OceanGate Expeditions Titan DSV loss

OliverSedlacek said:
Struts in compression fail at the critical Euler load, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler's_critical_load
Agreed, this doesn't apply to pressure vessels.
Click to expand...
as a side note a strut/prop is the last thing you would want at the leaning tower of Pisa---it would fail at that point.

From the NYT
www.nytimes.com

The Maverick Design Choices That May Have Doomed Titan

Engineers interviewed by The New York Times pointed out several weak points in Titan that were cost-saving departures from proven submersible designs.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
 
Last edited:
publiusr said:
as a side note a strut/prop is the last thing you would want at the leaning tower of Pisa---it would fail at that point.
Click to expand...
Good thing then that nobody in the history of ever considered taking said tower for a Mediterranean dive, I guess?
 
www.insider.com

The submersible that first took humans to the Titanic wreck has made more than 5,000 dives. A researcher who has been on the Alvin 53 times says it's nothing like the Titan.

Lisa Levin, a veteran oceanographer, told Insider the Titan's lax approach to safety is nothing like the stringent precautions on Alvin operations.
www.insider.com www.insider.com

www.insider.com

OceanGate tried to scrub the internet clean of traces that it ever existed, taking down its Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn pages

OceanGate, the deep-sea exploration company that created the Titan submersible, has removed its Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn accounts.
www.insider.com www.insider.com

Regards,
 
Scott Kenny said:
Wonder if that would constitute "concealing evidence of a crime"?
Click to expand...
Why would deleting their social media be deleting evidence?
They are going to get sued out of existence. It's a civil matter. The only reason anyone might get charged criminally is the very public nature of the event and the well to do victims. The main person with liability is dead.
 
Now I hear it was “dragged” by a cheap mothership.

Likely would have failed anyway
 
_Del_ said:
Why would deleting their social media be deleting evidence?
They are going to get sued out of existence. It's a civil matter. The only reason anyone might get charged criminally is the very public nature of the event and the well to do victims. The main person with liability is dead.
Click to expand...
Not when their standard of build crosses over into criminal negligence or malice.

Expired CF, window rated to 1300m taken down to 4000m...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Wonder if that would constitute "concealing evidence of a crime"?
Click to expand...

Nah. For starters, very little of their public web presence would be useful evidence -- that's mostly going to be in more detailed engineering document and internal communications.

Even if it were evidence, there's a dirty little secret about social media companies. They don't actually delete stuff when a user "deletes" a post or even an account, they just switch it to being invisible. Any deleted content will be saved on the back end for at least a few months in case the authorities or litigants request it. If anyone is considering suing OceanGate, they've probably already sent preservation letters to providers, but they'd almost certainly be interested in private communications, not public content.

I'd bet that there won't be any lawsuits, though, because OceanGate has to be effectively judgement proof -- they have no meaningful assets to seize in a judgement. And criminally, they were in international waters, which cuts down on the prosecution options.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not when their standard of build crosses over into criminal negligence or malice.
Click to expand...
I'm not licensed to practice maritime law, but I think the two countries most likely to charge them with a crime (US and Canada) will struggle to find jurisdiction for said crime, and as a non-registered vessel, it isn't required to confirm to SOLAS regulations.
Civilly, however, it's going to be easy enough to make the company disappear, and families might be able to find recompense from whoever insured OceanGate (assuming it was up on it's insurance bills, which might not be a given). I think it was negligent to sell tickets on such an excursion because I think it implies a base level of safety, but depending on the waiver --if OceanGate said "This is experimental and completely unregulated and untested. We can't promise you won't die", for example-- then the estates of participants might be screwed regardless. That will be argued by big dollar attorneys on both sides, and doesn't seem immediately clear that either would prevail. I suspect the insurer would be motivated to settle out of court, but families might also be so motivated.
 
