OceansGate

[I-5]

I can’t believe there isn’t already a topic on this. I’m talking about the submersible with 5 billionaires on board who set out on an extremely deep dive to see the wreck of the Titanic some 12,000 feet at the bottom of the Atlantic. That is hella deep, so deep that even if the Canadian coast guard or other rescue vehicles could find them, they wouldn’t be able to retrieve them at that depth. Only a few vessels in the world could. My gut is they probably died not long after the launch during fairly terrible weather. I’ve read reports that the hull was not equipped to handle depths that low due to the extreme pressure. This story has so many angles, from the tragic, to the absurd, not to mention all the memes. I think it can be both tragic and comic (in a macabre way of course. Who among us would willingly climb into a metal can with so little room and comfort that sitting barefoot inside the cramped space, your knees and elbows cannot avoid another person, be ok getting sealed in from the outside so that should you get lost and surface somewhere else off course, you might not get found anyway due to the extremely rough weather. Then there’s the remote control device that is used to pilot the vessel - it looks like a $20 gaming device made by Logitech. Then to learn they each paid $250k for the opportunity to sit crowded inside a single window vessel lowered (not powered) deep into the pitch black muddy freezing depths of the harsh Atlantic Ocean…I’ll never understand why anyone would allow themselves to do that. I feel especially sorry for the father and son. I wish they could be found alive, but logic tells me they probably died Sunday in a catastrophic failure of the vessel. RIP.

[NorthHawk]

It is something that I would never do. I get a little claustrophobic just reading about it and have to take deep breaths.
I don't understand why they don't have an emergency plan that would cause it to raise to the surface in the event this happens - or a manual type of system that they could deploy.
Maybe there are some limitations when going that deep. I don't know but it seems pretty risky to do this and if they should be lucky enough to get out alive, they will be changed forever.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

The submersible had been used multiple times before to descend to the Titanic wreckage. It was carbon fiber composite and titanium though; perhaps it wasn't up to multiple uses at that depth. There were concerns that non-destructive testing was not done to see if there were any voids or weakness in the carbon fiber material. I would think they'd want to do this type of test before ever submerging it and then perform several trial dives at increasingly deeper depths with a non-destructive test of the hull after each one. Makes we wonder if they hull material had been weaking since the very first dives they made and it finally gave.

I think catastrophic crushing was the culprit here, but, even if they sank to the bottom and couldn't resurface, they are not alive. Ran out of oxygen.

[c_hawkbob]

Implosion is the best case scenario. If the hull remains intact but the vessel became otherwise disabled they have (or will have by the time the vessel is retrieved) died of extreme cold or oxygen deprivation. I hope they have left their billions to some worthy charities.

[I-5]

We were mostly right. Debris field has been found close to the wreck - it'll be interesting to learn how far they got in one piece before it imploded. I heard someone say that at the level of the titanic wreck, the pressure on the walls of the vessel is equal to the weight of the Empire State Building. One tiny fail and it's game over.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/other/titanic-sub-search-nearing-critical-point-with-oxygen-set-to-run-out/ar-AA1cSSHx

[RiverDog]

Based on the time they lost contact, 1.5 hours into a 2 hour dive, and the location where they've found the debris, just 1600 feet from the Titanic's bow, my guess is that they suffered a catastrophic implosion near the maximum depth of the dive, or about 12,500'. Death would have been instantaneous.

I'm a big history buff, especially 20th century history. I've read about and watched countless documentaries on the Titanic, but I don't think that going down to see the wreckage is anything I'd be even remotely interested in even if it were free. At that depth, it's complete darkness with the only light being that of the submersible, and you're having to peer out of a porthole that's maybe 15"-24" in diameter at the most, and even then, you're having to share it with 4 others. I can't imagine the experience of seeing the wreckage first hand under those conditions being that much of an improvement over seeing it on video. But that's just me. It was an experience of a lifetime for most of those folks, except apparently for the son of the Pakistani billionaire who was apparently terrified at the prospect.

Even though the people that died had signed a pile of waivers, the company is likely going out of business and depending on the attitude of the families of the deceased, there'll almost certainly be a wrongful death lawsuit filed. There's been whistle blowers, one who claims he was fired for expressing doubts about the safety of the vessel, who have surfaced, reports of it not being certified to go that deep, etc.

There's some question as to which nation is going to investigate the accident. It occurred in international waters, so no country has jurisdiction. As a rule, it's the nation of the flag the vessel was flying, or in the case, the US. But I've heard that the French, British, and Canadians might be involved as well. There are multiple nations with search and recovery vessels/aircraft in the area, so I imagine it will be a cooperative effort. The company is based in Everett, and it is considered a workplace accident, so I'd guess that OSHA, or in the case of Washington state, WISHA, will be going through the company's records looking for any information pertaining to this vessel, its construction, testing, employee training, etc.

This story isn't going away anytime soon.

[NorthHawk]

There was a comment I read yesterday where the guy said he'd been down in the submersible 4 times and each time they lost communications at some point so determining when the failure happened might not be decided by that issue, but it's probably a good place to start.
I can't imagine anyone going on that type of journey soon after this incident so the company is probably out of business.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Carbon fiber materials, unlike steel, have no fatigue resistance. Steel has some ability to undergo stress reversals (push and pull and bending back and forth) and still remain structurally sound. Materials with poor fatigue resistance will start to degrade after repeated stress reversals.

In light of Dr. Lochbridge's concerns about lack of material testing, I'm leaning towards the carbon fiber hull started to give on the way down. The vessel had already made multiple trips where the hull had seen stress reversals due going from low to high and back to low pressure. The ballast system on this vessel was one that they could only dump weight. There were no ballast tanks. So, the hull starts to give, they send a distress signal, and then try to dump ballast to get to the surface. They couldn't dump the ballast in time so they keep sinking and then crush.

[RiverDog]

Carbon fiber materials, unlike steel, have no fatigue resistance. Steel has some ability to undergo stress reversals (push and pull and bending back and forth) and still remain structurally sound. Materials with poor fatigue resistance will start to degrade after repeated stress reversals.

In light of Dr. Lochbridge's concerns about lack of material testing, I'm leaning towards the carbon fiber hull started to give on the way down. The vessel had already made multiple trips where the hull had seen stress reversals due going from low to high and back to low pressure. The ballast system on this vessel was one that they could only dump weight. There were no ballast tanks. So, the hull starts to give, they send a distress signal, and then try to dump ballast to get to the surface. They couldn't dump the ballast in time so they keep sinking and then crush.

Has it been confirmed that a distress signal was sent? All I've heard from the official accounting of the events is that there was a sudden loss of communications, and according to this, there is no confirmation that one was sent:

Dr Simon Boxall, an oceanographer at the University of Southampton, said he had "second-hand knowledge" that a distress signal was sent from Titan.

This could suggest something more serious occurred than simply a breakdown in communication.

He said: "Apparently they have had, and I don't know when... they have had an emergency ping saying the vessel is in distress. I don't know if that is automatically generated or generated by people on board."

According to The Times, sources said the final ping came at 3pm on Sunday (UK time) and showed Titan directly above the wreck of the Titanic.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world- ... t-30277631

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I'm being too liberal with distress signal. I have heard that the "ping" was a form of distress signal.

My main point was how I think failure occurred, and that is pure speculation on my part.

[c_hawkbob]

There is no slow failure at that depth, as soon as there is the slightest breach it's over, no time to blow ballast.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I was suggesting they started noticing a problem with the hull (perhaps leaking through a crack) before they reached a fatal depth but couldn't jettison the ballast weights (there were no ballast tanks on the vessel). The vessel had zero depth control beyond letting the ballast take them down or dropping it to go back up. At what depth a crack would hold up long enough to give them a chance to drop weight and surface, I don't know.

I originally thought it would take several hours to descend to the wreckage at 12,500 ft, but I'm reading now it's 2 hr 30 min, and they were 1 hr 45 min into the dive when contact was lost. That's about 8,750 ft, so, no, there wouldn't be any time to attempt anything if the hull gave way at that depth or beyond.

[RiverDog]

There is no slow failure at that depth, as soon as there is the slightest breach it's over, no time to blow ballast.

There's also no time to send a signal, automated or otherwise. it's literally a split second and you're dead. That's why I'm expressing doubt that they sent a distress signal.

[RiverDog]

I was suggesting they started noticing a problem with the hull (perhaps leaking through a crack) before they reached a fatal depth but couldn't jettison the ballast weights (there were no ballast tanks on the vessel). The vessel had zero depth control beyond letting the ballast take them down or dropping it to go back up. At what depth a crack would hold up long enough to give them a chance to drop weight and surface, I don't know.

I originally thought it would take several hours to descend to the wreckage at 12,500 ft, but I'm reading now it's 2 hr 30 min, and they were 1 hr 45 min into the dive when contact was lost. That's about 8,750 ft, so, no, there wouldn't be any time to attempt anything if the hull gave way at that depth or beyond.

Keep in mind that they didn't have continuous contact. The submersible 'pings' once every 15 minutes to indicate its location, but from my understanding, location is the only thing surface ships can derive from the ping, so it's not a distress signal. It was only when they didn't receive a ping when it became apparent that there might be a problem with the sub. Here's a little more on the ability of the Titan to communicate with surface ships:

David Pogue, a CBS reporter who travelled in the Titan submersible last year, told the BBC about the issues that both the submersible crew and the land crew were likely to be experiencing, saying that there was currently "no way" to communicate with the vessel as neither GPS nor radio "work under water".

"When the support ship is directly over the sub, they can send short text messages back and forth. Clearly those are no longer getting a response," Mr Pogue said.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65953872

[c_hawkbob]

There is no slow failure at that depth, as soon as there is the slightest breach it's over, no time to blow ballast.

Another thing about ballast, the subs I served on could only dive to less than a tenth of the depth at which this vessel was designed to operate and our emergency blow air tanks needed every bit of the 4500 psi air in them to blow ballast. The pressure needed to overcome sea pressure at these depths is just impossible with any compressors made. This thing was made to drive up even under emergencies.

[RiverDog]

Another thing about ballast, the subs I served on could only dive to less than a tenth of the depth at which this vessel was designed to operate and our emergency blow air tanks needed every bit of the 4500 psi air in them to blow ballast. The pressure needed to overcome sea pressure at these depths is just impossible with any compressors made. This thing was made to drive up even under emergencies.

4500 psi air pressure? Holy chit! I volunteer for our neighborhood HOA to blow out sprinklers each fall, and we once had a metal filter blow up under about 80 psi and it was if a bomb had gone off. I can't imagine the power of 4500 psi. That much air pressure could put a satellite in orbit.

That's something I had never thought about, the extreme water pressure making it impossible to blow ballast tanks.

[c_hawkbob]

There actually is no civilian application (at least as of when I was in the Navy) for 4500 psi air. The biggest compressors made were 3000 psi six stage Worthingtons and Ingersoll Rands that the Navy worked over (essentially torqued down the reliefs and improved the seals) to produce 4500.

That was my job on the boats I was on, I was the HiPac mechanic. Pro tip: don't check for leaks with your hand!

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world- ... 277631.amp

This Dr. Boxall stated he had second hand knowledge of a distress signal in the form of a ping. Not verified but that’s where I heard it called this. Not what I’m ultimately concerned with.

Knowing now that they were over 3/4 of the way down, I have ruled out my original hypothesis of a failure that started at shallower depths and they were unable to jettison their ballast.

This was not the maiden voyage of this craft. It had been down to that depth multiple depths before without structural failure. I don’t think enough evaluation was done making sure the hull, vision port, and bolted lids maintained their integrity after multiple dives. Repeated exposure to stress reversal due to low to high to low pressure could possibly degrade the materials.

And that makes perfect sense about ballast tanks being unable to open once the external pressure is too great; this vessel did not have them though. It relied on external weights that would achieve neutral buoyancy once it reached the wreckage depth. They have to jettison the weight to get back to the surface. They have one shot down and one shot up. The only depth control is releasing the weight.

[RiverDog]

There actually is no civilian application (at least as of when I was in the Navy) for 4500 psi air. The biggest compressors made were 3000 psi six stage Worthingtons and Ingersoll Rands that the Navy worked over (essentially torqued down the reliefs and improved the seals) to produce 4500.

That was my job on the boats I was on, I was the HiPac mechanic. Pro tip: don't check for leaks with your hand!

LOL! Thanks for the tip. We had high pressure water hoses at 1000 psi that you didn't want to check with your hands, either. Of course, the volume was quite low, like a gallon a minute. I can't imagine a fire hose at 1000 psi.

But seriously, when we're talking about the kinds of depths and pressures we've been discussing, we're going way off the charts from our normal everyday experiences. It's beyond comprehension, at least for me.

