Mike 1017 Posted Wednesday at 12:36 PM Posted Wednesday at 12:36 PM Yesterday the Coast Guard released the final findings of their investigation. Short Version: The CEO of Ocean Gate Stockton Rush is solely responsible for this tragedy.
stavanzer Posted Wednesday at 02:07 PM Posted Wednesday at 02:07 PM 1 hour ago, Mike 1017 said: The CEO of Ocean Gate Stockton Rush is solely responsible for this tragedy. A conclusion that most everybody reached about two weeks after it happened. But, nice to have the Coast Guard make it official. Rush was a Headstrong Prima-Donna. This is what happens when the "My Way-or-the Highway" types get 'too big for their britches' to let my Southern half do the talking. He was an affable, smart Sociopath, who lived up to the Peter Principal. 2 1
johnyrotten Posted Wednesday at 02:48 PM Posted Wednesday at 02:48 PM My question is was/is anyone under him also responsible in reality? I know there's very deep legal wormhole in this case, and while the majority of the industry pointed out the short comings of the design, what's to stop another cowboy, and a repeat?
stavanzer Posted Wednesday at 04:03 PM Posted Wednesday at 04:03 PM 1 hour ago, johnyrotten said: what's to stop another cowboy, and a repeat? Nothing.... 1
Ace-Garageguy Posted Wednesday at 04:05 PM Posted Wednesday at 04:05 PM (edited) 1 hour ago, johnyrotten said: My question is was/is anyone under him also responsible in reality? I know there's very deep legal wormhole in this case, and while the majority of the industry pointed out the short comings of the design, what's to stop another cowboy, and a repeat? My current understanding is that there are no hard-and-fast universal regulations for private manned submersibles. There is this, however... http://www.psubs.org/diveops/USG/ And this... https://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO Documents/5p/5ps/NVIC/1993/n5-93.pdf And this... https://www.dnv.com/services/manned-submersibles-1102/ Edited Wednesday at 04:09 PM by Ace-Garageguy 2
Mike 1017 Posted Thursday at 01:29 PM Author Posted Thursday at 01:29 PM 21 hours ago, stavanzer said: Nothing.... Carbon Fiber will never be used to build a manned submersal again. Unless the builder lives under a rock.
stavanzer Posted Thursday at 07:44 PM Posted Thursday at 07:44 PM 6 hours ago, Mike 1017 said: Carbon Fiber will never be used to build a manned submersal again. Unless the builder lives under a rock. You might be correct about that, but never discount the "A Real Carbon Fibre has never been tried crowd"......
Ace-Garageguy Posted Thursday at 11:07 PM Posted Thursday at 11:07 PM (edited) 12 hours ago, Mike 1017 said: Carbon Fiber will never be used to build a manned submersal again. Unless the builder lives under a rock. 6 hours ago, stavanzer said: You might be correct about that, but never discount the "A Real Carbon Fibre has never been tried crowd"...... Although carbon fiber isn't particularly good in compression loading (which is what it was primarily asked to do in the Titan hull), there were so many OTHER things wrong with the hull (like poorly controlled lamination/filament winding, voids in the layup, and screws driven into the pressure hull to attach stuff like a screen on the inside) that it's just not prudent to blame carbon entirely. Actual big grown up knowledgeable and experienced engineers, like the ones Mr. Submarine Man thought he and his purple-haired kiddie crew knew better than, understand the strengths and weaknesses of the materials they choose for structural applications. The Titan submersible's carbon fiber hull failed due to a combination of factors, including the inherent properties of carbon fiber under deep-sea pressure, the specific design and construction of the hull, and potentially flaws in the manufacturing process. The hull was composed of multiple thick layers of carbon fiber, which were cured and bonded together, with titanium endcaps. The layering process created discontinuities and surface irregularities, and the orientation of the carbon fibers may have contributed to the failure. The implosion is believed to have been caused by a combination of compressive stress, fatigue, and potential delamination of the carbon fiber layers. While the Titan tragedy raises concerns about the use of carbon fiber in deep-sea submersibles, it also highlights the need for further research and development to understand its behavior under extreme conditions, and to improve its strength and toughness through improved design and manufacturing processes. More robust testing protocols, including both destructive and non-destructive methods, are needed to ensure the safety and reliability of carbon fiber hulls for deep-sea applications...and carbon fiber may ultimately prove NOT to be a good material for sub hulls. But many materials in common use today for a wide variety of applications were initially scoffed at, before there was a sufficient body of knowledge and understanding of how to employ them safely and effectively every time. Aluminum was one such material. Edited Friday at 01:56 AM by Ace-Garageguy 3
stavanzer Posted Friday at 01:46 AM Posted Friday at 01:46 AM See the Washington Monument. Topped with an Aluminium Tip. So Rare that it was considered a substitute for Silver. In four years, it was completed, with the 100-ounce (2.83 kg) aluminum apex/lightning-rod being put in place on December 6, 1884. The apex was the largest single piece of aluminum cast at the time, when aluminum commanded a price comparable to silver. Two years later, the Hall–Héroult process made aluminum easier to produce and the price of aluminum plummeted, though it should have provided a lustrous, non-rusting apex. And now we throw it away. 1
iamsuperdan Posted Friday at 05:18 PM Posted Friday at 05:18 PM If you haven't already done so, check out the documentary on Netflix. It's interesting. And scary how this one guy could make so many errors, ignore so many experts, and completely skip every recommended safety test and repair; and still be allowed to put people into his sub and go diving. What I thought was especially interesting, was that by giving the paying customers an employee title, like dive engineer or wahtever nonsesne he came up with, they could be considered crew and not passengers. Therefore, fewer regulations to follow. 1 1
johnyrotten Posted Friday at 09:16 PM Posted Friday at 09:16 PM 3 hours ago, iamsuperdan said: What I thought was especially interesting, was that by giving the paying customers an employee title, like dive engineer or wahtever nonsesne he came up with, they could be considered crew and not passengers. Therefore, fewer regulations to follow. Yeah, they found that loophole. I was not shocked when they talked about the "waver" they all signed explaining it was experimental and they were aware of the risks. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now