3 ms·

> OceanGate had previously taken the Titan to this depth to visit the Titanic. So, it was "proven" This situation is an interesting statistical anomaly. Given

> OceanGate had previously taken the Titan to this depth to visit the Titanic. So, it was "proven" This situation is an interesting statistical anomaly. Given that the Titan had a carbon fiber hull which was known to degrade more and more after each dive, the probability of failure increases after each successful dive. So you might think your chances of success are better the more times it came back safe, but the chances are actually worse.

shawabawa3 3y ago
Not exactly I would say certainly the second trip was safer than the first, as the first trip ruled out lots of non carbon fibre related failures (e.g. the porthole)
- tlavoie 3y ago
  I'm not so sure about that, pics of the wreckage being offloaded onshore show that dome being moved with a sling through the hole where the porthole should be. I don't think they would have removed that just to move it, especially before analyzing the debris.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    The force of the implosion, as I understand it, would destroy the porthole in any case; it being not attached is not an indicator that it was the point of initial failure.
    - tlavoie 3y ago
      That is possible, it probably wasn't intended to contain severe pressure from the inside. Of course, being rated to only about 1/3 of that depth from the outside isn't reassuring either.
    - johntb86 3y ago
      Yes, this was an extremely severe case of water hammer, so no surprise it failed.
drc500free 3y ago
It would follow a Bathtub Curve, so it would go down first, then up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve
- rspeele 3y ago
  That's what it was supposed to do but this time it went down and didn't come back up.
  - RajT88 3y ago
    I see you got downvoted. But I will upvote your pun! If we criminalize puns, only criminals will make puns! Vote No on Pun control.
- nunuvit 3y ago
  It would not follow a bathtub curve. As the Wikipedia article explains, you have to at least check the in-service products to get a bathtub curve. As this article [1] explains, they did not do that. Therefore, no bathtub curve guarantee. For argument's sake, let's say it would follow the bathtub curve. You could summarize all the warnings they were given as basically saying that the wear out curve crosses the other two curves all the way on the left. You could also say that they took the bathtub curve for granted, not realizing that it's the result of deliberate work. So again, still no bathtub curve, no matter which way you look at it. [1] https://abc7chicago.com/missing-titanic-sub-oceangate-lawsuit-david-lochridge-submersible/13409850/ https://abc7chicago.com/missing-titanic-sub-oceangate-lawsui...

shawabawa3 3y ago

Not exactly I would say certainly the second trip was safer than the first, as the first trip ruled out lots of non carbon fibre related failures (e.g. the porthole)

tlavoie 3y ago
I'm not so sure about that, pics of the wreckage being offloaded onshore show that dome being moved with a sling through the hole where the porthole should be. I don't think they would have removed that just to move it, especially before analyzing the debris.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  The force of the implosion, as I understand it, would destroy the porthole in any case; it being not attached is not an indicator that it was the point of initial failure.
  - tlavoie 3y ago
    That is possible, it probably wasn't intended to contain severe pressure from the inside. Of course, being rated to only about 1/3 of that depth from the outside isn't reassuring either.
  - johntb86 3y ago
    Yes, this was an extremely severe case of water hammer, so no surprise it failed.

drc500free 3y ago

It would follow a Bathtub Curve, so it would go down first, then up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

rspeele 3y ago
That's what it was supposed to do but this time it went down and didn't come back up.
- RajT88 3y ago
  I see you got downvoted. But I will upvote your pun! If we criminalize puns, only criminals will make puns! Vote No on Pun control.
nunuvit 3y ago
It would not follow a bathtub curve. As the Wikipedia article explains, you have to at least check the in-service products to get a bathtub curve. As this article [1] explains, they did not do that. Therefore, no bathtub curve guarantee. For argument's sake, let's say it would follow the bathtub curve. You could summarize all the warnings they were given as basically saying that the wear out curve crosses the other two curves all the way on the left. You could also say that they took the bathtub curve for granted, not realizing that it's the result of deliberate work. So again, still no bathtub curve, no matter which way you look at it. [1] https://abc7chicago.com/missing-titanic-sub-oceangate-lawsuit-david-lochridge-submersible/13409850/ https://abc7chicago.com/missing-titanic-sub-oceangate-lawsui...