Sub lost contact over Titanic

Kind of hard to put a nail in this. The media is all over the "tourist" aspect but it was sort of billed as privately funded scientific research and the exorbitant, as it was, ticket price really just basically funded the adventure. It's not like it was a scam or a viable business model that was ever going to make money. But then, they have already sent unmanned drone submersibles down there so how can you justify that they needed five live essential crewmembers to pull it off? Nope, it's obviously all about adrenaline and adventure, another quarter million dollar feather in the cap. The public uproar is that it should have never have been allowed to happen but they haven't made wingsuits illegal yet so where's the line. The biggest problem I guess is that the public is out a bunch of it's own money and people are putting themselves at risk trying to find them and there's a real good chance they are going to come up empty handed and never know what happened. Sigh...
 
The concerns about spending public funds to find adventurers are valid, but I have no idea where you draw the line on that. Sailboat people who get lost at sea? Aviators who try to cross the pole in Bonanzas? Hikers who get caught out by storms? I have no idea where our obligation to our fellow man ends.

My sense is there's better than a 50/50 chance that something catastrophic happened and the submersible collapsed and sank to the bottom near the Titanic. If that's the case, we'll find it and the pictures will tell the tale.
 
kyleb said:
The concerns about spending public funds to find adventurers are valid, but I have no idea where you draw the line on that. Sailboat people who get lost at sea? Aviators who try to cross the pole in Bonanzas? Hikers who get caught out by storms? I have no idea where our obligation to our fellow man ends.
Click to expand...
We could start with at least requiring commercial operators to bear the full cost of their operations.
 
kyleb said:
My sense is there's better than a 50/50 chance that something catastrophic happened and the submersible collapsed and sank to the bottom near the Titanic.
Click to expand...


That's a possibility, and one of the more happy ones. At least an implosion would be a quick death.

Another less happy possibility, and one I consider more probable due to the number of failure points, is that the hull remained intact but some onboard system (propulsion, controls, bouyancy,...) failed and the people are now stuck under 12,000' of water waiting for the air to run out. A terrifying way to go.
 
Half Fast said:
Another less happy possibility, and one I consider more probable due to the number of failure points, is that the hull remained intact but some onboard system (propulsion, controls, bouyancy,...) failed and the people are now stuck under 12,000' of water waiting for the air to run out. A terrifying way to go.
Click to expand...

Propulsion, controls, bouyancy would still <probably> leave the comm gear working. I suspect whatever happened was more sudden and immediately catastrophic.

With prior submersibles (or at least the ones I have read about), they had an emergency ballast jettison system which would release ballast (lead ingots?) and let the submersible bob to the surface quickly. Is there an indication this submersible had such a system? If it did, and the system wasn't activated, that (again) points to something fast and catastrophic, IMO.
 
kyleb said:
I have no idea where our obligation to our fellow man ends.
Click to expand...

I suppose it ends where the willingness of a rescuer to risk his own life ends.

We can talk about society's obligation, but in the end it comes down to some poor slob(s) risking his or her own life to effect a rescue. When no one is willing to take the risk, whether or not society has an obligation becomes moot. The end is therefore a personal, individual decision made from one's own moral/religious/ethical standards, and will also weigh that individual's other obligations (such as family).
 
Half Fast said:
We can talk about society's obligation, but in the end it comes down to some poor slob(s) risking his or her own life to effect a rescue. When no one is willing to take the risk, whether or not society has an obligation becomes moot. The end is therefore a personal, individual decision made from one's own moral/religious/ethical standards, and will also weigh that individual's other obligations (such as family).
Click to expand...

The other component is money. Sometimes (maybe not this time), all the king's horses and all the king's men might make the difference in saving a soul. But where do you draw the line? Should we re-route a carrier task force and carry out a grid search every time a trans-pacific sailor goes missing?

Tough decisions.
 
Wasn't the original expedition to find the Titanic really a cover story to gather information on the Thresher? I bring that up because the Thresher is a good example of just how complicated, and dangerous, submarines are. I agree that I'd rather risk space flight.

From an online calculator, 12000' down is over 5000 psi.
 
there is some maritime law that requires you to assist to the best of your ability without putting yourself at risk. there is also the human factor of simply wanting to help people in distress. of course on top of that there is the bloodthirsty media looking for the most dramatic story that will keep people tuned in as long as possible.
 
It's become trendy to tourist-ize activities that are traditionally very dangerous...climbing Mount Everest, going into space, or diving down to the Titanic. The vast majority of the participants are doing it just to one-up each other. My "Give-a-S***" meter barely stirs off the peg when these sorts of activities go bad. It's not like they're expanding man's knowledge; most of them just want to brag about it afterwards. Witness the hullabaloo about the FAA discontinuing to issue astronaut wings to passengers on the Blue Origin vehicle or Virgin Galactic vehicle. They can still fly into space...but they don't get the pretty gold official wings.

