If the transcript is real (and at first blush, it seems legit) then the crew spent the last 20 minutes of their lives trying to get back to the surface before critical failure. Monitoring lights went red, descending too fast. Emergency ascent rate was very slow. Ominous sounds coming from aft.
Given the thickness of the hull, it probably failed like a dam, letting in water through cracks, before failing badly enough to implode.
But it does paint a pretty accurate picture of how it most likely went down. In any case, it lines up closely with what several insiders have said in interviews. There's a few source links in the thread about it that I made a while back.
An OceanGate consultant has since then also come forward to corroborate this version of events:
There wouldn't be any water leaks before the implosion. As soon as a crack made it all the way through the 5 inches of carbon fiber composite, it would implode instantly. But, before that, the hull would have failed gradually, and made cracking and popping noises as it delaminated under the pressure.
Alleged is the key word here .. I will go ahead and say the whole "lost submersible" thing has been total bs from the start, when billionaire types embark on undertakings like this they film everything, there is no video of them either undergoing training, entering the craft or of the launch so it all relies on assertion, I don't believe any of it and assumed from the start it was bs manufactured to smokescreen real news. Titanic Submarine Disappearance Predicted in The Simpsons.
They didn't have any kind of floodable/inflatable ballast tanks. The only way to control their ascent/descent was dropping the weights attached to the frame or using the thrusters. And they wouldn't typically use the thrusters to descend, because then they wouldn't have enough power to navigate or emergency ascend.
The plan was to sink under their own weight, drop a bit of ballast once they got to the bottom to achieve buoyancy equilibrium for the tour, then drop more ballast to ascend, potentially using thrusters to help it along (there were frequently problems with dropping the ballast).
So, if they were sinking too fast, that means they were overweight to begin with. Which could also explain their extremely slow ascent rate after dropping ballast.
What doesn't make sense is that if the only problem was that they were overweight, we would expect that a 50% faster-than-normal descent rate should become a 50% slower-than-normal ascent rate when they drop their ballast. We then would expect that ascent rate to improve when they also drop the frame. But their ascent rate appears almost 3 times slower-than-normal (it would take roughly 8 hours to surface). Something is missing.
What if there was a fault with the thrusters during descent that caused them to engage without tripping sensors? Constant upward thrust for the whole journey. That would explain the fast descent, slow ascent, and the need to switch power banks.
It's not going to behave like a dam. It's going to behave like a bomb. The very instant there is a "crack" large enough to pass air through let alone a drop of water, that pressure hull will completely disintegrate.
You don't know that. How much pressure is a dam like Hoover under? That's why the walls are so damn thick. Any container under immense pressure can develop what starts as a slow leak.
I suggest you do some light googling and compare the pressure differences. It's not even CLOSE.
You're talking about millions of tons of concrete many feet thick holding back water on a single side versus 5 inches of carbon fiber holding back water on its entire surface
And the fiber has to withstand over 10 times the max pressure at Hoover Dam. Which one is going to fail totally and instantaneously at the slightest weakness? There is no fucking time for "leaks", I guarantee you that.
Which one is going to fail instantaneously at the slightest weakness?
It's all assumption. That 5 inches survived multiple dives, so there was strength there. The question is can it fail gradually. If the transcript is real, the answer is yes.
Lol it's a basic understanding of physics. For you it's an "assumption" because you're braindead. There is no time for any leaking to take place, period. At 4000psi, if a pressure hull has been compromised to the degree that a leak is possible, then it's already been totally destroyed.
Anyone who thinks that a submerged hull at those depths can leak from structural failure for ANY length of time without immediately imploding has lost their mind.
There's a reason why steel and titanium are used in serious builds, composite materials can't take repeated stress like the real deal. It's in the nature of composites to fail after repeated exposure to stress like this.
The acrylic view port was also a major design flaw, it compresses way too much to be able to handle repeated dives without failing.
Anyone with a ounce of knowledge about material properties already understands this.
No disagreement on choice of materials, but the question remains is it possible for 5 inches of thinly wrapped composites to leak under immense pressure before critically failing. If the transcript is real, the answer is yes.
[ - ] Rotteuxx 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 09:05:51 ago (+1/-0)
The fake transcipt is just more distraction from things that people should be paying attention to.
The transcript is bullshit just like the search that went on for days when they knew very well from day 1 that they had imploded, it was picked up on underwater microphones.
No leak, instant compression and death.
What happens in an implosion?
When a submarine hull collapses, it moves inward at about 1,500mph (2,414km/h) - that's 2,200ft (671m) per second, says Dave Corley, a former US nuclear submarine officer.
The time required for complete collapse is about one millisecond, or one thousandth of a second.
A human brain responds instinctually to a stimulus at about 25 milliseconds, Mr Corley says. Human rational response - from sensing to acting - is believed to be at best 150 milliseconds.
The air inside a sub has a fairly high concentration of hydrocarbon vapours.
When the hull collapses, the air auto-ignites and an explosion follows the initial rapid implosion, Mr Corley says.
Human bodies incinerate and are turned to ash and dust instantly.
The fake transcipt is just more distraction from things that people should be paying attention to.
Blah blah blah. I'm tired of this stupid line of thought. Shit happens all the time. People act like there's some grand coordination of everything happening in the world, but there isn't. Might be fake, might be real. So far there are no obvious signs of fakery.
Besides the fact that thew knew it had imploded seconds after the fact and they led this shit show drag on for a week???
Doesn't mean the transcript is a fake. If it's real, it's a leak. And if it's fake, I can't see how it benefits anybody at the top. What signs are there that the transcript itself is fake?
There is nothing in the transcript claiming that the sub body imploded slowly. They had an RTM system to check hull integrity which showed the hull was breaking. The designers believed the system would warn them hours in advance, they only got 20 minutes which was not enough to sabe themselves. The cracking they herd is likely from parts of the sub outside under water pressure. Could have been sabotage since sub disintegrated after they tried to surface and dump weight, could have gotten stuck somehow in something. Either way transcript shows they did not know what was going on.
There is nothing in the transcript claiming that the sub body imploded slowly.
The slow ascent could be explainable by water intake.
They had an RTM system to check hull integrity which showed the hull was breaking.
That's the thing. A common line of thought was that as soon as the hull started to crack, it would immediately implode. Yet if the transcript is true, it took 20 minutes to go from the first indications of hull failure to complete failure.
No else one is bothering to entertain this "question" because they're not retarded. They already know the answer. It's just you who is wondering. Wonder away dipshit.
Translation: they have closed minds with an unshakeable belief in their dogmatic assumptions, and unwilling to consider alternative possibilities, despite the lack of experimental evidence.
There are infinite "alternative possibilities". If one is so dumb that they can't evaluate possibility likelihood based on well-understood physical mechanics, they end up like you: in a fantasy land. It's not a matter of "willing to consider", it's purely a matter of "what is worth considering".
The notion of leaks at 4000psi are so incredibily stupid, only the delusional will waste their time considering it. You're conjecture is baseless, while everyone else's conjecture has a based in basic physics. You're deep confusion has you considering something so unlikely it borders on absurdity. And for what purpose? Only to defend your original rediculous description. Simple pride keeps you from even addressing the question of "Is a leak even a likely possibility?". Therefore, you will stay a perpetual dumbass.
Like I said: wonder away, dipshit. Every reply is a just a greater demonstration of your retardation.
There are infinite "alternative possibilities". If one is so dumb
Except it's only their assumptions that it is "so dumb". We're talking about a novel construction at extreme conditions without any publicly available experiments. I await more data instead of ossifying preconceptions.
A basic principle, verified by everyday experience, is that a container under high pressure can generate small leaks that trickle out. That's a disparity. Now you say it's "so unlikely it borders on absurdity" that this can happen in the Titan case. That's your dogma, not mine.
jfc do you think the hoover dam could hold the entire ocean on all sides?
he does know that, everyone who understands any semblance of math understands that. The max pressure the hoover dam can hold is 312psi. Conversely the pressure at 1000ft is 441 psi.
It says should there waa a way for a tiny hole to allow water in with out the sub imploding, due to the pressure, the water would shoot like a laser beam.
I do believe the documents claiming that one ofnthe parts waa built to only survive 1,400m depth.
one ofnthe parts waa built to only survive 1,400m depth.
The viewport was rated for 1400m. But when submersible components are rated, they are tested to withstand depths 5-6 times greater than their rating, in order to have a substantial margin of error. So they ignored the safety rating. But it's very unlikely the viewport failed, since it had to survive 7000m+ depths to achieve that rating. They only went half that deep.
The carbon fiber hull, on the other hand, was experimental and completely unrated.
Also, that material is known to degrade under stress, with each repeated pressure cycle, and from exposure to seawater in general. It's also intended to contain positive pressure (such as oxygen tanks, or a pressurized spaceship in vacuum) and not to withstand under negative pressure. In other words: Carbon fiber strands are very resistant to being pulled apart, but they don't do much to add structural integrity to protect from compression.
OceanGate was warned about this repeatedly by experts in the field. But they chose to ignore it because "we innovatin n shieet".
[ + ] Love240
[ - ] Love240 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 5, 2023 21:20:01 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 5, 2023 22:29:03 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 03:16:37 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 08:08:52 ago (+0/-0)
But it does paint a pretty accurate picture of how it most likely went down. In any case, it lines up closely with what several insiders have said in interviews. There's a few source links in the thread about it that I made a while back.
An OceanGate consultant has since then also come forward to corroborate this version of events:
https://www.insider.com/former-oceangate-advisor-titanic-sub-tried-to-surface-before-imploding-2023-7
There wouldn't be any water leaks before the implosion. As soon as a crack made it all the way through the 5 inches of carbon fiber composite, it would implode instantly. But, before that, the hull would have failed gradually, and made cracking and popping noises as it delaminated under the pressure.
[ + ] RoxannaHardbutt
[ - ] RoxannaHardbutt 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 5, 2023 22:17:10 ago (+1/-0)*
[ + ] drhitler
[ - ] drhitler 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 5, 2023 22:41:05 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] aekotra
[ - ] aekotra 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 01:01:25 ago (+1/-0)*
It's strangely almost exactly 50% faster so this was probably intentional to save some time. Woopsy.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 09:21:37 ago (+0/-0)
The plan was to sink under their own weight, drop a bit of ballast once they got to the bottom to achieve buoyancy equilibrium for the tour, then drop more ballast to ascend, potentially using thrusters to help it along (there were frequently problems with dropping the ballast).
So, if they were sinking too fast, that means they were overweight to begin with. Which could also explain their extremely slow ascent rate after dropping ballast.
[ + ] aekotra
[ - ] aekotra 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 15:56:04 ago (+0/-0)*
What if there was a fault with the thrusters during descent that caused them to engage without tripping sensors? Constant upward thrust for the whole journey. That would explain the fast descent, slow ascent, and the need to switch power banks.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 4 points 2.0 yearsJul 5, 2023 22:12:31 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] bobdole9
[ - ] bobdole9 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 10:54:09 ago (+0/-0)
Even better.
[ + ] aekotra
[ - ] aekotra 10 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 00:47:13 ago (+10/-0)*
Lol ZERO chance of this happening.
It's not going to behave like a dam. It's going to behave like a bomb. The very instant there is a "crack" large enough to pass air through let alone a drop of water, that pressure hull will completely disintegrate.
[ + ] xachariah
[ - ] xachariah 3 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 04:45:51 ago (+3/-0)
I think a better example is a balloon, just in reverse.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony [op] -2 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 03:21:02 ago (+0/-2)
[ + ] aekotra
[ - ] aekotra 3 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 03:47:29 ago (+3/-0)*
You're talking about
millions of tons of concrete many feet thick holding back water on a single side
versus
5 inches of carbon fiber holding back water on its entire surface
And the fiber has to withstand over 10 times the max pressure at Hoover Dam. Which one is going to fail totally and instantaneously at the slightest weakness? There is no fucking time for "leaks", I guarantee you that.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony [op] -2 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 04:12:29 ago (+0/-2)
It's all assumption. That 5 inches survived multiple dives, so there was strength there. The question is can it fail gradually. If the transcript is real, the answer is yes.
[ + ] aekotra
[ - ] aekotra 3 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 04:15:15 ago (+3/-0)*
Anyone who thinks that a submerged hull at those depths can leak from structural failure for ANY length of time without immediately imploding has lost their mind.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony [op] -1 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 05:23:39 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Rotteuxx
[ - ] Rotteuxx 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 07:34:50 ago (+0/-0)
The acrylic view port was also a major design flaw, it compresses way too much to be able to handle repeated dives without failing.
Anyone with a ounce of knowledge about material properties already understands this.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 07:37:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Rotteuxx
[ - ] Rotteuxx 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 09:05:51 ago (+1/-0)
The transcript is bullshit just like the search that went on for days when they knew very well from day 1 that they had imploded, it was picked up on underwater microphones.
No leak, instant compression and death.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 09:10:19 ago (+0/-0)
Blah blah blah. I'm tired of this stupid line of thought. Shit happens all the time. People act like there's some grand coordination of everything happening in the world, but there isn't. Might be fake, might be real. So far there are no obvious signs of fakery.
[ + ] Rotteuxx
[ - ] Rotteuxx 1 point 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 09:39:58 ago (+1/-0)
Besides the fact that thew knew it had imploded seconds after the fact and they led this shit show drag on for a week???
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 10:04:10 ago (+0/-0)
Doesn't mean the transcript is a fake. If it's real, it's a leak. And if it's fake, I can't see how it benefits anybody at the top. What signs are there that the transcript itself is fake?
[ + ] BrokenVoat
[ - ] BrokenVoat 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 09:22:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 09:29:23 ago (+0/-0)
The slow ascent could be explainable by water intake.
That's the thing. A common line of thought was that as soon as the hull started to crack, it would immediately implode. Yet if the transcript is true, it took 20 minutes to go from the first indications of hull failure to complete failure.
[ + ] aekotra
[ - ] aekotra 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 15:43:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 18:23:08 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] aekotra
[ - ] aekotra 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 19:31:32 ago (+0/-0)*
The notion of leaks at 4000psi are so incredibily stupid, only the delusional will waste their time considering it. You're conjecture is baseless, while everyone else's conjecture has a based in basic physics. You're deep confusion has you considering something so unlikely it borders on absurdity. And for what purpose? Only to defend your original rediculous description. Simple pride keeps you from even addressing the question of "Is a leak even a likely possibility?". Therefore, you will stay a perpetual dumbass.
Like I said: wonder away, dipshit. Every reply is a just a greater demonstration of your retardation.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony [op] 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 21:25:04 ago (+0/-0)
Except it's only their assumptions that it is "so dumb". We're talking about a novel construction at extreme conditions without any publicly available experiments. I await more data instead of ossifying preconceptions.
A basic principle, verified by everyday experience, is that a container under high pressure can generate small leaks that trickle out. That's a disparity. Now you say it's "so unlikely it borders on absurdity" that this can happen in the Titan case. That's your dogma, not mine.
[ + ] PORTforceOne
[ - ] PORTforceOne 2 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 03:54:59 ago (+2/-0)
he does know that, everyone who understands any semblance of math understands that. The max pressure the hoover dam can hold is 312psi. Conversely the pressure at 1000ft is 441 psi.
5000ft - 2,220.62psi
They were over double this depth.
[ + ] Nikker
[ - ] Nikker 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 04:58:39 ago (+0/-0)
It says should there waa a way for a tiny hole to allow water in with out the sub imploding, due to the pressure, the water would shoot like a laser beam.
I do believe the documents claiming that one ofnthe parts waa built to only survive 1,400m depth.
[ + ] GloryBeckons
[ - ] GloryBeckons 0 points 2.0 yearsJul 6, 2023 08:22:20 ago (+0/-0)*
The viewport was rated for 1400m. But when submersible components are rated, they are tested to withstand depths 5-6 times greater than their rating, in order to have a substantial margin of error. So they ignored the safety rating. But it's very unlikely the viewport failed, since it had to survive 7000m+ depths to achieve that rating. They only went half that deep.
The carbon fiber hull, on the other hand, was experimental and completely unrated.
Also, that material is known to degrade under stress, with each repeated pressure cycle, and from exposure to seawater in general. It's also intended to contain positive pressure (such as oxygen tanks, or a pressurized spaceship in vacuum) and not to withstand under negative pressure. In other words: Carbon fiber strands are very resistant to being pulled apart, but they don't do much to add structural integrity to protect from compression.
OceanGate was warned about this repeatedly by experts in the field. But they chose to ignore it because "we innovatin n shieet".