Titanic tourist submersible missing | Sub's debris found - crew "have been lost"

Scandi Red said:
If you asked me to describe my least favorite type of person, who is nonetheless quite common to find in the real world, then this guy would be a very close description of what I'd come up with. It sickens me that his hubris managed to kill 4 others and endanger a bunch more.
Click to expand...
Morons who have no regard for others. Self centredness, lack of empathy and greed.
 
matherto said:
Eh wah?

There are plenty of road cars that are full carbon fibre structurally aren't there? McLaren F1 being the first.
Click to expand...

McLaren are making full carbon tubs in their "new" MCC location, admittedly that's a small % of total cars on the road.
 
TwoSheds said:
This is certain. Almost all road cars that have carbon fibre in them it's basically just for show and rarely forms a significant part of the structure. For one thing it's quite hard to predict how it will behave through life compared to most metals, so while you might find it quite easy to convince yourself that it will last 10 races in a race car, it's much harder to convince yourself it will last 10 years of use and weathering in a road car.

It's cool stuff don't get me wrong but I worked on an outboard motor design with carbon fibre cowling and I believe it is not only heavier than a more typical plastic cowling, and probably degrades slightly from the effect of seawater ingress, I'm told it also has given them problems with glavanic corrosion by electrically connecting metal parts through paths that wouldn't be there with an insulating plastic cowling. And it costs more of course, but it's all about whether it looks and sounds racy to a lot of people I think.
Click to expand...

Maybe 20 years ago this was true. Most supercars are now made entirely from carbon, the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 are built primarily with carbon composites, and multiple spacecraft use it now. It's a well understood and reliable material when it's not shoehorned into an application where its well understood that its not reliable.
 
matherto said:
Eh wah?

There are plenty of road cars that are full carbon fibre structurally aren't there? McLaren F1 being the first.
Click to expand...

Firstly, no there aren't plenty of them. If you look at the 720S for example they've a carbon monocoque passenger cell but I think you'll find most of the rest of the structure is still aluminium. It takes a lot of development to ensure carbon fibre stuff is suitable compared to more well understood materials and they're also comparatively expensive. I think some of the BMW EVs are quite carbon fibre heavy structurally too but could be wrong, and those would be the most "mass market" application that I know of.

Edit: found quite an interesting video about the passenger cell actually
You'll notice that the bits at the front appear to be carbon fibre wrapped aluminium blocks with bosses machined back for fasteners. In fact I think all the bottom sweep that presumably transfers road load between front and back of the car looks like carbon fibre wrapped aluminium.

Secondly, you'll note there's not a whole lot of heavy duty applications for it because it's hard to predict its life. A supercar that sits in a garage most of its life doesn't necessarily need the same level of validation as a van.

Most cars actually just have a few carbon fibre body panels or something though and this is fine because they're a bit lighter than steel ones would be without looking as cheap and flimsy as plastic ones. But they're not generally doing a whole lot for you other than look cool.
 
Last edited:
11101 said:
Maybe 20 years ago this was true. Most supercars are now made entirely from carbon, the Boeing 787 and Airbus A350 are built primarily with carbon composites, and multiple spacecraft use it now. It's a well understood and reliable material when it's not shoehorned into an application where its well understood that its not reliable.
Click to expand...

Aerospace is not the same - the aircraft frames and skins are inspected regularly and no member of the public is let loose on them.

And I simply don't believe that "most supercars are made entirely out of carbon". None of the suspension will be for example and they are structural parts. Anything that needs to resist severe cyclic loading is not going to be made of carbon fibre I don't think. Most body structures are only highly loaded in a crash tbf.
 
TwoSheds said:
Aerospace is not the same - the aircraft frames and skins are inspected regularly and no member of the public is let loose on them.

And I simply don't believe that "most supercars are made entirely out of carbon". None of the suspension will be for example and they are structural parts. Anything that needs to resist severe cyclic loading is not going to be made of carbon fibre I don't think. Most body structures are only highly loaded in a crash tbf.
Click to expand...

Like i say, it's used where it's understood to be the best material. A CF monocoque is fine, it is structural by nature and will withstand repeated loads but all will be well within design tolerances. Some elements of suspension like wishbones is carbon depending on which car but for the actual springs and shocks a stiff material like carbon isn't what you want.

I know you say aerospace isn't comparable because its checked regularly by professionals, but a) so should that submarine and b) inspections or not the composites still have to last the lifespan of the aircraft, and composite materials have actually increased lifespan over metal aircraft. A widebody like the 747 is built to do about 35k pressurisation cycles, but in the 787 they were able to increase it to 44k. Of course the bits that get whacked by birds, wing spars that need flex and other such parts are made of other materials.
 
Last edited:
That'sHernandez said:
Wouldn't the paint reduce water ingress and delamination, though?
Click to expand...

From the news reports Oceangate claimed to have bought rejected carbon fibre from Boeing, which is bad enough in itself, but Boeing in turn denied having records of ever selling them anything, so who knows what the feck they were using and where they got it from. They could have been doomed from day 1.
 
11101 said:
From the news reports Oceangate claimed to have bought rejected carbon fibre from Boeing, which is bad enough in itself, but Boeing in turn denied having records of ever selling them anything, so who knows what the feck they were using and where they got it from. They could have been doomed from day 1.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean if you're going to use experimental materials to do this, you should at least use materials that have been passed for use in their intended application...
 
TwoSheds said:
This is certain. Almost all road cars that have carbon fibre in them it's basically just for show and rarely forms a significant part of the structure. For one thing it's quite hard to predict how it will behave through life compared to most metals, so while you might find it quite easy to convince yourself that it will last 10 races in a race car, it's much harder to convince yourself it will last 10 years of use and weathering in a road car.

It's cool stuff don't get me wrong but I worked on an outboard motor design with carbon fibre cowling and I believe it is not only heavier than a more typical plastic cowling, and probably degrades slightly from the effect of seawater ingress, I'm told it also has given them problems with glavanic corrosion by electrically connecting metal parts through paths that wouldn't be there with an insulating plastic cowling. And it costs more of course, but it's all about whether it looks and sounds racy to a lot of people I think.
Click to expand...
Totally agree, my car has carbon fibre and it's for decoration. It's the same with Alcantara
 
11101 said:
From the news reports Oceangate claimed to have bought rejected carbon fibre from Boeing, which is bad enough in itself, but Boeing in turn denied having records of ever selling them anything, so who knows what the feck they were using and where they got it from. They could have been doomed from day 1.
Click to expand...

That just contributes to building the image of this guy as an incompetent rich guy who got himself and several other people killed in a very stupid way. Though it seems clear at this point that the sub would fail at some point anyway, so if the carbon fibre was "expired" (as the suggestion goes) it probably just expedited that.
 
nimic said:
That just contributes to building the image of this guy as an incompetent rich guy who got himself and several other people killed in a very stupid way. Though it seems clear at this point that the sub would fail at some point anyway, so if the carbon fibre was "expired" (as the suggestion goes) it probably just expedited that.
Click to expand...
Why though? Why risk your reputation and innocent lives? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to create a reliable piece of equipment? Longterm that would have been more profitable if it's money they were after.
Why knowingly use an inferior material that's obviously not going to hold up? They must know if it fails that's all their hardwork and credibility down the drain.
Did they honestly think it would hold up or were they that arrogant? If they knew it wasn't reliable Why would the CEO make the trip as well if he knew that the used "expired rejected material" that won't hold up?
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
Why knowingly use an inferior material that's obviously not going to hold up? They must know if it fails that's all their hardwork and credibility down the drain.
Click to expand...

Because if it worked (which he totally believed it would), then he could pound his chest and claim to be an innovator who bravely went against the pussy nerds.
 
