Submarine missing

Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not a theory. If you are not inside of a vessel which keeps the water pressure at normal atmospheric the only way you can breath is to use compressed air. That is how a scuba regulator works. It releases air at a pressure high enough for your chest to over come the pressure of the water column. On the surface there is actually 14.7psi of air pressure at sea level and for ever 33ft of depth in the water it increases 1 atmosphere. So at 33ft you need 29.4 psi to breath normally and at 66ft you need 44.1 psi, at 99' you need 58.8. If you did not exhale while accenting you would blow your lungs out. Ever yarded a fish up from depths??

If you were a mere 5' below the surface and had a mouth piece on a 2" hose running to the surface you would you would not be able to expand your chest to take a breath from it and would suffocate. Snorkels won't even work below about 2' of depth.

Take a 100 gallon tank with an open bottom and push it to 66' of depth and there would be a air bubble in the top of it and it you were inside you could breath from that bubble because it would be compressed by the water pressure to the 44psi. But, even a thin tank with an opening on the bottom would not collapse because the air pressure on the inside would equalize with the water pressure on the outside.

I sold my scuba gear when I was about 35.

At the 13,000 ft depth of the Titanic wreck the pressure is about 5,785psi and if you had a 22'x5' tube of air that would be about 432cu ft at the surface and if the bottom of the hull got a very small leak it would turn into a bubble about 14" in diameter in very short order. Even a pin hole could cut you like a knife. A car wash wand only runs about 2000psi
 
Last edited:
I wonder if there will be any litigation over this. I suspect there may be some lawyers already sharpening their quill pens to do battle.

Almost certainly.

Having people sign waivers when you are supplying an activity that might be hazardous. But a waiver won’t protect a business or individual who knowingly engages in reckless or negligent activity.

Rush was way off the reservation when it came to accepted practices and he, or more correctly OceanGate is about to find that out the hard way. I’m guessing however that there won’t be much in assets to go after.
 
I suspect that all of the customers had enough wealth that anything Oceangate has is negligible. Plus, if he had brain one, which is now debatable, he should have made most of his dependents personal assets difficult to attach. I suspect the company's most valuable asset served as their coffin.
 
Boyle's law
/ˈboi(ə)lz ˌlô/
nounCHEMISTRY
a law stating that the pressure of a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to its volume at a constant temperature.
 
Horrible news....

Titan appears to have suffered a catastrophic implosion and all are lost....

Prayers for the families of these explorers.

At least it would have been over in a flash. Literally!
Must have been on the way down at a critical pressure. Not likely to be right at the bottom. Much better way to go compared to increasing CO2 in the air supply. That would be slow and painful.

73,
Rick
 
As a retired gasfitter, please have someone record and post on social media as you cut the portholes. This one could also take a while to get the smell out.

If it wasn't a hull crush situation, it smells better than the titan.
No one can be expected to hold it for 4 days.
 
Not to mention the expense of such an effort. It will be interesting to see how many millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, along with the additional international contributions, this mess is going to cost. I'm all for government services coming to the aide of those that incidentally find themselves in bad situations, but in this instance we're talking about extremely wealthy individuals that knowingly and willingly placed themselves in harm's way by participating in an activity in an unproven, potentially unsafe vessel in an incredibly hostile environment.

It's interesting that this sort of comment is usually heard only when wealthy people get in trouble and need to be rescued.

I spent 30 years as a firefighter working in poor inner-city neighborhoods. The population I served were largely dependent upon the government, to varying degrees, for housing, food, and medical care. Those who worked didn't earn much money, and consequently paid little, if anything, in taxes.

The fires I responded to were rarely non-preventable. They were caused by people falling asleep while smoking or cooking (often while intoxicated); arson; careless handling of flammable materials; negligence with electrical appliances; illegal electrical or natural gas hookups, etc., etc. Many (not all, but many) of our emergency medical calls were, similarly, the result of some dangerous or risky personal behavior, such as smoking, drinking, drug use, or criminal activity. (The vast majority of the shooting victims I encountered were drug dealers, shot by their peers.)

Yet, despite many of our victims being largely responsible for their own predicaments, society almost universally viewed them as victims of poverty or circumstance. They were accorded only sympathy and compassion, and no ever suggested it was inappropriate to spend taxpayer funds to save their lives or property.

(Let me hasten to add that we never, ever, viewed the citizens we served as unworthy or undeserving of our efforts. We willingly busted our butts, and risked our lives and health, for anyone who needed us, without regard to that person's station in life.)

The five men aboard the Titan were entrepreneurs, people who created jobs, undoubtedly paid a king's ransom in taxes, and contributed to society. I don't in the slightest begrudge them the taxpayer dollars that were spent to try to save them.
 
At least it would have been over in a flash. Literally!
Must have been on the way down at a critical pressure. Not likely to be right at the bottom. Much better way to go compared to increasing CO2 in the air supply. That would be slow and painful.

73,
Rick


Realistically, practically, we're talking about literal milliseconds - mercifully likely quicker than the mind could process the beginning of a thought, much less to formulate the conclusion that there was a problem and the realization of the implications of that.

Catastrophic failure of the carbon fiber pressure chamber would have been "instantaneous". And it was an implosion, not an explosion, and the implications for human bodies at those depths and those pressures are such that should in the unlikely event any remains could be recovered, you would be talking about nothing more than tissue samples.

No good aspect for the victims except to say they never knew it when it happened. :(

In aviation, by regulation after a certain number of flight hours, air frames are required to be x-rayed for microscopic stress fractures then fluxed if needed or scrapped/decertified if not possible. Using carbon fiber materials, which are strong for the weight but can be called 'brittle', one has to wonder if previous trips stressed the materials that resulted in the company pushing their luck one time too many. Given there was no accepted safety standards ever certified for the vessel there are hard questions to be answered and liabilities explored.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me of the Duck Boat disaster in Branson, Mo on lake Tablerock about 5 years ago. There were so many safety failures and 17 people drowned and one woman lost 8 or 9 family members if I remember correctly. The tourist company enlarged the Amphibious craft so it would hold more people and make more money then attached a roof to it so no one could escape if it did start sinking.
 
This reminds me of the Duck Boat disaster in Branson, Mo on lake Tablerock about 5 years ago. There were so many safety failures and 17 people drowned and one woman lost 8 or 9 family members if I remember correctly. The tourist company enlarged the Amphibious craft so it would hold more people and make more money then attached a roof to it so no one could escape if it did start sinking.

The side curtains made the craft unstable on the roll axis. It never would have passed the required USCG standards, but no inspection of the design changes was sought. It only took commonly strong winds to roll the rail under, and fill the craft with water, due to low freeboard and lack of reserve bouncy.
Perhaps it was the fact that the sub was being used in international waters that kept it from being an inspected vessel, but any used in US Waters for hire would need to be inspected by the USCG. And, the skipper would need to have a commercial license. Since the were less then 6 on board, the six pack license might be enough, but there are special requirements for submersible vessels.


73,
Rick
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top