Titanic tourist submersible gone missing

Kittyfrisk

More information about the safety side, sadly none of it very reassuring.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65977432
I'd love to be proven wrong, but it doesn't inspire me...

Haych

AK99 said:

Sesh said:

The whole venture seems to have been built on arrogance. The man in charge with his "safety is for pussies" attitude and a gung-ho approach. Not surprising this has happened. Surely it could have had a tether, an auto resurface function, a tracking beacon, a means of escape on resurfacing and a life raft? The idea that "if something goes wrong we die" is moronic. It should be "if something goes wrong we do this, this, this, we have backup capabilites." There may not be much that could be done in this situation, but the shrug and a cigar posturing is vile.

 I listened to an interesting interview with a retired RN / NATO underwater rescue specialist on the radio this morning, He was scathing about the whole venture. Said not only was the submersible built and being operated in ways that are totally unregulated but that - in his words - there appears to have been no Plan B or backup of any kind to cater for the numerous forseeable ways things could go wrong. No tether/trailing buoy, no duplication of systems onboard, no releasable emergency beacon and myriad other shortfalls.

He added in his experience, people who get into trouble on or under the water generally fall into one of two broad classes - those who anticipate the risks but just get unlucky, and those who don't bother assessing the risks and rely on good luck to prevent anything going wrong. He has zero doubt which bracket this venture fitted into.

Fwiw - when pressed as to the likely cause and outcome, he said sadly that his belief was the likely cause was an implosive failure of the carbon-fibre hull at the point when contact was first lost. Maybe a more merciful ending than any of the other scenarios.

FWIW it seems to me like the guy was obsessed with Titanic and wanted to scratch his itch at any cost. 

The sub was kind of his plaything - and on its own a massive personal achievement to build, a bit like Peter Madsen with Nautilus, less said about that the better. 

I get the impression he enjoyed showing it off to rich ticket paying chums without really thinking too much about the potential risks. 

Acknowledging the risk isn’t the same as respecting the danger. 

Gilly

AK99 said:

Fwiw - when pressed as to the likely cause and outcome, he said sadly that his belief was the likely cause was an implosive failure of the carbon-fibre hull at the point when contact was first lost. Maybe a more merciful ending than any of the other scenarios.

I thought the same until the reports about noises being heard but of course it could turn out they’re not from the sub. They don’t seem to be giving out much information on the noises. They’re presumably not lasting 3 minutes on the hour and half past the hour as per the protocol, otherwise that would be a clear indication it’s from the sub.

Haych

Kittyfrisk said:

More information about the safety side, sadly none of it very reassuring.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65977432
I'd love to be proven wrong, but it doesn't inspire me...

I’m no engineer but I recall from watching a few things on TV that carbon fibre is funny stuff. 

Yes, it can be extremely strong but doesn’t usually give much, if any indication, it’s going to fail - it just does. 

mrkb

Haych said:

Kittyfrisk said:

More information about the safety side, sadly none of it very reassuring.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65977432
I'd love to be proven wrong, but it doesn't inspire me...

I’m no engineer but I recall from watching a few things on TV that carbon fibre is funny stuff. 

Yes, it can be extremely strong but doesn’t usually give much, if any indication, it’s going to fail - it just does. 

Loading it in compression isn’t using it to its strengths and in Sub that’s the main load case.

p90fool

Haych said:

Kittyfrisk said:

More information about the safety side, sadly none of it very reassuring.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65977432
I'd love to be proven wrong, but it doesn't inspire me...

I’m no engineer but I recall from watching a few things on TV that carbon fibre is funny stuff. 

Yes, it can be extremely strong but doesn’t usually give much, if any indication, it’s going to fail - it just does. 

It does, and sometimes gets used for extremely fast flywheel applications where if it does fail it doesn't explode into deadly shards like a steel one would, it more or less disappears in a cloud of dust. 

tony99

mrkb said:

Haych said:

Kittyfrisk said:

More information about the safety side, sadly none of it very reassuring.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65977432
I'd love to be proven wrong, but it doesn't inspire me...

I’m no engineer but I recall from watching a few things on TV that carbon fibre is funny stuff. 

Yes, it can be extremely strong but doesn’t usually give much, if any indication, it’s going to fail - it just does. 

Loading it in compression isn’t using it to its strengths and in Sub that’s the main load case.

What's its strength, high velocity impact?

mrkb

tony99 said:

mrkb said:

Haych said:

Kittyfrisk said:

More information about the safety side, sadly none of it very reassuring.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-65977432
I'd love to be proven wrong, but it doesn't inspire me...

I’m no engineer but I recall from watching a few things on TV that carbon fibre is funny stuff. 

Yes, it can be extremely strong but doesn’t usually give much, if any indication, it’s going to fail - it just does. 

Loading it in compression isn’t using it to its strengths and in Sub that’s the main load case.

What's its strength, high velocity impact?

Being pulled/loaded in tension, where the carbon fibres take the load. In compression the epoxy resin is loaded more and that material has properties that aren’t as good as the carbon in tension, and can change with temperature, moisture, etc.

LionAquaLooper

Just heard that their search area is twice the size of Connecticut, and 4km deep. Jesus. Trying to find a sub the size of a small mini van in an area the size of two US states, where it could be floating anywhere in that 4km depth, with little to zero visibility, and the sub might actually still be getting carried away by underwater currents?  It just doesn't seem like this is gonna end well. But I hope I'm wrong. 

Kittyfrisk

^ How big is Connecticut compared to the size of Wales (international unit of measurement). 

swiller

A real awful story. You hear about planes crashing etc, but this is off the charts long haul torture. Bet some cunt cashes in and makes hollywood film out of it whatever the outcome. Fingers crossed for the occupants. But jesus its awful.

chillidoggy

Sickening how all the ‘experts’ are now queuing up to have their 15 minutes, yet up until now were happy to keep quiet about all their concerns. There’s probably some modern terminology for people like that, but I’m going with “total cunts” because I’m not that clever.

Kittyfrisk

chillidoggy said:

Sickening how all the ‘experts’ are now queuing up to have their 15 minutes, yet up until now were happy to keep quiet about all their concerns. There’s probably some modern terminology for people like that, but I’m going with “total cunts” because I’m not that clever.

Have you read the BBC article I posted?
The engineer was sacked from Oceangate for raising safety concerns & the company sued him for revealing confidential information. He then countersued for unfair dismissal. The lawsuit was later settled but the BBC don't know the details of the settlement.
Sounds like someone was hit with a non disclosure settlement, but I could be wrong.

LionAquaLooper

Kittyfrisk said:

^ How big is Connecticut compared to the size of Wales (international unit of measurement). 

About two thirds the size of Wales

Kittyfrisk

 

p90fool

LionAquaLooper said:

Kittyfrisk said:

^ How big is Connecticut compared to the size of Wales (international unit of measurement). 

About two thirds the size of Wales

So not that difficult then. My minivan is parked outside the third house on the left after the postbox. 

darthed1981

LionAquaLooper said:

Just heard that their search area is twice the size of Connecticut, and 4km deep. Jesus. Trying to find a sub the size of a small mini van in an area the size of two US states, where it could be floating anywhere in that 4km depth, with little to zero visibility, and the sub might actually still be getting carried away by underwater currents?  It just doesn't seem like this is gonna end well. But I hope I'm wrong. 

The one ray of hope is that the US Navy and Coastguard both spend a lot of time looking for subs that DONT want to be found and they are very good at it, it's almost like a drill looking for the slightest sign that normally would help them detect Russian subs.

Danny1969

They have heard noise 30 mins apart which is a sub thing apparently. Bang like hell on the hour and every half hour. 

Gilly

Danny1969 said:

They have heard noise 30 mins apart 

Where is that being reported? I’m not sure it’s true, otherwise they’d be pretty sure it’s them.

Shrews

Likely a ploy to attract media attention from something else. Is there some UN or WHO bill going through at the moment that the world should be questioning but we're actually intrigued by the submarine?

Seriously, no matter what's happened, a submarine should have some sort of alert that can be used to let others know where they are? Even if it means a back-up submarine is on board, or the actual submarine has an escape pod. Surely, military submarines are able to alert the outside world if they suffer catastrophe, so why not the same? Cost?