Titanic tourist sub missing

Forums › Off topic › Titanic tourist sub missing

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18

5042 posts

Uber Geek

#3094811 25-Jun-2023 19:39

neb: I stopped halfway through. Sure, with perfect 20:20 handsight we can say it was close to the wreck, but until you get specialised equipment there, which takes awhile, you have no way to know whether for example the magic patented monitoring tech didn't sound an alarm causing it to resurface and drift who-knows-where. And he won't speculate on why the "authorities didn't choose to say what they knew" - so what did they know? That it was aliens? What are they not telling us? It's a conspiracy!

Until i stopped watching, he sounded about as knowledgeable as a random guy down the local pub.

The 2nd half of the video is him explaining exactly why he came to his conclusions. He’s dived the Titanic wreck 33 times, and helped design the sub that made him the first person to solo dive Challenger Deep (3x deeper than Titanic wreck). The man knows considerably more than some random at the pub.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3094820 25-Jun-2023 20:13

I know who he is, but, sheesh. If you want to watch someone knowledgeable in the field and how to present that knowledge, watch this video:

Paul1977

5042 posts

Uber Geek

#3094868 25-Jun-2023 23:25

I’m not entirely sure what Cameron was getting at about possible reasons why info was seemingly withheld from the public; but he was obviously upset that despite all evidence suggesting catastrophic implosion, the authorities were presenting a very different narrative and false hope.

Putting that aside, once he got to the technical aspects I thought he explained it all very clearly and succinctly.

Bung

6479 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3094874 26-Jun-2023 00:47

Maybe the US Coastguard felt they had to carry on rather than announce that a classified Navy hydrophone system had detected probable implosion. The US Navy aren't the only organisation with hydrophones. Others should have also heard it.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3094929 26-Jun-2023 09:14

Bung: Maybe the US Coastguard felt they had to carry on rather than announce that a classified Navy hydrophone system had detected probable implosion. The US Navy aren't the only organisation with hydrophones. Others should have also heard it.

I also think there was a need for caution. It's easy to imagine the outcry if they had not bothered with a S&R operation based on hearing a sound that could have been an implosion of the sub, only to discover later that it was an unrelated sound and the people in the sub were rescuable for several days. The art of underwater acoustics is full of uncertainty and interpretation

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3095037 26-Jun-2023 12:14

Batman:

at what point is it ok to carry paying passengers who knowingly sign their life away in experimental designs

I'd say that if the paying passengers are given full and accurate disclosure of the risks. (I guess whether they were or not, or whether OceanGate even knew what the risks were, is an open question). And the paying passengers are sane and rational adults.

Parachuting has a death rate of about 3 per million jumps. For some people, this is too dangerous, for others it's acceptable.

As at May 22, 500 people had summitted Mt Everest this year. 2/3 of climbers now reach the summit. I don't know what percentage of those are paying customers, but I'd guess about half. So about 375 paying customers attempt Everest each year. So far, there have been 10 fatalities, of which 4 were Sherpas. So about 2% of paying customers die; it used to be about 5%. Is it OK for sane rational adults to pay money to attempt Everest? How about a 13yo (accompanied by father & stepmother)?

What are the risks of riding an experimental sub-orbital rocket to space?

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek

#3095039 26-Jun-2023 12:21

frankv:

I'd say that if the paying passengers are given full and accurate disclosure of the risks. (I guess whether they were or not, or whether OceanGate even knew what the risks were, is an open question). And the paying passengers are sane and rational adults.

It isn't an open question , it has been discussed ...

"Reiss said he and the other passengers were well aware of the hazards of the rare voyage. In a recent interview with Seattle-based television station KIRO, Reiss said he had to sign a “long, long waiver that mentions possible death three times on the first page.”"

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3095045 26-Jun-2023 12:31

Rikkitic:

I am also not an engineer, not even a little bit, but logic and the Mythbusters example I cited suggest to me that any deformation of the shell, even a microscopic one, might be enough to start a chain reaction that over time would eventually lead to hull failure as tiny additional deformations gradually accumulate.

Mythbusters (especially the later series) is about entertainment more than engineering. Hence they use "might" and "could" to exaggerate risks, to grab audience attention. Yes, it could have been a dent. And I'll admit there's a reasonable chance it's true. But it could also have been a meteor or a secret deep-diving Russian submarine or a giant squid. Did they frisk the passengers for weapons? Check the passengers' shoes for explosives? No? So it could have been an assassination or suicide. Or the submersible's path could have intersected with a HAARP beam that the USA was firing to try to cause an earthquake in Rostov-on-Don.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3095048 26-Jun-2023 12:42

surfisup1000:

frankv:

I'd say that if the paying passengers are given full and accurate disclosure of the risks. (I guess whether they were or not, or whether OceanGate even knew what the risks were, is an open question). And the paying passengers are sane and rational adults.

It isn't an open question , it has been discussed ...

"Reiss said he and the other passengers were well aware of the hazards of the rare voyage. In a recent interview with Seattle-based television station KIRO, Reiss said he had to sign a “long, long waiver that mentions possible death three times on the first page.”"

The open question is whether OceanGate even knew the risks they were taking. If they didn't, then the waiver couldn't have been an accurate disclosure.

OceanGate perhaps knew the risks inherent in using carbon fibre. But did they know what risks were added by their unconventional construction technique? Or the effect of fatigue on their unconventional carbon fibre structure?

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3095050 26-Jun-2023 12:48

frankv:

Mythbusters (especially the later series) is about entertainment more than engineering. Hence they use "might" and "could" to exaggerate risks, to grab audience attention. Yes, it could have been a dent. And I'll admit there's a reasonable chance it's true. But it could also have been a meteor or a secret deep-diving Russian submarine or a giant squid. Did they frisk the passengers for weapons? Check the passengers' shoes for explosives? No? So it could have been an assassination or suicide. Or the submersible's path could have intersected with a HAARP beam that the USA was firing to try to cause an earthquake in Rostov-on-Don.

From all your examples, I think a dent is the less unlikely. Mythbusters was not about placing entertainment over engineering, but making engineering entertaining. In this it succeeded brilliantly. There is nothing wrong with being entertaining. The show also had to pay the bills.

The reason I used the example is because it illustrated the principle perfectly. Initially the tanker was too strong to deform from the achievable negative air pressure, meaning the load was being too equally distributed. By putting a few (rather small) dents in the tanker, a dramatic implosion occurred. To my mind, this is a very effective presentation of what could have happened if the submersible had received any minor damage from ordinary bumps that might have happened over the years while it was being moved around. Of course it is just speculation but I don't think it is outlandish at all.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Bung

6479 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#3095072 26-Jun-2023 14:17

I don't think it needed anymore than design weaknesses. The outer visible skin was just cosmetic. Knocks and scrapes on that would not matter.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3095106 26-Jun-2023 15:31

frankv:
The open question is whether OceanGate even knew the risks they were taking.

They had absolutely no idea, otherwise they'd never have gone down any further than quick-bob-to-the-surface depth in that thing.

neb

11294 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3095110 26-Jun-2023 15:35

Rikkitic:
Mythbusters was not about placing entertainment over engineering, but making engineering entertaining.

The later series were definitely entertainment over engineering. Can you blow it up? Great! Set it on fire? Sure! Demonstrate a safety issue in something? Well, we'll keep it in mind for possible future series... towards the end it was more about inventing myths to bust in order to play with pyrotechnics or similar than anything else.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3095141 26-Jun-2023 16:57

Rikkitic:

From all your examples, I think a dent is the less unlikely. Mythbusters was not about placing entertainment over engineering, but making engineering entertaining. In this it succeeded brilliantly. There is nothing wrong with being entertaining. The show also had to pay the bills.

The reason I used the example is because it illustrated the principle perfectly. Initially the tanker was too strong to deform from the achievable negative air pressure, meaning the load was being too equally distributed. By putting a few (rather small) dents in the tanker, a dramatic implosion occurred. To my mind, this is a very effective presentation of what could have happened if the submersible had received any minor damage from ordinary bumps that might have happened over the years while it was being moved around. Of course it is just speculation but I don't think it is outlandish at all.

Going on a bit of tangent here, but Mythbusters was about entertainment via engineering. Bear in mind that an oil tank would not be designed to withstand a 101KPa pressure differential from the outside... it would have been designed to withstand much less pressure (back of an envelope, I figure about 6ft oil = 5ft water = 15kPa, plus some fudge factors to allow for manufacturing imperfections) from the inside, primarily along the bottom of the tank. They would have hoped that it would collapse all by itself, since it was old & decrepit and subjected to 6 times the design load. It didn't, so they weakened the tank with some small dents, and bingo, it collapsed. If it hadn't collapsed with their few small dents, they would have made a few more, larger dents and tried again until it did collapse. Because, ultimately, the tank had to collapse because that was what made it entertaining and memorable and demonstrated the power of air pressure. Then they adjusted their script to match the outcome of the "experiment".

I agree that Mythbusters made good TV, and was informative. There's nothing wrong with being entertaining. But its thick layer of entertainment distorted the underlying thin layer of science and engineering.

So, yes, it did show an implosion. Yes dents did cause the tank to collapse. But I don't think there's much in common between a thin metal oil tank and a 5cm thick carbon fibre hull. You wouldn't dent it with a hammer or even a sledge hammer. If you parked a truck on it, it wouldn't dent. If you have a strip of hull 1ft wide by 10ft, 5600kg/sq in = 5.6 tonne per sq inch = 800 tonne/sq ft = a stack of 200 fully loaded 40 tonne trucks balanced on top of the thing. Likewise you could sit an 800 tonne ship (e.g. HMNZS Taupo & HMNZS Hawea, 340T each, at the same time) on top of it. Whatever dented the sub would be quite badly damaged itself.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18659 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3095150 26-Jun-2023 17:23

OK, point taken. As I said, I'm not an engineer, but the idea seemed reasonable to me. Let's see what the investigation concludes.

Mythbusters may have oversimplified the science, but it attracted the interest of people who normally would never have watched anything more challenging than the Kardashians. I think it performed a valuable public service and I'm sorry it is gone. (Attempts to resuscitate it with other actors just didn't work; Adam and Jamie had a unique chemistry, both literal and figurative. A pity they didn't like each other.)

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18