If those on the sub are on the bottom, they're dead. No capability to rescue them at that depth, at least before their air runs out. Vehicles that CAN go so deep aren't equipped to bring up a vessel of similar weight, and you won't get them on station in 48 hours. Best hope is that they'd lost all power, triggered an emergency ascent system, and are bobbing around on the surface somewhere.

It's like the occupants of the Space Station. They've got a rescue capsule ready for them, but if an anomaly affects it, there's no way to get a rescue mission to them quickly. If there's a resupply mission scheduled, they might be able to move the launch up to some extent. As far as I know, neither we nor the Russians maintain a launch vehicle on pad alert.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Doc Holliday said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)

"This was after the Navy had released sound tapes from its underwater SOSUS listening system, which contained the sounds of the destruction of Scorpion"
Click to expand...

After reading about this if the titanic sub imploded sounds like the navy would already know that.
Also ever really thought about military being shy about rushing in to show off all their new technology but makes a lot of sense as well.
 
kyleb said:
Propulsion, controls, bouyancy would still <probably> leave the comm gear working. I suspect whatever happened was more sudden and immediately catastrophic.

With prior submersibles (or at least the ones I have read about), they had an emergency ballast jettison system which would release ballast (lead ingots?) and let the submersible bob to the surface quickly. Is there an indication this submersible had such a system? If it did, and the system wasn't activated, that (again) points to something fast and catastrophic, IMO.
Click to expand...

From looking at the pictures and reading everything I could find about it's technical specifications, I suspect that almost every system was connected through it's electrical system. It had two screens, an old game controller, and a singular button (which I couldn't find any information about it's purpose) inside. It appears the one and only system for dumping ballast without electrical power was some sort of water-soluble hooks that were supposed to dissolve in 24 hours and dump enough ballast in the form of sandbags that the submersible would bob to the surface.

Considering that both the texts and the automatic ping system they had set up stopped at (supposedly) the exact same time, I am going to guess that their electrical system developed issues. Whether that was all that failed, who knows.
 
It wouldn't have to implode for them to be in a lot of trouble. NOAA page with a description of an unmanned bathysphere test that had trouble:

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/eoi/nemo1998/education/pressure.html

Even a little leak is a big deal at that depth.

I hope they make it out OK. Everyone seemed pretty capable of making a risk calculation on this, except the 19 year old who's father took him along.
 
Albany Tom said:
It wouldn't have to implode for them to be in a lot of trouble.

Even a little leak is a big deal at that depth.
Click to expand...

A little leak is (or would be) a big deal. But I'd think there would be time to signal a problem, assuming they had that capability.
 
Given the designed test depth, it’s unlikely the submersible imploded. They lost comms on the previous dive. My take is a loss of electrical power and since everything was run off electrics, they were crippled, cold, and in the dark. Odds are we will never find it, but if we do it will be intact and possibly flooded.

the more I’ve read about the submersible, the more I’m astonished anyone knowledgeable of undersea operations would crew it. No backups, in one of the most hostile places on earth? Nope. You have backups for backups of critical systems, including fully manual control.

One of the fun drills we ran was simulating loss of hydraulics, then use the hand pump to fill the hydraulic accumulator and load weapon to the torpedo tubes. Break out the block and tackle and don’t be on chief’s bad side that day.
 
Last edited:
kyleb said:
A little leak is (or would be) a big deal. But I'd think there would be time to signal a problem, assuming they had that capability.
Click to expand...

At 12,500 ft and something in the neighborhood of 5000 psi outside, there are no little leaks. A mere 1” hole would fill the people tank in under a minute. It would take less than 10 seconds to short out the electronics.

the unknown in the implosion theory is the hull construction. Carbon fiber and titanium? Does anyone know the metallurgy going on with extreme pressure?
 
Dana said:
I got the impression that the US Navy was reluctant to get involved as it could reveal the extent of its deep water capabilities.

But what I've seen of the sub's design doesn't inspire confidence. Controlled with a video game controller... really? No thanks, I'll stick to safe things like experimental aircraft.

Oh, well, think of it as evolution in action.
Click to expand...

You make a valid point with "safe things like experimental aircraft" (or any aircraft, for that matter); they all come back to the ground in some way or another. But with this design/configuration, there is no guarantee this thing will come back to the surface. And if one espoused theory holds, it could be caught in the gulfstream current that would carry it deeper...
 
I've been reading this thread with my heart in my throat. Hope here?

