Titanic tourist sub goes missing sparking search

[Dan]

Cameron indicates that the "community" knows they had dumped their ballast and were attempting to surface when the implosion occurred.

Interesting take on delamination failure. It shows that more tests are needed to determine after how many pressure cycles such material would fatigue. It's too bad that such test was done with people in it.

 

[CycleCat]

Had this been communicated earlier, they would have stopped wasting our tax $$$ to do the surface search, chasing false tank banging sound and just get right to find the debris field right next to the Titanic.

All they heard was a suspect noise. Once they found the debris, it confirmed their suspicions. They didn't "know" anything until then.

 

[boulderjohn]

Had this been communicated earlier, they would have stopped wasting our tax $$$ to do the surface search, chasing false tank banging sound and just get right to find the debris field right next to the Titanic.

They couldn't be sure it was what they heard. If there was any hope, the search had to be conducted.

 

[John the Pom]

Except it doesn't seem workable.

I could see it if the submarine had a pipe burst and they managed to close the pipe to stop the water ingress. Something similar to what happened to the Thresher or Barbel. But the Titan doesn't have any through hull fittings, it is a solid pressure vessel except for the door. In fact that is one of the concerns as there is no mechanical release for the ballast just an electronic one that relies on wireless communication between the controls inside the hull to a control box mounting on the outside.

So it doesn't seem likely that any source of flooding would be manageable by the crew inside.

Have you ever been interviewed by a journalist about some technical subject? It's like they take the words you say and give them to an infinite number of monkeys to type out into an article.

The person interviewed was an engineer who was responsible for building the Deepsea Challenger so, when it comes to his competence, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say. In other words, this is one of the very tiny handful of people who has actually build a manned submersible that successfully operated at those depths. I think we can take it as a given that he understands how water pressure works!

My suspicion would be that he talked about multiple scenarios and multiple accidents, and it all got mangled together into the nonsense that appeared in the newspaper.

 

[Marie13]

I was fascinated to learn that that wife of Stockton Rush, Oceangate CEO, is a great-great granddaughter of Isidor and Ida Straus, co-founders of Macy’s, who went down with Titanic.

 

[John the Pom]

A quote is usually what the person actually said. [...]

If you believe that, then you've never been interviewed by a journalist about some technical subject!

The person interviewed was responsible for designing the Deepsea Challenger. He's one of a tiny handful of people who has actually built a manned vessel that operated safely at these depths! Do you really think he doesn't understand hydrostatics 101?

Like many experts, he obviously wanted to try to educate his interviewer about the subject a little, and talked about different failure modes of submersibles in general. Unfortunately, that doesn't work in today's media. They just slap together some nonsense and move on to the next story.

 

[Jafo19D]

There’s a video out there where the CEO talks about the viewport commenting that it weighs 80kg and that it would serve as an early warning system if the sub was about to implode.

 

[Manatee Diver]

Have you ever been interviewed by a journalist about some technical subject?

My policy is to never talk to journalists. They often have the story already written and are just trying to get the quotes they need to make their viewpoint. It is best to treat them like mushrooms. /rant

But I wasn't assuming that he didn't understand, but perhaps was thinking that the design was different from what he was thinking. But the multiple scenarios getting mixed up would make sense as well.

 

[AbyssalPlains]

Have you ever been interviewed by a journalist about some technical subject? It's like they take the words you say and give them to an infinite number of monkeys to type out into an article.

As a science writer who does ^^this^^ for a living, I must state that your assessment is broadly stereotyping and sounds - let's just say, a bit "dramatic." You see, I work as a liaison between scientists and journalists, and I can tell you from experience that yes, sometimes journalists get facts wrong or misrepresent something. On the other side of the coin, however, it is important to consider that more often than not, experts use so much jargon and couch their statements in so many eventualities and in-the-weeds details that the essence of the subject gets drowned in caveats and vagueness. The more convoluted the information presented by the expert, the less likely it makes sense to someone without a science background, necessitating translation, and that process puts accuracy at risk. Neither scenario is conducive to the common goal - informing the public. A good reporter will do everything they can to get the story right, and a good expert will recognize the gist of something, particularly if it's very technical, and make it accessible without dumbing it down. Both take a lot of skill and training. I absolutely do understand that experts can get frustrated with "the media," especially when experiencing a situation in which they are were grossly misquoted or their statements reproduced out of context. That should not happen, and this is where public information officers, such as myself, come in. We can help prevent this from happening in the first place. Many of us who do this kind of work have backgrounds in both science and journalism, so we "get" how people tick in both worlds. I pride myself on a track record of outcomes that are satisfactory for both parties, the expert and the journalist. My experience tells me it can be done. It just requires a bit of effort and willingness to engage in the process and learn over time. My question to an expert who finds themselves grossly misquoted on a recurring basis would be, "What are you doing to make yourself understood, and is there possibly room for improvement?" Just some food for thought.

 

[Wookie]

As a science writer who does ^^this^^ for a living, I must state that your assessment is broadly stereotyping and wildly exaggerated. You see, I work as a liaison between scientists and journalists, and I can tell you from experience that yes, sometimes journalists get facts wrong or misrepresent something. On the other side of the coin, however, it is important to consider that more often than not, experts use so much jargon and couch their statements in so many eventualities and in-the-weeds details that the essence of the subject gets drowned in caveats and vagueness. The more convoluted the information presented by the expert, the less likely it makes sense to someone without a science background, necessitating translation, and that process is fraught with risk to accuracy. Both are not conducive to the common goal - informing the public. A good reporter will do everything they can to get the story right, and a good expert will recognize the gist of something, particularly if it's very technical, and make it accessible without dumbing it down. Both take a lot of skill and training.

If so, why do we keep hearing about oxygen tanks being recovered after an accident? Over and over.