Titanic tourist sub goes missing sparking search

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Excellent new commentary by James Cameron. He gives a little more detail on the hydrophone info and quite a bit on why carbon composite is a poor material for this purpose.


Very interesting video with some interesting words from an actual person with experience: -excerpts from YT transcript below:

7:13 But even in my own sub,
7:15 which had a steel hull,
7:16 I knew that if I,
7:17 if I drove several two or three times
7:19 it was probably good to go
7:20 because you could cycle steel
7:22 hundreds of times,
7:23 if not thousands of times.
7:25 But that's not the case with composite.
7:26 So it's it's quite insidious.
7:28 And that,
7:28 I think, lulled them
7:29 into a sense of confidence
7:31 and led to this tragedy.
7:33 But these are known things.
7:34 They're known within
7:36 the engineering community and they're
7:39 well, we
7:40 also want to point to Ocean Gates, former
7:41 director of Marine Operations.
7:43 He wrote us an engineering report in 2018
7:45 I think it was
7:46 he focused his criticisms
7:48 on the company's decision
7:49 to rely on acoustic monitoring
7:51 the sounds the hull made under pressure
7:52 as opposed to a a scan of the hall.
7:54 According to him
7:55 the company claimed no equipment existed
7:57 that could perform
7:58 that kind of a scan
7:59 on the five inch thing
8:00 five inch thick carbon fiber hull.
8:02 I know it's
8:03 difficult to say obviously
8:04 without reading the report,
8:05 but I'm wondering what you make of that
8:06 because the
8:08 seems like this company
8:09 was making a big deal
8:10 about the sensors they had that could
8:12 sense a problem with the hull.
8:14 And if they could sense
8:15 there was a problem,
8:16 then they would have time to
8:17 to to turn around and go back up.
8:19 Clearly, they did it.
8:21 It's a bit like saying we have
8:23 we have a bit of a poor design
8:25 for the engine in our jet
8:26 or our rocket ship.
8:28 But we have a sensor that will
8:29 tell us if it's on fire.
8:31 To me, that's cold comfort.
8:33 And I think that if you're
8:34 if you're building a hall
8:36 where you need
8:36 to have sensors to tell you
8:37 that it's failing
8:38 in the process of failing,
8:40 you have no business
8:41 designing subs
8:42 or being in that in that sub.
8:44 They touted it, I believe you know,
8:47 as a as a good thing,
8:48 as a as a safety protocol.
8:50 But I consider it a bad thing
8:52 because it sheds a light
8:53 directly on
8:54 on the fundamental flaw
8:55 of their of their design.
8:57 You have to remember,
8:58 the DNA of this design
9:00 concept goes back farther.
9:02 It goes back to the quest
9:04 to go to the challenger
9:05 deep that I was involved in, obviously.
9:07 And there was another sub design
9:09 that was competing with ours at the time
9:11 that was based on a wound filament
9:13 composite cylinder
9:15 with two titanium caps.
9:17 And I told those guys point blank,
9:19 you're going to get killed in that thing.
9:21 And they ultimately never drove it.
9:23 I literally told the guy
9:24 who bought the sub
9:26 when its owner,
9:27 Steve Fossett, the famous
9:28 billionaire, died in a plane crash
9:30 and the sub was then
9:31 purchased by another guy to operate it.
9:34 And I told him,
9:35 you're going to die down there
9:36 if you dove that thing.
9:37 And I felt very strongly about it.

And a great quote about that acoustic system thing that was supposed to make them safe (because hull scan was "naaaah, we dont need that, we have corporate culture")

"It's a bit like saying we have a bit of a poor design for the engine in our jet or our rocket ship.
But we have a sensor that will tell us if it's on fire."



And some YT fun:

1687515695880.png



1687515779153.png

1687515796737.png
 
As they just said (Jim and Bob) on a news interview this morning, it just took this long to get the ROV on site, and down there to verify it.
 
wut?

See, point made.

I'm not here to debate SCBA vs SCUBA vs reporters saying dumb things, but firefighters and scuba divers get their breathing air supply from the exact same place, and it contains the same percentage of oxygen in both.

Paramedics may carry a small cylinder of O2, but not firefighters.

Also, Oxygen isn't flammable.
What about a big cylinder of O2?
I may know of an ambulance driver or 2 that has an M tank on their rig…
 
What about a big cylinder of O2?
I may know of an ambulance driver or 2 that has an M tank on their rig…
And ambulance drivers are often firefighters, although not always.

You reckon they carry those rigs into a fire on their back?
 
What do you think the reaction would have been they decided not to investigate any further based just on this?
Exactly. Hindsight is 20/20. At the time the proper decision is...
Search for them.
What would the reaction have been if the sub was on the surface and nobody was looking for them to open the door?

Wasn't a confirmed implosion sounds, just a suspected implosion sound.
 

Back
Top Bottom