"Sonar has picked up banging sounds on Tuesday from underneath the water while searching for a submersible with five people onboard that went missing two days earlier on a dive to the Titanic wreckage, according to an internal US government memo on the search."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/b...w?cvid=86fc525e8852460f82c1f30bcf7bb100&ei=92

PS: Because the story is being updated the link appears to not work. Copy/paste the above quote as a search and the link will come up.

Try this one: https://www.channel3000.com/news/na...cle_f4d4c408-7556-5fc2-8f2d-c5f27df76f8c.html
 
Last edited:
They might have oxygen to make it a little longer But they haven't mentioned how long the carbon scrubbers can last.

I am not optimistic even if it's found in time with the hull intact.

This was a hastily put together dumb idea from the outset. Untethered and If they resurface it is bolted shut from the outside.
 
Racerx said:
They might have oxygen to make it a little longer But they haven't mentioned how long the carbon scrubbers can last.

I am not optimistic even if it's found in time with the hull intact.

This was a hastily put together dumb idea from the outset. Untethered and If they resurface it is bolted shut from the outside.
Click to expand...
I’ve also read that it can’t be opened from the inside. incredibly stupid. They could be on the surface 100 miles away and still suffocating for all we know.
 
I can't find a word to describe how the design, as described, feels to me. It reminds me of the Apollo 1 capsule, and that should never have happened, either.

Is the sub designed so that if it surfaces alone, even if they could open the doors, it would then likely take on water and sink again? Only asking because that seems like the only reason to not have a way to open it from the inside...except for cost savings.
 
More from the above article:

“Given the prevalent flaws in the previously tested 1/3 scale model, and the visible flaws in the carbon end samples for the Titan, Lochridge again stressed the potential danger to passengers of the Titan as the submersible reached extreme depths. The constant pressure cycling weakens existing flaws resulting in large tears of the carbon. Non-destructive testing was critical to detect such potentially existing flaws in order to ensure a solid and safe product for the safety of the passengers and crew … he was “repeatedly told that no scan of the hull or Bond Line could be done to check for delaminations, porosity and voids of sufficient adhesion of the glue being used due to the thickness of the hull.” He was also told there was no such equipment that could conduct a test like that.”
 
Reports on media sites say


Rescuers Detect ‘Underwater Noise’ in Search Area and Redirect Efforts
The Coast Guard said in a brief statement on Twitter that some of the remote-operated vehicles involved in the search had been relocated in an attempt to determine the origin of the sounds
 
Here's a video from a former US Submariner talking about the Titan and certain concerns he has about the project.


I'm really worried about the lack of direct, mechanical controls. It looks like everything was done through wireless technology with no real backup in the case of wireless failure. That, to my mind, introduces so many potential failure points that I can't believer there were no separate, independent controls.
 
A whistleblower raised safety concerns about OceanGate’s submersible in 2018. Then he was fired. (yahoo.com)

"There, the filing states, he was also informed that the manufacturer of the Titan’s forward viewport would only certify it to a depth of 1,300 meters due to OceanGate’s experimental design. The filing states that OceanGate refused to pay for the manufacturer to build a viewport that would meet the Titan’s intended depth of 4,000 meters. The Titanic lies about 3,800 meters below the surface.

The filing also claims that hazardous flammable materials were being used within the submersible.

At the end of the meeting, after saying that he would not authorize any manned tests of Titan without a scan of the hull, Lochridge was fired and escorted from the building."

I think an implosion is pretty likely.
 
Last edited:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Roger_Mallinson_and_Roger_Chapman

 Here is a link to the deepest, successful sub rescue, 1575 feet deep, 1973. We may be better than 1973, but 11,000 feet worth?? I hope the best for them, odds are very low.

FWIW, I have a close relative on site, I’m not saying he’s going to don a suit & dive down, but interesting & involved nevertheless.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
A whistleblower raised safety concerns about OceanGate’s submersible in 2018. Then he was fired. (yahoo.com)

"There, the filing states, he was also informed that the manufacturer of the Titan’s forward viewport would only certify it to a depth of 1,300 meters due to OceanGate’s experimental design. The filing states that OceanGate refused to pay for the manufacturer to build a viewport that would meet the Titan’s intended depth of 4,000 meters. The Titanic lies about 3,800 meters below the surface.

The filing also claims that hazardous flammable materials were being used within the submersible.

At the end of the meeting, after saying that he would not authorize any manned tests of Titan without a scan of the hull, Lochridge was fired and escorted from the building."

I think an implosion is pretty likely.
Click to expand...
I read that too. Reinforces my previous statement
 
kyleb said:
The concerns about spending public funds to find adventurers are valid, but I have no idea where you draw the line on that. Sailboat people who get lost at sea? Aviators who try to cross the pole in Bonanzas? Hikers who get caught out by storms? I have no idea where our obligation to our fellow man ends.

My sense is there's better than a 50/50 chance that something catastrophic happened and the submersible collapsed and sank to the bottom near the Titanic. If that's the case, we'll find it and the pictures will tell the tale.
Click to expand...

MH 370 was a commercial airliner that carried 239 people, all lost without a trace. Several governments have expended enormous budgets in an attempt to locate the plane, and likely would have expended much more on its recovery if found. But what if it had been a no-name freighter carrying a low value cargo? It may not have even made the news. There certainly wouldn't have been much more than a cursory effort to locate it.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
I think an implosion is pretty likely.
Click to expand...

I believe implosion is the wrong word, it implies something like a crumpled beer can. If the view port ruptured, flooding would be nearly instantaneous, but the submarine would not implode because the pressure would be the same inside and out.

the chance of an implosion would come from the pressure cycles on the titanium and carbon fiber hull. It’s an unknown for me as i have no way to tell how custom made carbon fiber holds up to the cold / pressure / nautical environment, not what alloy they used.
 
bflynn said:
I believe implosion is the wrong word, it implies something like a crumpled beer can. If the view port ruptured, flooding would be nearly instantaneous, but the submarine would not implode because the pressure would be the same inside and out.

the chance of an implosion would come from the pressure cycles on the titanium and carbon fiber hull. It’s an unknown for me as i have no way to tell how custom made carbon fiber holds up to the cold / pressure / nautical environment, not what alloy they used.
Click to expand...
I’m no expert, but I’d think that the sudden movement of water from outside the craft to inside the craft would be likely to do massive deformation of the hull that would collapse in a way that would be described as implosion. Much like the opposite when a container holding in pressure fails, it doesn’t simply allow the pressure to equalize, it typically destroys the container in a way we would describe as an explosion.

But you are probably technically correct.
 
Last edited:
bflynn said:
I believe implosion is the wrong word, it implies something like a crumpled beer can. If the view port ruptured, flooding would be nearly instantaneous, but the submarine would not implode because the pressure would be the same inside and out.

the chance of an implosion would come from the pressure cycles on the titanium and carbon fiber hull. It’s an unknown for me as i have no way to tell how custom made carbon fiber holds up to the cold / pressure / nautical environment, not what alloy they used.
Click to expand...
I tend to think @Mtns2Skies is right. I’m not well versed in physics, but I believe implosion is also likely. I get what you’re saying about pressure being the same, but I don’t think that’s completely accurate, at least at the moment the view port fails. The pressure differentials are completely different for that momentary change. An abrupt shift in atmospheric pressure would be all that’s needed to implode the submersible.
 
PaulS said:
Ah, that thing is a big nope for me, even if it was a free ride.
Click to expand...

I think everyone realized by Monday that OceanGate is done. Whatever the ultimate outcome, they'll never put another manned submersible in the water.

I suspect it will be a long time before anyone runs another tourist dive to the Titanic.
 
I was listening to NPR yesterday and they said there were seven different systems that could be used to cause the submersible to ascend. One known as the dead man switch in which (someone mentioned here) hooks would dissolve and cause ballast to drop causing an ascent of the craft.
Just wondering if there would be depressurizing problems which such a fast ascent and no one has yet to mention but if this thing did make it to the surface, would the interior get hot due to the sun? I could see them cooking in the sun without some type of ac system.
 
Interesting ballast release mechanism for the repurposed old pipes, if true:

pipes.png


"So here's the ballast. The journalist who went in it says you release it by getting everyone to sit on one side of the sub so it rolls enough for the pipes to fall off the shelf"

https://twitter.com/BirdTickler/status/1671002901064425472
 
francisco collazos said:
I was listening to NPR yesterday and they said there were seven different systems that could be used to cause the submersible to ascend. One known as the dead man switch in which (someone mentioned here) hooks would dissolve and cause ballast to drop causing an ascent of the craft.
Just wondering if there would be depressurizing problems which such a fast ascent and no one has yet to mention but if this thing did make it to the surface, would the interior get hot due to the sun? I could see them cooking in the sun without some type of ac system.
Click to expand...

1)Since the interior maintains surface pressure, there should be no issues with a fast ascent.

2) Another comment I saw was that there is not enough buoyancy for the sub to rise above the surface (and be in the sunshine). Sounds like that compounds the search and rescue issue, as a submerged craft painted white and blue (!?!) without a hatch that opens from the inside may be a bit tough for the search and rescue teams to find -- with onboard oxygen being a limiting factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top