Adventure to the Titanic goes terribly wrong [Staff Warning in OP]

277,368 Views | 1587 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by Stat Monitor Repairman
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fasthorse05 said:

Supposedly the pressure on the sub is 6000 pounds per square inch at 13,000 feet.

That's just staggering.

Anyone want to lay odds on someone in the next 24 hours stating this was caused by climate change?


If the industrial Revolution never would have happened, the ice berg would have never broken off from what ever glacier it was on, the titanic would have never sank and those people wouldn't have been down there in a sun.
2ndGen87
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah and why can you not get out under any type of emergency on top of the ocean? This doesn't seem like a long thought out design
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CivilAg10 said:

Referencing the almighty engineer toolbox dot com, 5x factor of safety is within the typical range for boilers. Would think submersible pressure vessels are at least on that order. Also not a mech eng


Boilers explode underneath residential structures.

Submarines don't hurt anyone who hasn't voluntarily climbed into it.
CivilAg10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Touche
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BonfireNerd04 said:

How exactly was the sub able to communicate with its surface ship under two miles of water? This clearly must be possible in order for a lack of messages to be a concern.


Amazingly enough, an extremely easy way to communicate underwater is by sound. Doesn't work well to keep you hidden in battle, but if op-sec isn't a concern, just broadcast sound against the hull to anyone listening with passive sonar.
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
CivilAg10 said:

Touche


Also, it has to be buoyant.
AnScAggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
What I do not understand is the desire to go see the titanic through a tiny window in a cramped submersible that looks like it was built by the Astronaut Farmer and spending $250k to do so. A better tourism idea would have been to send down underwater drones that tourists can pay to control and do a self-directed tour from the boat above the wreck. I am sure submersible drones capable of operating at 2+ miles down are fairly expensive but with VR technology and some fail safes installed I would think that would be a more viable tourist attraction.
TXAG 05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
JABQ04 said:

fasthorse05 said:

Supposedly the pressure on the sub is 6000 pounds per square inch at 13,000 feet.

That's just staggering.

Anyone want to lay odds on someone in the next 24 hours stating this was caused by climate change?


If the industrial Revolution never would have happened, the ice berg would have never broken off from what ever glacier it was on, the titanic would have never sank and those people wouldn't have been down there in a sun.


And Titanic would have been just a footnote of history, and most people today would have never heard of it. Interesting to think about.
bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pumpkinhead said:

One of three scenarios happened from worst case to less worse but still really bad:

1) Lost hull integrity and imploded
2) Got snagged up in the wreckage and are sitting down there. Will be extremely difficult to rescue. Clock is ticking on life support.
3) Lost all power/communications but are floating around on the surface somewhere…finding a needle in haystack…they are bolted in from outside so will still eventually run out of air even in this scenario, just like scenario #2.

Let's hope it is scenario #3 and surface search spots them. Best case to hope for.


Could have lost control and just drifting at 10,000 ft depth never to be found.

What I can't understand is that they designed it so it can't be opened from the inside. So even if your safety system floats you to the surface, you're still trapped inside.

And does anybody know how much water and food they bring down with them.
aggiez03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bmks270 said:

Pumpkinhead said:

One of three scenarios happened from worst case to less worse but still really bad:

1) Lost hull integrity and imploded
2) Got snagged up in the wreckage and are sitting down there. Will be extremely difficult to rescue. Clock is ticking on life support.
3) Lost all power/communications but are floating around on the surface somewhere…finding a needle in haystack…they are bolted in from outside so will still eventually run out of air even in this scenario, just like scenario #2.

Let's hope it is scenario #3 and surface search spots them. Best case to hope for.


Could have lost control and just drifting at 10,000 ft depth never to be found.

What I can't understand is that they designed it so it can't be opened from the inside. So even if your safety system floats you to the surface, you're still trapped inside.

And does anybody know how much water and food they bring down with them.
I would assume they would have a manual release to drop weight so they could float to the top, but who knows?

As far as food and water, they will run out of oxygen in 96 hours from launch, based on what I read.

They would be fine without food for 2 weeks if they have water. They probably could survive without water for 3 days considering they have shelter, aren't expending energy, and shouldn't be dehydrated.

Based on the video, they were bolted in with 15 large bolts from the outside. Doesn't sound like getting out unassisted is an option, even if at the surface.
hoosier-daddy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Is OP trying to be subpoena'd? Appreciate the fascinating read!
TexasAggie_02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Wow, prayers for all involved!
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm trying not to imagine the waste from 4 people in a underwater coffin.
Jugstore Cowboy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Its Not Rocket Surgery said:

Seems safe...

CBS Sunday Morning - A Visit to RMS Titanic aboard the Titan submersible
That's incredible. The seemingly cavalier attitude looks pretty awful now.
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Based on the video, they were bolted in with 15 large bolts from the outside.
What tool is required to crack the sub open and are the response units are outfitted with that tool?

Maybe the special tool is secured to the outside of the sub.
cbr
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That led backlit 'one switch' is a $29 daltonworks switch, 3 of which failed in my race car in 2 years.
Orbital Debris
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TexasRebel said:

CivilAg10 said:

Touche


Also, it has to be buoyant.
Not true, a submarine is designed to sink, more precisely to control the buoyancy, positive or negative.

Why would I volunteer to serve on a ship that sinks? Because all ships sink at least once, mine was designed to come back up.

I volunteered for sub duty, but I understood the metallic properties of 3 inch thick HY-80. I spent my time contemplating being crushed by catastrophic implosion.

Bolting me into a carbon fiber nightmare that I can't open from the inside, F that. Sorry, those folks are Darwin award candidates.
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
An object that stays 3 inches off of the floor is buoyant. …just not very.

Also, did this thing have planes? Or were they just going to shed weight to come back up?

I don't mind studying engineering failures, but the ones that are obviously failures from the onset are a waste of time.
BrazosDog02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
pdc093 said:

I'm watching news on this.
They just mentioned a 'safety feature' that could come into play. But, they're not going into ANY detail about it.
How horrifying for those involved.



Didn't the OP just mention a problem with safety protocols ?


Did anyone learn anything about safety shortcomings when they tried This gig the first time around in 1912.

This mother****er literally built the worlds first actual Failboat and people paid to get on it.

Dafuq.
A_Gang_Ag_06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Green Dragon said:

Not just nope. No freaking nope. I am not doing that! I worked at a car lot in college and a few of the guys were ex enlisted submariners. They told me they'd stay under water for 6 months. That really takes a certain kind of person. I couldn't imagine doing that or the titanic thing.

You don't go down in a tube to the bottom of the Atlantic ocean unless you have too.


I was on a boat for four years back from 97-01. Honestly, I couldn't imagine being on a surface ship. We all basically said "screw that."

They keep you busy with an extremely regimented schedule of watch, drills, maintenance, field days, etc. that you're always busy if you're not a slug. Working on an 18 hour "day" makes a big difference as well. Of course, I spent hours on rounds in engine room lower level playing "slaps" with the nukes. And yes, I do mean the children's game where you try to slap your opponent's hands before he can move them. LOL

And you may go on a six month deployment, but you're not underwater for six months straight.
JFABNRGR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bmks270 said:

Pumpkinhead said:

One of three scenarios happened from worst case to less worse but still really bad:

1) Lost hull integrity and imploded
2) Got snagged up in the wreckage and are sitting down there. Will be extremely difficult to rescue. Clock is ticking on life support.
3) Lost all power/communications but are floating around on the surface somewhere…finding a needle in haystack…they are bolted in from outside so will still eventually run out of air even in this scenario, just like scenario #2.

Let's hope it is scenario #3 and surface search spots them. Best case to hope for.


Could have lost control and just drifting at 10,000 ft depth never to be found.

What I can't understand is that they designed it so it can't be opened from the inside. So even if your safety system floats you to the surface, you're still trapped inside.

And does anybody know how much water and food they bring down with them.


If on the surface and no way to escape from inside it should have been fitted with a battery powered PRB that could have been initiated at first sign of trouble even at depth before surfacing.

Anybody know what the rate of descent is and typical SOP for status checks per X vertical feet. If lost coms at 1.5 hours estimated depth at issues would be???
ReloadAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I had to keep myself from panicking when I boarded the Nemo submarine ride at Disneyland. I can't imagine being in this small sun diving to those depths to see the Titanic. Hell no.
TexasRebel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ReloadAg said:

I had to keep myself from panicking when I boarded the Nemo submarine ride at Disneyland.
LMCane
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dcbowers said:

5 people sharing a space that measures 22 ft x 9.2 ft x 8.3 ft for 4 days?

I think I'll pass.
having a billion dollars in my bank account where I could travel the world and stay at the nicest resorts on the planet or on a massive yacht...

but instead deciding the better decision is to ride in a small experimental submarine which is crushed by water pressure like a Nazi U-Boat being hit by depth charges?

yeah. I think I'll pass.
45-70Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some deep water explorer was just on the news explaining why he thinks they're entangled in the wreckage of the titanic. Said a current could have either swept them really close and entangled a propeller or they actually tried to go inside the wreckage and became trapped.

Either way, sounds awful.
Pumpkinhead
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Remaining two passengers identified as a father and son (48 years and 19 years old), the dad a wealthy businessman from Pakistan.
Kozmozag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Has time run out yet
JABQ04
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think sometime Thursday from one of the articles I read
Pumpkinhead
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
2-hour descent to Titanic wreck and lost communications about 1 hour 45 minutes in.
CapeAggie89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pumpkinhead said:

One of three scenarios happened from worst case to less worse but still really bad:

1) Lost hull integrity and imploded
2) Got snagged up in the wreckage and are sitting down there. Will be extremely difficult to rescue. Clock is ticking on life support.
3) Lost all power/communications but are floating around on the surface somewhere…finding a needle in haystack…they are bolted in from outside so will still eventually run out of air even in this scenario, just like scenario #2.

Let's hope it is scenario #3 and surface search spots them. Best case to hope for
Agree this is the most likely. Worked with the submersible Alvin for 6 years at Woods Hole Oceanographic. I would go down in that no problem and it can go deeper than the titanic. But after reading how this is put together, that would be a big nope ! The Alvin is a titanium sphere certified by the Navy and they don't mess around. It can drop everything and the sphere would float to the surface. It also has a hatch The whole bolting you in with no hatch scares the c**p out of me. Hope they find them bobbing around on the surface somewhere.
JFABNRGR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That would be a descent rate of about 105 VF a minute and if consistent would have lost coms at about 11,000 feet or 1460' above the titanic and doubtful it would have been visible at all from that depth above.

I assume protocol would be to do a safety stop in sight of wreck once located and asses conditions before attempting to approach closer.

A loss of 1-2 com checks in a row should trigger abort and surface. Since this has not happened most likely leads to catastrophic failure.

Edit after watching the video it seems all guidance is given from mother ship so coms would have to be consistent at least up to the point operator could navigate visually around the wreck. Still points to catastrophic loss.
Furlock Bones
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
45-70Ag said:

Some deep water explorer was just on the news explaining why he thinks they're entangled in the wreckage of the titanic. Said a current could have either swept them really close and entangled a propeller or they actually tried to go inside the wreckage and became trapped.

Either way, sounds awful.
based on what information? guy says stuff to get on tv is really what happened here.
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pumpkinhead said:

One of three scenarios happened from worst case to less worse but still really bad:

1) Lost hull integrity and imploded
2) Got snagged up in the wreckage and are sitting down there. Will be extremely difficult to rescue. Clock is ticking on life support.
3) Lost all power/communications but are floating around on the surface somewhere…finding a needle in haystack…they are bolted in from outside so will still eventually run out of air even in this scenario, just like scenario #2.

Let's hope it is scenario #3 and surface search spots them. Best case to hope for.

4) Lost power, couldn't jettison the ballast, and sunk to the bottom.

FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://news.sky.com/story/titanic-submarine-missing-live-updates-submersible-cannot-be-opened-from-inside-time-running-out-on-oxygen-supply-waiver-mentions-death-three-times-12905748?postid=6076101#liveblog-body

Says a distress signal was sent out at some point.
Its Not Rocket Surgery
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Apparently Stockton Rush, the OceanGate CEO was onboard for the dive and is among the missing.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.