Titanic tourist sub missing

I'm leaning towards fake at the moment. Aside from David Pogue's comments, none of the mainstream media seems to have picked it up, not even the more sensationalist end like the Daily Fail. Nobody official involved in the investigation has even acknowledged its existence. This suggests to me that there is nothing to pick up.

Some have said that if the transcript was fake they would have expected someone in some kind of official position to have made a public statement refuting it; but I disagree with that because, as you state, no actual media is reporting on it as genuine, so it might be that the people involved aren't really aware that the transcript is floating around on the internet, or don't care since it isn't being reported on by news outlets.

Considering the fact that OceanGate has not been publicly communicative in general about basically anything at all around this case, I wouldn't expect them to make any statements about this either.
 
Company testing
I used to do some research and development. Part of that included solving some issues relating to long term slow degradation of materials subjected to an oxidizing natural gas flame.

I set up a cylinder of various materials and coating and then ran them day and night for weeks. Aluminum failed. Stainless steels of various type failed. Ultimately I used a mild steel roll coated with a ceramic. Tested for weeks to be sure it did not delaminate. It worked well in service 27/7 365 days a year.

Other new designs were lab tested as well. Crude but effective tests. Inexpensive also when done in house.

Sub design tests
Computerized modelling is limited. Great for indicating modes of failure or where to look. But no substitute for lab testing.

Why did they not take a small section of carbon fiber and titanium glued together and subject it to cycles of heat and pressure then cut it open and examine it microscopically? Then test other sections for fail before and after cycling. They would at least get an idea of how the glue held up.

Did they do this to the first version that they scrapped? Cut and examine?

To my mind, these tests should be done by a lab to get information of how the sub could have failed.

Legal
If I was the lawyer for the families of the deceased I would be asking for the results of such tests and if none, ask why none. It would go to recklessness and neglect of duty of care.

It is my opinion that a waiver is not 100% exclusionary. The sub owners have to ensure that they are not knowingly negligent or reckless. I learned this before signing a medical waiver for an operation.
He'll, even a few unmanned test dives with lots of instrumentation recording what happened. And possibly embedded fibre optic strain gages, and microphones attached to the walls.

And as you say about the waiver, they often cannot cover negligence regardless of the wording
 
...
And as you say about the waiver, they often cannot cover negligence regardless of the wording

Legal Eagle covers that in the video I linked above. Basically, if the operator can be shown to have shown reckless disregard for safety or the like, the waiver - at least in U.S. courts - is generally considered to be void. In this case, though, it will probably be Bermuda law (the waiver contains wording to that effect, and of course the accident was in international waters). That's still English common law, though, which I would expect to be broadly similar.

I haven't looked at much outside of this thread, but based on what Legal Eagle quoted it would be pretty hard for the OceanGate lawyers to defend against accusations of reckless disregard.
 
And the design philosophy seemed to have been, cheapest that marginally works, and daisy chaining critical systems so there were multiple possible failure points without any redundancy instead of the converse.
 
And the design philosophy seemed to have been, cheapest that marginally works, and daisy chaining critical systems so there were multiple possible failure points without any redundancy instead of the converse.

Or as Stockton Rush and other famous wealthy tech "geniuses" would put it: I N N O V A T I O N
 
He'll, even a few unmanned test dives with lots of instrumentation recording what happened. And possibly embedded fibre optic strain gages, and microphones attached to the walls.

That would be expensive and it might reveal the submersible not to be fit for purpose. Ocean Gate would be sunk if that were the case.
 
Equally, the photo does not appear to show the kind of chit chat in the transcript.

I think it's a racing certainty that off the shelf software's being used. If you think it looks like a certain piece of software, it almost certainly is.

I agree. I am somewhat familiar with earlier versions of Sonardyne's dive tracking software (by "somewhat familiar", I mean being on a SAR boat watching someone else using it). This looks like it could be part of the same or a similar package.
 
I believe that any truly competent engineer would have seen and proclaimed that composite materials were just not the right materials for the job and so would not have been involved in building this thing to begin with.

There were, of course, people voicing concerns and trying to stop OceanGate after it was built. The New Yorker has a good article telling of these individuals' efforts and how that Stockton Rush went after them personally to shut them up.

On January 18, 2018, Lochridge studied each major component, and found several critical aspects to be defective or unproven. He drafted a detailed report, which has not previously been made public, and attached photographs of the elements of greatest concern. Glue was coming away from the seams of ballast bags, and mounting bolts threatened to rupture them; both sealing faces had errant plunge holes and O-ring grooves that deviated from standard design parameters. The exostructure and electrical pods used different metals, which could result in galvanic corrosion when exposed to seawater. The thruster cables posed “snagging hazards”; the iridium satellite beacon, to transmit the submersible’s position after surfacing, was attached with zip ties. The flooring was highly flammable; the interior vinyl wrapping emitted “highly toxic gasses upon ignition.”

To assess the carbon-fibre hull, Lochridge examined a small cross-section of material. He found that it had “very visible signs of delamination and porosity”—it seemed possible that, after repeated dives, it would come apart. He shone a light at the sample from behind, and photographed beams streaming through splits in the midsection in a disturbing, irregular pattern. The only safe way to dive, Lochridge concluded, was to first carry out a full scan of the hull.

The next day, Lochridge sent his report to Rush, Nissen, and other members of the OceanGate leadership. “Verbal communication of the key items I have addressed in my attached document have been dismissed on several occasions, so I feel now I must make this report so there is an official record in place,” he wrote. “Until suitable corrective actions are in place and closed out, Cyclops 2 (Titan) should not be manned during any of the upcoming trials.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-re...submersible-was-an-accident-waiting-to-happen

The above was what got Lockridge fired. The article is a bit long but maybe worth the read.

Again, I don't think the design itself was safe to be using no matter what tests they could have done.
 
But they're really and truly sunk now. I suspect that better testing would at least have left them some future.

Only if the better testing had revealed that the sub was safe. Imagine if they had built the sub and then tested it only to find it was not fit for purpose. They would have invested a lot of money on an expensive giant toilet roll holder with no way to recoup it.

I believe it is possible that Rush non destructive testing would reveal problems that would stop him from taking passengers but that his real time monitoring would give enough warning for the crew to survive the dive that would otherwise result in catastrophic failure. Since the alternative would be not diving at all, he convinced himself that his way was safe, or safe enough.
 
Real-time monotoring could only give a safe warning if varous possible failure modes were well mapped and tested, in practical tests.

And, as it turned out, they weren't

Hans
 
Real-time monotoring could only give a safe warning if varous possible failure modes were well mapped and tested, in practical tests.

And, as it turned out, they weren't

Hans

Ah, but, if you really believe, all these petty objections can be overcome.

ETA: Stockton Rush had suckered himself into believing that his system would work even without proper testing because he really wanted to dive to the Titanic.
 
Last edited:
Only if the better testing had revealed that the sub was safe. Imagine if they had built the sub and then tested it only to find it was not fit for purpose. They would have invested a lot of money on an expensive giant toilet roll holder with no way to recoup it.

I believe it is possible that Rush convinced himself non destructive testing would reveal problems that would stop him from taking passengers but that his real time monitoring would give enough warning for the crew to survive the dive that would otherwise result in catastrophic failure. Since the alternative would be not diving at all, he convinced himself that his way was safe, or safe enough.

Did you mean to add in something in the highlighted? "Thought?"
 
Only if the better testing had revealed that the sub was safe. Imagine if they had built the sub and then tested it only to find it was not fit for purpose. They would have invested a lot of money on an expensive giant toilet roll holder with no way to recoup it.

I believe it is possible that Rush non destructive testing would reveal problems that would stop him from taking passengers but that his real time monitoring would give enough warning for the crew to survive the dive that would otherwise result in catastrophic failure. Since the alternative would be not diving at all, he convinced himself that his way was safe, or safe enough.
Sure, but when you play Russian roulette you have to consider not only the likelihood of an event but its severity. In hindsight there's a real difference between a failure that's likely and one that's guaranteed.
 
He'll, even a few unmanned test dives with lots of instrumentation recording what happened. And possibly embedded fibre optic strain gages, and microphones attached to the walls.

And as you say about the waiver, they often cannot cover negligence regardless of the wording

That's as I've been led to understand such matters. If you go skydiving, you should understand that there is definitely a risk of injury or death, and that there are certain things that even the most safety conscious company can't control. But if the people running that company look at a tear in a canopy and say, "it'll be fine, pack it up", they they can still be held accountable for negligence, even if you sign a waver. As far as I know, the law still assumes that you will take all reasonable precautions to assure the safety of your clients. I imagine the suits will involve the presentation of evidence that Ocean Gate oversold the effectiveness of their product while cutting corners in safety.
 
I believe that any truly competent engineer would have seen and proclaimed that composite materials were just not the right materials for the job and so would not have been involved in building this thing to begin with.

There were, of course, people voicing concerns and trying to stop OceanGate after it was built. The New Yorker has a good article telling of these individuals' efforts and how that Stockton Rush went after them personally to shut them up.



https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-re...submersible-was-an-accident-waiting-to-happen

The above was what got Lockridge fired. The article is a bit long but maybe worth the read.

Again, I don't think the design itself was safe to be using no matter what tests they could have done.

Rush made much of how he was bypassing the "old white men" (surely he must have owned a mirror) and hiring young engineers with fresh new ideas. This seems to fit his personality as it's been revealed since his death. He was someone born into privileged and was used to getting his way. If the highly experienced experts tell you no, then tell yourself, and anyone else who will listen, that they're stodgy, outdated codgers afraid of brilliant new ideas, and then paint the inexperienced alternatives you hire in their stead as innovative young Turks boldly leading the way to the future.
 
Real-time monotoring could only give a safe warning if varous possible failure modes were well mapped and tested, in practical tests.

And, as it turned out, they weren't

Hans

And again I can't believe someone would expect a composite hull to give that much warning. I've been watching Formula 1 for 35 years, and I know how amazingly strong carbon fiber structures can be, but I also know that when they fail, they typically do so instantaneously and explosively. If they were 3.8 km down and an alarm went off, it would be a long time before they could remove the extreme pressure load from the hull, even in an emergency ascent.

It's like saying you installed a smoke detector to warn of imminent dragon attacks.
 
And again I can't believe someone would expect a composite hull to give that much warning. I've been watching Formula 1 for 35 years, and I know how amazingly strong carbon fiber structures can be, but I also know that when they fail, they typically do so instantaneously and explosively. If they were 3.8 km down and an alarm went off, it would be a long time before they could remove the extreme pressure load from the hull, even in an emergency ascent.

It's like saying you installed a smoke detector to warn of imminent dragon attacks.

Actually, I agree. I would also think the results of any realistic tests would show that monitoring would be inadequate. I expect that all this was more like, "If you won't like the answer, don't ask". Problem is, the answer tends to pop up sooner or later, anyway.

Hans
 
Actually, I agree. I would also think the results of any realistic tests would show that monitoring would be inadequate. I expect that all this was more like, "If you won't like the answer, don't ask". Problem is, the answer tends to pop up sooner or later, anyway.

Hans

While thinking about the whole situation, I recalled parts of Atlas Shrugged, like the part where Dagny Taggert bullies the locomotive crew into rushing down the tracks despite their protests of the risks of colliding head-on with another train and killing a great many people, and how, in the novel, those issuing the warnings are portrayed as meek little cowards while Taggert is presented as heroic and superior for her willingness to take on such a risk. The underlying message seemed to be that she was willing to take the risk, and the numerous other lives didn't matter because they were beneath her. And being a work of fiction, of course it worked out for her.

It immediately occurred to me to wonder if Stockton Rush had been an Ayn Rand fan, so I did a quick search for anything about him mentioning her. There don't seem to be any recorded references to her by him, but I found I wasn't the first person to see the similarity and wonder the same thing. Someone even pointed out that 'Stockton Rush' sounds like the name of a character you'd see in a Rand novel.
 
I believe that any truly competent engineer would have seen and proclaimed that composite materials were just not the right materials for the job and so would not have been involved in building this thing to begin with.

There were, of course, people voicing concerns and trying to stop OceanGate after it was built. The New Yorker has a good article telling of these individuals' efforts and how that Stockton Rush went after them personally to shut them up.



https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-re...submersible-was-an-accident-waiting-to-happen

The above was what got Lockridge fired. The article is a bit long but maybe worth the read.

Again, I don't think the design itself was safe to be using no matter what tests they could have done.

I read the whole article. Everyone who posts in this thread should.

This is the paragraph that stood out to me:

Soon afterward, Rush asked OceanGate’s director of finance and administration whether she’d like to take over as chief submersible pilot. “It freaked me out that he would want me to be head pilot, since my background is in accounting,” she told me. She added that several of the engineers were in their late teens and early twenties, and were at one point being paid fifteen dollars an hour. Without Lochridge around, “I could not work for Stockton,” she said. “I did not trust him.” As soon as she was able to line up a new job, she quit.

Only a ******* idiot would think that an accountant should be piloting this piece of junk! And paying fast-food wages to engineers is a great way to ensure you get ****** engineering!

... in 2021, Stockton Rush told an interviewer that he would “like to be remembered as an innovator. I think it was General MacArthur who said, ‘You’re remembered for the rules you break.’ And I’ve broken some rules to make this.” He was sitting in the Titan’s hull, docked in the Port of St. John’s, the nearest port to the site where he eventually died. “The carbon fibre and titanium? There’s a rule you don’t do that. Well, I did.”

And there's a rule that you don't build cars out of tinsel, or the cages at a zoo out of balsa wood. That would be innovative as hell, right?

Stockton Rush was a complete ******* idiot who got innocent people killed. I hope that at least their families can sue the **** out of his estate.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom