Tourist submersible missing on visit to Titanic

[Anonymous]

My question:
What is the heat discharge from the battery packs?

The 4 electronic thruster motors are powered by batteries. There is clearly no venting in the submersible. Does the heat discharge from the battery packs negate the cold outer temperature of the water? From what I understand, the deep ocean water has a consistent water temp of 0-3 degrees Celsius. Even if the battery packs die, its not clear to me that they would freeze to death. Running out of oxygen is more likely.

I'm beginning to feel like they had a battery or electrical failure (or fire). It will be fascinating to know who made the batteries - Tesla?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When would the oxygen be up? If they're bobbing on the surface, do they still need the oxygen reserves (sorry if this is a dumb q) or can they survive encapsulated for a while?

The O2 will run out, such a horrible design flaw. They could die while floating on top of the ocean.

Makes sense though. In order to withstand the pressures at 12,000 foot water depth, you'd want a smooth exterior surface to increase tensile strength. You can't have portholes or doors, as those would be weak points in the design that could fail under pressure. Even external attachment anchor points could compromise the tensile strength of the surface of the hull.

Are submarines designed so that the occupants are unable to exit? These people are locked in, it’s a torture chamber. God help them if they are floating on the ocean surface unable to escape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:good to hear they have picked up banging sound. that's a very good news.

I think that was yesterdays news. I haven't heard of any current report where they are still hearing banging.

It’s terrible news also. It’s not good! It would mean, if true, that they’re alive. Which means they are going to slowly suffocate in there by tomorrow afternoon and die off one by one. The better option at this point was implosion. Instantaneous death. Because the alternative is they are underwater, conscious, in a disabled vehicle, pleading for help that can’t make it there and do anything even if they were to somehow locate them. It will have taken them about 96 hours to slowly die and be aware of it the entire time. Horrific way to go.

Plus I’m thinking the 19 year old might be the last to go given he’s in the best health. That would be terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When would the oxygen be up? If they're bobbing on the surface, do they still need the oxygen reserves (sorry if this is a dumb q) or can they survive encapsulated for a while?

The O2 will run out, such a horrible design flaw. They could die while floating on top of the ocean.

Makes sense though. In order to withstand the pressures at 12,000 foot water depth, you'd want a smooth exterior surface to increase tensile strength. You can't have portholes or doors, as those would be weak points in the design that could fail under pressure. Even external attachment anchor points could compromise the tensile strength of the surface of the hull.

Are submarines designed so that the occupants are unable to exit? These people are locked in, it’s a torture chamber. God help them if they are floating on the ocean surface unable to escape.

Submarines don't go anywhere near this depth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A vehicle the size of a mini-van with a bottle and Ziploc bags for a toilet. Viewing portal tested to 1400 meters’ depth and they were going down 14,000 feet. Controller made from a GameBoy.

The level of delusion involved in boarding this craft is shocking. It’s hard not to see it as a form of suicide.

Hadn’t it made successful trips before? I agree that it was obviously taking on huge risk, but they probably saw it had been done safely before.

Also, in general we trust that something like this won't be allowed to operate without some sufficient oversight. We trust this every time we get on an airplane or buy a new car, or get on a ride at an amusement park. We trust it when we participate in anything that, of course, has risks - but aren't there guardrails in place to prevent some yahoo from simply taking $250k from whoever wants to pay it and sending them 12,500 feet down without some sort of oversight and inspection?

Of course there can always be an accident, something can always go wrong - but is the system built to go wrong? I guess it turns out it is - but I don't think it's crazy for the people who bought their seats on this doomed ride to have believed that this insane company wouldn't have been allowed to do this unless someone without a financial stake in the company thought it was safe. I know this is an extreme case - but I just don't think you can blame the people who participated for not knowing how unregulated this turned out to be. Or accuse them of wanting to die.

This is just so horrific.

And the migrant boat sinking is also horrific. It's sort of the opposite end of the same spectrum. Though I don't know anyone thinks the migrant boats are safe - it's just the people willing to take them are that desperate.

I think this is the huge difference in wrapping my mind around these two events. I understand the risk of the migrants because they are in a disadvantaged position where the gamble may be worth it. I can also envision how a boat sinks.

But with the submersible, my brain is just trying to fathom the extreme darkness and pressure that deep in the ocean. I don’t understand the risk of very well off people wanting to get on something not well regulated. And just to see the titanic on a video monitor anyway. What is the bonus of being that far below the sea, just to say you did it? Seems reckless without much upside.

Completely agree - but wanted to add there is a portal they can look through at one end of the vessel but its small. I saw a photo somewhere of an individual who had done this trip before and the photo was like a selfie with his face and the portal showing the titanic.

A selfie? So they died for social media clout?

Of course! Why else? These aren’t qualified divers or submarine captains. No, they are rich people. There are smarter, safer and more effective ways to view the Titanic, but a selfie wouldn’t be possible. Sorry if that’s offensive to any selfie taking narcissists.

I have been on an airplane, but I am not a certified pilot. I am so ashamed.

Have you been on an airplane where you signed a document to become part of the “crew?”

Have you been in an airplane that only operates in waters unregulated by any country government to avoid safety regulation?

Have you been on an airplane that is piloted by a Logitech PC controller?

Have you been in a plane that purposely goes to a depth (or, in your idiotic example, height) where rescue is known to be impossible in time in the event of a catastrophe)?

I could keep going, but JFC, the people of DCUM on the whole are *shockingly* dim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When would the oxygen be up? If they're bobbing on the surface, do they still need the oxygen reserves (sorry if this is a dumb q) or can they survive encapsulated for a while?

The O2 will run out, such a horrible design flaw. They could die while floating on top of the ocean.

Makes sense though. In order to withstand the pressures at 12,000 foot water depth, you'd want a smooth exterior surface to increase tensile strength. You can't have portholes or doors, as those would be weak points in the design that could fail under pressure. Even external attachment anchor points could compromise the tensile strength of the surface of the hull.

Are submarines designed so that the occupants are unable to exit? These people are locked in, it’s a torture chamber. God help them if they are floating on the ocean surface unable to escape.

A typical submarine is not going that deep. The pressure is enormous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When would the oxygen be up? If they're bobbing on the surface, do they still need the oxygen reserves (sorry if this is a dumb q) or can they survive encapsulated for a while?

The O2 will run out, such a horrible design flaw. They could die while floating on top of the ocean.

Makes sense though. In order to withstand the pressures at 12,000 foot water depth, you'd want a smooth exterior surface to increase tensile strength. You can't have portholes or doors, as those would be weak points in the design that could fail under pressure. Even external attachment anchor points could compromise the tensile strength of the surface of the hull.

Are submarines designed so that the occupants are unable to exit? These people are locked in, it’s a torture chamber. God help them if they are floating on the ocean surface unable to escape.

The vast majority of subs can't go anywhere near this depth. This has been covered ad nauseum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When would the oxygen be up? If they're bobbing on the surface, do they still need the oxygen reserves (sorry if this is a dumb q) or can they survive encapsulated for a while?

The O2 will run out, such a horrible design flaw. They could die while floating on top of the ocean.

Makes sense though. In order to withstand the pressures at 12,000 foot water depth, you'd want a smooth exterior surface to increase tensile strength. You can't have portholes or doors, as those would be weak points in the design that could fail under pressure. Even external attachment anchor points could compromise the tensile strength of the surface of the hull.

Are submarines designed so that the occupants are unable to exit? These people are locked in, it’s a torture chamber. God help them if they are floating on the ocean surface unable to escape.

Submarines don't go anywhere near this depth.

I know, but it seems to be a major design flaw to have the occupants locked in, unable to ever escape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine yourself in a minivan with four other adults in the deep depths of the ocean where you can’t see anything for days and probably are out of provisions and nowhere to use the toilet. You couldn’t pay me enough.

I got stuck (by myself and without a cellphone) in an elevator once for over an hour. That alone was enough to send me into a full blown panic. This sounds unimaginable. I just hope they're taking care of one another and that someone in the group is helping everyone stay as calm as possible until the end. The thought of being the last one alive is also horrifying.

The air quality must be terrible. How can you not panic in that situation with no communication with the outside world?

Panic? There is literally nothing that can be done. I think the reality just settles in your brain.

Or you become psychotic and start hallucinating and begin killing people, and trying to eat off your hands.

These aren’t military people, how mentally sound are they? A 19 year old kid?

+1. Unlike the ill-fated Russian submariners who were able to maintain calm and write notes to their loved ones, I’ll bet there was major panic on this little sub if it didn’t implode or explode.

They have surely perished by now, having prematurely used up their oxygen in their panic.

[Anonymous]

There's reports coming out now that a former employee of the company was fired after the raised concerns that the portal window was only certified for up to 1500m down.

[Anonymous]

The lawsuit the former safety inspector filed against this company is crazy. They all knew what would happen (see pages 9-12):

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.262471/gov.uscourts.wawd.262471.7.0.pdf


The money shots:

15. Lochridge primarily expressed concern regarding the lack of non-destructive testing performed on the hull of the Titan. Lochridge was repeatedly told that no scan of the hull or Bond Line could be done to check for delaminations, porosity and voids of sufficient adhesion of the glue being used due to the thickness of the hull. Lochridge was told that no form of equipment existed to perform such a test, and OceanGate instead would rely solely on their acoustic monitoring system that they were going to install in the submersible to detect the start of hull break down when the submersible was about to fail.

16. Lochridge again expressed concern that this was problematic because this type of acoustic analysis would only show when a component is about to fail—often milliseconds before an implosion—and would not detect any existing flaws prior to putting pressure onto the hull.

17. Given the prevalent flaws in the previously tested 1/3 scaled model, and the visible flaws in the carbon end samples for the Titan, Lochridge again stressed the potential danger to passengers of the Titan as the submersible reached extreme depths. The constant pressure cycling weakens existing flaws resulting in large tears of the carbon. Non-destructive testing was critical to detect such potentially existing flaws in order to ensure a solid and safe product for the safety of the passengers and crew.
...
19. At the meeting, Lochridge discovered why he had been denied access to the viewport information from the Engineering department—the viewport at the forward of the submersible was only built to a certified pressure of 1,300 meters, although OceanGate intended to take passengers down to depths of 4,000 meters. Lochridge learned that the viewport manufacturer would only certify to a depth of 1,300 meters due to the experimental design of the viewport supplied by OceanGate, which was out of the Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy (“PVHO”) standards. OceanGate refused to pay for the manufacturer to build a viewport that would meet the required depth of 4,000 meters.

20. The paying passengers would not be aware, and would not be informed, of this experimental design, the lack of non-destructive testing of the hull, or that hazardous flammable materials were being used within the submersible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$250,000 per person.

Wtf?
You could buy someone a house in many parts of the country. Or buy 4+ people an affordable car. This is ridiculous, paying 250k to possibly die while touring a ship lots of people died on.

+10000

It is a statement of excess and extreme privilege

Agreed and I hope the US Coast Guard gets back whatever money it's spending to search.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The lawsuit the former safety inspector filed against this company is crazy. They all knew what would happen (see pages 9-12):

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.262471/gov.uscourts.wawd.262471.7.0.pdf


The money shots:

15. Lochridge primarily expressed concern regarding the lack of non-destructive testing performed on the hull of the Titan. Lochridge was repeatedly told that no scan of the hull or Bond Line could be done to check for delaminations, porosity and voids of sufficient adhesion of the glue being used due to the thickness of the hull. Lochridge was told that no form of equipment existed to perform such a test, and OceanGate instead would rely solely on their acoustic monitoring system that they were going to install in the submersible to detect the start of hull break down when the submersible was about to fail.

16. Lochridge again expressed concern that this was problematic because this type of acoustic analysis would only show when a component is about to fail—often milliseconds before an implosion—and would not detect any existing flaws prior to putting pressure onto the hull.

17. Given the prevalent flaws in the previously tested 1/3 scaled model, and the visible flaws in the carbon end samples for the Titan, Lochridge again stressed the potential danger to passengers of the Titan as the submersible reached extreme depths. The constant pressure cycling weakens existing flaws resulting in large tears of the carbon. Non-destructive testing was critical to detect such potentially existing flaws in order to ensure a solid and safe product for the safety of the passengers and crew.
...
19. At the meeting, Lochridge discovered why he had been denied access to the viewport information from the Engineering department—the viewport at the forward of the submersible was only built to a certified pressure of 1,300 meters, although OceanGate intended to take passengers down to depths of 4,000 meters. Lochridge learned that the viewport manufacturer would only certify to a depth of 1,300 meters due to the experimental design of the viewport supplied by OceanGate, which was out of the Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy (“PVHO”) standards. OceanGate refused to pay for the manufacturer to build a viewport that would meet the required depth of 4,000 meters.

20. The paying passengers would not be aware, and would not be informed, of this experimental design, the lack of non-destructive testing of the hull, or that hazardous flammable materials were being used within the submersible.

This is reminding me more and more of the Miami condo collapse—another situation in which pecuniary motivation caused people who should have known better to deny the operation of physics.

[Anonymous]

This guy went on the sub in 2021 and said it had electrical problems back then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why doesn't a military sub assist?

because it takes days to get one there. i think they are trying

I don't believe that - there are subs off the coast all the time. There are subs from other countries as well - why aren't they assisting? It's been days since this started and at least one could have made it there by now.

How deep do you think submarines can go? Also, consider the size of the ocean where they're at. It would be like me dropping a piece of glitter into a swimming pool and then questioning why you can't just find it.