-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
This definitely sucks. Submarine lost.
- Thread starter 101st
- Start date
Yeah, how do you list that on your resume?
Yeah, I am a designer and sub was so well built that the last thing going through pilot's mind was his anus.
I'd have to imagine that having experience in building submarines out of carbon fiber listed in one's resume isn't going to help land them any interviews.
Making submarine sandwiches.
Only fans?
I think the opposite actually
they validated proof of concept with several successful trips. Maybe they won't work with subs but there are other possible applications as I'll bet 10yrs ago people would have said you're nuts to think that it'd work; it did
Did it? Are you saying they are pioneers and sacrifices have to be made for progess to occur? Except they were told by a bunch of old white guys carbon fiber is bad mmmmkay. And their reply was
And people died . It's one thing if you are venturing into the unknown, it's another when you are informed your design is known to be poor .
What concept?
That submarines are possible?
I bet the navy would be very interested in this concept.
I got a neighbor working on a concept for a machine that will carry you through the air. You want to test drive it?
Heavier than air, powered and manned flight! Your neighbor is a dreamer. It'll never happen!What concept?
That submarines are possible?
I bet the navy would be very interested in this concept.
I got a neighbor working on a concept for a machine that will carry you through the air. You want to test drive it?
another one with reading comp issuesWhat concept?
That submarines are possible?
I bet the navy would be very interested in this concept.
I got a neighbor working on a concept for a machine that will carry you through the air. You want to test drive it?
You said "proof of concept" but did not identify any "concept" in the post other than mentioning submarines.
The question stands.
What concept?
The Navy did actually build an autonomous underwater vehicle with a carbon fiber cylinder with titanium end caps. There is a publicly available paper on it that runs to a bit over 100 pages. Not sure what the depth rating was, but it certainly wasn't Titanic depths.
They talked a lot about the need to ensure that the titanium rings are carefully designed such that the rings and the CF hull deform equally under pressure to avoid failure initiation at the ring/hull boundary. Which is where Titan failed.
I would bet that Oceangate neither read that paper, nor would they have done the work to ensure that the ring deformation matched the hull. Making that work, with 2 materials of very different Young's Modulus while maintaining the required strength is not easy. Lots and lots of interacting variables at play.
I had a look for the paper, but my Google Fu is weak today and I have better things to do. I'd still like to find it again though.
I would like to take a ride in late model jet fighter and drive a tank ....these things i can afford ....that titanic visit and a musk space ride would empty the toy box fund but if i had the extra coin . I once gave thought to flying round trip to london on the SST ....figures 6 months later it crashed i even was close to booking a big game hunt to africa [congo] in the 70,s until war broke out there .
For one, a bit of a difference between unmanned and manned vessels.
If you're thinking of the Orca XLUUV specifically then I think that hull is not designed to be water tight, completely different concept.
At best they (Titan) started with someone else's concept and then made several deadly cost saving changes.
The concept of submarines and even underwater vessels both manned and unmanned is well established with numerous resources and programs to help insure their safe construction and operation.
These guys have been working with the Navy for years on carbon fiber vessels.
Underwater Carbon Fiber Pressure Vessels | CET
www.compositeenergytechnologies.com
There is no "concept" to test here. It's been "concepted" and tested and safe engineering is well established.
Ignoring all that science isn't testing a concept, it's testing fate. And they lost.
I agree with you in general. There was lots of prior art to draw on.For one, a bit of a difference between unmanned and manned vessels.
If you're thinking of the Orca XLUUV specifically then I think that hull is not designed to be water tight, completely different concept.
At best they (Titan) started with someone else's concept and then made several deadly cost saving changes.
The concept of submarines and even underwater vessels both manned and unmanned is well established with numerous resources and programs to help insure their safe construction and operation.
These guys have been working with the Navy for years on carbon fiber vessels.
Underwater Carbon Fiber Pressure Vessels | CET
There is no "concept" to test here. It's been "concepted" and tested and safe engineering is well established.
Ignoring all that science isn't testing a concept, it's testing fate. And they lost.
That is not the AUV I was thinking of BTW. The one I came across did have a watertight section for sensors. I got access to the paper via work, but it is in the public domain somewhere.
The IVER?
L3Harris technologies unveils new IVER4 580 unmanned undersea vehicle
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-4068738923530102"; /* Navy Recognition 468x15 link */ google_ad_slot = "6873402760"; google_ad_width = 468; google_a
www.armyrecognition.com
Ribbed for your pleasure.The IVER?
L3Harris technologies unveils new IVER4 580 unmanned undersea vehicle
google_ad_client = "ca-pub-4068738923530102"; /* Navy Recognition 468x15 link */ google_ad_slot = "6873402760"; google_ad_width = 468; google_a
Good thing excell now has more than 65K rows and columns.
Relax, there was a Rand McNally on board the Titan for backup.
dead and they did not know it ,they didn't have time to say ouch which was merciful compared with other ways of going
The only thing they proved was to never use carbon fiber in manned subs at depth
the civil suits might be costly , he could be charged criminally if they prove he was knowingly negligent
And lawyers will go as low as they need to go, pun maliciously intended.
The point is to learn from someone else's mistakes in hopes that it won't happen again.
Stockton's definitely in trouble, but not in the mortal realm that we occupy. His issues are more of the eternal sort.
Here's some good documents for the nerds:
data.ntsb.gov
The first two are the ones you want.
I'm not a composites engineer but I can tell you this thing has so many flaws in the construction that it was doomed from the start. And then to ignore the acoustic and strain sensor data that was collected for this exact reason
NTSB Docket - Docket Management System
The first two are the ones you want.
I'm not a composites engineer but I can tell you this thing has so many flaws in the construction that it was doomed from the start. And then to ignore the acoustic and strain sensor data that was collected for this exact reason
I thoroughly enjoyed that video and this update was nothing short of fantastic. Greatly appreciate you sharing it!
-LD
China Rushes to Cover Up Humiliating Loss of Nuclear Submarine, But They Weren’t Quick Enough
China's newest submarine appears to have unintentionally gone underwater, a loss that Beijing scrambled to cover up.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Don't tell me they stole Stocktons design ?China Rushes to Cover Up Humiliating Loss of Nuclear Submarine, But They Weren’t Quick Enough
China's newest submarine appears to have unintentionally gone underwater, a loss that Beijing scrambled to cover up.
But they used Chinese resin which crumbles in salt water so they can’t raise it.
Or, they got a bad batch of Chinese steel which caused the hatch bolts to snap when try tried to submerge.
