5 ms·

Right, that's the point exactly. The company was clearly playing it fast and loose and not interested in understanding how their design behaved or how the mater

by hencq 3y ago

Right, that's the point exactly. The company was clearly playing it fast and loose and not interested in understanding how their design behaved or how the material degraded.

jacquesm 3y ago
Choosing carbon fiber for this application probably falls under 'playing it fast and loose'. Because it's a cost savings measure compared to creating the same part out of titanium (strong but very expensive) or steel (not that expensive but very heavy for the same strength) and it solves some ballast issues (because a similar part out of steel or titanium would be far heavier than carbon fiber and you can't discard the hull for obvious reasons if you want to ascend). What is still a bit of a mystery to me is why the company that built the hull did so knowing what the application was. I'd love to see the correspondence between those two companies and whether or not there was an opportunity for the company that built the hull to flat out refuse to do so because they thought it was a bad idea or if they put an upper limit on the number of cycles. https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersib... Is a really good article on this particular design, and there are some interesting details there that I know for a fact were different on the sub that imploded. The article clearly states: "Nothing will be mechanically attached to, or penetrate, the composite hull other than the titanium caps. " A lot hinges on the use of that word penetrate, whether they meant all the way through or just from one side. There are multiple items screwed into the pressure hull on various photos including more than one monitor stand. That alone may have been enough to cause the failure. What I also miss from the specification as quoted in the article is that there is no number of cycles specified. Finally the safety factor quoted in the article is 2.25, which is in excess of the 1.5 that you'd normally expect so theoretically the pressure hull should have survived this assuming no prior damage. On the first dive... Finally, the whole 'we're monitoring things and will ascend if there are signs of impending failure' is something that sits wrong with me. Carbon fiber failures do announce themselves by the pulses of individual fibers breaking. But in a pressure vessel you get into a feed-forward loop that would cause such a failure to expand so fast that I don't think there would realistically be a chance to surface timely.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > [carbon fiber] solves some ballast issues (because a similar part out of steel or titanium would be far heavier and you can't discard the hull for obvious reasons if you want to ascend). Incidentally there is another way they could have solved this problem; aluminum. With aluminum you can build a DSV that can dive deep enough to visit the Titanic, is light enough to not require additional buoyancy, and large enough to hold up to 7 people. This has been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminaut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminaut I think they probably had a fatigue life issue with an aluminum hull (it was only in service for six years..) since aluminum infamously has no fatigue limit. But it should be easier to characterize, so you can retire the hull before it fails.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    That is an amazing feat of engineering. Interesting that they still have it on 'standby' just in case it is needed despite being out of service for so long. Unique capabilities.

by hencq 3y ago

Right, that's the point exactly. The company was clearly playing it fast and loose and not interested in understanding how their design behaved or how the material degraded.

jacquesm 3y ago

Choosing carbon fiber for this application probably falls under 'playing it fast and loose'. Because it's a cost savings measure compared to creating the same part out of titanium (strong but very expensive) or steel (not that expensive but very heavy for the same strength) and it solves some ballast issues (because a similar part out of steel or titanium would be far heavier than carbon fiber and you can't discard the hull for obvious reasons if you want to ascend). What is still a bit of a mystery to me is why the company that built the hull did so knowing what the application was. I'd love to see the correspondence between those two companies and whether or not there was an opportunity for the company that built the hull to flat out refuse to do so because they thought it was a bad idea or if they put an upper limit on the number of cycles. https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersibles-under-pressure-in-deep-deep-waters https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/composite-submersib... Is a really good article on this particular design, and there are some interesting details there that I know for a fact were different on the sub that imploded. The article clearly states: "Nothing will be mechanically attached to, or penetrate, the composite hull other than the titanium caps. " A lot hinges on the use of that word penetrate, whether they meant all the way through or just from one side. There are multiple items screwed into the pressure hull on various photos including more than one monitor stand. That alone may have been enough to cause the failure. What I also miss from the specification as quoted in the article is that there is no number of cycles specified. Finally the safety factor quoted in the article is 2.25, which is in excess of the 1.5 that you'd normally expect so theoretically the pressure hull should have survived this assuming no prior damage. On the first dive... Finally, the whole 'we're monitoring things and will ascend if there are signs of impending failure' is something that sits wrong with me. Carbon fiber failures do announce themselves by the pulses of individual fibers breaking. But in a pressure vessel you get into a feed-forward loop that would cause such a failure to expand so fast that I don't think there would realistically be a chance to surface timely.

mcpackieh 3y ago
> [carbon fiber] solves some ballast issues (because a similar part out of steel or titanium would be far heavier and you can't discard the hull for obvious reasons if you want to ascend). Incidentally there is another way they could have solved this problem; aluminum. With aluminum you can build a DSV that can dive deep enough to visit the Titanic, is light enough to not require additional buoyancy, and large enough to hold up to 7 people. This has been done: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminaut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminaut I think they probably had a fatigue life issue with an aluminum hull (it was only in service for six years..) since aluminum infamously has no fatigue limit. But it should be easier to characterize, so you can retire the hull before it fails.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  That is an amazing feat of engineering. Interesting that they still have it on 'standby' just in case it is needed despite being out of service for so long. Unique capabilities.