Missing submersible near wreck of Titanic

[greyman42]

A bit of surfing the net shows that the sharks, sorry, lawyers are already circling. No doubt we will see anybody and everybody involved, except the deceased (possibly), suing anybody and everybody else involved, including (possibly) the deceased, for astronomical sums. And you can bet that none of it will go to those who have paid for the rescue attempts. Cynical, me?

You cannot sue a dead person.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You cannot sue a dead person.

You can sue their estate.

 

[Iskra]

You can sue their estate.

Billionaires don’t have much to gain from such action, however. And what about the waivers?

 

[Ediswan]

I'm surprised there would be much of a "field" from an implosion, would that not just crush the small craft like a Coke can? It's not like it's a high impact collision akin to a plane hitting the water.

Depends if the imploded item stays in one piece. A coke can is ductile. Carbon fibre is prone to brittle failure.

I once worked in a light bulb factory. Occasionally the machinery would fail to add the fill gas and leave a vacuum. Those could implode. If they did, the broken glass would go in all directions. I never worked out whether the shards of glass passed each other going through the middle, or bounced back out off each other.

 

[Jozhua]

I've been under the impression of catastrophic Implosion for some time.

The Wikipedia page makes for enlightening reading, as do the referenced articles. The porthole was 'only' certified to a depth of 1500m. The owner didn't want to pay for someone to build and test one for a lower depth. I believe on paper the porthole could do it, but materials don't always behave in the manner you expect.

Now, the hull itself was certified to 6000m and did perform well, however I believe in 2020 it was found to have experienced wear from the cyclical stresses of being refloated and was given a depth restriction of 3000m. I don't think there are publicly available records about the maintenance done to allow the submarine to dive to extreme depths again. In due course, I'm sure there will be.

The owner controlling the craft may have been a somewhat crafty move to avoid potential lawsuits/hazard pay for any employee who may have been charged with piloting the sub. Been as they only did a few trips a year, it would make sense.

Their only hope is that they're bobbing around in the surface somewhere. If its on the bottom, assuming the vessel is intact, there's basically no chance of rescue as the number of vessels that can both get that deep and might be able to do something useful (like cut the sub free if its trapped on something, attach a cable from the surface, tow it to the surface itself, etc etc) is extremely low and getting any of them to the area in in the time available (which I think runs out on Wednesday?) is basically impossible. Best case scenario is that the sub failed catastrophically and imploded in which case death will have been instant, likely before they even knew they were going to die. The thought of being stuck on the seabed, in that claustrophobic environment knowing that there's basically no hope of rescue doesn't bear thinking about, possibly the only thing worse would be being on the surface and trapped inside (seeing as apparently it can only be opened from the outside) and running out of air even though you're surrounded by breathable atmosphere.

Have to say that whatever there reasons for going down it does seem mad that they got in that submarine. The thing looks like the submarine equivalent of a Pacer. You couldn't have paid me £250,000 to get in it to go down the wreck let alone pay the company that much to take me down! As someone who was a bit of a Titanic nerd in their youth if you offered a me a trip on one of the proper scientific submarines operated by a reputable organisation (and I'd even include the Russian ones in that list, it's one of those gucci capabilities that actually lives up to the hype) to go down and see the wreck site I'd be up for it. But this ramshackle outfit? Hell. No.

Oh absolutely this feel like a ramshackle outfit. The owner himself admitted his distaste for health and safety culture he felt was holding the industry back...

I have to say I’m surprised how amateurish this submersible seems to be.

I don’t have an issue with people doing risky stuff, there’s an element of risk in anything, but this does seem a bit much, especially as others now have to become involved if attempting a rescue.

It can't be that dangerous if the film director James Cameron did it 12 times. As long as you are prepared and somebody is willing to fund all the precautions taken it isn't dangerous. You just have do it with deep sea expedition professionals to lower the risk. http://www.deepseachallenge.com/the-team/james-cameron/

Yeah, I think the issue is the difference between 'perceived risk' and actual risk.

In an extreme sport - climbing Everest, skydiving, free climbing - there is always an element to which your safety depends on you and your capability. They are also going to be a lot more of an adrenaline rush than descending at a leisurely pace on a submarine.

This, combined with the owner's blaze attitude I think contributed to falsely inflated sense of safety. People do tend to trust the engineered world much more these days, partially because it has become so much safer. However, this trust can be abused by those who are maybe slightly less trustworthy/competent.

Depends if the imploded item stays in one piece. A coke can is ductile. Carbon fibre is prone to brittle failure.

I once worked in a light bulb factory. Occasionally the machinery would fail to add the fill gas and leave a vacuum. Those could implode. If they did, the broken glass would go in all directions. I never worked out whether the shards of glass passed each other going through the middle, or bounced back out off each other.

Yeah, that's my thoughts on the carbon fibre. I don't think they'd stand much chance either way, but it would explain the debris field nature.

At 500 atmospheres or so of pressure, I doubt there is such thing as a 'graceful failure'

 

[kristiang85]

On sky news their guest says he heard from the coast guard that the parts found have been positively identified as from the Titan.

 

[Falcon1200]

…after the boat sank. Whilst it was in distress, there was tumbleweed from the authorities.

That would be down to the apparent inaction of the Greek authorities, and apart from them, who even was aware of the true, awful situation? But since the terrible sinking there has been extensive coverage, certainly in the UK, and there is in fact a follow-up story on the BBC News website today.

 

[baz962]

On sky news their guest says he heard from the coast guard that the parts found have been positively identified as from the Titan.

Just on BBC news too .

 

[AlterEgo]

With the death of the CEO I assume there is very little recourse for any of the families/loved ones of the others involved. Hopefully some lessons are learned from the incident. There were so many potential points of failure and so much misplaced bravado here that the incident will no doubt be a textbook example of how not to run any sort of safety critical operation.

 

[Tetchytyke]

That would be down to the apparent inaction of the Greek authorities, and apart from them, who even was aware of the true, awful situation?

I agree, but it’s interesting how we get everything short of Thunderbird Two thrown at five billionaires. Even leaving aside the immigrant side out of it, we know they don’t do this when it’s, say, a normal bog-standard fishing vessel that goes missing. Then we’re reliant on the brave souls of the RNLI going out as volunteers.

 

[75A]

With the death of the CEO I assume there is very little recourse for any of the families/loved ones of the others involved. Hopefully some lessons are learned from the incident.

Fail to prepare, prepare to fail.

 

[AlterEgo]

OceanGate now say they believe all the crew have been lost.

 

[Ediswan]

I agree, but it’s interesting how we get everything short of Thunderbird Two thrown at five billionaires. Even leaving aside the immigrant side out of it, we know they don’t do this when it’s, say, a normal bog-standard fishing vessel that goes missing. Then we’re reliant on the brave souls of the RNLI going out as volunteers.

HM Coastguard aircraft are frequently involved in searches for missing fishing vessels, and smaller craft. It's their job.

 

[DelW]

BBC and Sky news both reporting a US Coastguard announcement that parts of the submarine have been identified on the seabed 1600 feet from the Titanic itself. They believe it suffered a catastrophic implosion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464

All five passengers on board the Titan submersible have died, the US Coast Guard says
Rear admiral Mauger confirmed that five parts of the vessel were found approximately 1600ft from the bow of the Titanic wreck
The debris discovered was consistent with a "catastrophic implosion", he tells a news conference

 

[83A]

I agree, but it’s interesting how we get everything short of Thunderbird Two thrown at five billionaires.

If Thunderbird Two had dropped its pod containing Thunderbird Four, that could dive to 35000 feet and would have been suitable for the rescue. That is in a hypothetical scenario where science fiction had become fact.

 

[AM9]

I guess pressurised air would 'explode' outwards too, plus the shell was made from carbon fibre bind, which tends to shatter under pressure quite violently once its reached its limit.

Anyway, no point speculating until we know for sure. But my optimism is quickly fading.

