Updated: submarine exploring Titanic wreckage disappears in Atlantic Ocean: Coast Guard

[DB]

I don't see this as much different than experimental aircraft. Pushing the edge of technology and trying new things has always been risky.

[240B]

It was a homemade "garage built" cobbled together submarine using untested/uncertified materials that experts knew were unsafe. Like everything built haphazardly, it worked a few times and then eventually fell apart.

Rush mixed a carbon fiber hull with a titanium bow which is unsafe because the temperatures and pressures the sub will encounter will cause these two materials to expand and contract at different rates in relation to each other. This could, and probably did, weaken the joining of these two completely different components. This is substandard by any measure. Also, he included a porthole (an acrylic window not rated for a deep dive) which is unusual for any submarine intending to dive to significant depth. This is why he refused to submit the sub for any formal safety oversite.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKLamhyJ6bE

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I don't see this as much different than experimental aircraft. Pushing the edge of technology and trying new things has always been risky.

What seems different to me is that experimental aircraft usually involve advanced materials, designs, etc., that push the technological edge - trying to advance science/engineering g with the best of the best.

This appears to be the opposite - not using the best materials and design to try something never done before, but rather using cheap materials and corner-cutting designs just to save a buck.

Nobody will really learn anything from this other than that Stockton Rush was an idiot.

[Smokin Joe]

What seems different to me is that experimental aircraft usually involve advanced materials, designs, etc., that push the technological edge - trying to advance science/engineering g with the best of the best.

This appears to be the opposite - not using the best materials and design to try something never done before, but rather using cheap materials and corner-cutting designs just to save a buck.

Nobody will really learn anything from this other than that Stockton Rush was an idiot.

A Carbon fiber hull and titanium end caps aren't necessarily the cheapest design. Yes, there are more expensive ones, but likely there are cheaper materials that would do the same thing, albeit resulting in a far heavier vehicle. It is more of a case of using a different design, and one that apparently worked for several dives. The question is one of what changed, some will even harp on whether or not they consider that to be predictable (in retrospect, of course).

What works, works, until it doesn't, and that's what happened here.

Now the big question going forward is one of "Why?", and whether or not the materials are suitable for multiple dive cycles, and if not why not. Would modifications render them suitable? What are the implications for the AI/drone and manned defense industry, if any?

[roamer_1]

A Carbon fiber hull and titanium end caps aren't necessarily the cheapest design. Yes, there are more expensive ones, but likely there are cheaper materials that would do the same thing, albeit resulting in a far heavier vehicle. It is more of a case of using a different design, and one that apparently worked for several dives. The question is one of what changed, some will even harp on whether or not they consider that to be predictable (in retrospect, of course).

What works, works, until it doesn't, and that's what happened here.

Now the big question going forward is one of "Why?", and whether or not the materials are suitable for multiple dive cycles, and if not why not. Would modifications render them suitable? What are the implications for the AI/drone and manned defense industry, if any?

Barring the horrible tragedy of the thing, my money is on the porthole, I think.

[Smokin Joe]

Barring the horrible tragedy of the thing, my money is on the porthole, I think.

I'm going to wait and see. Somewhere I read that over time carbon fiber degrades with stress cycles, and it sure got that. A scrape, a ding, something changed from the last run, and the results were less than nominal. The question is one of "what?". Someone pointed out differential expansion/contraction between the 'tube' and the end caps, and while a failure of the porthole would be fatal, would it shred the hull? I'm not so sure that the effect would be the same as a hull implosion. Apparently one of the end caps was sighted, and no mention of deformation or damage to it was made. If the main hull failed, the end caps would be blown off the tube.
Not having the data, I won't speculate further.

[roamer_1]

I'm going to wait and see. Somewhere I read that over time carbon fiber degrades with stress cycles, and it sure got that. A scrape, a ding, something changed from the last run, and the results were less than nominal. The question is one of "what?". Someone pointed out differential expansion/contraction between the 'tube' and the end caps, and while a failure of the porthole would be fatal, would it shred the hull? I'm not so sure that the effect would be the same as a hull implosion. Apparently one of the end caps was sighted, and no mention of deformation or damage to it was made. If the main hull failed, the end caps would be blown off the tube.
Not having the data, I won't speculate further.

Dunno. And I don't think we'll ever know... What with where the evidence lies. And the way CF leaves when it goes (which may not be the same under water, not to mention the tremendous pressure) there may not be enough left to put together an answer.

However, if the center gave way or the thing blew a gasket at either end, The shattering might have left the porthole and it's mounting intact... not being an integral part of of the tension... Which would make me wrong. But I am betting on a point of intrusion before utter collapse. and around the porthole would be most likely to me as a point of failure.

[DB]

What seems different to me is that experimental aircraft usually involve advanced materials, designs, etc., that push the technological edge - trying to advance science/engineering g with the best of the best.

This appears to be the opposite - not using the best materials and design to try something never done before, but rather using cheap materials and corner-cutting designs just to save a buck.

Nobody will really learn anything from this other than that Stockton Rush was an idiot.

Engineering is all about meeting the technical goals of a project while doing it at lower cost than the competitors. To do that it often requires creative use of materials/components in ways they haven't been used before. It requires detailed simulation and physical testing to accurately establish the limits of what can be done reliably. It needs to be tested to the point of failure to make sure the design analysis matches the real world characteristics. In the case of this submersible, it appears a few steps were skipped.

[DB]

Dunno. And I don't think we'll ever know... What with where the evidence lies. And the way CF leaves when it goes (which may not be the same under water, not to mention the tremendous pressure) there may not be enough left to put together an answer.

However, if the center gave way or the thing blew a gasket at either end, The shattering might have left the porthole and it's mounting intact... not being an integral part of of the tension... Which would make me wrong. But I am betting on a point of intrusion before utter collapse. and around the porthole would be most likely to me as a point of failure.

The debris field and recovering some key pieces such as the titanium ends may answer a number of the questions.

[roamer_1]

The debris field and recovering some key pieces such as the titanium ends may answer a number of the questions.

Yes. And I hope so. However, conditions will dictate a rather hurried recovery, I would imagine. They will not be able to sift the site for hours like a wreck on land, or even in shallow water. This is almost as horrible as conditions can get on this planet.

[sneakypete]

I'm going to wait and see. Somewhere I read that over time carbon fiber degrades with stress cycles, and it sure got that. A scrape, a ding, something changed from the last run, and the results were less than nominal. 

@Smokin Joe

OK,I am not  no  structural inginieer,BUT.....,is there sum reason the ingineers can't attach stress sensors to the interior walls,along with alarms to notify the crew that it is time to surface quickly?

Stress sensors are little doo-dahs,and they cant possibly cost THAT much money when you compare what it costs to build a sub like that,never mind what you have to pay out to the families  of the deceased.

I am probably  wrong because this is such a simple idea someone has HAD to have  thought of it before.

[sneakypete]

Engineering is all about meeting the technical goals of a project while doing it at lower cost than the competitors. To do that it often requires creative use of materials/components in ways they haven't been used before. It requires detailed simulation and physical testing to accurately establish the limits of what can be done reliably. It needs to be tested to the point of failure to make sure the design analysis matches the real world characteristics. In the case of this submersible, it appears a few steps were skipped.

@DB

Is it possible to create those types of stress levels in a lab without creating a "bomb" at the same time?

[Bigun]

A Carbon fiber hull and titanium end caps aren't necessarily the cheapest design. Yes, there are more expensive ones, but likely there are cheaper materials that would do the same thing, albeit resulting in a far heavier vehicle. It is more of a case of using a different design, and one that apparently worked for several dives. The question is one of what changed, some will even harp on whether or not they consider that to be predictable (in retrospect, of course).

What works, works, until it doesn't, and that's what happened here.

Now the big question going forward is one of "Why?", and whether or not the materials are suitable for multiple dive cycles, and if not why not. Would modifications render them suitable? What are the implications for the AI/drone and manned defense industry, if any?

For me @Smokin Joe the big question is will we continue to be allowed to do pioneering things or not? I see nanny state being advocated all over.

[sneakypete]

For me @Smokin Joe the big question is will we continue to be allowed to do pioneering things or not? I see nanny state being advocated all over.

@Bigun

I'm with ya on that one!

And "pioneering" is just a fractional part of my concern. The focus should be on how society SEEMS to be conditioning,or trying to condition,people to not think for themselves and not to take chances.

Cows don't do a lot of thinking for themselves,and you  never see a cow taking chances.

Look at how  well that works out for cows if you need an "instant snapshot" of how this will work out for humanity.

[240B]

For me @Smokin Joe the big question is will we continue to be allowed to do pioneering things or not? I see nanny state being advocated all over.

If he is going down in the sub by himself or with a fellow engineer, no one would think anything about it. However, he made this a public for-profit venture which is completely different. When he takes paying civilian 'passengers' on board, then that is no longer pioneering. That is a public commercial venture in an unsafe craft he designed and built.

If someone told you they have designed and built a revolutionary form of helicopter, which is like nothing else before it. And that it is 100% safe. And that he has successfully flown it three times to 100ft/200ft/300ft, would buy a ticket to fly in it to Las Vegas?

He was well past the pioneering stage into the public arena. That makes it a matter of public safety. If he had kept it to himself and his engineers, we probably would have never even heard about it. Nobody would care except maybe as a side note in weird news.

[Kamaji]

If he is going down in the sub by himself or with a fellow engineer, no one would think anything about it. However, he made this a public for-profit venture which is completely different. When he takes paying civilian 'passengers' on board, then that is no longer pioneering. That is a public commercial venture in an unsafe craft he designed and built.

If someone told you they have designed and built a revolutionary form of helicopter, which is like nothing else before it. And that it is 100% safe. And that he has successfully flown it three times to 100ft/200ft/300ft, would buy a ticket to fly in it to Las Vegas?

He was well past the pioneering stage into the public arena. That makes it a matter of public safety. If he had kept it to himself and his engineers, we probably would have never even heard about it. Nobody would care except maybe as a side note in weird news.

[mountaineer]

If he is going down in the sub by himself or with a fellow engineer, no one would think anything about it. However, he made this a public for-profit venture which is completely different. When he takes paying civilian 'passengers' on board, then that is no longer pioneering. That is a public commercial venture in an unsafe craft he designed and built.

When we board an airplane, train or bus, or get into our own automobiles, we naturally assume they've been sufficiently tested and are safe. The passengers of this submarine should not have been so trusting.

[sneakypete]

If he is going down in the sub by himself or with a fellow engineer, no one would think anything about it. However, he made this a public for-profit venture which is completely different. When he takes paying civilian 'passengers' on board, then that is no longer pioneering. That is a public commercial venture in an unsafe craft he designed and built.

If someone told you they have designed and built a revolutionary form of helicopter, which is like nothing else before it. And that it is 100% safe. And that he has successfully flown it three times to 100ft/200ft/300ft, would buy a ticket to fly in it to Las Vegas?

He was well past the pioneering stage into the public arena. That makes it a matter of public safety. If he had kept it to himself and his engineers, we probably would have never even heard about it. Nobody would care except maybe as a side note in weird news.

@240B

All EXCELLENT points.

They would be even better if the bozo that build that sub was building them to sell to the public or the government.

He wasn't,though. He wasn't building them to sell to anyone.

"Buyer Beware" is STILL an excellent moto to live by though,and this includes people who buy tickets to ride on a conveyance engineered and built by someone else.

[Bigun]

When we board an airplane, train or bus, or get into our own automobiles, we naturally assume they've been sufficiently tested and are safe. The passengers of this submarine should not have been so trusting.

It appears to me that everyone on board had agreed that ALL the risks was assumed by themselves.

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,503257.msg2855253.html#msg2855253

[bigheadfred]

For further reading

Carbon Fiber Is Safe for Submersibles When …

https://www.designnews.com/industry/carbon-fiber-safe-submersibles-when-properly-applied

[sneakypete]

When we board an airplane, train or bus, or get into our own automobiles, we naturally assume they've been sufficiently tested and are safe. The passengers of this submarine should not have been so trusting.

@mountaineer

ESPECIALLY not since they were so wealthy they didn't even have the excuse of being ignorant. They HAD to know there were serious risks involved,and decided to take those risks,anyhow.

 

[240B]

When we board an airplane, train or bus, or get into our own automobiles, we naturally assume they've been sufficiently tested and are safe. The passengers of this submarine should not have been so trusting.

I have read that the CEO Rush was an arrogant greedy overly confident man. And that he was dismissive of any safety concerns because he thought he knew better.

He was warned by many submarine and aerospace experts that the craft needed months, possibly even years more testing by nautical professionals. He thought they were just frightened by anything new that did not conform to the old standard way of doing things.

Furthermore, he could not wait that long to recover his investments. So he rushed the launch date completely confident that he had thought of and had prepared for every possible eventually while actively blocking and not allowing ANY outside consultants (some of them with 30-40 years nautical experience. the best on Earth) to confer with him on his ideas. They were interested in his project and would have peer-reviewed his work. All he had to do was publish the goals and specifications of the project and let them take a look at it. He did not.

He would not allow himself and his staff to be challenged by 'outsiders'. He could not accept that he may not have thought of everything or even worse, that his design would not work. He was incorrect in this assumption.

[sneakypete]

I have read that the CEO Rush was an arrogant greedy overly confident man. And that he was dismissive of any safety concerns because he thought he knew better.

He was warned by many submarine and aerospace experts that the craft needed months, possibly even years more testing by nautical professionals. He thought they were just frightened by anything new that did not conform to the old standard way of doing things.

Furthermore, he could not wait that long to recover his investments. So he rushed the launch date completely confident that he had thought of and had prepared for every possible eventually while actively blocking and not allowing ANY outside consultants (some of them with 30-40 years nautical experience. the best on Earth) to confer with him on his ideas. They were interested in his project and would have peer-reviewed his work. All he had to do was publish the goals and specifications of the project and let them take a look at it. He did not.

He would not allow himself and his staff to be challenged by 'outsiders'. He could not accept that he may not have thought of everything or even worse, that his design would not work. He was incorrect in this assumption.

@240B

IF true,I guess it gives the estates of the deceased passengers grounds for a lawsuit,or to settle out of court.

I have to admit to being more than a little surprised that someone can build something like this on his own,and then charge passengers to ride in it without being REQUIRED to have the craft approved as safe for this purpose by the government.

He wasn't asking friends and acquaintances to ride along with him,he  was charging a LOT of money. HOW did he manage to do this without government permits and safety inspections,when cab and bus companies are required to pass safety  inspections?

[Bigun]

I have read that the CEO Rush was an arrogant greedy overly confident man. And that he was dismissive of any safety concerns because he thought he knew better.

He was warned by many submarine and aerospace experts that the craft needed months, possibly even years more testing by nautical professionals. He thought they were just frightened by anything new that did not conform to the old standard way of doing things.

Furthermore, he could not wait that long to recover his investments. So he rushed the launch date completely confident that he had thought of and had prepared for every possible eventually while actively blocking and not allowing ANY outside consultants (some of them with 30-40 years nautical experience. the best on Earth) to confer with him on his ideas. They were interested in his project and would have peer-reviewed his work. All he had to do was publish the goals and specifications of the project and let them take a look at it. He did not.

He would not allow himself and his staff to be challenged by 'outsiders'. He could not accept that he may not have thought of everything or even worse, that his design would not work. He was incorrect in this assumption.

I will stipulate to ALL of that being true @240B now tell me how that negates the fact that EVERYONE onboard voluntarily signed an agreement to assume ALL the risks of taking the trip.

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,503257.msg2855253.html#msg2855253

[mountaineer]

It appears they signed away their right (or their heirs', etc.) to file a product liability suit. I'm sure a bunch of lawyers will duke it out anyway, though.