Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers

#21

Post by psychphysic »

danso wrote: post #19
psychphysic wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than awe for US military capability. What motivates this idea? Not only does it explain nothing, it requires additional explanation.

It's not a complicated or even malicious "coverup". They hear an anomalous sound, but don't know with 100% certainty that it's came from the lost sub. What is the Coast Guard supposed to do, not do anything the past few days and say it's because "Sorry we heard a loud sound at that time and are 99% sure that those people are dead"?

I must be missing something it seems simpler to assume

"Coast guard gets report of lost sub and searches for a while".

Why would you turn that into

"USN knows that a sub imploded. Did nothing observable. Coast guard gets report of lost sub and searches for a while."

I looked at the link, I can't see any reason to interject into that more capability than was demonstrated. It may exist, it may not. There is no reason to comment on additional capabilities based on this event.

Re: Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers

#22

Post by tomjakubowski »

danso wrote: post #9
ak_111 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it more likely that it immediately imploded rather than after a few days? The latter is more probable to me as it has never been tested under water for more than a few hours at a stretch. This will also be consistent with your banging hypothesis which was only heard after a day or two when it got lost. And also with the fact that no immediate sound disturbance was registered with the controlling ship. I of cou…

There's little other explanation for why contact would be abruptly lost. The company said that the sub has multiple forms of ballast, including systems that could be activated manually, and ties that were designed to dissolve after 20+ hours in seawater, allowing the sub to rise even if the crew were unconscious. > The latter is more probable to me as it has never been tested under water for more than a few hours at…

> The company said that the sub has multiple forms of ballast, including systems that could be activated manually, and ties that were designed to dissolve after 20+ hours in seawater, allowing the sub to rise even if the crew were unconscious.

is there more information on these dissolvable ties? or their redundant ballast systems?

Re: Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers

#23

Post by adventured »

EA-3167 wrote: post #7
ak_111 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it more likely that it immediately imploded rather than after a few days? The latter is more probable to me as it has never been tested under water for more than a few hours at a stretch. This will also be consistent with your banging hypothesis which was only heard after a day or two when it got lost. And also with the fact that no immediate sound disturbance was registered with the controlling ship. I of cou…

"It imploded right away" explains everything. "It imploded later" requires at least two failures, first of power/comms, and THEN of the structure itself. Occam's Razor

Your occam is incorrectly structured. Power/comms is irrelevant to the equation in question, imploding, and doesn't add.

It imploded later requires only one failure (the structural failure), just as the relatively short time duration option requires only one failure. Right away is also a later event.

We have no way of knowing what its structural true condition was in terms of whether it was more likely to make it a very short duration or something more like a day.

Re: Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers

#24

Post by jprd »

fuzzbazz wrote: post #12
danso wrote: post #6

I wonder if U.S. agencies (e.g. the Navy) had picked up the sound of the implosion days ago, back when the Titan was said to have lost communication, and knew all this time that the Titan had likely already been destroyed. But there's no incentive for them to publicly say anything, as it would hint to their underwater surveillance capabilities. And the "rescue effort" is good practice for their crews. I watched most…

Would the implosion have been loud enough? I mean the thing was a tiny 7x3m cylinder located 700Km from the nearest coast...

I've never been in the military, not a sub-mariner, 1000% SOSUS could detect that. SOSUS could detect that in the 1970s, if not earlier.

Re: Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers

#25

Post by danso »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #22
danso wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's little other explanation for why contact would be abruptly lost. The company said that the sub has multiple forms of ballast, including systems that could be activated manually, and ties that were designed to dissolve after 20+ hours in seawater, allowing the sub to rise even if the crew were unconscious. > The latter is more probable to me as it has never been tested under water for more than a few hours at…

> The company said that the sub has multiple forms of ballast, including systems that could be activated manually, and ties that were designed to dissolve after 20+ hours in seawater, allowing the sub to rise even if the crew were unconscious. is there more information on these dissolvable ties? or their redundant ballast systems?

From David Pogue's report on his trip in 2022:

https://unsungscience.com/news/back-to-titanic-part-1/

Excerpt from the transcript:

But what if the hydraulic system breaks? Well, then they have roll weights.

KYLE: Ah, so, we’ve got these weights here on the side, these are roll weights, we can actually roll the sub and those come off, and that gains us some buoyancy to come back to the surface.

These are pipes that sit on a shelf that juts out from either side of the sub, held in place only by gravity. If everyone inside the sub shifts their weight to one side, the sub tips enough to let these pipes roll off.

If that doesn’t work, there are ballast bags, full of metal shot, hanging below the sub.

KYLE: These bags down below, we drop those off using motors and electric fingers.

OK. But what if the electronics go out, and the hydraulics fail, and everyone inside has passed out unconscious?

KYLE: There’s fusible links within these that actually can dissolve and come back in time if it’s drop off.

Fusible links are self-dissolving bonds. After 16 hours in seawater, those bonds disintegrate, the weight bags drop off automatically, and you go back to the surface.

Re: Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers

#27

Post by EA-3167 »

adventured wrote: post #23
EA-3167 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It imploded right away" explains everything. "It imploded later" requires at least two failures, first of power/comms, and THEN of the structure itself. Occam's Razor

Your occam is incorrectly structured. Power/comms is irrelevant to the equation in question, imploding, and doesn't add. It imploded later requires only one failure (the structural failure), just as the relatively short time duration option requires only one failure. Right away is also a later event. We have no way of knowing what its structural true condition was in terms of whether it was more likely to make it a v…

As others have pointed out, there were multiple, redundant failsafes on the ballasts which would have led an intact sub to surface even if the crew were incapacitated or dead.

Re: Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers

#28

Post by psychphysic »

ryanhuff wrote: post #17
danso wrote: post #6

I wonder if U.S. agencies (e.g. the Navy) had picked up the sound of the implosion days ago, back when the Titan was said to have lost communication, and knew all this time that the Titan had likely already been destroyed. But there's no incentive for them to publicly say anything, as it would hint to their underwater surveillance capabilities. And the "rescue effort" is good practice for their crews. I watched most…

That’s conspiracy thinking. The absence of your question being addressed doesn’t mean it’s plausible. The ocean is generally a noisy place, and the activities of a small submerged vehicle likely won’t raise notice without active listening.

You're right this is insane.

/r/UFO must be leaking.

A complete non sequitur to assume it was detected with no observable action taken.

Re: Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers

#29

Post by gravitronic »

EA-3167 wrote: post #8
danso wrote: post #6

I wonder if U.S. agencies (e.g. the Navy) had picked up the sound of the implosion days ago, back when the Titan was said to have lost communication, and knew all this time that the Titan had likely already been destroyed. But there's no incentive for them to publicly say anything, as it would hint to their underwater surveillance capabilities. And the "rescue effort" is good practice for their crews. I watched most…

Seems likely, there's no point revealing classified capabilities in this context.

There's a lot of unclassified information about their historic capabilities, I'm pretty sure they can give a lot of detail without leaking anything not already public.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS

https://www.amazon.com/Red-November-Inside-U-S-Soviet-Submar...

Re: Debris found came from missing Titan sub, says friend of passengers

#30

Post by [deleted] »

danso wrote: post #9
ak_111 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it more likely that it immediately imploded rather than after a few days? The latter is more probable to me as it has never been tested under water for more than a few hours at a stretch. This will also be consistent with your banging hypothesis which was only heard after a day or two when it got lost. And also with the fact that no immediate sound disturbance was registered with the controlling ship. I of cou…

There's little other explanation for why contact would be abruptly lost. The company said that the sub has multiple forms of ballast, including systems that could be activated manually, and ties that were designed to dissolve after 20+ hours in seawater, allowing the sub to rise even if the crew were unconscious. > The latter is more probable to me as it has never been tested under water for more than a few hours at…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN