What strikes me is that this all sounds like bluster and prevarication around safety, rather than a situation where the safety has actually been thought through. This blog post also doesn't have any kind of links or references to any more in-depth discussion and ultimately seems even on the surface as though it would fall apart under scrutiny. For instance it's quite obvious that the reason the majority of accidents are the result of operator error is because mechanical failures are rare precisely due to classing and other forms of regulation. It does very little good to have "high-level operational safety" if the vessel you are in catastrophically implodes due to mechanical failure.
Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)
31–40 of 302 posts
Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)
#32> OceanGate’s submersibles are the only known vessels to use real-time (RTM) hull health monitoring. With this RTM system, we can determine if the hull is compromised well before situations become life-threatening, and safely return to the surface. This innovative safety system is not currently covered by any classing agency. > No other submersible currently utilizes real-time monitoring to monitor hull health during…
The craft survived several launches - that proved it can do it. Whether it can do it reliably / survive fatigue accross repeated cycles is a different question. Imagine we'll find out as the investigation progresses.
We already found out, I think.
Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
The engineer who worked on it said it would provide only milliseconds of warning before the hull collapsed. He was promptly fired.
Source? (the story does sound plausible, but having a source would be helpful)
I'd be more interested in a source that shows that such a warning system could give a usable warning timeframe at great depths under the sea.
Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)
#34Patent for their hull monitoring system: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11119071B1/en
Saw this today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mSq6ibKKXQ
That’s pretty wild. The operator was able to tell when they were going deeper based on the sound of the carbon fibers cracking in the hull.
Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)
#35> While classing agencies are willing to pursue the certification of new and innovative designs and ideas, they often have a multi-year approval cycle due to a lack of pre-existing standards
"...and although that approach is perfectly reasonable from an engineering standpoint, our commercial model can't accommodate it."
Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)
#36> The vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents are a result of operator error, not mechanical failure. Could that be because the vast majority of mechanical designs go through processes designed to validate them and catch flaws? They also use SpaceX as an example. SpaceX ran a large number of unmanned launches to prove out the design before putting people on board. Several of those ended in loss of the vehicl…
Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)
#37> The vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents are a result of operator error, not mechanical failure. Could that be because the vast majority of mechanical designs go through processes designed to validate them and catch flaws? They also use SpaceX as an example. SpaceX ran a large number of unmanned launches to prove out the design before putting people on board. Several of those ended in loss of the vehicl…
That's exactly it. If OceanGate had build and dropped a few dozen of these hulls empty, as many times as needed to reach failure, whatever design flaw caused the implosion almost certainly would have been noticed. It's the hubris of diving in what amounts to a prototype that's at issue here, not any fundamental technical mistake.
Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also sounded to me like dodging the question.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they're saying the biggest problem with submersibles is operator error. Of course it is, when the classing system effectively eliminates the majority of mechanical failures. That doesn't mean the classing system is failing, on the contrary, it means its working.
And yet they allowed passengers to control the sub. Theres a video out there where one of the passengers hit the ground with a loud thud while at the controls
Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)
#39> The vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents are a result of operator error, not mechanical failure. Could that be because the vast majority of mechanical designs go through processes designed to validate them and catch flaws? They also use SpaceX as an example. SpaceX ran a large number of unmanned launches to prove out the design before putting people on board. Several of those ended in loss of the vehicl…
[deleted]
Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)
#40> OceanGate’s submersibles are the only known vessels to use real-time (RTM) hull health monitoring. With this RTM system, we can determine if the hull is compromised well before situations become life-threatening, and safely return to the surface. This innovative safety system is not currently covered by any classing agency. > No other submersible currently utilizes real-time monitoring to monitor hull health during…
The craft survived several launches - that proved it can do it. Whether it can do it reliably / survive fatigue accross repeated cycles is a different question. Imagine we'll find out as the investigation progresses.
> The craft survived several launches - that proved it can do it.
Exactly, that's my point. I didn't realize that (this present catastrophe notwithstanding) that carbon fiber could even begin to have such compressive strength. How is the fiber formed in such a way to maintain that strength?