Submersible missing while visiting Titanic wreck

[hans]

I watched the video with the news reporter, and I'm quite shocked. The CEO says the vessel is the main thing that can't fail. So it's OK to use a Logitech gamecontroller from the 90s with some glued on extender levers on the sticks to highlight its unfit for purpose.

" Anything else can fail. "

So the lessons learnt from safety in aviation was all for nothing? Continuity is only a (nice) side effect of redundancy. That's not the purpose of redundancy. It's so you can live on borrowed time to sort shit out. Back in the day, only aircraft with 3+ engines were allowed to cross the big oceans. Today we have ETOPS ratings. In case one engine fails, the aircraft needs to continue or go back on its remaining engines. A 747 jet can go virtually anywhere on 3 out of 4 engines. It will stay safely airborne on 2. And on 1, well.. it's better than nothing. But I only know of 1 case where a 747 on a passenger flight had 1 engine fail, yet still continue its journey on 3 engines. They were called out on it by authorities, as it was argued the aircraft was not "airworthy". This level of scrutiny is what makes aviation so safe, even if technically its a "red tape" kind of scenario. I think the airliner won the argument as the 747 was certified to fly on 3 engines. It's probably also an economical decision by the airliner, as a 747 dumping half of its fuel to do an unplanned emergency landing + fixing the airplane out of base + arranging hotels/rebooking flights for 400+PAX is not cheap. But if the cause of failure is undertermined, IMO it's best to land and sort things out.

Saying that anything else can fail is like saying a modern jet is still a damn good glider when all of its engines fail. Sure modern jets have excellent glide ratios (IIRC most up to 15:1, so with a cruise altitude of 36kft, it still has a range of 100miles).  But really a glider is absolute worst case. A plane can glide down quite gently and find a place to ditch. But what's the point if you're flying over seas or around mountains? The only point is you'll not die by the crash, but by hunger at best.

A submarine is worse, as by design it doesn't have "the glider" luxury. If anything fails, it's lost. This submarine had no tether back to the mothership. If it has no sonar beacon, then I imagine the mothership also doesn't have a "radar"/sonar visual at all times, so they can also lose sight of it during an expedition. Seeing how the CEO approaches its things, I wonder if that 96hr O2 supply is also theoretical. Who guarantees its been filled up between trips before they left? Going by the camper lightning, I wouldn't be surprised.

It's quite painful, as I just read that a passenger and the CEO have a background in aviation. My post is mostly speculation on my part, and that's perhaps at an ill point and time as the tragedy is still unfolding. But I agree, I'd rather be abducted by aliens I think.

[ataradov]

I'm all for people going around the "red tape" as long as they are the only ones suffering as a result, I could not really care less. Same with people dying on Everest.

In the end anyone is free to do whatever they feel is safe. And if you trust your CEO buddy rather than scientists and engineers, well, it is up to you.

Thankfully, when it comes to things like aviation, there are still some authorities left. Even though effective managers at  Boeing managed to workaround the "red tape" and two planes crashed.

[MadTux]

The Titanium end rings are just glued to the ends of the carbon fibre tube - effectively just to the outer layer. I wonder what the differential of expansion (or rather contraction) is under extreme pressure. What are the chances of that causing delamination of the ends of the tube over several cycles?

Titanium/carbon interface @ 90deg to fiber direction creates shitloads of strains, simply by the difference in Young’s Modulus.
http://www.performance-composites.com/carbonfibre/mechanicalproperties_2.asp
https://amesweb.info/Materials/Youngs-Modulus-of-Titanium.aspx

Carbon Young’s Modulus 90° fibers: 10GPa
Titanium: something around 120GPa

So carbon with 90° fiber orientation contracts like 12x the amount of titanium ;-/

Next trouble, stress risers and delamination, because unidirectional carbon is like a piece of wood, you can split/delaminate it quite easily (i.e with a knife)
And there are no fibers to stop any potential crack.

[pickle9000]

I want to see the power distribution system.

[AlbertL]

The Titanium end rings are just glued to the ends of the carbon fibre tube - effectively just to the outer layer. I wonder what the differential of expansion (or rather contraction) is under extreme pressure. What are the chances of that causing delamination of the ends of the tube over several cycles?

See this: https://newrepublic.com/post/173802/missing-titanic-sub-faced-lawsuit-depths-safely-travel-oceangate

[NiHaoMike]

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/marine-technology-society-committee-2018-letter-to-ocean-gate/eddb63615a7b3764/full.pdf
Oceangate is the new Watergate?

[Sal Ammoniac]

I'm all for people going around the "red tape" as long as they are the only ones suffering as a result, I could not really care less. Same with people dying on Everest.

Who's going to reimburse the U.S. and Canadian coast guard for all the money spent looking for this thing?

[langwadt]

The Titanium end rings are just glued to the ends of the carbon fibre tube - effectively just to the outer layer. I wonder what the differential of expansion (or rather contraction) is under extreme pressure. What are the chances of that causing delamination of the ends of the tube over several cycles?

See this: https://newrepublic.com/post/173802/missing-titanic-sub-faced-lawsuit-depths-safely-travel-oceangate

exceeding the verification pressure by 3X what could possibly go wrong ..

[ataradov]

Who's going to reimburse the U.S. and Canadian coast guard for all the money spent looking for this thing?

This part really sucks, and ideally I would demand that they agree that no state resources would be spent. If they want risky stuff, it is on them to ensure safety.

But generally those things are a part of a normal search and rescue stuff, the same would happen if they were on a regular ship or a plane. And hopefully those $250k/person could go back to the state. The CEO does not need them anymore anyway.

[EEVblog]

One report claims that the window was only certified to 1300m?
https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1671282716090802178

[EEVblog]

Who's going to reimburse the U.S. and Canadian coast guard for all the money spent looking for this thing?

This part really sucks, and ideally I would demand that they agree that no state resources would be spent. If they want risky stuff, it is on them to ensure safety.

You can't pick and choose. Either you have taxpayer funded search and rescue or you don't.
In the canyoning community that I am apart of, there is debate over whether people that get into trouble should be whinched out of the canyon by helicopter at great risk the crew and people involved (+time and commitement that could be used elsewhere), or carried/walk out. Current policy is that they are almost always whinched out even if they could be carried or could walk out.

[EEVblog]

I heard one report that the sub has counterweights that can ejected in an emergency and they should just float to the surface if everything fails.
I do hope that:
a) They aren't trapped in the titanitc wreckage somewhow, apparently that's a real possibility?
or
b) They have a pure manual override for that release system, and it's not part of the touch screen controller computer control thingo.

[ataradov]

You can't pick and choose. Either you have taxpayer funded search and rescue or you don't.

I would at least attempt  to make an exception or limit the resources spent when it comes to experimental stuff. Either obtain the license and go though all the red tape, or do stuff at your own risk.

I would not put financial responsibility on the individual people, since it would make  you question if you want to ask for help, and that is horrible. But as a corporate entity, you should be prepared for this event. And if you are not prepared, then you should not be be launching submarines in a first place.

In this specific case, they will be done in a couple days, since there is a clear time limit to find anyone alive. So whatever, extra training for the S&R crews.

And not putting any responsibly on the corporation would just encourage them to disregard safety. Why bother with your own rescue plans when you can always rely on the tax payers to help you out.

In the canyoning community that I am apart of, there is debate over whether people that get into trouble should be whinched out of the canyon by helicopter at great risk the crew and people involved (+time and commitement that could be used elsewhere), or carried/walk out. Current policy is that they are almost always whinched out even if they could be carried or could walk out.

But the question is do they get charged for it? I'm not talking bankruptcy level charge, but there must be a fine of some sort.

[pickle9000]

On a cbc interview a reporter who had been down said that there was a deadman that would surface the sub if not reset on a regular basis.

[EEVblog]

I would at least attempt  to make an exception or limit the resources spent when it comes to experimental stuff. Either obtain the license and go though all the red tape, or do stuff at your own risk.

I would not put financial responsibility on the individual people, since it would make  you question if you want to ask for help, and that is horrible. But as a corporate entity, you should be prepared for this event. And if you are not prepared, then you should not be be launching submarines in a first place.

In this specific case, they will be done in a couple days, since there is a clear time limit to find anyone alive. So whatever, extra training for the S&R crews.

Sure. But in this case there are paying passengers on board.
If it's just one crank in a home made sub, then the argument can be made.
But the same would happen for ships and planes, and even for solo round the world sailors and flyers, and solo people who do crazy stuff and even illegal stuff etc, so the public would expect the same level of response here.
I helped design the Barra sonobouy that was used to help find solo round the world sailor Tony Bullimore. A lot of money was spent on that search.

In the canyoning community that I am apart of, there is debate over whether people that get into trouble should be whinched out of the canyon by helicopter at great risk the crew and people involved (+time and commitement that could be used elsewhere), or carried/walk out. Current policy is that they are almost always whinched out even if they could be carried or could walk out.

But the question is do they get charged for it? I'm not talking bankruptcy level charge, but there must be a fine of some sort.

Here you can get fined and have to pay for the rescue if you did something illegal. e.g. I know of a some people that went into a canyon when it was closed and had to be rescued. They had to pay for it.
But simply doing something reckless and you get hurt and need rescuing, you get the finger wagged at you but otherwise it's free.

[EEVblog]

On a cbc interview a reporter who had been down said that there was a deadman that would surface the sub if not reset on a regular basis.

Interesting.
And there are reports that there is no locator beacon?

[ataradov]

Here you can get fined and have to pay for the rescue if you did something illegal. e.g. I know of a some people that went into a canyon when it was closed and had to be rescued. They had to pay for it.
But simply doing something reckless and you get hurt and need rescuing, you get the finger wagged at you but otherwise it's free.

This is perfect. This is exactly what I want here.

But operating your own submarines of any kind should be illegal without proper licensing. Just like you can't operate your own nuclear reactor. Or even makeshift airline using your own clapped out Cessna.

As you said, they are charging for it. As soon as you are taking customers, you should be licensed. This is the case for simple taxis. This should absolutely be the case for submarines.

But I'm also pretty sure that they will get the bill anyway here. Plus someone would be responsible for 5 deaths. Unfortunately the responsible may be one of the 5.

[pickle9000]

News that I have seen said submerged the text system is all there is. The sonar on the delivery ship is the most advanced in the area. It decodes the text and also uses it to locate (it is a full function sonar text is just a feature). Of course the big problem are the reflective layers and currents that obscure the sonar.

No mention of surface smoke, dye or radio surface beacons.

[EEVblog]

Sonobouys reportedly heard banging.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/searchers-for-titanic-tourist-sub-heard-banging-from-area-internal-comms-reveal/ar-AA1cOArs

I find that hard to believe at that depth.

[EEVblog]

Here you can get fined and have to pay for the rescue if you did something illegal. e.g. I know of a some people that went into a canyon when it was closed and had to be rescued. They had to pay for it.
But simply doing something reckless and you get hurt and need rescuing, you get the finger wagged at you but otherwise it's free.

This is perfect. This is exactly what I want here.

But operating your own submarines of any kind should be illegal without proper licensing. Just like you can't operate your own nuclear reactor. Or even makeshift airline using your own clapped out Cessna.
As you said, they are charging for it. As soon as you are taking customers, you should be licensed. This is the case for simple taxis. This should absolutely be the case for submarines.

I think you'll find that becomes the case after this.

[james_s]

My guess? This thing, like MH370, will never be found.

They have found a handful of parts from MH370, they may never find the bulk of the wreckage though.

This thing I'd have thought would be a lot easier to find, surely they know approximately where it is? I mean don't they drop it into the water directly over the wreck site and dive more or less straight down?

[james_s]

Here you can get fined and have to pay for the rescue if you did something illegal. e.g. I know of a some people that went into a canyon when it was closed and had to be rescued. They had to pay for it.
But simply doing something reckless and you get hurt and need rescuing, you get the finger wagged at you but otherwise it's free.

This is perfect. This is exactly what I want here.

But operating your own submarines of any kind should be illegal without proper licensing. Just like you can't operate your own nuclear reactor. Or even makeshift airline using your own clapped out Cessna.

As you said, they are charging for it. As soon as you are taking customers, you should be licensed. This is the case for simple taxis. This should absolutely be the case for submarines.

But I'm also pretty sure that they will get the bill anyway here. Plus someone would be responsible for 5 deaths. Unfortunately the responsible may be one of the 5.

I don't agree with the requirement to be licensed. So long as you do not present yourself as licensed when you are not, then why shouldn't someone be able to choose to be a paying customer of someething risky? This is not a space rocket or something that poses a great risk to the general population, it is only a risk for those people who make the individual choice to board the craft at their own risk. It's not something I'd do, but for some it is worth it, and probably the only way they could ever get down there to see the Titanic or whatever it was they wanted to see. There are far too many things one is not allowed to do these days because of the chance they might get hurt. I like to make my own choices and not have someone else deciding what is best for me. If I get hurt doing something stupid then that's on me.

[ataradov]

This thing I'd have thought would be a lot easier to find, surely they know approximately where it is? I mean don't they drop it into the water directly over the wreck site and dive more or less straight down?

But you don't know what kind of controls the crew may have applied, especially if they were panicked and disoriented. It may be far away from the site.

Plus they will call of the mass search soon, and the company will be prioritizing paying lawyers, not rescue crews. Plus it may not be in their interest to find the wreck anyway.

[ataradov]

then why shouldn't someone be able to choose to be a paying customer of someething risky?

It is fine, but along with a waiver to the company, you should ask customer for a waiver from taxpayer money being spend on rescuing them. Then it would be on the customer to asses the risks and check what kind of rescue capabilities the company has.

I don't care if someone wants to die the stupidest death ever. But I also don't care to pay for their rescue.

[YurkshireLad]

My guess? This thing, like MH370, will never be found.

They have found a handful of parts from MH370, they may never find the bulk of the wreckage though.

This thing I'd have thought would be a lot easier to find, surely they know approximately where it is? I mean don't they drop it into the water directly over the wreck site and dive more or less straight down?

It's pretty tiny and will probably drift along with any underwater currents. Especially if they lose power.