Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply |
safe & sound |
No sir! Several posters have said right here in this thread that it is impossible to use that material in this application, and that its use alone was the reason this incident occurred. | |||
|
Coin Sniper |
Not to mention every other deep sea submersible is a sphere and this is the only one I'm aware of that isn.... wasn't. Pronoun: His Royal Highness and benevolent Majesty of all he surveys 343 - Never Forget Its better to be Pavlov's dog than Schrodinger's cat There are three types of mistakes; Those you learn from, those you suffer from, and those you don't survive. | |||
|
Shall Not Be Infringed |
Emphasis on tested...Properly! Apparently that's Kinda' critical in this application! ____________________________________________________________ If Some is Good, and More is Better.....then Too Much, is Just Enough !! Trump 47....Make America Great Again! "May Almighty God bless the United States of America" - parabellum 7/26/20 Live Free or Die! | |||
|
Savor the limelight |
I read that article too. The last paragraph: “Despite his bullishness on carbon fiber and CET’s rigorous test regime, the company isn’t ready to put people inside its pressure vessels, he said. “They are for underwater housings for equipment. We’ve never put a person inside. We have a ways to go before I would feel comfortable doing that.”“ | |||
|
safe & sound |
I read that too, but I don't see what difference it makes. They build a product, it's been tested, it's been used extensively, and they've never had an issue. Would putting a person inside of it make it more fragile than putting a computer inside? To go back to an earlier comment I made in the thread, I don't really understand why people want to go down in these things at all except for bragging rights. The technology is good enough that there's nothing you're going to see looking through a viewport on one of these things that you can't see looking at a high definition monitor, VR goggles, or whatever else. | |||
|
Peace through superior firepower |
Nope, not buying it. You can not expect us to believe you are as dense as you're making yourself out to be with stuff like this, and no, I am not explaining exactly what I am referring to, because it's unnecessary. This all goes back to you having entrenched yourself in your position in this matter and the only thing you can do is to continue to defend that position, no matter what facts or statements or evidence is presented. You've put yourself in a position where you have no choice but to be right. | |||
|
Thank you Very little |
Smart man, he doesn't want his life's work ruined by sticking people inside his product and being the testing outfit. Big difference in the risk associated with finding out your grand scheme crushed the life out of a human vs crushing a computer to bits... CF tech for human descent has probably been set back for a while, not that people won't want to test it, but because nobody in their right mind would get in the things, and nobody wants to put their life work on risk to run tours of the deep. | |||
|
Peace through superior firepower |
He knows this | |||
|
Member |
Dude. Did you even read your own linked article. It speaks EXCLUSIVELY of UUV’s. Unmanned Underwater Vessels. Just admit you are full of shit and move on. Nobody is putting people in a CF sub going to these depths. Nobody. “Would putting a person inside of it make it more fragile than putting a computer inside?” You know full well that the criteria for housing electronics and housing humans isn’t even close to the same. This is a silly comment because you won’t back off a position that you took earlier. From the beginning we are discussing MANNED vessels and you know it. CET won’t put people inside and you somehow take that as proof that your argument is correct. | |||
|
Thank you Very little |
To quote Travis Dane: We know this. a1abdj knows that we know. But we make-believe that we don't know and a1abdj make-believe that he believes that we don't know, but knows that we know. Everybody knows. | |||
|
Member |
Good thing Rush wasn’t an automobile aficionado or he might have built the thing out of Carbotanium: “Carbotanium is a combination of beta titanium alloy and carbon composite. It is commonly used in Pagani cars. The components of carbotanium; carbon fiber and titanium, are woven together to form a strong, light material that can withstand significant amounts of heat and strain. The material properties of carbotanium are a mixture of those of a titanium alloy and a carbon fiber.“ Of course, since there’s no significant heat at 4000 meters, probably wouldn’t have worked any better! | |||
|
wishing we were congress |
A report from Travel Weekly editor in chief Arnie Weissmann https://www.travelweekly.com/N...ssion-Titanic-part-2 Last month, I was very happy to be selected for the first team to dive down to the Titanic in Mission 2 of OceanGate Expedition's 2023 season. On our dive, the submersible Titan would be piloted by Oceangate CEO Stockton Rush. Also aboard in the role of "advisor" would be experienced wreck explorer P.H. Nargeolet. the Polar Prince's galley, which had been turning out food far exceeding my expectations for a research vessel, had been informed to feed mission specialists in ways that would keep restroom usage to a minimum. The Titan is not heated and it gets cold on the ocean floor, we were told. We were given a flight suit and thick socks to wear (we would be leaving our shoes on the ship) and told to layer up beneath the suit. But Tuesday arrived, and the positive weather forecast had deteriorated to the point that the dive was canceled. My impression of Stockton Rush's leadership style was that he is calm, patient, inclusive and caring. One night, he invited me to sit with him on the back deck and smoke Cuban cigars he had picked in St. John's. I told him I don't normally smoke cigars but would be happy to. We were joined by the ship's captain and chief engineer. Another side of Stockton emerged that evening as we puffed and watched the mission flag fluttering off the stern, the trailing Titan now obscured by fog. He talked about his history as a young pilot (he flew commercial jets in the Mideast at age 19 as a summer job); how his hopes to be an astronaut were scotched when his vision deteriorated to 20/25; his subsequent pivot to the sea and fascination with submersibles. This Stockton Rush was somewhat cocky, but I felt his accomplishments gave him the right to be so. Only one thing concerned me: He said he had gotten the carbon fiber used to make the Titan at a big discount from Boeing because it was past its shelf-life for use in airplanes. I asked him if that weren't a problem. He replied that those dates were set far before they had to be, and that Boeing and even NASA had participated in the design and testing of the Titan. It is a conversation I have thought about a great deal over the past week. (A statement from Boeing said: "Boeing was not a partner on the Titan and did not design or build it. Boeing has found no record of any sale of composite material to OceanGate or its CEO.") maybe investigation will sort out the truth https://www.travelweekly.com/N...ssion-Titanic-part-3 Protocols for dives were linked to a number of factors which, if they reached a certain threshold, automatically triggered a cancellation. Among them were conditions that were considered noncritical factors, such as wind more than 10 knots, a team member who was new to staff, or a celebrity or member of media on the dive as a mission specialist. (Mission specialist is OceanGate's name for a nonstaff guest like me). That last one gave me pause. If the decision were one factor shy of the no-go limit but someone other than me, a journalist, were coming aboard, would they go forward with a dive that would otherwise be canceled solely because a reporter was present? But generally speaking, I was impressed by what appeared to be a risk-averse operation. "Everyone needs to keep their head on a swivel and their eyes wide open," Stockton Rush, OceanGate's CEO and designer and pilot of the Titan submersible, had said at a morning briefing. Badly wanting to go on a dive, I didn't always see why some factors were considered problematic. Initially, I was puzzled why surface conditions, a seven-foot swell, for instance, might be a reason to cancel a dive. After all, didn't the dive take place under the surface? "The size of the swells matters," Rush said, and he told me why: To get to the sub, a boarding platform is lowered over the side of the Polar Prince. Mission specialists step from that platform onto an inflatable dinghy for the ride to the launch and recovery platform that holds the Titan submersible. When seas are high, that step is the most dangerous part of the entire process, he said: the sea could suddenly drop the dinghy seven feet in an instant, just as you're walking onto it. On the fourth day of the mission, when the seas were most active and fog was the thickest, a near-disaster for the sub and platform occurred: At the end of the rope that linked the stern of the ship to the platform, we saw that the front of the platform and the sub were underwater. It wasn't clear why. A fishing buoy had been seen nearby just prior to the problem. It was hypothesized that a line from it had gotten tangled in the platform and tipped the front down, and the part of the platform that should have held air had become flooded. And it was unclear how it could be raised. Rush huddled with his crew, and a large, red, inflated buoy was attached to the tow line connecting the ship with the platform. The hope was that the buoy would slide down the tow rope to the platform and provide lift to the front. Rush and two other divers got in a dinghy and came to the stern of the ship where two large, yellow floatation bags were tossed down to them to add more lift. However, the front of the platform was so far under water that the buoy could not be forced under it and only the edges of the flotation bags could provide minimal lift. The divers went under the platform and got the water out and the air back in, and it was once again level. The entire process took more than half the day. When I asked how much jeopardy the sub was in, Rush joked, "So a sub is under water. Why is that a problem?" No fishing line was discovered in the platform, though it may have done its damage and then untangled itself, Rush added. I asked if anything concerned him about what could go wrong with the dive itself. He answered, "Ghost nets." There's a lot of commercial fishing gear that gets loose, like the fishing buoy, and adds to the manmade items moving around the oceans. If an untended net should by chance be positioned above the submersible as it rises, it could keep it submerged, and there's not much the sub could do to free itself. Wreck expert Paul-Henri "P.H." Nargeolet, who was also onboard, told me he wasn't worried about what would happen if the structure of the Titan itself were damaged when at the bottom of the ocean. "Under that pressure, you'd be dead before you knew there was a problem." He said it with a smile. more at the links | |||
|
wishing we were congress |
previously posted but the video here shows some of the things described by Arnie Weissmann in the post above at this link is a video of a young man who was scheduled to go on Titan before the fatal dive. Various problems kept them from doing a dive. The mission (#3) in this video is the mission after the one described by Weissmann (mission #2 of 2023) It is interesting to see the details of the operation. I skipped thru some of the duller sections. https://news.yahoo.com/youtube...n-sub-201001484.html Titan was towed behind the support ship Polar Prince | |||
|
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should |
I suspect the carbon material came from an out of date or surplus inventory that once belonged to Boeing. They do use the stuff in airplanes, but that's probably their only connection. ___________________________ Avoid buying ChiCom/CCP products whenever possible. | |||
|
Member |
I noticed in some pictures, that the computer monitors were screwed into the walls, that can’t be good for hull integrity. "Hold my beer.....Watch this". | |||
|
Get Off My Lawn |
It seems every single video I have seen of prior Titan dives, they ALL end up with problems; comms, navigation, controlling the boat with the video game controller, etc. Every single one. "I’m not going to read Time Magazine, I’m not going to read Newsweek, I’m not going to read any of these magazines; I mean, because they have too much to lose by printing the truth"- Bob Dylan, 1965 | |||
|
Member |
Bingo. He didn't know what he didn't know until .... Lover of the US Constitution Wile E. Coyote School of DIY Disaster | |||
|
Member |
I know someone like that. No amount of explaining or negative experience make a difference. They just exist. Lover of the US Constitution Wile E. Coyote School of DIY Disaster | |||
|
Member |
You have good instincts. This article outlines how Rush bragged about using expired material they supposedly bought from Boeing. Funny enough, Boeing is denying ever selling it to them. I suspect it was originally Boeing's, they gave or sold it someone, and they in turn sold it to OceanGate...but that is purely supposition on my part. This confirms to me that they are using "pre-preg" (pre-impregnated) material. The epoxy/hardener mixture are already coated on the fibers and the material is kept in a fridge to ensure it doesn't cure too much before use. We used to get this stuff as a donation when I was in school. It still "works" for teaching purposes, but I'd be leery about using it for anything mission critical. You have no traceability on how it was stored or transported before getting it, so it really is just useful for teaching and maybe some basic research type applications. Expired Carbon Fiber Material | |||
|
Member |
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I've been traveling. My apologies as this will seem a bit roundabout, but bear with me. The funding for engineering tends to follow "where the money is or the government is interested." Funding agencies such as the DoD (Navy and Air Force mostly, but DARPA and others as well), NSF, and FAA have all contributed to composites related research. Private industry contributions lie largely with defense contractors and aerospace companies. There is also some interest from the electronics industry as circuit boards are composites (glass fiber reinforced polymers primarily). Why am I telling you this? Basically to highlight that there has to be a driver for the research to get the body of knowledge where it needs to be in order to be successful. Deep sea applications/high external pressure is very niche. I can really only see the Navy investing heavily and I think they did just that in the '80s and '90s. The technical challenges were quite tough and to the best of my knowledge they didn't work them all out for what they wanted it for, composite submarine hulls. Your question is vague in that without context I could think of some applications where CFRP could be successful. You actually posted an article that discusses one in one of your later posts, ROVs (or UUVs if you like). I could envision small craft for quiet insertion of a small number of troops (e.g. SEALS) or maybe some SEABEES with a specially outfitted craft to cut communication lines or something. In this case the military can afford to have single use/limited use vehicles that are effectively disposable. CFRP may have an application in something like this. Given the context of the discussion and the event that kicked it off, I'm assuming you are really interested in a commercial application that takes civilians to deep water. I think a lot of things would need to be improved for the safety record to be where it needs to be. I think composites specifically formulated to work at near freezing temperatures would need to be developed (some exist, but repeated thermal cycles are probably not in the lifecycle). In addition the composite would need to be more damage tolerant (no easy task). Inspection technology would need to either improve or be more economical and a rigorous inspection routine would need to be in place. Several people (yourself included) have wondered if something else failed, specifically the joints with the Ti components. This is another area that would likely need a step-change in technology - bonding of composites to dissimilar materials. This is why I went on the tangent related to funding...all these things would require significant capital investment from interested party(ies) without a guarantee of success. Do I think it's viable AND safe for deep sea in the context of commercial trips? No, I really don't, at least not at the moment. Significant research is still necessary in my opinion. Also, the venue to do that research is not with paying customers in a full scale operational submersible. It's in labs around the world with nerds like me making materials, testing them, looking through microscopes, doing simulations etc. Basically doing the full research cycle and then the full design cycle to get a truly safe vehicle. It's impossible to predict the outcome of such an endeavor, but I would not invest in it. | |||
|
Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 ... 41 |
Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |