Sub lost contact over Titanic

172andyou said:
There is a huge difference between an implosion and a flood. This sub imploded, so it's entirely possible that it wasn't taking on water until the structure catastrophically failed.
Click to expand...
That's still not certain.
 
Dana said:
That's still not certain.
Click to expand...

Not really. An underwater implosion has a very distinct acoustic signature. Flooding results in an equalized chamber w/o crushing. Remember the US Navy detected the acoustic signature in real time but had nothing to correlate it with until the submersible was reported missing.
 
eman1200 said:
The titanic flooded. This thing imploded. Is there a difference?
Click to expand...
Yes. Implosion is a very sudden collapse of the entire structure. The Titanic was ripped open by an iceberg and flooded slowly. The sub may have imploded, or may have flooded very rapidly (at 6000 psi, almost instantaneously) from a local beach, two different failure modes. Not that it would have made much difference to the victims.
 
Dana said:
Yes. Implosion is a very sudden collapse of the entire structure. The Titanic was ripped open by an iceberg and flooded slowly. The sub may have imploded, or may have flooded very rapidly (at 6000 psi, almost instantaneously) from a local beach, two different failure modes. Not that it would have made much difference to the victims.
Click to expand...

yes, I'm well aware of the differences. it was a rhetorical question.
 
It would have made a great deal of difference to the occupants, for a very brief period of time.
 
Either way it ended in an Implosion, so I see no difference.
 
Salty said:
Either way it ended in an Implosion, so I see no difference.
Click to expand...
So did it matter if the Challenger exploded or simply broke up in-flight? While the end result is the same, understanding the nature of the incident and potential/likely causes helps lay down some frameworks so that the same mistakes aren't repeated in future endeavors. I doubt OceanGate will be doing any future trips, but others may learn from their shortcomings from any information discovered about their mistakes. I understand that, to the deceased, it matters not whether they were drowned or crushed, but the details are relevant to the living.
 
SoonerAviator said:
So did it matter if the Challenger exploded or simply broke up in-flight? While the end result is the same, understanding the nature of the incident and potential/likely causes helps lay down some frameworks so that the same mistakes aren't repeated in future endeavors. I doubt OceanGate will be doing any future trips, but others may learn from their shortcomings from any information discovered about their mistakes. I understand that, to the deceased, it matters not whether they were drowned or crushed, but the details are relevant to the living.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, I believe the lessons to be learned here were already known. Had they been heeded, those people might still be alive.
 
Bad design. I’ve been reading as much as I can about this intriguing operation, and it seems to me to be a poorly designed hull and the guy wouldn’t listen to safety concerns. I hope some young engineers are inspired to learn from mistakes made here.
 
Half Fast said:
Unfortunately, I believe the lessons to be learned here were already known. Had they been heeded, those people might still be alive.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that most people in the "submersible design" field probably never would have considered carbon fiber as a viable material to use as the pressure vessel. However, it obviously didn't stop people with a ton of financial resources. I don't feel particularly bad for the passengers as they most certainly knew the risks involved in this activity, but if OceanGate managed to make a dozen dives down to or close to Titanic level depths with a carbon-fiber design, if they were successful for long enough others may have tried to copy. I'm just saying that the method/cause of the sub's failure isn't entirely inconsequential, even though the dead care not.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I don't doubt that most people in the "submersible design" field probably never would have considered carbon fiber as a viable material to use as the pressure vessel. However, it obviously didn't stop people with a ton of financial resources. I don't feel particularly bad for the passengers as they most certainly knew the risks involved in this activity, but if OceanGate managed to make a dozen dives down to or close to Titanic level depths with a carbon-fiber design, if they were successful for long enough others may have tried to copy. I'm just saying that the method/cause of the sub's failure isn't entirely inconsequential, even though the dead care not.
Click to expand...
I agree. And we already knew it imploded, so I'm not seeing how this information changes anything.
 
Matthew said:
View attachment 118901

It appears that the “glass” is missing. Could be what that article was using as a theory in what failed first. Could be it was blown out, or in, during the implosion.
Click to expand...

Would have been the weakest link in the chain, at least according to some things I've read. So maybe the implosion sequence was glass first, then the hull.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I don't feel particularly bad for the passengers as they most certainly knew the risks involved in this activity,
Click to expand...

CEO appears to have been a huckster.

While he may have had his pax sign the form for “legal reasons”, he was telling them otherwise.

A business tycoon revealed he gave up his spots on the doomed Titan sub at the last minute despite reassurances from the late OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush that it was “safer than crossing the street”.


www.standard.co.uk

Titanic sub ‘safer than crossing street’ tycoon was told by CEO

Stockton Rush was offering last-minute places on board Titan for $150,000, businessman says
www.standard.co.uk www.standard.co.uk
 
If I say "Possibly safer than crossing the street during the battle of Stalingrad", would it end the thread?
 
Unconfirmed Titan text communication transcript.

Might be BS.

 
Last edited:
ElPaso Pilot said:
Unconfirmed Titan text communication transcript.

Might be BS.

Click to expand...
Wonder what agency or govt can force oceangate to open the books so to speak and disclose. Operating in international waters not based out of US will like limit options of discovery right?
 
If this ends up moving precedent toward courts ignoring liability waivers of corporations with individuals, it'll be a good thing. Don't want to be sued? Don't f*(k up.
 
Albany Tom said:
If this ends up moving precedent toward courts ignoring liability waivers of corporations with individuals, it'll be a good thing. Don't want to be sued? Don't f*(k up.
Click to expand...

If an internet lawyer so thoroughly knows the laws of all jurisdictions involved and admiralty law, he’s probably making enough bank not to need a youtube channel for advertising purposes.
 
Last edited:
TCABM said:
If an internet lawyer so thoroughly knows the laws of all jurisdictions involved and admiralty law, he’s probably making enough bank to need a youtube channel for advertising purposes.
Click to expand...
Oh I didn't mean the Internet guy...didn't even look at the video. I meant whatever the outcome of the lawsuits over the carbon fiber tube of death.
 
Albany Tom said:
If this ends up moving precedent toward courts ignoring liability waivers of corporations with individuals, it'll be a good thing. Don't want to be sued? Don't f*(k up.
Click to expand...

Or don’t want to get sued, don’t do a business that has risk:
No sky diving, no bungee jumping, no space travel, no self driving cars, no boats, no gun ranges, no sports, no airplanes, etc.
At some point you have to take responsibility for your own decisions.
 
TCABM said:
If an internet lawyer so thoroughly knows the laws of all jurisdictions involved and admiralty law, he’s probably making enough bank to need a youtube channel for advertising purposes.
Click to expand...
I think you’re unfairly disparaging the Legal Eagle.

Being a good lawyer requires a specific skill set in a given specialty. Being a good communicator of broad legal principles is its own skill set, and I think Devin Stone does a good job in this regard. Ultimately it’s entertainment, and I for one am entertained while simultaneously learning stuff about the law.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Or don’t want to get sued, don’t do a business that has risk:
No sky diving, no bungee jumping, no space travel, no self driving cars, no boats, no gun ranges, no sports, no airplanes, etc.
At some point you have to take responsibility for your own decisions.
Click to expand...

And certainly don't manufacture anything that might carry people.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
Or don’t want to get sued, don’t do a business that has risk:
No sky diving, no bungee jumping, no space travel, no self driving cars, no boats, no gun ranges, no sports, no airplanes, etc.
At some point you have to take responsibility for your own decisions.
Click to expand...

Everyone should take responsibility for their own actions. No one need absolve liability of someone else for their mistakes or shortcuts.
Sky diving, bungee jumping, space travel, cars, boats, etc. - if the equipment fails from poor design or quality control, it's the manufacturer's fault. If a participant makes a mistake? Their fault. If someone chooses to use something that isn't rated for that activity? Their fault. If they hire a guide, and they use gear not rated for that sport and it fails? Guide's fault.

I was on the board of directors of a gun club for a while. Nobody signed any waivers. We carried liability insurance. We didn't get sued, because nobody screwed up.
 
Albany Tom said:
Everyone should take responsibility for their own actions. No one need absolve liability of someone else for their mistakes or shortcuts.
Sky diving, bungee jumping, space travel, cars, boats, etc. - if the equipment fails from poor design or quality control, it's the manufacturer's fault. If a participant makes a mistake? Their fault. If someone chooses to use something that isn't rated for that activity? Their fault. If they hire a guide, and they use gear not rated for that sport and it fails? Guide's fault.

I was on the board of directors of a gun club for a while. Nobody signed any waivers. We carried liability insurance. We didn't get sued, because nobody screwed up.
Click to expand...

And... what about people like the attorney that ran his plane out of fuel, then tried to sue the manufacturer for it because there was no placard in the plane saying to not take off below minimum fuel?

Sometimes, people sue for no good reason.
 
2-Bit Speed said:
And... what about people like the attorney that ran his plane out of fuel, then tried to sue the manufacturer for it because there was no placard in the plane saying to not take off below minimum fuel?

Sometimes, people sue for no good reason.
Click to expand...

They absolutely do, and that's a problem. But the problem of frivolous suits needs to be solved with a disincentive to file a frivolous suit, not a waiver.

I might be a bit sensitive to this because I work in field where our problems are generally created by an industry with lower quality control than the people making steam boilers before ASME standards were developed - the software industry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top