Live data from Hacker News

Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

web.archive.org

261–270 of 302 posts

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#261

One should note that carbon composites are not for external pressure situations since they delaminate...in shorts words they were playing a dice rolling game and lost on damn stupidity. The whole reason they were not classed is that carbon composites would not pass any class certifications due to the limits indicated above.

I'm still trying to understand why they wanted to use carbon composites. Cost to manufacture? Low mass? I read somewhere that the carbon pressure vessel was about five inches thick. I'm not sure how thick a comparable titanium vessel would be, or how much that would cost.

(According to GPT4)

Using the hydrostatic pressure formula:

Pressure = Density of water × Acceleration due to gravity × Depth

Assuming the same density of water (1,000 kg/m³) and acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s²):

Pressure = 1,000 kg/m³ × 9.8 m/s² × 4,000 m Pressure = 39,200,000 Pascal (Pa)

Converting to atmospheres:

Pressure in atmospheres = 39,200,000 Pa / 101,325 Pa/atm Pressure in atmospheres ≈ 387 atm

Considering a safety factor of 2, as before, we can calculate the required thickness:

Required thickness = Pressure / (Tensile strength × Safety factor) Required thickness = 387 atm × 101,325 Pa/atm / (434 MPa × 2)

Converting units:

Required thickness ≈ 39,200,000 Pa / (434 × 10^6 Pa × 2) Required thickness ≈ 0.045 meters or 1.48 inches

Therefore, at a depth of 4,000 meters, the titanium walls of the submersible sphere with a 10 ft diameter would need to be approximately 1.48 inches thick to resist implosion, assuming a safety factor of 2. Again, please note that this estimation may vary based on the design, shape, and structural considerations of the submersible sphere. Consulting with experts is essential for accurate calculations and safety assessments.

As for amount of titanium required:

First, let's convert the wall thickness to meters. Since 1 inch is approximately 0.0254 meters, the wall thickness of 1.5 inches would be approximately 0.0381 meters.

Now, let's calculate the internal volume of the sphere by subtracting the volume of the inner sphere (10 ft diameter minus 2 times the wall thickness) from the volume of the outer sphere (10 ft diameter):

Inner radius = Radius of the sphere - Wall thickness Inner radius = 1.524 meters - 0.0381 meters Inner radius = 1.4869 meters

Inner volume = (4/3) * π * (Inner radius)^3 Inner volume ≈ 14.012 cubic meters

Outer volume = (4/3) * π * (1.524 meters)^3 Outer volume ≈ 14.137 cubic meters

Now, we can calculate the volume of the titanium walls by subtracting the inner volume from the outer volume:

Titanium wall volume = Outer volume - Inner volume Titanium wall volume ≈ 14.137 cubic meters - 14.012 cubic meters Titanium wall volume ≈ 0.125 cubic meters

Finally, we can calculate the mass of titanium using the density of titanium (4,506 kg/m³):

Mass of titanium = Titanium wall volume * Density of titanium Mass of titanium ≈ 0.125 cubic meters * 4,506 kg/m³ Mass of titanium ≈ 563.25 kg

Therefore, with a wall thickness of 1.5 inches, the approximate amount of titanium required for the walls of the submersible sphere with a 10 ft diameter would be approximately 563.25 kilograms.

Titanium is currently around $6/kg, so ~$3.4k for just the titanium that made up the wall.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#262

> Another simple risk mitigation step we take, that we believe to be unique to OceanGate is that we draw a small vacuum on the inside of the sub at the start of each dive. This step verifies the integrity of the low-pressure O-ring seal and eliminates the risk of leaks I wonder what that low-pressure o-ring is sealing. I assume the vacuum would only simulate a one atmosphere differential, so that o-ring must not be s…

One thing I'm curious about, as someone who knows nothing about the engineering of these things... why wouldn't anyone building something like this choose to over-pressure the sub once people were inside it and it began descending? Wouldn't 2 atmospheres inside represent a 50% reduction in the pressure differential on the hull at depth?

The internal pressure would have to be hundreds on atmospheres to offset the pressure outside. They would have to carry a lot more air at very high pressure on on the surface with more complicated and robust equipment to handle it. It would also make buoyancy management much harder. There's also the additional problem that there is a risk of gas narcosis above 3 atmospheres of pressure.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#263
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this doesn't make sense to me either. I suppose it could help prevent bucking and crack propagation, because as the walls of the sub started to bend, one side would have to suddenly be in tension? Still, I wonder if a pure plastic/epoxy hull would have actually been stronger than composite in this situation.

From the design they published of it, I do really think they intended to have the carbon fiber tensioned between a pair of titanium rings. I understand epoxy doesn't deal well with that, but with the right plastic, I believe it could work very well.

It is a carbon fiber tube with a hemispherical titanium cap on each end. The caps push inward under pressure putting the carbon fiber hull under compression, not tension.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#264
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first space shuttle launch was crewed. It ended up with a ~2% failure rate. The Titan made about 50 dives. So, from a reliability perspective, on par with the shuttle. I posit that half the people on HN would volunteer for a hypothetical next shuttle flight without thinking twice.

First, it did way less than 50 dives. I'm finding it really hard to find any solid numbers, but I've only found reference to only 3 or 4 previous dives to the Titanic, a test dive and a few dives to much shallower depths. That would put the failure rate for dives to this depth closer to 20%. Second, the space shuttle never carried any paying passengers. I'm very much of the opinion that the second you start accepting…

Keep in mind that previous trips to the Titanic involved multiple dives.

According to https://metro.co.uk/2023/06/22/how-many-times-has-the-titan-...

"OceanGate has stated that the Titan completed over 50 test dives, including to depths similar to those of the Titanic, both in waters around the Bahamas as well as in a pressure chamber."

Other articles mention 200 dives among three subs. So overall it's hard to know exactly.

I don't see what paying passengers have to do with it. If you could get a space shuttle ride for a few thousand bucks, half of HN would put nonrefundable deposits in today and happily accept a 2% risk of death.

I think the real difference is that more people romanticize space than the deep ocean. That's fine, but don't be smug about it.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#265
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, it did way less than 50 dives. I'm finding it really hard to find any solid numbers, but I've only found reference to only 3 or 4 previous dives to the Titanic, a test dive and a few dives to much shallower depths. That would put the failure rate for dives to this depth closer to 20%. Second, the space shuttle never carried any paying passengers. I'm very much of the opinion that the second you start accepting…

The space shuttle carried politicians, though! The mission that landed right before Challenger carried the now-administrator of NASA and then Florida Congressman Bill Nelson. They also took up a republican rep or senator from Utah (where the SRBs were built). That’s pretty much the NASA equivalent of “paying customers.” I actually don’t disagree with your point at all, it’s just funny to look back at the teacher in s…

And let's not forget the 77-year-old Senator John Glenn!

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As another tall ship, and for that matter in-shore commercial captain I found this quite telling. > 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, especially, for example, in the case of many of OceanGate’s innovations, such as carbon fiber pressure vessels and a real-time (RT…

You guys are tall ship masters. Your vessels are generally well understood these days but let's not forget some comparable disasters: Vasa and Mary Rose. Yes both are from a long time ago but both were based on top of a lot of good solid engineering but both pushed the envelope somewhat and perished. Vasa design basically forgot to sort out the various CoGs for a ship - it was top heavy. Mary Rose loss is a bit more…

I recommend watching the interview with Cameron. You say deep sea diving history is pretty sad, well actually there have been amazingly few incidents (and even fewer deaths) in the history of deep sea diving. And the engineering challenges are pretty well understood. They were just ignored in this case.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The space shuttle carried politicians, though! The mission that landed right before Challenger carried the now-administrator of NASA and then Florida Congressman Bill Nelson. They also took up a republican rep or senator from Utah (where the SRBs were built). That’s pretty much the NASA equivalent of “paying customers.” I actually don’t disagree with your point at all, it’s just funny to look back at the teacher in s…

And let's not forget the 77-year-old Senator John Glenn!

How could I forget! I watched that one live in high school. I also was present for the launch of Discovery’s return to space in ‘88.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#268
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard the same argument against unit testing and strong typing.

If I recall correctly, even NASA found unit testing to be of limited value, finding a small fraction of software bugs. That's not to say "don't do it" but my stance is that the developer should do some ad-hoc testing for everything they write, just don't formalize and document it or you'll land on the wrong end of cost/benefit. I can point to some subtle logic bugs that no sane unit test would have caught.

For safety critical software NASA still require 100% MC/DC coverage (NASA-STD-8739.8B, 2022)

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#269
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It’s counter-intuitive, but the so-called hoop stress on a cylinder being compressed from the outside actually results in tensile stress not compressive. This is because the material as it resists shrinking to a smaller radius is being pulled apart.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#270
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>Whether it can do it reliably / survive fatigue accross repeated cycles is a different question. Imagine we'll find out as the investigation progresses. Seems like we already found out the answer is “no”. The overall ship design failed.

The ship failed. What we don't know yet is whether the carbon fiber hull is why.
Post reply on HN