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

Zatoichi.uK said:
James Cameron is smart enough to surround himself with actual experts and no doubt a lot of knowledge has rubbed off on him.
Click to expand...

Once you watch Cameron's and others documentaries about him and the industry, you soon appreciate he is not just surrounded by experts but is one himself, taking the time to learn, research, invest and lead in DSV since the 80s.
 
Demon said:
Even if NASA et al just did a small bit of consultation that fed into the design or design process directly or indirectly , that would be enough to claim as he did,

Its all BS anyway, of course everyone is going to distance themselves.. but had it been some huge success in the long term , they’d probably have Oceangate listed in their own marketing material as companies they’d helped.. that’s how all that crap works..
Click to expand...

Yeah of course, but the fact 2 out of 3 flat denied they had anything to do at all when approached is odd for such organisations, and to be honest I am inclined to believe NASA because Rush was always a flamboyant word smith - he had the gift of the gab so much so that he managed to con rich people into a death trap - it only takes a glancing look at the subs design & a basic logic to understand the sub was flawed - exactly what that young man did when he convinced his father to turn down the trip.......he just had the courage to push his dad not to go.

He looked, easily saw its not a good design & made the right call.

I defo think Rush shoulders most of the blame, but so do his staff who just went along with it - but then, the world is full of toxic work places, so it maybe they just needed a job & did as they were told.
 
Scrutinize said:
Sorry but your comments on James Cameron, and from your perspective his limited expertise and thus limited contribution to Deep Sea exploration shows that you have not really spent any time looking into this.

He is well recognised as one of the world authorities on this and has been for a long time.

He, along with the others were all unified in the material and design limitations.
Click to expand...
I am not questioning his deep dive experience. I am asking his credential in knowing material science.

It’s like you say a pilot always knows how to manufacture and engineer and design a plane from ground up.

Yes many pilots do have very highly technical background and can go on become plane designers and so on but not all of can become engineers and plane designers due to lack of technical expertise.
 
Last edited:
fact checking the nasa/wu/boeing report - first rule of fight club should check any syndicated reports in the daily mail or on sky, often BS.

Their involvement is not b&w
www.businessinsider.com

Boeing and University of Washington deny OceanGate's claim that they helped design the lost Titan sub

"Boeing was not a partner on the Titan and did not design or build it," a Boeing spokesperson said in an emailed statement to Insider.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com
"Boeing was not a partner on the Titan and did not design or build it," a Boeing spokesperson said in an emailed statement to Insider. The spokesperson did not elaborate on any connection to OceanGate.

Balta said that the university's laboratory had previously signed a $5 million agreement for collaborating on research with OceanGate. But the collaboration resulted in a "steel-hulled vessel, named the Cyclops 1," not the design for the Titan submersible.

NASA did previously consult on the Titan submersible with OceanGate. NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center had a Space Act Agreement with OceanGate, Lance D. Davis, acting news chief for NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center said in a statement sent to Insider.
Click to expand...

...
yes cameron's not a material scientist and should acknowledge where he doesn't have expertise - involved in the commisioning and some of ergonomics of deapsea challenger afaik


[
not-exactly-news--younger-people-more-likely-to-trust-what-they-read-on-social-media

A new study conducted earlier this month by BBC Education found that nearly half of young people aged between 11 and 16 tend to believe the news they see on social media – often regardless of the source. The trends in the UK are similar to what has been seen for years in the United States, where users of all ages often tend to trust almost anything a friend, relative and/or colleague shares with them.

Moreover, as a Gallup survey from last year also found, young people are increasingly receiving most of their news via social media. Though many question the creditability of what they read, too many are accepting it as fact.

"Considering the fact that those born between 2005-2010 have never experienced a world without social media and its dominance of modern culture, it's hardly surprising to learn that such a large percentage of the age category have come to believe that the news being shared across their timelines, homepages and for your pages are a credible source of information relating to the wider world," explained Sam O'Brien, chief marketing officer of partnership marketing platform Affise.
Click to expand...
my take - people on smartphones don't have the means to quickly cross check information.

]
 
pc-guy said:
I am not questioning his deep dive experience. I am asking his credential in knowing material science.

It’s like you say a pilot always knows how to manufacture and engineer and design a plane from ground up.

Yes many pilots do have very highly technical background and can go on become plane designers and so on but not all of can become engineers and plane designers due to lack of technical expertise.
Click to expand...
I am a qualified Materials Scientist, with a degree in Materials Science and Technology. (BSc(Hons) Brunel University 1995)

I would not consider myself qualified to offer any real opinion on the suitability of the materials chosen, though it is obvious that a unified metallic material, produced using suitable techniques would be a sensible option for pressure vessel construction, provided the shape and design of the vessel introduces no inherent point of weakness or fatigue, and ensures the material is present in sufficient quantity to resist the expected pressures and offer a fair degree of safety margin beyond the expected pressure...

I would confidently assert that it is likely that James Cameron, with his extensive exposure, contacts and experience in the submersible industry is far more qualified to make statements about the construction of, and materials used in a submersible than I am, given my background and irrelevant experience.
 
Last edited:
martin363 said:
I am a qualified Materials Scientist, with a degree in Materials Science and Technology. (BSc(Hons) Brunel University 1995)

I would not consider myself qualified to offer any real opinion on the suitability of the materials chosen, though it is obvious that a unified metallic material, produced using suitable techniques would be a sensible option for pressure vessel construction, provided the shape and design of the vessel introduces no inherent point of weakness or fatigue, and ensures the material is present in sufficient quantity to resist the expected pressures and offer a fair degree of safety margin beyond the expected pressure...

