Tourist(s) missing in submarine while trying to reach the Titannic

[Ming the Merciless]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/u-s-coa...-sub-1.6446841

A search and rescue operation is currently underway to locate a submarine that went missing during an expedition to the Titanic.
The U.S. Coast Guard was looking for the submarine Monday morning after it disappeared during the expedition from St. John's, N.L. The infamous 1912 wreck is located more than 600 kilometres southeast of the province in the North Atlantic Ocean.
The trip to the Titanic was being run by OceanGate Expeditions, a U.S.-based company. It uses a five-person submersible named Titan to reach the wreckage 3,800 metres below the surface. OceanGate's website advertises a seven-night voyage to the Titanic for US$250,000 per person, or approximately CA$330,000.
"We are exploring and mobilizing all options to bring the crew back safely," an OceanGate spokesperson said in an email to CTV News. "Our entire focus is on the crewmembers in the submersible and their families."


Those tours are a series of five eight-day missions to the Titanic with the money raised by tourists going towards Titanic research. Posts on social media show the ship launched from the St. John's area last week.

Did they really have 5 people in this?? Or do they have a larger version??

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I've worked with Carbon Fiber in the past. Built entire body panels out of it. Yeah, i get it. Carbon Fiber is suppose to be this super strong composite.

But at the end of the day, it's a ****ing composite. And when i worked with it, it was really no different than working with Fiberglass. At least in automotive application. So in my mind, it's always been comparable to fiberglass. And idc that it was 5" thick. The concept in general just does not sound right.

So the concept of putting that much pressure on it baffles me the more i think about it.

And i've always been taught that quality is in the details. You can tell a lot about a build by the quality of detail. It's what separates a show winner vs just another RestoMod.

So when the details are kinda half-ass'd, it lends one to believe there's going to be serious underlying issues that you don't see.

Scott Manley posted a live stream where he talked through it, and his biggest concern about carbon fiber wasn't the material's strength but its durability. From what I understand, it flexes in tiny, imperceptible ways when it's put under stress, and it doesn't necessarily go back to "normal" when that pressure is released. So over time, it'll get weaker, and weaker, and weaker. And then the challenge of it is that it's hard to really test it in a way that mimics the reality of the forces it faces at those depths, so they have to kinda sorta wing it on their assumptions of lifespan.

I think it's getting lost in all of the other information about this thing that they've done around 10 successful dives to Titanic before this, so it's not like the machine was doomed from the start.

[ghak99]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Scott Manley posted a live stream where he talked through it, and his biggest concern about carbon fiber wasn't the material's strength but its durability. From what I understand, it flexes in tiny, imperceptible ways when it's put under stress, and it doesn't necessarily go back to "normal" when that pressure is released. So over time, it'll get weaker, and weaker, and weaker. And then the challenge of it is that it's hard to really test it in a way that mimics the reality of the forces it faces at those depths, so they have to kinda sorta wing it on their assumptions of lifespan.

I think it's getting lost in all of the other information about this thing that they've done around 10 successful dives to Titanic before this, so it's not like the machine was doomed from the start.

That's basically what Detox meant by acting like fiberglass.

We used carbon fiber parts when we motocross raced. It's great for the most part, but eventually turns to trash. Temperature changes and vibrations are very hard on it. Land 500 jumps just fine only to figure out you actually broke it on #500 and it wrecked your life on #501.

Later in life I was involved with an arrow making company during an ownership transition prior to moving production to China. We basically did significant research and development in the field with hopes of figuring out how to make the shafts last longer using improved production methods. At the end of the day the carbon fiber tubes acted just like the motocross parts do and we all had to accept the fact that it didn't matter how many blends and recipe adjustments we tried, all we could do was improve the fit and finish. They fail before you know they fail and even stress testing won't always pick up the failures before they happen. The stress test and inspection itself can also cause the harm you're looking for, leaving your next use to expose the damage you didn't know you caused. Some lines even went to an outer shell of aluminum over the carbon fiber in an attempt to just minimize the damage caused when the unavoidable failure eventually happened. Other lines simply went to marketing strategies that encouraged replacement prior to failure based on customer use surveys.

I was hoping the aviation industry had developed some new method of inspecting carbon fiber internally. Apparently, there isn't, or at least no one is talking about it, and they really were just assuming it's still good just like those of us using carbon fiber somewhere other than the bottom of the ocean do.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Scott Manley posted a live stream where he talked through it, and his biggest concern about carbon fiber wasn't the material's strength but its durability. From what I understand, it flexes in tiny, imperceptible ways when it's put under stress, and it doesn't necessarily go back to "normal" when that pressure is released. So over time, it'll get weaker, and weaker, and weaker. And then the challenge of it is that it's hard to really test it in a way that mimics the reality of the forces it faces at those depths, so they have to kinda sorta wing it on their assumptions of lifespan.

I think it's getting lost in all of the other information about this thing that they've done around 10 successful dives to Titanic before this, so it's not like the machine was doomed from the start.

Just with my experience with carbon fibre hockey stick is enough to tell me how it weakens over time compared to just aluminum sticks , it just seems durable then not with no real in between With not real warning from new sticks exploding on their first shot to 2 year old stick getting so bendy but still not breaking seems unpredictable

[ReynardMuldrake]

Originally Posted by B_Ambuehl

Good article on the engineering & design of the Titan: https://www.compositesworld.com/arti...ep-deep-waters

I feel the whole truth isn't being told on the safety related stuff. From that article it's obvious this wasn't some backyard slap together job. They used a very reputable engineering firm to design the hull & it was built with a safety factor of 2.5x. The vessel was built in '18 and went on at least 2 deep dive missions then and in '19. During the 2nd mission in the bahamas there was reportedly cracking heard on the acoustic hull monitors:

Then they refused to have it certified for that depth because it was too expensive. And they took tourists two miles deep in the ocean. Repeatedly.

This wasn't a scientific endeavor. This was a for-profit business. The failure to properly certify the craft is inexcusable.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

I was super confused, but was then like oh, so about 33% more than a white shark bite, makes total sense now.
*imagines an even larger white shark biting the sub*

Megalodon bite has to be a lot more than that.

[suzzer99]

[srvy]

US Navy is now using Xbox controllers to operate periscopes on Virginia class subs. This stuff going around that the Logitech controller on the Titan was some kind of culprit is bunk. The Titan so far as we can tell by reports was still descending. So it was controlled only by its ballast. It probably imploded before they ever tried to fire the motors up to go to the Wreck of Titanic. There is some squawking out there that during decent they may have realized a problem and dropped ballast to send to the safety of the surface. Obviously, they didn't make it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...x-controllers/

[Enid Borden]

I suspect the failure point could have been that window as it wasn't rated for 4,000m depths.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Scott Manley posted a live stream where he talked through it, and his biggest concern about carbon fiber wasn't the material's strength but its durability. From what I understand, it flexes in tiny, imperceptible ways when it's put under stress, and it doesn't necessarily go back to "normal" when that pressure is released. So over time, it'll get weaker, and weaker, and weaker. And then the challenge of it is that it's hard to really test it in a way that mimics the reality of the forces it faces at those depths, so they have to kinda sorta wing it on their assumptions of lifespan.

I think it's getting lost in all of the other information about this thing that they've done around 10 successful dives to Titanic before this, so it's not like the machine was doomed from the start.

Which takes me back to my Nina/Pinta comparison.

This craft was successful to certain depths and evidently successful to depths as deep as Titanic. But ultimately there are some things you just can't test. So while the Nina/Pinta were 'tested' and proven for short distances, nobody even KNEW how far the Atlantic would be to cross, let alone if the ships in question could survive those rigors.

But they did it anyway because that's what these explorer types do. They took the knowledge they had and...hoped.

Well that's kinda what happened here. And it's just the nature of exploration and pushing limits. More often than not, those limits get found in catastrophic ways.

Shit happens when you take massive risks. But the world needs guys willing to take 'em.

[Talisman]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Which takes me back to my Nina/Pinta comparison.



This craft was successful to certain depths and evidently successful to depths as deep as Titanic. But ultimately there are some things you just can't test. So while the Nina/Pinta were 'tested' and proven for short distances, nobody even KNEW how far the Atlantic would be to cross, let alone if the ships in question could survive those rigors.



But they did it anyway because that's what these explorer types do. They took the knowledge they had and...hoped.



Well that's kinda what happened here. And it's just the nature of exploration and pushing limits. More often than not, those limits get found in catastrophic ways.



Shit happens when you take massive risks. But the world needs guys willing to take 'em.

I think the difference between this situation and crossing the Atlantic on small, untested-for-long-journey ships, is that for the captains of the Nina/Pinta, there were no other options available. They weren't heading out on experimental ships when there were more proven options available. They weren't setting sail against the advice of others who had made the trip before and warned them that their ship needed certification. They weren't inviting civilian passengers along for what could end up being a deadly voyage. And they weren't recklessly cutting corners to drive profits higher.

I'm all for innovation, exploration and pushing the limits, but not when you are ignoring experienced peers and putting lives in danger because you think you're the smartest person in the room.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Talisman

I think the difference between this situation and crossing the Atlantic on small, untested-for-long-journey ships, is that for the captains of the Nina/Pinta, there were no other options available. They weren't heading out on experimental ships when there were more proven options available. They weren't setting sail against the advice of others who had made the trip before and warned them that their ship needed certification. They weren't inviting civilian passengers along for what could end up being a deadly voyage. And they weren't recklessly cutting corners to drive profits higher.

I'm all for innovation, exploration and pushing the limits, but not when you are ignoring experienced peers and putting lives in danger because you think you're the smartest person in the room.

Assumes a whole BUNCH of facts not in evidence....

I mean, the Santa Maria was significantly larger and more durable than the other two ships. Carrack's existed then - they were huge, powerful and durable, but they were slow. So Columbus went with the smaller, faster and yes - cheaper option with Caravel's. And he didn't even use 3 substantial ones - he used the biggest/best as his flagship and cut corners on the other 2. Why do you think they did that if it wasn't a profit motive?

Moreover, he wasn't far removed from the era of the Spanish Galleon, which was in development but not commonly used at the time. He COULD'VE gone with the Cameron approach and sought resources to fully develop the Galleon but he didn't. Instead he pushed existing technology to limits that NOBODY knew if it could withstand, similar to OG with Carbon Fiber tech.

And a bunch of folks were telling Columbus that the whole undertaking was a suicide mission. Did he take civilians? No - but he had a bunch of volunteer sailors with him and do you doubt for a second that the motives of many of them were simple adventure? Those guys could've found a boat that didn't take them into uncharted waters towards a world that they knew nothing about. That's not what they chose and it was more than a paycheck that drove some of them.

It's awfully similar in a lot of ways. I mean NOTHING presents a perfect analogue, but c'mon - how many similarities do you need before you recognize the theme? This is what explorers do. It's what they've ALWAYS done. And it gets a whole bunch of 'em dead for their efforts.

[Kiimo]

Originally Posted by srvy

US Navy is now using Xbox controllers to operate periscopes on Virginia class subs. This stuff going around that the Logitech controller on the Titan was some kind of culprit is bunk. The Titan so far as we can tell by reports was still descending. So it was controlled only by its ballast. It probably imploded before they ever tried to fire the motors up to go to the Wreck of Titanic. There is some squawking out there that during decent they may have realized a problem and dropped ballast to send to the safety of the surface. Obviously, they didn't make it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...x-controllers/

I don't think anyone believes the logitech controllers were to blame it's just the most meme-able part of this

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Kiimosabi

I don't think anyone believes the logitech controllers were to blame it's just the most meme-able part of this

You give the typical person too much credit.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by srvy

US Navy is now using Xbox controllers to operate periscopes on Virginia class subs. This stuff going around that the Logitech controller on the Titan was some kind of culprit is bunk. The Titan so far as we can tell by reports was still descending. So it was controlled only by its ballast. It probably imploded before they ever tried to fire the motors up to go to the Wreck of Titanic. There is some squawking out there that during decent they may have realized a problem and dropped ballast to send to the safety of the surface. Obviously, they didn't make it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...x-controllers/

I don't think the wireless controller was the culprit that caused the incident as I've seen no evidence pointing to such.

However depending on a wireless connection is intentionally implementing unnecessary point(s) of failure when you can simply hard wire the device and cross off at least 3 'what can go wrong' items off the check list.

As far as the Navy using gaming controllers to control hardware, that is true. However in my 5 minutes of research they seem to be using a wired connection.

Wireless technology is fickle. It's fine to depend on to play video games, listen to music, make calls etc but when you're 2 miles underwater it's an unnecessary and dangerous convenience.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Otter

I don't think the wireless controller was the culprit that caused the incident as I've seen no evidence pointing to such.

However depending on a wireless connection is intentionally implementing unnecessary point(s) of failure when you can simply hard wire the device and cross off at least 3 'what can go wrong' items off the check list.

As far as the Navy using gaming controllers to control hardware, that is true. However in my 5 minutes of research they seem to be using a wired connection.

Wireless technology is fickle. It's fine to depend on to play video games, listen to music, make calls etc but when you're 2 miles underwater it's an unnecessary and dangerous convenience.

Are you sure that they couldn't just plug it in if needed? To be fair, I haven't dug THAT far into it, but that's a pretty easy system to build in some backups, so I'd be VERY surprised if that were the case.