The Titanic

The detail I really would like to have a definite, objective answer on is whether it's true that the porthole was certified safe to withstand pressure to a depth of 1500 metres, and not beyond. Because 4000 metres is most definitely not 1500.
My general feeling is that where there is big money to be made from high risk expeditions of this kind, corners will be cut if they have to be. Or even if they don't. Mutatis mutandis, this reminds me of the 1996 Everest disaster: 10th May was the worst single day in high-altitude mountaineering history. You've got to pay very, very big bucks to be on an expedition to summit Everest (and be a proven mountaineer too, of course, although not at the level of the group leaders). The Hilary Step bottleneck meant that group leaders had to make a decision on turning back or summiting far later than the time considered safe (some very experienced mountaineers like Ed Viesturs consider that you shouldn't be up at the summit of an 8000m + mountain much after midday — if you can't make it, turn back and to hell with it). But they were obviously under huge pressure from people who'd flown across the world to do this, who'd waited the whole season for it — indeed, who'd waited their whole lives to do it — and who'd paid very large sums of money for the privilege. Not to mention the effort of climbing from base camp over several days. And if you turn back, the weather may not allow you a second chance. Ever again. So they made a bad call. There were climbers still at the top taking photos of each other at 4 p.m, and some still trying to get up at 5 p.m. Eight men and women lost their lives that night (astoundingly, one guy, a Texan, survived through the blizzard all night in an open bivouac, miracle doesn't describe it — his lost his right arm below the elbow, the four fingers and thumb on his left hand, and his nose had to be reconstructed, but he's still alive to tell the tale today).
 
Lovebitesandeveryfing said:
The detail I really would like to have a definite, objective answer on is whether it's true that the porthole was certified safe to withstand pressure to a depth of 1500 metres, and not beyond. Because 4000 metres is most definitely not 1500.
My general feeling is that where there is big money to be made from high risk expeditions of this kind, corners will be cut if they have to be. Or even if they don't. Mutatis mutandis, this reminds me of the 1996 Everest disaster: 10th May was the worst single day in high-altitude mountaineering history. You've got to pay very, very big bucks to be on an expedition to summit Everest (and be a proven mountaineer too, of course, although not at the level of the group leaders). The Hilary Step bottleneck meant that group leaders had to make a decision on turning back or summiting far later than the time considered safe (some very experienced mountaineers like Ed Viesturs consider that you shouldn't be up at the summit of an 8000m + mountain much after midday — if you can't make it, turn back and to hell with it). But they were obviously under huge pressure from people who'd flown across the world to do this, who'd waited the whole season for it — indeed, who'd waited their whole lives to do it — and who'd paid very large sums of money for the privilege. Not to mention the effort of climbing from base camp over several days. And if you turn back, the weather may not allow you a second chance. Ever again. So they made a bad call. There were climbers still at the top taking photos of each other at 4 p.m, and some still trying to get up at 5 p.m. Eight men and women lost their lives that night (astoundingly, one guy, a Texan, survived through the blizzard all night in an open bivouac, miracle doesn't describe it — his lost his right arm below the elbow, the four fingers and thumb on his left hand, and his nose had to be reconstructed, but he's still alive to tell the tale today).
Click to expand...
Serious question. If you are implying that it was the porthole that failed, how do you know that?
 
kaz7 said:
I agree, like i said there was no benefit for this experdition other than a smart arse man making lots of money
Click to expand...
Yep, my boss makes millions every year and gets away with making people cut corners every day. He’s on land and can get away with it.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
There's absolutely no need for tourism at that kind of depth.

So the regulation should be abolition for commercial enterprises.

Go explore wrecks at safer depths in safe seas and safer tech and stop waving your high net worth micro penises about.
Click to expand...
That poor lad (19yo) is the one I feel sorry for.
He was worried and afraid and only went down in it to please his father because the trip was centred around fathers' day.
 
Kinkybyname said:
all human life valued equally?

Imagine a sub with Putin, Trump, Thatcher, Boris, HRHarry and Braverman on board...

I sense the sympathy would have been somewhat diluted.
Click to expand...
I'd be the lad on the outside with deep sea scuba gear on holding a hammer and chisel.
 
mosssideblue said:
They said that regarding the pressure hull, no corners for safety were cut and I believe that.
Click to expand...

Of course they would say that, but it is at odds with the letter signed by numerous technical engineers, which states quite clearly they didn't undergo a proper independently verified prototype testing program as advised by regulatory bodies. That is by definition cutting corners.

No element of a novel or experimental vehicle can be considered safe until it has been through a rigorous testing program, because until that is done, its safety and efficacy is entirely theoretical.

They can state that they built something which they felt in good faith was sufficient for the depth required. The fact is, they never proved it and that is almost certainly why it is now lying 6,000m deep in the ocean.
 
cleavers said:
Well something definitely wasn't "safe"
Click to expand...
My suspicion would be that they failed to conduct xray or other forms of testing of the pressure hull following each dive and that cyclic stresses were weakening the structure. Basically, relying upon previous dive successes as confirming the design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top