Tourist submersible missing on visit to Titanic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone dies. At least vaporizing yourself in an experimental carbon fiber tube is a pretty unique and interesting way to go.

Vaporizing?

That implies heat. This sub was 10000 ft underwater in near freezing temperatures. Good luck vaporizing anything.

You must’ve studied science at trump university.

The immense pressure of water entering the capsule would pulverize any living matter in the sub. We are talking surface of the sun temps. Gone. Nothing left. Literally E=mC^2

Maybe a little PV=nRT too.

A lot of T

Exponentially increasing V = exponentially increasing T

Typo:
Exponentially increasing P = exponentially increasing T

Followed by...
decreasing V = decreasing T

It’s gruesome, but the Byford dolphin incident is as close as I can think of known outcome in somewhat similar circumstances. It was a decompressive, rather than a compressive incident, and it was from 9 atm to 1 atm. Other vessels have imploded, like the uss thresher, but no one survived and there is a lot of uncertainty about what really happened. Don’t read about Byford dolphin if you are at all squeamish. The titan sub imploded with an external pressure of 500 atm to 1 atm. It’s hard to wrap your mind around a reaction that happens magnitudes faster than human reaction.

My God. How did you come to know about this incident?

I took an ethics in engineering course as part of my mech engineering curriculum for undergrad. I posted earlier (like 30 pages ago) that we studied classic engineering mistakes. The Byford dolphin was not one that we spent a lot of time on, but was mentioned because it was just so awful. The design for the chambers was bad, prone to human error. The titan sub will definitely make the list of unethical engineering mistakes that cost lives.

Really fascinating. Would love to know what institution this was but realize it may be too close to identifying. Thanks for the knowledge!

DP. In my engineering curriculum these types of failure were covered during a risk analysis course.

That makes total sense. It’s the presentation of it in an ethics class that has me wondering about the institution.

Many schools offer it.

You can even take it yourself:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/esd-932-engineering-ethics-spring-2006/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone dies. At least vaporizing yourself in an experimental carbon fiber tube is a pretty unique and interesting way to go.

Vaporizing?

That implies heat. This sub was 10000 ft underwater in near freezing temperatures. Good luck vaporizing anything.

You must’ve studied science at trump university.

The immense pressure of water entering the capsule would pulverize any living matter in the sub. We are talking surface of the sun temps. Gone. Nothing left. Literally E=mC^2

Maybe a little PV=nRT too.

A lot of T

Exponentially increasing V = exponentially increasing T

Typo:
Exponentially increasing P = exponentially increasing T

Followed by...
decreasing V = decreasing T

It’s gruesome, but the Byford dolphin incident is as close as I can think of known outcome in somewhat similar circumstances. It was a decompressive, rather than a compressive incident, and it was from 9 atm to 1 atm. Other vessels have imploded, like the uss thresher, but no one survived and there is a lot of uncertainty about what really happened. Don’t read about Byford dolphin if you are at all squeamish. The titan sub imploded with an external pressure of 500 atm to 1 atm. It’s hard to wrap your mind around a reaction that happens magnitudes faster than human reaction.

My God. How did you come to know about this incident?

I took an ethics in engineering course as part of my mech engineering curriculum for undergrad. I posted earlier (like 30 pages ago) that we studied classic engineering mistakes. The Byford dolphin was not one that we spent a lot of time on, but was mentioned because it was just so awful. The design for the chambers was bad, prone to human error. The titan sub will definitely make the list of unethical engineering mistakes that cost lives.

Really fascinating. Would love to know what institution this was but realize it may be too close to identifying. Thanks for the knowledge!

DP. In my engineering curriculum these types of failure were covered during a risk analysis course.

That makes total sense. It’s the presentation of it in an ethics class that has me wondering about the institution.

Many schools offer it.

You can even take it yourself:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/esd-932-engineering-ethics-spring-2006/

Aside, but the more I think about it, the more I am wondering what that specific course presented as the ethical issue(s) in the Byford Dolphin case. Based on the description here (and the little bit of reading I did) it sounds like a workplace safety incident--such that the issues would include the drilling company's culpability.

Was that the case or was there more to it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone dies. At least vaporizing yourself in an experimental carbon fiber tube is a pretty unique and interesting way to go.

Vaporizing?

That implies heat. This sub was 10000 ft underwater in near freezing temperatures. Good luck vaporizing anything.

You must’ve studied science at trump university.

The immense pressure of water entering the capsule would pulverize any living matter in the sub. We are talking surface of the sun temps. Gone. Nothing left. Literally E=mC^2

Maybe a little PV=nRT too.