TomS said:
I'd bet that there won't be any lawsuits, though, because OceanGate has to be effectively judgement proof -- they have no meaningful assets to seize in a judgement. And criminally, they were in international waters, which cuts down on the prosecution options.
Click to expand...
They have very little in the way of assets, and they are not going to resume operations (at least not under the same name and company), so there is no way to recover future assets or income. Their only hope is that they were insured against something like this. And because they have limited liability, as you note operating in international waters, they might not have felt the need to be insured against such. Their insurance might only cover operations in the states or countries they were based out of.
 
publiusr said:
FOCs and LLCs…dodges that cause all kinds of pain.
Click to expand...
Thing is, Canada is hardly a flag of convenience. Especially when operating from a Canadian port. Depending on Canadian law for subsea operations, the 'international waters' thing could conceivably only be a minor issue. I'd bet that someone in Canada is taking a close look at their options.

The US government undertaking the accident investigation seems like an odd choice, but there can be a lot of factors at play in determining who leads on such things.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Thing is, Canada is hardly a flag of convenience. Especially when operating from a Canadian port. Depending on Canadian law for subsea operations, the 'international waters' thing could conceivably only be a minor issue. I'd bet that someone in Canada is taking a close look at their options.

The US government undertaking the accident investigation seems like an odd choice, but there can be a lot of factors at play in determining who leads on such things.
Click to expand...
Company was based in the US, IIRC, even if they operated out of a Canadian port.
 
_Del_ said:
I'm not licensed to practice maritime law, but I think the two countries most likely to charge them with a crime (US and Canada) will struggle to find jurisdiction for said crime, and as a non-registered vessel, it isn't required to confirm to SOLAS regulations.
Civilly, however, it's going to be easy enough to make the company disappear, and families might be able to find recompense from whoever insured OceanGate (assuming it was up on it's insurance bills, which might not be a given). I think it was negligent to sell tickets on such an excursion because I think it implies a base level of safety, but depending on the waiver --if OceanGate said "This is experimental and completely unregulated and untested. We can't promise you won't die", for example-- then the estates of participants might be screwed regardless. That will be argued by big dollar attorneys on both sides, and doesn't seem immediately clear that either would prevail. I suspect the insurer would be motivated to settle out of court, but families might also be so motivated.
Click to expand...

I need to vomit... sick SOBs.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Company was based in the US, IIRC, even if they operated out of a Canadian port.
Click to expand...
Jurisdiction tends to follow the flag in these things... but it's not uncommon for the flag state and the owner's state to agree to collaborate, with whoever has the greater resources usually taking the lead. I've no doubt that all the interested parties (certainly the US and Canada, possibly also the UK, France, Pakistan and Bermuda) have agreed to the US leading the investigation.
 
OceanGate's submersible wasn't flagged in the US or anywhere else. Just because the company is based in the States doesn't give the US jurisdiction, anymore than if I stole money in Switzerland the US would have jurisdiction because I live in US. They would need to demonstrate a crime took place in the United States.

The best legal argument would probably be for Canadian criminal jurisdiction because that is where they sailed from, but again, whatever took place took place in international waters in this case.

Either or both countries can drag OceanGate into court, but it would first have to demonstrate to a judge that it has a basis to claim jurisdiction before it went any further. And the guy that would go to jail if they were ever successful is being eaten by crabs already.

And again, if I thoroughly and honestly described the situation, and you willingly partake, you have contributed to your situation. You share part or all of the liability civilly. If a doctor or pharma company offers you experimental medicine, it is only going to be negligent if they did not properly and accurately describe the drug and it's potential side effects and it's level of safely. If they say, "This has only been tested on rabbits and you'll be among the first human trials, and your liver may shrivel up, and you might even die", you are assuming your own liability. If you went to an roadside carnival and they had you sign a waiver that says, "these rides are not inspected regularly and are not maintained nor do they conform with any regulation. Riding thus ride may result in serious injury or death" do not sign that waiver and go on a ride.
 
I see your point. What is very puzzling in that story, is the top world specialist of the Titanic (the french one) risking his life in that jury rigged deathtrap.
Then again, he was a specialist of the Titanic - not of submarines.
I wonder whether his age - 77 - may have pushed him away from French submarines, like the IFREMER Nautile - to a private company. A bit like astronauts declared too old to return to space, and getting a ride on Branson flying death trap out of despair.

