the main shell imploded it would have reversed the force on the window maybe to an inside out force, and popped it out. That's my guess.

 

[SpellowHouse]

Probably designed to resist external force in (it was curved outwardly). When the main shell imploded it would have reversed the force on the window maybe to an inside out force, and popped it out. That's my guess.

I think you are very probably right. The design of those windows is pretty established. The glass is conical and fits in to a corresponding machined conical hole in the front of the titanium. It's that cone that takes the tons and tons of force. There is just a small external ring and a few bolts holding it in place. If the pressure is reversed, then the window pops out pretty easily. When the body of the boat collapsed, there would be a shock wave travelling forwards and backwards. If it was enough to blow the end caps off, and every indication is that it was, then it was more than enough to blow the glass out.

 

[StriderX]

Is there any need to figure our the failure? If it failed within a regulated framework I could understand that being important. Given that is was knocked up without a care for safety or regulation can't it just be chalked up to "play silly games, win silly prizes".

Probably no real reason other than posterity, but it's obviously the composite tube that failed so pretty easy to just say 'don't use this' and move on.

 

[jpaul]

Is there any need to figure our the failure? If it failed within a regulated framework I could understand that being important. Given that is was knocked up without a care for safety or regulation can't it just be chalked up to "play silly games, win silly prizes".

after reading that atrmosphere in these is usually oxygen rich and they often bar any petroleum based cosmetics to reduce any risk of fire - explanation could be unexpected - some spark source.

e:
Dr Jasper Graham-Jones, Associate Professor in Mechanical & Marine Engineering at Plymouth University, said
....
“Failure investigations start by collecting all available parts. This I have done on many occasions. Critical making sure you try and collect carefully so that no further damage is caused to collected parts. Also, a log of parts and locations from largest to smallest. These locations will spread from surface through the water column to sea floor. From visual and magnified views, components’ crack paths can be recorded. Typically, a map of all these crack paths this can be fixed to a few initial locations. From these initial locations possible failure causes can be suggested.

“This might require scanning electron microscopes and Xray detection, to analyse material compositions and crack growth rates and directions. This is likely to take 6 months+ as there are many interested in the results both personally and for legal redress.”

 

[Chris Wilson]

Have they found the Rubik Cube? Was it completed? Experts only need reply

 

[Hotwired]

The shape, material and construction of deep sea pressure vessels has been well tested and proven over 60 years.

Sneaking up on a century now that two guys dismissed a cylinder design as too weak and were bolted into a steel ball with thick windows and a breathing system to dangle on a cable off a ship. That went down almost 1km and they witnessed the absurd pressure when it leaked (without them in it) and blew a bolt and a solid jet of water across the ship when it came up pressurised.

Cutting edge diving still starts with getting bolted into a steel (or titanium) ball. You just can't see it anymore because there's a flimsy shell around it holding thrusters, lights, floats, ballast and little arms so it can be slightly independent and do stuff. But surviving the pressure is very old work.

I don't blame the guy for trying something different but because he's apparently done shoddy work it obscures whether the material or his approach was the problem.

 

[Jokester]

after reading that atrmosphere in these is usually oxygen rich and they often bar any petroleum based cosmetics to reduce any risk of fire - explanation could be unexpected - some spark source.

e:
Dr Jasper Graham-Jones, Associate Professor in Mechanical & Marine Engineering at Plymouth University, said
....
“Failure investigations start by collecting all available parts. This I have done on many occasions. Critical making sure you try and collect carefully so that no further damage is caused to collected parts. Also, a log of parts and locations from largest to smallest. These locations will spread from surface through the water column to sea floor. From visual and magnified views, components’ crack paths can be recorded. Typically, a map of all these crack paths this can be fixed to a few initial locations. From these initial locations possible failure causes can be suggested.

“This might require scanning electron microscopes and Xray detection, to analyse material compositions and crack growth rates and directions. This is likely to take 6 months+ as there are many interested in the results both personally and for legal redress.”

Yeah, I was going to say, at this stage it's a case of what bit that we know wasn't designed to acceptable levels failed. But I don't know if OceanGate are US or Canadian based, but I know the US are clearly very litigious and have a much more robust professional standards requirement around engineers that will possibly see some of them in court as well.

 

[pc-guy]

Yeah, I was going to say, at this stage it's a case of what bit that we know wasn't designed to acceptable levels failed. But I don't know if OceanGate are US or Canadian based, but I know the US are clearly very litigious and have a much more robust professional standards requirement around engineers that will possibly see some of them in court as well.

Only if they followed standards. If a thing is one of and novel then it is unlikely to be successfully litigated. It will be down to different “expert opinion”. No hard facts.

That’s why America has a law for everything but pushing boundaries also means you can be a bit more maverick. I am sure in the case of oceangate there may be a case of gross negligence if legitimate safety warnings were ignored and substandard materials knowingly used.

Just because people say something “shouldn’t” be used for something, doesn’t mean it can’t be used. If this is the norm then we will never have innovation.

Similarly if something is certified for a depth doesn’t mean that thing will fail for sure at a greater depth.

 

[Scrutinize]

Just because people say something “shouldn’t” be used for something, doesn’t mean it can’t be used. If this is the norm then we will never have innovation.

Similarly if something is certified for a depth doesn’t mean that thing will fail for sure at a greater depth.

Short of being lowered into a live volcano, deep sea exploration is the harshest operating environment on earth for humans.

Very few materials and designs are appropriate sub 1km let alone 4km deep.

What Ocean Gate were doing was not innovation.

Even space exploration is more accommodating for humans.