Thing I just don't get is that there are proven technologies available that work and do exactly what he wanted to do. Why change it up? Was he just trying to reduce costs or something? Was it because he wanted something big enough to take more people down and make more money?
He said he wanted to be remembered as an innovator, but forever now, his name is going to be synonymous with being a fool.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I also don't understand the motivation of making an entirely new craft given there is proven tech already. And even if you wanted to do it, how can a person not understand extensive unmanned real world testing will be needed.
I also don't understand the motivation of making an entirely new craft given there is proven tech already. And even if you wanted to do it, how can a person not understand extensive unmanned real world testing will be needed.
I guess hubris is the only explanation.
It sounded like everything to do with this company was defying sound engineering to save money and call it innovation.
Making a wound carbon fiber hull and then putting titanium around it is all about saving costs and saving weight for transport. He completely failed to understand that carbon fiber is used for pressure vessels (like a bottle holding gas) to be strong against something pushing out from the inside but not crushed in the direction as carbon fiber is strong in tension but weak in compression.
In it end it's like you took a bunch of string and wrapped it around a spool and poured expoxy glue into it. It's going to be widely uneven and all the stresses would be invisible until the whole thing delaminated into a bunch of fibrous strings.
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 06-23-2023 at 02:33 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
I saw a delicate look fish swimming on the seabed in that video. I'm amazed that there are species that evolved to survive at pressures that can crush carbon fiber and titanium.
It's not the carbon fiber and titanium that crushes it's the air inside.
Life is a product of their environment, I'm more amazed that a whale can dive close to that depth, eat a 1000lbs of squid and return to the surface with just a burp and a smile.
Last edited by Snuffleupagus; 06-23-2023 at 03:30 AM.
Thing I just don't get is that there are proven technologies available that work and do exactly what he wanted to do. Why change it up? Was he just trying to reduce costs or something? Was it because he wanted something big enough to take more people down and make more money?
He said he wanted to be remembered as an innovator, but forever now, his name is going to be synonymous with being a fool.
If you look at the Virgin Oceanic stuff the idea for using Carbon fiber is by reducing the weight of the craft the decrease the size of the mother ship required to operate the sub which significantly reduces the cost of trips.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
How could OceanGate not know or care about carbon fiber weakening as it pressure cycles? And as Jim points out it's one thing to put your own life on the line a whole other thing to risk others.
Just glad it would have likely been quick. The 'sitting on the bottom running out of oxygen' theory sounded brutal
Faster then their brain could process.
Implosion at super sonic speed. One second your desperately holding in a fart in a tiny minibus sized thing with 5 other passengers and thinking about how your going to do that for the next four hours.
The next second your in whatever afterlife you believe in.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
How could OceanGate not know or care about carbon fiber weakening as it pressure cycles? And as Jim points out it's one thing to put your own life on the line a whole other thing to risk others.
SpaceX Starship was going to have a Carbon Fiber reusable fuel tank but I believe everything is now stainless or aluminum alloys.
Over the years the discussion around fatigue life and inspection of the carbon fiber rocket components was heavily debated issue.
Just glad it would have likely been quick. The 'sitting on the bottom running out of oxygen' theory sounded brutal
To add to the terror, if the sub didn't have electricity, it'd be pitch black too. Imagine sitting in the dark in a metal tube at the bottom of the ocean, waiting for oxygen to run out and die a slow agonizing death. That's the stuff of nightmares for sure.
One of my favourite videos. Ocean depths is one of those things that can give me anxiety just from seeing a video or graphic online.
According to the video, the USS Johnson at the ~6500m is basically at a depth that would be considered the worlds 15th ish tallest mountain and distance difference that is more than the tallest peaks in North America.
Everest and K2 are at over 8500m. The tallest mountains in North America are Denali at ~6100m and Logan at ~5900m.
Mount Robson is the highest in the Canadian Rockies at ~3954 metres, which is about 200m difference than the Titanic at ~3800m. Castle mountain not far from Calgary doesn't break 3000m and you're adding almost 30% to that difference.
The Following User Says Thank You to DoubleF For This Useful Post:
To add to the terror, if the sub didn't have electricity, it'd be pitch black too. Imagine sitting in the dark in a metal tube at the bottom of the ocean, waiting for oxygen to run out and die a slow agonizing death. That's the stuff of nightmares for sure.
Didn't the original story say to save power as they descended, they used glow sticks as a light source?
According to the video, the USS Johnson at the ~6500m is basically at a depth that would be considered the worlds 15th ish tallest mountain and distance difference that is more than the tallest peaks in North America.
Everest and K2 are at over 8500m. The tallest mountains in North America are Denali at ~6100m and Logan at ~5900m.
Mount Robson is the highest in the Canadian Rockies at ~3954 metres, which is about 200m difference than the Titanic at ~3800m. Castle mountain not far from Calgary doesn't break 3000m and you're adding almost 30% to that difference.
I don't think mountain heights are all that illustrative for most people, because the majority don't really start at sea level. I prefer to think of a distance, like McKnight to the Bow is about 5 km at Centre St, then imagine something being that deep.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
