User Panel
Quoted: So the number of man hours spent determines if something is reasonable? View Quote Holy crap, you have some sort of axe to grind. I can't help you. I'm not saying all work is good work - just that a lot of work has to be performed. Go back to your cubicle and we'll shove a pizza under the door when it's lunchtime. |
|
|
Minimizing risk is why the US government can't put humans into space right now without the help of an African immigrant or Russia. Risk aversion is also why we can't replace the a10 or oh58 or complete any number of other projects that have been done in the past. Here's a recent article on NASA's risk aversion. NASA is a joke in terms of human space flight specifically because of their risk aversion. About a week before he died Gus Grissom said "If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life." Some other famous guy said that without risk there can be no reward. This has come up in GD in the past about various catastrophes and it's always the same result. The fact is that risk is necessary and, at least in America, you are generally free to take whatever risks you want. Most people draw the line at what their uneducated "gut feeling" of risk tells them is risky. My mom always rolled car windows down when going over a bridge and my grandma always told me to be careful with knives..... In my mind there is only one key question about the CEO guy I would want investigated: Did he accurately convey the risk that he placed on the sub to the paying passengers? Risk has two components: severity and likelihood - he accurately conveyed the severity in writing with the "you might die" waiver. But how accurately did he convey the likelihood of the "you might die" risks? The details of this will surely be litigated and I bet there will be laws or regulations made by the US government about activities such as this. The unfortunate outcome is that government regulation does not foster innovation or economy - it fosters bureaucracy, monopolies, and barriers to entry into the market. Last note: 20/20 hindsight makes it easy to retroactively condemn the CEO guy. Don't be a bitch, look at it objectively. I contend that there is no wrong answer (to anything) if everybody involved has full awareness a decision making process. Freedom is scary! View Quote Uh, you're overthinking it here. This doesn't warrant an essay on Risk Theory. The Titan wasn't a matter of arbitrarily minimizing risk; it was a case of wanton recklessness. Like I said, like running the Indy 500 without a roll bar. Or with tires rated at 80 mph max. Or trying to walk across Death Valley in July with half a pint of water. Or going swimming in a river packed with crocodiles. Just plain stupid, had nothing to do with some elegant notion of risk. |
|
Quoted: They performed cyclic testing on scale models. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: All Monday morning QBing aside, when I saw the video of them gluing the titanium ring onto the carbon hull, I wondered what would happen when the cylindrical hull deforms .over and over and over again. I'm far from an engineer, but that seemed like a dumb idea. Here's an article from 2018 about two of the EE's that worked on it. https://www.lmtribune.com/northwest/into-the-deep-two-wsu-graduates-work-together-to-prepare/article_ccfa9118-60f8-509c-b170-abbcf90c6fde.html |
|
Quoted: Lol. So this guy's kid did a couple google searches and figured out it was a bad idea. Then CEO guy shits on him and calls him "uninformed". I think daddy here owes his son a huge apology. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/06/23/09/72449399-12225963-Mr_Bloom_s_texts_with_Stockton_Rush_show_he_was_offered_100_000_-m-122_1687508833443.jpg View Quote His sons uninformed stupid ideas saved their lives |
|
Quoted: There's a world of difference between tension and compression. A scuba tank is in tension (holding air in), whereas a sub hull is in compression (holding air out). Different materials handle those things differently. Think of concrete - you can easily put together concrete that will hold 5000pis+ in compression but it'll crumble under tension. As a fun what-if, if its weight didn't make this absurd, and its porosity didn't make it moot, concrete itself would make a decent hull material. You'd just have to coat it with something waterproof under pressure. I don't think flex seal would work. View Quote That experiment has been done before (the concrete boat). It works. Carbon epoxy laminate is actually pretty efficient in compression though. It's when you make it curved the interlaminate shear and tension capabilities come into play, and those are very much dependent on the epoxy/matrix, and also very much dependent on the actual fabrication procedures. |
|
Quoted: Uh, you're overthinking it here. This doesn't warrant an essay on Risk Theory. The Titan wasn't a matter of arbitrarily minimizing risk; it was a case of wanton recklessness. Like I said, like running the Indy 500 without a roll bar. Or with tires rated at 80 mph max. Or trying to walk across Death Valley in July with half a pint of water. Just plain stupid, had nothing to do with risk. View Quote As long as everybody agrees to the risk (or even to behave in what they believe is a reckless manner) I'm OK with it. Everybody else who values freedom should be OK with that. The problem is that too many people believe that it is the government's job to prevent people from taking risks or even being reckless. Again, the most important question in my mind is how well did CEO guy articulate the risk to the paying passengers. He did tell them that they might die... |
|
Quoted: Before I answer, a confession: I have argued that 'meh, the port window was probably ok' since early on, appealing to the maker's aversion to liability in fudging its certification on the side of safety, and hoping that the owner wasn't so stupid as to use a window that he reasonably expected to fail. As time goes on it more and more seems that he was reckless; that's no longer a mere accusation, it's a fairly well-established fact now. So I have largely lost faith in his trust of the window. I'm now firmly in the 'this guy was reckless' camp. I still don't think the window failed. I think the hull failed. I think it simply was cycled too hard, too many times, and that may have been confounded by the recent accidental impact that's been referenced before. I don't *think* we'll ever know, but I sort of loosely suspect that if the port failed they might find a partially intact section of hull - maybe from the opposite end, maybe from the ring around where the port would have been. Conversely, I think that if the hull is essentially nothing but sea-dust now, that supports the notion that the hull failed and when it failed, it essentially turned to dust. So I'm still in the 'hull failure' camp but I am much, much more open to 'window failure'. Either are possible. Heck, both were inevitable, it's just a question of which happened first. Knowing what we know now, yeah, his 'it'll crackle first' comment is a monument to his ego. What a way to be remembered. Also - my earlier optimism was based on the evidence at hand, which, at the time, pointed to a minor system failure and the possibility of a still-recoverable vessel. Put another way, I refused to believe catastrophic failure had happened because TPTB were treating it like a rescue. We now know that info was withheld. I'm not saying they were wrong to do that - they owe me nothing - just that I had to go with what I knew. *shrug* View Quote You are correct, we may never know. |
|
Quoted: Serious question: if Elon sends a rocket with people to mars and everybody dies is that reckless negligence? There will be a large fraction of the world telling him it’s dangerous and he shouldn’t do it. Or do you feel like it would be OK because there’d be hundreds of engineers involved and “everybody knows space is risky”? Rush had an engineering degree from Princeton in the 80s and had worked as an engineer, he wasn’t a wanna-be engineer. The real time acoustic monitoring thing is real technology not snake oil science, it simply is not fully matured technology. Moving forwarding with risk is how the world works everyday - You risk your life today when you drive to work, walk down stairs, and eat processed food. You accept the risk based on your risk/reward tolerance. I said around page 30 this guy’s only fault is that the waivers should’ve had more explicit language - they said “you might die” and I think they should’ve said something like “this submarine is experimental in nature and is neither designed nor certified to commonly accepted standards”. View Quote Now, addressing the notion of "recklessness". That word doesn't mean what you think it means. No, not in this context. Lot's of things are dangerous, and we work with that, even inside a federally regulated and certified environment, engineering misjudgment that leads to an accident situation does not, by itself, necessarily constitute recklessness in the context of USC or CFR. |
|
Quoted: The US mil probably heard/recorded the implosion. But can't/won't tell anyone for "reasons"... View Quote I am reading through the unread portions of this thread. I am guessing someone else may have posted this by now but here goes: https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/06/secret-us-navy-system-heard-titanic-sub-implosion-days-ago/?utm_medium=webpush&utm_source=push&utm_campaign=push |
|
Quoted: Lol. So this guy's kid did a couple google searches and figured out it was a bad idea. Then CEO guy shits on him and calls him "uninformed". I think daddy here owes his son a huge apology. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/06/23/09/72449399-12225963-Mr_Bloom_s_texts_with_Stockton_Rush_show_he_was_offered_100_000_-m-122_1687508833443.jpg View Quote One daddy can’t apologize even though he is being pressured to do so. |
|
|
Quoted: Now, addressing the notion of "recklessness". .............Lot's of things are dangerous, and we work with that View Quote "Dangerous": This might fail, but probably not, so let's try it. "Reckless": This might work, but probably not, but let's try it. Danger gambles on dying. Recklessness gambles on living. Ego fails to distinguish the two. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Fucking Dan Crenshaw on now criticizing the response. Saying they could have been on site Wednesday morning to save the crew. Fuck that asshole. Are you trolling? |
|
Quoted: Welcome to a Hollywood mega-director who decided subsea exploration would be his next hobby...and consequently immersed himself sufficiently in the hobby to become a leading expert. On the knowing before anyone, the diver/acquaintance of the Oceangate team Jesse something or other, who was also claiming on Day 1 or 2 that they imploded, makes me thing that before comms were permanently lost, messages were sent from the sub to that effect. "We're getting noises from the crackle-detection-thingy. Dropping ballast. GLURCH!" Which the mothership crew then blabbed about to Jesse, Cameron, and who knows who else. But not to the media at large. Maybe not even to the Coast Guard. Finally, the USN ret-sub officer who was hired to review the engineering of the sub and the program, and whose report excerpts were linked upthread, mentioned that: The CF construction of the body was novel, but that in the event of any shock impact to the structure, likely would require scrapping for human-carrying purposes, due to the inability to perform nondestructive testing of the full CF thickness for resulting cracks, voids, etc. EDIT, as noted in more detail, a few hours ago in this post: They admit bonking a few things with the sub. Yet still took people down in the thing afterwards. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: James Cameron says he was told on MONDAY that the sound of the Titan sub imploding had been detected, and claims the carbon fiber hull of the doomed ship was known to be unsuitable James Cameron was told within 24 hours of the Titanic sub disappearing that it had been heard to implode, and 'watched over the ensuing days this whole sort of everybody-running-around-with-their-hair-on-fire search, knowing full well that it was futile.' The film director and deep sea expert, who has made over 30 dives down to the Titanic wreckage, said he was told on Monday that the noise of a likely implosion had been registered by underwater acoustic devices. 'I tracked down some intel that was probably of a military origin, although it could have been research - because there are hydrophones all over the Atlantic - and got confirmation that there was loud noise consistent with an implosion,' he told CNN. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/06/23/03/72443203-12225371-image-a-32_1687487224348.jpg He said it did not surprise him, because he felt the carbon fiber hull of OceanGate Expedition's sub, named Titan, was fundamentally unsuitable. Cameron told Anderson Cooper on Thursday night he was 'kind of heart sick from the outcome of this.' But, he said, he had had more time than most to come to terms with it. 'I've been living with it for a few days now, as have some of my colleagues in the deep submergence community,' he said. 'I was out on a ship myself when this happened on Sunday. 'The first I heard of it was on Monday morning. I immediately got on my network - because it's a very small community in the deep submergence group - and found out some information with about a half hour that they had lost comms and they had lost tracking simultaneously. 'The only scenario that I could come up with in my mind that could account for that was an implosion. A shockwave event so powerful it actually took out a secondary system that has its own pressure vessel and its own battery power supply, which is the transponder that the ship uses to track where the sub is.' Cameron, 68, said he began speaking to friends and colleagues in the deep sea industry, and swiftly learned that there was little doubt there had been a catastrophic implosion. 'I let all of my inner circle of people know that we had lost our comrades, and I encouraged everyone to raise a glass in their honor on Monday. 'Then I watched over the ensuing days this whole sort of everybody-running-around-with-their-hair-on-fire search, knowing full well that it was futile, hoping against hope that I was wrong but knowing in my bones that I wasn't.' Cameron said it 'certainly wasn't a surprise' when the U.S. Coast Guard and OceanGate confirmed on Thursday that all five onboard were dead, and debris from the imploded sub had been found on the sea bed. He said he felt terrible for the families, saying they had to 'go through these false hopes that kept getting dangled as it played out.' Link James cameron sure does push the fact over and over that he knew before everyone else that it imploded, why is that of any concern other than for hsi own EGO, "im smarter than everyone else and I knew before you did!!" type attitude is cringe. Welcome to a Hollywood mega-director who decided subsea exploration would be his next hobby...and consequently immersed himself sufficiently in the hobby to become a leading expert. On the knowing before anyone, the diver/acquaintance of the Oceangate team Jesse something or other, who was also claiming on Day 1 or 2 that they imploded, makes me thing that before comms were permanently lost, messages were sent from the sub to that effect. "We're getting noises from the crackle-detection-thingy. Dropping ballast. GLURCH!" Which the mothership crew then blabbed about to Jesse, Cameron, and who knows who else. But not to the media at large. Maybe not even to the Coast Guard. Finally, the USN ret-sub officer who was hired to review the engineering of the sub and the program, and whose report excerpts were linked upthread, mentioned that: The CF construction of the body was novel, but that in the event of any shock impact to the structure, likely would require scrapping for human-carrying purposes, due to the inability to perform nondestructive testing of the full CF thickness for resulting cracks, voids, etc. EDIT, as noted in more detail, a few hours ago in this post: They admit bonking a few things with the sub. Yet still took people down in the thing afterwards. Yea they rammed and got stuck on titanic propeller during one dive. |
|
|
Quoted: Foremost, this a question, a series of questions and scenarios, that is addressed in job interviews. And, in my experience, it is the hardest one. View Quote @L_JE People make it out to be hard, but I don't believe it is. The only hard aspect is deciding, in the absence of guidance, who can accept what level of risk. In the established engineering world everybody has a risk assessment process and a documented procedure for accepting risk. A cynical person could honestly view the "community standards" of the deep-sea mini-sub community as either legitimate and reasonable or as overly cautious and a barrier to entry that preserves monopolies. By definition how you deal with either point of view has to be either reasonable or unreasonable - but who decides on reasonable? I contend that if everybody affected says it is reasonable then it is reasonable no matter what you or I think. |
|
James Cameron calls out 'three potential failure points' on Titan sub. James says the titanium end caps are intact on the sea floor.
