5 ms·

OceanGate CEO Told Videographer to Sleep on the Titan Sub After the Battery Died

46 points by mikece 3y ago

mechhacker 3y ago
It's a good thing that they had dissolvable weight releases but I'm still amazed at the lack of backup systems and still letting passengers onboard. Related to this, the Hydraulic Press channel did a somewhat similar implosion test of a composite tube with metallic ends. Thought it was relevant due to other discussion on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQGDwE3yMb0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQGDwE3yMb0
- jacquesm 3y ago
  'Water was able to get inside, which is suboptimal for submarine...'
- lesuorac 3y ago
  That video is really just for entertainment purposes. As a lot of the comments talk about, it visually looks [1] like the glue failed and there's no provided evidence that a submersible would use the same 2 part epoxy glue. [1]: https://youtu.be/BQGDwE3yMb0?t=317 https://youtu.be/BQGDwE3yMb0?t=317
  - mechhacker 3y ago
    If the bond failed before the tube, then it would probably just leak like they did earlier in the video. The high velocity/high deformation collapse inward would probably cause any bond line or the fibers in that proximity to fail anyway?
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      > If the bond failed before the tube, then it would probably just leak like they did earlier in the video. My understanding was for that "submersible" the glue never had a seal in the first place. But I can see the argument that instead the glue failed early on. > The high velocity/high deformation collapse inward would probably cause any bond line or the fibers in that proximity to fail anyway? Well, my overall point is that there is no evidence that the test is an accurate reproduction/simulation of Titan. Honestly a better test is probably just having carbon fiber on "dry-land" and pushing on sheet of it using the press at a known pressure so see if at 400 atms it just deforms or breaks. The whole point of it being a submersible test is to ride the curtails of the deaths (i.e. entertainment not education). Anyways, the carbon fiber definitely deforms but the glue failing is a very fast shock that precedes the implosion. Surely the carbon fiber would've broke when more force was applied (assuming the glue didn't). But I think the test only showed the breaking point of the epoxy. If you're testing submerssibles and one of them has (>5% maybe less) deformation that should count as a test failure. But that deformation doesn't count as an implosion.
- heavenlyblue 3y ago
  What is the result of their test? Their accent and lack of detail makes it a bit of a pain to understand. I expect something like "we did 20 dives at half capacity and then it imploded at 75% capacity"
- jmount 3y ago
  They say they had dissolvable weight releases. It seems that is another place one would cut costs by lying, as a real such system would require a lot of swap-outs.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  It's actually pretty wild that people make money making these videos. It's incredible what cheap mass access can make possible. YouTube is a masterpiece: the engineering, the BD, the partner management and monetization. Absolutely genius invention.
PedroBatista 3y ago
It has already "Gate" in the name, following the current trends regarding scandals.. ahead of the curve I guess. > A clip shows Rush inside Titan elaborating on the plan saying that eventually the sub will “drift down” and “hit the bottom.” Dear Lord.. Even running an ice cream shop is subjected to more scrutiny than selling rides in a submarine.
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > It has already "Gate" in the name, following the current trends regarding scandals.. It is more a cultural staple than a trend at this point, since the Watergate scandal happened fifty years ago.
  - papandada 3y ago
    I guess it depends who you ask, paleontologists might say living in cities is a "current trend."
  - rationalist 3y ago
    It's a far-reaching cultural staple. I know of at least one country today in South America which uses "-gate" the same way the U.S. does.
- thumbuddy 3y ago
  Starting an ice cream business means you have some money but not a lot. So the people with more money want to profit from you failing. Starting a submarine business means you have a lot of money, and the people with a lot of money see that as too much of a hassle to go after for a quick pay out. Probably could afford lawyers, and for positive press releases, ew.
- pdntspa 3y ago
  OceanGate, Heaven's Gate, Watergate...
  - cwillu 3y ago
    I eagerly await hearing about BabyGate
Veliladon 3y ago
Why is the drop dependent on the battery? Why in the world wouldn't they be held on electromagnetically so if the battery goes kaput the weights immediately drop?
- lesuorac 3y ago
  Well, as the article explained. There was a non-battery backup. > “We had special weights on the submersible that will dissolve after 24 hours so they will just drop off and then we would be able to get back to the surface.”
  - stevenhubertron 3y ago
    Not really a backup. If they were over a deeper trench the sub would sink for 24 hours over the depth limit and cruse. Still more risk than is sane.
- heavenlyblue 3y ago
  I think they didn't do that because they would need to have that system independent of the system inside the submarine or otherwise they would need to drill holes in the main hull to provide power for that. Given the fact that the aystem was controlled by a cheap controller pretty sure they didn't spend that much money on the weight drop system either.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  Maybe it's just a good idea that didn't occur to them? (Not being snarky, I'm curious too.) Related: Is there a way to design an electromagnetic coupling that only uses significant power when it needs to work hard to maintain the connection? Because otherwise I could see battery drain being an issue.
  - kayodelycaon 3y ago
    The electromagnet only needs to hold a latch, not the full weight of the batteries. The Deepsea Challenger used such a system.
tedivm 3y ago
I really don't understand the lack of a backup here. I understand they had a budget, but that budget couldn't include a spare battery or two? They also didn't appear to test the batteries at all before going down? My high school robotics team had more redundancy than this sub did.
- juujian 3y ago
  Sign me up, how much for a tour to the titanic with your high school robotics team? :)
  - Waterluvian 3y ago
    One way trip, a $5000 donation. Our team could use swerve drive and that’ll cover the parts.
    - OmegaMetor 3y ago
      Finally, the water game.
- EMM_386 3y ago
  > explained that one of the batteries went kaput The article does mention "one" of them went out, implying they had more than one. As to why that was not sufficient to release the balast, that's another question.
- TheBigSalad 3y ago
  There was a backup. Weights on a tether that would dissolve and force the sub to surface in 24 hours with no power at all.
  - zo1 3y ago
    Wouldnt the ascent decompression kill the occupants anyways? Getting them up to surface isn't the saving grace to something like a battery failing. Maybe I'm missing something? Edit. Thank you for the responses people, I learned something new today!
juujian 3y ago
The weirdest thing is that folks paying 6 figures learn about these safety mechanisms only after sinking to the bottom of the ocean. It's a sensible safety mechanism to have, but shouldn't there be a briefing where participants learn about something like that?
- sokoloff 3y ago
  Are the participants passengers or crew? Crew, I'd expect to have full systems understanding of the sub, how it works under normal operation, and how to modify how it works under abnormal/emergency/degraded operation. An early pilot said, “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.” Space and submarine operations are even less forgiving than sea surface or aviation. Almost all of my transition training into more advanced aircraft has been systems-related (like 90+% systems and 10-% operation). I feel like the purchasers of these experiences were basically passengers. I don't expect the occupant of 2A on an airliner to understand anything more about the safety systems than where the exits are and how to put on a mask if it appears in front of them.
  - johnwalkr 3y ago
    They were called "mission specialists" to try and avoid liability of taking "passengers."
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      If they're being paid they are are crew or mission specialists, if they are paying they are passengers.
  - PUSH_AX 3y ago
    I've read, that for legal reasons, OceanGate made them "crew" for the dives. My understanding was that it was a measure to reduce the liability against the company in the instance something went wrong.
lesuorac 3y ago
I still don't exactly understand why these subs aren't just tethered to the ship. Sure have a battery system as back-up for loss of shore-power (so that you can surface). But if the ROVs [1] they used to find the wreckage can be tethered to a ship why can't the dive sub? It would just be a glorified elevator at this point which sounds much simpler. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROV_Odysseus_6K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROV_Odysseus_6K
- bbor 3y ago
  They could! Presumably skipping the tether saved him time or money. Fun stuff
- veggieburrito 3y ago
  Don’t have a source handy but have read the tethering is possible but required more specialized and expensive ships. When the tethers /are/ used I found it interesting the whole reel is welded onto the ship’s deck
1970-01-01 3y ago
I really want the book of this accident to be titled 'The Wrong Stuff'

46 points by mikece 3y ago

It's a good thing that they had dissolvable weight releases but I'm still amazed at the lack of backup systems and still letting passengers onboard. Related to this, the Hydraulic Press channel did a somewhat similar implosion test of a composite tube with metallic ends. Thought it was relevant due to other discussion on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQGDwE3yMb0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQGDwE3yMb0

jacquesm 3y ago
'Water was able to get inside, which is suboptimal for submarine...'
lesuorac 3y ago
That video is really just for entertainment purposes. As a lot of the comments talk about, it visually looks [1] like the glue failed and there's no provided evidence that a submersible would use the same 2 part epoxy glue. [1]: https://youtu.be/BQGDwE3yMb0?t=317 https://youtu.be/BQGDwE3yMb0?t=317
- mechhacker 3y ago
  If the bond failed before the tube, then it would probably just leak like they did earlier in the video. The high velocity/high deformation collapse inward would probably cause any bond line or the fibers in that proximity to fail anyway?
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    > If the bond failed before the tube, then it would probably just leak like they did earlier in the video. My understanding was for that "submersible" the glue never had a seal in the first place. But I can see the argument that instead the glue failed early on. > The high velocity/high deformation collapse inward would probably cause any bond line or the fibers in that proximity to fail anyway? Well, my overall point is that there is no evidence that the test is an accurate reproduction/simulation of Titan. Honestly a better test is probably just having carbon fiber on "dry-land" and pushing on sheet of it using the press at a known pressure so see if at 400 atms it just deforms or breaks. The whole point of it being a submersible test is to ride the curtails of the deaths (i.e. entertainment not education). Anyways, the carbon fiber definitely deforms but the glue failing is a very fast shock that precedes the implosion. Surely the carbon fiber would've broke when more force was applied (assuming the glue didn't). But I think the test only showed the breaking point of the epoxy. If you're testing submerssibles and one of them has (>5% maybe less) deformation that should count as a test failure. But that deformation doesn't count as an implosion.
heavenlyblue 3y ago
What is the result of their test? Their accent and lack of detail makes it a bit of a pain to understand. I expect something like "we did 20 dives at half capacity and then it imploded at 75% capacity"
jmount 3y ago
They say they had dissolvable weight releases. It seems that is another place one would cut costs by lying, as a real such system would require a lot of swap-outs.
renewiltord 3y ago
It's actually pretty wild that people make money making these videos. It's incredible what cheap mass access can make possible. YouTube is a masterpiece: the engineering, the BD, the partner management and monetization. Absolutely genius invention.

PedroBatista 3y ago

It has already "Gate" in the name, following the current trends regarding scandals.. ahead of the curve I guess. > A clip shows Rush inside Titan elaborating on the plan saying that eventually the sub will “drift down” and “hit the bottom.” Dear Lord.. Even running an ice cream shop is subjected to more scrutiny than selling rides in a submarine.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> It has already "Gate" in the name, following the current trends regarding scandals.. It is more a cultural staple than a trend at this point, since the Watergate scandal happened fifty years ago.
- papandada 3y ago
  I guess it depends who you ask, paleontologists might say living in cities is a "current trend."
- rationalist 3y ago
  It's a far-reaching cultural staple. I know of at least one country today in South America which uses "-gate" the same way the U.S. does.
thumbuddy 3y ago
Starting an ice cream business means you have some money but not a lot. So the people with more money want to profit from you failing. Starting a submarine business means you have a lot of money, and the people with a lot of money see that as too much of a hassle to go after for a quick pay out. Probably could afford lawyers, and for positive press releases, ew.
pdntspa 3y ago
OceanGate, Heaven's Gate, Watergate...
- cwillu 3y ago
  I eagerly await hearing about BabyGate

Veliladon 3y ago

Why is the drop dependent on the battery? Why in the world wouldn't they be held on electromagnetically so if the battery goes kaput the weights immediately drop?

lesuorac 3y ago
Well, as the article explained. There was a non-battery backup. > “We had special weights on the submersible that will dissolve after 24 hours so they will just drop off and then we would be able to get back to the surface.”
- stevenhubertron 3y ago
  Not really a backup. If they were over a deeper trench the sub would sink for 24 hours over the depth limit and cruse. Still more risk than is sane.
heavenlyblue 3y ago
I think they didn't do that because they would need to have that system independent of the system inside the submarine or otherwise they would need to drill holes in the main hull to provide power for that. Given the fact that the aystem was controlled by a cheap controller pretty sure they didn't spend that much money on the weight drop system either.
CoastalCoder 3y ago
Maybe it's just a good idea that didn't occur to them? (Not being snarky, I'm curious too.) Related: Is there a way to design an electromagnetic coupling that only uses significant power when it needs to work hard to maintain the connection? Because otherwise I could see battery drain being an issue.
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  The electromagnet only needs to hold a latch, not the full weight of the batteries. The Deepsea Challenger used such a system.

tedivm 3y ago

I really don't understand the lack of a backup here. I understand they had a budget, but that budget couldn't include a spare battery or two? They also didn't appear to test the batteries at all before going down? My high school robotics team had more redundancy than this sub did.

juujian 3y ago
Sign me up, how much for a tour to the titanic with your high school robotics team? :)
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  One way trip, a $5000 donation. Our team could use swerve drive and that’ll cover the parts.
  - OmegaMetor 3y ago
    Finally, the water game.
EMM_386 3y ago
> explained that one of the batteries went kaput The article does mention "one" of them went out, implying they had more than one. As to why that was not sufficient to release the balast, that's another question.
TheBigSalad 3y ago
There was a backup. Weights on a tether that would dissolve and force the sub to surface in 24 hours with no power at all.
- zo1 3y ago
  Wouldnt the ascent decompression kill the occupants anyways? Getting them up to surface isn't the saving grace to something like a battery failing. Maybe I'm missing something? Edit. Thank you for the responses people, I learned something new today!

juujian 3y ago

The weirdest thing is that folks paying 6 figures learn about these safety mechanisms only after sinking to the bottom of the ocean. It's a sensible safety mechanism to have, but shouldn't there be a briefing where participants learn about something like that?

sokoloff 3y ago
Are the participants passengers or crew? Crew, I'd expect to have full systems understanding of the sub, how it works under normal operation, and how to modify how it works under abnormal/emergency/degraded operation. An early pilot said, “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.” Space and submarine operations are even less forgiving than sea surface or aviation. Almost all of my transition training into more advanced aircraft has been systems-related (like 90+% systems and 10-% operation). I feel like the purchasers of these experiences were basically passengers. I don't expect the occupant of 2A on an airliner to understand anything more about the safety systems than where the exits are and how to put on a mask if it appears in front of them.
- johnwalkr 3y ago
  They were called "mission specialists" to try and avoid liability of taking "passengers."
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    If they're being paid they are are crew or mission specialists, if they are paying they are passengers.
- PUSH_AX 3y ago
  I've read, that for legal reasons, OceanGate made them "crew" for the dives. My understanding was that it was a measure to reduce the liability against the company in the instance something went wrong.

lesuorac 3y ago

I still don't exactly understand why these subs aren't just tethered to the ship. Sure have a battery system as back-up for loss of shore-power (so that you can surface). But if the ROVs [1] they used to find the wreckage can be tethered to a ship why can't the dive sub? It would just be a glorified elevator at this point which sounds much simpler. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROV_Odysseus_6K https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROV_Odysseus_6K

bbor 3y ago
They could! Presumably skipping the tether saved him time or money. Fun stuff
veggieburrito 3y ago
Don’t have a source handy but have read the tethering is possible but required more specialized and expensive ships. When the tethers /are/ used I found it interesting the whole reel is welded onto the ship’s deck

1970-01-01 3y ago

I really want the book of this accident to be titled 'The Wrong Stuff'