Memories, memories..... 3.5 years served aboard the SSN 606, USS Tinosa......the original USS Thresher? Our hull frames had SSN-593 USS Thresher markings. Rumor was that PNSY construction got behind schedule and the name was moved to another boat that ended up being the first one ready to commission. It was always a bit eerie looking at the markings while underway....
I have read reasons for building from carbon fiber. Even at >5 inches thick it made a lighter vessel that could be shipped to 'Titanic 1' by a much smaller surface vessel. At least on paper and as shown by previous descents, CF is strong enough to extend the (standard design, go very deep) sphere along one axis. Creating a more habitable person space and improving the adventure tourism business model. Only material interface was at the eyeball end with >2 inches thick titanium. I have also read that CF and Ti can have some electrochemical interactions. Of the bad kind. There is at least a small forensic reason to haul up that part of Titanic 2 debris to see if a problem there can be identified. But maybe only a small forensic reason because it will not be soon that another group makes a similar vessel. Won't be Oceangate that company is sunk in the fullest sense of the word. == We read here firstly that all very deep goers ought to have several passive redundant systems to create buoyancy in case of problems. It is my understanding that Titanic 2 had several such. But it did pop, and there remained no buoyant chamber to go floaty. Also suggested to have flight data recorders, sure why not? Something might be learned. But it will I expect be a long time before other company makes anything remotely resembling Stockton's tourism vessel. == Not before here have we done our typical RIP for the deceased. Is it time? Or would we rather reiterate the mainstream that this was a noticeably bad idea? (it was)
The differing coefficients of expansion and contraction has an abrasive effect on the boundary between the carbon fiber and the titanium end caps. Such wear creates minor flaws with detritus in that contact area. Even a minor weak spot under extreme pressure made worse over time from galvanic electrolysis in the sea water electrolyte, multiple expansion-contraction and thermo cycles likely caused breaching of the pressure vessel. Mechanically, carbon fiber in epoxy composite matrices are mechanically strong under tension but weaker under bending and compression. It's like a cable that becomes slack when the epoxy binding agent is under compression which likely results in internal cracks. The structure basically becomes like a limp balloon or a deflated tire with cracks in the sidewalls.
I’m amazed at how many people are willing to risk that depth without thorough vetting, and pay for it!
Unfortunately that’s why the ma freedom folks need laws to make sure they do the right thing avoiding some of the Darwin awards
Apparently Stockton had 28 passengers on previous dives. They will write some books about it I guess.
Some of Stockton's previous words now have a different meaning. like "This will be a a once-in-a-lifetime experience". Yes in the same sense as "All mushrooms are edible - once,
Most inappropriate to dump on the guy. So maybe just use this tragedy to improve safety for extremo-tourists heading the other direction. Titanic Sub Disaster a Stern Warning to Space Tourism Sector
i don't think safety is a problem, if you follow proven protocols. of course, constant improvement is always a good idea, but blatantly going outside the box might not be.
When I was a private pilot, we used to say, "FAA regulations are written in blood." As for this incident, I'll read technical reports analyzing the debris but I'm not anxious. I remember reading about titanium hulled subs. Not being a submariner, I had not considered using modern carbon or glass fiber hulls for deep diving and even faster underwater speeds. Such hulls should be exceptionally quiet. Bob Wilson
For glass fiber, I'm gon na say no. You can't even build bicycles out of that fluff. Carbon fiber could do, but would seem to require interface with titanium for various penetrations of pressure hull. Debris recovery from 'Titan' may shed light on this matter. If navies are seriously considering CF for deep goers, you can bet they will build various test articles with such interfaces and send them way down. Reported in news? I suppose not. == It has not been mentioned here that 'Titan' was the largest most massive CF construction ever made. Into that sentence we might insert 'reported'.
Titanium is extremely strong, non-ferrous, corrosion resistant, and light. Pound for pound that makes Ti hulled boats capable of being VERY fast and deep diving. Unfortunately, it's expensive, and extraordinarily hard to work with. The fastest combat submarine 'known' to have been built was the NATO Designated "Papa" class (Project 661) which was reported to have cost the Sovs 1% of their GDP for the year she was completed. The famous Alpha (Project 705) class was no slow-poke and was capable (some open sources speculated at the time) of outrunning and out-diving not only our submarines, but their torpedoes. The problem with these boats were that they were about as stealthy and as a Trump guest appearance on The View That wasn't Ti's fault, but these days the Rooskies make all of their known crewed boats out of regular old HY steel. IIRC, the iconic SR-71 is constructed using a non-trivial amount of titanium, which had to be creatively sourced. I'm thinking that carbon fiber would not lend itself to use in manned combat submarine hulls. Too many hull penetrations.
