[HN Gopher] Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says frien...
___________________________________________________________________
Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers
Author : etimberg
Score : 259 points
Date : 2023-06-22 15:57 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| Certhas wrote:
| It is notable how much news-coverage this received (for
| understandable reasons [1]) relative to the almost simultaneous
| disaster in the Mediterranean [2], where a shipwreck killed
| hundreds of people.
|
| [1] What springs to mind: Dramatic search action well suited for
| live blog coverage; psychological impact of the idea of people
| stranded in a submarine for days; And of course the average
| person here is probably a lot closer to taking a holiday trip in
| a submersible than to taking a refugee boat across the
| Mediterranean.
|
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Messenia_migrant_boat_dis...
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| > _than to taking a refugee boat across the Mediterranean._
|
| A _migrants_ boat. Most of the people crossing the Med into
| Europe are economic migrants but in the past decade it has
| become known that claiming asylum on arrival (or at least if
| caught) is a good strategy so many do.
| InexSquirrel wrote:
| Interesting point, I wasn't aware of the distinction between
| economic migrant and refugee
|
| > Refugee immigrants are unable or unwilling to return home
| for fear or threat of prosecution, and thus, must make a life
| in the country that gives them refuge. Economic immigrants,
| on the other hand, are free from this constraint and can
| return home whenever they so desire.[1]
|
| But then further clarification of the term 'economic migrant'
| is also interesting:
|
| > The term 'economic migrant' has no legal definition. It is
| not mentioned in any international instruments of migration
| law.
|
| and
|
| > The inaccurate dichotomy between 'economic migrants' and
| refugees creates two fixed categories and gives the
| misleading impression that only refugees have and deserve
| legal protection and rights at the international level.
|
| > Yet, the reality is different and far more complex.
| Migratory movements are composed of various types of migrants
| who may have specific protection needs, even if they are not
| fleeing persecution or a conflict. These include accompanied
| or unaccompanied migrant children; victims of human
| trafficking; migrants attempting to reunite with their
| families; and migrants affected by natural disasters or
| environmental degradation, including as a consequence of
| climate change. [2]
|
| [1] https://docs.iza.org/dp1063.pdf [2]
| https://weblog.iom.int/false-dichotomy-between-economic-
| migr...
| ReptileMan wrote:
| Since the only country at war that borders EU is Ukraine I
| don't think that people from any other countries could be
| considered refugees.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| I am a bit puzzled by your comment.
|
| A 'refugee' has a legal definition because this is a status
| that is created and governed by international treaties,
| which is what makes it interesting for migrants because in
| 'nice' countries like in Europe this means that they are
| protected from deportation while their claim to refugee
| status is processed, which can take a very long time. They
| are provided accomodation during that time.
|
| All other migrants are simply people who migrate for
| whatever reason people move to other countries, which are
| mainly family and economic reasons. When people from poor
| countries want to move to rich countries the main reason is
| very obviously economic. All those migrants fall into
| normal national laws of the countries they move to, in
| general this means that if they enter without visas they
| face a form of arrest and deportation.
|
| That's it. There is indeed in a clear dichotomy. The rest
| is purely a political/ideological point of view as to
| whether people have effectively a right to migrate vs.
| whether countries have a right to decide who to let in.
| ummonk wrote:
| I don't think it has much to do with refugees vs. holiday trip.
| Other stories of (potentially) trapped people such as the Thai
| soccer team or the Chilean miners received similar nonstop
| coverage and media attention.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| I reflected on this too. I think the key differentiator is the
| context of the submarine situation unfolding in realtime, with
| action which could still be taken, and an unknown future
| outcome, as opposed to an event which was reported on
| retrospectively, _after_ the disaster had happened.
|
| But the contrast is still striking between both the situations
| and media reporting of 5 rich men vs 700 of some of the world's
| poorest and most desperate people.
|
| Both are unbelievably tragic.
|
| The reporting on the Mediterranean disaster seems to have gone
| a lot quieter than I would have expected given what we now know
| about how the Greek authorities story simply does not match up
| with what actually seems to have happened. (It seems like there
| may have been an opportunity to prevent that disaster).
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Bad things happening to well-off people gets outsized attention
| not because people care more about the rich, but because it
| knocks the wheels off one of the foundational beliefs of
| capitalism: that moving up the wealth ladder will shield you
| from the miseries that befall the poor. If being rich doesn't
| protect you, then nothing can, and that makes capitalism rather
| meaningless.
|
| Might not be true in this case - the very idea of people locked
| up in a submarine is attention grabbing - but its certainly
| true for countless similar laments where people will point out
| the outsized attention a random investment banker getting
| attacked would get vis-a-vis the many murders in the inner city
| on any given day.
| RektBoy wrote:
| [flagged]
| jraph wrote:
| Because they are fellow human beings struggling. People
| migrating illegally don't do it for pleasure. They have
| usually run out of other solutions.
|
| Can you imagine having to decide to do such a risky thing?
| They know they risk their life doing so. Which is on top of
| having to leave your family, friends and the place you
| probably love to eventually probably find a shitty job and
| having to be subjected to a lot of difficulties,
| administrative non-sense, and everything else.
|
| Maybe the EU has its fair share of responsibility in the
| causes pushing people migrating "illegally" too.
|
| Migrants are not the issue. The system that forces them to
| migrate is.
| passer_byer wrote:
| Because regardless how you classify them, they are humans who
| deserve our empathy and compassion.
| WitCanStain wrote:
| Sometimes I wonder what it is that enables some people to
| have empathy for strangers but others not. Is it mostly your
| upbringing? Genetics? Can people like you be fixed, or are
| you incorrigible?
| thedrbrian wrote:
| [flagged]
| codetrotter wrote:
| > the average person here is probably a lot closer to taking a
| holiday trip in a submersible than to taking a refugee boat
| across the Mediterranean
|
| There is no way in hell I would pay $250k to board a janky-ass
| sub going deep into the ocean.
|
| For $250k, I could buy a nice house for me, my girlfriend and
| our future family.
|
| And even that is not possible yet. Because I don't have that
| kind of money.
| asynchronous wrote:
| Reminder too that literally everyone is one country-ending
| catastrophic event away from being on a refugee boat
| hguant wrote:
| This is something of a false equivalence - yes, "everyone"
| is at risk from a country ending event, but not all
| countries are equally at risk.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| The difference is when Libya collapses into civil war (or 3
| governments or whatever) Libyan refugees migrate to other
| countries that are stable.
|
| When China, Western Europe, or the US collapses into civil
| war refugees from those countries do indeed migrate. The
| problem is other countries start collapsing as well because
| they were dependent on some form of trade with those
| regions. As a result its unlikely there will ever be a
| large scale exodus of people from the US. We'll all just be
| survivors in the wasteland at that point.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| What kind of single events could destroy most countries
| without taking out half the world or all of the world?
| ithkuil wrote:
| Not all countries at the same time. But one country at
| random which would affect that random person. The rest of
| the world would watch and think that it never could have
| happened to them, just as that random person may have
| thought not long before.
| parkersweb wrote:
| Just listening to 'Fukushima' on BBC World Service
| podcasts and 'major nuclear incident' is definitely one
| that springs to mind.
| troupo wrote:
| Wat?
|
| Fukushima a) happened and b) Japan and the world are
| still there
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| A coup that splits the nation into warring factions.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Really, anything where the government response makes
| things worse and spirals out of control.
|
| A lot of the Central American refugees are fleeing very
| sharp increases in gang violence.
| lostapathy wrote:
| You must live on the coast. There's plenty of us in the
| midwestern US that could never make it to a coast before
| the boats were all gone.
| carlmr wrote:
| Also going on a boat to leave the US would be very
| stupid.
|
| There's a reason migrants take the Mediterranean route,
| instead of the Atlantic route.
| riley_dog wrote:
| > Also going on a boat to leave the US would be very
| stupid.
|
| Why? As a Minnesotan, the first thing I'm doing is
| hopping on my boat and heading north to Canada.
| jayGlow wrote:
| I think they meant trying to cross the ocean as opposed
| to one of the great lakes. crossing either ocean in a
| shoddy boat is much more dangerous than going across the
| Mediterranean.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Go down the Mississippi :-)
| stef25 wrote:
| Not that it involved a catastrophe but most of those
| people had been traveling dangerously for months to make
| it to Libya (or Egypt?)
| boring_twenties wrote:
| Only those near a coast, actually
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Many people are walking for months to reach the coast to
| escape on these refugee boats.
| boring_twenties wrote:
| So that's at least two things between them and the boat,
| then
| soperj wrote:
| > For $250k, I could buy a nice house for me, my girlfriend
| and our future family.
|
| That's not even enough of down payment for a tear down where
| I live!
| codetrotter wrote:
| Relocate :D In the city I was born I don't think there is
| room for a couple with kids anywhere near $250k. Probably
| I'd need $400k or more there for any kind of suitable
| housing. In the city where I rent currently, maybe just
| barely. But my hope is to scrape together enough savings
| and then buy a house or flat for us somewhere in the world
| where $250k or thereabouts would be sufficient.
| emeril wrote:
| maybe so but a lot of contributors here are pretty loaded and
| could def drop $250k on something on a whim
| major505 wrote:
| Its because theres not much to do in case of the mediterranean
| disasaster. The thing sanked, you rescue the the survivors,
| then departed them back to the country of origin. Also, this
| happened before.
|
| In the case of the sub, there where a chance to find them
| alive. This makes the story more compelling.
| belorn wrote:
| I would not read too much into it. Media coverage in this
| context is mostly about how sensentional and novel the news is.
| People get lost at sea all the time, in particularly in fishing
| and shipping industry. The average person is very similar to
| those people and yet such events dont generally create
| international news.
| nicce wrote:
| It is less about the media but more about the response of
| officials. How many boats were send to look for a single
| submarine? All the way from the France? When they could have
| been sent to Mediterranean sea as well.
| partiallypro wrote:
| There wasn't really a discrepancy in response though, and
| if you are lost at sea and have nothing to hang onto...you
| aren't going to last long. I saw someone ask why the US
| didn't send ships to look for migrants, well...that's a
| 10-day ride across the Atlantic & Mediterranean. Even
| surrounding countries were sometimes hours away.
|
| The average human can't tread that long without a life
| jacket, the average is ~2-3 hours and that's in still water
| (to be a lifeguard you have to last 30 minutes), not a
| choppy ocean/sea. By the time any country other than Italy
| or Greece came to the location, they'd already be dead.
| It's tragic, but there is no discrepancy. If there were a
| chance of actual survival for days, there would have been a
| much larger response.
|
| Also, apparently the Greeks offered aid before the boat
| even sank and the boat declined because they didn't want to
| go to Greece, they wanted to go to Italy. There are mixed
| reports on that though as now some are blaming the Greek
| coast guard for tipping the boat over by accident.
|
| If you want something to be upset about, be upset about
| practically every country on Earth's broken immigration
| systems that cause these tragic events.
| manzanarama wrote:
| The US has quite a few shops scattered around the world
| at all times. The 22nd, 24th, and 26th Marine
| Expeditionary Units patrol the Atlantic and
| Mediterranean.
| hef19898 wrote:
| There are multiple reports, and investigations, into
| _illegal_ push backs of migrant vessels by FRONTEX and,
| yes, the Greek Coast Guard and Navy. Enough for me to not
| cut them any slack anymore.
|
| Regarding the US Navy, well, they do have a Fleet in the
| Mediterranean, it's not like they had to sail all the way
| from Pearl Harbour.
| isbvhodnvemrwvn wrote:
| Why would you send specialized submarine search and
| recovery ships to Mediterranean? If makes zero sense, they
| serve very different purpose.
| nicce wrote:
| Exactly. You use a lot of resources to send help on the
| other side of the world for people who volunteeringly
| went to bottom of the ocean knowing risks and just for
| fun.
|
| But you don't use resources to help people who are forced
| to leave their country and now are drowning in the sea.
| belorn wrote:
| How many boats are sent international if a fishing boat
| outside Thailand or Norway don't return home? What if a old
| transport ship goes missing in a storm?
|
| Occasionally we can see here on HN stories about lost
| sailors being rescued after weeks lost in the water, or
| shipwrecked on some remote rock. The common theme for those
| stories is that there wasn't a bunch of ships that went
| looking for them for weeks. For every person who survived
| such event, many more died.
|
| When there is a lot of media coverage you also tend to get
| more reaction by officials, which then generate even more
| media coverage. It is the same concept why a individual can
| create a story on HN and reach people at
| google/facebook/apple, while thousands of users can have an
| identical situation and never reach a single person from
| support. It not a fair system but its a very well
| understood phenomenon.
| civilitty wrote:
| _> How many boats are sent international if a fishing
| boat outside Thailand or Norway don 't return home? What
| if a old transport ship goes missing in a storm?_
|
| The problem is that there's no immediate feedback when
| they go missing so the search areas are pointlessly large
| to even attempt SAR operations. Areas where there's lots
| of immigration traffic are always monitored, like the
| Greeks were monitoring the boat before it capsized
| (enough to get that aerial photo of the overcrowded
| decks).
|
| The vast majority of Coast Guards aren't stretched to
| their limits, they're sitting there ready to launch SAR
| operations if anyone calls, all largely operating for
| free as a cheap way of supporting maritime trade. The
| USCG alone responds to tens of thousands of cases a year,
| rescuing thousands of people. Some corrupt nations skimp
| on their CGs but that wasn't really the case here.
| hef19898 wrote:
| There is a difference between litterally sending multiple
| _Navies_ (A), sending whatever SAR assets there are (B)
| and _actively_ preventing and even prosecuting private
| SAR assets trying to stage their own rescue ops (C).
|
| The _Titan_ was A, your average fishing boat or other
| vessel is B. And all those migrants are, and that pisses
| me off to an incredible degree, C.
| nicce wrote:
| I am not sure if it is the case this time.
|
| The response on sending rescue teams was high even before
| it got popular on the news. I remember reading some
| statements that "we sent everything we can" in the very
| first news.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The one happened once, the other happens every day. That
| doesn't make it any less sad but that's the reason why the one
| got disproportionate coverage, it's 'news' by definition, it
| happened the first time. If it would happen every day it would
| definitely not be covered to this degree, plus there is the
| 'race against time' component which allows the news to be
| stretched over several news cycles.
| kitd wrote:
| I think the idea of being trapped in a confined space
| kilometers under the sea has a visceral effect on the
| imagination that a boat voyage on the surface doesn't,
| regardless of how tragic the outcome is in both events. It
| pokes and prods many of our deep phobias.
|
| Similar stories like the Thai boys trapped in the cave, or the
| Chilean miners, had a similar effect.
|
| A bit like "Snakes on a plane". Again, trapped with your
| phobias.
| finitemonkey wrote:
| Most of those refugees were trapped to. They were locked in
| and then the thing capsized.
|
| But they didn't go to watch a shipwreck sunken long ago for
| some entertainment. They tried to cross over to Europe out of
| desperation for a better life. Much better to fill the news
| cycle with the rich dudes.
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| You're just looking for outrage where there is none.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Regarding drowning people in the Mediteranian and
| eslewhere, yes, there should be more, and constant,
| outrage. It says a lot about Western society that there
| isn't, that it doesn't even really make the news
| anymore...
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| It made the news everywhere around the world. But
| perpetually outraged people gonna find anything to
| outrage about anyways..
| hef19898 wrote:
| Oh, there should be outrage about the kere fact we allow
| those disasters, the migrants and not the rich people at
| the Titanic, to happen. There isn't, and some news
| coverage is by no means enough.
|
| But hey, we in the West are fine not worrying too much
| about some poor folks Africa dying at our door steps.
| Because doing so, would force us to face the fact that we
| are by no means as morally superior than we like to
| think, and just convinced ourselves to be with all the
| help Ukrainian refugees got. So, we prefer not to think
| about it, as a society.
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| You doth rant too much to the point of incoherence...
| hef19898 wrote:
| Sure I do "rant", because I consider the loss of inocent
| life, especially easily avoidable loss, a tragedy. One
| that os not aligned witj our self proclaimed democratic
| values. But apparently, ranting is all I can do, since
| all EU governments seem to be OK with the status quo...
| EatingWithForks wrote:
| I think being trapped on an overcrowded ship, bodies pressed
| into you, as the ship capsizes, is also viscerally
| terrifying. You don't know where you are. You don't know who
| is around you. You have nothing except what you could've
| carried. You are trying to leave a downed ship with hundreds
| of pressing bodies. The waters are rising. There's too much
| froth to see where you're going.
|
| Everyone is screaming, death is all around you. People are
| drowning, and in their drowning flailing limbs they are
| pulling others to their deaths.
|
| [Edited to add: The migrants would've had time to process
| what was happening to them. There would be many long minutes
| of terror, suffocation, as they died. Hundreds. Women,
| children.]
| sho_hn wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_MV_Sewol
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_A8dq2fA5o
|
| A friend of mine was involved with computer forensics on
| recovered cellphones on this one. Just awful.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| I agree with you but I also realise it's very hard to
| imagine what a proper tempest on the sea feels like if you
| are never experienced it on a ship. It's an experience
| which is so far removed from a modern person traditional
| experience - a sunny summer day at the beach - that they
| just can't grasp it.
| nomel wrote:
| Yes, it's good entertainment, for many.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > And of course the average person here is probably a lot
| closer to taking a holiday trip in a submersible than to taking
| a refugee boat across the Mediterranean.
|
| My opinion is the complete opposite, I think it has more
| coverage because it's a feel good event for 90% of the world
| who absolutely despise rich fucks in that specific part of the
| dumb X rich venn diagram
|
| I haven't seen a single post about how sad the sub story is...
| it's all memes and people amazed at how stupid humans can be
| stcroixx wrote:
| Exactly. Most people are bothered to see how rich folks like
| this waste money when most people struggle to survive. Being
| paid ok in tech does not make me feel any closer to the sort
| that spends 250k on a fun trip.
| stef25 wrote:
| It's not so much stupidity as knowingly embarking on a
| dangerous adventure for the purpose of fun, basically.
|
| Someone who took the trip before said they had to sign a
| waver which mentioned death multiple times. It's like
| climbing Everest, walking to the north pole, commercial space
| flights, base jumping etc.
|
| The med disaster was people embarking on a dangerous
| "adventure" out of what they perceived as being a necessity.
|
| Of course all lives should be regarded as being equal.
| lm28469 wrote:
| This all feels like a parody to be honest, at least
| previous explorers were.... exploring
|
| Now people _pay_ to be carried on the Everest, pay for a
| ticket to space, pay for a ticket to the titanic, &c. There
| is nothing left so they fight for the crumbs, looking for
| the next dumbest idea on the list
| stef25 wrote:
| Yeah couldn't agree more. "Into thin air" about a
| disaster on Everest describes very well how some, if not
| most, of the people in the group had never been anywhere
| near a mountain half as challenging as Everest.
|
| Some even had brand new boots, which anyone with half a
| brain knows is a bad idea. A few did turn out to be tough
| bastards though, spending several days up there alone in
| a state of delirium and eventually making it back down on
| their own accord.
|
| Guardian also mentioned a Mexican Youtuber having taken
| the trip down to the Titanic in that titanium coffin,
| just for clicks & views.
| finitemonkey wrote:
| > It's like climbing Everest,
|
| They died close to the shipwreck. Maybe the Titanic site
| will slowly fill up with corpses, just like Everest is
| doing.
|
| > Of course all lives should be regarded as being equal.
|
| Lives sure. But not deaths. Bringing yourself in a
| confirmed dangerous situation just for the thrill of it,
| even being so desperate for it as to pay what post people
| would dream of earning over multiple years, and then dying
| during this adventure ... in contrast to desperate refugees
| trying to escape into a better life and then dying because
| traffickers don't care about their survival.. Idk man,
| doesn't sound equal to me.
| sokoloff wrote:
| I've signed "you could die" waivers several times in my
| life. That might be more a commentary on the state of our
| legal system than on my level of risk-seeking.
| x0x0 wrote:
| I read that more people have been to outer space than have
| been to the wreck of the Titanic. Anybody who didn't think
| this was an extremely dangerous thing to do was lying to
| themselves.
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| scotty79 wrote:
| It's a better story. Story of punished hubris of the rich who
| disregard everybody including experts.
|
| While another refugee boat sunk is just that.
| dagaci wrote:
| It's the novelty of the situation, even absurdity and even the
| inspired incredulity....... on the other hand the poor trying
| to get richer and dying trying does not create new pathways in
| the brain
| j-a-a-p wrote:
| Also the coastguards were tripping over each other to save
| these 5 men, while for the refugees the speculation is if the
| coastguard contributed to the wrecking.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Whose speculation?
| stef25 wrote:
| The Greek coast guard gave conflicting statements about
| having tied a rope to the boat to try and tow it to the
| shore. First they did, then they didn't.
| boeingUH60 wrote:
| What compare the U.S Coast Guard's actions with that of the
| Greek Coast Guard? They are two distinct and unrelated
| organizations.
|
| And from what I've read about, the U.S Coast Guard are
| awesome folks that'll trip over each other to save anyone if
| they can..
| Bukhmanizer wrote:
| I don't think people should be too surprised that the news
| cycle doesn't exactly reward the biggest tragedies. Not to
| mention the fact that it only became such a big story largely
| because so many people were dunking on the company/passengers.
| Unless you're suggesting we should be spending more time
| dunking on dead refugees?
| olalonde wrote:
| It's just that experimental submarines vanishing on their way
| to the Titanic are much more unusual and intriguing than
| boating accidents. There was also an element of suspense since
| the fate of the sub was unknown (similar to flight MH370).
| stuaxo wrote:
| The funny thing is - they probably are closer to becoming a
| refugee.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| _Something about tragedies, and something about statistics..._
|
| But there's also the concern of frequency, [2] occurs more
| frequent than [1], people generally don't care about the people
| at [2] because they are "unimportant", and not prominent in any
| way. They are background characters on the other side of the
| world for many, they are not well dressed, they do not perform
| functions with significant influence on the broader society.
|
| Or at least so they are perceived by the general public. They
| are labelled illegal immigrants, or leeches, or whatever else
| because people in many places can't fathom being born in a
| third world or very poor country and doing everything in your
| power to make it out.
|
| Imagine, feeling so low, that you'd give everything, your life
| even, for a chance, a sliver of chance, at what others are born
| into.
| rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote:
| The comparison between these two stories is being made
| (elsewhere on the Internet) because humans were literally
| still being found and fished out of the Mediterranean, alive,
| while entire nation states mobilized to try to rescue a few
| wreckless rich guys who were likely already dead.
|
| The point being made is about misallocation of resources, not
| news coverage. (Novel stories will always grab more
| attention.)
| civilitty wrote:
| _> while entire nation states mobilized_
|
| Who?
|
| The US Navy/Coast Guard sending an ultra deepwater ROV
| isn't even comparable to the Greeks actively monitoring the
| boat enough to take a photo of it before it capsized, let
| alone is anyone mobilizing "entire nation states"
| sigstoat wrote:
| > The point being made is about misallocation of resources,
| not news coverage.
|
| what resources? were US and canada supposed to ship deep
| sea ROVs over to the Mediterranean to help refugees?
|
| even if you wanted the US/Canada to help, it wouldn't have
| been the north atlantic coast guards doing it.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > The point being made is about misallocation of resources
|
| Do you have a detailed list of rescue vehicles deployed for
| each event ?
| umeshunni wrote:
| > The point being made is about misallocation of resources,
| not news coverage.
|
| The families of the missing rich people have the resources
| to fund the search. The families of the missing people in
| the Mediterranean obviously do not.
| bscphil wrote:
| Wouldn't that be an example of what the comment you're
| replying to calls a misallocation of resources?
| uppiiii765 wrote:
| Is it?
|
| We (I say this not from my point of view) don't want to see
| poor people.
|
| We don't relate to them and we think they should just be
| successful in their countries.
|
| In contrast there is someone who is part of us, not poor, has
| achieved something and entertained us in an interesting way.
|
| Of course we will try to help them and not those refugees.
|
| The mental issue of us living great while 3th world countries
| exist is nothing new for a long time.
|
| It's now even so old that there is research done on how to help
| people because the obvious things didn't work.
| frereubu wrote:
| A better comparison is to the round-the-clock coverage of the
| Chilean miners who were stuck underground, and the boys who
| were eventually rescued from the cave in Thailand. Your
| comparison is apples to oranges.
|
| The Messenia disaster was over by the time it hit the news (and
| it _was_ covered extensively in the UK press), whereas the
| Titan situation was ongoing. Watch how quickly it disappears
| from the news cycle now it 's been resolved.
| Gerard0 wrote:
| Thanks for this. I had no idea.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| > And of course the average person here is probably a lot
| closer to taking a holiday trip in a submersible than to taking
| a refugee boat across the Mediterranean.
|
| The average person here might think they are, but they'd be
| deluding themselves.
| stef25 wrote:
| First time I read the comparison with the Med disaster and
| couldn't agree more.
|
| I'm never the first one to start whining about refugee related
| disasters but hundreds of women & children drowning on a boat
| after having been in a miserable state for days on end is just
| the worst. Other boats had been circling it for days and apart
| from providing some food & water nothing was done. Maybe an
| attempt to tow it, which could well have led to the capsizing.
|
| How could such a ship have been rescued? Any attempt at
| evacuation would have probably led to a capsizing anyway due to
| people moving around in a panic, unless ... the boat was wedged
| between two strong boats?
| philistine wrote:
| No one anywhere has mentioned that but it's true. The amount
| of people meant any sort of rescue might have been doomed to
| failure.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I understand that it is difficult to speculate on why the news
| covers one subject or another, and certainly the other comments
| have a point about being trapped being scary, or people
| laughing at the misfortune of the powerful being good for
| clickbait.
|
| I just want to say, another issue is that to be perfectly
| honest, we don't like to humanize migrants, nor do we want to
| examine our culpability in their misfortune and demise. We want
| to mine resources from foreign countries even if that means
| destabilizing their governments, but we absolutely do not want
| to deal with the people fleeing those places whether we had
| nothing to do with their misfortune or we were in some way
| complicit.
|
| The misfortune of a few rich guys is much easier for us to
| process than the avoidable death of hundreds, which was
| reportedly ultimately caused by the European Coast Guard who
| attempted to tow the vessel and in doing so supposedly caused
| it to sink. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/16/world/europe/greece-
| migra...
| croes wrote:
| The war in Ukraine showed the average person is more likely to
| become a refugee than paying a quarter million dollars for a
| trip to the Titanic.
| tacker2000 wrote:
| This is unrelated to the article and can also be seen as
| political flamebait.
| slashdev wrote:
| Refugee boats go down in the Mediterranean all the time. At
| this point it's hardly news.
|
| That's not in any way to detract from the tragedy, just
| pointing out one reason why it's barely covered.
|
| Once something becomes common, it's not news anymore.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Yes, it's more similar to
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tham_Luang_cave_rescue than to
| other disasters, which should illustrate that it's not about
| the kind of people so much as the story itself.
|
| I lived in South Asia for a while and the thing that would
| strike me is the everyday catastrophes. For instance, there was
| a recent Indian derailment that you barely heard about here in
| the US https://apnews.com/article/india-passenger-train-derail-
| dead...
|
| 275 deaths.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| _For instance, there was a recent Indian derailment that you
| barely heard about here in the US_
|
| It was only covered in the NYT, LAT, WaPo, Chicago Tribune,
| WSJ, USAT, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, NBC News, and CBS
| News....just to name a few.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Fair enough. Same places as the Greek migrants, so I
| suppose we were operating with a false premise. Most things
| are quite well covered irrespective of whom the victims
| were.
| [deleted]
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| I think the migrant boat disaster is horrible. But I was more
| interested in this missing sub because it was a bit mysterious
| what happened to it initially. Then it all comes out how badly
| built it is, how it's a death trap, etc. It's just more
| interesting personally. It doesn't mean it's worse than the
| migrant boat, it's just more interesting and I'd rather read
| about it.
|
| Mysterious cases always get more traction on social media too.
| There was an instance in the UK where a woman went missing near
| a river. People were speculating for weeks about what had
| happened. They would travel to the location and try and be
| detectives. It's was insane. People said it was because she was
| a white woman, but I don't think it's that. It's just the
| mystery of not knowing what happened and a body not being found
| straight away after divers searched the area.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Nicola_Bulley
|
| Same goes for the sub. It's not because it was full of
| billionaires. It was because it was from a company infamous for
| cutting corners and people wanting confirmation that it did in
| fact implode. It also just boggles the mind why people who are
| so wealthy would get in something so shoddily put together.
| They have the money to fund a whole expedition like James
| Cameron did, but they'd rather increase the risk of death by an
| order of magnitude.
| jl6 wrote:
| The contrasting coverage is IMHO largely due to the novelty
| of the situation, and nothing to do with any moral judgement
| on the victims. Tragically, migrant boat disasters are
| common.
| bluescrn wrote:
| It was also the 'ticking clock' factor of the limited
| oxygen, a countdown of a few days, giving hope for a heroic
| rescue.
|
| People can't survive for long in cold seas. By the time a
| migrant boat disaster makes the news, hopes of finding
| survivors may already have faded.
| tremon wrote:
| The Mediterranean Sea isn't particularly cold this time
| of year, are you confusing the locations of the two
| incidents?
| itake wrote:
| Do you have any details about why it was a death trap?
|
| I watched one video that complained about off the shelf parts
| being used, but the two examples was an RV light (not safety
| related) and the gaming controller (which they had multiple
| back ups).
|
| They also claimed to have been reviewed by Boeing and
| University of Washington. There was 7 different mechanisms
| that could force a return. Some of those were purely
| mechanical.
|
| Clearly the sub wasn't safe enough, but I'm not seeing
| anything that makes it obviously badly built.
| rurp wrote:
| In addition to all of the specific examples already shared,
| the CEO boasted numerous times about flouting standard
| safety protocols and expert opinions.
|
| These design flaws weren't an unfortunate mistake, they
| were part of a very deliberate pattern that went
| predictably wrong.
| ryanthemadone wrote:
| This flying lady doctor had lots to say on this
|
| https://twitter.com/LadyDoctorSays/status/16717009894292971
| 5...
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| There were a lot of issues with the design, which I found
| helpfully explained in this video. [1] A major concern was
| intentionally hiring fresh college graduate engineers
| without keeping older submarine veterans on staff as well.
| There were some good questions raised about their breathing
| system. Were they just continually releasing oxygen in to
| the cabin to compensate for CO2, thus leading to a
| potentially high oxygen environment where a fire would be a
| major issue? Did they have isolated breathing equipment in
| case of a fire? After a previous dive it was noted that the
| vehicle was hard to visually locate even after surfacing,
| but it did not have a position beacon onboard, nor was it
| painted orange to make it easier to see. Why did they fail
| to include these suggested measures?
|
| I think there was a fair bit of other concerns. I thought
| this video was informative and the kind of thing the HN
| crowd would appreciate, so take a look.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dka29FSZac
| michaelt wrote:
| The Wikipedia article is extremely detailed:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OceanGate
|
| Some highlights include:
|
| * Design inspired by the "DeepFlight Challenger" - but
| DeepFlight said their craft was only rated for one dive,
| and weakens with each cycle, and could not be used for five
| dives.
|
| * Hull designed by subcontract manufacturer in 6 weeks -
| scarcely enough time to do much testing.
|
| * In an early dive the CEO performed solo, lost contact
| with the surface ship for approximately one hour
|
| * While diving with a journalist, lost contact with the
| support vessel for 5 hours.
|
| * It was impossible to open the sub from inside
| (admittedly, this is only relevant if you first manage to
| ascend to the surface)
|
| * Hull started showing showing signs of cyclic fatigue in
| January 2020 (they got it repaired)
|
| * Assembly and testing procedures so sloppy they managed to
| attempt a dive with a thruster installed the wrong way
| around.
|
| * Employee called for a stronger front window, and
| nondestructive testing of the hull. Company fired him and
| sued him.
|
| * CEO on record as saying ship safety laws "needlessly
| prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation"
| and that "At some point, safety just is pure waste. I mean,
| if you just want to be safe, don't get out of bed."
|
| * Couldn't get certified by a ship classification society,
| claimed that was OK because most marine accidents are
| operator error not mechanical failure; and the standards
| didn't give them adequate credit for their corporate
| culture of safety.
|
| The other thing that indicates it was a deathtrap is the
| deaths.
|
| With that said, personally I support the right of people to
| expose themselves to the risk of death in search of
| adventure. Normal folks can buy motorbikes and quadbikes,
| millionaires can buy cessnas, why shouldn't billionaires
| have deadly entertainment options befitting their wealth?
| cma wrote:
| The whistleblower said they used flammable interior
| materials. Were the Camper World lights inflammable to the
| standards of submarines?
| bob778 wrote:
| Boeing denies any involvement while the University of
| Washington says they briefly worked together on a
| completely different unmanned vehicle
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| Using off the shelf components is probably the best thing
| they did. You don't want to reinvent the wheel if you can
| help it. I don't know why the game controller is a sticking
| point for most of social media. It's funny to think of a
| vehicle being piloted by one, but they really are designed
| to be used for thousands of hours. Game controllers have
| been used in all sorts of military applications.
|
| The issue as far as I have read is that the hull was made
| of carbon fibre. There hasn't been any submersible that has
| reached those depths before made of that material. The
| effect continued pressurization/depressurization had on the
| carbon fibre wasn't understood. Composite materials are so
| much more complicated to model and understand. There was no
| non-destructive testing to see what effect the repeated
| cycles had on the hull, no way of knowing whether cracks
| could form beneath the surface. The failure mode at depth
| is catastrophic, there's no room for error. Someone pointed
| all this out to them and was fired
| https://newrepublic.com/post/173802/missing-titanic-sub-
| face....
|
| https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/21/us/titan-sub-safety-
| ocean...
|
| In response to them knowing the sub wasn't fit for purpose
| they opted to install a "real time health monitoring
| system" which acoustically checked the integrity of the
| hull. But it's pointless. By the time any acoustic
| monitoring system picked something up it would be too late,
| because carbon fibre just shatters into a million pieces.
| It's not like Steel where it can gradually fatigue, it's
| _crack_ BOOM dead.
|
| Using carbon fibre for the hull is like rolling your own
| crypto. Maybe you can get it to work but unless you
| properly scrutinize it there is most likely fundamental
| flaws in your implementation and it's just better to use
| tried and true methods. In the sub world that tried and
| true method is just thick steel.
| belorn wrote:
| The carbon fibre is interesting angle because I have seen
| in the last 5-10 years a change in fire fighters, under
| water rescue services and military to go from using steel
| cylinders for breathing gas (300 bar) to a composite of
| aluminum and carbon fibre with the same pressure of 300
| bar. The benefit being targeted is the reduction in
| weight. Those tanks do get tested regularly but those
| tests might just be as pointless as in this case. If they
| explode they will do so with a shattering boom.
|
| I wonder if this event will cause some changes, or if it
| is an expensive step in figuring out how to properly test
| this material.
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| I think the behavior of the material is probably more
| understood when it's internal pressure vessel. I think in
| general that's a much more understood problem and carbon
| fibre probably is perfectly fine for that sort of vessel.
| Similar to how a thin aluminum can of beer can be
| pressurized quite high, but it'll quickly buckle when
| poked on the outside.
| sho_hn wrote:
| > Clearly the sub wasn't safe enough, but I'm not seeing
| anything that makes it obviously badly built.
|
| A lot of this is bewilderment at the choice of carbon fibre
| for the pressure vessel, which is sensitive to impact
| damage and wear from repeated load cycles, damage is hard
| to diagnose, and as it's very brittle, prone to
| catastrophic failure. It's not commonly used for this sort
| of application, and there may not be good data on (1) when
| it would eventually fail and (2) whether you'd be able to
| tell before use.
|
| As I understand, the choice was motivated by wanting the
| sub to have the large interior space necessary to bring
| along that many passengers. Deepsea subs usually don't
| attempt that either.
| hef19898 wrote:
| What I learned so far: porthole not rated for the depth of
| the Titanic, apparently no testing done on the balast
| release mechanisms, screens _screwed_ directly into the
| carbon fibre hull, flammable interior materials, mixing
| three materials in pressure vessel (carbon fibre tube,
| titanium end bulk jeads, transparent port hole).
|
| All more or less untested and uncertified. Throw in the
| reported comms issues that were common during past
| operations, a highly inexperienced engineering team, a
| culture promoting unsafe practices and you get a death trap
| of a vessel.
| nly wrote:
| And everyone onboard was rich enough to get an
| independent to do some due diligence
| hackinthebochs wrote:
| James Cameron had some insightful commentary on why the sub
| was intrinsically dangerous:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rThZLhNF_xg
| Philip-J-Fry wrote:
| Thanks for that link, I love the way James Cameron talks
| about it. He knows what he's talking about. The fact
| people were warned just points to complete gross
| negligence. Everyone knew it was a death trap. It's sad.
| sireat wrote:
| In European news both events received significant coverage.
|
| Local news trumps global.
|
| I am sure in Greece the Messenia migrant boat disaster got more
| coverage than Titan.
|
| That said, the big factor is how sadly common migrant boat
| disasters are (just like liquid gas exploding in a restaurant
| in China and killing 10+ people, happened yesterday).
|
| Carbon fiber submersible on the way to Titanic containing cocky
| inventor, plus billionaire, plus kid hits so many spots for
| news cycle.
| timeon wrote:
| I agree with your observation but Mediterranean disaster had
| coverage since last week at least in European news I am
| following. This accident will also soon disappear from the news
| since we now know the fate.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| How many rescue ships were deployed to the med incident? How
| many to the titanic? The victims/ships ratio demonstrates
| that one garnered exponentially more government attention.
| stef25 wrote:
| > one garnered exponentially more government attention
|
| It wouldn't be surprising that some of those rescue ships
| were funded by the families of the victims, considering the
| size of their bank accounts.
| lm28469 wrote:
| > How many rescue ships were deployed to the med incident?
| How many to the titanic?
|
| I don't know. Do you ?
|
| From wikipedia: "Immediately following the sinking, the
| Greek Coast Guard and the military initiated a massive
| search and rescue operation."
| sigstoat wrote:
| different countries of very different sizes and
| capabilities were near the incidents.
|
| the US and Canadian coast guards don't operate in the
| Mediterranean, and (presumably) couldn't have gotten ships
| there fast enough to do anything about it, anyways.
| unnamed76ri wrote:
| Splitting hairs here but the US Navy has several bases in
| the Mediterranean. Though I don't know where vessels were
| related to the refugee boat or how quickly that tragedy
| began and ended.
| ovulator wrote:
| I feel the same way, but I guess 5 deaths are a tragedy, 300 is
| a statistic.
| matwood wrote:
| You completely missed the fact that this is about the Titanic.
| People are fascinated by what happened to a lot of other rich
| people back then.
| [deleted]
| activiation wrote:
| I'm surprised millionaires/billionaires didn't do better research
| on that company before going on the trip
| js2 wrote:
| > OceanGate's submersibles are the only known vessels to use
| real-time (RTM) hull health monitoring. With this RTM system, we
| can determine if the hull is compromised well before situations
| become life-threatening, and safely return to the surface. This
| innovative safety system is not currently covered by any classing
| agency.
|
| Given that Stockton Rush risked and lost his own life, he must
| have believed these words. He ignored pleas from others in the
| industry that what he was doing was unsafe. What was he thinking?
|
| https://archive.ph/yBrpk
| jacquesm wrote:
| It's an interesting question. (One of very few on this subject
| that are really interesting.)
|
| Those who cause progress to happen to some extent have to have
| something in them that causes them to ignore conventional
| wisdom. Because they're swimming against the current. And if
| they succeed it may well pay off, both in credits and
| financially.
|
| Montgolfier brothers, Lilienthal, the Wright brothers and so
| on, and that's just a small slice of aviation. Every one of
| them went against conventional wisdom and the laws of physics
| as they were known or suspected to be at the time.
|
| But there is a final arbiter, and those are the real laws of
| nature, and it's first order derivative: materials science. And
| this is where it gets much more complex. To design something
| that can work is an accomplishment in itself, even if it works
| only once. That one mr. Rush can chalk up as a victory. Where
| he fails is to take into account the fact that safety knowledge
| is written in blood and that the difference between 'device
| safe enough to take passengers on' and 'device safe enough that
| I, the builder/designer will travel on it' is very, very large.
| And if all of the industry, including some of your own
| employees say that you are doing it wrong and you still
| persist, _and_ risk the lives of others then you are crossing
| over into irresponsibility, rather than being a pioneer.
|
| Whether or not he realized this himself seems a foregone
| conclusion: he likely thought this was all perfectly safe and
| those others were needlessly concerned but they were simply
| more aware of the real risks involved than he was. Fine line
| between 'god complex' and 'innovator'.
| seattle_anon wrote:
| Stockton Rush (OceanGate's CEO) was known in the Seattle tech
| community [0]
|
| My understanding (very much not first hand) is that he was seen
| as an expert in the specific engineering disciplines necessary to
| safely build and operate deep sea submersibles like Titan.
|
| He was also apparently a father to members of the Seattle tech
| community, who are no doubt grieving at the moment.
|
| Please remember that, for some members of the HN community, this
| one hits close to home.
|
| [0] Talk at last year's GeekWire Summit:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PGpjEDc96I
| jacquesm wrote:
| I really couldn't care less. As far as I can see he was exactly
| what's wrong with people chasing money and forgetting about the
| possible consequences of their attitude towards other people's
| lives. I'm sure his relatives are grieving, but my sympathy
| goes to the family of the passengers first.
|
| As for the CEO's credentials: nature can't be fooled.
| windowshopping wrote:
| [flagged]
| asynchronous wrote:
| Not gonna shed a tear given how avoidable this entire tragedy
| was, and how terribly managed and selected his engineering team
| was.
| AH4oFVbPT4f8 wrote:
| I hope the other souls onboard fully understood the risk of
| death, otherwise that isn't fair to them.
|
| To relate it to flying in an airplane, "If you take one
| flight a day, you would on average need to fly every day for
| 55,000 years before being involved in a fatal crash."
|
| I'll take those odds.
|
| Take a deep dive in an experimental vessel with public safety
| concerns expressed over years, nope I'm out.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| It also looked so terribly janky. I feel like all the
| lights were flashing red for this craft, but maybe people
| were swayed by assurances from people who were a bit too
| enthusiastic about their product.
| Hamuko wrote:
| They all had to sign multi-page waivers that mention
| "death" no less than three times on the first page.
| AH4oFVbPT4f8 wrote:
| That is simply wild, is the multi-page waiver available
| to read?
| Hamuko wrote:
| I haven't seen the full waiver anywhere. The death being
| mentioned three times comes from someone who took an
| earlier Titan dive. However, it is mentioned in David
| Pogue's story about OceanGate:
| https://youtu.be/29co_Hksk6o?t=160
| Alupis wrote:
| > They all had to sign multi-page waivers that mention
| "death" no less than three times on the first page.
|
| You sign similar waivers for all kinds of benign things -
| including amusement park tickets, concerts, skateboard
| parks, etc.
|
| I have a feeling the safety of this contraption was
| grossly oversold to the passengers...
| hotpotamus wrote:
| It also occurs to me that there should be no more
| sophisticated consumer than a billionaire. If one really
| wanted, I'd imagine they could build their own
| submersible to their own safety specifications.
| taberiand wrote:
| Many billionaires, including the one on board, frequently
| demonstrate how wholly unsophisticated and arrogant they
| are. Extreme hubris was on display by everyone involved.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I would reserve judgment on that, there was a teenager
| involved and I highly doubt they were of an age which
| allowed them to absorb the knowledge to properly evaluate
| the risks. There also was his dad and the CEO of the
| company on board which may have given him an extra degree
| of feeling that the risks were acceptable.
| taberiand wrote:
| Ok. Extreme hubris was on display by everyone involved
| except _maybe_ one of them, the adult son.
| krisoft wrote:
| Yes. I feel bad for that guy the most. So young, and of
| course he probably didn't had the resources to
| independently verify the safety of the sub. Unlike the
| millionaire passengers could have just thrown tenth of
| the ticket price at any marine engineer who would have
| been able to explain to them how dangerous the whole
| thing is.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Easily dismissed by "the lawyers made us do it" for
| people who were drawn to the "adventure" of the trip or
| the allure of the Titanic.
| carbine wrote:
| No amount of poor decision making changes the fact that
| several precious human lives were lost. Frustration over the
| company's potential negligence and sadness over the loss of
| life can coexist.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| Thank you for calling this out. It's also disheartening and
| quite frankly scary, to see how the passengers get
| dehumanized on other online platforms due to their wealth.
| ujbvuio34 wrote:
| [flagged]
| carbine wrote:
| Whatabouism.
|
| Also tragic. Being sad over this does not preclude being
| sad about those events.
| predictabl3 wrote:
| Sure, or maybe, just maybe it's because of the brazen
| hubris enabled by their wealthy and not the wealth
| itself.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| I wonder to what degree the hubris causes the wealth. You
| need a high degree of certainty in yourself and your
| ideas to succeed in many ventures. I've seen people work
| their way up organizations who I think are much less
| competent and thoughtful than I'm, but they at least
| outwardly present themselves with certainty. Often times
| people liker that already got promoted away before the
| downsides of their decisions materialize. In other
| instances we might never hear about them, because nobody
| cares about the guy under the freeway bridge who has
| similar character traits to Elon Musk or Steve Jobs, but
| got less lucky or was slightly less smart or well
| connected.
| carbine wrote:
| Still not a reason to completely dehumanize people.
| predictabl3 wrote:
| I'm not dehumanizing anyone, that's just silly. It's
| about as dehumanizing as when I don't care when teenagers
| doing Tik Tok pranks suffer consequences of their
| ignorant, braggardly actions.
|
| So much hand wringing and I've seen about two whole
| comments talking about the boat that sank carrying 100x
| as many people while this saga was unfolding.
|
| How is it dehumanizing for me to not care about one, when
| virtually no one gave a single shit about the hundreds of
| non-wealthy people dying?
| carbine wrote:
| I'm just trying to understand your philosophical
| position: I don't have to care about certain people, as
| revenge for others not caring about a different group of
| people?
|
| For me all human life is precious and equally worthy of
| effort to save, as well as sympathy and grief for their
| loss. I suppose that's not your position, but I don't
| quite understand what it is.
| predictabl3 wrote:
| I guess I'm saying it's a spectrum. Other than the
| teenager, my empathy extends as far as "at least they
| didn't suffer as a consequence of doing something that
| they knew damn well was likely to kill them".
|
| "Equally worthy of effort" - ironic because the amount of
| money spent trying to save these 5 people could save
| hundreds or thousands of times as many people. But I
| don't see people clamoring for equality in helping the
| disenfranchised.
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| Same, we regularly see lots of language used in the media
| and parliaments of Europe to do anything not to refer to
| these refugees as refugees or even people ("migrant
| ships") and I've never seen this called out on HN or in
| similar circles.
|
| The hypocrisy is staggering.
| carbine wrote:
| Respectfully, I'm not allocating those funds myself. I
| share your frustration about the unequal devotion of
| resources to helping people. But that doesn't mean that
| these people aren't worth saving, or grieving.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Why not? Rich have no qualms about dehumanizing the poor.
| And many more of them at that. Because rich are few and
| poor are many.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| It's not inherently dehumanizing to point out that, well,
| this was death by misadventure, and was profoundly
| avoidable.
|
| If you die doing something dumb, then yeah, people are
| gonna point that out.
|
| If you die doing something dumb that you spent house
| money to do, the pointing out will be much more pointed.
| carbine wrote:
| it's not the assertion that it was avoidable I'm
| objecting to, it's the 'not gonna shed a tear' <3
| AlecSchueler wrote:
| I think people are angry when, as others have mentioned,
| there are more resources and international cooperation
| going into helping these 5 people who took a needless
| risk while we watch 100s dying regularly while they try
| to flee literal war ones in regions we've destabilised
| for years.
|
| You can also see in this thread people calling them
| "precious lives" as though that doesn't apply to the
| people making the ultimate sacrifice to try and bring
| their families to safety.
|
| I have nothing against people being rich but it's frankly
| scary to see these refugees be dehumanised, framed as
| economic immigrants and become victim to to increasing
| legislation to keep them out of safety on the basis that
| we can't afford them using our resources when we suddenly
| have resources enough to spend on extensive missions to
| search for people who made bad decisions for fun and
| risked the lives of others for nothing but profit and
| fame.
| mirko22 wrote:
| Who's we that destabilised these countries? Cos I bet you
| it's is not the countries that they are sailing to.
|
| If you want to call them refugees then take them home.
| They are economic migrants where "we" live.
| ElFitz wrote:
| France, Spain, Italy and the UK have each spent a couple
| centuries having fun destabilising the whole world for
| their own gain.
|
| The US was a bit late to the game, but appears to have
| caught up quite well.
|
| And while, in Europe, these people often first set sail
| for the western Balkans, it usually isn't their
| destination.
| hef19898 wrote:
| I live were those poor people try to go, and I call them
| refugees. I also say _we_ , because as a voting citizen
| of one of those countries that did some of said
| destabilazing over the years, I cannot wash myself of all
| responsibility.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| The recent boat that sank was sailing to Italy from
| Libya, one of its ex-colonies.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| Potential negligence? Dude fired the guy who was trying to
| get the hull checked for voids before doing crew testing.
| Then they sued him and proceeded to run this thing with
| passengers _without bothering to do non-destructive
| testing_. Sounds more Stockton Rush went well beyond
| negligence and straight to malfeasance to me.
| carbine wrote:
| You're probably right but I, like you, am a lurker on the
| internet and not in possession of every single fact, so
| I'm choosing my words.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| [flagged]
| carbine wrote:
| Well I wouldn't agree with either position. Human life is
| human life, but I guess some people seem to believe that
| either poor OR wealthy people are less deserving of
| sympathy, care, and investment of resources.
|
| I happen to disagree, but you do you.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| I feel for them about as much as I do the ~100 people who
| died today in car accidents in the US. Most of whom were
| probably also doing reckless things. In a sane world we
| would do something about that, but people like Rush
| actively work against sanity in the name of profit, so
| here we are.
| jjulius wrote:
| >... he was seen as an expert in the specific engineering
| disciplines necessary to safely build and operate deep sea
| submersibles like Titan.
|
| And yet he called safety "pure waste"...
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-06-21/titanic-t...
| seabird wrote:
| It's sad that they're dead, but all parties had time to brace
| for this inevitability. I can't imagine any engineer (save a
| software engineer) seeing this guy's attitude and not seeing
| this coming from a mile away.
| mcguire wrote:
| He's also on record as saying things like, " _It 's obscenely
| safe because they have all these regulations. But it also
| hasn't innovated or grown -- because they have all these
| regulations._" (https://www.insider.com/titan-submarine-ceo-
| complained-about...)
| Hamuko wrote:
| He seemed especially proud about combining titanium and
| carbon fibre against the advice of others, which seems to now
| have been in a pretty active role in the demise of the Titan.
|
| > _" I'd like to be remembered as an innovator. I think it
| was General MacArthur who said "you're remembered for the
| rules you break." And I've broken some rules to make this. I
| think I've broken them with logic and good engineering behind
| me. The carbon fibre and the titanium, there's a rule you
| don't do that. Well, I did."_
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/titanic/comments/14ekh3r/stockton_r.
| ..
| throw310822 wrote:
| I'm curious about this detail, and I have what is surely a
| very dumb question. Both titanium and carbon fiber are,
| afaik, known and used for their strength to weight ratio;
| so aerospace is a natural application. But in deep sea
| diving is weight a factor at all? Could one just build
| vehicles with, I don't know, a 30 cm thick steel plate?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > But in deep sea diving is weight a factor at all?
|
| You need to be able to attain both positive and negative
| buoyancy, which constrains density within a range, right?
| That limits design choices like "giant block of steel
| with a tiny passenger cavity".
| CydeWeys wrote:
| It's super easy to add buoyancy by attaching it to the
| hull outside the pressure vessel. James Cameron's design
| uses a metal pressure vessel with an advanced foam
| composite outside of it for buoyancy.
| tromp wrote:
| Serotta did too when making this bike:
| https://www.bigshark.com/articles/serotta-road-bikes-
| pg318.h...
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Bicycles are not submersibles.
| dralley wrote:
| There is a rather large difference between a road bike
| and a vessel that needs to withstand the pressures of
| being 4000 meters underneath the ocean.
| [deleted]
| bambax wrote:
| James Cameron is extremely critical of the design of the
| sub, and of Rush's attitude [0]. He says that carbon fiber
| was a very poor choice and that it had been known for a
| very long time, and that "deep submerged diving is a mature
| art".
|
| If you think you're going to reinvent the wheel and bypass
| regulatory bodies and ignore subject experts, and move fast
| and break things, you're delusional.
|
| Any baby can break things; any toddler can break rules.
| What's hard is to discover new rules, make things that
| don't break.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rThZLhNF_xg
| jacquesm wrote:
| Exactly. What really gets me is that he would subject
| passengers - one of which is a teenager - to this kind of
| risk. It really gets me, that kid probably had absolutely
| no clue about the real level of risk involved.
|
| Carbon is fantastic stuff if used properly, used
| improperly it will seem to be perfect right up to the
| point where it fails catastrophically.
| bambax wrote:
| The kid's father seems to bear a lot of responsibility in
| his son's demise.
|
| > _In the days before the Titan vessel went into the
| ocean off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada, the 19-year-
| old university student accompanying his father on the
| expedition expressed hesitation about going, his aunt
| said Thursday in an interview._
|
| > _Azmeh Dawood -- the older sister of Pakistani
| businessman Shahzada Dawood -- told NBC News that her
| nephew, Suleman, informed a relative that he "wasn't very
| up for it" and felt "terrified" about the trip to explore
| the wreckage of the Titanic._
|
| > _But the 19-year-old ended up going aboard OceanGate 's
| 22-foot submersible because the trip fell over Father's
| Day weekend and he was eager to please his dad, who was
| passionate about the lore of the Titanic, according to
| Azmeh._
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/titanic-submersible-
| shahw...
| jacquesm wrote:
| Ugh, that's so sad. Dying to please your old man. He
| seems to have had the best intuition about the safety
| risks involved then.
| abraae wrote:
| A few weeks ago there was a tragic caving accident at a
| local school here where a boy drowned when the outdoor
| adventure group entered the caves even as flood waters
| were rising from a storm.
|
| I told my 10 year old son that one day his life might
| depend on being able to recognise danger and not follow
| the herd. I said that might mean you staying out of the
| cave even if the teacher and all the other students went
| in, called you names, etc.
|
| He rightly pointed out that would be almost impossible
| such is the power of peer pressure. Still I hope if that
| day comes he remembers it.
| jacquesm wrote:
| You are right and your son is also right. As a father of
| sons I share your concerns and I hope that I'm able to
| give them the capability to withstand that peer pressure.
| I've been - and still am - subject to this on account of
| not drinking alcohol, smoking or using drugs. To the
| point that it becomes ridiculous ('don't be boring').
| This has been a recurring thing since my teenage years
| and I really don't get why people feel the need to
| pressure others into joining them in their stupidity.
| Just like I don't push them to behave like I do.
|
| But it's been tough, on occasion and I can see the point
| that your son makes, and I hope with you that if that day
| comes that he will remember it. FWIW you can tell him
| this internet stranger agrees with his dad and that peer
| pressure _can_ be overcome.
| mirko22 wrote:
| I suppose it is easier to move fast and break things when
| all you need to do is post pictures of cats, but diving
| to 4km depth you only get to break once I'm afraid
| stringfood wrote:
| Apparently if you put titanium and carbon fibre next to
| each other in salt water the titanium begans to corrode at
| quicker rate.
|
| Can read more here:
| https://www.corrosionpedia.com/galvanic-corrosion-of-
| metals-...
| ddoolin wrote:
| > Therefore, there is no significant gap between titanium
| and carbon-fiber-reinforced composite to create galvanic
| corrosion. This means that commercially pure titanium and
| its alloys are completely resistant to galvanic corrosion
| when they are coupled with carbon composites.
| hef19898 wrote:
| And of course he used McArthur, of all the people, as a
| reference...
| throw9away6 wrote:
| Titanium and carbon are meant for each other. Nothing
| innovative there unless we're taking about the 1950s
| stef25 wrote:
| LOL, Guardian published information about documents
| describing the danger of this thing, the lack of regulations
| and how deep sea exploration of this kind is probably
| finished for many years to come.
|
| Him saying "it's obscenely safe" just sounds like a Silicon
| Valley CEO saying they're going to save the world by selling
| their users' personal data under the table. EDIT seems like I
| interpreted this wrong according to comment below.
| prox wrote:
| It really makes you think about other tech CEOs, when they
| say something is safe, or private or something similar.
|
| Most software doesn't implode though.
| olalonde wrote:
| The "obscenely safe" remark was directed at "regulated"
| vessels, not at his own sub. He was acknowledging that he
| was taking risks by not conforming to regulations.
| stef25 wrote:
| Thanks, my bad.
| ommpto wrote:
| "Two months later, OceanGate faced similarly dire calls from
| more than three dozen people -- industry leaders, deep-sea
| explorers and oceanographers -- who warned in a letter to its
| chief executive, Stockton Rush, that the company's
| "experimental" approach and its decision to forgo a traditional
| assessment could lead to potentially "catastrophic" problems
| with the Titanic mission."
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/20/us/oceangate-titanic-miss...
|
| letter (pdf): https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/marine-
| technology-soc...
| scotty79 wrote:
| I don't understand why they didn't just drop it to the bottom
| of the ocean without people hundred times to see if it still
| holds. Who experiments with a crew in the age of remote
| control sensors and computers?
| RhodesianHunter wrote:
| `Over the years it has carried out more than 200 dives with
| its three submersible vessels in the Atlantic, Pacific and
| Gulf of Mexico.`
| jacquesm wrote:
| But not with the same hull. So that's a bit of a tricky
| statement.
|
| https://www.geekwire.com/2020/oceangate-raises-18m-build-
| big...
|
| They didn't change the name and technically the cylinder
| is just another part but it suggests that the same hull
| was used which isn't correct as far as I read it.
| wingworks wrote:
| I think they just didn't think there hull design would
| implode. In there minds the worst case is, they're stuck in
| deep ocean for a few hours until the backup dissolvable
| weights fall off and they pop back up to the surface (and
| then hopefully located).
|
| From what I've read, in there minds there hull design was
| the best part of the sub. I inclined to believe he believed
| it, since the CEO frequently dove in it.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The hull was replaced because the previous one showed
| damage due to repeated stress cycling:
|
| "This is shaping up as a rebuilding year for the nearly
| 11-year-old venture, based in Everett, Wash. The main
| task on the agenda is to build two new submersibles
| capable of diving as deep as 6,000 meters (3.7 miles),
| which is more than a mile deeper than the part of the
| North Atlantic ocean floor where the Titanic is resting.
|
| OceanGate will take advantage of lessons learned during
| the construction of its carbon-hulled Titan submersible,
| which was originally built for Titanic journeys. Rush
| said tests that were conducted at the Deep Ocean Test
| Facility in Annapolis, Md., revealed that the Titan's
| hull "showed signs of cyclic fatigue." As a result, the
| hull's depth rating was reduced to 3,000 meters.
|
| "Not enough to get to the Titanic," Rush said."
|
| From:
|
| https://www.geekwire.com/2020/oceangate-raises-18m-build-
| big...
| chrononaut wrote:
| From a link within that article:
|
| > Because Titan was once known as Cyclops 2, the working
| titles for the new submersibles will be Cyclops 3 and 4.
|
| So they lowered the depth rating of Titan back in 2020 ..
| but then continued to dive down to the Titanic with it?
| jacquesm wrote:
| With a new hull. But this was then also subjected to
| multiple dives but I'm not aware of any subsequent
| testing. Possibly if they had tested it defects would
| have shown up because that's pretty much the way this
| sort of structure responds to stress cycling. We'll never
| know unless a record of subsequent tests surfaces.
| taberiand wrote:
| I'm guessing they couldn't afford to without going
| bankrupt.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Then they couldn't afford it, period.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| In the end all participants consented and were aware of
| the risks.
|
| There's no absolutely safe way to dive that deep, just
| like there's no absolutely safe way to ascend K2. People
| still want to do it.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > There's no absolutely safe way to dive that deep
|
| That's true, but there are (substantially) safer ways.
| This design should have never been used for passengers.
|
| I really draw the line there: innovators are free to do
| whatever the hell they want to do with their own lives
| and if a professional who really understand the risks
| decides that they want to take those risks they should be
| free to do so.
|
| But to charge _passengers_ for a ride requires a
| completely different attitude towards safety. No matter
| what you are going to write on your consent forms.
| Besides being unable to properly evaluate the risks
| inherent in your design they will be subject to all kinds
| of pressure to participate which will reduce their
| ability to properly assess the risks.
|
| This is why we have different classes of aircraft, and
| why depending on your goals you will be assessed
| differently by the authorities if you intend to operate
| one for ferrying (paying) passengers.
| rurp wrote:
| K2 is attempted by experts using their own gear under
| their own power. They know exactly what risks they are
| taking.
|
| This submersible was basically a rollercoaster ride that
| wasn't up to spec. If a participant doesn't need to know
| or do anything on a trip, they are going for a ride not
| an adventure, and they aren't expected to be safety
| experts in the field.
|
| Also one of the passengers was a teenager who was
| concerned about going, but went along to make his dad
| happy. Hardly a clear eyed risk taker who was fine with
| the risk.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > In the end all participants consented and were aware of
| the risks.
|
| They consented, but were they aware of the _actual_
| risks? That seems unclear at best, given the active
| concealment of safety issues and the misleading marketing
| that has been cited in various reports.
|
| > There's no absolutely safe way to dive that deep
|
| Nothing is absolutely safe, but deep submersion diving
| isn't a new field, there are established safety standards
| and practices (including in the latter third-party audits
| to confirm compliance to the former) and OceanGate
| _uniquely_ among operators of manned vehicles refused to
| conform to either (though it marketed its subs as
| exceeding the standards it decided not to be certified
| against). And its also unique in experiencing a manned
| disaster.
|
| Now, we aren't at the point where it can conclusively be
| shown that those two unique features are directly
| connected (and practical issues with investigating a
| disaster at this depth may not make that practical any
| time soon), but, its not _unreasonable_ to _suspect_ that
| they are.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Now, we aren't at the point where it can conclusively
| be shown that those two unique features are directly
| connected
|
| I would take that bet.
| stonogo wrote:
| He was not recognized as an expert by other deep-sea
| submerisble experts. He was repeatedly warned about safety
| issue with this design. These events are tragic, but they were
| predictable and avoidable and that makes it frustrating.
| AH4oFVbPT4f8 wrote:
| Specifically warned 5 years ago by his own employee and fired
| him as a thank you to boot. "OceanGate fired employee David
| Lochridge in 2018 after he expressed concern about the
| submersible's safety"
|
| source https://www.cbsnews.com/news/titanic-submarine-
| oceangate-hul...
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Another testament to the magic of speaking confidently about
| something to others who know nothing about that something.
| wepple wrote:
| I often figure that you only need about 25% more
| knowledge/expertise on a topic than others to seem like an
| expert, and for them to be incapable of actually judging
| your knowledge
| predictabl3 wrote:
| PSG, WSP. Best I can say is he died doing what he loved.
|
| I do feel awful for the kid seemingly unhappily dragged into
| the trip.
| bambax wrote:
| Good video. Some excerpts:
|
| "If you're not breaking things, you're not innovating. If
| you're operating in a known environment as most submersible
| manufacturers do, they don't break things." (8:49)
|
| "Our rule is we risk capital, we don't risk people." (9:56)
|
| "We used the same prepreg that's used on the 787." (11:15)
|
| And my favorite: "When you're outside the box, it's really hard
| to tell how far outside the box you really are." (8:30) He does
| seem to be far outside the box now.
|
| But the most significant quote IMHO is the one about "the same
| prepreg that's used on the 787". Like they often tell you that
| phone holders for bikes are made of "aircraft-grade aluminium"
| (which usually means it's 6061, the most common alloy). It's a
| strong indication of bullshit -- name dropping that doesn't
| have anything to do with the subject matter.
|
| In the rest of the presentation he seems nice enough, and truly
| passionate about deep sea exploration. So maybe he was a cool
| guy, I don't know. But in the end it's his hubris that killed
| him and his clients.
| frakkingcylons wrote:
| > He does seem to be far outside the box now.
|
| Very poor taste to say this now.
| hef19898 wrote:
| The 787 preprec is actually pretty good. At holding a
| pressure delta <1 bar on the inside...
| gregors wrote:
| Now might be a good time to revisit the "calling yourself an
| engineer" means something specifically debate.
| oasisbob wrote:
| > name dropping that doesn't have anything to do with the
| subject matter
|
| This is a good point.
|
| However, it's probably worth pointing out that in the past
| few decades -- at least here in the PNW -- carbon fiber
| availability to the hobbiest and small producer has been
| spotty.
|
| I'd refer to Boeing and being the same 787 carbon fiber for
| my personal projects, but that's just because they're made
| from Boeing offcuts donated to a local University. At the
| time (ca 2006), even bare weave was hard to obtain from
| private suppliers.
|
| Its feasible that Rush may have had help from Boeing sourcing
| his material, which puts comments like that in a different
| light.
| [deleted]
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Aircraft grade aluminum is 2024 or 7075, not 6061, because
| those alloys are more resistant to fatigue from repeated
| pressurization cycles.
|
| 6061 is more commonly used in automotives than in aircraft.
| cowmoo728 wrote:
| the comment above you is correct that consumer goods will
| often brag about "aircraft grade" when referring to 6061.
| like flashlights, tools, combs, pens, cufflinks, money
| clips, etc.
| Kailhus wrote:
| This made me realise how little I know about alumiunium
| and made me summarise this from a quick wiki search:
|
| - "2024 aluminium alloy is an aluminium alloy, with
| copper as the primary alloying element. It is used in
| applications requiring high strength to weight ratio, as
| well as good fatigue resistance. It is weldable only
| through friction welding, and has average machinability.
|
| - "7075 aluminium alloy is an aluminium alloy with zinc
| as the primary alloying element. It has excellent
| mechanical properties and exhibits good ductility, high
| strength, toughness, and good resistance to fatigue. It
| is more susceptible to embrittlement than many other
| aluminium alloys because of microsegregation, but has
| significantly better corrosion resistance than the alloys
| from the 2000 series."
|
| - "6061 is a precipitation-hardened aluminium alloy,
| containing magnesium and silicon as its major alloying
| elements. It has good mechanical properties, exhibits
| good weldability, and is very commonly extruded. It is
| one of the most common alloys of aluminium for general-
| purpose us."
| mc32 wrote:
| The question are:
|
| Why use novel vessels when tried and true work. Why did they
| have to try a carbon-fiber wrapped vessel? The bathysphere
| went all the way down to the Marianas trench --many decades
| ago. Why try something new in unforgiving environments?
|
| Why fire an engineer after he started raising questions about
| safety?
|
| It seems like there was a bit of a cavalier attitude that
| cost five people their lives.
| carabiner wrote:
| > It's a strong indication of bullshit -- name dropping that
| doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter
|
| It means you're using a material that's been vetted over
| decades in life-critical applications in harsh conditions by
| expert engineers all over the world. Aerospace aluminums
| today are derived from Japanese alloys invented in WW2 and
| were a major innovation in metal aircraft. It's much more
| expensive than steel, but we use it because of favorable
| characteristics. Here's an overview of different aluminums
| and where they're used:
| https://www.aircraftaluminium.com/blog
| rsynnott wrote:
| In this context, he was talking about carbon fibre, not
| aluminium (though, aluminium would also be a less than
| ideal material to make a deep-water submersible out of).
| gregors wrote:
| this wasn't an aircraft
| buffington wrote:
| The reference to "aircraft" wasn't about airplanes or
| submersibles, it was about how the term "aircraft-grade"
| is a meaningless marketing buzzword. It's obvious to me,
| and I imagine a lot of readers, that a submarine isn't an
| aircraft. I think the reference to the use of the
| bullshit marketing term is also obvious.
| [deleted]
| somedangedname wrote:
| A former US Navy submariner recently released a video about the
| Titan and the issues he could see with its design:
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=4dka29FSZac
| [deleted]
| cma wrote:
| He seems unaware that they made several trips to the Titanic in
| the sub already.
| jameslk wrote:
| Tragic result, just as it were for the Titanic. The parallels
| between hubris of what was said about each craft's capabilities,
| to the outcomes of blindly believing in it, to even the names
| "Titanic" and "Titan" seems sadly poetic. Rest in peace.
| bilekas wrote:
| What really bothers me about the coverage of this, and I'm not
| totally anti media etc, was that nobody mentioned on the fact
| that the tracking system lost contact also.
|
| It was only mentioned that the communications was lost, if there
| had of been media mentioning that the tracking device also lost
| contact, I think a lot of people would have recognised straight
| await that it was a critical collapse. No deep gauge device loses
| contact from distances <4000M unless it was exploded.
|
| I feel bad for the families given some false hope, I didn't
| personally think they would be found, but did believe they were
| suffering a far worse way to go.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Can you expand? To a layman like myself, tracking is part of
| communications and it seemed clear there was no tracking
| because they didn't know where the sub was.
|
| What is the specific type of tracking device you're referring
| to? What signals does it emit? And if overall power was lost,
| for example, why wouldn't the tracking stop just like
| communications stopped?
| nicce wrote:
| Both will be lost at the same time. We don't really know such
| signal.
|
| Submarines cannot communicate more hundred meters in the
| bottom of sea. Sea water absorbs the signal quite well.
|
| When the signal is lost, the expectation is that the
| submarine is under the water.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines
| bilekas wrote:
| > When the signal is lost, the expectation is that the
| submarine is under the water.
|
| Yes! This is true, I would just like to clarify that there
| is a difference between 'coms' and 'transponder' here. Some
| friends of mine conflate the two and think they are almost
| on the same 'circuit'.
|
| In most cases of the Sub (specifically military because
| there are not many tourist subs), you don't WANT to be
| located unless in an emergency, whereas here in this
| situation you most certainly do and in that case you can be
| located by way of the transponder.
|
| Th
| krisoft wrote:
| > Submarines cannot communicate more hundred meters in the
| bottom of sea.
|
| Sorry if I am misunderstanding you. It sounds like you are
| saying that it is impossible to design a system which would
| be able to keep in contact with the submarine/submersible
| all the way down to the bottom?
|
| Because if that is what you are saying that is simply
| false. We have the technology to keep in contact with a
| submarine all the way to the bottom of even the deepest
| oceans.
|
| This is not even speculative. We know it is possible
| because James Cameron had full communication during his
| dive all the way to the deepest point on earth. Here is a
| really cool article about the technical challenges with
| that system: https://www.hydro-
| international.com/content/article/communic...
| bilekas wrote:
| So we're actually really good at enforcing circuits and
| components against atmospheric pressures. Also they run
| relatively low voltage.
|
| As an example I can immediately think of the Compatt devices,
| they're tested and proven far beyond 4Km depth, and they come
| with a few options of power supply.
|
| They have their own independent power source as you would
| expect, but depending on the configuration can pull from the
| device / vehicle.
|
| The v4 of the Compatt also comes with extensive warnings
| around the power draw in relation to reserve so if for
| example they left and it was only on battery-power for some
| reason, it will start screaming.
|
| The fact that from reports (obviously we don't know for sure)
| they went at the same time, sadly Occam's razor.
|
| Edit : Disclosure : Worked on firmware for off-shore drilling
| rigs with devices measuring the vibrations and resistance of
| material being probed for viability.
| mattacular wrote:
| Based on accounts of previous voyages it didn't sound like it
| had a tracking system. They relied on text communication with a
| ship topside for navigation (and got lost for several hours on
| a past voyage - while still in communication with the
| operators).
| bradstewart wrote:
| Power loss?
| bilekas wrote:
| Power loss is a real stretch to happen at the same time of
| communications, I understand that the coms to fail is a non-
| zero chance of failing, it happens. A transponder is super
| rare on it's own, but when they both go at the same time,
| protocol dictates you declare an emergency straight await
| (the top-side cnc). Not that it would have made a difference,
| but they certainly would have told the coast guard all of
| this. Even after waiting FAR too long IMO.
| activiation wrote:
| Comms need power...
| bilekas wrote:
| Yes indeed, but the transponder itself is a self-powered
| device, they are battery powered when needed and those
| batteries are usually no joke from the ones I've
| encountered, as it should be. Specific times I'm not
| sure. I'll link one I have worked extensively with. They
| are designed to be extremely fault tolerant with a lot of
| redundancy and fail safes.
|
| It's genuinely extremely hard to not notice it losing
| power.
|
| V5 https://www.sonardyne.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2021/07/Sonardy...
|
| Edit: Battery Life (Listening, Disabled) 417 days
| (Lithium) 417 days (Lithium)
|
| It's actually longer than I even imagined. And this is an
| old version I believe.
| noAnswer wrote:
| What is one billionaire at the bottom of the ocean?
|
| A good start!
| kadomony wrote:
| Don't be a dick.
| tivert wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464?ns_mc...:
|
| > We have just had an update from dive expert David Mearns, who
| says the debris includes "a landing frame and a rear cover from
| the submersible".
|
| > Mearns is a friend of passengers aboard the Titan.
|
| > Mearns has told the BBC that the president of the Explorers
| Club (which is connected to the diving and rescue community),
| provided this new information.
| dang wrote:
| Thanks - maybe we'll switch to that URL since it has more up-
| to-date information.
|
| (Submitted URL was
| https://twitter.com/USCGNortheast/status/1671907901542211584)
| uejfiweun wrote:
| Oof. Well, that's the end of this. At least this means they had
| a quick death. I read that a submarine implosion would actually
| happen faster than your brain would be able to register that
| anything is even happening.
| SirMaster wrote:
| What I don't understand is, if it imploded, why didn't the boat
| hear the implosion? Surely that would be really loud. Louder than
| the 15 min audio ping that the boat is normally listening for.
| whytai wrote:
| The boat may not have heard it, but the navy certainly did:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36439661
| flir wrote:
| Or half the east coast. The implosion[?] of the ARA San Juan
| was supposedly heard 6000km away by hydrophones at Ascension
| Island. (https://www.ctbto.org/news-and-events/news/ctbto-
| hydroacoust...)
|
| Or maybe they did and the data hasn't been processed/made
| public yet.
| 3ygun wrote:
| Was interested by this comment and wanted to note a few
| things. The Titan is significantly smaller (in terms of
| length ~1/10th the size although obviously displacement is
| the real measure)[1][2]. And the depth of the implosion is
| about 4x deeper[1][3]. So there are things that could
| definitely affect the sound signature.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_San_Juan_(S-42)
|
| [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Titan_submersible_in
| cid...
|
| [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic
| flir wrote:
| Yes, and as far as I can tell it's not even certain that
| what was picked up from the San Juan was an implosion. But
| on the other hand, the Polar Prince was sitting right on
| top of the Titan listening for pings, and apparently it
| didn't hear anything.
|
| I'm not suggesting anything nefarious, I'm just hoping
| someone who understands these things better than I do comes
| along.
| krisoft wrote:
| Sound can bend in the ocean in weird ways.
|
| The ocean is not a homogenous mass. As you go down you
| can measure temperature, pressure and salinity changes.
| These all individually and together affect the speed of
| sound in the water. Given the right circumstances a layer
| can form which bends the sound waves away from an
| observer. It is possible that they couldn't hear the
| implosion precisely because they were on top of them.
| Perhaps they could have heard the implosion better if
| they were off to the side a few kilometers, or if they
| would have had a hydrophone dangling to the other side of
| the layer. More info on the layer. [1]
|
| This perhaps also can explain why they routinely lost
| contact with the sub during dives. (And normalisation of
| deviance explains how they become okay with that. [2])
|
| 1: https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/sound01/ba
| ckgrou...
|
| 2:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalization_of_deviance
| saberdancer wrote:
| San Juan was 2300 tons and is made of metal.
|
| Titan was 10 tons and mostly made of carbon fibre.
| robotnikman wrote:
| It also probably was armed with torpedoes when it was sunk,
| which probably detonated due to the explosive
| decompression.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| > It also probably was armed with torpedoes when it was
| sunk, which probably detonated due to the explosive
| decompression.
|
| I don't think that submarines explosively decompress
| under the ocean.
| methodical wrote:
| The size is irrelevant, the energy released is significant
| either way and definitely beyond the thresholds of
| hydrophones. During the USCG press conference today it was
| stated that the implosion made a significant soundwave as a
| result of the implosion, and I think in the coming weeks
| we'll hear reports of findings in regards to hydrophones
| which picked up the noise.
| joe5150 wrote:
| San Juan appears to have been about ten times the size of
| Titan, and that article says it took them over ten days to
| report the finding.
| j-a-a-p wrote:
| I would be surprised if the supporting vessel would have heard
| (were they listening?) or recognised that. Probably from the
| data from other hydrophones somebody will write an article on
| this sooner or later.
|
| I can't imagine it was loud: vessel was tiny, and the energy
| will reduce at the order of 3 quite a bit at 4 km distance. I
| can imagine it would be detectable with the right equipment and
| that this equipment is installed in the Atlantic.
| sigstoat wrote:
| oceangate seems like a clown show, were there hydrophones on
| site, in the first ~24 hours, that were not operated by them?
|
| at this point i expect it had imploded before the coast guard
| or anyone who knew what they were doing was on-site.
| FinnG wrote:
| My guess would be that the Oceangate ship ignores everything
| that it's not 'expecting' to hear. I don't really know anything
| about deep sea exploration, but having general purpose
| microphones in the water seems like a bit of an oversight to
| me, given the marginal cost of having them.
| beowulfey wrote:
| So many things about this venture were not really considered.
| I am terrified that this guy was an aerospace engineer. It
| feels like he threw the book about engineering safety out the
| window.
|
| The big one is designing the sub to travel to 95% of the
| expected maximum depth, leaving a 5% margin of safety. I was
| taught to aim for a margin of safety of (I think it was) 50%
| back in the day. Operating so close to the safe limit for the
| sub is appalling. That doesn't even include all the other
| warning signs about the design that were brought up.
|
| The missing beacon on the sub, in case of loss of radio
| contact, is another standout. No consideration given for loss
| of power or anything. Consideration of contingency plans is
| so important.
|
| A minor one that is really indicative of the overall attitude
| is drilling screws into the carbon fiber hull, possibly
| exposing the hull to stress fractures from both the screws
| and the constant weight of holding a monitor. It's... just a
| silly thing that could have been avoided. I'm not saying
| those screws are why it failed, but if you can use an
| adhesive to hold your monitor in place, wouldn't you rather
| do that then by drilling directly into the hull keeping ~100
| atm of ocean out of your face?
|
| It just makes me so sad for so many reasons. It definitely
| could have been avoided...
| cpeterso wrote:
| > The big one is designing the sub to travel to 95% of the
| expected maximum depth, leaving a 5% margin of safety.
|
| Wouldn't a a 5% margin of safety mean the sub was designed
| to survive at 105% of the trip's expected maximum depth?
| 95% sounds like the _opposite_ of a margin of safety.
| kristjansson wrote:
| There ... there were screws into the structual carbon
| fiber??
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I don't know. But sea water isn't a homogeneous medium as far
| as sound propagation is concerned. There are layers of changing
| salinity, temperature etc and these can effectively cut off
| sound propagation. Submarines (used to?) depend on such effects
| to avoid detection.
|
| Also, would the implosion necessarily be that loud? It would be
| like crushing a large tin really. Maybe blends in with
| background noise.
| [deleted]
| whimsicalism wrote:
| have we ever identified an implosion from carbon fiber? does it
| matter?
| fnord77 wrote:
| so let's say you're in an implosion event at 5000 ft.
|
| Do you feel it? The brain stays alive for 20 seconds after your
| heart stops. I would imagine your skull doesn't get crushed
| because fluids are only a tiny bit compressible with that much
| pressure
|
| I imagine your ribcage would collapse, stopping your heart
| immediately
| aurizon wrote:
| The most likely first failure is the window. At that instant a
| rapid turbulent fill event would occur. The outside pressure and
| the hole diameter will provide a calculable interval for the
| internal volume to fill. At 12,000 feet = 800 atmospheres, this
| would be on the order of 1/20th of a second, with intense
| crush/shear forces = instant death as perceived. That interval
| can be related to the speed of sound and wavelength to make a
| variable frequency 'chirp' that would be of low to higher
| frequency. The low frequency would be in the low hertz as an
| estimate. At the same time inner pressure and temperature would
| rise to 800 atmospheres and a temperature a little above ambient.
| The density of water is around 800 times that of air = 800 times
| the weight of water would enter compared to the weight of the air
| within. Local temperature would prevail, increased a little by
| the work of compression of that air to higher pressure(quite high
| in concept, but quenched by 800 x mass of water. Thus the sound
| will not be very loud or high in frequency. A sphere of C4 will
| make a compression wave at somewhere over 500,000 atmosphere
| propagating at about 4000 meters/second = fourier square wave
| containing all the odd order harmonics all the way down = heard
| round the world. Any transient inrush plasma would be swamped and
| mixed with cold water = transient and of little consequence.
| Banging? One would hope nobody would dare bang the window, but it
| is conceivable they might have banged the hull in desperation if
| the window did not crack to attract attention? Did the noise
| cease at some point? or is the noise still hearable = not them?
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > 800 atmospheres
|
| A bit under 400 atmospheres at the depth of the Titanic. But I
| don't think that meaningfully changes your conclusion. It's
| instant.
| aurizon wrote:
| Yes, I made a 2x error in my mental math, and the edit window
| had closed by the time I saw it.
| methodical wrote:
| Besides the "what about this other accident with 500 victims!!!",
| "these people are dumb", and the "look how they ignored safety!"
| comments, I can't help but be amazed at how events like this make
| people crawl out of the woodworks spouting complete falsities as
| if they're facts. I've seen so many boneheaded comments over the
| last few days that I don't even know how to list all of them out,
| from people saying that Titanic is "relatively shallow" in the
| ocean, to people speculating that the passengers may have drowned
| as opposed to being /literally/ instantly vaporized. I think, per
| usual, this whole event has gone to show just how quickly (some)
| people assume an authoritative position in areas they have
| absolutely no expertise or knowledge about. Rant over.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| It's amazing how fast everyone goes from being covid/vaccine
| experts to {flavor of the week} experts to submersible experts.
| dmonitor wrote:
| would they be vaporized or instantly compacted? my morbid
| curiosity kind of wants to see what would happen to a body
| under such insane pressure conditions.
| tptacek wrote:
| As I understand it: the pressure vessel was full of air, and
| at the moment it failed, that air-filled space became the
| equivalent of the cylinder of a 2-stroke engine, instantly
| heating as the air compressed.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| Correct. Except it is heated to a much, much higher
| temperature.
| dpedu wrote:
| You're in luck, the Mythbusters tried this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEY3fN4N3D8
| [deleted]
| tptacek wrote:
| ... and that was like, a couple hundred feet. The Titanic
| is at 12,500 feet. An unfathomable amount of pressure.
| tibbon wrote:
| 12500 ft is 2083.33 fathoms.
| ikiris wrote:
| objection, that is clearly 2083 1/3 fathoms of pressure.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Well that's better than slowly asphyxiating or dying of
| hypothermia, probably didn't even know what hit them.
| deanc wrote:
| Can someone walk me through what would have happened,
| physically, to a human body in the moment this happened. I'm
| curious. Similar to wondering what happens to people in space.
| BoxFour wrote:
| Outer space is vastly different due to the significantly
| lower pressure differential.
|
| For this case: To put it simply, picture an unexpected
| scenario where an airplane plummets from above and lands
| directly on top of you. The impact would be quite painless.
| dvt wrote:
| Gas-filled cavities in the body instantly compress. So this
| means that your lungs, stomach, etc. instantly get crushed,
| rupturing in the process. Depending on circumference, depth,
| etc., the hull itself moves at speeds of ~1000+ mph towards
| itself, crushing everything inside in less than 100
| milliseconds. Someone linked a great safety video of what
| happens under a pressure column (not gore)[1]. Though as some
| people mentioned, since carbon fiber was used here, it's more
| likely that the hull shattered, essentially turning it into
| shrapnel. I think this depends on the exact proportion of the
| life support gases they are using, but, due to the relation P
| [?] T, the gas inside the submersible can ignite (like an
| engine piston essentially), turning all organic matter to ash
| instantly.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz95_VvTxZM
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Randall Munroe probably said it best, "You would just stop
| being biology and start being physics."
| meepmorp wrote:
| Imagine you're inside an empty beer can as it's being run
| over by a car, but from all directions at once.
| [deleted]
| TrackerFF wrote:
| At that depth, the pressure is quite intense - around 6000
| psi. That means 6000 pounds pr square inch - that's almost a
| Ford F150 truck pr square inch, everywhere. And now imagine
| how many square inches the surface area of a human is -
| especially your upper torso where your lungs are located.
|
| The sub (hull) is made of a carbon fiber and titanium mix -
| and I'm not sure how that would react, if it buckles /
| collapses like regular metal, or if it simply shatters into
| millions of pieces like glass.
|
| If the sub just collapsed / imploded into itself, well -
| that's that. The crew got crushed to death in an instant.
|
| If the sub explode, then that would be a very violent
| reaction. Probably enough to kill them, purely from that -
| but let's say they don't die instantly from the crushing
| influx / wave of water:
|
| Air / gasses in the body would compress significantly, if not
| allowed to exit the body. Your lungs would collapse in an
| instant, and your chest cavity would collapse on itself,
| until all air has escaped, and then replaced by water. Your
| ear eardrums would also rapture in an instant. With a
| severely collapsed upper torse, which would happen in an
| instant, I think your heart and major arteries would also
| become destroyed in an instant.
|
| All that space would instantly get filled up with water.
|
| I personally think that the violent process would kill them
| instantly - as in milliseconds...and then when all air has
| escaped the body, water would fill that space, until the
| pressure has reached an equilibrium.
|
| EDIT: I personally don't think they suffered. The sub likely
| imploded in an instant, without little prior warning (noises)
| if the material behaves in the way I suspect it does. Just
| lights out, and that's that. Brain didn't even get time to
| react.
| gdubs wrote:
| What if the impassion happened higher towards the surface,
| like, 2000 feet?
| lamontcg wrote:
| A 10 psi pressure wave can kill you instantly, which is
| just 22 feet of pressure under the surface. At any depth
| that a pressure vessel can rupture and implode
| spontaneously, it will just crush any humans within it.
| TrackerFF wrote:
| So let's say that they by some miracle survive implosion
| without getting knocked out, and have lungs full of air -
| well, that air would still compress by a huge amount. And
| with negative buoyancy, they would sink. Pressure at 2000
| feet is still a bit over 400 PSI.
| cowmoo728 wrote:
| depending on the failure type (shear, compression, tension)
| carbon fiber behaves differently. but when the fibers
| actually break it pops so quickly that it exceeds human
| perception.
|
| real time view of tensile failure:
| https://youtu.be/gmMRPmEYWhU
|
| high speed 10m fps view of tensile failure:
| https://youtu.be/OePpVwCvCZg
|
| when compressed along an axis that's not properly
| reinforced by carbon fibers, it will just disintegrate:
| https://youtu.be/BaSXRoD2xaQ?t=61
|
| another interesting example of rapid failure:
| https://youtu.be/DM6J-yw8yjA?t=226
| rozal wrote:
| From the viewpoint of the occupants in a van-sized
| submersible experiencing catastrophic pressure loss, here is
| a rough timeline of the events that would likely unfold:
|
| Initial Pressure Shock: The pressure loss would occur nearly
| instantaneously due to the immense external pressure. The
| walls of the submersible would buckle and crumple inward with
| violent force, likely killing or severely injuring the
| occupants instantly due to the sudden shock and the violent
| inward rush of water.
|
| Water Invasion: Almost immediately following the pressure
| loss, water would rush into the submersible, flooding the
| compartment. Depending on the breach's size and location,
| this could occur within milliseconds to a few seconds. The
| sheer force and speed of the water would be extremely
| destructive.
|
| Temperature Drop: The average temperature at such depths is
| just above freezing (about 2 to 4 degrees Celsius or 36 to 39
| degrees Fahrenheit). If the occupants somehow survived the
| initial shock, they would now be exposed to near-freezing
| water temperatures, quickly leading to hypothermia.
|
| Implosion: Depending on the submersible's construction,
| different sections might withstand the pressure momentarily
| longer than others, leading to an implosion where the
| submersible's parts collapse inward onto themselves. This
| would be incredibly violent and destructive.
|
| Disorientation and Darkness: If the occupants were still
| conscious at this point, they would likely be disoriented due
| to the rapid changes in their environment. At this depth,
| there would be no natural light, adding to the
| disorientation.
|
| Ascent and Decompression: As the submersible loses its
| structural integrity, it might begin to rise toward the
| surface as the heavier components sink and lighter components
| or any trapped air try to rise. However, any surviving
| occupants would then be subject to decompression sickness
| (also known as the bends) as dissolved gases come out of
| solution in the body, forming bubbles. This condition can
| cause joint pain, respiratory distress, neurological effects,
| and can be fatal.
|
| In conclusion, a catastrophic pressure loss at 12,000 feet
| below sea level would be an incredibly dangerous and likely
| fatal event. The immense pressures at such depths require
| highly engineered solutions to keep occupants safe.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| It's poor form to post ChatGPT especially when it's
| incorrect.
| trollied wrote:
| How did you write this? ChatGPT?
| scotty79 wrote:
| Not sure about decompression, after all they started at
| normal pressure before the incident so they wouldn't have
| unreasonable amounts of gasses in theur bodies that could
| expand to huge volumes when pressure lessens.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Nice effort but that's not how carbon fiber fails. It
| shatters rather than crumples.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Does it change anything?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes, materially so.
| js2 wrote:
| In outer space, you pass out in about 15 seconds from lack of
| O2 to the brain, then your heart stops and eventually you
| freeze. NASA has done the experiments:
|
| > Chimpanzees can withstand even longer exposures. In a pair
| of papers from NASA in 1965 and 1967, researchers found that
| chimpanzees could survive up to 3.5 minutes in near-vacuum
| conditions with no apparent cognitive defects, as measured by
| complex tasks months later. One chimp that was exposed for
| three minutes, however, showed lasting behavioral changes.
| Another died shortly after exposure, likely due to cardiac
| arrest.
|
| Then there was this oops:
|
| > In 1965 a technician inside a vacuum chamber at Johnson
| Space Center in Houston accidentally depressurized his space
| suit by disrupting a hose. After 12 to 15 seconds he lost
| consciousness. He regained it at 27 seconds, after his suit
| was repressurized to about half that of sea level. The man
| reported that his last memory before blacking out was of the
| moisture on his tongue beginning to boil as well as a loss of
| taste sensation that lingered for four days following the
| accident, but he was otherwise unharmed.
|
| https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/survival-in-
| space...
|
| Dying in a submarine would be very different. The pressure
| differential in space is a single atmosphere. Water increases
| by about one atmosphere every 33 feet. At Titanic's depth
| it's ~ 368 atmospheres of pressure. Reddit discussion from 3
| years ago:
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/submarines/comments/gy1wc6/what_exa.
| ..
|
| > The collapse of a submarine pressure hull happens quick,
| just 37 milliseconds in the case of the Scorpion. The
| incoming water had a velocity of about 2,000 mph. [...] Over
| such small time scales, there is no time for the water or the
| steel hull to absorb any heat from the rapidly compressing
| air inside of the submarine. Because no heat is transferred
| from the air to the water or hull, the compression is
| adiabatic. [...] The collapse halted when the air pressure
| was approximately equal to the water pressure at 1,530 feet,
| which is 4,630,000 Pa. [...] 1,122degF.
|
| That was at 1,530 feet.
|
| Contact was lost with the Titan at 1 hour and 45 minutes into
| its dive. A typical dive to the bottom took it 3 hours. So it
| was likely at least halfway to the bottom (6000 feet). Its
| implosion would have involved even more spectacular forces.
|
| They were dead before they knew what happened, incinerated
| and pulverized. There are no bodies to recover.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Titan_submersible_inciden.
| ..
|
| See "Why the USS SCORPION (SSN 589) Was Lost 50 years Ago"
|
| https://www.iusscaa.org/articles/brucerule/scorpion_loss_50y.
| ..
| [deleted]
| jve wrote:
| https://youtu.be/C1VKotduWek?t=119
| dctoedt wrote:
| https://www.quora.com/How-do-humans-die-when-a-submarine-
| imp...
| shagie wrote:
| I found https://www.quora.com/When-a-submarine-exceeds-its-
| crush-dep... to be more descriptive
|
| > When a submarine implodes, a variety of fairly ugly
| things will happen to the crew. If we assume that a
| pressure hull implodes at 2000 feet (~60 atmospheres), the
| pressure will increase from 14.7 to about 875 PSI almost
| instantly. In the parts of the submarine that have volumes
| of trapped air, it would be like being inside a diesel
| engine cylinder when begins its compression stroke.
|
| > Anything flammable would burst into flames until a huge
| wall of water slams into the area and snuffs it out again.
| The impact of the water would cause significant injury to
| anyone unlucky enough to still be alive and there would be
| no time to suffer the effects of oxygen poisoning or
| anything else.
|
| > As others have stated, most human tissues are fluid-
| filled and are for the most part, incompressible. Human
| lungs and sinuses would be crushed instantly and the
| immense shock would render them unconscious immediately. Of
| greater concern would be the surge of incoming seawater,
| bulkheads, decks, heavy equipment, motors and other random
| bits of equipment being slammed into the crew at high
| velocity.
|
| > Essentially, the crew would be killed several times over
| in less than a blink of an eye.
|
| and from another answer:
|
| > When a submarine hull collapses, it moves inward at about
| 1,500 miles per hour - that's 2,200 feet per second. A
| modern nuclear submarine's hull radius is about 20 feet. So
| the time required for complete collapse is 20 / 2,200
| seconds = about 1 millisecond.
|
| > A human brain responds instinctually to stimulus at about
| 25 milliseconds. Human rational response (sense-reason-act)
| is at best 150 milliseconds.
|
| > The air inside a sub has a fairly high concentration of
| hydrocarbon vapors. When the hull collapses it behaves like
| a very large piston on a very large Diesel engine. The air
| auto-ignites and an explosion follows the initial rapid
| implosion. Large blobs of fat (that would be humans)
| incinerate and are turned to ash and dust quicker than you
| can blink your eye.
|
| > Sounds gruesome but as a submariner I always wished for a
| quick hull-collapse death over a lengthy one like some of
| the crew on Kursk endured.
|
| ---
|
| While specifics differ, it would be over _very_ fast.
| xwdv wrote:
| It's definitely better for them, but its infuriating that this
| CEO died thinking he was a genius for building this shitty sub
| with very few safety precautions.
| wilg wrote:
| Yes, if this other person I know from the internet had more
| mental or physical pain I would be happier.
| swayvil wrote:
| It's that Dunninger Kruger thing. And it's nigh ubiquitous.
|
| I live in this little personal bubble.
|
| Believing with great confidence that the edge of my bubble
| and the edge of reality are one and the same is actually
| quite empowering.
|
| Those who Dunninger Kruger with greater intensity tend to
| win.
| basisword wrote:
| Do you have any particularl inside info on this other than
| what you've read in the news over the last couple of days?
| They're pretty strong accusations you're making.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Here you go:
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20230619161930/https://oceangat
| e...
| tostr wrote:
| From the page you linked:
|
| >Why Isn't Titan Classed?
|
| [...]
|
| >Classing assures ship owners, insurers, and regulators
| that vessels are designed, constructed and inspected to
| accepted standards. Classing may be effective at
| filtering out unsatisfactory designers and builders, but
| the established standards do little to weed out subpar
| vessel operators - because classing agencies only focus
| on validating the physical vessel.
|
| [...]
|
| > The vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents
| are a result of operator error, not mechanical failure.
|
| Did they not consider that the reason for this fact is,
| oh I don't know, maybe because the vessels have passed
| the checks for mechanical integrity?
|
| You can't make this stuff up...
| thefourthchime wrote:
| It's all over this thread
| soperj wrote:
| At least he died doing it and not someone he employed.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| Well his actions lead to several other people dying too.
| Maybe the ticket they bought has a contract that exempts
| OceanGate (tragic name for a company going through their
| own #OceanGate a la Watergate) from any liability, but I
| hope this company gets annihilated in court with criminal
| and civil penalties.
|
| Slacking this hard on safety for a submarine engineering
| company should not be tolerated in our rapidly advancing
| industrial society.
| ipython wrote:
| My first thought was Heavens Gate https://en.m.wikipedia.
| org/wiki/Heaven%27s_Gate_(religious_g...
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Same here.
|
| 39 to beam up.
| sonotathrowaway wrote:
| Saying that you absolve yourself of liability doesn't
| excuse gross negligence though.
| dheera wrote:
| It's also probably related to the "launch or die" ecosystem
| that Y Combinator, Sand Hill investors, and pretty much the
| entire ecosystem promotes.
|
| When was the last time an investor handed an additional $10
| million check for 0% to a startup to improve and test their
| safety systems before launching? Instead their usual
| mandate is "launch yesterday or die". Which is okay for a
| SaaS platform or grocery delivery app, but not a deep sea
| vessel.
|
| Today's version of capitalism is every bit responsible for
| tragedies like this. While the CEO is directly at fault for
| certain things, the system is equally at fault for raising
| and educating a CEO (and huge numbers of post-2000s CEOs)
| to be like that.
| logifail wrote:
| > their usual mandate is "launch yesterday or die". Which
| is okay for a SaaS platform or grocery delivery app, but
| not a deep sea vessel
|
| Hypothetical users of the SaaS platform or grocery
| delivery app who find out later that their personal
| information wasn't handled with the appropriate
| safeguards might disagree with that one.
|
| > Today's version of capitalism is every bit responsible
| for tragedies like this
|
| Correct.
| xenadu02 wrote:
| Well "move fast, break things" is fine in certain
| contexts... SpaceX could be said to have done that. Their
| first few launches exploded. But they put in the
| engineering discipline, extensively tested all
| new/innovative processes, and they didn't dare put a
| human or even a paying payload on top of their rocket
| until they'd done extensive work on the test stand and
| actual launches.
|
| You can move fast and innovate in life-critical systems
| so long as you prioritize the engineering and testing.
| nyolfen wrote:
| true, i've never heard of issues with the engineering of
| a submarine produced under socialism
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| 'Not capitalism' is not the same as 'socialism'
| dheera wrote:
| Yep, exactly. I was suggesting we need a better system in
| the future, not a worse system.
| xwdv wrote:
| Techno-feudalism? I'm curious what other systems you
| think could be better.
| lamontcg wrote:
| Yeah, it really is a failure of the kind of engineering
| hubris that you see all over HN every day.
|
| This event reads like nature going "no, seriously, you
| monkeys aren't anywhere nearly as clever as you think you
| are".
| theklub wrote:
| Honestly given all the red flags he ignored it seems like
| he had a death wish, or at the very least got a thrill from
| risking his life on these trips. Otherwise I can't wrap my
| head around the stupidity of the whole thing.
| xwdv wrote:
| In his mind he never properly died though, it was damn near
| instant. He got to live his whole life and never realize
| the consequences of his actions through a slow, violent
| epiphany.
| squarefoot wrote:
| What's more infuriating is that they fired an employee who
| raised safety concerns.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/06/21/oc.
| ..
|
| (already submitted minutes ago)
| renewiltord wrote:
| Well, that's a conclusion that I suppose many expected. It's
| rather tragic, yeah. What I can't say I expected is the gleeful
| tone from:
|
| - class warfare enthusiasts because the passengers were rich
|
| - regulation enthusiasts because the pilot espoused weakening
| them
|
| You'll see this online when a pedestrian or cyclist gets hit by a
| driver (along with "right of way doesn't mean anything when
| you're dead!" and "was he wearing a helmet?")
|
| At some point, the personal tragedy for me is realizing that a
| lot of people in this world really take great pleasure in others'
| suffering even if those people have done them no harm. Makes me
| want to use the Internet less, if I'm being honest, since I don't
| want to encounter this kind of glee at others's suffering.
| _Algernon_ wrote:
| This occurred only a couple of days after a migrant boat sank
| in the Mediterranean, with probably 500 people dead. The people
| on the Titan signed a waiver that mentioned the risk of death
| three times on the first page. They knew the risk and _chose_
| to take it with _informed consent_.
|
| The fact of the matter is that this entire story is way
| overblown by the news, and many people die of much more tragic
| (and not self-inflicted) causes every day. Give these people
| their Darwin awards, and let's move on.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| >Makes me want to use the Internet less
|
| This sort of thing on the internet predates many of us being
| born. The Darwin Awards got their start on Usenet in 85.
| paganel wrote:
| We're not allowed to "eat the rich" anymore because of the
| repressive nature of the neo-liberal system, so incidents like
| this one where not one, but two billionaires find their
| gruesome death is the closest to a Middle Ages egalitarian-
| imposing peasant revolt that we could ever get.
|
| Sucks for the 19-year old kid involved in all this, that I
| agree with.
| chasd00 wrote:
| > Sucks for the 19-year old kid involved in all this, that I
| agree with.
|
| the 19 year old was rich too, shouldn't you be celebrating?
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| What a ghoulish take
| bunga-bunga wrote:
| The conversation around this event is incredible. Why can't I do
| something risky and deal with the consequences myself (i.e.
| death)?
|
| I want to climb K2 alone in shorts, don't cry my loss. I'll die
| doing what I love.
| LikeAnElephant wrote:
| You absolutely can - so long as you don't get other people
| killed in the process. The CEO of this company convinced
| customers to join him on his death march, which IMO is a worth
| crying about.
| bunga-bunga wrote:
| We don't know the details, they could have been well aware.
| I'd buy a ticket in this death trap if I could afford it.
| fsloth wrote:
| The problem was they sold tourist trips in this deathtrap.
| Sure, do whatever you want by yourself, if it hurts only you.
| Selling this as a product, by tapping into the existing market
| for adventure tourism was borderline evil. The difference with
| this and generic adventure tourism is that this was about as
| survivable (I guess) as a round of Russian roulette.
| psychphysic wrote:
| RIP to these guys, yes it was a risky trip. But it was into
| international waters and they were AFAIC explorers.
|
| Stuff like this can not be done without risk.
|
| Hopefully future subs will have more safety features.
| paulpauper wrote:
| feel horrible about this too . the 19 year old especially.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I might feel this way to the first people to land on Mars or
| something. This was not a "mission" to advance human knowledge.
| To me, it's one step away from "hold my beer"
| somenameforme wrote:
| Each and every mission had scientific objective and research
| being carried out, precisely to help combine
| entertainment/adventure with technological and scientific
| progress. The same will be true on Mars. The earliest guys
| going over, as colonists, are going to be quite well to do -
| which I'm sure the news will frame in a completely fair and
| reasonable way.
| vanattab wrote:
| I don't think this is fair to say. The sub hull was built by
| NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center as part of a program to
| help commercial companies develop technologies that could be
| used for space exploration.
|
| Just in our solar system, we have found evidence of oceans on
| Saturn's moons Titan and Enceladus; Jupiter's moons Europa,
| Ganymede, and Callisto; Neptune's moon Triton; and on Pluto.
|
| If we want to explore these oceans we will need to understand
| how to build lightweight subs that can tolerate extream
| pressures.
|
| This tragedy will help humanity explore the solar system. I
| for one salute the explorers who died they have helped push
| us all forward.
| code_duck wrote:
| The pressure vessel is the only part that was designed or
| fabricated with sound theory by experts.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| I feel bad for the 19yo who had a whole (well-funded) life
| ahead of him. He was probably trusting the older adults to know
| what they were doing.
| psychphysic wrote:
| Good point he was with his dad right? That age you still feel
| invincible
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| Yeah. Being legally adult only means something when you are
| 19yo yourself. If I was in the same shoes I would've
| followed my dad on a cool adventure without question and
| definitely could not have spotted any of the glaring red
| flags that presented themselves before the dive.
| LogoEthoPatho wrote:
| [dead]
| RIMR wrote:
| >Hopefully future subs will have more safety features.
|
| From an engineering standpoint, Titan didn't have any safety
| features at all. What any sane engineer would recommend as a
| last-ditch backup system Oceangate relied on as a single-point-
| of-failure.
|
| No phone. No beacon. Budget bluetooth controller and
| touchscreens. Electronics you'd expect to find in an RV. All
| from a CEO who flaunted his corner-cutting and apathy towards
| safety.
|
| We should never do this again.
|
| After this, anyone boarding a future tourist sub to the Abyssal
| Zone or deeper is asking for it.
| x3874 wrote:
| Yet, there still are Teslas with comparable issues on the
| road, maiming unsuspecting people.
| sho_hn wrote:
| > From an engineering standpoint, Titan didn't have any
| safety features at all.
|
| This isn't quite true. It had multiple redundant ways to drop
| ballast, for example.
|
| What I would say from what I was able to find out (and with
| some familiarity of safety engineering processes from work; I
| make cars) is that it's safety-concept was very spotty. It
| had solutions to some problems, but also large gaps in the
| safety concept. Safety was not addressed in holistic fashion.
|
| It's interesting to compare this with solutions found in
| other subs. For example, _Titan_ had four different ways to
| drop ballast, but from the list I saw, all of them required
| manual intervention by a non-incapacitated crew and
| electronics to be working.
|
| On Cameron's _Deepsea Challenger_ --by another rich guy who
| funded a vanity dive, and relying on homebrew innovations in
| material science--ballast was held by corrosible wire that
| would be corroded by seawater in a set time, so the sub would
| eventually surface automatically. Ballast drop was also
| triggerable remotely by an acoustic signal, more reliable
| than radio. The available info is pretty bad, but _Titan_ may
| not have had those solutions in place.
|
| I'm very much out of my depth (no pun intended) on
| naval/submarine engineering, and I'm hoping for someone with
| better knowledge to extend that comparison somewhere.
| jonah wrote:
| There were apparently timed-release (bags of lead shot on
| dissolvable links) and manual-release (rock the sub to tip
| lengths of steel pipe off their racks on the sides) ways of
| jettisoning ballast as well.
| TT-392 wrote:
| You can't just have a phone that works at those depths
| jonah wrote:
| Acoustic data/voice connections are solved COTS hardware
| bits - https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/acoustic-
| general-p...
| psychphysic wrote:
| I've been thinking about this problem.
|
| Would an iPod glued to the inside that played yellow
| Submarine by the Beatles.
|
| At what range would that be detectable? How long could it
| last?
|
| Edit: even better this banger on loop
| https://youtu.be/uzR5jM9UeJA
| mv4 wrote:
| Forget safety features. Its structural design was
| fundamentally wrong. That's just insanely bad structural
| engineering.
|
| I wouldn't even buy a used carbon fiber road bike.
| bandrami wrote:
| This wasn't boldly going where nobody has gone before. Getting
| that deep safely has been a solved problem for decades.
| psychphysic wrote:
| I agree but not at 250k a head.
|
| It should be safer, but everything is done to a price point
| and I'm sure those on board recognised the risk of such an
| expedition.
| timeon wrote:
| There was marriage at Titanic wreck for 36k a head 20 years
| ago. [0]
|
| [0] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1461368.stm
|
| But I still hope that this will bring some innovation - in
| form of stricter regulation for tourism.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Do you think there will be a 125k refund since it was a one
| way trip?
| danso wrote:
| I seriously doubt the victims knew how risky this trip was,
| even though they signed the waivers. Why would you bring
| along your 19-year-old son if you thought the chance of
| death was 1/100 or even 1/1000. The CEO, who obviously
| overestimated the safety of his cost-cutting design, had
| raised $20M in venture capital, it's not as if he had a
| death wish either.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > Why would you bring along your 19-year-old son if you
| thought the chance of death was 1/100 or even 1/1000.
|
| Optimist.
| danso wrote:
| Mike Reiss took the sub trip to the Titanic in the summer
| of 2022, and in his podcast he says his wife didn't go
| with him because she failed a Covid test right before.
| It's unclear whether it was her decision or OceanGate's
| decision to play it safe. Reiss notes that during Covid,
| his wife had traveled to every continent without catching
| it until now, so she wasn't extremely paranoid. If
| OceanGate denied her, then it means they were worried
| more about the health risk of Covid in late 2022 than
| having to (partially) refund her $250k ticket.
|
| I don't think Covid is by any means "just the flu", but I
| definitely think the risk of dying from it is
| significantly less than a visit to the Titanic.
|
| https://twitter.com/MikeReissWriter/status/15450925299718
| 184...
|
| https://bleav.com/shows/what-am-i-doing-here-with-mike-
| reiss...
| jacquesm wrote:
| I would estimate the chances of that sub not making it
| back to the surface _at least_ 10%. The carbon fiber hull
| concept has me seriously worried, especially if the goal
| is repeated use of the same hull. Everybody seems to be
| focusing on the electronics and the UI, I don 't see
| those as particularly problematic _if the hull stays in
| one piece_. But if it doesn 't then none of the rest
| matters. Given the debris field the chances are better
| than even that the sub did implode.
|
| Repeatedly cycling carbon fiber in compression is a bad
| idea, and a CEO that throws out the rulebook and shows a
| very cavalier attitude to safety is fine if it is _just
| you_ on board but with paying passengers it is utterly
| irresponsible.
| sho_hn wrote:
| > I seriously doubt the victims knew how risky this trip
| was
|
| I'm quite curious about this, too. I'm not so sure. I
| think even if you are not an engineer, it should be quite
| easy to understand how under-tested this vehicle is
| compared to, say, a commercial jet airliner, and how much
| more difficult the application is at the same time. These
| were business men running companies of some size. It
| should come with basic work experience to reason about
| how proven processes or articles are.
|
| I think it's more likely that the threshold for "you know
| what? let's take our chances" works differently for
| different people.
|
| For example: I would never get LASIK eye surgery, safety
| statistic be damned, because the consequences in the
| unlikely event of failure are too large for me. And yet
| many other people know the data just as well and make a
| different call.
| pfdietz wrote:
| As Dave Barry assured us, LASIK eye surgery is perfectly
| safe, as long as the doctor remembers to change the laser
| setting to "delicate" from "vaporize bulldozer".
| civilitty wrote:
| The average human is more likely to die driving to the
| supermarket than in a commercial jet airliner crash, so I
| don't know how useful any of these comparisons are,
| especially for laymen.
|
| We're comparing technology where safety is measured in
| incidents per hundred million miles traveled to one where
| the total number of annual travelers can fit into a
| single jumbo jet.
| danso wrote:
| Right. I wonder if the layperson passenger's assessment
| was that the Titanic sub was as extremely catastrophic as
| flying in a helicopter, in the sense that if something
| goes wrong, you're obviously going to die. But most
| helicopter passengers probably assume that the trip will
| be safe and uneventful, 999 out of 1000 times.
| civilitty wrote:
| _> But most helicopter passengers probably assume that
| the trip will be safe and uneventful, 999 out of 1000
| times._
|
| Even helicopters have a fatal accident rate that's at
| most 1 per 100,000 flight hours (in the US at least).
|
| This sub seems to have a fatal accident rate of 1 per
| 1,000 hours at best
| stickfigure wrote:
| The Space Shuttle had a 2 in 135 failure rate.
|
| Challenger's disaster was the 25th shuttle flight.
|
| Columbia's disaster was the 113th shuttle flight.
|
| I'm pretty sure you could find large numbers of people
| who would happily climb on board a shuttle mission today,
| even knowing that history.
| pfdietz wrote:
| The Space Shuttle was terrible, but not because it was
| dangerous.
|
| For policy purposes, killing people has a cost that can
| be estimated by the statistical value of a human life
| (especially if the people are volunteers with full
| knowledge of the risk.) The value of a human life is
| about $9 M (which comes from estimates of how much
| government spending is needed to save 1 life, for example
| by medical care, installing guard rails on roads, etc.).
| If there was a 2% risk of death of the seven crew on a
| flight, this would have added $1.26M to the expected cost
| of a launch. This was small compared to the actual cost
| of a launch.
|
| Viewed another way: a $900 M (say) shuttle launch would
| be killing 100 statistical people each and every launch
| (in the sense that the money spent on the launch, if
| spent elsewhere, could avoid 100 deaths). If the results
| of the launch are worth that many statistical deaths, why
| not .14 more?
| saberdancer wrote:
| I've seen that point brought up during a conference tech
| talk and when asked, most of the audience raised their
| hands up saying they would fly on a Space Shuttle
| regardless.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Further evidence that being a billionaire isn't well
| correlated with being a genius.
| mym1990 wrote:
| Might have been the 19 year old's idea, and risk
| assessment is not a strong point of youth.
| watwut wrote:
| Family member claims he was terrified and did it because
| it was important for his titanic obsessed father. So, it
| is more of 19 years old overcomes fear to get fathers
| validation and make father happy. Then both him and dad
| dies and there, I blame the dad.
| danso wrote:
| I wonder if U.S. agencies (e.g. the Navy) had picked up the sound
| of the implosion days ago, back when the Titan was said to have
| lost communication, and knew all this time that the Titan had
| likely already been destroyed. But there's no incentive for them
| to publicly say anything, as it would hint to their underwater
| surveillance capabilities. And the "rescue effort" is good
| practice for their crews.
|
| I watched most of the press conferences and don't think I heard
| anyone ask about it. But hearing loud noises across thousands of
| miles is certainly within the U.S. military's capability.
| treyfitty wrote:
| This was quite prescient of you. At first (hours before they
| confirmed the debris was from the sub), I thought your comment
| was a stretch, but still plausible- yet impossible to prove.
| All too often, we dismiss these conspiratorial hypotheses, but
| now that the WSJ all but confirms your suspicions, I'm scared
| to find out what other inconvenient truths there are to life
| ranger207 wrote:
| Possibly, but arguing against that are three factors: 1) the
| sub was tiny and its possible it wasn't actually loud enough;
| 2) the sub was at a depth that SOSUS doesn't listen at and
| sound propagation underwater is very complex; and 3) there's a
| lot of other potential sources of noise underwater, including
| both mechanical like ships and biological. Even if they did
| detect the Titan's implosion, there's enough sources of doubt
| that three days ago it would've been difficult to say
| definitely that it was gone.
| mhh__ wrote:
| It's known that they can detect implosions from very long
| distances however this is a tiny submarines so perhaps they are
| just using it as a training opportunity with no other
| information.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| FWIW, there are small (and highly stealthy) military
| submarines and submersibles, for whom accurately determining
| destruction based on acoustic signatures could very well have
| strategic value. So those capabilities (and this opportunity)
| could be more significant than might appear at first blush.
| fuzzbazz wrote:
| Would the implosion have been loud enough?
|
| I mean the thing was a tiny 7x3m cylinder located 700Km from
| the nearest coast...
| el_benhameen wrote:
| I worked at an aquarium for a while, and IIRC one of the
| exhibits discussed how a device equivalent to an average home
| stereo placed in the water in Japan could be easily heard on
| the coast of California.
| can16358p wrote:
| Sound can travel MUCH further and fast underwater, so in the
| event of an implosion, it might create enough of a spike in
| hydrophones that is statistically significant. Also the
| experts might be able to analyze the signal's signature to
| confirm (or bet) it's an implosion.
|
| Crossmatch that with the time of loss of communication and
| it's safe to assume that it's it.
| analog31 wrote:
| Indeed, and moreover, the ability to detect underwater
| sound is probably aided by the lack of localized turbulence
| (wind noise in microphones) and the degree of
| sophistication sought after by navies due to the detection
| and counter-detection of military submarines.
|
| Without any actual knowledge, I imagine that a ship or sub
| could be festooned with hydrophones, enabling it to detect
| faint noises, but also to determine their direction from
| phase information.
| worewood wrote:
| Like evryone else I have no idea but I do know implosions
| tend to be pretty impressive events and can easily be
| supersonic generating a shockwave, so pretty loud!
| dylan604 wrote:
| Navy sonar equipment can hear so much more than you would
| ever expect. Sound travels very well in water. The navy has
| software that pretty much tunes all of that out, similar to
| how radar ignores things under certain speeds as it's just
| not interesting to them. However, if they want, they can
| see/hear the raw data. There's all sorts of Navy stories
| about what can be heard, and not all of them are untrue.
| mindslight wrote:
| How do submarines commonly fail? Is the assumption of a
| violent implosion warranted?
|
| I would think another failure mode could be water rushing in
| without the overall structure catastrophically failing, which
| would actually relieve pressure on the structure as it
| happened and be much less energetic.
| can16358p wrote:
| Just note that the body was experimental: while the hull
| indeed have a thick titanium body, it was mixed with (don't
| know exactly how and where though) carbon fibers, which are
| known to catastrophically break under pressure if there's
| even a microscopic impurity or damage. At least that's what
| the experts say. Carbon fibers is great for lightweight
| things that need to bend, terrible for things to be relied
| under pressure.
| bumby wrote:
| _> Carbon fibers is great for lightweight things that
| need to bend, terrible for things to be relied under
| pressure._
|
| Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessels (COPVs) are fairly
| common in cases where a pressurized system needs to be
| relatively lightweight (e.g., spacecraft). To your point
| though, the failure mechanisms can be hard to model.
| dmpk2k wrote:
| In that case it's taking advantage of carbon fiber's
| strength under tension.
|
| For a sub you have the opposite problem, which carbon
| fiber is very weak at.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| kamranjon wrote:
| It was just the end caps that were titanium - the entire
| tube was just a 5inch thick carbon fiber wrap. In one of
| the videos with the CEO I saw him saying that he was a
| rule breaker because common consensus was that you
| shouldn't build a submarine out of carbon fiber and
| titanium.
| jonah wrote:
| It was actually the second try at a CF tube. The first
| had flaws and issues and was either "repaired" or
| replaced by other manufacturing companies.
| jonah wrote:
| Reference to the repair/replacement of the cf tube:
| https://techcrunch.com/2023/06/20/a-whistleblower-raised-
| saf...
|
| "The Spencer-built composite cylindrical hull either was
| repaired or replaced by Electroimpact and Janicki
| Industries in 2020 or 2021, prior to the first trips to
| Titanic."
| mechhacker wrote:
| I'd really like more detail on that tube's layup
| schedule.
|
| Solid 5inch thick carbon composite OR a sandwich design
| with thick outer facesheets of carbon fiber? I suppose
| under that pressure not much would take the hydrostatic
| loads other than carbon, but that seems thick compared to
| everything I've seen made out of composites.
| floxy wrote:
| Here's a write-up on the composite part of one of
| Oceangate's vessels:
|
| https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-
| submersib...
|
| ...since that article is from 2017, it is not clear that
| this was the unit that actually failed.
| saberdancer wrote:
| There are videos of them building it. From what I
| remember, they rolled carbon fiber around a cylinder,
| making the flat part of the cylinder. Then they mated two
| titanium half spheres to the end of the carbon fibre
| cylinder. This was done using some kind of "glue".
| Meaning that the middle part had no titanium.
|
| I think it was in Sub brief YouTube video. https://www.yo
| utube.com/watch?v=4dka29FSZac&pp=ygUJc3ViIGJya...
| mechhacker wrote:
| Thanks, I see now. Wow, that's a thick layup.
| SirSourdough wrote:
| I saw a bit of video where they showed the construction-
| it's a few inch wide band of carbon fibre wrapped around
| an inner tube like a spool of thread until it reaches 5"
| thickness.
| WalterBright wrote:
| A cylinder is much less resistant to pressure than a
| sphere.
| [deleted]
| samtho wrote:
| It's been a while since physics for me, but I was under
| the impression that this only really applies when
| pressure is greater inside the solid shape. In this case,
| it seems roughly equivalent to pulling a vacuum inside a
| soda can at sea level, which fairs quite poorly for the
| soda can, and I cannot imagine an unfortified sphere-ish
| shape performing better.
| ridgeguy wrote:
| And composite materials are basically threads embedded in
| glue. Threads can be extremely strong in tension. In
| compression, you have only the strength of the glue and
| the fiber/glue interface strength, which isn't a whole
| lot. Composite materials are in general poor in
| compression. Crewed submersible hulls are always in
| compressive stress from the ocean outside. I can't fathom
| why somebody would choose a composite for a deep
| submersible hull. It's just asking for a buckling
| failure. Bad design choice, IMO.
| quercusa wrote:
| But would make the inside sort of uncomfortable, what with
| PV=nRT
| tedunangst wrote:
| It's hard enough to make a small hole that doesn't turn
| into a big hole under such pressure when you're trying to.
| Even harder for a small hole you're not expecting.
| onesphere wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_strength If it
| imploded, maybe its wreckage is banging against itself and
| that's the sound we're hearing.
| margalabargala wrote:
| I have no idea specifically how loud it would have been.
| However with some probably-reasonable guesses, it looks like
| it actually would have been quite loud.
|
| Here's a naval study where they measured underwater sound
| propagation: https://www.navymarinespeciesmonitoring.us/files
| /7514/2780/4...
|
| They found that a 10lb block of C4 exploding produced ~210db
| of underwater sound. If we use that sound level as an
| approximation of the implosion of 200 cubic meters of
| submersible, which seems not completely unreasonable, then we
| can use the inverse square law to calculate the perceived
| sound far away.
|
| Halifax, NS is 1100km from the Titanic wreck. A sound that is
| 210db at 1 meter, is 89db at 1100000 meters. Boston is 1700km
| away; at that distance it would be 85db.
|
| 85db is really quite loud. You would be able to hear that, if
| you were underwater and paying attention.
|
| If the implosion was instead, say, 180db, then it would have
| been 55db in Boston harbor. Still easily detectable by
| instruments.
|
| For reference, when divers are performing construction using
| e.g. rock drills, those commonly reach 170db. The implosion
| of close to 200 cubic meters of air seems like it would
| produce a louder noise than a rock drill.
| codedokode wrote:
| Your calculations might be wrong. If the distance is 1000
| km (1M meters), and inverse square law is correct, then the
| sound would become 1M*1M = 1T times more silent. 1M times
| smaller is 120 dB less, and 1T times smaller is 240 db
| less, so the amplitude of sound should be at 210 - 240 =
| -30dB less than threshold of hearing.
|
| Also, I wonder, if sound of explosions propagate that well,
| can one install multiple sensors to detect and map source
| of gunfire and artillery positions in realtime? (I hope I
| haven't disclosed NATO military secrets here).
| cdelsolar wrote:
| my "orders of magnitude" alarm is going off here. There's
| no way that the implosion of a fairly small sub is going to
| be heard in Boston even if underwater. Something doesn't
| make sense here.
| Ataraxic wrote:
| Sound does travel extremely well in water.
|
| http://resource.npl.co.uk/acoustics/techguides/seaabsorpt
| ion... -- here is a quick calculator for sound loss by
| distance. I think actual geography is important too but
| from understanding whether or not it's hypothetically
| possible, it certainly looks like it.
|
| For example, at the default inputs we see .061 db/km
| absorption. This is at 1khz. Higher frequencies
| attenuated more and lower frequencies less.
|
| I have no idea what frequencies an implosion generates,
| but given that, a sound at 120db might still be 60db
| 1000km later. Certainly seems possible and in fact given
| what we have seen from the US Navy (detecting imploding
| soviet subs in the middle of the pacific ocean) it seems
| totally possible to me that this small sub could be
| detected if microphones were places in quiet spots
| offshore of the continental US and Canada.
|
| I think we don't have enough information to rule out that
| this was detectable.
| rfreiberger wrote:
| The sad part to ponder is most likely the team on the ship
| knew the sub was gone right when the communications was
| lost but kept the information to themselves.
| eterm wrote:
| Apparently they've "lost communications" in many of their
| other trips, which is why also hints at why they didn't
| raise the alarm for many hours.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| "losing communications" could be a broad misunderstanding
| of Pogue's comments
|
| https://twitter.com/Pogue/status/1671524465736335366
| at-fates-hands wrote:
| Which begs the question why there were no additional
| safety measures put in place after so many "skin of the
| teeth" trips making it back.
|
| IMHO this was a get rich scheme the two founders spun up
| that went sideways. They spent the absolute minimum on
| safety and repeatedly cut corners on the sub in order to
| get it up and running, then charged people a ton of money
| to take a trip down deeper than the sub was clearly
| capable of going.
| variaga wrote:
| Look up "normalization of deviance".
|
| Perversely, a bunch of near-disasters can _reduce_ people
| 's concern and make them less likely to demand fixes
| because "it did that last time too and everything turned
| out okay" is a powerful rationalization.
| toss1 wrote:
| Yup.
|
| Meanwhile, smart organizations have decades-ago stopped
| tracking (primarily) "Time-Lost Work Accidents" and
| replaced that with tracking "Close Calls".
|
| I've seen prominent signs for "N Days Since a Time Lost
| Accident", and more recently "X Days Since a Close Call".
|
| Sadly, it is so obvious that this CEO clown was doing
| everything possible to avoid experienced people ("not as
| inspiring to hire 50yo white guys as hiring young
| upstarts") so he could overrule any safety or redundancy
| concerns, firing people as soon as they raised things
| like "this porthole window is only rated to 1500m and
| we're going to 4000m", using cheap scrap scaffolding as
| ballast, and completely ignoring any kind of redundancy
| in case something went wrong. He seems to have gotten a
| just end, but his deceived customers didn't deserve that.
| kunwon1 wrote:
| A good real-world example of the consequences of this
| normalization is British Airways flight 5390 [1]
| This problem extended far beyond this one individual, who
| was merely a symptom. The entire Birmingham maintenance
| facility, and perhaps British Airways more broadly, had a
| singular focus on "getting the job done." If doing the
| work by the book took longer and jeopardized schedules,
| then doing the work by the book was discouraged. The
| shift manager who used the wrong bolts stated in an
| interview that if he sought out the instructions or used
| the official parts catalogue on every task, then he would
| never "get the job done," as though this was a totally
| normal and reasonable attitude with which to approach
| aircraft maintenance. This attitude was in fact
| normalized on a high level by supervisors who rewarded
| the employees who most consistently kept planes on
| schedule. That a serious incident would result from such
| a culture was inevitable. The shift manager believed it
| to be reasonable to just "put on whatever bolts came off"
| and make a quick judgment call about what kind of bolts
| they were -- not because he was personally deficient, but
| because he had been trained into a culture that didn't
| consider this a flagrant safety violation.
|
| [1] https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-near-crash-
| of-britis...
| tialaramex wrote:
| Very few industries are safe enough to actually capture
| the "That could have been bad" events, that's what ASRS
| https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/ does for the Aviation industry
| (there are equivalent agencies in various other wealthy
| countries e.g. CHIRP in the UK)
|
| In the absence of a proper means to report "That could
| have been bad" as you say it can cause normalization. But
| it's understandable that you don't implement something
| like ASRS when you haven't solved most of your "That
| _was_ bad " problems. If you regularly have CI failures
| due to the code not even compiling, "We need more unit
| tests" isn't top of the list of your problems.
| rfreiberger wrote:
| I honestly see the company as a startup in idea. They
| couldn't afford to build a proper deep sea sub so they
| used the idea of new tech in the form of carbon fiber
| (which I'm assuming is way cheaper to form vs a titanium
| hull) and billed this as next gen. Everything that I read
| almost fits in the idea of "fail fast".
| carbine wrote:
| yes I believe in one interview the CEO said carbon fiber
| provides buoyancy but is much cheaper than syntactic
| foam, which other similar such vessels have used
| vanattab wrote:
| I mean the CEO of the company is one of the fatalities so
| it's not like he thought and understood the sub was
| dangerous but was still willing to sell tickets to other
| people. We thought what is was doing was safe (obviously
| he was wrong) but he did have skin in the game.
| avgDev wrote:
| From what I read and watched the company didn't take
| safety very seriously at all.
|
| A former employee claims they were fired after brining up
| concerns about safety. The glass apparently was not rated
| for the depth required to see the titanic.
| pillefitz wrote:
| "not completely unreasonable" does a lot of heavy lifting
| here. I have zero intuition how the sound of an under water
| explosion of c4 compares to an implosion.
| dadzilla wrote:
| Volume is more like a tenth of that, I think? Maybe
| interior dimensions 2 meters diameter and 5 meters length
| gives around 16 cubic meters if my math is sane (Religion
| major, so go easy on me if not).
| jprd wrote:
| I've never been in the military, not a sub-mariner, 1000%
| SOSUS could detect that. SOSUS could detect that in the
| 1970s, if not earlier.
| Solvency wrote:
| Maybe there is a term from quantum physics that can be used
| here metaphorically, but I think you can safely assume that
| what you said is probabilistically true, and probably true for
| all other comparable assumptions. It may resolve to be false
| when examined closely in any one particular instance, but it
| doesn't change the fact that they are working extremely hard to
| maintain a fog of mystery around their scope of capabilities.
| psychphysic wrote:
| Other than awe for US military capability.
|
| What motivates this idea?
|
| Not only does it explain nothing, it requires additional
| explanation.
| danso wrote:
| It's not a complicated or even malicious "coverup". They hear
| an anomalous sound, but don't know with 100% certainty that
| it's came from the lost sub. What is the Coast Guard supposed
| to do, not do anything the past few days and say it's because
| "Sorry we heard a loud sound at that time and are 99% sure
| that those people are dead"?
| psychphysic wrote:
| I must be missing something it seems simpler to assume
|
| "Coast guard gets report of lost sub and searches for a
| while".
|
| Why would you turn that into
|
| "USN knows that a sub imploded. Did nothing observable.
| Coast guard gets report of lost sub and searches for a
| while."
|
| I looked at the link, I can't see any reason to interject
| into that more capability than was demonstrated. It may
| exist, it may not. There is no reason to comment on
| additional capabilities based on this event.
| danso wrote:
| My assumption is that hearing this kind of long distance
| noise is well within the laws of physics and what we know
| of the U.S.'s capability. So I don't see this as
| "additional capability", but rather, am asking from a
| mindset of "How did they _not_ hear a suspicious sound at
| the time of the missing sub? "
|
| Whether they did or not, nothing would presumably change
| about the Coast Guard conducting search-and-
| rescue/recovery operations (since they still don't know
| for sure what happened). Worth pointing out that private
| explorers, led by Richard Garriott (aka Lord British,
| apparently), complained that they had optimal rescue
| equipment but got pushback from the U.S. officials:
|
| https://archive.is/HXtFn
|
| > _"Magellan has received mixed signals, first hearing
| from US Gov to get ready, waiting for plans, then getting
| told to stand down," Garriott wrote in an email sent to
| Vice Admiral William Galanis, commander of Naval Sea
| Systems Command, U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral John W.
| Mauger, who is leading the recovery mission, Congressman
| Lloyd Doggett, and Representative Eric Swalwell on
| Wednesday afternoon._
|
| Again, hard to know if this is just standard operating
| procedure or not. If it's the case the U.S. govt already
| had things figured out by now, then it makes sense they
| weren't going to expedite Garriot's group, given that the
| search effort had already resulted in the loss of 1
| (maybe 2) search vehicles:
|
| > _In addition, at least one ROV, possibly two, was
| damaged or destroyed during the search-and-rescue mission
| --a testament to the difficult conditions currently
| facing rescuers._
| psychphysic wrote:
| Given military subs operate around a maximum of 500msw
| why would the USN have randomly coverage of hydrophones
| to detect implosions at depths no military sub would be
| at? This sub probably imploded around 1500 msw.
|
| A lot of people are saying sounds travel far under water
| that's true.. but laterally and not between the typical
| layers of the sea.
|
| Not to mention that these hydrophone systems are at
| critical choke points not littering the ocean floor
| uselessly.
|
| It seems motivated by a sci-fi understanding of the
| physics.
|
| Don't get me wrong things like this happen as cover ups.
| In this specific instance it seems driven by nonsense.
| danso wrote:
| I'm not a physics expert, but sound seems to travel for
| long distances extremely well underwater. So even if they
| have a buoy at 1000 ft, hearing a loud sudden sound at
| 10000 feet (the sub's last communication was 1h45m into a
| roughly 2hr descent) would not require "sci-fi" physics?
|
| [0] https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/16challen
| ger/wel...
| psychphysic wrote:
| Yes because if you have a buoy there you need one
| everywhere...
|
| Doesn't matter, I was curious why people were speculating
| this and that's clarified.
|
| You believe that USN would detect this, and it's not
| motivated by any factor in the story. And a conspiracy to
| cover up capabilities is the only way you can sustain
| that belief.
| jerf wrote:
| I am a bit mystified at your apparent belief that the
| military has any obligation to proactively tell anybody
| anything, or find it shocking that a military would ever
| hide things from anybody, to the point that you would
| attack people claiming that they might do so.
|
| Are you aware that there is, in fact, a such thing as
| "classified" information? If you'll pardon me linking to
| that hotbed of conspiratorial thinking, the Cornell Law
| School, here's some of the basic, completely open, law
| covering such things:
| https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798
|
| Where on Earth do you get the idea that everyone in the
| world is operating in a regime where they tell you
| everything you want to know simply because you want to
| know it?
|
| You are operating at personally dangerous levels of
| naivety, like, levels that are going to cost you money
| when you fall for a big scam because you thought someone
| was just informing you of a great money-making
| opportunity, as everyone always does when they find a way
| to make money. Or worse. You're light years beyond
| "rejecting conspiracy theories", you're operating on a
| Theory of Mind that has no visible correspondence to the
| real world. This is not how the world works. People and
| organizations do not rush to reveal everything they are,
| everything they can do, everything they know, to
| everybody, all the time, for free, simply because it
| would be really nice, and the military least of all!
| psychphysic wrote:
| You're misreading me.
|
| I asked what about that link made them think that. The
| answer nothing.
|
| They were making up explanations about how to maintain a
| pre-existing belief.
| jerf wrote:
| A fully justified, well-established pre-existing belief,
| not one that they just pulled out of the blue. Mere "pre-
| belief" is not intrinsically bad, certain sloppy and
| popular statements to the contrary.
| danso wrote:
| Here's my question for you:
|
| Let's assume that in our current reality, U.S. agencies
| did _not_ detect an anomalous sound. So what we 've
| observed is how they would operate if they had zero
| foreknowledge or data other than the initial report to
| the Coast Guard.
|
| Now imagine the alternate scenario in which Navy or NOAA
| buoys pick up a suspicious sound near the Titanic. There
| might be a flurry of U.S. gov activity (e.g.
| communication between NOAA, the military, and
| intelligence agencies) to make sure it's not a Russian
| sub, but that would be completely hidden to the public,
| and for all we know, is something that happens relatively
| routinely.
|
| In this alternate scenario, what would change about how
| the Navy, Coast Guard, or any other U.S. official has
| responded? Coast Guard rescue ships would still conduct
| search-and-rescue, the Navy would still send a deep sea
| salvage ship. You honestly think the Navy would volunteer
| information about an intelligence report that, as far as
| they know, may or may not be related to a now-missing
| civilian sub?
| psychphysic wrote:
| In the second scenario the Russell's teapot satellite the
| Soviets put into space would have picked up the uptick in
| US military Comms.
|
| Maybe they kept it quiet to not reveal the satellite was
| still operational? I doubt it given the current
| situation, mostly likely it'd be all over telegram and
| we'd have known about it.
| danso wrote:
| What would that have to do with anything?
| psychphysic wrote:
| Russell's teapot is a criticism of non-falsifiable claims
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot#Analys
| is
| danso wrote:
| Ok, but for posterity's sake, the Navy has now said that
| they did in fact hear the implosion:
|
| https://archive.is/pSpem
|
| > _The Navy began listening for the Titan almost as soon
| as the sub lost communications, according to a U.S.
| defense official. Shortly after its disappearance, the
| U.S. system detected what it suspected was the sound of
| an implosion near the debris site discovered Thursday and
| reported its findings to the commander on site, U.S.
| defense officials said._
| giantrobot wrote:
| Sound reflects off thermoclines. If there's a thermocline
| at say 1000ft and you have a hydrophone at 900ft, a sound
| originating at 1500ft will reflect off the thermocline
| and won't be detected by the 900ft hydrophone above the
| thermocline (frictionless pulleys and spherical cow
| assumptions).
| stochtastic wrote:
| Hydrophones don't need to be nearby or even at a similar
| depth. The SOFAR channel acts as a waveguide and will
| duct sources from other depths as long as the bottom is
| below the critical depth. As others have said, this part
| of the North Atlantic is one of the most heavily
| monitored parts of the ocean as well. No sci-fi physics
| necessary -- this has been done continuously since the
| 1950s.
| psychphysic wrote:
| So basically you think that the USN should be able to
| detect the implosion and so must be hiding that they can
| do so.
|
| Rather than any information specific to this event
| leading to the conclusion that USN can.
|
| This is the same reasoning "UFOlogists" use to insist
| area 51 has aliens.
|
| 1. Aliens must exist.
|
| 2. US must be able to detect any aliens.
|
| 3. The US must be covering up that aliens exist.
| danso wrote:
| Maybe there's a miscommunication here; detecting
| underwater sound from hundreds, even thousands of
| kilometers away, is made possible via the publicly known
| laws of physics.
|
| Detecting extraterrestrial aliens requires technology
| that is not publicly known. Therefore, it is not at all
| logical to compare "hearing an imploding submersible in
| the Atlantic" to "detecting aliens/UFOs"
| psychphysic wrote:
| Really you'd need advanced technology to detect aliens if
| Roswell was indeed an crash landing?
|
| You've got to be kidding!
| stochtastic wrote:
| > and so must be hiding that they can do so
|
| I don't believe I said that. You can draw your own
| conclusion from the fact that it is within their
| capabilities to detect, localize, and to some extent
| classify a wide range of sources in this region of the
| ocean.
|
| What you won't find is a lot of information about those
| capabilities in the public domain. Just consider that
| what _is_ known tells us that we had these capabilities
| in the 1950s, and that they were continuously improved
| upon throughout the cold war. This is not Area 51
| conspiracy speculation; it is bread-and-butter NRL stuff
| that is more than half a century old at this point and is
| classified for good reasons.
| psychphysic wrote:
| I'll rephrase. What about this incident supports your
| claim?
|
| As far as I can see not only is the answer to that is
| "nothing" but the claim itself is non-falsifiable.
| dTal wrote:
| I fail to see the analogy between "aliens must exist" (a
| statement for which there is no evidence) and "the
| submersible imploded" (which is substantiated by debris).
| The syllogism is simple:
|
| * submarines make loud noises when they implode
|
| * the navy can hear loud noises underwater
|
| * the submersible is thought to have imploded based on
| debris
|
| therefore,
|
| * the navy heard the submarine implode
| danso wrote:
| From the WSJ: https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-navy-detected-
| titan-sub-imp...
|
| https://archive.is/pSpem
|
| U.S. Navy Detected Titan Sub Implosion Days Ago Underwater
| microphones designed to detect enemy submarines first detected
| Titan tragedy
|
| WASHINGTON--A top secret U.S. Navy acoustic detection system
| designed to spot enemy submarines first heard the Titan sub
| implosion hours after the submersible began its mission,
| officials involved in the search said. The Navy began listening
| for the Titan almost as soon as the sub lost communications,
| according to a U.S. defense official. Shortly after its
| disappearance, the U.S. system detected what it suspected was
| the sound of an implosion near the debris site discovered
| Thursday and reported its findings to the commander on site,
| U.S. defense officials said. "The U.S. Navy conducted an
| analysis of acoustic data and detected an anomaly consistent
| with an implosion or explosion in the general vicinity of where
| the Titan submersible was operating when communications were
| lost," a senior U.S. Navy official told The Wall Street Journal
| in a statement. "While not definitive, this information was
| immediately shared with the Incident Commander to assist with
| the ongoing search and rescue mission."
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I suppose to detect a noise is one thing, to know what it is is
| another. The ocean must be full of underwater volcano
| eruptions, tectonic activity, oil rigs banging and drilling,
| etc. One of the rescue boats was a commercial cable-laying
| vessel, presumably laying cables and making noise.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I'd imagine that location is the second most acoustically
| monitored part of the Atlantic (looking for ruskie subs coming
| from the north).
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS
| jebarker wrote:
| What's the first?
| evgen wrote:
| I would guess the gap between Iceland and the U.K. for the
| same reason.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Yes
| scrlk wrote:
| I assume it's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GIUK_gap
| awb wrote:
| Top Secret U.S. Navy System Heard Titan Implosion Days Ago
| (wsj.com) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36439661
| ryanhuff wrote:
| That's conspiracy thinking. The absence of your question being
| addressed doesn't mean it's plausible. The ocean is generally a
| noisy place, and the activities of a small submerged vehicle
| likely won't raise notice without active listening.
| psychphysic wrote:
| You're right this is insane.
|
| /r/UFO must be leaking.
|
| A complete non sequitur to assume it was detected with no
| observable action taken.
| danso wrote:
| What's the conspiracy? That Coast Guard officials declined to
| say any more than is necessary?
|
| Yesterday the Coast Guard spokesman [0] said he hadn't even
| heard the notion that the banging noises were made at regular
| 30-min intervals, even though Rolling Stone published a
| leaked DHS report the day before [1], something which
| completely dominated the news coverage and gave people hope
| that there were survivors. When directly asked about most
| anything, the officials frequently demurred. Giving out the
| least amount of info necessary is their standard operating
| procedure, not a conspiracy
|
| [0] https://www.dvidshub.net/video/887852/coast-guard-
| partners-h...
|
| [1] https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-
| features/titani...
| dehrmann wrote:
| Conspiring to keep secret military capabilities secret?
| onesphere wrote:
| Would you ever give the enemy demonstration of your detection
| capabilities especially when they know you're looking for
| something?
| [deleted]
| haunter wrote:
| This is exactly what happened to the argentinian sub in 2017
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_ARA_San_Juan
|
| >On 23 November the Argentine Navy said an event consistent
| with an explosion had been detected, on the day the submarine
| lost communications, by CTBTO seismic anomaly listening posts
| on Ascension Island and Crozet Islands
|
| >The organization had been asked to analyse data from the
| search area by the Argentine government on the week of the
| disappearance, but no leads had materialised until 22 November
| when the CTBTO informed the government.
|
| >The Navy added that it received information on the explosion
| on the afternoon of 22 November, adding that it would have
| concentrated search efforts in that area had it known sooner.
| akira2501 wrote:
| I thought that loss of communication was an expected part of
| the trip due to the depth.
| agumonkey wrote:
| I wonder if typical deep sea exploration use relay all along
| the descent, to ensure comms and raise rescue capabilities.
| civilitty wrote:
| The three main methods are: acoustic using SONAR to receive
| data, tether or umbilical cord, and buoy based where the
| DSV releases a buoy that ascends to the top.
|
| Relays don't really work because you'd need a LOT of them
| and they'd all have to keep themselves positioned within
| like 30 meters of each other which is _very_ hard with
| ocean currents. That 's with very low bandwidth VLF radio.
| agumonkey wrote:
| dumb question, are there positioning system for sea
| exploration ? I assume GPS dies off quickly but maybe
| something else ?
| saberdancer wrote:
| They have inertial navigation system.
| civilitty wrote:
| ROVs usually use a ultrashort baseline acoustic
| positioning system [1] paired with the surface vessel.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-
| short_baseline_acoustic_...
| moffkalast wrote:
| Kinda weird that they didn't have an optical cable tether
| tbh.
| denlekke wrote:
| wouldn't it basically need to be the same as what they
| use for intercontinental cables ? tons of shielding and
| repeaters. maybe there'd be further risk bc if it breaks
| at the ship it could fall on or weigh down the
| submersible
| akira2501 wrote:
| > intercontinental cables
|
| Those also carry electrical power to supply the inline
| repeaters on those cables. If the cable does not have
| repeaters, it wouldn't need this, and the shielding could
| be greatly reduced.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Not at all. Shielding against what? It's light. You only
| need enough of a protective coat to make sure it's stiff
| enough to not twist and stretch too much and to make it
| neutrally buoyant. No repeaters needed, base range is
| about 40-60 km. ROVs going to greater depths use them all
| the time without major issues.
|
| The real reason is that they were stingy as fuck and that
| it's mildly impractical which outweighed their complete
| disregard for safety.
| bg46z wrote:
| Would be extremely heavy and very brittle
| rootusrootus wrote:
| There are deep sea submersibles designed to go a good bit
| deeper than Titanic which have optical tethers.
| [deleted]
| buggythebug wrote:
| Ya but even so they could have sent rescue ships there because
| "we think it could be here" - nothing given up.
| CoastalCoder wrote:
| I could imagine a cost-benefit analysis making sense here.
|
| - Pro: increased chance of saving a few people's lives
|
| - Con: risk of leaking info about U.S. sonar sensitivity
|
| I.e., the decision would depend on the magnitude of the "pro"
| and "con" probabilities.
| toss1 wrote:
| Also - Pro: Excellent realistic training opportunity to
| maintain and upgrade skills
| aflag wrote:
| If they detected an implosion there's no chance of saving
| anyone's lives. It would increase the chance of maybe
| finding bodies, though.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Audible-at-a-distance implosion ==>> Everyone inside is
| ~liquified
|
| The actual Pro would be "minor calibration opportunity for
| our secret sensor network".
| WalterBright wrote:
| If it imploded the chance of survival is zero.
| politician wrote:
| It gives up bounds on how fast we can locate something.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| Seems likely, there's no point revealing classified
| capabilities in this context.
| gravitronic wrote:
| There's a lot of unclassified information about their
| historic capabilities, I'm pretty sure they can give a lot of
| detail without leaking anything not already public.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Red-November-Inside-U-S-Soviet-
| Submar...
| politician wrote:
| A timely response conveys something about how fast we can
| locate something underwater.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Might explain why they denied offers from the British rescue
| sub (IIRC the only available one that could go to such depth)
| that wanted to come out to try to rescue the crew.
| jprd wrote:
| The other day, the Hellenic Coast Guard idled nearby while
| hundreds of people suffered and then drowned.
|
| I hope at least these souls died instantaneously from an
| implosion when Comms first dropped.
| jrs235 wrote:
| Complete speculation: They wanted to see something very very
| upclose through the glass. While getting in close they managed to
| scrap some wreckage compromising the carbon fiber body leading it
| to break and implode. The banging noises are some of the
| equipment dangling on the Titanic wreckage and blowing in
| underwater currents occassionally.
| INTPenis wrote:
| Sounds more like it imploded on the way down and the debris
| just kept going in about the same arch, landing 1600 feet from
| the titanic.
| kzrdude wrote:
| They lost contact about 13/4 hours into the voyage, while it's
| expected to take 3 hours to get down to the Titanic wreck. From
| that, it sounds like they would be somewhere midway down.
| danpalmer wrote:
| I believe I read that they lost "communication" 1hr 45 in,
| but continued to receive data of some kind or something for a
| little while longer.
|
| However, it sounds like they've had comms issues on most of
| their previous dives, so perhaps the 1hr 45 is just a red
| herring here.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> continued to receive data of some kind or something for
| a little while longer_
|
| The wireless Logitech controller was still in pairing mode.
| broahmed wrote:
| The last press conference today from the US Coast Guard stated
| that the evidence (debris spread over an area hundreds of
| meters away from the Titanic) is consistent with the
| catastrophic failure occurring somewhere in the "water column".
| So current evidence points to it occurring during the descent.
| accrual wrote:
| The Titan wreck was found 1,600 feet from the bow of the
| Titanic, it was found on a smooth bottom of the sea floor, per
| the ongoing Coast Guard press release.
| bambax wrote:
| If it did implode in multiple pieces it means the experts were
| right; many said that carbon fiber was a poor choice because
| while it's light, it breaks like glass, contrary to steel which
| tends to "open" slowly.
| typeofhuman wrote:
| It's a shame they openly did not hire SMEs.
| kyleblarson wrote:
| This quote shines light on his hiring philosophy: "When I
| started the business, one of the things you'll find, there
| are other sub-operators out there, but they typically have,
| uh, gentlemen who are ex-military submariners, and they --
| you'll see a whole bunch of 50-year-old white guys," Rush
| told Teledyne Marine in a resurfaced interview.
|
| "I wanted our team to be younger, to be inspirational and I'm
| not going to inspire a 16-year-old to go pursue marine
| technology, but a 25-year-old, uh, you know, who's a sub
| pilot or a platform operator or one of our techs can be
| inspirational," said Rush.
| PUSH_AX wrote:
| What on Earth did I just read? It sounds like startup
| nonsense applied to a super high stakes domain.
| Foolishness.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Ah, I see he's got the 'Elon Musk school of thought' in
| regards to cutting corners in vehicles carrying people's
| lives and seeing safety regulations as a nuisance hindering
| his "visionary progress" that these pesky gray-beard
| engineers just can't grasp.
|
| Fucking idiot CEO, took 4 innocent people with him. Aero,
| naval, automotive, all have a a history written in blood,
| and all those rules and regulations aren't to hinder
| innovation but to save lives based on what we've learned
| from all the people who lost their lives in the past.
| gcgfromhell wrote:
| "Ah, I see he's got the 'Elon Musk school of thought' in
| regards to cutting corners in vehicles carrying people's
| lives and seeing safety regulations as a nuisance
| hindering his "visionary progress" that these pesky gray-
| beard engineers just can't grasp.
|
| Fucking idiot CEO, took 4 innocent people with him. Aero,
| naval, automotive, all have a a history written in blood,
| and all those rules and regulations aren't to hinder
| innovation but to save lives based on what we've learned
| from all the people who lost their lives in the past."
|
| I agree, except maybe on the notion of "innocent
| billionaire". They too usually have a history of blood.
| Except maybe the 16yo tho. Maybe.
| nannal wrote:
| They'll stop doing it when it stops being profitable.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| It's the government's job to regulate people not being
| allowed to pay for trips to the bottom of the ocean in
| submarines that look like they were built on Linus Tech
| Tips.
| bell-cot wrote:
| > It's the government's job to regulate...
|
| Arguable...but _which_ government? They were operating in
| international waters, and it 's not like the UN runs an
| Ocean Engineering Safety Police Dept.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > the 'Elon Musk school of thought' in regards to cutting
| corners in vehicles
|
| You're thinking only of FSD. That is a legitimate
| observation. But objectively, Teslas tend to score highly
| for safety in independent tests.
| asynchronous wrote:
| I support the hate but don't compare this to Elon Musk,
| his companies have taken more people more places safer
| than dozens of other competitors.
|
| Tesla is one of the safest car brands to drive, SpaceX
| has yet to kill or maim anyone.
| cma wrote:
| The untrained consumer beta testing of FSD...
| carbine wrote:
| Yes, and SpaceX's approach to safety and testing is
| significantly different for crewed and uncrewed rockets.
| kyleblarson wrote:
| Upon rereading the quote I noticed the use of "in a
| _resurfaced_ interview ". I wonder if that was an
| intentional jab.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| Translation:
|
| "50 year old white guys have a lot of experience but would
| cost a fuck ton of money. I prefer to exploit, er, um,
| employ, 25 year old white guys and gals because they are
| about 1/4 the cost."
|
| When you take all the BS justifications out of it, that's
| really what the guy was saying. Elon Musk school of
| capitalism. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
| bambax wrote:
| It's doubtful he'll still inspire anyone where he's now.
| x3874 wrote:
| Wow, could be a Musk quote. Same vibes of 'break things
| fast'.
|
| EDIT: "Hide yo kids, hide yo wife; the karma snatching
| Tesla fanbois are rife"
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| Carbon fiber seems like a weird choice for this application
| anyway because its big advantage is in its tensile strength
| compared to its weight.
|
| Here, it's in compression, not tension. And its light weight
| doesn't matter.
| cpleppert wrote:
| Carbon fiber is a lot easier to work with than metal in this
| case because welding metal creates failure points. I don't
| think they could afford building a titanium pressure vessel.
| Weight is a factor too, carbon fiber is lighter so you can
| make the pressure vessel thicker and still have enough
| buoyancy to reach the surface(probably a good thing).
|
| From their perspective it kinda made sense even though its
| not safe at all.
| mwsfc wrote:
| Obviously there seem to be some compelling reasons why the
| choice of a carbon hull was a faulty idea to begin with.
| The CEO would have been familiar with those critiques and
| proceeded anyway, presumably because of counter arguments
| he put more confidence in. Anyone out there familiar with
| what some of those counter points may have been?
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| "It was cheaper. Also I refused to hire subject matter
| experts because they were a bunch of 50 year old white
| men."
| beowulfey wrote:
| Their website extensively mentions the acoustic
| monitoring system, with the thinking that any stress
| fractures would be detected prior to failure.
|
| It probably did, but unfortunately, I think the window of
| time was not enough the return to the surface (perhaps
| milliseconds, but who knows)
| alpaca128 wrote:
| > I don't think they could afford building a titanium
| pressure vessel
|
| If they could they probably still wouldn't have done so.
| The founder who was onboard the Titan was known for calling
| safety regulations unnecessary and a barrier to
| "innovation", like a window only rated for a depth of 1300m
| used at 4000m.
| bambax wrote:
| I don't know and I'm not an SME, but it would seem weight
| always matter? For carrying, for bubbling up, etc.?
| qayxc wrote:
| The main problem with steel is that it can only withstand
| such pressures if it's of spherical shape (i.e. a
| bathysphere). This usually only leaves enough room for two
| to three people (e.g.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSV_Alvin).
|
| So it seems it's more a matter of cost and passenger space
| than just weight alone.
| accrual wrote:
| I felt it was kind of telling that they found the two titanium
| end caps in the debris field, presumably intact, but only
| pieces of the pressure hull.
| saberdancer wrote:
| I'm curious if the window remained intact. This seemed like a
| logical failure point.
| 0x0203 wrote:
| My guess would be that the window wasn't the failure point,
| assuming that pressure hull was indeed found in many
| pieces. If the window did go first, the pressure delta on
| the rest of the hull immediately begins to equalize, so the
| amount of force the hull is under immediately goes down,
| making failure of the hull instantly less likely. The
| inertia of all the water rapidly entering the vessel might
| do some damage, but that inertia would have to overcome
| both the pressure of the ocean pressing in on the outside
| of the hull, and the tensile strength of the carbon fiber,
| which is stronger in tension than compression. So my guess
| would be that if the window failed, it would result in
| mostly just the titanium end caps being blown off rather
| than a complete destruction of the hull.
|
| If the hull itself failed, however, given the way carbon
| fiber fails, finding the hull in many pieces seems to be
| the expected result.
| trollied wrote:
| https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/titan-could-have-
| vulnerabilitie...
|
| > the submersible was designed to reach depths of 4,000
| metres, but Lochridge said the passenger viewpoint
| (window) was only certified for depths of up to 1,300
| metres
| [deleted]
| mikeyouse wrote:
| It's not clear from the headline - but the debris field is on the
| ocean floor and was found via the USGC's remote operated
| submersible vehicle.
| ewoodrich wrote:
| Yes on the sea floor but according to BBC:
|
| > Debris patch was found by an ROV from the Horizon Arctic, a
| Canadian commercial vessel which arrived last night near the
| Titanic wreckage site.
|
| > It was loaded with support equipment and was also carrying an
| Odysseus 6k ROV that can reach depths of 6,000m.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464?at_bb...
| dang wrote:
| Thanks - maybe we'll switch to that URL since it has more up-
| to-date information.
|
| (Submitted URL was
| https://twitter.com/USCGNortheast/status/1671907901542211584)
| wiz21c wrote:
| "Deepest condolences offered to families - US Coast Guard"
|
| kind of funny pun...
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Yep, fair point - found not by not the USCG itself but by the
| Canadian merchant vessel assisting in the search.
| venusenvy47 wrote:
| From the article it seems like this ROV doesn't have sonar,
| and can only search visually at a short distance. They claim
| a distance of around 20 feet. I'm surprised they could find a
| debris field so fast with such a small range of observation.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Turns out that the debris field was only a few hundred
| meters from the bow of the Titanic which is approximately
| where they lost contact in the water column, so I suspect
| their search consisted of diving to the last known location
| of the Titan and then just going to the sea floor from
| there.
| runesofdoom wrote:
| It appears to me that for all the rushing about (which
| was appropriate and neccessary if there were any surviors
| or surface debris to be found at all) the somewhat grim
| reality is:
|
| 1) hydrophones heard it implode at the same time it lost
| contact
|
| 2) it took until early 6/22 to get a deep-diving ROV on
| site
|
| 3) once the ROV got to the bottom, it swiftly found the
| debris from the implosion as expected
| onesphere wrote:
| For a two mile journey, I'd say they basically made it to
| the Titanic.
| ClassicOrgin wrote:
| Based on this it seems pretty likely that it immediately imploded
| and the 'banging' was from the Titanic debris itself.
| quasse wrote:
| The banging was likely the sound of hundreds of news
| organizations flogging this story to get more clicks.
| dehrmann wrote:
| At least the story is more compelling than the Chinese spy
| balloon.
| can16358p wrote:
| Nope; banging was officially announced in the press
| conference of the search and rescue team.
|
| Though they could not confirm that it was really the sub
| (they probably thought that it was, but they can't officially
| say it).
| popey wrote:
| I think your sarcasm detector has developed a fault.
| can16358p wrote:
| Yeah, I was just too focused into the event to think
| properly... and even the sounds were apparently not it
| anyway.
| 50 wrote:
| compared to the little coverage of the vessel carrying
| hundreds of migrants which capsized and sank in the
| mediterranean, and, by factor of sitting, watching, and
| waiting without intervening, were killed by the eu and greek
| coast guard
| ak_111 wrote:
| Why is it more likely that it immediately imploded rather than
| after a few days?
|
| The latter is more probable to me as it has never been tested
| under water for more than a few hours at a stretch.
|
| This will also be consistent with your banging hypothesis which
| was only heard after a day or two when it got lost. And also
| with the fact that no immediate sound disturbance was
| registered with the controlling ship.
|
| I of course would very much hope it imploded way before any
| psychological trauma was inflected on the passengers, but sadly
| I think the most consistent hypothesis with the little data we
| have is that it got lost and went astray for around two days
| then imploded.
| cpleppert wrote:
| Immediate implosion if a far more likely explanation because
| give that we knew it imploded the most likely time would be
| immediately after the pressure vessel reached maximum or near
| maximum stress and it failed. The time actually is not the
| biggest factor; it is the number of cycles the pressure
| vessel has endured. An implosion after a relatively low
| number of cycles is consistent with past incidents with
| pressurization failures.
|
| As was pointed out, the submersible is pretty large and its a
| essentially a large cylinder which induces stress in the
| middle. Usually you make deep sea submersibles out of a
| sphere or spheroid because you don't have this failure modes.
|
| It isn't surprising it failed. They were strong claims that
| the company did do enough test, rejected safety advice and
| even had the CEO claim that at one point the titan wouldn't
| be able to reach the titanic because it (a model maybe?) had
| experience a pressurization failure. To say nothing of the
| materials they were using.
|
| Just comically bizarre that anyone involved in the project
| thought it would somehow survive let alone be safe.
| ak_111 wrote:
| The most puzzling aspect, from what I understand from the
| experts, if it imploded at time and depth you are
| suggesting it would have been very likely to be registered
| by at least the controlling ship due to the noise. As you
| highlighted the sub is pretty large, imploding in a
| millisecond causes huge effects in the surroundings.
|
| So saying it got lost and imploded after a few days solves
| two problems. Explains why there was no implosion noise
| originally, and that the banging heard afterwards was the
| implosion. Also it has a history of losing contact in its
| previous tours.
| deskamess wrote:
| > it would have been very likely to be registered by at
| least the controlling ship due to the noise
|
| Why would they be listening? They would be looking at a
| device that was communicating via SMS or some radar
| screen at best.
|
| > and that the banging heard afterwards was the implosion
|
| Every 30 min?
| manchego wrote:
| They mentioned in the press conference that it was very
| unlikely that the implosion would have happened after
| more listening equipment was in use on the scene. I
| believe there were sonar buoys dropped on Monday, so the
| implosion likely happened before then.
| spuz wrote:
| > Explains why there was no implosion noise originally,
|
| We don't know that. There's a chance a noise was recorded
| but it wasn't made public in order not to compromise
| rescue attempts.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > Why is it more likely that it immediately imploded rather
| than after a few days?
|
| That would mean it had two mostly independent failures (which
| is less likely than one).
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| If the sub imploded after the search had begun, would the
| search vessels have detected the sound?
| 0x0203 wrote:
| The USCG admiral coordinating the search effort and doing
| all the press briefs said that yes, they most likely would
| have heard it if it happened after they got the listening
| buoys in the water.
| carlosdp wrote:
| The sub had 7 redundant ways to surface (drop weights /
| ballast), several of which work without power, and one of
| which triggers automatically after ~20 hrs of exposure to
| seawater.
|
| The only way it wouldn't have already surfaced on day 1 is if
| it got stuck on something ( _and_ lost power, unlikely), or
| it imploded.
| moneywoes wrote:
| What I don't get is what factors could have caused it to
| implode now when it didn't previously?
| dboreham wrote:
| Material failure after a certain number of stress cycles.
| jandrese wrote:
| Failure modes for advanced composites are less well
| understood than for traditional metals as well. The sub's
| pressure hull was also made out of three disparate
| materials joined together which adds additional
| complications. Carbon Fiber in particular is notorious
| for performing flawlessly until it catastrophically fails
| in an instant.
| chasd00 wrote:
| I know doing amateur rocketry pressure vessels work until
| they don't. Motor cases will gladly handle multiple
| launches and then on the 20th launch, explode. I think
| it's a matter of the metal fatiguing over time but I'm
| not sure how you measure the rate or severity.
| floxy wrote:
| Fatigue failure:
|
| https://community.sw.siemens.com/s/article/what-is-a-sn-
| curv...
| japhyr wrote:
| > Why is it more likely that it immediately imploded rather
| than after a few days?
|
| Weren't there a lot of boats and other resources listening
| once it was reported missing?
|
| It's one thing for the tender to not hear an implosion when
| no one else was following this excursion. It seems harder to
| explain no one hearing an implosion when a growing number of
| resources were trying to detect any signs of activity from
| the sub.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| It unexpectedly lost communications about 2 hours into its
| decent. That is a possible/probable point in time where
| something went wrong.
| jamiek88 wrote:
| It's also the point where they pass the depth that the
| porthole was rated for.
|
| They got lucky with that until they didn't.
|
| They even fired a guy for whistle blowing about the
| porthole.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Are you telling me, that the porthole of a DSV, intended
| to dive to the Titanic, was EDIT: not: rated for the
| depth the Titanic is at? This whole operation is getting
| sketchier by the minute...
| jamiek88 wrote:
| If you mean wasn't rated then yes.
|
| It's a shitshow from start to finish.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| They didn't want to spend the money to build a portal
| rated to 4000m.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| "It imploded right away" explains everything.
|
| "It imploded later" requires at least two failures, first of
| power/comms, and THEN of the structure itself.
|
| Occam's Razor
| SirMaster wrote:
| How does it explain why the support boat heard no implosion
| while listening for the 15 min pings?
|
| Wouldn't an implosion be really loud?
| 0x0203 wrote:
| Loud is relative. You wouldn't hear it standing on deck
| of the support ship. And the hydrophones they were using
| for communications and pings were possibly (likely?)
| passed into an FFT, band-pass filtered to look for the
| expected frequencies of pings, and triggered on a signal
| spike in that range. I doubt they had somebody just
| listening to a straight up amplified signal straight from
| the hydrophones. Even if they did, someone unfamiliar
| with what they were hearing might not recognize it as an
| implosion event and attribute it to something else. And
| given the apparent attitude and methodology of the whole
| operation, it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't bother
| making recordings of the raw data. So it's entirely
| possible they wouldn't hear/notice an implosion event.
|
| As for the banging sounds heard days later, there are a
| thousand possible sources of those, especially with a
| dozen or more other vessels on the scene. Anything from a
| buoy with a loose part clanking away, to some waves
| breaking and clapping on the surface, to a whale slapping
| its tail, to extraneous noise from one of the search
| vessels or its equipment, to other sources of sea life
| making a racket. It's a bit like trying to listen for the
| buzzing of a bee in a basketball stadium with a game
| going on. Any signal you get is far more likely to be
| something else, but when you have literally no better
| options, every signal, no matter how unlikely, is worth
| investigating. Then they report they investigated and
| found nothing, and in a bit of target fixation, people
| assume it must have been people in the sub.
| Understandable, but it's not necessarily the most
| likely/logical conclusion.
| [deleted]
| ak_111 wrote:
| Exactly this, "imploded straightaway" doesn't explain no
| implosion registered AND probable banging noise heard a
| few days later, so it doesn't explain everything.
|
| "Lost then imploded" explains both by adding only a small
| extra assumption so by occam's razor is strictly superior
| to imploded straightaway as far as I can see.
| jandrese wrote:
| People are putting a lot of weight on the whole "one
| vessel heard a rhythmic sound while exploring". From what
| I've seen of these investigations the ocean is a noisy
| place and sometimes it gets mistaken for signal. We saw a
| lot of similar reports from the MH370 investigation.
|
| My money is on simple catastrophic failure of the hull
| and it not being detected either because the private
| company is run by jokers who weren't listening for it or
| because they have been running around like chickens with
| their heads cut off because the CEO and paying customers
| just died and they don't want to have to report that to
| the family, government, media, insurance company, etc...
| Either explanation is plausible, but I'm slightly more
| inclined to go with the second simply because they were
| actively trying to communicate with the sub when it
| happened and it seems so improbable that they could miss
| it.
| tapland wrote:
| If you ignore ballast failures and want it to be that
| way, sure
| pwthornton wrote:
| And in this case, the sub had systems for resurfacing even
| if power was lost (including automatically after a set
| amount of time). It's highly improbable that it was astray
| for days before it imploded. The only way this could have
| happened is if it somehow got stuck on part of the Titanic
| wreckage and was unable to free itself.
| PepperdineG wrote:
| No, it doesn't as it would depend on the root cause of the
| implosion, like whether or not it crashed hitting the
| bottom then imploded or imploded partially descended from
| it's target depth. Slamming into the ocean floor would
| point to other things than the structure itself being the
| root cause.
| marginalia_nu wrote:
| > Occam's Razor
|
| is only good as a heuristic for finding which hypothesis to
| test first.
|
| It's basically a scientist's "where there's smoke there's
| fire".
| EA-3167 wrote:
| Or in this case, where there's a debris field...
| adventured wrote:
| Your occam is incorrectly structured. Power/comms is
| irrelevant to the equation in question, imploding, and
| doesn't add.
|
| It imploded later requires only one failure (the structural
| failure), just as the relatively short time duration option
| requires only one failure. Right away is also a later
| event.
|
| We have no way of knowing what its structural true
| condition was in terms of whether it was more likely to
| make it a very short duration or something more like a day.
| EA-3167 wrote:
| As others have pointed out, there were multiple,
| redundant failsafes on the ballasts which would have led
| an intact sub to surface even if the crew were
| incapacitated or dead.
| aqme28 wrote:
| You're completely ignoring that the comms went out. All
| we know is that comms went out early, and debris was
| found later. What single failure would cause both of
| those pieces of evidence?
| oefnak wrote:
| You're right, I think, but we also know that several
| ships heard sounds after the communication loss. You'd
| also need to account for that with your theory.
| dboreham wrote:
| One ping only.
| elp wrote:
| If the stories about some parts only being certified to 1.3km
| instead of 4km are true then it was probably operating closer
| to the yield point than ideal. My guess is that metal fatigue
| started to become an issue and it failed too quickly for
| anyone to react.
|
| If the were too cheap to design and build it properly then
| they were too cheap to check for wear and tear properly.
| j-a-a-p wrote:
| Fatigue occurs after oscillating stress levels (far) below
| the strength of the material. So - stuff will break under
| low stress, if you apply it often enough. It must
| oscillate, otherwise it will never break. Some material,
| like aluminium, have very low minimum thresholds.
|
| A sub is subjected to static stress mostly. Quite a lot
| actually at these depths. And having it certified for 1.3
| km hints to over stressing.
| danso wrote:
| There's little other explanation for why contact would be
| abruptly lost. The company said that the sub has multiple
| forms of ballast, including systems that could be activated
| manually, and ties that were designed to dissolve after 20+
| hours in seawater, allowing the sub to rise even if the crew
| were unconscious.
|
| > _The latter is more probable to me as it has never been
| tested under water for more than a few hours at a stretch._
|
| That's not true, they've successfully reached the Titanic
| several times over a dozen or so expeditions. Mike Reiss (a
| famous writer for The Simpsons) said his trip reached the
| Titanic but got lost for most of the ~8 hour trip, but that
| another group on his trip had several hours to explore the
| Titanic.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65957709
|
| https://unsungscience.com/news/back-to-titanic-part-2/
| [deleted]
| RajT88 wrote:
| > There's little other explanation for why contact would be
| abruptly lost.
|
| You'd think - but past passengers have said that when they
| dove they lost contact as well.
|
| Mutiple trip passengers said they lost contact every time.
|
| So multiple anecdotes of loss of contact with the same
| vehicle without an implosion. The jankiness of this
| operation continues to be discovered bit by bit.
|
| ETA:
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/US/former-titanic-submersible-
| passeng...
| danso wrote:
| I listened to Reiss's (the passenger cited in that story)
| account on his podcast [0], and it's somewhat ambiguous.
| There are periods of spotty communication and long
| periods of the sub just getting lost. But not comms
| system/transponder abruptly going out and not being heard
| from again.
|
| David Pogue seems to concur with this [1]. He saw them
| lose track of where the sub was located (wrt to the
| Titanic wreck), but he said the support ship never lost
| the ability to communicate with the sub.
|
| [0] https://bleav.com/shows/what-am-i-doing-here-with-
| mike-reiss...
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/Pogue/status/1671524465736335366
| Lukas_Skywalker wrote:
| This is consistent with this video of a trip. Comms were
| lost, and the pilot even jettisoned some of the ballast
| in order to resurface. They continued the descent later
| though.
|
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RAncVNaw5N0
| dTal wrote:
| In addition, note that despite losing contact while the
| sub was on its way down, they did not report it missing
| until it was overdue after the full mission length.
|
| That indicates a certain blase, routine attitude to
| communication loss.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| > The company said that the sub has multiple forms of
| ballast, including systems that could be activated
| manually, and ties that were designed to dissolve after 20+
| hours in seawater, allowing the sub to rise even if the
| crew were unconscious.
|
| is there more information on these dissolvable ties? or
| their redundant ballast systems?
| danso wrote:
| From David Pogue's report on his trip in 2022:
|
| https://unsungscience.com/news/back-to-titanic-part-1/
|
| Excerpt from the transcript:
|
| But what if the hydraulic system breaks? Well, then they
| have roll weights.
|
| KYLE: Ah, so, we've got these weights here on the side,
| these are roll weights, we can actually roll the sub and
| those come off, and that gains us some buoyancy to come
| back to the surface.
|
| These are pipes that sit on a shelf that juts out from
| either side of the sub, held in place only by gravity. If
| everyone inside the sub shifts their weight to one side,
| the sub tips enough to let these pipes roll off.
|
| If that doesn't work, there are ballast bags, full of
| metal shot, hanging below the sub.
|
| KYLE: These bags down below, we drop those off using
| motors and electric fingers.
|
| OK. But what if the electronics go out, and the
| hydraulics fail, and everyone inside has passed out
| unconscious?
|
| KYLE: There's fusible links within these that actually
| can dissolve and come back in time if it's drop off.
|
| Fusible links are self-dissolving bonds. After 16 hours
| in seawater, those bonds disintegrate, the weight bags
| drop off automatically, and you go back to the surface.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| thank you, couldn't find the right part of the interview
| hef19898 wrote:
| Great, in theory. All the operator has to do now is to
| show the test reports for all of that. Should be easy,
| right? After all, those functions can be tested in
| comparatively safe depths, while being tethered to a
| surface ship.
| xattt wrote:
| > That's not true, they've successfully reached the Titanic
| several times over a dozen or so expeditions.
|
| This is more concerning, given that metal fatigue is an
| understood phenomenon (1).
|
| (1) https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/
| accid...
| histriosum wrote:
| It's a carbon fiber hull, for which I think we know alot
| less about repeated stress events...
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > It's a carbon fiber hull
|
| ...With titanium hemispheres at each end, so some sort of
| poorly understood titanium carbon-fibre interface.
| hef19898 wrote:
| I know first hand how hard it is to design carbon fibre
| preasure bulk heads, for aircraft with a much lower
| preasure delta (I wrote my first thesis about how to
| produce something like that). So, on the sirface,
| titanium makes sense. Using both, carbon fiber _and_
| titatium is just, well, not a good idea. Especially since
| I have the feeling this whole things wasn 't properly
| calculated in the first place.
| hawk_ wrote:
| I am curious how we (the society) justify the shared costs
| incurred in searching for people involved in such a reckless
| mission.
| carbine wrote:
| The same way we justify the significant resources devoted to
| the attempted rescues of the Thai boys in the cave and the
| Chilean miners.
| cma wrote:
| Effective Altruists would point out buying several castles
| with stolen crypto money is more effective than this search
| and rescue because the castle vibes improve their work on
| raising more money and growing the community.
| dmonitor wrote:
| they don't have time to judge whether someone is worth rescuing
| krisoft wrote:
| > how we (the society) justify the shared costs incurred in
| searching for people involved in such a reckless mission
|
| Nobody asked me if I want to pay for it or not. So i don't feel
| that the "we" is justified. But if they would have asked me i
| would have voted to not move a finger unless some private
| entity (the company or the families, or literally anyone who
| wants to) pays for it.
|
| They went out of their way to do something knowingly recklesly
| dangerous, and the cost of any rescue attempt is enermous.
| hawk_ wrote:
| Yes well you're paying through your taxes at least (assuming
| you are a tax resident in the jurisdictions involved)
| krisoft wrote:
| I understand. I'm not doubting that. What I'm saying is
| that I don't need to justify anything. The people who have
| control over spending the money or not need to justify it.
| And since that is a very small set of people I don't feel
| it is fair to ask how "we " justify it.
|
| But even in a hypothetical where the government sent out a
| snap poll saying "Sup citizen. 5 fellas lost in a sub. Need
| $140m for rescue attempt. Send yay or nay." I would have
| responded with "nay". So even in that hypothetical I
| wouldn't feel I need to justify why we should spend money
| to rescue these people. (By the by, this hypothetical
| sounds crazy, but we could totally have this kind of direct
| say in matters. We have the tech for it.)
| troppl wrote:
| Is this for sure all paid with tax money?
|
| Here in the alps, if you have an injury hiking and need a
| helicopter ride then you are required to pay for the ride
| (normally a few thousand euros). I assume it's the same if
| you're lost.
|
| And I would assume it's the same on high sea...
| mock-possum wrote:
| Easy - if it was us down there, or someone we cared about, we'd
| want the search to happen
| hawk_ wrote:
| Of course we'd want that. But here's a rich CEO who fired
| safety whistleblower. Why take all that burden? A bunch of
| rich people who were lost at sea - we could charge all of
| their estates for this.
| js8 wrote:
| Forgiveness. We frequently forgive stupid a5es, and adopt
| regulations to prevent other a5es causing too much damage. It
| was Jesus' message, after all.
| krisoft wrote:
| You can easily find 10 people in any metropolis who are down
| on their luck. Spending the equivalent amount of resources on
| those 10 people you could achieve a lasting positive impact
| on their lives. Why not spend the money on those 10 people?
| Did Jesus teach us that a5es in submarines are more valuable
| than a5es in an ER or sleeping in an underpass?
| vsareto wrote:
| Real-world training for the newbies, exercise for the
| journeymen, and teaching moments for the experts. That alone is
| worth my tax dollars for keeping a robust search and rescue
| force.
|
| At least some of the CEO's estate should go to paying for it,
| but pay out to victims' families first.
| hawk_ wrote:
| Yes I get the training aspect. My point was around charging
| them for this. There are other such rescue missions where our
| brave men and women risk their lives because of reckless
| behavior of some. We should at least have such reckless
| actors take a bigger burden where possible.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| It's my understanding that in rescue missions where the
| targets don't pay with their lives, they end up paying
| monetarily afterwards.
| _moof wrote:
| Depends a great deal on who is doing the rescuing and
| whether the people rescued are considered negligent.
| Iceland's SAR team, for example, has gone back and forth
| on whether to charge people because when people believe
| they'll have to pay, they're less likely to call for help
| until the situation has gotten way worse and way more
| dangerous for the team.
| saalweachter wrote:
| Besides any sort of altruism, there's also fame-seeking or
| marketing to consider; pulling off a high-profile rescue puts
| you and your company's name in the news, and makes people
| think of you as a business that can solve other difficult
| problems.
| raldi wrote:
| Exactly. Same reason that, even setting aside basic
| humanitarian ethics, it made sense for fire departments from
| all over America to send their crews to help out after 9/11
| even though the victims didn't fund them; the experience is
| well worth the expense.
| hawk_ wrote:
| Which of the victims asked those planes to be sent their
| way?
| raldi wrote:
| I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| You're comparing a terrorist attack (9/11) to reckless
| malfeasance (this sub). The more apt comparison would be
| of 9/11 to the Andriana disaster.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _Real-world training for the newbies, exercise for the
| journeymen, and teaching moments for the experts. That alone
| is worth my tax dollars for keeping a robust search and
| rescue force._
|
| This. When the shit hits the fan, and lives could be at
| stake, the participants in responsive operations seem to
| focus more intently, and the lessons learned seem to get
| imprinted more firmly, than when it's a drill.
|
| (There was a reason that when Pearl Harbor was attacked, the
| emergency radio transmission that went out was, "Air raid
| Pearl Harbor X This is no drill." [0])
|
| I suspect the psychology might be related somehow to Samuel
| Johnson's dictum that "When a man knows he is to be hanged in
| a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
|
| [0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
| nation/wp/2015/12/0...
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I think there is value in living in the kind of society where
| you know that if you are lost at sea there will be arguably
| irrational levels of resources thrown into trying to find you.
| And not just the rich either, no matter what Twitter would have
| you believe.
| inferiorhuman wrote:
| I think there is value in living in the kind of society where
| you know that if you are lost at sea there will be
| arguably irrational levels of resources thrown into
| trying to find you.
|
| Sure, if you're rich. And not just the rich
| either, no matter what Twitter would have you believe.
|
| If you're poor you'll end up like the hundreds of children
| still stuck on the Andriana.
| krisoft wrote:
| > I think there is value in living in the kind of society
| where you know that if you are lost at sea there will be
| arguably irrational levels of resources thrown into trying to
| find you
|
| I wouldn't know, because i live in the kind of society where
| if you are lost at sea and you call for help but the call
| handler assumes that you have the wrong kind of passport they
| just tell you to call some other country and then hung up on
| you. [1]
|
| But i would rather live in the kind of society where we spend
| our pooled resources to heal those who have fallen sick, than
| in one where we spend our pooled resources to rescue
| statistical anomalies. Everyone can become sick one day, not
| everyone will get suckered to buy a deluxe sea going group
| coffin by a conman.
|
| 1: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/dec/13/uk-
| coastguar...
| alphanullmeric wrote:
| You now get to have a say in how someone else lives their life
| because you are held financially responsible for the
| consequences of their own actions. Aren't government services
| wonderful?
| mc32 wrote:
| The Navy gets to learn, perhaps make good use of the
| information learned in the future. They occasionally need to
| conduct rescue and other times recovery missions and this could
| help inform those missions in the future.
| cracrecry wrote:
| Well, the army needs training in order to become operative.
|
| If training is not real, they create it. They spend billions
| every year simulating events.
|
| But anyway, I expect them passing at least part of the bill to
| the company, that will go bankrupt.
| cooljacob204 wrote:
| I guess it's great practice for the coast guard / navy which
| they need to do anyways.
| mycentstoo wrote:
| Not an expert, but I would expect that these sorts of events
| are used as training.
| AH4oFVbPT4f8 wrote:
| Does the search team/agency simply eat the cost or does the
| cost get passed back to the insurance for the company, the
| company itself, or the CEO personally since he has the means to
| pay. Further, everyone on board has the means to pay for a
| recovery, should they too share some of the cost?
| thinkling wrote:
| I believe almost all Search and Rescue is free because S&R
| organizations don't want people to hesitate to call 911 (or
| equivalent) because of cost concerns, and have the situation
| deteriorate while they delay calling.
|
| As to who _should_ share in the cost... my take is that it's
| time to discuss whether some expeditions (e.g. risky
| commercial tourist rides) should sign a Do Not Rescue pledge
| before they head out and /or self-fund a commercial rescue
| operation.
| davidw wrote:
| Yeah this question gets asked somewhat frequently in the
| mountain(ish) town where I live after someone does
| something dumb and requires extraction.
|
| It's just better that they call right away rather than wait
| too long and die.
|
| If you search around on the internet, you can find people
| writing this up in much more detail and more eloquently.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| This is pretty much the poster child for insurance
| policies. One of the first major uses of insurance was for
| maritime activities.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_of_London
| civilitty wrote:
| _> The mission of the United States Coast Guard is to ensure
| our Nation 's maritime safety, security and stewardship_
|
| _> We will serve our Nation through the selfless performance
| of our missions._
|
| _> We will honor our duty to protect those we serve and
| those who serve with us._ [1]
|
| In answer to your question: No. That's what taxes are for.
|
| There could be other legal penalties if the SAR mission is
| prompted by negligence or illegal activity but the Coast
| Guard doesn't chase anyone down for operating costs.
|
| [1] https://www.history.uscg.mil/Home/Missions/
| faangsticle wrote:
| Compassion and curiousity
| TheFreim wrote:
| There's more to be said, but I'd say the training experience in
| a real-world situation alone is probably valuable. Helps
| identify actual stress points in the rescue process, for
| example.
| jackothy wrote:
| Because it was interesting to hear about. Literally tens of
| millions of people thought that this was interesting to hear
| about.
| jb12 wrote:
| What's your definition of reckless? Were the boys stuck in the
| cave in Thailand reckless? Should we not have rescued them?
| Where is the line of who is deserving of our sympathy?
| hawk_ wrote:
| The grown ups involved in that who didn't pay heed to
| warnings would be reckless. We still rescue them but we can
| charge those who can pay for it.
| jb12 wrote:
| And the 19 year old who didn't want to go on the submarine
| but wanted to spend time with his dad? Was he reckless? Was
| he worth searching for?
| furyofantares wrote:
| As someone who isn't very reckless, if I'm ever in trouble I'd
| love if people would search for me without trying to debate
| exactly how reckless I was being.
|
| Then recoup what you can from me or my estate if you determine
| I was reckless after the fact, when you have plenty of time to
| evaluate the facts.
| carbine wrote:
| Lots of talk about carbon fiber, ofc. But also seems relevant
| that that this seems to be one of the only (or truly the only?)
| deep sea submersibles with a non-spherical personnel chamber.
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| This story is weird to me
|
| Considering the current geopolitical weather and the presence of
| Russian submarines, you'd think the US army would be able to
| locate the missing object in no time, even with a triangulated
| location, they failed
|
| Worrying times
| hef19898 wrote:
| While the US Air Force was part of the US Army until after WW2,
| the US Navy never was. And it is the Navy that operates ships,
| subs and such.
| MallocVoidstar wrote:
| Military submarines don't go this deep.
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| Are you sure about that?
|
| https://www.livescience.com/chinese-submarine-record-
| dive.ht...
| MallocVoidstar wrote:
| That is a submersible. Military submarines (things that can
| travel thousands of miles, support themselves, have
| weapons, etc) appear to bottom out at ~2000m. At least one
| US military sub imploded well above 2000m.
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| Let's live blind then!
| Wojtkie wrote:
| [dead]
| bhouston wrote:
| Subs I believe do not operate at those depths or anywhere
| close.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| Or...you know...the logical explanation that they did not want
| to give their capabilities away and may have even used this
| opportunity to mislead.
| xoxxala wrote:
| I doubt the US Army has many options for locating DSVs.
| cmitsakis wrote:
| Is it possible the implosion damaged the Titanic wreckage?
| gcgfromhell wrote:
| [dead]
| tivert wrote:
| Why has this sub been so hard to find?
|
| I keep seeing reports that they've search an area "the size of"
| Massachusetts or Connecticut. Shouldn't OceanGate have recorded
| the exact coordinates where it was released and then been able to
| localize its possible location to a small area around that by
| modeling ocean currents or something? My understanding the Titan
| was designed to sink to the bottom and could only move very
| slowly under its own power. I know OceanGate was cocky and cut a
| lot of corners, but I just can't believe they wouldn't have the
| exact release location recorded _somewhere_ , even if it was just
| an automatic track log on their ship's GPS navigation system.
| MallocVoidstar wrote:
| They looked on the surface because they didn't have anything
| that could go down to the Titanic. A ship with an ROV that
| could go to the Titanic arrived and they found the debris on
| the sea floor.
| ericbarrett wrote:
| Right. It's my understanding that two remote submersibles
| that arrived earlier were lost trying to reach the sea floor
| --they weren't rated for the depth but the attempts were made
| anyway. (Don't have a link, I think it was nytimes)
| eigenspace wrote:
| > Shouldn't OceanGate have recorded the exact coordinates where
| it was released and then been able to localize its possible
| location to a small area around that by modeling ocean currents
| or something?
|
| Modelling and knowing surface currents is one thing, but this
| submersible was thousands of meters deep. Deep ocean currents
| can be very fast, change often, and we have way less data on
| them.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| 'Telemetry? who needs it'
|
| - Oceangate, probably
| BurningFrog wrote:
| There is no way to transmit telemetry to the surface
| anyway.
| dingaling wrote:
| ROVs do so routinely, at greater depths.
| bg46z wrote:
| Telemetry doesn't work very well under water. There's work
| to be done on telemetry that is capable underwater, but it
| seems a long ways off.
| gregoriol wrote:
| When communication has been lost, what kind of telemetry
| would you expect?
| cobaltoxide wrote:
| > I keep seeing reports that they've search an area "the size
| of" Massachusetts or Connecticut
|
| This was the size of the search _on the surface_.
| somenameforme wrote:
| This is something I'd also like to know.
|
| I'd assume they were assuming a worst case scenario of
| something like a ballast malfunction paired with a propulsion
| malfunction, so you have a partially buoyant (enough to stay
| off the ground, not enough to surface) craft being pushed both
| by currents, and possibly its own propulsion, in an unknown
| direction in some radius outside of the Titanic. I've no idea
| of the depth sonar can accurately ping, so they may also have
| been considering the 3-d area around the Titanic in which case
| you're hitting radius cubed, and so even a "small" max distance
| could be huge.
| pizzafeelsright wrote:
| Ever use a fish finder / depth finder? A narrow beam is sent
| in one direction, generally down, and reflections back are
| calculated. I would imagine that was the start of their
| search. After enough time or support: military grade sonar? h
| ttps://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/es310/SNR_PROP/snr_pro..
| .
| somenameforme wrote:
| Yip, but the issue is the depth. The Titanic's at 3800
| meters. An average military sub isn't going to hit 1000
| meters. So I'm reluctant to make any assumptions about deep
| search systems.
| civilitty wrote:
| Most work class ROVs top out around 3,000 meters but
| there are plenty of ultra-deepwater ROVs that go to 4,000
| meters and beyond that are specialized for search and
| rescue operations. The usual ROV players like Oceaneering
| International, Saab SeaEye, TechnipFMC, etc. all make
| them.
|
| The Navy & Coast Guard would definitely have access to
| their own fleets
| paulpauper wrote:
| because the distance is so far that the sub even departing a
| few degrees from its intended destination means it can be
| anywhere along a huge swath of the sea floor, plus it's pitch
| dark and very far and cold and inhospitable to both human and
| machines.
|
| drop a penny into a swimming pool vs drop it into the ocean.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| > by modeling ocean currents or something
|
| This sounds a lot like https://xkcd.com/793/ - "and then add
| some secondary terms to account for <complications I just
| thought of>."
|
| They lost contact 105 minutes into a 120 minute, 2.5 mile
| descent. The release point for that descent was well known, and
| currents estimated closely enough to allow the sub to descend
| close enough to the shipwreck that the submersible's thrusters
| could move it very slowly to viewing locations.
|
| They don't know what happened to cause it to lose contact more
| than a quarter mile above the ocean floor. They didn't know
| whether it went neutrally buoyant at that point, whether it
| ascended quickly, or slowly, or stayed near the bottom of the
| ocean and continued looking at the Titanic and only later
| drifted off course - they've done that before. Those ocean
| currents, unknowns, and distances are large; merely pulling the
| release point from a GPS track does not suddenly make the
| search point tiny.
| taco_emoji wrote:
| the ocean is three dimensional
| sillyinseattle wrote:
| WSJ.com is now reporting that a top secret US navy system did
| detect the implosion - on site commander was informed.
| stef25 wrote:
| Anyone know what happens to the body when suddenly exposed to a
| biblical amount of pressure? I'm morbidly curious about what
| state the bodies would be in.
| an-allen wrote:
| Mythbusters Pig Diving Suit pretty much explains what happens.
| Its gross.
| FartyMcFarter wrote:
| With the pressures involved, nothing that remains could be
| identified as a human body. Everything within the ship got
| rapidly squished and disintegrated.
| shagie wrote:
| Insanely high pressures resulting in insanely high
| temperatures, instant incineration, followed by a supersonic
| wall of water smashing everything happening in a small number
| of milliseconds - faster than anything the mind could perceive.
| enachtry wrote:
| I'm not a mechanical engineer but I imagine there's not much
| recognizable left out of their bodies. The carbon fiber hull is
| said to have failed catastrophically in an instant shattering
| to pieces. Water hammered in from all sides with ~400 kg of
| force applied on every square cm of their bodies + extreme
| shearing effects. This means they were turned into organic goo
| in an instant as if passed through a blender. I don't think
| there's much left of them except for small pieces of bones with
| a little organic tissue barely hanging on.
| accrual wrote:
| Here are a couple of quotes I pulled from the USCG press release:
|
| > "debris is consistent with a catastrophic implosion of the
| vessel"
|
| > "1600 feet (487 meters) from the wreck of the Titanic"
|
| > "it is a smooth bottom", "there is no wreckage of the Titanic
| in the area"
|
| > "size of the debris field is consistent with an implosion in
| the water column"
|
| > "there doesn't seem to be any connection between the noises and
| the location of the debris on the seafloor"
| btgeekboy wrote:
| Part of me has been wondering if the noises being heard might
| be an unexpected discovery of a military (Russian, Chinese, US)
| submarine operating in the general area. Don't they submerge
| for long periods of time without comms?
| bagels wrote:
| There were at least a few rescue craft in the area, most
| likely the sound was from one of them, if it was real in the
| first place.
| helios_invictus wrote:
| They do, but not the depths we're talking about (12,500 feet)
|
| https://navalpost.com/how-deep-can-a-submarine-dive/ The
| depth limits of the most known nuclear powered submarines'
| depth limits, as follows;
|
| Typhoon-class: Test depth 900 m (3,000 ft) Astute-class: Over
| 300 m (984 ft 3 in) Akula-class: 480 m (1,570 ft) test depth
| for Akula I and Akula I Improved, 520 m (1,710 ft) for Akula
| II and III, 600 m (2,000 ft) maximum operating depth Ohio-
| class: Test depth >240 m (800+ ft) Virginia-class: Test depth
| >240 m (800+ ft) Borei-class: Test depth 950 m Rubis-class:
| Test depth 350 m Barracuda-class: Test depth >350 m
| tristanb wrote:
| The Borei Class is not diving to 950 meters (unless its
| sinking) :)
| krisoft wrote:
| > They do, but not the depths we're talking about
|
| We really don't know what depth the noise was comming from.
|
| That being said it is vanishingly unlikely that an
| unrelated submarine trying to remain stealthy would be
| banging on their hull every half an hour.
| [deleted]
| hindsightbias wrote:
| SOSUS knows where everything is. It recorded the USS Thresher
| sinking in 1958.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS
| zeven7 wrote:
| The last time there were unexpected noises heard it turned
| out to be fish farts.
|
| https://www.iflscience.com/for-15-years-sweden-thought-
| enemy...
| Shawnj2 wrote:
| I would think that military submarines would want to avoid a
| popular site for ocean expeditions
| bilekas wrote:
| I'm really curious about the carbon fibre design, I'm not a
| material expert but I do dive and for tanks they work because
| of the internal pressure of tank.
|
| The 'weaving' is supposed to be link connecting your two hands
| together interlocking fingers, in one direction you will meet a
| full resistance, but in the opposite direction your fingers
| will unlock.
|
| I have no idea but seems to me if there is external pressure
| the weaving would have 'imploded' depending on the design I
| guess. Really want to know more about this.
| pengaru wrote:
| I hope we get some photos of the debris field including intact
| titanium rings and end caps.
|
| Would make a great long-overdue post for bustedcarbon.com
| mrabcx wrote:
| Probably better to go away in an instant rather than sitting and
| waiting for the inevitable to happen.
| Hamuko wrote:
| In an instant unless OceanGate's patented monitoring system
| actually worked. If it did work, they would've had at least a
| couple of seconds to panic.
|
| > _Rush planned to pilot the sub himself, which critics said
| was an unnecessary risk: Under pressure, the experimental
| carbon fiber hull might, in the jargon of the sub world,
| "collapse catastrophically." So OceanGate developed a new
| acoustic monitoring system, which can detect "crackling," or,
| as Rush puts it, "the sound of micro-buckling way before it
| fails."_
|
| https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/0776658...
|
| I don't suppose there is a huge line to license this
| technology.
| jandrese wrote:
| I'm guessing these guys didn't even have a black box on this
| thing so we can't hear the last second of audio in the thing
| being a the CEO saying "Ohshi--" because his "you are about
| to die" alarm has gone off.
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| Or succumbing to paranoia that others might murder you to
| survive themselves.
| buggythebug wrote:
| ya but if they murder someone, the victim will decompose -
| prob not good to breathe that stuff in.
| sho_hn wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_risks_from_dead_bodies
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-22 23:00 UTC)