Reply to Tourist submersible missing on visit to Titanic

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Tourist submersible missing on visit to Titanic"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=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:
[quote][i]
15. [b][u]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. [/u][/b]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 [b][u]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.[/u][/b]

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. [b][u]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.[/b][/u]
...
19. At the meeting, Lochridge discovered why he had been denied access to the viewport information from the Engineering department—[b][u]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.[/u][/b] 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. [b][u]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.[/u][/b] [/i][/quote]
[/quote]

This is the money shot as you say. Not cycling the compression test to failure is incomprehensible to any average mechanical engineer. I think ocean gate was so determined to use carbon fiber that they turned a blind eye to its mechanical shortcomings. 
Unlike metal, which is easy to form into shapes, carbon fiber is hard to shape around curves. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics