So if the vessel was launched with only the 20,000 pounds of ballast on board with little or no other ballast on board do you think the vessel could/would behave the way it did?
Hard to say.....How did she behave? Exactly?
Would the boat be great with the extra 38,000 pounds and roll over without it? No, I certainly would not expect that.
I don't believe this is a simple occurrence that's due to one particular mistake. Most marine accidents that I've seen properly analyzed end up being caused by a train of mistakes, often going back years. This is why I pay attention to such things, they are another intriguing puzzle that will teach us something.
Roddan Engineering estimates a full load displacement of 291,000 pounds, and specifies 58,000 pounds of ballast, almost 20% of full load weight! This (IMO) is nuts from the get-go. Surely there is a more sensible way to cross an ocean?
The morning after this happened, before I had seen any pictures, video, or read any theories, I thought it must have been a trailer/ramp problem. The builder has subsequently come out and claimed the aft dolly dropped in a hole in the ramp....that could be.
But viewing the doctored video of the actual launch is dismaying to say the least. The stability report by Roddan Engineering claims that, with all (58000 pounds) ballast aboard she would have positive stability to over 60 degrees heel. In the video she exhibited no positive stability at all. Was this due to downflooding and free-surface through the engineroom door? Was it due to the dolly-in-the-hole theory? A mix of both coupled with her being heavy on the port side, perhaps massively heavy unknown to anyone. And was she truly completely afloat (and developing full stability) when she rolled? Or was she still "aground" with bow on the trailer?
One thing I do know is that this sort of accident is preventable. I also know that getting owner's and builder's to fund the study necessary to prevent this is, in some cases, impossible.