- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Titanic tourist submarine goes missing
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:09 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:09 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
The bonded interface between the titanium and carbon fiber is definitely sketchy. The videos with them just smearing the bonding agent on by hand in a normal warehouse look like a back yard bondo job. You would have thought they would have done it under more a controlled environment and with greater precision at least. That interface was pretty much garmented to be the weak point.
I just can't get over the plexiglass viewport. The maker would only certify to 1300M but this "genius" repeatedly takes it to 3 times that. If the viewport failed the resulting implosion could have blown out the flange/mounting hardware.
Hopefully they found enough to give a definitive answer to the cause even though it may be difficult since there seems to be several realistic failure points/design flaws.
I just can't get over the plexiglass viewport. The maker would only certify to 1300M but this "genius" repeatedly takes it to 3 times that. If the viewport failed the resulting implosion could have blown out the flange/mounting hardware.
Hopefully they found enough to give a definitive answer to the cause even though it may be difficult since there seems to be several realistic failure points/design flaws.
This post was edited on 6/28/23 at 9:12 pm
1
Posted on 6/28/23 at 9:30 pm to SpartanSoul
quote:
The maker would only certify to 1300M but this "genius" repeatedly takes it to 3 times that
Yea, there's really no need to dig any deeper than this. The guy obviously had no room in his budget for safety margin.
I'll have to look up those videos of them building it. I get to dabble in structural glue stuff sometimes.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 10:47 am to Dick Jacket
quote:
I don’t think it did either. Based on the spotty reporting about them having some issue of too rapid of a descent and an inability to control that through ballast, one reasonable hypothesis (to this layman) is that they made it to the bottom faster than expected, hit bottom too hard, and that force instantaneously compromised the structural integrity of the capsule and caused the catastrophic implosion.
Unsubstantiated info that my hypothesis was correct.
This post was edited on 6/29/23 at 10:49 am
Posted on 6/29/23 at 2:09 pm to Dick Jacket
It would be strange to have multiple failures that led to no control over decent.
It supposedly had:
The "roll off" ballast
An inflatable bladder ballast with a 10000psi air tank.
A hydraulic release ballast
The ability to jettison the landing skid
The thrusters
Hard to come up with a scenario as to how all of those could fail to overcome a negative ballast problem, but with what we know of the engineering who knows if the "systems" even worked.
It supposedly had:
The "roll off" ballast
An inflatable bladder ballast with a 10000psi air tank.
A hydraulic release ballast
The ability to jettison the landing skid
The thrusters
Hard to come up with a scenario as to how all of those could fail to overcome a negative ballast problem, but with what we know of the engineering who knows if the "systems" even worked.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 2:15 pm to SpartanSoul
I wasn’t focused on the ballast issues so much as I thought that they hit bottom with enough force to affect the integrity of the hull and cause the implosion.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 2:36 pm to Dick Jacket
I'm guessing the landing skid wasn't designed to absorb an impact since he figured it would never come to that because of the "genius design".
I doubt the subs terminal velocity was very high if it did impact the bottom intact but it was pretty heavy even in water and the carbon fiber was already at it's limits at that depth so it probably wouldn't have taken much to cause the implosion.
The multiple failures needed for this scenario would be the worst case for the occupants. They would have known and it would have been agonizing for the father looking at his son.
I doubt the subs terminal velocity was very high if it did impact the bottom intact but it was pretty heavy even in water and the carbon fiber was already at it's limits at that depth so it probably wouldn't have taken much to cause the implosion.
The multiple failures needed for this scenario would be the worst case for the occupants. They would have known and it would have been agonizing for the father looking at his son.
Posted on 6/29/23 at 2:50 pm to Dick Jacket
Cameron said he learned Monday morning it failed on descent at 3500 meters
Surface lost comms and tracking at the same time
The Transponder was separate and self contained from the sub, when the transponder went silent the surface knew the sub was lost
Cameron said the rescue talk was a farce, surface support and gov officials knew what happened immediately
They even knew exactly where it was
Surface lost comms and tracking at the same time
The Transponder was separate and self contained from the sub, when the transponder went silent the surface knew the sub was lost
Cameron said the rescue talk was a farce, surface support and gov officials knew what happened immediately
They even knew exactly where it was
Posted on 7/3/23 at 7:44 pm to crap4brain
Oceangate hired teenagers for engineering positions and paid them $15/hr LINK
Posted on 7/3/23 at 8:28 pm to Jim Rockford
Posted on 7/3/23 at 8:38 pm to SpartanSoul
quote:
I'm guessing the landing skid wasn't designed to absorb an impact since he figured it would never come to that because of the "genius design".
If we're being real, designing the thing to resist a significant impact at 12,000' down is almost certainly cost prohibitive right from the start. Just like you can't design a plane to survive an impact with a mountain.
Okay, not that extreme, but not that far off either considering the pressure at that depth.
Page 92 of 92
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News