It is also possible that SOB Stockton Rush manipulated him to be his "scientific caution". Like "Look, my submarine is top notch, proof: the world top Titanic expert is having a ride on it !"

Sorry for the swearing, in passing. That absurd loss of life infuriates me. Even more when one reads this man credentials.

What was he thinking ?

 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
I see your point. What is very puzzling in that story, is the top world specialist of the Titanic (the french one) risking his life in that jury rigged deathtrap.
Then again, he was a specialist of the Titanic - not of submarines.
I wonder whether his age - 77 - may have pushed him away from French submarines, like the IFREMER Nautile - to a private company. A bit like astronauts declared too old to return to space, and getting a ride on Branson flying death trap out of despair.

It is also possible that SOB Stockton Rush manipulated him to be his "scientific caution". Like "Look, my submarine is top notch, proof: the world top Titanic expert is having a ride on it !"
Click to expand...
There was an article in The Atlantic a week or so back that interviewed one of the industry leaders who had been begging Oceangate not to use their death sub. This guy knew the Nargeolet from work they had previously done on dives to the Titanic. He said that the Nargeolet was older (77, as you mention) and a widower, and had spoken about how a diving accident at depth wouldn't be the worst way to go. The guy they interviewed took care not to imply that Nargeolet had a death wish, but it seemed pretty clear that at the very least, he had achieved most of what he wanted to in life, and as such maybe wouldn't have been so stringent in his demands for safety as he would've been when he was younger.

I don't know if anyone linked the article, and I think I read it on a "this is a free sample article" basis which has since lapsed, so it's locked behind a paywall. It was pretty good, though if you find it. I think it was dated to late June? At any rate, it certainly didn't paint the decision makers at Oceangate in a good light.
 
Yellow Palace said:
Jurisdiction tends to follow the flag in these things... but it's not uncommon for the flag state and the owner's state to agree to collaborate, with whoever has the greater resources usually taking the lead. I've no doubt that all the interested parties (certainly the US and Canada, possibly also the UK, France, Pakistan and Bermuda) have agreed to the US leading the investigation.
Click to expand...
There's also some US law that allows crews injured on the high seas to sue their employer for damages. Not sure if other countries have such a thing.
 
Could you get away with a carbon fiber sub if it were filled with perflubrons/ fluisol...the clear oxygenated liquid used in Crays that I have seen rats suspended in?
 
I would say as the liquid has encapsulated gas microbubbles; it would have compressibility.

I am sure the NAVY and the like would have gone into the in's and out's of it years ago.

There are quite a few papers on it yet mainly for liquid ventilation in patients and potential treatment of decompression.

Yet nothing has seemed to eventuate over the years.

Regards,
 
publiusr said:
Could you get away with a carbon fiber sub if it were filled with perflubrons/ fluisol...the clear oxygenated liquid used in Crays that I have seen rats suspended in?
Click to expand...
Sure, assuming that the fluid breathing medium isn't going to attack either the titanium or resin in the CF.

Halcyon66 said:
I would say as the liquid has encapsulated gas microbubbles; it would have compressibility.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's any more compressible than water is.

Halcyon66 said:
I am sure the NAVY and the like would have gone into the in's and out's of it years ago.

There are quite a few papers on it yet mainly for liquid ventilation in patients and potential treatment of decompression.

Yet nothing has seemed to eventuate over the years.
Click to expand...
Last I heard, the challenge was scrubbing CO2 out of the liquid. It's possible they have figured that out by now, but it was done for Navy special projects so the process is classified.

Plus, I cannot imagine just how unpleasant it is to almost drown and then have to hack all that fluid out of your lungs again.
 
I did not like the idea when mooted in one of the deep sea films of a few years ago, glad they have no asked me to play.
 
Foo Fighter said:
I did not like the idea when mooted in one of the deep sea films of a few years ago, glad they have no asked me to play.
Click to expand...
They only used actual FBM when they put the rat into the clear liquid in Abyss. The human shots were done with plain water, and yes the actor almost drowned.
 
Scott Kenny said:
They only used actual FBM when they put the rat into the clear liquid in Abyss. The human shots were done with plain water, and yes the actor almost drowned.
Click to expand...
I get it mate, problem is that despite being a sci fi buff I really get the jeebies at that. There was a book (Heinlein?) I read during my overly bookish teen years where this was mooted for deep dpace travel and all the acceleration/deceleration forces. I think I really did see my lunch twice.

Despite the Trek in me, I do not like mobiles or ereaders either.

I must be a rarity, a luddite Trekkie.

I also, LIKE being a non conformist.

Wow, I am really weird...........
 
Currently at work so unable to fully dive through this thread but; so at the cost of repeating information;
it may be pertinent to note the winding pattern as used in the main pressure hull of Titan was wound using the "loop/hoop (fig B)" style of winding, which has drastically reduced strength & much easier delam in comparison to the "helical (fig A)" style.
Helical is almost exclusively used for such things as pressure vessels.
e.g paintball air tanks, as they are designed to withstand rather large pressures (Vary from 800, 1200, 1400, 2400, 4500 psi for über high end tanks), obviously not a 1:1 comparison because these tanks are in & designed specifically for tension loading, rather than the compression loads submersibles are subjected to.
Nonetheless I believe it highlights one of the core inadequacies of Titan.
Besides, you know, laughing in the face of experts for some extra pr

Unfortunately I cannot find a concise analysis through a quick Google but, it's fairly certain anyone with some sense can see why it's a bad idea to not only use carbon fibre (which notoriously relies on it's binder to provide compressive resistance) in this environment, but utilize it "improperly" to boot.

quick edit: it just occurred some of the more high-end gas cylinders (again, tension, but there's a reason compressive loads tend to use steel vessels) use helical wound fibres as well, shedding more light on the... decisions made.
 

Attachments

  • The-winding-of-a-a-helical-layer-and-b-a-hoop-layer-over-the-metallic-liner-by-the.png
    The-winding-of-a-a-helical-layer-and-b-a-hoop-layer-over-the-metallic-liner-by-the.png
    153.4 KB · Views: 18
Scott Kenny said:
They only used actual FBM when they put the rat into the clear liquid in Abyss. The human shots were done with plain water, and yes the actor almost drowned.
Click to expand...
There is a similar immersion scene towards the end of Mission to Mars with Gary Sinise. I didn't envy him for having to play that bit either.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
There is a similar immersion scene towards the end of Mission to Mars with Gary Sinise. I didn't envy him for having to play that bit either.
Click to expand...

All this for a box office bomb and utterly stupid movie. Silliest sci-fi "movie" of the late 1990's, on par with Michael Bay crap, which says something
 
Archibald said:
All this for a box office bomb and utterly stupid movie. Silliest sci-fi "movie" of the late 1990's, on par with Michael Bay crap, which says something
Click to expand...
If you *REALLY* haven't seen any *SILLIER* sci-fi flicks from that time frame, god bless your heart, as they would say in the southern parts of this here country ;). As a German aerospace engineer, I really enjoyed it, and having Armin Mueller-Stahl in the cast as a fellow German certainly didn't hurt the experience for me :D. On a TRL scale, I think it solidly falls somewhere in the middle, and from what I remember (and I may well be wrong) not a single weapon was discharged in that movie, so what's not to like? But seriously, did you honestly think Red Planet was BETTER?
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
No. It made the "face on Mars" conspiracy better known. And the movie is insufferable from the first to the last minute.
A complete and pretty funny critic of that POS...
Click to expand...
Well, I guess apart from our fundamentally diverging strong opinions on the intrinsic value and benefit of spaceplanes copulating in free-fall we have finally found yet another solid point of disagreement, Monsieur, but no hard feelings :). But I feel the breeze of a thread drift coming on...
 
Last edited:
The Mission to Mars Earth Return vehicle looked plausible.

The Red Planet craft looked to have shuttle External Tanks, which I liked.
 
publiusr said:
The Mission to Mars Earth Return vehicle looked plausible.

The Red Planet craft looked to have shuttle External Tanks, which I liked.
Click to expand...
"Like" is really not a criterion at all in aerospace design. Aerospace engineering is not a popularity contest or a pseudo "reality" show.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom