• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Titanic tourist submersible: Search for missing vessel has covered over 10,000 square miles

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
No idea. I suspect attention will be given to the carbon-fibre hull and the connections to the titanium ends, given that carbon-fibre hasn't been used in such vessels before apparently and the testing of the carbon-fibre to ensure it was safe before and after every use might raise worries. Given that listening for the sounds of separation in the carbon-fibre would be rather late.
My wife just yelled down that they picked up an explosion, but I don't know any of the details for now.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Sorry, not an explosion but an implosion that seemingly happened early on after descending for a couple of hours. They say death would basically have been instantaneous.

May they R.I.P.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Very sad. I hope any future expeditions include necessary precautions to avoid reoccurrence of such a disaster.
One tests pressure (internal) vessels hydrostatically.
Using water means low potential energy if it fails,
ie, no explosion. It's tested to well above rated
operating pressure.
The same approach can be applied to submersibles.
Fill it 99.9+% with water so there's very little air volume,
but there's room for hull compression without affecting
interior pressure. Use pressure transducers to monitor
it during descent (unoccupied) to well below rated
operating depth. Then inspect it using non-destructive
methods to verify condition.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
One tests pressure (internal) vessels hydrostatically.
Using water means low potential energy if it fails,
ie, no explosion. It's tested to well above rated
operating pressure.
The same approach can be applied to submersibles.
Fill it 99.9+% with water so there's very little air volume,
but there's room for hull compression without affecting
interior pressure. Use pressure transducers to monitor
it during descent (unoccupied) to well below rated
operating depth. Then inspect it using non-destructive
methods to verify condition.
I don't know if this has been posted or not. Count me out.

"In November, CBS News aired a report from a journalist who read the waiver he had to sign before going on Titan that identified it as "an experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body which could result in physical injury, emotional trauma or death."

 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
One tests pressure (internal) vessels hydrostatically.
Using water means low potential energy if it fails,
ie, no explosion. It's tested to well above rated
operating pressure.
The same approach can be applied to submersibles.
Fill it 99.9+% with water so there's very little air volume,
but there's room for hull compression without affecting
interior pressure. Use pressure transducers to monitor
it during descent (unoccupied) to well below rated
operating depth. Then inspect it using non-destructive
methods to verify condition.

I don't know how the company tested it, but they were apparently warned about safety issues and fired an employee over the warning:

 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't know if this has been posted or not. Count me out.

"In November, CBS News aired a report from a journalist who read the waiver he had to sign before going on Titan that identified it as "an experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body which could result in physical injury, emotional trauma or death."


You beat me by a few minutes. :D
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't know if this has been posted or not. Count me out.

"In November, CBS News aired a report from a journalist who read the waiver he had to sign before going on Titan that identified it as "an experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body which could result in physical injury, emotional trauma or death."

I wouldn't need any disclosure to know to avoid
spending many hours in a crowded coffin down
at deadly pressures.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't know how the company tested it, but they were apparently warned about safety issues and fired an employee over the warning:
I know. I posted a link to the warnings by 2 former workers.
But we don't yet know if this was mere difference of opinion
about balancing cost vs time vs performance vs safety. Or
reckless. New technology with a very dangerous application
isn't something with perfectly knowable results.
Beware viewing past events with 20/20 hindsight.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
They were told in 2018 about severe safety issues with the Titan.
They fired the guy.
Two workers who criticized some safety aspects
is reason to investigate, but it's not significant
without thorough analysis of the specific criticisms.
Safety is always balanced with cost, schedule, &
performance. It's how astronauts travel into space
with few deaths....but there are still deaths.
I observed that safety was balanced against
schedule & performance. But to guarantee no
deaths, performance would have to be eliminated.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Too many thoughts on this....so pardon my muddle...

OceanGate was warned, and weren't careful enough -- others have gone 3 times as deep (Mariannas Trench). Let's learn to test better, take better care, rather than (as in this case) just make people sign waivers in case of horrible catastrophe.

I'm sorry these people died,d I really am. I feel for those who loved them. I hope their deaths don't discourage the human impulse to discover, even when there's risk.

It's fascinating that as of today, more people have been in space than have visited the Titanic wreck site. Our own planet can be more difficult to conquer than getting off it.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Two workers who criticized some safety aspects
is reason to investigate, but it's not significant
without thorough analysis of the specific criticisms.
Safety is always balanced with cost, schedule, &
performance. It's how astronauts travel into space
with few deaths....but there are still deaths.
I observed that safety was balanced against
schedule & performance. But to guarantee no
deaths, performance would have to be eliminated.
True but from what I'm gathering they didn't even design in accordance with designs that are intended to be that deep.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
Two workers who criticized some safety aspects
is reason to investigate, but it's not significant
without thorough analysis of the specific criticisms.
Safety is always balanced with cost, schedule, &
performance. It's how astronauts travel into space
with few deaths....but there are still deaths.
I observed that safety was balanced against
schedule & performance. But to guarantee no
deaths, performance would have to be eliminated.

I saw your other post.
This guy was hired to be responsible for the safety of the project.
He was simply asking for more testing.

Yes, I've ran into it before. People with experience pointing out safety concerns and management choosing to ignore it because of costs.
Usually doesn't turn out well. Fortunately no one killed but injuries have resulted.

Hopefully we can learn something from this, or for those that make these cut cutting decisions with regard to safety.
You think to save money but it ends up costing you more.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, I've ran into it before. People with experience pointing out safety concerns and management choosing to ignore it because of costs.
Usually doesn't turn out well. Fortunately no one killed but injuries have resulted.

I've heard of similar cases, such as the building collapse in Iowa recently, and another in Miami a couple of years ago. Or the executives at Firestone who knew of a defective tire but calculated that it would be cheaper to pay off lawsuits than it would to implement a recall.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I saw your other post.
This guy was hired to be responsible for the safety of the project.
He was simply asking for more testing.
To judge whether that was the best
course requires more info than I have.
Yes, I've ran into it before. People with experience pointing out safety concerns and management choosing to ignore it because of costs.
Usually doesn't turn out well. Fortunately no one killed but injuries have resulted.

Hopefully we can learn something from this, or for those that make these cut cutting decisions with regard to safety.
You think to save money but it ends up costing you more.
Since this was an effort by a small outfit doing something
radically different with great risks, it's hard to say where
the balance should be between safety, testing, cost,
scheduling, etc. It only became obvious that safety
was inadequate when it imploded.
What do you think of my testing proposal?
 
Top