Tincanalley said:
Maybe someone else made this point; the sub had been to these depths already and crew returned safely, on more than one occasion. I’m not defending the owner, but it might explain his (misguided) confidence
Click to expand...
If it was a totally unknown and unproven material then I would have a degree of sympathy. The first commercial Jet was British - the Comet and if it had oval windows then Britain would have dominated the airplane construction Industry for the next 50 years, because we built the best engines too.

At the time we had no idea what repeated pressurisation did to aluminium components. So the first Comet flights were a roaring success, leading to American manufacturers copying their designs. However the Americans literally tried to cut corners and have smaller windows in their planes, rather than the large and beautiful square windows in the Comet.

Then Comet started falling out of the sky in pieces, all at around similar number of flights. Air crash investigation was in it's infancy but they discovered this was aircraft metal fatigue, and it particularly liked to propagate around square corners like those in the windows of the Comet. The Americans choice to go with rounded windows bought them enough time for the science to catch up with the innovation.

Aluminium had been the space age material in the late 40's and early 50's, strong, light, durable....are we seeing parallels with Carbon Fibre yet?

So yes IF Rush had been building this thing in the late 80's or early 90's he would had that excuse because the knowledge of how carbon Fibre fails wasn't there yet. However in the intervening years we have become far more aware of how the material reacts under different circumstances. He chose to ignore them and put lives in peril as a cold-hearted risk reward game he was willing to play.
 
Scarlett Dracarys said:
Why though? Why risk your reputation and innocent lives? Wouldn't it be more beneficial to create a reliable piece of equipment? Longterm that would have been more profitable if it's money they were after.
Why knowingly use an inferior material that's obviously not going to hold up? They must know if it fails that's all their hardwork and credibility down the drain.
Did they honestly think it would hold up or were they that arrogant? If they knew it wasn't reliable Why would the CEO make the trip as well if he knew that the used "expired rejected material" that won't hold up?
Click to expand...

Incompetence and overconfidence. The guy constantly talked about regulations and standards got in the way of innovation, and how stuff like maximum/minimum requirements were just arbitrary numbers. Basically, this was inevitable. His submersible was going to implode at some point unless he redesigned the whole thing.

It's honestly impressive how poor a job he did. I can't remember where I heard it, but apparently this was the first time a sub or submersible imploded in 50 years or more? Standards are there for a reason, and if you follow them you can absolutely build a submersible that won't implode. He chose the other way.

Edit: Behind the Bastards did a 2-part podcast on him which should go some way in answering your questions. I found the YouTube linkS, but it's also on all the podcast sites.



 
buchansleftleg said:
If it was a totally unknown and unproven material then I would have a degree of sympathy. The first commercial Jet was British - the Comet and if it had oval windows then Britain would have dominated the airplane construction Industry for the next 50 years, because we built the best engines too.

At the time we had no idea what repeated pressurisation did to aluminium components. So the first Comet flights were a roaring success, leading to American manufacturers copying their designs. However the Americans literally tried to cut corners and have smaller windows in their planes, rather than the large and beautiful square windows in the Comet.

Then Comet started falling out of the sky in pieces, all at around similar number of flights. Air crash investigation was in it's infancy but they discovered this was aircraft metal fatigue, and it particularly liked to propagate around square corners like those in the windows of the Comet. The Americans choice to go with rounded windows bought them enough time for the science to catch up with the innovation.

Aluminium had been the space age material in the late 40's and early 50's, strong, light, durable....are we seeing parallels with Carbon Fibre yet?

So yes IF Rush had been building this thing in the late 80's or early 90's he would had that excuse because the knowledge of how carbon Fibre fails wasn't there yet. However in the intervening years we have become far more aware of how the material reacts under different circumstances. He chose to ignore them and put lives in peril as a cold-hearted risk reward game he was willing to play.
Click to expand...
Thanks - great story. Why Caf is still a good read sometimes.
 
That'sHernandez said:
Wouldn't the paint reduce water ingress and delamination, though?
Click to expand...

Maybe but it sounds like degradation and delamination in seawater is a well known phenomenon and given the pressures involved I'd guess paint wouldn't slow this down much.
 
nimic said:
Incompetence and overconfidence. The guy constantly talked about regulations and standards got in the way of innovation, and how stuff like maximum/minimum requirements were just arbitrary numbers. Basically, this was inevitable. His submersible was going to implode at some point unless he redesigned the whole thing.

It's honestly impressive how poor a job he did. I can't remember where I heard it, but apparently this was the first time a sub or submersible imploded in 50 years or more? Standards are there for a reason, and if you follow them you can absolutely build a submersible that won't implode. He chose the other way.

Edit: Behind the Bastards did a 2-part podcast on him which should go some way in answering your questions. I found the YouTube linkS, but it's also on all the podcast sites.



Click to expand...


Thanks for these, really good listen
 
Wibble said:
Maybe but it sounds like degradation and delamination in seawater is a well known phenomenon and given the pressures involved I'd guess paint wouldn't slow this down much.
Click to expand...
Yes, paint would have little effect. The central tube was created by them "wrapping" a seatbelt type width of carbon fibre tape around a former (imagine a big loo roll tube)

The tape was added like thread in a bobbin, gradually moving from side to side. Once they had something close to the right thicknes this wrap was then impregnated with a resin and then "cured" in an oven to fuse the resin and tape together.

The proces of diving down and then ascending applies massive pressures on the structure, causing it to flex and this flexing is where there is extra potential for delamination to occur as one layer of "tape" might move more than the layer below it or vice versa.

Once you have a delamination you have effectively decreased the hull thickness and the amount of resin in it. The resin is the ONLY part of the main cabin (other than the titanium end caps) that can deal with compression forces so the hull can be totally compromised but look ok at the surface.
 
buchansleftleg said:
Once you have a delamination you have effectively decreased the hull thickness and the amount of resin in it. The resin is the ONLY part of the main cabin (other than the titanium end caps) that can deal with compression forces so the hull can be totally compromised but look ok at the surface.
Click to expand...
The more I read about this thing, the more I’m left thinking that it was one of the dumbest attempts at engineering in modern history.
 
Seems like it imploded after an hour and a half … so maybe not yet at Titanic resting place. Are reports true of them requesting to resurface, just prior to blackout? Possibly some indications of leakage or structural instability? Maybe the porthole glass gave way?
 
buchansleftleg said:
Yes, paint would have little effect. The central tube was created by them "wrapping" a seatbelt type width of carbon fibre tape around a former (imagine a big loo roll tube)

The tape was added like thread in a bobbin, gradually moving from side to side. Once they had something close to the right thicknes this wrap was then impregnated with a resin and then "cured" in an oven to fuse the resin and tape together.

The proces of diving down and then ascending applies massive pressures on the structure, causing it to flex and this flexing is where there is extra potential for delamination to occur as one layer of "tape" might move more than the layer below it or vice versa.

Once you have a delamination you have effectively decreased the hull thickness and the amount of resin in it. The resin is the ONLY part of the main cabin (other than the titanium end caps) that can deal with compression forces so the hull can be totally compromised but look ok at the surface.
Click to expand...

There's a good interview with an American sub commander where he's explaining how different materials behave under pressurisation. CF on its own is well understood, hence its perfectly safe use on other applications that undergo repeated pressurisation cycles, but using multiple materials in one pressure vessel is very dodgy. The carbon, acrylic window, and the titanium would all flex and compress at different rates, so whilst they would all be fine on their own, eventually the join between them would fail. He reckons the investigation will find that's where the implosion happened.
 
Murder on Zidane's Floor said:
Morons who have no regard for others. Self centredness, lack of empathy and greed.
Click to expand...

I would just simplify it to "morons"

Although a moron is harmless until they're allowed to make decisions that shouldn't be trusted to a moron.

I find it weird you can't have an electric drill on your building site that doesn't meet relevant safety regulations, have to get your car MOT'd every year, etc. but you can have an unsafe/unregulated deep sea submarine and charge people money and put them in it.

It's no good leaving it to the moron to sort out and just sending then emails moaning about it. If you weren't a moron you wouldn't be piloting a submarine that you've no idea if it might suddenly implode in the first place.

I actually find the whole thing genuinely astounding. Apart from anything else, unless he was producing fraudulant safety documentation how was anyone paying him to go on it? If you had an ounce of common sense you juat wouldn't, would you?
 
noodlehair said:
I would just simplify it to "morons"

Although a moron is harmless until they're allowed to make decisions that shouldn't be trusted to a moron.

I find it weird you can't have an electric drill on your building site that doesn't meet relevant safety regulations, have to get your car MOT'd every year, etc. but you can have an unsafe/unregulated deep sea submarine and charge people money and put them in it.

It's no good leaving it to the moron to sort out and just sending then emails moaning about it. If you weren't a moron you wouldn't be piloting a submarine that you've no idea if it might suddenly implode in the first place.

I actually find the whole thing genuinely astounding. Apart from anything else, unless he was producing fraudulant safety documentation how was anyone paying him to go on it? If you had an ounce of common sense you juat wouldn't, would you?
Click to expand...
This is America
 


There is a section in this video talking about how they decided to use "acoustic testing" to watch out for snap buckling of the carbon fibre. Someone reported to them on a previous test dive that there was obvious audible stress fracturing heard over the video and that damage was accumulating. All reports were ignored.

Libertarianism is a hell of a drug.
 
For ultra rich people these seem to be the only acceptable lifestyles:

1. Dull workaholic / megalomaniac (they often overlap).

2. Mountains of cocaine and a sex life that gets increasingly disturbing (with occasional "work", just to make their parents stop nagging).

3. Dickheads who treats the universe the same way a completionist treats a video game. They will travel to the bottom of the ocean even if it means travelling in a lunchbox.
 
Scandi Red said:
For ultra rich people these seem to be the only acceptable lifestyles:

1. Dull workaholic / megalomaniac (they often overlap).

2. Mountains of cocaine and a sex life that gets increasingly disturbing (with occasional "work", just to make their parents stop nagging).

3. Dickheads who treats the universe the same way a completionist treats a video game. They will travel to the bottom of the ocean even if it means travelling in a lunchbox.
Click to expand...
they're usually the same person.
 
Scandi Red said:
For ultra rich people these seem to be the only acceptable lifestyles:

1. Dull workaholic / megalomaniac (they often overlap).

2. Mountains of cocaine and a sex life that gets increasingly disturbing (with occasional "work", just to make their parents stop nagging).

3. Dickheads who treats the universe the same way a completionist treats a video game. They will travel to the bottom of the ocean even if it means travelling in a lunchbox.
Click to expand...

Elon Musk in a nutshell.
 
I was watching a programme last night with Susan Calman about cruising in Antarctica (not proud of that but there was nothing else on!) and she went on a little sub. It showed what a real submersible SHOULD look like.

I was struck by how ridiculously bare Oceangate's Titan interior was at the time, with little or no secondary systems. - Compare that with the safety video from these guys, who admittedly don't go as deep but the focus on safety is way more apparent.
 
buchansleftleg said:
I was watching a programme last night with Susan Calman about cruising in Antarctica (not proud of that but there was nothing else on!) and she went on a little sub. It showed what a real submersible SHOULD look like.

I was struck by how ridiculously bare Oceangate's Titan interior was at the time, with little or no secondary systems. - Compare that with the safety video from these guys, who admittedly don't go as deep but the focus on safety is way more apparent.
Click to expand...


True, though "don't go as deep" is a bit of an understatement. The difference is more than an order of magnitude. A better comparison is the Deepsea Challenger, which maybe does even more to highlight just how poorly thought out the Titan was.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.