The situation in an implosion is that the external fluid (water - or air) is able to enter the void faster than the solid fragments of the vessel (container) so there is a rapid explosion which pushes the solid fragments outwards. I remember seeing high speed films of TV CRTs imploding where there is an initial inward shrinking of the breaking glass envelope followed by a change of direction so that the glass fragments with their higher inertia, then scatter in all directions.

 

[AlterEgo]

From the US Navy via BBC:

The US Navy detected “an acoustic anomaly consistent with an implosion” shortly after the Titan lost contact with the surface, an official has told CBS News, the BBC's US partner.

The information was relayed to the US Coast Guard, which used it to narrow the radius of its search, the official added.

The banging that was reported earlier is now thought to have been coming from other ships in the area, CBS reports.

 

[Jozhua]

Seems that the implosion theory was correct all along - usually I tend to go for the simplest explanation first and this would make a lot of sense given the repeated loading cycles the sub went through.

My gut feeling is that it was the porthole that bust, due to it not being properly qualified for the depth and therefore OceanGate not having a full understanding of how wear would look and the implications of said wear on the vessel.

With the death of the CEO I assume there is very little recourse for any of the families/loved ones of the others involved. Hopefully some lessons are learned from the incident. There were so many potential points of failure and so much misplaced bravado here that the incident will no doubt be a textbook example of how not to run any sort of safety critical operation.

Well, if it is a private limited company, then they can still sue OceanGate into oblivion. Which, I'm sure they will.

Misplaced bravado is a good way of putting it - arguably the pressure difference at this depth is more challenging than spaceflight.

More troubling is the alleged 8 hours of missing contact before authorities were alerted.

 

[kristiang85]

The situation in an implosion is that the external fluid (water - or air) is able to enter the void faster than the solid fragments of the vessel (container) so there is a rapid explosion which pushes the solid fragments outwards. I remember seeing high speed films of TV CRTs imploding where there is an initial inward shrinking of the breaking glass envelope followed by a change of direction so that the glass fragments with their higher inertia, then scatter in all directions.

Yep, that's my understanding too. I got into a bit of an internet hole about it last night, and given the pressures involved the air inside the sub would have heated to nearly the temperature of the surface of the sun, given the speed of compression (you can create a flame in a syringe if you press quickly enough, and that's just with your finger, so imagine the forces down there...). Thankfully this all would have happened quicker than the human body's messaging system to the brain, so the occupants would have felt nothing and it would have been very very quick.

I did raise my eyebrows when the BBC journalist asked about recovering bodies, which shows he really didn't know much about how water pressure works, the head of the coast guard diplomatically said "it's a harsh environment down there" rather than spelling out the realities. That's terrible for the families, but again solace has to be taken that nobody suffered.

I also got into a hole about the Byford Dolphin incident, which I won't go into too much detail about as it is rather traumatic (but feel free to look it up) but that involved instant demise from depressurisation from 9 atmospheres to 1 atmosphere in a diving bell. This involved 40x that pressure (albeit the other way round, but the principle is the same). It's just so hard to get your head round the physics involved.

Hopefully they stop development of carbon fibre submersibles worldwide now, as I'm sure that gradual weakening under each trip must have been a factor before it finally gave way. But as said above, the porthole should be considered too if indeed it is true it wasn't certified to those depths. That's just insane. At the very least a vital component like that should be up to the standards needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Should they have also stopped development of jet aircraft when the Comet failed? Clearly they should not. However it does seem more research and unmanned testing is required, and perhaps some more regulation to go with it.

 

[kristiang85]

Should they have also stopped development of jet aircraft when the Comet failed? Clearly they should not. However it does seem more research and unmanned testing is required, and perhaps some more regulation to go with it.

No, but if the material clearly isn't fit for purpose then they should go back to more traditional methods.

 

[43066]

The US Navy detected “an acoustic anomaly consistent with an implosion” shortly after the Titan lost contact with the surface, an official has told CBS News, the BBC's US partner.

At least it would have been quick. A sorry and completely avoidable event which, if anything good comes out of it, will spell the end of this kind of risky death tourism.

Well, if it is a private limited company, then they can still sue OceanGate into oblivion. Which, I'm sure they will.

Emphasis on the limited, of course, meaning shareholders are liable only for the value of their initial investment. The company will no doubt be wound up. The CEO is dead, it’ll be interesting to see whether there are any civil lawsuits or even criminal charges brought against others involved.

Should they have also stopped development of jet aircraft when the Comet failed? Clearly they should not. However it does seem more research and unmanned testing is required, and perhaps some more regulation to go with it.

Jet aircraft had a useful purpose. In any case AIUI the physics of these vessels is well known - the titanic was originally explored in the 1980s - it’s just that this company did things on the cheap.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No, but if the material clearly isn't fit for purpose then they should go back to more traditional methods.

If the material is unfit for purpose then all Boeing 787s should be grounded, as it's the same idea (the greater pressures just need more material). In reality it isn't unfit for purpose at all; the thing that was unfit for purpose was the design of this submersible and its maintenance and checking regime.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jun 2023 ==

Jet aircraft had a useful purpose.

Submersibles do too, this one was a tourist one of course but they exist for all manner of (mostly research related) purposes.

In any case AIUI the physics of these vessels is well known - the titanic was originally explored in the 1980s - it’s just that this company did things on the cheap.

Is, it seems, the nub of the problem.

 

[DerekC]

With the death of the CEO I assume there is very little recourse for any of the families/loved ones of the others involved. Hopefully some lessons are learned from the incident. There were so many potential points of failure and so much misplaced bravado here that the incident will no doubt be a textbook example of how not to run any sort of safety critical operation.

Presumably there is a corporation involved, which could be sued. Whether it has any money, of course, who knows? In UK law I think any surviving directors could potentially be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter as a criminal offence, irrespective of any waivers that had been signed, but I don't know whether US law (assuming it applies) has similar provisions.

Should they have also stopped development of jet aircraft when the Comet failed? Clearly they should not. However it does seem more research and unmanned testing is required, and perhaps some more regulation to go with it.

The Comet 1 crashes happened because the problem of fatigue wasn't understood properly. They were followed by a very comprehensive programme of full-scale testing of one of the remaining aircraft, involving putting the fuselage in a tank which could recreate the stresses involved in pressurisation, and waggling the wings up and down to simulate what happens in a cycle of takeoff, level flight and landing - it went on for months until the failure was recreated.

The point is that the designers of hollow structures subject to pressure differentials learned the lesson about fatigue and what you need to do to ensure safe performance over time. It seems the people in charge of Oceangate thought that kind of approach was too bureaucratic and expensive, and it was OK to put paying customer in an "experimental" craft. They are much more culpable than the Comet designers, who had the excuse of ignorance.

 

[Lost property]

Yep, that's my understanding too. I got into a bit of an internet hole about it last night, and given the pressures involved the air inside the sub would have heated to nearly the temperature of the surface of the sun, given the speed of compression (you can create a flame in a syringe if you press quickly enough, and that's just with your finger, so imagine the forces down there...). Thankfully this all would have happened quicker than the human body's messaging system to the brain, so the occupants would have felt nothing and it would have been very very quick.

I did raise my eyebrows when the BBC journalist asked about recovering bodies, which shows he really didn't know much about how water pressure works, the head of the coast guard diplomatically said "it's a harsh environment down there" rather than spelling out the realities. That's terrible for the families, but again solace has to be taken that nobody suffered.

I also got into a hole about the Byford Dolphin incident, which I won't go into too much detail about as it is rather traumatic (but feel free to look it up) but that involved instant demise from depressurisation from 9 atmospheres to 1 atmosphere in a diving bell. This involved 40x that pressure (albeit the other way round, but the principle is the same). It's just so hard to get your head round the physics involved.

Hopefully they stop development of carbon fibre submersibles worldwide now, as I'm sure that gradual weakening under each trip must have been a factor before it finally gave way. But as said above, the porthole should be considered too if indeed it is true it wasn't certified to those depths. That's just insane. At the very least a vital component like that should be up to the standards needed.

I would add "for the purpose of tourism " to your statement which, despite the spin about "mission specialists " was purely what this submersible was constructed for.

The pros and cons of carbon fibre are well known in aviation as are the construction and maintenance procedures. When, for example, carbon fibre brakes arrived, everybody gave a big "hurrah ! " due to weight savings and costs, until, there were several instances of aircraft landing with the brakes, seemingly, "on "...which transpired to be water being absorbed by the brakes and freezing at altitude. This was rapidly remedied.

Again, as with aircraft, the flying hrs / cycles equivalent doesn't seem to have been considered and, when they eventually emerge, it will be interesting to learn about the maintenance regime.

However, carbon fibre has one notable "gotcha ! "....it's called hidden impact damage...hence, the most innocuous dent on the surface can actually be a very expansive area underneath.

You would have thought, or hoped, by now, humans would have found one form of Swiss cheese to be very unpalatable but this tragedy seems to have produced a surfeit even at this early stage.

 

[Ted633]

However, carbon fibre has one notable "gotcha ! "....it's called hidden impact damage...hence, the most innocuous dent on the surface can actually be a very expansive area underneath.

Going further into that, carbon fibre also has a tendency to spring back after impact, leaving no evidence if damage at all. Can be an issue in my industry (civil aviation) as impacts are known to go unreported.

 

[Lucan]

With the death of the CEO I assume there is very little recourse for any of the families/loved ones of the others involved. Hopefully some lessons are learned from the incident.

At least two of the passengers (and a third was the son of one) were billionaires. On the other hand the OceanGate company seems to have existed on a shoestring so I doubt the billionaires' families will bother to sue. However there will be plenty of other forms of closure, this incident will not now quietly fade away.

For example I would not like to be in the shoes right now of others with responsiblity for the design and build of that sub, because they will be facing some long technical inquiries and will be professionally crucified. I can imagine that international law will be amended to stop cowboys endangering other people's lives in international waters as they seem to be able to do at present.

As for the company owner, Stockton Rush, he openly bragged that he was a breaker of engineering standards and rules, that safety was an over-rated thing, and that he had contempt of regulation and of experienced "50-year-old white guys" because they were not "inspirational" [his words]. He had ignored repeated warnings from others about his methods. He claimed his sub was experimental yet sold tickets to the public for rides. But he will now become a textbook case for why regulation, standards and rules are needed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for the company owner, Stockton Rush, he openly bragged that he was a breaker of engineering standards and rules, that safety was an over-rated thing, and that he had contempt of regulation and of experienced "50-year-old white guys" because they were not "inspirational" [his words]. He had ignored repeated warnings from others about his methods. He claimed his sub was experimental yet sold tickets to the public for rides. But he will now become a textbook case for why regulation, standards and rules are needed.

As the tickets aren't sold in international waters, it would strike me that the country of sale could easily apply restrictions.

 

[AlterEgo]

At least two of the passengers (and a third was the son of one) were billionaires. On the other hand the OceanGate company seems to have existed on a shoestring so I doubt the billionaires' families will bother to sue. However there will be plenty of other forms of closure, this incident will not now quietly fade away.

For example I would not like to be in the shoes right now of others with responsiblity for the design and build of that sub, because they will be facing some long technical inquiries and will be professionally crucified. I can imagine that international law will be amended to stop cowboys endangering other people's lives in international waters as they seem to be able to do at present.

As for the company owner, Stockton Rush, he openly bragged that he was a breaker of engineering standards and rules, that safety was an over-rated thing, and that he had contempt of regulation and of experienced "50-year-old white guys" because they were not "inspirational" [his words]. He had ignored repeated warnings from others about his methods. He claimed his sub was experimental yet sold tickets to the public for rides. But he will now become a textbook case for why regulation, standards and rules are needed.

I think the real reason he didn’t want to employ 50 year old white guys was that they were expensive and had mostly a naval background, and would challenge his ideas.

 

[Vespa]

Health and Safety is written in blood.

Lesson will be learned from this no doubt, cheaping out on safety will bite you in the end, international sea regulators will be drawing up rules covering this type of venture to prevent a recurrence, waiver forms for riding experimental vehicles will be looked at.