'Titanic' filmmaker James Cameron calls out 'three potential failure points' on Titan submersible |
|
Quoted: I believe creaks and groans would be normal sounds with decent, that kind of pressure compresses things. Once things go wrong, its done. I doubt they knew for more than a second, (if at all) and there was nothing they could do to stop it. Even if they knew and dropped ballast, they're still 2 miles down. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I've read some responses but not all. So they were crushed instantly is what i'm reading. What happened in the events leading to that? Would the implosion have been unsuspecting or as they went deeper must have there been signs that the vessel was imploding? Trying to get sense of a timeline here leading to the event I believe creaks and groans would be normal sounds with decent, that kind of pressure compresses things. Once things go wrong, its done. I doubt they knew for more than a second, (if at all) and there was nothing they could do to stop it. Even if they knew and dropped ballast, they're still 2 miles down. i posted this in another thread but here is what I feel is a possible cause: I am on the belief / theory that the first few layers had some delamination, while this didn't change the structural strength much it allowed water into those first few outer layers. Recall the titanium ring / end cap is bonded on that first/outer layer. The water eventually worked itself to the titanium ring slowly disbonding the first few layers. When it reached the ring there was no sealant / adhesive to stop as the bond line (from what's seen in photos) is only between the top layer / outer layer of the composite shell, and the inner layer of the titanium ring, that top layer is disbanded. Water between those layers quickly over powered the adhesive at the cap due to the pressure differential. It may have been slow at first as the water was now just starting to have momentum to start tearing things out like how a river meanders. However the water continues to damage the adhesive beyond the outer layer/titanium ring bone line. Now the air is also trying to escape and is aiding in further disbond. So at this point I feel they(crew) are hearing things as the first few layers are disbonding and maybe started to see some water trickle in. But as I mentioned things are going to get bad fast as further up that water is not "regulated" and under extreme pressure, the water now has a path into the sub. Finally a few minutes later the leak turns into a stream at 5000 psi they may have witnessed this for few seconds. With that water coming in at that pressure it's tearing away the sealant/adhesive and further delaminating the entire thickness of the shell at the end cap mate line to the point where the shell can no longer support the pressure and that continuous loop needed to handle the stress is gone. The shell (tube, carbon fiber pressure vessel, I'm mixing up terms sorry) collapses in on itself like a frat boy crushing a bud light. Assuming my theory is correct, which is essentially a poor bondment design to the end caps which was not damage tolerant if the first layer failed. You would need to have the pieces to find out. Photos of the pressure hull may just show destroyed and cracked composite material, which is a result of the failure but not the cause. |
|
Quoted: Internal pressure pushes outward, against the CF's tensile strength, attempting to stretch and expand it, but the CF fibers are too strong, up to 50% stronger than steel. External pressure tries to compress it, creating a internal, crushing, friction and abrasion, eventually leading to failure. Try to mentally visualize it. Think of a woven straw basket. You put some pretty heavy stuff in it and you can carry it around with no problems. But try pushing in on that basket from the outside; what happens? Same thing with CF, which is actually a woven material, albeit stiffened with some resin. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Maybe someone with more knowladge can help me understand the problem with carbon fiber (obviously it failed in this situation). But there are SCBA tanks and those high pressure tanks for air guns made out of carbon fiber that hold up to 4000psi. Is external preassure that much mor different then internal? And barring that would it have been a better design with a titanium sleeve with carbon fiber wrapped around it similar to how the carbon fiber barrels are made? Internal pressure pushes outward, against the CF's tensile strength, attempting to stretch and expand it, but the CF fibers are too strong, up to 50% stronger than steel. External pressure tries to compress it, creating a internal, crushing, friction and abrasion, eventually leading to failure. Try to mentally visualize it. Think of a woven straw basket. You put some pretty heavy stuff in it and you can carry it around with no problems. But try pushing in on that basket from the outside; what happens? Same thing with CF, which is actually a woven material, albeit stiffened with some resin. There's an old engineering saying.... "You can't push a rope" |
|
Quoted:SNIP Last note: 20/20 hindsight makes it easy to retroactively condemn the CEO guy. Don't be a bitch, look at it objectively. I contend that there is no wrong answer (to anything) if everybody involved has full awareness a decision making process. Freedom is scary! View Quote And reading is hard. No he did not accurately convey the risks, he said it was safer than crossing the street. |
|
Quoted: True. But Aluminium Oxynitride is a real thing now. https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/w/images/9/91/ALON_transparent_aluminium.jpg View Quote |
|
Quoted: James Cameron calls out 'three potential failure points' on Titan sub. James says the titanium end caps are intact on the sea floor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChdkuq6gi8 View Quote |
|
Stockton Rush talking about these glass spheres at (19:41) Says if they weren't filled with oil it would be like 10 sticks of dynamite going off in they imploded. The sub had one on each side.