I would confidently assert that it is likely that James Cameron, with his extensive exposure, contacts and experience in the submersible industry is far more qualified to make statements about the construction of, and materials used in a submersible than I am, given my background and irrelevant experience.
Click to expand...

I'm not that qualified - I studied up to pre-degree in the subject and worked in a lab for 3 years as an assistant doing amongst other stuff tensile strength, UV reactions and material bonding in extreme environment testing for quality control/qualification - I can offer zero insight but if someone had run the details past me it would have raised some serious red flags even my level of experience.

One of the few regrets I have in life is switching to IT (which I found more enjoyable as a hobby than a career) instead of pursuing chemical engineering (which I actually found interesting as a career).
 
Rroff said:
I'm not that qualified - I studied up to pre-degree in the subject and worked in a lab for 3 years as an assistant doing amongst other stuff tensile strength, UV reactions and material bonding in extreme environment testing for quality control/qualification - I can offer zero insight but if someone had run the details past me it would have raised some serious red flags even my level of experience.

One of the few regrets I have in life is switching to IT (which I found more enjoyable as a hobby than a career) instead of pursuing chemical engineering (which I actually found interesting as a career).
Click to expand...
Yes I agree.

I know nothing of the details of the actual materials used (and age), the reinforcement patterns or weaves, and the details of the resins... Delamination (especially) and micro-fracture would worry me (as would the chemical degradation you mention). I suspect that the outer covering was there to protect from abrasion, UV and impact as much as an aesthetic.

Plus what was the maintenance schedule and methods used for damage / integrity assessment...

But without being privy to any of the specifications and details, it is impossible to make any reasonable assessment as to the material and design suitability for its purpose as a vessel unfortunately.

Experience in the industry, such as James Cameron clearly has, would likely go a long way to resolving my lack of knowledge.

edit - I did see a photo showing that to attach the monitors to the submersible they had drilled holes into the composite hull - if true that would seem to be a little.... mad... and create significant (unnecessary) potential damage and points of weakness in the hull.
 
Last edited:
Found a few of these interesting comments around the net, not sure if all are true, but they make good points:

"I also wrote a letter to OceanGate as I am an engineer and saw so many critical problems with the submersible. I know at least a dozen independent people with expert knowledge tried to tell this bozo not to proceed but he was too arrogant to consider that he might be wrong. If you want to test a new application of a material you don't put people at risk. Not only is carbon fibre a poor material for a deep-sea pressure vessel, he bought EXPIRED carbon fibre for it! If it's not safe for Boeing to use in aircraft it's sure not safe for deep-sea tourism. If you want a proper vehicle with which to visit the Titanic, use an Alvin design. It's been proven safe for fifty years and is still in service. It's the Soyuz of ocean exploring."
Click to expand...
"As someone who actively designs pressure vessels it is absolutely astounding that someone would select carbon fiber as the base material for a submarine. The amount of external pressure on the cylindrical surface of the vessel is astounding. The amount of force exerted on a convex surface compared to a concave surface is a lot more difficult to manage from a design standpoint. Not even factoring in the repeated cyclical stresses (Pressure/temperature) that the sub will see during its trips to the bottom of the ocean. It was a disaster waiting to happen."
Click to expand...
"As a physicist, materials specialist and subsea engineer, that stepped carbon fiber cylinder to titanium hemisphere adhesive lap joint transition is something straight out of my worst nightmares. I cannot believe he did that or was even allowed to do that. The videos of those utter fools working on it gives me horror chills."
Click to expand...
 
Harlequin said:
For those complaining about cylinders for a submarine - ask the Navy about their long cylinders they use for submarines (ofc not Carbon Fibre!!)
Click to expand...

I mean, what can you say to that...............there was a navy sub near South America that sunk in 1997 I think it imploded at 388 Metres, a great big metal tube............not 3800 metres like this sub - so, daft comment tbh.
 
Harlequin said:
For those complaining about cylinders for a submarine - ask the Navy about their long cylinders they use for submarines (ofc not Carbon Fibre!!)
Click to expand...
Even a waxed smartie tube will be safe at low depths!

Navy subs don’t go anywhere near the depth that the Titan did.
 
Penfold101 said:
And compare the depths they operate at…
Click to expand...

Priz class rescue sub, certified to at least 1000m.
Aluminaut , first DSV made of Aluminium, operated at 4600m , to collect a lost nuclear bomb.
NR-1 officially to 1000m, unofficially much below that.

Didnt say that the sphere wasnt the best design, just that cylinders also can be used under certain circumstances

edit, listed 3 examples of navy cylinders being used as DSV`s, so.....
 
Last edited:
For all the questions over the last few pages, watch this vid. This guy does a good deep dive(!) in to what happened, the shortcuts, Rush as a person, etc. Definitely worth a watch if you're interested in this story:

www.youtube.com

Oceangate Submarine Disaster - What REALLY Happened

We've all been glued to our TV sets hoping and praying that the 5 souls aboard the Oceangate Titan would come home safely, after being lost at sea. But sadly...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com
 
It gets worserer...

A former OceanGate finance director said some engineers in the Titanic-submersible company were teenagers who earned $15 an hour at one point, report says​

Click to expand...

www.businessinsider.in

A former OceanGate finance director said some engineers in the Titanic-submersible company were teenagers who earned $15 an hour at one point, report says | Business Insider India

The former executive, who was not named, also said she left her job at OceanGate after CEO Stockton Rush asked her to become the sub's chief pilot.
www.businessinsider.in www.businessinsider.in
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom