Oceangate Sub Missing

Pressure cylinders – I’m no expert but some types of scuba cylinders are 300 bar and they do carbon versions as well. I know its a much smaller scale but the technology exisits.

Our SCBA cylinders at work, composite funnily enough, were filled to 300 bar. That’s not really unusual.

Yes, you can die falling off a bike but it’s not very likely.

If you have a half decent bike it probably won’t suffer a catastrophic structural failure.

Sounds like made up bollocks to me. I’ve had two catastrophic failures on bikes (1 frame and 1 wheel) over the years and both could have resulted in serious injury if I’d been unlucky.

I wish there was this level of concern for the plight of poor people, migrants, refugees, famine victims. Maybe the five HUNDRED poor people on the boat off the coast of Greece for example.

What? The people that have been mentioned several times already just in this thread?

<p style=”text-align: left;”>that billionaire story sounds all a bit wolf of Wall Street.  midgets involved?</p>
tragic as it is for those in the sub and their families.  I do think it is a very interesting comparison with the level of interest and effort compared to the even more tragic deaths of those migrants off Greece.  hundreds of children ffs

half decent bike it probably won’t suffer a catastrophic structural failure.

Tell that to the chap who ended up paralysed due to Fox’s dropout design

The people that have been mentioned several times already just in this thread?

I suspect he was referring to the efforts of the navy, coast guard and other private organizations…and yes I agree it’s pretty distasteful

Also..

All this comparing going down in an experimental sub to the ocean depths with mountain biking is slightly ridiculous. Many thousands of people in the uk regularly ride off road with limited consequences, whereas we are hearing from several experienced navy submariners who are saying no way they’d get in that ocean gate contraption. The levels of risk involved are not even comparable

Back on topic, I’ve heard a couple of different opinions on how easy it would be to recover if they do find it intact. Apparently the navy has a remote sub that could quite conceivably be used to winch it to safety, even if it is trapped

i suspect it’s been crushed into a thousand little pieces already however

Did anyone catch the interview on R4 with Michael Guillen?
ex-ABC science editor Michael Guillen revealed his own terrifying experience in 2000 when he became the first TV correspondent to visit the wreck

This was more than 20 years ago and
sounded absolutely terrifying.

I’m sure this kind of thing is perfectly normal in the development process for a machine that is going to operate with humans inside it at the limits of current engineering knowhow.

https://newrepublic.com/post/173802/missing-titanic-sub-faced-lawsuit-depths-safely-travel-oceangate

we are hearing from several experienced navy submariners who are saying no way they’d get in that ocean gate contraption. The levels of risk involved are not even comparable

That’s the difference between coming from a position of experience and one of ignorance.

I’ve signed waivers with RISK OF DEATH!!!11!ONE! written on them, if you don’t actually fully understand the risk how is it any different to any other waiver that gets a cursory glance if at all?

I think though, the comparison was made to highlight the hipocrisy of criticising the top 1% for their frivolous hobbies whilst spending mindblowing amounts for the bottom 90% on equally frivolous hobbies. FFS I spent probably 2 months of wages for the bottom 1% just on booze and a meal today.

They’re human beings FFS and I doubt the driver was a billionaire if that makes any difference. Some folk on here are really horrible bastards, like there’s some sort of inverse scale where a life no longer matters. Find some **** empathy, that’s a horrible way to die that I wouldnt wish on anyone.

fasthaggis
Full Member
Did anyone catch the interview on R4 with Michael Guillen?

I think this is potentially about to be on newsnight if anyone interested right now!

<p style=”box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 0.5rem; line-height: 1.5rem; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, ‘Helvetica Neue’, Arial, ‘Noto Sans’, sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, ‘Segoe UI’, ‘Apple Color Emoji’, ‘Segoe UI Emoji’, ‘Segoe UI Symbol’, ‘Noto Color Emoji’; background-color: #eeeeee;”>I’m sure this kind of thing is perfectly normal in the development process for a machine that is going to operate with humans inside it at the limits of current engineering knowhow.</p>

Man, that’s grim reading – what’s left of these poor sods are never going to be found, are they. 🙁

I think though, the comparison was made to highlight the hipocrisy of criticising the top 1% for their frivolous hobbies whilst spending mindblowing amounts for the bottom 90% on equally frivolous hobbies. FFS I spent probably 2 months of wages for the bottom 1% just on booze and a meal today.

a few usual suspects  have made some not particularly pleasant comments based on them being billionaires, but most lack much sympathy due to the shear stupidity of them doing it in the first place, regardless of how much it costs, so the ‘well folks spend lots of cash on bikes’ argument is irrelevant. The levels of risk are not the same.

it would cost me f all to jump into a lake full of hungry crocodiles for the thrills, but when I get ripped apart limb from limb I’m not sure I could expect much sympathy either.

Man, that’s grim reading

whilst it doesn’t give you much confidence in the product, the CEO was on the sub also (and apparently has been on every trip it’s made to date) and must have been aware of this. So he’s either a reckless idiot, or been very confident it was safe

the CEO was on the sub also (and apparently has been on every trip it’s made to date) and must have been aware of this

Does slightly remind me of this though:

Perhaps the CEO was aware that his role required him to fluff the confidence of high-rolling clients by being seen to personally trust the product?

sounds like progress but still Not sounding great.

On one hand they have detected rhythmic banging at depth at 30 min intervals in the area it went missing.

On the other hand ….  What are they going to do about it. :/

Contact lost 1h45m into a 2h descent. I can’t imagine the frustration if it’s something simple like they descended a bit quicker and either came to rest on the seabed, or hit hard and are stuck in the seabed, and it’s simply a case that they can’t dislodge the costruction pole ballast as it won’t tilt when they move their weight side to side.

From the article @martinhutch linked to,

Lochridge was particularly concerned about “non-destructive testing performed on the hull of the Titan” but he was “repeatedly told that no scan of the hull or Bond Line could be done to check for delaminations, porosity and voids of sufficient adhesion of the glue being used due to the thickness of the hull.” He was also told there was no such equipment that could conduct a test like that.

Interesting, given the other article linked on the thread has the hull manufacturer quoting <1% porosity levels. Perhaps whoever is quoted here meant Oceangate themselves didn’t have the test equipment and the manufacturer had already tested it.

they can’t dislodge the costruction pole ballast as it won’t tilt when they move their weight side to side.

That sounds so shonky.

<p>On one hand they have detected rhythmic banging at depth at 30 min intervals in the area it went missing.</p>

Oh god, that’s even worse. 🙁

This point about being bolted into the sub – any reason why the inner nuts holding the hatch on couldn’t be exposed so they could carry a socket wrench for emergency? I’m guessing it’s because water can force past the threads at that depth, though that seems incredible, if the hatch can seal at the right bolt torque.

Seems crazy that there’s a possibility of drifting on the surface undetected and suffocating with fresh air on the other side of the hatch.

‘construction pole ballast’

Honestly, I’m expecting Robert Llewellyn to appear at the shoulder of the Oceangate team and ask them how their build is going.

The ballast thing doesn’t concern me. Ballast is ballast, no need for it to be fancy. Being able to jettison it (or be able to send up an emergency beacon, or be able to open the hatch, etc) would concern me a bit more

This point about being bolted into the sub – any reason why the inner nuts holding the hatch on couldn’t be exposed so they could carry a socket wrench for emergency? I’m guessing it’s because water can force past the threads at that depth, though that seems incredible, if the hatch can seal at the right bolt torque.

Seems crazy that there’s a possibility of drifting on the surface undetected and suffocating with fresh air on the other side of the hatch.

It requires significantly more engineering to have a pressure vessel with a penetration than it does to have an essentially sealed cylinder.  All penetrations are weakness and thus cost and risk.

You would have thought that it would have external dye cartridges, strobes and a beacon (maybe it does) to make spotting it on the surface easier. But the could have at least painted it bright yellow and covered it in reflective materials.

This is why pre WW2 US Navy aircraft are painted yellow.

Get the impression that a lot more is know than is being said, which IMO is actually a good thing.

No explosion has been detected (by stating that it infers there is capability to hear if it had), also sounds like a UK military sub is helping out too.

Still no talk of what piece of equipment has the capability to get down to them, attach a line an pull up a sub given the depths.

By the sound of it the people on board are quite pragmatic people. You would think if you were trapped attached to some wreckage with no hope of release you would realise that there is no point banging, so that makes me think they are either free on the bottom, or some up to the surface… that narrows it down a bit !

You would have thought that it would have external dye cartridges, strobes and a beacon (maybe it does) to make spotting it on the surface easier.

In a normal world, yes you would.  But all these things would be crushed long before the vessel was half way down.

Plus, how would you trigger them without creating any holes through the pressure vessel?

All penetrations are weakness and thus cost and risk.

I’ve just bought some electrical hull penetrators at work.  They rated to a depth much less than than 4000m and each one cost as much as a half decent house.  The mating connectors are over £12k each.

This thing sounds like it was designed and built on a shoe string which given what they are charging per passenger doesn’t make much sense.

No explosion has been detected (by stating that it infers there is capability to hear if it had), also sounds like a UK military sub is helping out too.

Subs don’t explode, they implode, and only under catastrophic failure conditions. If it just fills up with water then it’s a quiet game over. I wondered if they used solely electronic means of releasing the weights (running anything through the hull may be impossible), but it would be common sense that in the event of any major failure they’d be spring-loaded to drop as opposed to being locked in place.

Eg. The mount for the weight is electronically held closed with a small lithium-ion battery, which has a maximum operating time of 90 hours and activation by RF from inside the sub. In the event that the radio receiver or transmitter fails, or the crew are incapacitated, the batteries will die and release the weights automatically before the breathable air inside the sub runs out.

I would have thought that anyone with vague experience of working with carbon fibre would be running a mile from the concept of making a sub from the stuff. Although carbon fibre is exceptionally strong it’s vulnerable to damage, and the key thing is that it doesn’t show signs of impact afterward even if the layers are delaminating below the surface.

On the bright side I knew my exhaustive knowledge of Clive Cussler novels would come in useful one day.

It requires significantly more engineering to have a pressure vessel with a penetration than it does to have an essentially sealed cylinder.  All penetrations are weakness and thus cost and risk.

Sure, I just didn’t think having an accessible hatch release of some kind (accessible bolt heads or something more complex, idk) would be a stretch given the general engineering levels going on.

I assume the need for it was seen as minimal, a situation where you’re on the surface at the limit of the air supply is highly unlikely. Yet now they may well be snagged or having problems releasing ballast, short on time and if they can release themselves they could pop up some time after that 40hr point.

The simple answer is probably that opening the hatch on the surface would sink it … the ‘hatch’ entry is that dome on the front isn’t it? But at least you might have a chance of getting out and swimming for a bit.

Subs don’t explode, they implode.

Yeah sorry that was all covered above, its before 9am, but they still have been saying an implosion has not been heard.

Plus, how would you trigger them without creating any holes through the pressure vessel?

An earlier sub design had salt corrosion activated ballast release so whatever happened it would float up after a time. That kind of fail-proof release idea seems sensible. No idea what it could send up that would be of use for rescue and anything released would drift.

By the sound of it the people on board are quite pragmatic people. You would think if you were trapped attached to some wreckage with no hope of release you would realise that there is no point banging,

I think pragmatism would turn to desperation and trying anything when you realise you only have just over 40hrs to live. You’d bang on the sides just in case.

Plus, how would you trigger them without creating any holes through the pressure vessel?

Electro magnetic clamps, blue-tooth, differential pressure switches programmed to release from outside the hull once it gets back to 1bar after achieving a maximum or another button on the control panel. You don’t need to drill holes. I bet that a military sub could launch a distress beacon without having to open any hatches.

Mercury space capsules had these back in the 1960’s and they worked. Admittedly they weren’t exposed to high pressure, but they still had a fairly rough ride and that was 60+ years ago.

Sure, I just didn’t think having an accessible hatch release of some kind (accessible bolt heads or something more complex, idk) would be a stretch given the general engineering levels going on.

Weight and cost.  Properly designed releasable hatches are complex and heavy.  That means you need more buoyancy.  Carbon reinforced plastic is usually used in an attempt to reduce wet weight meaning you need less buoyance and can keep things smaller.  All this is a cost reduction exercise.

 I bet that a military sub could launch a distress beacon without having to open any hatches.

You’d lose that bet.  They go out the submerged signal ejector and won’t work at anywhere near that depth.

An earlier sub design had salt corrosion activated ballast release so whatever happened it would float up after a time. That kind of fail-proof release idea seems sensible. No idea what it could send up that would be of use for rescue and anything released would drift.

That’s a neat idea. You’d think that they’d have bought some of the locator beacons used on aircraft flight data recorders and bolted them to the outside of the sub for such an eventuality. I imagine they would probably work from inside the sub if mechanically attached to a metal component.

I’ve just bought some electrical hull penetrators at work.  They rated to a depth much less than than 4000m and each one cost as much as a half decent house.  The mating connectors are over £12k each.

I’m guessing navy sub hull penetrators aren’t any cheaper… And those subs only go to 300, maybe 500m.

So there’s my answer on why they’re sealed in. (edit, as @jonm81 says, weight and cost)

Electro magnetic clamps, blue-tooth, differential pressure switches programmed to release from outside the hull

Yes but these need power that would have to come from an external battery that would, again, be crushed well before it reaches the target depth.

I bet that a military sub could launch a distress beacon without having to open any hatches.

I’m sure it could….. But they only go down to about 300m!

Mercury space capsules had these back in the 1960’s and they worked.

Yes but that was in a vacuum – which is pretty simple – not at pressures that are constantly trying to make something ⅒ of its original size!

You’d think that they’d have bought some of the locator beacons used on aircraft flight data recorders and bolted them to the outside of the sub for such an eventuality.

Again…… Crushed!!

People really need to understand the pressures involved here 🤷🏻‍♂️

By the sound of it the people on board are quite pragmatic people.

One sealed cylinder. 5 people. Several days. Not much oxygen.

Won’t someone think of the poo…

Its a really sh*tty situation however you look at it.

Again…… Crushed!!

People really need to understand the pressures involved here 🤷🏻‍♂️

ULB’s fitted to aircraft are rated to 6000m….

@sharkbait ! Apt name 🙁

This thing is equipped with external lights and thrusters that must have their own internal power supply as there are no holes in the hull, so they must have some sort of remote control over them from inside.

Could they have something similar that detaches and flashes?

What is the pressure rating on an aircraft flight data recorder?

You would have thought that it would have external dye cartridges, strobes and a beacon (maybe it does)

Nope. It’s been lost before – for 5 hours, and they discussed putting a beacon on it, and decided not to, so it doesn’t have any of that stuff.