I don't think that the Thai kids in the cave is a fair comparison, but I'm not sure if I wanna go down that road now..
Titanic tourist submersible missing | Sub's debris found - crew "have been lost"
- Thread starter Solius
- Start date
I don't think that the Thai kids in the cave is a fair comparison, but I'm not sure if I wanna go down that road now..
QED
The US Navy does not control the subs with console (or even PC) level controllers. It's not just the US, it's also the UK, France, Norway, Japan. I suppose maybe the Russians could do it though.
This is massively beyond any understanding of physics I may have but wouldn’t the implosion be caused by the rapid change in (i.e. total loss of) pressurisation, rather than just the pressure at that depth?
Human beings obviously couldn’t survive the pressure but the Titanic itself sunk slowly with never having been pressurised so retained its structural consistency (or at least the structural consistency post snapping in half and sinking but you get my meaning).
I could be wrong.
Wouldn’t you get an explosion instantaneously after the implosion? All the force transmitted into air filled chamber will have to go somewhere.
Ah. Ok. I’ll bow to your superior knowledge: Another learning from this episode. We’re surrounded by submarine experts. Who knew?
We'll need a physicist for a proper answer but my guess is that all that energy equalizes the huge pressure differential.
Last edited:
Not if the air escapes , like from a squeezed baloon. After all there's a hull breach.
It takes being a sub expert to know that 0 navies on the planet are going down using game controllers. Who was it? Was it France that made a point about needing more PS4 controllers for national security? I don't know.
You did not know from me but Poland, Romania and the US are making Starcraft 2 games to simulate a real Zerg invasion. This is serious stuff and they depend on those that climb rocks.
This would be my guess as well. It has the window and everything else blown out and filled with water long before it hit the bottom so was never exposed to any of the external pressures of the Titan.
They may find some ripped bits of carbon fibre as it's quite resistant to shearing forces. The carbon Fibre weave is also strong in tension but hopeless under compression forces. The resin that binds the carbon weave layers together is weak in tension but strong against compression forces. So their CEO was taking a chance on using Carbon fibre composite for the tubular part (which is cheap and increases the cabin size and allows more passengers).
Their own engineer found that there were issues with the resin being essentially "patchy" having minor cracks, bubbles and even cavities. He said their warning system would not provide any safety net as the carbon fibre composite could just shatter within milliseconds. If the tube had been made from Titanium (VERY expensive) then a warning would provide an indication of stresses building up and they could stop a dive and ascend to reduce pressure on the hull. Titanium would not shatter without warning as it would give an audible indication of increased stress.
Someone else questioned why some of the lighter materials didn't float to the surface...Anything buoyant on the surface is usually so because it has bubbles of air trapped in it - foam, plastics etc. At these depths those bubbles of air become so compressed the item is no longer positively buoyant and will sink. There is also a constant downward current of what is referred to as "snow" which is dust, body parts, plant matter etc cascading down from the vast column of water above, so things need quite a bit of energy or force to move upwards.
Basically the only way something returns back from the seabed is if it is strongly positively buoyant. If you aren't in a sealed buoyant vessel you would need to release a small amount of air from a regulator that can deal with those pressures, into a small bag. this air filled bag would rise and expand as the pressure decreased..and rise further..and expand further...and rise...and expand until the bag bursts or you hit the surface. This is why the golden rule in scuba is to NEVER Hold your breathe unless you want to become a large ripped bag of bony salsa at the surface.
I read somewhere yesterday that at about 1/3 the depth that Titanic is, if you shot a pressurized air tank with a bullet, air wouldn’t rush out, water would rush in.
But from what was shared so far, the carbon fibre actually breaks to pieces, so it's no longer a contained volume.
It is mental that the owner has videos where he openly admits that he was warned against using such material for the hull but he did it anyway...
This was posted earlier and gives a good idea of what would happen with the carbon fiber shattering…
That video fits with what I was suggesting earlier about implosion->explosion
I’ve always found the old styrofoam cup left outside the pressure chamber experiments to be pretty cool.
Bungee jumping, scuba diving, heck, going on a carnival ride, rock climbing - these are all risks people take for a bit of fun. You could argue going on holiday with whatever mode of transportation carries risk, so I don't subscribe to the view that it's any less tragic because what they were doing was recreational
I’ve always found the old styrofoam cup left outside the pressure chamber experiments to be pretty cool.
The one an only time I did a deep dive (30m) we brought a packet of crisps down with us. The effect was pretty cool.
One thing I was thinking about… would the titanium caps on the ends of the carbon fiber tube thrust inward towards themselves?
video in the 2nd tweet is the physicist referenced in the 1st tweet
was it you throttling everyone 5 minutes into the dive, assuming that if you were somehow stranded somewhere, that everyone would want a share of your crisps? and you couldn’t allow that, could you?
These people should go to prison for what they've done.
These people aren't test pilots who know the risks, they are paying customers with a reasonable expectation of returning home unscathed.
Even test pilots have defined escape routes in case something goes wrong. The passengers had no way out if it went wrong.
These people aren't test pilots who know the risks, they are paying customers with a reasonable expectation of returning home unscathed.
Even test pilots have defined escape routes in case something goes wrong. The passengers had no way out if it went wrong.
He already dead mate.
Yeah he seems like a prick. I don’t care about people making jokes about them (some have been funny), but I have nothing against the rich guy in this instance. A billionaire spending money on a trip like this is better than how they often spend their money. But the owner seems like an accident waiting to happen (or seemed).
The 19 year old going for his dad is damn sad.
Whenever there’s a current topic to discuss. The internet experts appear.
This company is going to get ripped apart in the weeks that follow now.
Rush seems to have been an arrogant prick
It was his own hubris that killed him and others
A Vietnamese street maybe. And no offence to our Vietnamese posters, but I went there for a wedding and still have ptsd from navigating those roads. Still rather live there than Wales though
Rather missing the point.
Too damn right, they say regulation is written in blood so at least Rush has made sure that it's his blood the regulation he despised will be made of.
He should stand trial regardless. Extract as much of his liquidised remains as possible from the ocean, pipette it into a beaker and let him be grilled by the best maritime lawyers money can buy.
Most of the caf are a lot olderScenes from the last Redcafe meet-up.
I've read some takes from people that come from a free market/Hayek point of view in defending the CEO to some degree. Their opinion seems to be based on three general points:
1. Companies like Oceangate are where innovation comes from and innovation relies on non-regulation
2. Imposing regulation would increase the cost of these ventures
3. There are always risk-seeking individuals who will undertake risky endeavors because the subjective payoff justifies the risk (peak mountain climbers, aerial enthusiasts, etc)
I find each of these three points massively flawed and not sound logic at all.
First, Oceangate was not a research company undertaking systematic kaizen improvements with the goal of innovation. They were a profit-seeking company cutting corners to reduce costs and increase profits. Their incentives mean that it's in the company's financial interest to minimize the appearance of risk and present a misleading impression of risk. From the posts here and elsewhere, it's hard to see where any such "innovation" could come from the types of corner cutting Oceangate was undertaking. This wasn't a company trying to develop some next level submarine technology, they were doing stupid things to cut costs that almost certainly could not lead any innovation to begin with. The first point is flawed to the point of being disingenuous.
Second, of course regulation and increased safety would increase the costs to the company. That isn't a fecking bad thing the way people that quote Hayek imply it is. It's a good thing. This cost 250K anyway. Anyone paying 250k for this would pony up 300K for a much safer and regulated version of it. It's 100% a good thing if costs for profit-seeking extreme tourism increases to make them safer. Again, the incentives were aligned that Oceangate was cutting corners that should never have been cut. Earning them more profit or saving some billionaire risk-seeker 50K is not worth the dangers involved.
Third, yes some people are heavy risk-seekers. But this is not comparable to an experienced mountain climber choosing to climb K2. First, the risks for climbing K2 are well known and any mountain climber experienced enough to contemplate peaking K2 can accurately assess the risk-reward and understand if their skillset is at a level to make it viable. With a profit-seeking company with incentives to cut corners, it's simply not possible for a consumer to accurately assess the risks. It's not a comparable situation because mountain climbers are active participants that can also abandon a climb if conditions worsen. Passengers in a craft like this have no such option; no skill component or option to abandon.
Overall, those three points are just based on bad logic and bad empirical facts.
1. Companies like Oceangate are where innovation comes from and innovation relies on non-regulation
2. Imposing regulation would increase the cost of these ventures
3. There are always risk-seeking individuals who will undertake risky endeavors because the subjective payoff justifies the risk (peak mountain climbers, aerial enthusiasts, etc)
I find each of these three points massively flawed and not sound logic at all.
First, Oceangate was not a research company undertaking systematic kaizen improvements with the goal of innovation. They were a profit-seeking company cutting corners to reduce costs and increase profits. Their incentives mean that it's in the company's financial interest to minimize the appearance of risk and present a misleading impression of risk. From the posts here and elsewhere, it's hard to see where any such "innovation" could come from the types of corner cutting Oceangate was undertaking. This wasn't a company trying to develop some next level submarine technology, they were doing stupid things to cut costs that almost certainly could not lead any innovation to begin with. The first point is flawed to the point of being disingenuous.
Second, of course regulation and increased safety would increase the costs to the company. That isn't a fecking bad thing the way people that quote Hayek imply it is. It's a good thing. This cost 250K anyway. Anyone paying 250k for this would pony up 300K for a much safer and regulated version of it. It's 100% a good thing if costs for profit-seeking extreme tourism increases to make them safer. Again, the incentives were aligned that Oceangate was cutting corners that should never have been cut. Earning them more profit or saving some billionaire risk-seeker 50K is not worth the dangers involved.
Third, yes some people are heavy risk-seekers. But this is not comparable to an experienced mountain climber choosing to climb K2. First, the risks for climbing K2 are well known and any mountain climber experienced enough to contemplate peaking K2 can accurately assess the risk-reward and understand if their skillset is at a level to make it viable. With a profit-seeking company with incentives to cut corners, it's simply not possible for a consumer to accurately assess the risks. It's not a comparable situation because mountain climbers are active participants that can also abandon a climb if conditions worsen. Passengers in a craft like this have no such option; no skill component or option to abandon.
Overall, those three points are just based on bad logic and bad empirical facts.
Yeah, the innovation argument is really dumb. These guys weren't innovating anything. Just cutting corners to make money, as you say.
Rush definitely coming across as a bit of a con artist. Perhaps the others on board were naive but the guy seems manipulative too.
By the letter of the law, I'm not sure what he's guilty of but it seems criminal. Just incredibly sad others were killed as a result of him and his companies approach to safety.
By the letter of the law, I'm not sure what he's guilty of but it seems criminal. Just incredibly sad others were killed as a result of him and his companies approach to safety.