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

Diddums said:
Oh ok that makes it all alright then, phew.
Click to expand...
the people on board knew the risks, they accepted boundaries are being pushed i dont see the problem in them doing it,

what i dont agree with is now the international effort and millions being spent trying to recover them

imo its no different to people who are buying tickets on manned flights into space
 
Last edited:
Combat squirrel said:
No Challenger deep was built properly - his spherical pressure vessel had physical wires going from inside it to the outside electronics.

Infact in an interview today, he said his crew wanted to make his ballast drop mechanism part of the software with the onboard computer, but he insisted it was on its own separate simple circuit (to their annoyance as they needed to get another physical wire out the sphere to the outside)

In a test dive to 27,000 feet (almost double what the titanic is at) - this saved his life, as all his electronics on the external sub began to fail, including the computer crashing - so he threw the circuit to drop the ballast, and it worked and he floated up.........turns out it was 1 line of computer code that as the issue, that caused an entire sub wide crash, so not the pressure.

Now I write this story back........it's easy to see how this comparatively rubbish novice sub can mess up, may even be the software inside it crashed, stopping comms and dooming the sub to sink to the bottom.
Click to expand...

I was reading up about the OG one that went down the trench in early 60's. It is just people were a lot more intelligent back then. We rely too much on computers now and less and less on intellect. The way the ballast was held in by electromagnets so if the system failed and electricity went for some reason the magnet ballast inside would simply drop out and the vessel would float to the top which is in the divers control. Not only that but the living sphere was overdesigned to withstand way more pressure than needed but was made too thick to have natural buoyancy so in turn they filled the rest of the submersible with petrol which is less compressible than water but also less dense so the whole pressure problem is completely negated. It did 50 deep sea dives too so wasn't a one trick pony.

It is almost as if the people who designed this in the 50's were actually proper intellectuals and designed it well with safety at the forefront unlike the CEO of this litteral death trap.
 
Last edited:
There is truth in the point versus technology vs. experience and proven technology (intellect if you will).

Or maybe not just trying to do it on the cheap for the maximum profit.

Edit: Welcome to this increasingly dystopian timeline I seem to have stumbled into :)
 
Last edited:
Mercurial said:
There is truth in the point versus technology vs. experience and proven technology (intellect if you will).

Or maybe not just trying to do it on the cheap for the maximum profit.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough I don't think that profit was a primary driver here, rather a brucey bonus to someone looking for fame and recognition. No decent profiteer would be down in that thing, he clearly had faith it was a good machine, despite all the warnings over the years. That's not greed, that's arrogance.
 
Diddums said:
Oddly enough I don't think that profit was a primary driver here, rather a brucey bonus to someone looking for fame and recognition. No decent profiteer would be down in that thing, he clearly had faith it was a good machine, despite all the warnings over the years. That's not greed, that's arrogance.
Click to expand...
Then possibly the combination of greed and arrogance? The absolute winning formula of our time? :)

PS. I'm not joking about the dystopian thing.
 
Last edited:
The_One said:
i forgot you speak for the thousands of people who read and post on this forum everyday

bore off buddy
Click to expand...

Not thousands, just me. Also I don't think thousands post on here every day, but you do you. That being said, where do you draw the line for rescuing people? Someone gets lost in a snowboarding accident,do you just go "meh, they knew the risks" and that's it? Admittedly I'm poking holes in your post because I like to think that despite people being generally a bit dim, we would like to keep them alive. Don't you?
 
The_One said:
what i dont agree with is now the international effort and millions being spent trying to recover them
Click to expand...
The only issue I have, is there seemed to be no international effort for the migrant ship that sank last week, soon as a couple of billionaires get in trouble though it's all hands on deck
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom