You're talking about the difference between carbon fiber in compression on the sub, where it's rather weak, to carbon fiber in tension on the SRB, where it's strong.
An implosion is measured in single digit milliseconds.
The SRBs are not in compression during their flight: the pressure inside is much higher than outside. They would face a compression load hitting the water, then a few hours of sitting in sea water (with the pressure inside equal to outside) before being recovered.
Nobody died who didn't willingly put their lives at risk. One might argue that Titanic should be off limits to tourism because it's a fragile historic site, or it's a tomb that shouldn't be poked at, things like that... but "because people might die" is a bad precedent.
Other 'tourist' submarine operations have shown it's possible to build and operate these things safely. Triton built the DSV Limiting Factor, which is designed for the Challenger Deep and is certified by DNV for those depths.
Titanic was dissolving away when first discovered; it's time as a recognizable "wreck" is limited no matter what anyone does. And if the wreckage of the sub is 1600 feet away, it seems like it wasn't that close when it imploded.
It's funny to read that the existence of SOSUS was classified until 1991 when I distinctly remember reading of it long before then, in analysis of the loss of the USS Scorpion. Obviously, details of its capabilities was classified (and likely still is; what sounds it can detect are less important than its analysis capabilities).
Ummm...Boeing, UW and NASA deny design partnerships with OceanGate | HeraldNet.com
WSU Everett and Everett Community College severed ties with company.www.heraldnet.com
Interesting to see that there seems to be a lot of claims made by Oceangate over the years that are now being shown as potentially deceptive?
That changes the legal side of things dramatically.
Regards,
It *should* be, but with this CF of a sub, I guess it probably shouldn't be. Getting to where I won't be surprised if there were plans to drill holes in the bottom of it to let water drain out.
Looks like the start of the implosion...
I don't believe that there is any submersible with a docking collar on the upper hull for rescue.
I would really hope so.
nypost.com
nypost.com
redstate.com
Pretty sure the thrusters were mounted on the outer casing. And yes, probably screwed to the fiberglass.
This looks damning.Boeing, UW and NASA deny design partnerships with OceanGate | HeraldNet.com
WSU Everett and Everett Community College severed ties with company.
Interesting to see that there seems to be a lot of claims made by Oceangate over the years that are now being shown as potentially deceptive?
That changes the legal side of things dramatically.
Regards,
Since I'm not a lawyer, and don't know which country's laws will apply, the only sure thing is that there will be quite a few lawyers being able to finance their new yachts. And, yes, there are many instances in case law where waivers are waved aside.I‘m not a lawyer, but I gotta imagine that the liability waiver wouldn’t stand up. Like, it’s one thing to have a waiver that says, “I know that what I’m doing is extremely dangerous, if not probably fatal, even under the most advantageous circumstances, and I won’t sue if things go wrong on the ‘things will probably go wrong’ mission.” It’s quite another to say the piece of paper you yourself drafted indemnifies you from the consequences of what looks like obvious neglect on your part. Especially in light of the fact that they fired the engineer who raised red flags about the design.I do hope they savagely savage the company and the co-founder. Waivers my sorry a$$, if that submarine was a coffin, they have to pay. So far we know they cut corners on things like
- composites instead of steel or titanium
- the window not build to the correct depth pressure
- the hatch that couldn't be opened from the inside
Titanic sub: victims' families could still sue despite liability waivers
Liability waivers signed by passengers on a submersible lost at sea during a dive to the Titanic wreck may not shield the vessel's owner from potential lawsuits by the victims' families, legal experts said.www.reuters.com
There will be blood.
But then I wonder if any legal action would be dependent on an analysis of the wreckage, which would require a difficult salvage, to say the least.
Hard lesson's learnt. Ignore them at your peril.
The sub imploded an hour and 45 minutes into a two and a half hour descent, so it was still far from the Titanic. If it descended at a constant speed, it should have been about 8750 feet down... 3750 feet above the Titanic.
www.facebook.com
That actually sounds about right. Cured resin is very slick, paint doesn't like to stick to it. You need to rough up the surface to have paint stick.It never ends...........
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
They sandblasted the carbon tube before slapped on a later of polyurethane. That is a bit scary?
Yeah, they seem to have taken every possible shortcut.
Quellish, thank you for posting that, very interesting. Listening to Mr. Hawkes, the selection of CF for DeepFlight Challenger's hull material sounds like a tradeoff - new, unproven technology, but will do the job for that particular mission within a given budget. CompositesWorld has an article providing a bit more detail on Cyclops 2 / Titan hull construction. According to the article, it's hull was manufactured by the same company (Spencer Composites) as DeepFlight Challenger's hull.
It's either that or sand it, which has an ever greater chance of damaging the fibers.
Perhaps there should be on 'experimental' types? At least a regular entry/exit which could have a docking collar built in.
If we get down to it, basically all those deep diving submersibles are experimental, in the sense that they are only made in 1s and 2s.
Not to mention that they're using carbon fiber in a reverse pressure vessel. One where the pressure is outside and the inside is at 1atm.