Mi expedición al TITANIC parte 1/4 | Alan por el mundo |
|
Quoted: There's an old engineering saying.... "You can't push a rope" View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe someone with more knowladge can help me understand the problem with carbon fiber (obviously it failed in this situation). But there are SCBA tanks and those high pressure tanks for air guns made out of carbon fiber that hold up to 4000psi. Is external preassure that much mor different then internal? And barring that would it have been a better design with a titanium sleeve with carbon fiber wrapped around it similar to how the carbon fiber barrels are made? Internal pressure pushes outward, against the CF's tensile strength, attempting to stretch and expand it, but the CF fibers are too strong, up to 50% stronger than steel. External pressure tries to compress it, creating a internal, crushing, friction and abrasion, eventually leading to failure. Try to mentally visualize it. Think of a woven straw basket. You put some pretty heavy stuff in it and you can carry it around with no problems. But try pushing in on that basket from the outside; what happens? Same thing with CF, which is actually a woven material, albeit stiffened with some resin. There's an old engineering saying.... "You can't push a rope" Anyone that has ever had one too many at the bar and taken a nice lady home know that as well |
|
Quoted: Sounds like he has seen pictures. He said the composite is rammed into one of the titanium end caps which supports my theory of delamination leading to disbondment of the other titanium end cap. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: James Cameron calls out 'three potential failure points' on Titan sub. James says the titanium end caps are intact on the sea floor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gChdkuq6gi8 There is a video of the ring being bonded on that's been posted a few times. The way that thing was fabricated and the design of that joint would certainly lend itself to a first ply delam at the bondline. I can think of a few other things that could go very wrong with that design as well. I hope we get to find out some day. |
|
Attached File
Attached File People were basically begging him not to go forward. 36 of them in fact. What an arrogant piece of shit this guy was |
|
Quoted: Serious question: if Elon sends a rocket with people to mars and everybody dies is that reckless negligence? There will be a large fraction of the world telling him it’s dangerous and he shouldn’t do it. Or do you feel like it would be OK because there’d be hundreds of engineers involved and “everybody knows space is risky”? Rush had an engineering degree from Princeton in the 80s and had worked as an engineer, he wasn’t a wanna-be engineer. The real time acoustic monitoring thing is real technology not snake oil science, it simply is not fully matured technology. Moving forwarding with risk is how the world works everyday - You risk your life today when you drive to work, walk down stairs, and eat processed food. You accept the risk based on your risk/reward tolerance. I said around page 30 this guy’s only fault is that the waivers should’ve had more explicit language - they said “you might die” and I think they should’ve said something like “this submarine is experimental in nature and is neither designed nor certified to commonly accepted standards”. View Quote TITANIC-BOUND SUBMERSIBLE Liability Waiver Protects OceanGate From Lawsuits ... EVEN IF THE CO. IS NEGLIGENT The company behind the ill-fated submersible designed to explore the depths of the sea covered itself from the perils of underwater exploration with a comprehensive liability waiver, and we have a copy. The document -- used on a trip from last summer -- repeatedly mentions the risk of serious injury or death, and tells passengers they assume the risk without any recourse against the company. OceanGate makes it clear ... even if it's negligent in the design or operation of the vessel, the passengers have no legal recourse. The document states, "I hereby assume full responsibility for the risk of bodily injury, disability, death, and property damage due to the negligence of [OceanGate] while involved in the operation." TITANIC-BOUND SUBMERSIBLE Liability Waiver Protects OceanGate From Lawsuits ... EVEN IF THE CO. IS NEGLIGENT Here's how robustly the company covered itself, telling passengers what they're up against - 6/23/2023 1:00 AM PT The company behind the ill-fated submersible designed to explore the depths of the sea covered itself from the perils of underwater exploration with a comprehensive liability waiver, and we have a copy. The document -- used on a trip from last summer -- repeatedly mentions the risk of serious injury or death, and tells passengers they assume the risk without any recourse against the company. OceanGate makes it clear ... even if it's negligent in the design or operation of the vessel, the passengers have no legal recourse. The document states, "I hereby assume full responsibility for the risk of bodily injury, disability, death, and property damage due to the negligence of [OceanGate] while involved in the operation." Here's how robustly the company covered itself, telling passengers what they're up against. -- "A portion of the operation will be conducted inside an experimental submersible vessel. The experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used in human occupied submersibles." -- "When diving below the ocean surface this vessel will be subject to extreme pressure, and any failure of the vessel while I am aboard could cause severe injury or death." "If I choose to assist in the servicing or operation of the submersible vessel, I will be exposed to risks associated with high-pressure gases, pure oxygen servicing, high-voltage electrical systems and other dangers that could lead to property damage, injury, disability and death." .... I hereby agree to defend, indemnify, save, and hold harmless OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd. ... from any loss, liability, damage, or costs they may incur to due to any claim brought in violation of this Release." |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Before I answer, a confession: I have argued that 'meh, the port window was probably ok' since early on, appealing to the maker's aversion to liability in fudging its certification on the side of safety, and hoping that the owner wasn't so stupid as to use a window that he reasonably expected to fail. As time goes on it more and more seems that he was reckless; that's no longer a mere accusation, it's a fairly well-established fact now. So I have largely lost faith in his trust of the window. I'm now firmly in the 'this guy was reckless' camp. I still don't think the window failed. I think the hull failed. I think it simply was cycled too hard, too many times, and that may have been confounded by the recent accidental impact that's been referenced before. I don't *think* we'll ever know, but I sort of loosely suspect that if the port failed they might find a partially intact section of hull - maybe from the opposite end, maybe from the ring around where the port would have been. Conversely, I think that if the hull is essentially nothing but sea-dust now, that supports the notion that the hull failed and when it failed, it essentially turned to dust. So I'm still in the 'hull failure' camp but I am much, much more open to 'window failure'. Either are possible. Heck, both were inevitable, it's just a question of which happened first. Knowing what we know now, yeah, his 'it'll crackle first' comment is a monument to his ego. What a way to be remembered. Also - my earlier optimism was based on the evidence at hand, which, at the time, pointed to a minor system failure and the possibility of a still-recoverable vessel. Put another way, I refused to believe catastrophic failure had happened because TPTB were treating it like a rescue. We now know that info was withheld. I'm not saying they were wrong to do that - they owe me nothing - just that I had to go with what I knew. *shrug* You are correct, we may never know. Once they examine the titanium end cap they may be able to rule out failure of the window. |
|
Quoted: And reading is hard. No he did not accurately convey the risks, he said it was safer than crossing the street. View Quote NHTSA says 7,388 pedestrian deaths occurred in 2021. versus 5 mini sub deaths over multiple decades. Which one is safer? Hint: it depends on your definition of safety. |
|
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure no waiver is going to protect them if they're shown to be guilty of criminal negligence, especially in their repeated insistence that the design was safe. I feel bad for the young engineers who ostensibly worked on this, especially if they're found to have knowingly participated in the bad decision making. Their careers will be essentially over.
|
|
Quoted: TITANIC-BOUND SUBMERSIBLE Liability Waiver Protects OceanGate From Lawsuits ... EVEN IF THE CO. IS NEGLIGENT The company behind the ill-fated submersible designed to explore the depths of the sea covered itself from the perils of underwater exploration with a comprehensive liability waiver, and we have a copy. The document -- used on a trip from last summer -- repeatedly mentions the risk of serious injury or death, and tells passengers they assume the risk without any recourse against the company. OceanGate makes it clear ... even if it's negligent in the design or operation of the vessel, the passengers have no legal recourse. The document states, "I hereby assume full responsibility for the risk of bodily injury, disability, death, and property damage due to the negligence of [OceanGate] while involved in the operation." TITANIC-BOUND SUBMERSIBLE Liability Waiver Protects OceanGate From Lawsuits ... EVEN IF THE CO. IS NEGLIGENT Here's how robustly the company covered itself, telling passengers what they're up against - 6/23/2023 1:00 AM PT The company behind the ill-fated submersible designed to explore the depths of the sea covered itself from the perils of underwater exploration with a comprehensive liability waiver, and we have a copy. The document -- used on a trip from last summer -- repeatedly mentions the risk of serious injury or death, and tells passengers they assume the risk without any recourse against the company. OceanGate makes it clear ... even if it's negligent in the design or operation of the vessel, the passengers have no legal recourse. The document states, "I hereby assume full responsibility for the risk of bodily injury, disability, death, and property damage due to the negligence of [OceanGate] while involved in the operation." Here's how robustly the company covered itself, telling passengers what they're up against. -- "A portion of the operation will be conducted inside an experimental submersible vessel. The experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used in human occupied submersibles." -- "When diving below the ocean surface this vessel will be subject to extreme pressure, and any failure of the vessel while I am aboard could cause severe injury or death." "If I choose to assist in the servicing or operation of the submersible vessel, I will be exposed to risks associated with high-pressure gases, pure oxygen servicing, high-voltage electrical systems and other dangers that could lead to property damage, injury, disability and death." .... I hereby agree to defend, indemnify, save, and hold harmless OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd. ... from any loss, liability, damage, or costs they may incur to due to any claim brought in violation of this Release." View Quote I think a decent attorney would invalidate the Waiver, both from an ordinary and gross negligence standpoint given the statements from the former CEO and other evidence that will surface. |
|
Quoted: Here's how robustly the company covered itself, telling passengers what they're up against. -- "A portion of the operation will be conducted inside an experimental submersible vessel. The experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used in human occupied submersibles." View Quote If this is true and the passengers signed a waiver that included the above statement then I fully support CEO guy. |
|
There are a whole lot of potential vectors for catastrophic failure with an externally pressurized CF composite tube the way their design was set up, some of which would be really difficult if not impossible to detect in such a way as to mitigate the risk. The people screaming at him to stop were justified.
|
|
Looks to me like OceanGate put more time and expertise into their death waiver than they did into their design engineering.
Edit: and I’m not blaming the young and diverse engineers who signed on to that shitshow. This all rests on the CEO, who is now resting on the ocean floor. |
|
Quoted: If this is true and the passengers signed a waiver that included the above statement then I fully support CEO guy. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Here's how robustly the company covered itself, telling passengers what they're up against. -- "A portion of the operation will be conducted inside an experimental submersible vessel. The experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and may be constructed of materials that have not been widely used in human occupied submersibles." If this is true and the passengers signed a waiver that included the above statement then I fully support CEO guy. The problem is the issues with the design that appear to be clearly indicated as potential causes of the actual failure were repeatedly raised to the CEOs attention. Despite this, he continued to insist to customers that the design was safe and did not disclose details that otherwise would have provided sufficient information for people to make an educated decision about the relative safety of boarding the submarine. From an engineering standpoint, that's a very important distinction regarding due diligence in safety disclosures. |
|
Quoted: I think a decent attorney would invalidate the Waiver, both from an ordinary and gross negligence standpoint given the statements from the former CEO and other evidence that will surface. View Quote Attorneys are going to be looking at what input NASA and Boeing had in the design & construction process. What they recommended etc. For example if Boeing recommend the bonding agent to adapt the titanium end caps to the carbon fiber hull, instructions on how to do it, supplied the bonding agent, etc. How involved were they or was it just BS from Stockton. Lawyers will seeking all that information, texts, emails, contacts etc. They will be looking at everyone involved, sub contractors, parts suppliers, everything. The biggest thing is they will be trying to find the point of failure cause. |
|
Quoted: The problem is the issues with the design that appear to be clearly indicated as potential causes of the actual failure were repeatedly raised to the CEOs attention. Despite this, he continued to insist to customers that the design was safe and did not disclose details that otherwise would have provided sufficient information for people to make an educated decision about the relative safety of boarding the submarine. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: The problem is the issues with the design that appear to be clearly indicated as potential causes of the actual failure were repeatedly raised to the CEOs attention. Despite this, he continued to insist to customers that the design was safe and did not disclose details that otherwise would have provided sufficient information for people to make an educated decision about the relative safety of boarding the submarine. Somebody has warned you that driving a car is dangerous, if you die in a car wreck tomorrow that alone is not evidence that you are at fault or should've known better. Everybody who operates a machine like this has been told that it is dangerous. To quote CEO guy: Curious what the uninformed would say the danger is and whether it is real or imagined. |
|
I, for one, would love to see their failure analyses and testing procedures. I have my suspicions about what I would find.
|
|
Quoted: Somebody has warned you that driving a car is dangerous, if you die in a car wreck tomorrow that alone is not evidence that you are at fault or should've known better. Everybody who operates a machine like this has been told that it is dangerous. To quote CEO guy: He clearly said there are both real and imagined risks! The person he was talking to said his son was worried about a whale bumping into them or a giant squid grabbing the sub - I think (hope?) we can all agree that those are an imagined risk. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The problem is the issues with the design that appear to be clearly indicated as potential causes of the actual failure were repeatedly raised to the CEOs attention. Despite this, he continued to insist to customers that the design was safe and did not disclose details that otherwise would have provided sufficient information for people to make an educated decision about the relative safety of boarding the submarine. Somebody has warned you that driving a car is dangerous, if you die in a car wreck tomorrow that alone is not evidence that you are at fault or should've known better. Everybody who operates a machine like this has been told that it is dangerous. To quote CEO guy: Curious what the uninformed would say the danger is and whether it is real or imagined. If I design a car, and my lead engineer, and other engineers with extensive experience and designing cars insist that there are critical flaws in my design that would likely result in fatalities, and I turn around and sell tickets to use the car insisting to customers that the car design is safe, that's a different story. |
|
Quoted: I, for one, would love to see their failure analyses and testing procedures. I have my suspicions about what I would find. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Stockton Rush talking about these glass spheres at (19:41) Says if they weren't filled with oil it would be like 10 sticks of dynamite going off in they imploded. The sub had one on each side. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD5SUDFE6CA View Quote Great video. Thanks for sharing. |
|
|
Quoted: One daddy can’t apologize even though he is being pressured to do so. View Quote Attached File |
|
Quoted: Somebody has warned you that driving a car is dangerous, if you die in a car wreck tomorrow that alone is not evidence that you are at fault or should've known better. Everybody who operates a machine like this has been told that it is dangerous. To quote CEO guy: He clearly said there are both real and imagined risks! The person he was talking to said his son was worried about a whale bumping into them or a giant squid grabbing the sub - I think (hope?) we can all agree that those are an imagined risk. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The problem is the issues with the design that appear to be clearly indicated as potential causes of the actual failure were repeatedly raised to the CEOs attention. Despite this, he continued to insist to customers that the design was safe and did not disclose details that otherwise would have provided sufficient information for people to make an educated decision about the relative safety of boarding the submarine. Somebody has warned you that driving a car is dangerous, if you die in a car wreck tomorrow that alone is not evidence that you are at fault or should've known better. Everybody who operates a machine like this has been told that it is dangerous. To quote CEO guy: Curious what the uninformed would say the danger is and whether it is real or imagined. The entire submersible industry wrote this clown a letter telling him his submersible was unsafe which he ignored. There was legal action which provided a lot of facts around the firing of an engineer who said the craft was unsafe including information saying parts weren't certified to anywhere near the depth this submersible was going. There are interviews with multiple people who either didn't go on the craft because it was unsafe or had a variety of issues including mission aborts. I don't think you understand risk and negligence at all in this context. |
|
Quoted: They used a 1/3 scale model for some initial testing which apparently led to some changes. Not sure what they were or how much testing at 1/3 scale or full scale happened after that though. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I, for one, would love to see their failure analyses and testing procedures. I have my suspicions about what I would find. I'm thinking the failure of the pressure vessel during testing at the University, and the subsequent cancellation of further testing and the testing contract, just might come into play here. Any guess which burgeoning diversity hire will be the first to seek immunity in order to testify to save their backside while documenting their torment on Tik-Tok? /end sarcasm |
|
Quoted: Lol. So this guy's kid did a couple google searches and figured out it was a bad idea. Then CEO guy shits on him and calls him "uninformed". I think daddy here owes his son a huge apology. https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2023/06/23/09/72449399-12225963-Mr_Bloom_s_texts_with_Stockton_Rush_show_he_was_offered_100_000_-m-122_1687508833443.jpg View Quote Yeah unfortunately daddy and son are dead. So I wonder what the last words daddy said to the son. |
|
As far as I am concerned that CEO murdered those people with his fucking arrogance.
|
|
Quoted: I, for one, would love to see their failure analyses and testing procedures. I have my suspicions about what I would find. View Quote They chose carbon fiber as a marketing gimmick. Light weight is it's main useful property and benefit vs more traditional materials. In a submarine this is actually a probably not helpful. In a rocket it's great. Why not just ignore the decades of experience with titanium deep water submarines for the hell of it. The rubes they were getting to pay to go in the fart tube know carbon fiber is awesome because their Bentley uses it for the cup holders. They had to pay $25k extra for that option, so it must be the best for submarines as well. |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.