Will the Titanic claim a few more?

[tiltrider1]

I don’t think anyone really understood the true risks. How many vessels have reach a depth of 10,000 feet? How many times did these vessels reach 10,000 feet? Finally, how many of these vessels were made of carbon fiber?

Despite everything we knew about pressure cycles on aircraft Aloha Airlines suffered a cabin explosion due to cycle fatigue. We have extremely limited data on pressure cycles to 10,000 feet and no data on pressure cycles to 10,000 feet with carbon fiber.

Now that you know that we really don’t know how many times we can pressure cycle a submersible to 10,000 feet, that there is no possible timely rescue, and industry professionals have safety doubts, are you still interested in dropping $250,000 for a ride?

 

[AlaskaProf]

I don’t think anyone really understood the true risks. How many vessels have reach a depth of 10,000 feet? How many times did these vessels reach 10,000 feet? Finally, how many of these vessels were made of carbon fiber?

Despite everything we knew about pressure cycles on aircraft Aloha Airlines suffered a cabin explosion due to cycle fatigue. We have extremely limited data on pressure cycles to 10,000 feet and no data on pressure cycles to 10,000 feet with carbon fiber.

Now that you know that we really don’t know how many times we can pressure cycle a submersible to 10,000 feet, that there is no possible timely rescue, and industry professionals have safety doubts, are you still interested in dropping $250,000 for a ride?

 

[Mako]

I could buy a nice trawler for $250k

 

[Comodave]

I could buy a nice trawler for $250k

To a billionaire a $250K trawler isn’t nice…

 

[Benthic2]

I saw an interview with Robert Ballard ( the guy who found the Titanic ) and he said that since deep sea exploration with submersibles started in 1960, this is the first and only incident of a total failure. My take away from that is the industry is doing a good job of self policing their own safety requirements until this new company came along and thought it knew better than everyone else.

 

[mvweebles]

Someone on CruisersForum posted this 2018 industry letter to OceanGate (highlight added by me) expressing concern over TITAN's design and lack of certification. Prescient to say the least.

March 27, 2018

Oceangate Inc
1205 Craftsman Way, Suite 112
Everett, WA 98201

Dear Stockton,

This letter is sent on behalf of our industry members who have collectively expressed unanimous concern regarding the development of TITAN and the planned Titanic Expedition. Our apprehension is that the current experimental approach adopted by Oceangate could result in negative outcomes (from minor to catastrophic) that would have serious consequences for everyone in the industry.

The MUV industry has earned itself an enviable safety track record over the past 40 years. This is partly due to the diligent engineering discipline and professional approach exercised by members of the industry, but also due to the collective observation of (and adherence to) a variety of safety standards.

This reputation is solid because it was hard won over many years of diligence application and has resulted in a safe and successful record of operation. Our members are all aware of how important and precious this standing is and deeply concerned that a single negative event could undo this.

Your marketing material advertises that the TITAN design will meet or exceed the DNV-GL safety standards, yet it does not appear that Oceangate has the intention of following DNV-GL class rules. Your representation is, at minimum, misleading to the public and breaches an industry-wide professional code of conduct we all endeavor to uphold.

We do all agree that a performance-based testing program for design verification is a recognized and valid approach to new technologies. However, we recommend that at a minimum you institute a prototype testing program that is reviewed and witnessed by DNV-GL (or ABS). While this may demand additional time and expense, it is our unanimous view that this validation process by a third-party is a critical component in the safeguards that protect all submersible occupants.

Together we are all beneficiaries of the excellent safety record of MUV operations over the years; but each one of us is also a steward with a responsibility to sustain this achievement. We would be grateful if you could confirm that Oceangate can see the future benefit of its investment in adhering to our industry accepted safety guidelines and protocols for ultimate success and that of the MUV community.​

 

[NaClyDog]

Let that sink in.

You clearly don't understand... there was a billionaire on the sub.

 

[OldDan1943]

The pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their back.
I’m sure Columbus was criticized for his fool hearty voyage.
We ‘lost’ 2 space shuttle crews

 

[mvweebles]

The pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their back.
I’m sure Columbus was criticized for his fool hearty voyage.
We ‘lost’ 2 space shuttle crews

None of whom were paying passengers.

 

[psneeld]

To me, the big difference is exploration and paying passengers.(seems like someone just beat me to it )

In the US and I hope elsewhere, the vessel and captain have fairly strict limitations on them with recurring requirements. Far from perfect, there is something.

Early reports I saw reported even those that paid $250K to go on the Titan were really part crew. Not sure how accurate that was...was it they truly were part of a testing crew? Or was that just a gimmick to shade the truth of some unregulated passenger for hire activity?

I guess that to me means a big difference in a person's mind and their understanding of risk....the difference of "I know I am taking a big risk", and "someone else has minimized much of the risk for me".

 

[Old Sea Dog]

As regards opening/closing the hatch, once the sub is submerged a few feet down the clamping effect of the external water pressure far exceeds the 17 bolts which just hold the hatch in place until that point.



The hatch on this sub is on the front, which would still be underwater when the sub is on the surface. To exit, the sub is lifted out of the water after surfacing.



To allow exit from the floating sub would require a top hatch inside a type of vertical trunk (similar to the "conning tower" of military submarines) which would extend above the splash height of the waves.

I was just pointing out that even if they had surfaced the occupants of the submersible would not be able to open from the inside. Hence suffocating before rescuers could find them and open the hatch.

 

[wkearney99]

The pioneers are the ones with the arrows in their back.
I’m sure Columbus was criticized for his fool hearty voyage.
We ‘lost’ 2 space shuttle crews

Yeah, that's bullshit, trying to conflate efforts like that. Sure, "sounds good" but none of those have anything to do with the recent sub failure.

 

[mvweebles]

To me, the big difference is exploration and paying passengers.(seems like someone just beat me to it )

In the US and I hope elsewhere, the vessel and captain have fairly strict limitations on them with recurring requirements. Far from perfect, there is something.

Early reports I saw reported even those that paid $250K to go on the Titan were really part crew. Not sure how accurate that was...was it they truly were part of a testing crew? Or was that just a gimmick to shade the truth of some unregulated passenger for hire activity?

I guess that to me means a big difference in a person's mind and their understanding of risk....the difference of "I know I am taking a big risk", and "someone else has minimized much of the risk for me".

From a regulatory perspective, guessing it's divided into two trips and two vessels. The Mother Ship (OceanGate) departed from St Johns, Newfoundland. I'm sure it had all the proper inspections and certifications to carry passengers. However, Titan was operated 100's of miles outside territorial waters. And while there are industry certifications, I doubt there is one from a regulatory agency given the lack of jurisdiction and technology. In another article, the passengers signed a waiver that they understood the risks could include death. I'd imagine their entire trip was actually two voyages.

The 2018 letter posted above made an interesting observation that OceanGate endeavored to comply with certification, but did not actually submit to certification. So while the passengers (crew?) signed-away their rights, they likely misled on the safety of Titan.

What a shame. What a can of worms.

Peter

 

[psneeld]

I too thought about jurisdiction overall and splitting the 2 separate operations.... but I believe the people signing up for the trip and the operators both have the mindsets to perceive the "paying passenger" concept.

I get when traveling in underdeveloped countries that public transportation is virtually at your own risk, but I wonder just how well the "risks" were understood in this situation.

James Cameron interviews appear to have a pretty truthful ring to them that not many in the submersible world thought the "cutting edge" tech in this case was truly safe for tourism.

I not as much about blaming tourists or the submersible company as I am just where are the jurisdictions/regulations if it is a paying passenger operation and just how well are the risks explained?

A can of worms is an understatement...

In a prior post I mentioned how the varied governments that supported the rescue attempts would be demanding answers.... it has already started and the media is fueling the fire as it has gotten very good at.

 

[mvweebles]

....just how well are the risks explained [to paying passengers]?

The 2018 letter from industry experts to OceanGate sums it up pretty well:

Your marketing material advertises that the TITAN design will meet or exceed the DNV-GL safety standards, yet it does not appear that Oceangate has the intention of following DNV-GL class rules. Your representation is, at minimum, misleading to the public and breaches an industry-wide professional code of conduct we all endeavor to uphold.​

Peter

 

[Hippocampus]

So the pressure hull was carbon. Carbon does poorly in compression. Carbon has been used in naval architecture for decades and its properties are well known. Before launch the industry organization tells the company your vessel is unsafe. Several prominent members of that organization with extensive experience of submersibles reach out to tell the company to rethink their engineering. The company goes forward and launches without getting certified for passengers.

I’m not a lawyer and I suspect waivers were signed but do you think wrongful death suits will follow?

 

[Crux]

I saw an interview with Robert Ballard ( the guy who found the Titanic ) and he said that since deep sea exploration with submersibles started in 1960, this is the first and only incident of a total failure. My take away from that is the industry is doing a good job of self policing their own safety requirements until this new company came along and thought it knew better than everyone else.

Its amazing how exhaustive the early work was.....Trieste was big news when I was a kid along with space stuff. Worth the read ( now reread) if you're into the nuts and bolts....

https://www.amazon.com/Opening-Grea...refix=Opening+the+great,stripbooks,199&sr=1-1

 

[psneeld]

While I am interested in the whole investigative process and outcomes...I hope I didn't lead the thread into a discussion of legal issues.

This country is already lawsuit crazy and like I said the media is already feeding the frenzy.... let's show the boating community TF isn't party to all that.

 

[Benthic2]

.....We ‘lost’ 2 space shuttle crews

This is a ridiculous comparison

NASA did not cut any corners.
NASA did not ignore industry standards or certification
NASA was creating the first vehicle of its kind
NASA did not fail at something many others have done successfully
NASA was not working in an industry with 60 years of history
NASA was not trying to make a profit

The Challenger Deep ( part of the Mariana Trench ) is 3 times deeper than the Titanic and over a dozen vehicles have gone down there over the last 60 years without a single failure.

The outlier here is not the depth of the journey, it is the approach of OceansGate.

 

[SteveK]

Someone on CruisersForum posted this 2018 industry letter to OceanGate (highlight added by me) expressing concern over TITAN's design and lack of certification. Prescient to say the least.

March 27, 2018

Oceangate Inc
1205 Craftsman Way, Suite 112
Everett, WA 98201

Dear Stockton,

This letter is sent on behalf of our industry members who have collectively expressed unanimous concern regarding the development of TITAN and the planned Titanic Expedition. Our apprehension is that the current experimental approach adopted by Oceangate could result in negative outcomes (from minor to catastrophic) that would have serious consequences for everyone in the industry.

The MUV industry has earned itself an enviable safety track record over the past 40 years. This is partly due to the diligent engineering discipline and professional approach exercised by members of the industry, but also due to the collective observation of (and adherence to) a variety of safety standards.

This reputation is solid because it was hard won over many years of diligence application and has resulted in a safe and successful record of operation. Our members are all aware of how important and precious this standing is and deeply concerned that a single negative event could undo this.

Your marketing material advertises that the TITAN design will meet or exceed the DNV-GL safety standards, yet it does not appear that Oceangate has the intention of following DNV-GL class rules. Your representation is, at minimum, misleading to the public and breaches an industry-wide professional code of conduct we all endeavor to uphold.

We do all agree that a performance-based testing program for design verification is a recognized and valid approach to new technologies. However, we recommend that at a minimum you institute a prototype testing program that is reviewed and witnessed by DNV-GL (or ABS). While this may demand additional time and expense, it is our unanimous view that this validation process by a third-party is a critical component in the safeguards that protect all submersible occupants.

Together we are all beneficiaries of the excellent safety record of MUV operations over the years; but each one of us is also a steward with a responsibility to sustain this achievement. We would be grateful if you could confirm that Oceangate can see the future benefit of its investment in adhering to our industry accepted safety guidelines and protocols for ultimate success and that of the MUV community.​

View attachment 139893

Peter, why did you post an unsigned letter? I could copy this letterhead and turn the narrative 180*. If you have the authors signatures, post it or it did not happen.

 

[psneeld]

This is a ridiculous comparison

NASA did not cut any corners.
NASA did not ignore industry standards or certification
NASA was creating the first vehicle of its kind
NASA did not fail at something many others have done successfully
NASA was not working in an industry with 60 years of history
NASA was not trying to make a profit

The Challenger Deep ( part of the Mariana Trench ) is 3 times deeper than the Titanic and over a dozen vehicles have gone down there over the last 60 years without a single failure.

The outlier here is not the depth of the journey, it is the approach of OceansGate.

What is rediculous is to think any accident in modern times happens without someone cutting corners.

Most Challenger space shuttle incident reports clearly show where someone cut a corner.

ALL other deep submersible never used carbon fiber in their construction.... a HUGE point in some of the follow up news interviews (as I mentioned, search for James Cameron ones...while not conclusive, a point for more research).

While true it was not the depth of the voyage, it was the approach...but there lies the issue behind most modern engineering disasters....

Even when it's a known problem and the info is available to mitigate, some never do... aka the Boing 737 Max issue. A story to it's own with again 2 definitely opposing opinions of who is at fault.

 

[Benthic2]

.......Most Challenger space shuttle incident reports clearly show where someone cut a corner....

Maybe I am naive, but I think if NASA cut corners it would out of ingorance, not for budgetary reasons. I see a big difference between "We think we've been thorough" and "We've been as thorough as we can afford".

 

[twistedtree]

So the pressure hull was carbon. Carbon does poorly in compression. Carbon has been used in naval architecture for decades and its properties are well known. Before launch the industry organization tells the company your vessel is unsafe. Several prominent members of that organization with extensive experience of submersibles reach out to tell the company to rethink their engineering. The company goes forward and launches without getting certified for passengers.

I’m not a lawyer and I suspect waivers were signed but do you think wrongful death suits will follow?

I doubt there will be anything meaningful to sue, unless there is a big insurance policy. In situations like this the company would typically fold and be gone, or at least have no assets.

 

[twistedtree]

By the way, I built a space ship in my garage and will be launching in a few days. It’s built to meet the most rigorous specs, but not tested or checked by anybody. Regardless, the views from space will be awesome - a once in a lifetime experience. Who want to join me? $250k per “seat”, which doesn’t mean there is a seat, just a place to squat on the floor.

 

[psneeld]

Maybe I am naive, but I think if NASA cut corners it would out of ingorance, not for budgetary reasons. I see a big difference between "We think we've been thorough" and "We've been as thorough as we can afford".

And there is the whole discussion of "cutting corners"....

It doesn't have to be purely budgetary.... but all the way back to design and review...both internal and for contractors.

If you have never looked into the documentaries and papers on the final decisions about launching in untested temperature...it may be enlightening.

It opens the old door of "what else did they miss or not follow up on" opposed by "operational risk management" procedures and the old adage..."ya can't think of everything".

Essentially the bottom line is what has been brough up.

Did ALL the occupants of the 2 fatal shuttles really know the risks at any moment.... and the problem with the "media face" of NASA that says look at how many missions have been trouble free....who me worry?

The same discussion we have here on TF about cruising trouble free...what does it really take to survive a lifetime of it?

 

[soin2la]

By the way, I built a space ship in my garage and will be launching in a few days. It’s built to meet the most rigorous specs, but not tested or checked by anybody. Regardless, the views from space will be awesome - a once in a lifetime experience. Who want to join me? $250k per “seat”, which doesn’t mean there is a seat, just a place to squat on the floor.

I'm in.
I just bought a parachute at a garage sale that the seller said "is fine."

 

[mvweebles]

Peter, why did you post an unsigned letter? I could copy this letterhead and turn the narrative 180*. If you have the authors signatures, post it or it did not happen.

Interesting point. Source is from New York Times document archive:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documentto...etter-to-ocean-gate/eddb63615a7b3764/full.pdf

This letter has been referenced 100's of times over the last few days. I've heard interviews with two experts who were part of the "unanimous support" stated the letter.

Peter

 

[Action]

By the way, I built a space ship in my garage and will be launching in a few days. It’s built to meet the most rigorous specs, but not tested or checked by anybody. Regardless, the views from space will be awesome - a once in a lifetime experience. Who want to join me? $250k per “seat”, which doesn’t mean there is a seat, just a place to squat on the floor.

Sounds great, let's go. However, you are going to need to spot me $249.9K.
I will pay you when we get back. Really, I will!

 

[psneeld]

Sounds great, let's go. However, you are going to need to spot me $249.9K.
I will pay you when we get back. Really, I will!

That should become standard payment schedule in operations like this if there were truly naive passengers aboard....

 

[psneeld]

Let that sink in.

Just saw this on a news feed

Hufpost UK

"Barack Obama hit the nail on the head when he spoke about the “untenable” way the Titan submersible tragedy received more attention than the recent deaths of hundreds of refugees near Greece."