From the article: “… an OceanGate “mission specialist” told Fox News …. “We were versed in how the sub operated. We were versed in various protocols. But there’s a limit . . . it’s not a safe operation, inherently. And that’s part of research and development and exploration.” He went on, “If the Wright brothers had crashed on their first flight, they would have still left the bonds of Earth.”

Wow. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

The Wright brothers didn’t have that much technology and past research to follow. This phukktard did!!! In addition, the Wright brothers didn’t have “innocent bystanders” on their “mission” to achieve manned flight.

MASSIVE difference, there Mr. “Mission Specialist Asshole”

Thanks for posting that link Trapper189. Excellent article. It corroborates everything I've dug up on Rush. They guy was an ego maniac that thought he could do no wrong.

I have watched countless television shows and youtube videos on aircraft crashes, how they are investigated, and how the findings often lead to safety improvements going forward.

One of the things that always stood out to me was that the failures in these cases were often not just one thing, but rather an entire chain of events. Had one thing along that path been different the event may have never occurred.

I suspect that will be true in this case as well.

Yeah. Stockton Rush won't go down in history as an innovator, but, as an egotist whose hubris got three innocent people killed.

I write "three innocent," rather than four, because one of the passengers "mission specialists," PH Nargeolet, had every reason to know better.

Yes, if only one thing was different the whole thing could have been avoided. You mean like if the submersible was a titanium sphere?

That is a ridiculous oversimplification. You are describing a mishap chain. That is what it is called in aviation. If just one thing went differently then the accident is avoided. This ain’t that. You absolutely refuse to listen to any experts. Nobody, nobody, nobody in that field who are the experts think CF is an acceptable choice for this application. Nobody. You of course will quote CET talking about CF unmanned vessels and conveniently ignore their quote about putting people inside. Someday it will happen you surmise although no one who actually rides these things agrees with your assessment.

This isn’t a mishap chain. That hull was going to crack and implode. Period. Nothing would have changed that basic fact. It could have had redundant systems, impeccable comms, functional navigation, perfect sea conditions, etc and it still would have blown up.

Read the French guys comments. I’m an old widower and that’s a good way to go. He seemed to think his presence might have avoided this disaster. Rush wasn’t the only guy filled with hubris.

quote:

Yes, if only one thing was different the whole thing could have been avoided. You mean like if the submersible was a titanium sphere?

I don't think the material in and of itself had anything to do with it. Why not aluminum? Why not carbon fiber?

quote:

That hull was going to crack and implode. Period. Nothing would have changed that basic fact.

Yet there are other carbon fiber hulls out there with thousands of hours and hundreds of dives that seem to be working out just fine.

quote:

You of course will quote CET talking about CF unmanned vessels and conveniently ignore their quote about putting people inside.

CET doesn't build manned deep sea craft so they don't have anything to put anybody inside of.

But explain this to me. What is it about putting a human inside a tube that will make it implode when it doesn't implode without a human inside? Is it the moisture in their breath? Methane? What's the scientific reason?

And you still seem pretty sure that it was the carbon fiber itself, and not one of several other things it likely could have been. How are you so sure? I will anxiously await the accident investigation results that says "carbon fiber" and nothing else contributed to this accident. Strictly the material, with no contributing factors and/or other points of failure.

trapper's link to the New Yorker article is a "must read"

Stockton Rush was a reckless fool

from the article:


“With titanium, there’s a purpose to a pressure test that goes beyond just seeing whether it will survive,” John Ramsay, the designer of the Limiting Factor, explained. The metal gradually strengthens under repeated exposure to incredible stresses. With carbon fibre, however, pressure testing slowly breaks the hull, fibre by tiny fibre. “If you’re repeatedly nearing the threshold of the material, then there’s just no way of knowing how many cycles it will survive,” he said.

Stockton strategically structured everything to be out of U.S. jurisdiction” for its Titanic pursuits, the former senior OceanGate employee told me. “It was deliberate.” In a legal filing, the company reported that the submersible was “being developed and assembled in Washington, but will be owned by a Bahamian entity, will be registered in the Bahamas and will operate exclusively outside the territorial waters of the United States.”

Although it is illegal to transport passengers in an unclassed, experimental submersible, “under U.S. regulations, you can kill crew,” McCallum told me. “You do get in a little bit of trouble, in the eyes of the law. But, if you kill a passenger, you’re in big trouble. And so everyone was classified as a ‘mission specialist.’ There were no passengers—the word ‘passenger’ was never used.” No one bought tickets; they contributed an amount of money set by Rush to one of OceanGate’s entities, to fund their own missions.

Nargeolet served as a guide to the wreck, Rush as the pilot


“I had a conversation with P. H. just as recently as a few months ago,” Lahey told me. “I kept giving him shit for going out there. I said, ‘P. H., by you being out there, you legitimize what this guy’s doing. It’s a tacit endorsement. And, worse than that, I think he’s using your involvement with the project, and your presence on the site, as a way to fucking lure people into it.’ ”

Nargeolet replied that he was getting old. He was a grieving widower, and, as he told people several times in recent years, “if you have to go, that would be a good way. Instant.”

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Really interesting article in The New Yorker here: The Titan Submersible Was “an Accident Waiting to Happen.

Thank you for turning us on to this article. Sobering, insane, baffling, infuriating to read.
A must read for any one in this thread with even the slightest interest. Puts a microscope on my suspicions early in this thread about carbon fiber, lack of classing and certification, and the sheer stupidity and arrogance of Rush.
Again, detailed and revealing, an outstanding article.

I do not have much sympathy for him and any of the folks that went down with him for a 1/4 million bucks each. It is on all of them.
It was a foolish decision to spend that kind of $ to do something that dangerous. You shouldn't have to sign a paper to know that. Any reasonable person would know that endeavor was fraught with disaster.

As far as he is concerned. He may have been very smart or very dumb. But he made costly mistakes and his risk taking caught up to him.

This implosion was not the result of an error chain. It was the result of a flawed design.

This could not be any more clear.

a1bcdj I guess you forgot how you quoted CET of that very thing. Page 32 if you forgot. You conveniently left the CET quote though that said they weren’t ready to put humans inside.

So yes, the material matters. 787’s aren’t made of paper mache and deep sea manned submersibles aren’t made of CF.

I think you are literally being obtuse to the point of silliness on this issue. Read anything, the linked New Yorker article is a pretty good synopsis, on this subject. Basically every actual person involved in manned deep sea diving has stated the opposite of what you still think you are right about. CF is not suitable for this use. According to reports, 36 signatories were on that letter to Rush telling him he was going to kill someone going down this road. The entire “innovation” that Rush coveted was CF. Not acrylic, acrylic, acrylic or titanium. It was CF. The other stuff was just stupidity. No redundancy no backups no use of hard learned ideas. It was the CF that killed them. All the experts agree it is a bad choice in this environment. Except your precious CET which doesn’t use it in a manner that is relevant which in itself is relevant.

Basic error in your logic is that you think systems designed for robotic use and manned use are synonymous. They aren’t. The stakes are different. We have sent multiple probes to nearby planets. Not a one of them would be considered safe for human travel. It’s an entirely different standard. Which I think you know but you’ve made the “unbreakable vow” and can’t seem to modify your position.

Either way I personally think this thread has been very interesting but it has ran its course unless new intel comes to light. I’m sure you will disagree but it won’t be anything different from your points over the last couple dozen pages. You don’t believe the actual experts so I won’t change your mind. I am bowing out. Nobody here agrees with you but you like to respond to me directly so I will do everybody a favor and quit waving the red cape. You will have to quote everybody else who thinks you are being ridiculous from now on. lol

quote:

I guess you forgot how you quoted CET of that very thing. Page 32 if you forgot. You conveniently left the CET quote though that said they weren’t ready to put humans inside.

No, I didn't forget at all. CET doesn't make manned deep sea submersibles. They do however make deep sea remote operated vehicles using carbon fiber pressure hulls. They've had 100% success rate, zero failures, with hundreds of dives and thousands of hours.

But you think slapping a human in one would cause a failure?

By the way, I've pointed out several times that I don't understand why a human would want to be inside of one these things anyway, and would imagine that companies like CET will see an increase in business as a result. If I were them I'd say the same thing... It's good for business.

quote:

I think you are literally being obtuse to the point of silliness on this issue. Read anything

That's the problem. I have done a lot of reading. I'm not being obtuse, I'm simply always pointing out that claims, such as those that you've made, are not true. I haven't taken any side other than that of reality.

quote:

it has ran its course unless new intel comes to light. I’m sure you will disagree but it won’t be anything different from your points over the last couple dozen pages.

Weird, because I've been saying this from the very beginning. That we will determine what went wrong here, lessons will be learned, and progress will be made. That's "my point", and "my only point" that I've made.

One of the problems is that there seem to be a few people who "know" what I'm saying despite the actual words that I type.

quote:

you don’t believe the actual experts so I won’t change your mind.

Actual experts have yet to release the results of their investigation.

Actual experts have pointed out an entire list of things that could have caused the failure aside from the carbon fiber imploding.

Actual experts successfully use the material you say can't be used successfully.

Actual experts have successfully used other materials that many said couldn't be used successfully.

Actual experts have contradicted one another.

Some of these actual experts have a profit motive.

All I have done is shared what has been previously reported (prior to the accident for accuracy) while pointing out the amount of blatantly false information, some of which you posted yourself.

You're not going to change my mind because my mind hasn't been made up like yours has. I'm still 100% open to the actual cause of this incident, and not stuck on one specific factor. But when those of you who are say things that are 100% provably false, I'll point it out.

quote:

Yes, if only one thing was different the whole thing could have been avoided.

Yes! That's entirely possible! Take using a properly rated viewport as an example. If that is determined to be the cause, that one thing could have avoided this whole incident.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
^^^ How can the pressure inside exceed the pressure outside as it's the outside pressure creating what happened inside?

ETA: I understand what you're saying about the additional compression of air via the boat movement against water coming in, but it seems like an equalization would happen too quickly.

Momentum. Here are some approximations.

The internal dimensions of the sub were 56 inch diameter, 95 inches long. The end cap area was 2463 square inches, and the outside water presure was about 5000 psi.

If the end cap failed, a column of water 56 inches in diameter filled the diameter of the cylinder and proceeded down the length of the tube. The pressure difference between outside and inside means the air would be compressed down to about 1/4 inch!

So we can say the entire cabin was filled with water during the inrush. That's about 135 cubic feet of water, which weighs about 8428 pounds.

That water was moving at very high speed. Someone posted it was supersonic. In any case it was moving fast, which means it had tremendous momentum which takes tremendous force to stop. It would compress the air to a higher pressure than the static water pressure of 5000 psi. Think of that high speed column of water as a piston slamming into the air at the far end of the tube.

It would be very different if a slow leak allowed water in. The air would slowly compress until pressures equalized, with no spike.

Have heard people mention that the occupants were probable required to sign some sort of liability waiver which will be proved totaly worthless if and when some good legal lawyers start tearing the waiver apart.... Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.. ............. drill sgt.

Lawsuit don't really matter much because I don't think OceanGate has any money.

There was a grey area being taken advantage of as far as the passengers were concerned. They weren't "paying passengers", they were people who paid for some sort of "research project", and as "mission specialists" were working on that project. Employees vs. customers if you will. That's what allowed Rush to use an experimental craft with people on board.

The waivers were on top of that.

This is an example of why you can't be taken seriously on this subject. You're not being honest. Anyone who read the New Yorker article knows that this "mission specialist" stuff was merely a liability loophole for Rush.

You're actually trying this stuff when you know many here have read that article, and that includes me. I want you to cease with this game-playing and I am not interested in an argument from you on this.

quote:

This is an example of why you can't be taken seriously on this subject. You're not being honest. Anyone who read the New Yorker article knows that this "mission specialist" stuff was merely a liability loophole for Rush.

You're actually trying this stuff when you know many here have read that article, and that includes me.

WTF are you talking about? Seriously. I was aware of this shortly after the incident when it was being discussed. I have intentionally researched article prior to the accident to eliminate as much of the reporting bias as possible. I don't need to have a reporter tell me. I didn't need to read that article, although that article repeats what those who had said it said going back to the beginning. I mean here's a podcast where Rush himself was more or less admitting it from January:

https://unsungscience.com/news...k-to-titanic-part-1/

It was indeed a grey area that he was exploiting.

That's not honest? That's me "trying this stuff"? I have no idea where you're coming from on this other than you have another one of your "gut feelings" that involves "reading between the lines" to "know" what I really mean instead of what I'm actually saying.

If you're not interested in an argument, why do you insist on starting arguments? Honest question.