Oceangate Sub Missing

I think what annoyed me was that OceanGate didn’t have a remote vehicle with them to use in an emergency, all the safety aspects were designed into the submersible.

They would have known exactly what had happened within hours instead of it being days and relying on other peoples equipment to confirm the situation.

Still oddest place in the world for a Logitech game controller to end up.

Rockhopper

They are also saying that as it was being used in international waters there is no regulatory authority involved so no testing, inspection, compliance or anything like that required.

Thank goodness… all the HSSE fairies rubbing their hands together for the opportunity to regulate yet something else.

Would you get on a plane that somebody had knocked up in their shed?

You used to be able to .. and I have before it was over regulated.

Back when they were being made in sheds one specific commercial company (Mainair) had a design flaw and the Jesus bolt (holds the wings to the frame) was prone to snapping unlike the ones people literally made in sheds that were aware and over specified and had double safety.

As a kid my dad, uncle and their mate made microlights and an auto giro (the autogiro was only ever towed behind a car).

This led to the government rewarding Mainair by giving them the right to certify microlights and prevent those being made in sheds being flown thus giving them the market to produce shoddy minimal designs.

The five people who died on the Titan submersible were “true explorers”, the company who operated the dive has said.

They really weren’t.

Live by the sub, die by the sub I say.

Bit tone deaf @stevextc ?

Some right claptrap being spouted this morning not least:

Guillermo Söhnlein, a co-founder of OceanGate, has rejected some of the criticisms directed at the company over safety and certification.

Söhnlein left the company 10 years ago but still retains a minority stake.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said those commenting on the Titan’s safety, including film director James Cameron, were not fully informed.

“People keep equating certification with safety and are ignoring the 14 years of development of the Titan sub,” he says.

“Any expert who weighs in on this, including Mr Cameron, will also admit that they were not there for the design of the sub, for the engineering of the sub, for the building of the sub and certainly not for the rigorous test programme the sub went through.”

Söhnlein said it had been a “tragic loss for the ocean exploration community” but anyone who operates in the deep ocean “knows the risk of operating under such pressure and that at any given moment… you run the risk of this kind of implosion”.

He added that he thought technology and innovation can outpace regulation and developers are in a better position to understand the risks and best minimise them.

Linky

All reeks of tech bro “I’m a disruptor so it’s fine for me to move fast and break stuff”

Lessons in this outside submarines

Safety regulations are written in blood…

It’s OK to push the boundaries in the cause of development – that’s the way progress is made – but to charge people, billionaires or not, disclaimers or not – to do so isn’t.

Absolutely agree

All reeks of tech bro “I’m a disruptor so it’s fine for me to move fast and break stuff”

Lessons in this outside submarines

Well that is similar to what was said about Theranos after that started to go tits up, the attitude isn’t compatible with safety or health related hardware.

But I am not sure this situation is similar to a tech co., it would depend on how the project is financed.

I am surprised that there has been only limited commentary on the use of carbon fibre for the main body of the submersible. Carbon fibre is significantly weaker in compression than in tension. The carbon fibre structure would have been subject to high hoop and axial compressive loading. In general, metals are much better at resisting such loadings; this is probably why they chose to use titanium dome ends. And then there is the issues associated with non-destructive testing of carbon fibre both in manufacture and after use.

Of course, the design may have been mass driven, which in itself would be a concern in such circumstances. As no classification society is involved, I suspect investigations will be limited.

bit more here on construction and breaking the rules

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/ive-broken-some-rules-oceangate-titanic-submarine-window-pressure/

Ironic comment? Dirk Pitt is a Clive Cussler character from the National Underwater and Marine Agency (NUMA), which does exist (now) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Underwater_and_Marine_Agency

@timba I think it might have been aimed at my comments further up.

It’s OK to push the boundaries in the cause of development – that’s the way progress is made – but to charge people, billionaires or not, disclaimers or not – to do so isn’t.

The risk is what they are paying for.
I don’t think the Titanic location has any other significance other than being suitably dangerous and in international waters. Take away the risk and it’s pointless.

I am surprised that there has been only limited commentary on the use of carbon fibre for the main body of the submersible.

It was mentioned on the radio last night that it was a carbon fibre ceramic material, so not yer usual epoxy resin. I suppose that in compression the material the fibres are potted in is key, the fibres being there to protect against cracking and non symmetrical deformation?

@greyspoke

But I am not sure this situation is similar to a tech co., it would depend on how the project is financed.

Sorry I probably didn’t explain myself too well. I more meant that the techbro approach has become popularised and somewhat accepted within some aspects of tech development.
Seems OceanGate had completely misapplied that approach to a safety critical situation.

I would also add that it is also possible to misapply techbro approach within IT. Eg. In IT that itself supports safety critical features, or could affect the stability of financial systems, lose consumer’ personal data, or affect people’s lives significantly negatively (maybe not kill them, but still)

I don’t think the Titanic location has any other significance other than being suitably dangerous and in international waters

Bizarre comment, if it were true then any bit of deep water would have done. Can you imagine people paying a fortune to visit some nondescript bit of ocean floor?

This makes no sense to me

The risk is what they are paying for.
I don’t think the Titanic location has any other significance other than being suitably dangerous and in international waters. Take away the risk and it’s pointless.

Thank goodness… all the HSSE fairies rubbing their hands together for the opportunity to regulate yet something else.

There is a reason why flying in a commercial plane is the safest form of travel. And no it isn’t because hurtling through the sky at great speed is inherently safe.

And there is also a reason why travelling in a private plane is considerably more dangerous than travelling in a train or bus.

Can you imagine people paying a fortune to visit some nondescript bit of ocean floor?

apparently the bottom of the Marianas trench doesn’t have a lot going on other than being the deepest..

As no classification society is involved, I suspect investigations will be limited.

Yes unless someone comes into a nice big grant for trying it out I assume the investigation would quickly scan through the 2018 letter and go “that probably covers it”.
In terms of future regulations and controls. Although Titanic is in international waters the USA plus Canada can still put a lot of influence on it. US laws about cruise liners being a good example. If you want to dock in the USA and I think even accept payments from there you have to play by their safety rules.

I am surprised that there has been only limited commentary on the use of carbon fibre for the main body of the submersible.

Me too. Lots of armchair engineers like me saying they see issues though.

rossw
Free Member
I am surprised that there has been only limited commentary on the use of carbon fibre for the main body of the submersible. Carbon fibre is significantly weaker in compression than in tension. The carbon fibre structure would have been subject to high hoop and axial compressive loading. In general, metals are much better at resisting such loadings; this is probably why they chose to use titanium dome ends. And then there is the issues associated with non-destructive testing of carbon fibre both in manufacture and after use.

I would be amazed if cyclic fatigue of the carbon section doesn’t come out of the investigation as a main cause

apparently the bottom of the Marianas trench doesn’t have a lot going on other than being the deepest..

Which presumably makes it “suitably dangerous”. That, according to stevextc, is what would make it attractive.

Can you imagine people paying a fortune to visit some nondescript bit of ocean floor?

This. It is absolutely about the Titanic – there are plenty of other deep wrecks that they don’t choose to visit. Most of those other wrecks will have had some sort of significance (usually high value cargo/salvage potential) otherwise people wouldn’t have gone to the expense of finding them, but they don’t have the mystique of the Titanic.

The aunt of the 19 yo lad that lost his life says he told her he was terrified of the upcoming mission. He went ahead with it to please his dad on Fathers Day over there. Desperately sad.

That really is tragic. I doubt anything that stupid would have been anywhere near the top of my to do list when I was 19. Yeah, that sounds great dad, but can we not just go to a gig or something instead?

Which presumably makes it “suitably dangerous”. That, according to stevextc, is what would make it attractive.

It’s quite obviously not just about the danger, that’s a common mischaracterisation of any sort of extreme* activity. The danger is an important element but it’s not the motivation.

* I hate this term but it will do here.

A nautical expert on a programme earlier said the pressure at that depth is something like 350psi

Hes not much of a nautical expert really, is he?
That’s similar order of magnitude to a rear mtb shock.

A quick mental calculation suggests 5,500 is closer to the mark

Seems to have been plenty of hubris to go round here.

A shame that people have unnecessarily lost their lives, especially Suleman Dawood, who seems to have been subject to the billionaire version of rad-dadding.

 I doubt anything that stupid would have been anywhere near the top of my to do list when I was 19

Going in a submarine seems significantly less stupid than some of the shit I got up to at 19.

. I doubt anything that stupid would have been anywhere near the top of my to do list when I was 19

Not being a billionaires son, the risky opportunities available to me were somewhat more recreational but fairly experimental nonetheless.

A nautical expert on a programme earlier said the pressure at that depth is something like 350psi

he may have meant bar. 3500m is ~350 Bar.

Whilst fantastic at irony, i’m only an armchair expert at maritime engineering, so I’m not going to comment on this thread.

350psi

He probably meant 350bar.

he may have meant bar. 3500m is ~350 Bar.

Technically (the best kind of correct after all) 360bar as it’s salt water.

I think what annoyed me was that OceanGate didn’t have a remote vehicle with them to use in an emergency, all the safety aspects were designed into the submersible.

I’m not sure what you mean?

For about the 10th time, their system was designed to be operated as cheaply as possible.

To operate an ROV in that location to that depth, would of cost more than the operation in sending that death trap down.

Technically (the best kind of correct after all) 360bar as it’s salt water.

i mean if you want to get technical, you could do the full TEOS10 integration method calculating density from a temperature and salinity water column profile.

but ~350Bar is close enough..

edit: 😉

apparently the bottom of the Marianas trench doesn’t have a lot going on other than being the deepest..

It’s more of an Everest, but without the nice view.

This is a great representation of how deep various species can go, and how progressively low-effort the naming process gets.

https://neal.fun/deep-sea/

but they don’t have the mystique of the Titanic.

there are a number of things and events that happened around the time of the dawn of mass media that have implanted themselves because they were amongst the first experiences that were shared globallly. That seems to have put those events or objects in a place that nothing before or since can occupy

the Mona Lisa is a great example – largely unimportant for most of its history it was stolen just at the point where newspapers started printing pictures for the first time- so it was the first painting that people would recognise without having actually seen it in real life. So by accident it became a celebrity artwork – it’s the most famous painting in the world now for no real reason than it’s famously the famous painting – and probably always will be even though there’s no one alive still that will remember that theft and it’s reporting.

the titanic will never stop being the most famous shipwreck

people will never forget the words to  ‘Happy Birthday to You’ because it appeared at the dawn of Hollywood and even featured in films set decades and even centuries before it was written.

Someone will always be searching for the Loch Ness monster

they all stem from a time of shared experience that’ll probably never be repeated. Somehow events and stories from that era ‘stick’ in away nothing really has since.

I do wonder if they had announced on sunday that a implosion was detected shortly after losing comms, whether the same amount of resources would have been mobilised and the same media interest would have been generated.