[RiverDog]

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/missing-titanic-sub-sent-out-30277631.amp

This Dr. Boxall stated he had second hand knowledge of a distress signal in the form of a ping. Not verified but that’s where I heard it called this. Not what I’m ultimately concerned with.

Knowing now that they were over 3/4 of the way down, I have ruled out my original hypothesis of a failure that started at shallower depths and they were unable to jettison their ballast.

This was not the maiden voyage of this craft. It had been down to that depth multiple depths before without structural failure. I don’t think enough evaluation was done making sure the hull, vision port, and bolted lids maintained their integrity after multiple dives. Repeated exposure to stress reversal due to low to high to low pressure could possibly degrade the materials.

And that makes perfect sense about ballast tanks being unable to open once the external pressure is too great; this vessel did not have them though. It relied on external weights that would achieve neutral buoyancy once it reached the wreckage depth. They have to jettison the weight to get back to the surface. They have one shot down and one shot up. The only depth control is releasing the weight.

The Titan had been down to that depth 3 times. The problem is that there had never been any stress testing done on the type of material used in the hull construction to determine how resistant it was to the stresses of pressurization and de-pressurization, ie metal fatigue. Others had warned their CEO about this, but he just blew them off, said that it was a new technology and that the old rules didn't apply. It's ironic that he was one of the victims as he was on board during that fatal dive.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Yes. I have mentioned stress reversals a.k.a. fatigue in my previous posts.

[RiverDog]

Yes. I have mentioned stress reversals a.k.a. fatigue in my previous posts.

Back in the early 50's when they first started flying commercial airliners at 30-40,000', ie the British Comet, they started having mysterious crashes a few months after planes had been put into service. They grounded the planes then started to experiment by putting one in a big swimming pool, filled and drained the pool multiple times to simulate the changes in atmospheric pressure between sea level and 40k'. Eventually, they saw that the hull of the plane had been breached, thus they discovered the phenomena of metal fatigue.

You would think that kind of testing would be required for any vessel made of a new material and that experiences pressurization/depressurization to be certified to carry paying passengers.

James Cameron, the film maker that created the movie "Titanic" and who has made a number of dives to the site, said essentially that it was ironic that the CEO of the company made the same "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" decision that the captain of the Titanic made when he failed to heed warnings and went full speed into a known ice field.

[NorthHawk]

According to a show on either the Smithsonian Network or TLC (can't remember which), the initial Comet aircraft had square windows and it was found that the corners stressed the most. It's why the windows are oval or round in todays jet aircraft.

James Cameron who built his own submersible and has been down to the wreck many times did a lot of research and testing and concluded that Carbon Fiber was not a good product as it doesn't handle repeated stresses like those in this type of use very well. As well, the carbon fiber is glued to the titanium caps on either end and nothing can be screwed or bolted to any of the titanium as it can cause a weakness or split.
A sad ending in any event.

[RiverDog]

I'm a big space race nut, and I'm reminded of the different approaches the US and Soviet Union had in their construction of moon rockets. The Americans, or rather the Germans, would test each component to failure multiple times before they even fully assembled a rocket. As a result, there wasn't a single Saturn class rocket that failed to accomplish its mission. The Soviets, on the other hand, did very little testing and were never able to get their rockets more than a few hundred feet off the ground before they blew up.

I'm wondering how much government oversight there was or should have been. This was an American company, ironically based in Everett, and they were doing business using a new technology in a transportation device. Shouldn't there have been some agency, such as the National Transportation Safety Board, that would have had to have signed off on this vessel before they could legally do business?

[NorthHawk]

I'm a big space race nut, and I'm reminded of the different approaches the US and Soviet Union had in their construction of moon rockets. The Americans, or rather the Germans, would test each component to failure multiple times before they even fully assembled a rocket. As a result, there wasn't a single Saturn class rocket that failed to accomplish its mission. The Soviets, on the other hand, did very little testing and were never able to get their rockets more than a few hundred feet off the ground before they blew up.

I'm wondering how much government oversight there was or should have been. This was an American company, ironically based in Everett, and they were doing business using a new technology in a transportation device. Shouldn't there have been some agency, such as the National Transportation Safety Board, that would have had to have signed off on this vessel before they could legally do business?

That's probably the big question, but it's complicated by their home port being in Newfoundland. It's where they set out from and their command ship (for lack of a better term) returned after every voyage.
The occupants of the vessel weren't called passengers, but something else that sounded like they were part of a science expedition. It may have been to avoid coming under transportation rules, but I don't know what they were thinking.

[RiverDog]

I'm a big space race nut, and I'm reminded of the different approaches the US and Soviet Union had in their construction of moon rockets. The Americans, or rather the Germans, would test each component to failure multiple times before they even fully assembled a rocket. As a result, there wasn't a single Saturn class rocket that failed to accomplish its mission. The Soviets, on the other hand, did very little testing and were never able to get their rockets more than a few hundred feet off the ground before they blew up.

I'm wondering how much government oversight there was or should have been. This was an American company, ironically based in Everett, and they were doing business using a new technology in a transportation device. Shouldn't there have been some agency, such as the National Transportation Safety Board, that would have had to have signed off on this vessel before they could legally do business?

That's probably the big question, but it's complicated by their home port being in Newfoundland. It's where they set out from and their command ship (for lack of a better term) returned after every voyage.
The occupants of the vessel weren't called passengers, but something else that sounded like they were part of a science expedition. It may have been to avoid coming under transportation rules, but I don't know what they were thinking.

The mother ship of the Titan was actually flying the Canadian flag, so according to what I've read, it will be the Canadian's baby to investigate. But in order to fly Canda's flag, is there any kind of certification that the Canadian coast guard or responsible agency has to do in order to certify it?

The fact that it was flying the Canadian flag explains why that even though there were no Canadian nationals on board, Canada is one of the 4 nations they said could be involved in the investigation, the others being Britain, France, and the US.

I'm also still wondering about the Everett based, ie Washington state, company. It was a workplace accident resulting in the death of an employee. At the very least, you would think that Washington would be responsible for investigating the company's records and other information that can be gleaned from their offices.

[NorthHawk]

The mother ship of the Titan was actually flying the Canadian flag, so according to what I've read, it will be the Canadian's baby to investigate. But in order to fly Canda's flag, is there any kind of certification that the Canadian coast guard or responsible agency has to do in order to certify it?

This is a different type of useage for a watercraft, and I'm not sure there are regulations and certification requirements in place. So I don't really know the answer to that. But it looks on the surface like there's a huge gap in regulations covering this type of activity.

As far as the death of an employee goes, wasn't he the owner or one of the owners, so not really an employee? Or does that distinction matter under Washington St. law?

[RiverDog]

The mother ship of the Titan was actually flying the Canadian flag, so according to what I've read, it will be the Canadian's baby to investigate. But in order to fly Canda's flag, is there any kind of certification that the Canadian coast guard or responsible agency has to do in order to certify it?

This is a different type of useage for a watercraft, and I'm not sure there are regulations and certification requirements in place. So I don't really know the answer to that. But it looks on the surface like there's a huge gap in regulations covering this type of activity.

As far as the death of an employee goes, wasn't he the owner or one of the owners, so not really an employee? Or does that distinction matter under Washington St. law?

The 'employee' was Stockton Rush, the CEO, and all CEO's that I know of are paid employees of the company.

It sounds like the Canadians will be the lead investigators in the accident, at least initially, which makes sense.

Police and safety investigators could be seen on board the vessel after the Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada announced it would be the subject of an investigation.

In its own statement, the safety body said the investigation would be carried out "in accordance with the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act and international agreements."

The TSB will not determine civil or criminal liability and conducts investigations for "the advancement of transportation safety."

The investigation comes after the BBC reported that emails from (OceanGate CEO Stockton) Rush showed he had dismissed safety concerns over the Titan submersible.

In the exchanges with deep-sea exploration specialist Rob McCallum, OceanGate’s chief executive said he was "tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation."

https://www.tag24.com/topic/mystery/saf ... on-2874125

It will be interesting to see if it turns into a criminal investigation. It sure sounds like there were a lot of warning signs that weren't heeded.

[NorthHawk]

It sounds like a big mess to me at the moment.

[RiverDog]

It sounds like a big mess to me at the moment.

The other question I have is which country's court can the plaintiffs sue in? The only American on board was the CEO of the company, so how is his family going to sue if he was the one that made the decisions to compromise safety?