13
What way did the Titan submersible implode?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
13 points (100.0% liked)
Explain Like I'm Five
14189 readers
1 users here now
Simplifying Complexity, One Answer at a Time!
Rules
- Be respectful and inclusive.
- No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
- Engage in constructive discussions.
- Share relevant content.
- Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
- Use appropriate language and tone.
- Report violations.
- Foster a continuous learning environment.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't think anyone has any real data on the failure point, which is the needed info to know how long it would take to die. There has been lots of speculation that the carbon fiber used (rejected by Boeing as being out-of-spec) or the use of dissimilar materials each with different thermal expansion and contraction coefficients, to the "bubble window" being way under spec because the CEO didn't want to pay for a proper spec one.
Without those we don't know exactly how fast. We don't know if they passengers had any indication of a problem (sounds?) or if it started leaking before it imploded or if it was an instant catastrophic failure.
I believe they have found parts of the wreckage. I wonder if we will get any clues to how it happened. I guess either way they wouldn't have survived long
The primary cause I'm hearing is the window. It was rated for a dive depth of 1500m, and the sub would routinely dive to 4000m.
I also heard the carbon fiber skin wasn’t appropriate for so many massive pressure changes it underwent with each dove.
I think based on the reported sounds from US Navy and James Cameron (what a weird sentence), we are actually pretty sure it was a rapid, catastrophic and instantaneous implosion.
I really don't get this. The CEO knows that the window is so seriously under-speced, yet he still doesn't hesitate to jump into the sub himself.
Specs aren't a universal constant. They're defined by humans. Expert humans, but humans. He must have thought he knew better than the experts. He was wrong, but I don't think the lesson had time to sink in.
He may have thought along these lines... So the window is rated for 1500m interesting usually engineers use a 3x safety factor when they rate something that'd be....(sound of slowly grinding gears) 4500m! But I'm only going about 4000m meters down?
Jackpot! I'm not going to waste my time certifying the window to some silly extra strong standard! Take that you nerds!
Oh, you.
It was arguably in poor taste, but I'm glad someone noticed regardless.