Technical Analysis on Titan Sub (Titanic Sub)

  • Thread starter Thread starter hagopbul
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Acoustics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the technical aspects of locating the Titan submersible, which went missing during a dive to the Titanic wreck. Participants explore the challenges of using sonar technology in deep-sea environments, the potential effects on marine life, and the implications of the sub's design and operational dependencies.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that sonar signals may be reflecting off the Titanic's metallic structure, complicating the location of the sub.
  • Others discuss the feasibility of using marine life, such as dolphins, to locate the sub, questioning their diving capabilities and the effectiveness of such methods.
  • There is speculation about the sub's windows potentially leaking infrared radiation, though some argue that it would be absorbed quickly by saltwater.
  • Participants mention that the sub relies on a mothership for communication and positioning, raising concerns about its design and safety.
  • Some express skepticism about the missing persons situation near Greece, debating the definitions of "missing" and the knowledge of their last known locations.
  • Concerns are raised about informed consent for tourists participating in such high-risk activities, with discussions on regulatory oversight and safety measures.
  • There are references to the implications of a pressure hull rupture and the expected acoustic signals from such an event.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a variety of viewpoints, with no clear consensus on the effectiveness of sonar technology, the role of marine life in locating the sub, or the safety and design of the submersible itself. The discussion remains unresolved on several technical and ethical points.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include uncertainties regarding the depth capabilities of marine life, the specifics of sonar technology in deep water, and the operational details of the Titan submersible.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those involved in marine technology, underwater exploration, safety regulations in extreme environments, and the ethical considerations of adventure tourism.

  • #271
Tom.G said:
See the EDIT below.

Could you verify/correct that youtube link?

youtube does not recognize that link, a youtube search shows "not found."
Google returns something in Russian.
:oldcry:

[EDIT] It showed up in this post as a playing image; yet your post (and all previous youtube links) shows up as a white triangle inside a Red rectangle!

[EDIT 2] Now, this post is back to White triangle inside Red rectangle.
Curiouser and Curiouser.
I suspect the poldergeists & gremlins are playing with us!

[EDIT 3] Arrrgh! A screen refresh turns youtube links back to the triangle/rectangle. I think I'll give up trying to understand it. :cry:
NBC may be better.

 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Tom.G
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #272
Scott Manley plans to cover the information gleaned from the hearings. Here's a recent video of his.

 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: OmCheeto and dwarde
  • #273
Scott Manely released a new video on the subject today (29-09-2024).

 
  • #274
Water from previous dives was pushed into voids in the carbon fiber at near 6,000 psi.
Titan was often stored outside in freezing conditions.
The water in the voids expanded with the force near 30,000 psi as it froze into ice.

The 3500 pound "door" was hung on a hinge with less than 10 inches separating the hinge points on each end of the hinge.
Multi-thousand pound doors on bank safes often have the hinge points more than 6 feet apart.
 
  • #275
Titan submersible imploded due to poor engineering
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdeg7y4171xo

Hull Failure and Implosion of Submersible Titan
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/DCA23FM036.aspx
We found that the Titan pressure vessel likely sustained damage after it surfaced at the end of dive 80 in the form of one or more delaminations, which weakened the pressure vessel. We found that after dive 82, the Titan sustained additional damage (of unknown origin) that further deteriorated and weakened the pressure vessel. The existing delaminations and additional damage that deteriorated the condition of the pressure vessel between dive 82 and the casualty dive (dive 88) resulted in a local buckling failure that led to the implosion of the Titan.

We found that OceanGate’s engineering process for the Titan was inadequate and resulted in the construction of a carbon fiber composite pressure vessel that contained multiple anomalies and failed to meet necessary strength and durability requirements. Because OceanGate did not adequately test the Titan, the company was unaware of the pressure vessel’s actual strength and durability, which was likely much lower than their target, as well as the implications of how certain operational changes, including storage condition and towing, could impact the integrity of the pressure vessel and overall safety of the vessel. Additionally, OceanGate’s analysis of Titan pressure vessel real-time monitoring data was flawed, so the company was unaware that the Titan was damaged and needed to be immediately removed from service after dive 80.

We found that, had OceanGate followed Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circular (NVIC) 05-93 guidance for emergency response plans, they likely would have had emergency response assets standing by, and the Titan likely would have been found sooner, saving time and resources even though a rescue was not possible in this case. Despite OceanGate’s failure to notify search and rescue assets about its planned expedition, as well as the limited resources able to operate at the depth of the Titanic, the US Coast Guard’s search and rescue coordination efforts were effective and resulted in the timely discovery of the Titan wreckage.

It appears to be criminal negligence.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970, dwarde, BillTre and 1 other person
  • #276
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970, DaveC426913, dwarde and 1 other person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
14K
  • · Replies 152 ·
6
Replies
152
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
15K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
10K