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

Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 207 posts

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#141

Post by hong_kong »

ilyt wrote: post #94
getmeinrn wrote: post #75

Something I've learned over my life is not to automatically trust that someone has done or will do the right thing just because they stick their neck out. Sometimes they stick their neck out because they don't actually understand the risks and consequences, but they are pretending that they do. They're artificially signaling confidence. In this case, the CEO risking his life on this third(!) voyage means 1 of 2 possi…

> Sometimes they stick their neck out because they don't actually understand the risks and consequences, but they are pretending that they do. Or they are just adrenaline junkies with far smaller risk threshold than typical human. In general there was a ton of red flags but as probably nobody gets to that level of money without ability to sell the stuff they are pedding, he probably sold the fact the submarine has su…

Probably. He'd probably think Russian roulette was a safe game if he survived a round of it.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#142

Post by pfdietz »

f38zf5vdt wrote: post #63
saberdancer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their bodies are also pressurized at 1 atms, after being exposed to 400 atms they instantly died. My guess is that they were effectively vaporized/liquified. Much better way to go then suffocate in darkness.

Probably combusted? At 400 atms their biomass would compress into a gelatinous hydrocarbon fat blob with the oxygen present, resulting in automatic combustion. The amount of compression their bodies would experience is an order of magnitude greater than a diesel engine cylinder. The explosion would immediately be quenched by the surrounding water and the only thing remaining of the occupants would be ash. This would…

Adiabatic compression of air to 400 bar increases the absolute temperature by about a factor of 5.5, which would be the temperature of a flame.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#143

Post by civilitty »

ilyt wrote: post #94
getmeinrn wrote: post #75

Something I've learned over my life is not to automatically trust that someone has done or will do the right thing just because they stick their neck out. Sometimes they stick their neck out because they don't actually understand the risks and consequences, but they are pretending that they do. They're artificially signaling confidence. In this case, the CEO risking his life on this third(!) voyage means 1 of 2 possi…

> Sometimes they stick their neck out because they don't actually understand the risks and consequences, but they are pretending that they do. Or they are just adrenaline junkies with far smaller risk threshold than typical human. In general there was a ton of red flags but as probably nobody gets to that level of money without ability to sell the stuff they are pedding, he probably sold the fact the submarine has su…

If the rumors about the window being certified to a maximum safe depth of 1300m are true, we’re well in “crazy negligent” territory. It’d be a surprise the sub survived so long.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#144

Post by kelnos »

TechBro8615 wrote: post #39
ant6n wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasnt MacArthur the one who wanted to start a nuclear war with China during the Korean war and got sacked by Truman or Eisenhower?

MacArthur's solution [0] to every military problem after 1945 was to drop a nuke on it: > On 24 December 1950, while responding to a formal request from the Pentagon, specifically Major General Charles L. Bolte, about a hypothetical question regarding which targets should be bombed with atomic weapons if the Soviets got directly involved in the Korean War or if the Chinese military sent bombers to bomb UN forces in K…

It's a little weird to avoid quoting the rest of the passage:

> In January 1951, MacArthur refused to entertain proposals for the forward deployment of nuclear weapons. On a similar note, showing MacArthur directly rejecting the use of weapons of mass destruction when he had the power to answer a subordinate, in January 1951 he immediately rejected Lieutenant General Matthew Ridgway's urgent request to use chemical weapons on Chinese and North Korean soldiers. Though MacArthur made many statements regarding nuclear weapons after 1951, there has never been evidence, like memos or transcriptions of meetings, provided by anyone that MacArthur ever requested to use nuclear weapons or tried to push Truman or other Pentagon officials to use them during the Korean War while he was the UN Commander.

MacArthur may have been pro-nuke in public statements, but I think it's telling that, when the actual, real-world opportunities presented themselves, he actively refused to entertain the idea of nuking anything. He wouldn't even authorize the use of chemical weapons.

I don't know a lot about MacArthur, and have no dog in this race; I'm just reading more at the link you provided.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#145

Post by rich_sasha »

adamredwoods wrote: post #139
phire wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That suggests it was the carbon fibre shell that failed. If it was the Plexiglas that failed (or other part of the end bell assembly), I'd expect the pressure to quickly equalise though the failure point and the carbon fibre shell to remain relatively intact and hold those end bells together. Though, I'm not an engineer. Maybe the rapid change in loading could result in the carbon fibre shattering.

I'm curious why Stockton Rush thought carbon fibre would be enough? I'm trying to find out how it would be sufficient. I'm sure we'll find out more later why it failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OceanGate#Design_and_construct...

Doesn't directly answer your question, but somewhere I read that by using carbon fibre, the craft was positively buoyant on its own (then weighed down with ballast).

Otherwise it would need expensive pressure-resistant floatation devices.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#146

Post by phire »

adamredwoods wrote: post #139
phire wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That suggests it was the carbon fibre shell that failed. If it was the Plexiglas that failed (or other part of the end bell assembly), I'd expect the pressure to quickly equalise though the failure point and the carbon fibre shell to remain relatively intact and hold those end bells together. Though, I'm not an engineer. Maybe the rapid change in loading could result in the carbon fibre shattering.

I'm curious why Stockton Rush thought carbon fibre would be enough? I'm trying to find out how it would be sufficient. I'm sure we'll find out more later why it failed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OceanGate#Design_and_construct...

"Titan is equipped with a real-time acoustic monitoring system, which OceanGate claims can detect the onset of buckling in the carbon fiber hull prior to catastrophic failure."

I see a number of potential flaws with that plan. You are assuming it will fail in a way that produces a warning and then stays intact enough to resurface. You are also relying on an electronic device to not fail. And audio processing algorithms... how many of these carbon fibre pressure vessels did they test to destruction to get test data? Zero?

"Rush holds a patent on the system."

Ok.... I guess that explains it. I'm getting an impression of real "I'll just invent a magic device that makes it safe" energy here.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#147

Post by kelnos »

croes wrote: post #102
babypuncher wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it turns out he was wrong and the "armchair experts" were right. Though insinuating all critics were "armchair experts" is pretty disingenuous. There were plenty of real experts raising serious safety concerns, including the guy who got fired for not approving manned test dives because of them. If there was a strong consenus among real experts that this thing was safe, then they would have had no trouble getting…

"Mathioudakis said that the safety concerns raised by the two former OceanGate employees in 2018, as well as the letter from industry leaders, were "before the extensive testing completed in 2019." He added that OceanGate had responded to those concerns in the past and changed the hull to increase the level of safety."

Doesn't mean they increased the "level of safety" by a margin that was actually necessary to make it safe.

And completing extensive further testing doesn't necessarily invalidate or address the prior criticisms raised.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#148

Post by rightbyte »

aidenn0 wrote: post #98
rightbyte wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are people assuming this? How about a leak that fills the sub with water? Is a leak impossible to keep stable at those depths?

At 5800PSI, A leak with an area of 1/100th of a square inch would have 58 pounds of force behind the water coming in and a flow rate of about a half-a-gallon per second.

Sure I get that. A hole will be like a water cutter.

I was thinking more like a screw with resistance along the threads such that the pressure goes from 5800 psi to say 20 psi at the last thread or whatever. Then you might get a stable leak.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#149

Post by rich_sasha »

alangibson wrote: post #36
TheCaptain4815 wrote: post #13

If the sub imploded shortly after reaching the titanic, how exactly did the people on board die? Was it an instant pressurized death? Do they drown or something?

Pressure at that depth is about 5800 psi. Imagine 3 ton, 1 cubic inch cubes being dropped on every square inch of your body from every side all at once and you'll have your answer.

Hmm, but human body is mostly solids and liquids, not very compressible. Their lungs and airways, sure, would be compressed to nothing, but what of the rest of their bodies?

Eg I'd imagine the poor souls on the Titanic next door are not crushed by the pressure, for the same reason.

Or with scuba diving, deep scuba is complicated and dangerous for many reasons, but the pressure compressing the body is not one of them.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#150

Post by civilitty »

hex4def6 wrote: post #140
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like if the bells were found, but not the tube, we have the answer. If the window failed, I would expect to have none or one bell separated from the tube, but not both. I imagine the glass being shot inside the tube and the water jet would vaporize the people inside and maybe blow one bell off. If the tube failed, would expect both bells to be sitting on the ocean floor. I’m not a professional mechanical engin…

Agree, although if the bells are destroyed, that doesn't mean they were the failure mechanism either. It's entirely possible the tube collapsing would result in a huge water hammer effect on the bells, causing them to be shattered. It's going to be interesting to see to what level (if any), this gets root-caused. It's not trivial to do when stuff is miles down on the ocean floor. I assume there isn't a regulatory req…

The NTSB is responsible for investigating maritime accidents especially if they result in death but I think it depends on which flag the mothership sailed under.
Post reply on HN