A lot of T

Exponentially increasing V = exponentially increasing T

Typo:
Exponentially increasing P = exponentially increasing T

Followed by...
decreasing V = decreasing T

It’s gruesome, but the Byford dolphin incident is as close as I can think of known outcome in somewhat similar circumstances. It was a decompressive, rather than a compressive incident, and it was from 9 atm to 1 atm. Other vessels have imploded, like the uss thresher, but no one survived and there is a lot of uncertainty about what really happened. Don’t read about Byford dolphin if you are at all squeamish. The titan sub imploded with an external pressure of 500 atm to 1 atm. It’s hard to wrap your mind around a reaction that happens magnitudes faster than human reaction.

My God. How did you come to know about this incident?

I took an ethics in engineering course as part of my mech engineering curriculum for undergrad. I posted earlier (like 30 pages ago) that we studied classic engineering mistakes. The Byford dolphin was not one that we spent a lot of time on, but was mentioned because it was just so awful. The design for the chambers was bad, prone to human error. The titan sub will definitely make the list of unethical engineering mistakes that cost lives.

Really fascinating. Would love to know what institution this was but realize it may be too close to identifying. Thanks for the knowledge!

DP. In my engineering curriculum these types of failure were covered during a risk analysis course.

That makes total sense. It’s the presentation of it in an ethics class that has me wondering about the institution.

Many schools offer it.

You can even take it yourself:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/esd-932-engineering-ethics-spring-2006/

Aside, but the more I think about it, the more I am wondering what that specific course presented as the ethical issue(s) in the Byford Dolphin case. Based on the description here (and the little bit of reading I did) it sounds like a workplace safety incident--such that the issues would include the drilling company's culpability.

Was that the case or was there more to it?

We didn’t cover it in my class, but I’m guessing they discussed the impact of human error on safety measures. After this incident they moved to a more updated design that was less vulnerable to human error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone dies. At least vaporizing yourself in an experimental carbon fiber tube is a pretty unique and interesting way to go.

Vaporizing?

That implies heat. This sub was 10000 ft underwater in near freezing temperatures. Good luck vaporizing anything.

You must’ve studied science at trump university.

The immense pressure of water entering the capsule would pulverize any living matter in the sub. We are talking surface of the sun temps. Gone. Nothing left. Literally E=mC^2

Maybe a little PV=nRT too.

A lot of T

Exponentially increasing V = exponentially increasing T

Typo:
Exponentially increasing P = exponentially increasing T

Followed by...
decreasing V = decreasing T

It’s gruesome, but the Byford dolphin incident is as close as I can think of known outcome in somewhat similar circumstances. It was a decompressive, rather than a compressive incident, and it was from 9 atm to 1 atm. Other vessels have imploded, like the uss thresher, but no one survived and there is a lot of uncertainty about what really happened. Don’t read about Byford dolphin if you are at all squeamish. The titan sub imploded with an external pressure of 500 atm to 1 atm. It’s hard to wrap your mind around a reaction that happens magnitudes faster than human reaction.

My God. How did you come to know about this incident?

I took an ethics in engineering course as part of my mech engineering curriculum for undergrad. I posted earlier (like 30 pages ago) that we studied classic engineering mistakes. The Byford dolphin was not one that we spent a lot of time on, but was mentioned because it was just so awful. The design for the chambers was bad, prone to human error. The titan sub will definitely make the list of unethical engineering mistakes that cost lives.

Really fascinating. Would love to know what institution this was but realize it may be too close to identifying. Thanks for the knowledge!

DP. In my engineering curriculum these types of failure were covered during a risk analysis course.

That makes total sense. It’s the presentation of it in an ethics class that has me wondering about the institution.

Many schools offer it.

You can even take it yourself:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/esd-932-engineering-ethics-spring-2006/

Aside, but the more I think about it, the more I am wondering what that specific course presented as the ethical issue(s) in the Byford Dolphin case. Based on the description here (and the little bit of reading I did) it sounds like a workplace safety incident--such that the issues would include the drilling company's culpability.

Was that the case or was there more to it?

We didn’t cover it in my class, but I’m guessing they discussed the impact of human error on safety measures. After this incident they moved to a more updated design that was less vulnerable to human error.

From the 1988 paper about the 1983 incident:
"In 1982, "Det norske Veritas" had issued revised regulations regarding the technical arrangement of diving spreads. One requirement was that the trunk should be impossible to open while it is pressurized. The Byford Dolphin was, however, not rebuilt because the regulations were not retroactive. The expert committee recommended that the system on board the rig should be rebuilt according to the new regulations. It was further suggested that the doors between the various chambers of such a system should be kept closed during an operation like this, or a device should be installed to ensure that they would close automatically in the case of a pressure drop."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone dies. At least vaporizing yourself in an experimental carbon fiber tube is a pretty unique and interesting way to go.

Vaporizing?

That implies heat. This sub was 10000 ft underwater in near freezing temperatures. Good luck vaporizing anything.

You must’ve studied science at trump university.

The immense pressure of water entering the capsule would pulverize any living matter in the sub. We are talking surface of the sun temps. Gone. Nothing left. Literally E=mC^2

Maybe a little PV=nRT too.

A lot of T

Exponentially increasing V = exponentially increasing T

Typo:
Exponentially increasing P = exponentially increasing T

Followed by...
decreasing V = decreasing T

It’s gruesome, but the Byford dolphin incident is as close as I can think of known outcome in somewhat similar circumstances. It was a decompressive, rather than a compressive incident, and it was from 9 atm to 1 atm. Other vessels have imploded, like the uss thresher, but no one survived and there is a lot of uncertainty about what really happened. Don’t read about Byford dolphin if you are at all squeamish. The titan sub imploded with an external pressure of 500 atm to 1 atm. It’s hard to wrap your mind around a reaction that happens magnitudes faster than human reaction.

My God. How did you come to know about this incident?

I took an ethics in engineering course as part of my mech engineering curriculum for undergrad. I posted earlier (like 30 pages ago) that we studied classic engineering mistakes. The Byford dolphin was not one that we spent a lot of time on, but was mentioned because it was just so awful. The design for the chambers was bad, prone to human error. The titan sub will definitely make the list of unethical engineering mistakes that cost lives.

Really fascinating. Would love to know what institution this was but realize it may be too close to identifying. Thanks for the knowledge!

It was mit. It wasn’t called ethics in engineering exactly. I don’t remember the name of the course- all the courses are known to students by their number, not the name. And it wasn’t a strict requirement (I don’t think), but a recommended humanities class for engineers. I really enjoyed the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone dies. At least vaporizing yourself in an experimental carbon fiber tube is a pretty unique and interesting way to go.

Vaporizing?

That implies heat. This sub was 10000 ft underwater in near freezing temperatures. Good luck vaporizing anything.

You must’ve studied science at trump university.

The immense pressure of water entering the capsule would pulverize any living matter in the sub. We are talking surface of the sun temps. Gone. Nothing left. Literally E=mC^2

Maybe a little PV=nRT too.

A lot of T

Exponentially increasing V = exponentially increasing T

Typo:
Exponentially increasing P = exponentially increasing T

Followed by...
decreasing V = decreasing T

It’s gruesome, but the Byford dolphin incident is as close as I can think of known outcome in somewhat similar circumstances. It was a decompressive, rather than a compressive incident, and it was from 9 atm to 1 atm. Other vessels have imploded, like the uss thresher, but no one survived and there is a lot of uncertainty about what really happened. Don’t read about Byford dolphin if you are at all squeamish. The titan sub imploded with an external pressure of 500 atm to 1 atm. It’s hard to wrap your mind around a reaction that happens magnitudes faster than human reaction.

My God. How did you come to know about this incident?

I took an ethics in engineering course as part of my mech engineering curriculum for undergrad. I posted earlier (like 30 pages ago) that we studied classic engineering mistakes. The Byford dolphin was not one that we spent a lot of time on, but was mentioned because it was just so awful. The design for the chambers was bad, prone to human error. The titan sub will definitely make the list of unethical engineering mistakes that cost lives.

Really fascinating. Would love to know what institution this was but realize it may be too close to identifying. Thanks for the knowledge!

DP. In my engineering curriculum these types of failure were covered during a risk analysis course.

That makes total sense. It’s the presentation of it in an ethics class that has me wondering about the institution.

Many schools offer it.

You can even take it yourself:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/esd-932-engineering-ethics-spring-2006/

Pp who originally posted Byford dolphin. This is close- but the class I took was in the sts division (science technology and society). We didn’t do hypothetical cases or write our own stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone dies. At least vaporizing yourself in an experimental carbon fiber tube is a pretty unique and interesting way to go.

Vaporizing?

That implies heat. This sub was 10000 ft underwater in near freezing temperatures. Good luck vaporizing anything.

You must’ve studied science at trump university.

The immense pressure of water entering the capsule would pulverize any living matter in the sub. We are talking surface of the sun temps. Gone. Nothing left. Literally E=mC^2

Maybe a little PV=nRT too.

A lot of T

Exponentially increasing V = exponentially increasing T

Typo:
Exponentially increasing P = exponentially increasing T

Followed by...
decreasing V = decreasing T

It’s gruesome, but the Byford dolphin incident is as close as I can think of known outcome in somewhat similar circumstances. It was a decompressive, rather than a compressive incident, and it was from 9 atm to 1 atm. Other vessels have imploded, like the uss thresher, but no one survived and there is a lot of uncertainty about what really happened. Don’t read about Byford dolphin if you are at all squeamish. The titan sub imploded with an external pressure of 500 atm to 1 atm. It’s hard to wrap your mind around a reaction that happens magnitudes faster than human reaction.

My God. How did you come to know about this incident?

I took an ethics in engineering course as part of my mech engineering curriculum for undergrad. I posted earlier (like 30 pages ago) that we studied classic engineering mistakes. The Byford dolphin was not one that we spent a lot of time on, but was mentioned because it was just so awful. The design for the chambers was bad, prone to human error. The titan sub will definitely make the list of unethical engineering mistakes that cost lives.

Really fascinating. Would love to know what institution this was but realize it may be too close to identifying. Thanks for the knowledge!

DP. In my engineering curriculum these types of failure were covered during a risk analysis course.

That makes total sense. It’s the presentation of it in an ethics class that has me wondering about the institution.

Many schools offer it.

You can even take it yourself:
https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/esd-932-engineering-ethics-spring-2006/

Aside, but the more I think about it, the more I am wondering what that specific course presented as the ethical issue(s) in the Byford Dolphin case. Based on the description here (and the little bit of reading I did) it sounds like a workplace safety incident--such that the issues would include the drilling company's culpability.

Was that the case or was there more to it?

This one was touched on just briefly, but I think the point made was that you need not only engineer with wide safety margins (like design the chambers to withstand far greater pressures than they would ever be subjected to, but also introduce safety features to prevent human error. You cannot expect perfect human behavior and have to assume every type of human error you can.

I didn't remember the details from the class, but I googled the incident. The system was safe in that it would be safe with perfect operation. But it lacked safeguards. At the very least, the connection between the diving bell and the chamber should have had an interlock system that physically prevented the hatch from opening when there was any pressure differential.

Like when your front load washing machine won’t allow you to open it when it’s full or spinning. I mean, I have tried to open mine a number of times when it was full of water, so that locking mechanism was built for people like me.

The main things I learned from this class were 1. Assume error prone people will use your design, 2. Over design for safety, 3. If something works, don’t try something new just to be cute or clever, 4. Make sure the architect/construction people don’t change your specs because of material availability or cost or whatever (Kansas city Hyatt)

[Anonymous]

I have no idea why people feel compelled to explore life at the extremes like deep sea and space when we have an absolute miracle in front of us right here in the middle of the curve where humans are uniquely adapted to live.

[Anonymous]

You don’t see fish trying to explore land. There is a good reason for that.

[Anonymous]

On the other hand humans can’t survive on the open ocean surface or at 32000 feet in the sky either and yet boating and aviation are accepted as ordinary parts of life. In reality they are a mass delusion that is routinely punctuated by disasterous and tragic failures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea why people feel compelled to explore life at the extremes like deep sea and space when we have an absolute miracle in front of us right here in the middle of the curve where humans are uniquely adapted to live.

That’s certainly one way to think of it, but I’m sure you enjoy air travel, driving a car, led lights, relatively inexpensive gasoline etc - all things that were made possible by crazed people pushing the limits and not taking no for an answer. I’m pretty risk averse, but I think that, along with intelligence, curiosity, opposable thumbs, and reliance on social communities, a certain amount of risk taking enabled humans to live in that “middle of the curve” that most of us enjoy.

And honestly, we are not actually “uniquely adapted” to live there. Take away our technology, our clothes, our electricity, our plumbing, our transportation and most of us would probably starve or die of exposure. We took risks, invented power grids, furnaces, air conditioning, Apple Watches, and here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have no idea why people feel compelled to explore life at the extremes like deep sea and space when we have an absolute miracle in front of us right here in the middle of the curve where humans are uniquely adapted to live.

Yeah, and we're trashing it and making it uninhabitable. Eventually, we'll need to migrate to a new environment that hasn't been ruined, like another planet, or the deep sea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don’t see fish trying to explore land. There is a good reason for that.

Think the fish might just be waiting us out tbh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don’t see fish trying to explore land. There is a good reason for that.

Fish don’t even explore very deep water.

[Anonymous]

Were their bodies essentially pulverized?