Sub lost contact over Titanic

Show me better reporting. Aggregators are everywhere...a large portion of them spin the **** out of anything the print...I shuffle right along from this myself.

Show me what they printed that isn't accurate in this article. *I* see zero 'spin'...just data...

Also review this one and pick the same holes in it you did on the link I posted.

Don't editorialize, pick hole in facts...

I'll check back with you.

Looks like this lady might kick ass at her job...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/profile-482/melissa-koenig.html

ElPaso Pilot said:
I find some amusement in your juxtaposition of "good reporting" and "The Daily Mail." o_O

While being careful here in a public forum, "The Daily Mail" is usually pretty good at scraping content from other sources together into a hot mishmash without good journalistic due care. I read their content with a grain of salt, and then find the original sources for anything I find interesting.

Here is the "reporter" for that article. Just looking over the variety of topics and length of articles, she somehow seems to generate up to 5 or 6 prolific pieces per day across an amazing variety of global topics.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/profile-482/melissa-koenig.html
Click to expand...
 
Kelvin said:
Show me better reporting. Aggregators are everywhere...a large portion of them spin the **** out of anything the print...I shuffle right along from this myself.

Show me what they printed that isn't accurate in this article. *I* see zero 'spin'...just data...

Also review this one and pick the same holes in it you did on the link I posted.

Don't editorialize, pick hole in facts...

I'll check back with you.

Looks like this lady might kick *** at her job...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/profile-482/melissa-koenig.html
Click to expand...

Wow.

I never expected to see someone other than the Mail themselves defending unattributed "aggregation" practices of the Mail.

My quote was " I read their content with a grain of salt, and then find the original sources for anything I find interesting." I prefer to see content as written by the original authors.

But hey, each to their own.

One of many examples, from an original author's perspective:

A PUBLICATION OF THE CENTRE FOR ADVANCING JOURNALISM, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE

What it’s like to fall victim to the Mail Online’s aggregation machine

I recently travelled to Iraq at my own expense to write a piece about war graves. Within five hours of the story's publication by the Times, huge chunks of it appeared on Mail Online – under someone else's byline.

https://archive.is/Mqa3H#selection-1151.0-1155.213

​
And one from a Mail reporter himself:


When a writer was free to write a story, he or she simply would shout "I'm free" and an editor would assign a link to an article on the list. In many cases, it would be accompanied by a sensationalized headline—one that may or may not have been accurate—for the writer to use.

During a typical 10-hour shift, I would catch four to seven articles this way. Unlike at other publications for which I've worked, writers weren't tasked with finding their own stories or calling sources. We were simply given stories written by other publications and essentially told to rewrite them. And unlike at other publications where aggregation writers are encouraged to find a unique angle or to add some information missing from an original report, the way to make a story your own at the Mail is to pass off someone else's work as your own.

...Often enough, the only original information the Mail would contribute to the story would be an error or some sensationalized misrepresentation of facts.

https://archive.is/uU2kl#selection-1995.1-2001.552


​
Oh, and this:
In February 2017, pursuant to a formal community discussion, editors on the English Wikipedia banned the use of the Daily Mail as a source in most cases.[26][27][28] Its use as a reference is now "generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist",[18][26][258] and it can no longer be used as proof of notability.[26] It can still be used in reference to an article about the Daily Mail itself.[259] Support for the ban centred on "the Daily Mail's reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication".[18][26][27] Wikipedia's ban of the Daily Mail generated a significant amount of media attention, especially from the British media.[260] Though the Daily Mail strongly contested this decision by the community, Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales backed the community's choice, stating: "I think what [the Daily Mail has] done brilliantly in this ad funded world (is) they've mastered the art of click bait, they've mastered the art of hyped up headlines, they've also mastered the art of, I'm sad to say, of running stories that simply aren't true. And that's why Wikipedia decided not to accept them as a source anymore. It's very problematic, they get very upset when we say this, but it's just fact."​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail​
 
Thinking as a layman, but it still blows my mind to think water can have these effects. It’s really hard to wrap my head around.
 
RyanB said:
Thinking as a layman, but it still blows my mind to think water can have these effects. It’s really hard to wrap my head around.
Click to expand...

water is a really interesting chemical
 
The pics seem to show at least one end cap looking in OK shape. The carbon fiber tube maybe shattered as it was being squeezed? I think a lot of people are imagining something like a flattened soda can.
 
Bell206 said:
I don’t know zip about F1 construction, however, I have repaired and site-recovered a number of composite and hybrid-composite aircraft over the years. But if you prefer to use a purpose built, crash tested F1 as an example of composite structures, in general, have at it. I’ll stick to my initial conclusion when it comes to accidents and composites based on my observations and experiences.

No need to wait. Composites have been used in in all facets of GA for quite some time. There’s plenty of data on how well composites perform… and don’t perform. But what’s interesting is the last two clean-sheet designed GA aircraft, Cessna Sky Courier and Beechcraft Denali, use primary metal structures vs composite structures. Why, if composites are “superior”? Regardless, I also think if the CAPS hadn’t been a certification requirement for the Cirrus, there would have been a much more “public” display of why composites, in general, are not equal to an F1 cockpit.
Click to expand...
Metal is cheaper, period.
 
Kelvin said:
So...nothing in these articles was inaccurate or what? ...my spin filter is set to ignore.
Click to expand...

Whatever "spins" you up, I suppose.

I'm not going to argue the ethics of the Mail's business model with you. Enjoy their content to your hearts content.

Have a nice day.
 
That's EXACTLY what I was doing till you started sniping. "Arguing ethics" over submarine pictures? Getdafuqouttahere.

Somebody way smarter that me told me a long time ago to chew what I could can chew and spit out the rest. I pass that advice to you.

ElPaso Pilot said:
Whatever "spins" you up, I suppose.

I'm not going to argue the ethics of the Mail's business model with you. Enjoy their content to your hearts content.

Have a nice day.
Click to expand...
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
I find some amusement in your juxtaposition of "good reporting" and "The Daily Mail." o_O

While being careful here in a public forum, "The Daily Mail" is usually pretty good at scraping content from other sources together into a hot mishmash without good journalistic due care. I read their content with a grain of salt, and then find the original sources for anything I find interesting.

Here is the "reporter" for that article. Just looking over the variety of topics and length of articles, she somehow seems to generate up to 5 or 6 prolific pieces per day across an amazing variety of global topics.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/profile-482/melissa-koenig.html
Click to expand...
She works breaking news! Says so right there!

she can probably double her output by having chat ai rewrite the original story after removing bias lol
 
ElPaso Pilot said:
I'm not going to argue the ethics of the Mail's business model with you. Enjoy their content to your hearts content.
Click to expand...
But where else but the DM can you go for news about a submarine and also learn about "Honey Boo Boo Kardashian abducted by ALIENS while showing her baby bump while rocking a VERY daring transparent dress"?
 
Dana said:
But where else but the DM can you go for news about a submarine and also learn about "Honey Boo Boo Kardashian abducted by ALIENS while showing her baby bump while rocking a VERY daring transparent dress"?
Click to expand...
Careful on the spin there... we don't want to offend anyone. o_O
 
SoonerAviator said:
I would probably chalk that up to cost and their unwillingness to shift to a completely different production method from what the rest of their fleets/workforce are familiar with.
Click to expand...
Cost is the leading factor, however, the production methods are all new for the Denali plus it incorporates processes from the jet side of the hangar and includes some robotics as I recall.
SoonerAviator said:
Cirrus didn't have a century of production history already using metals like Beech/Cessna.
Click to expand...
True. But Cirrus and Columbia were given $$$millions in "free" composite R&D and assistance which is the only reason they went composite. Regardless, one big disadvantage of composites is its low tolerance to damage as compared to metal based aircraft which also plays into the design process as well.
 
A type certified carbon fiber wing is absolutely more expensive than a type certified wing made of aluminum sheet. Same for experimental. But...I'm willing to bet that 5" of more or less hand wound carbon fiber prepreg made into an 8' diameter 20' or whatever tube is a lot cheaper than 2.5" of titanium in the same shape. I say that in part because Woods Hole upgraded the Alvin at a cost of $40+ million, and I believe they kept the original titanium sphere, which is smaller than the titan cylinder.
 
Kelvin said:
That's EXACTLY what I was doing till you started sniping. "Arguing ethics" over submarine pictures? Getdafuqouttahere.

Somebody way smarter that me told me a long time ago to chew what I could can chew and spit out the rest. I pass that advice to you.
Click to expand...

We are supposed to be impressed with the ethics of the mainstream media outlets who do their own hard-hitting reporting and give their unvarnished original opinions:

 
..back in the day I was obsessed with submarines (still am to some degree). The USS Chopper is worth checking out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Chopper of note, this class sub had a test depth of a mere 400 ft, so 600 ft design depth. Even with a safety factor of 1.5 that puts the crush at 900 ft. During an accident in 1969 she reached a depth of over 1,000 ft, yet, survived, albeit with extensive structural damage and was subsequently decommissioned


I'm a big fan of composites in the right design setting. In some areas though you really can't afford to have catastrophic 'shattering' as opposed to bending, deforming, etc.

Part of this is also just logical, in compression fibers in carbon are held only in place by the epoxy, in tensile the carbon fibers themselves do the work. That doesn't pass the sniff test to me

I ask:
-how many times can that same F1 tub crash and stay intact?

-this sub did several dives, some to the Titanic, yet apparently with audible cracking noted on at least one prior occasion

-Before he got lost Steve Fossett was designing a carbon fiber sub to reach Challenger Deep, however it was going to have a life cycle of ONE dive

For this environment both the theoretical (and now unfortunately empirical) evidence suggest traditional metals are most appropriate, at least for repeat use
 
Interesting and lengthy story in the New Yorker.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-re...submersible-was-an-accident-waiting-to-happen

Gems include:

Rush asked OceanGate’s director of finance and administration whether she’d like to take over as chief submersible pilot. “It freaked me out that he would want me to be head pilot, since my background is in accounting,” she told me. She added that several of the engineers were in their late teens and early twenties, and were at one point being paid fifteen dollars an hour. Without Lochridge around, “I could not work for Stockton,” she said. “I did not trust him.” As soon as she was able to line up a new job, she quit.​

And

... But it seems as though Rush did not understand how acrylic limits are calculated. “Where Stockton is talking about those things called conversion factors . . .”

Ramsay grabbed a copy of Stachiw’s acrylic handbook from his spare bedroom. When Stachiw’s team was doing its tests, “they would pressurize it really fast, the acrylic would implode, and then they would assign a conversion factor, to tabulate a safe diving depth,” he explained. “So let’s say the sample imploded at twelve hundred metres. You apply a conversion factor of six, and you get a rating of two hundred metres.” He paused, and spoke slowly, to make sure I understood the gravity of what followed. “It’s specifically not called a safety factor, because the acrylic is not safe to twelve hundred metres,” he said. “I’ve got a massive report on all of this, because we’ve just had to reverse engineer all of Jerry Statchiw’s work to determine when our own acrylic will fail.” The risk zone begins at about twice the depth rating.

According to David Lochridge’s court filings, from 2018, Cyclops II’s viewport had a depth rating of only thirteen hundred metres, approximately one-third of Titanic’s depth. It is possible that this had changed by the time passengers finally dived. But, Lochridge’s lawyer wrote, OceanGate “refused to pay for the manufacturer to build a viewport that would meet the required depth.”​
 
Tantalum said:
-Before he got lost Steve Fossett was designing a carbon fiber sub to reach Challenger Deep, however it was going to have a life cycle of ONE dive
Click to expand...

The account I read said the one dive lifecycle wasn’t initially part of the plan, rather it was after a full-depth pressure test they realized they couldn’t certify it for more than a single dive.

What killed the project was a combination of Fossett’s death and the fact that the economics no longer worked now that a very expensive submersible was now a single-use item.
 
Passenger waiver has been published.




I,______, acknowledge that I have voluntarily applied to participate in the Titanic Survey Expedition (the "Expedition") arranged by OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd., a company registered in The Bahamas. The Expedition will embark from Newfoundland, Canada. From there, participants will travel for the most part aboard non-United States flagged vessels. The Expedition will be largely conducted in international waters. The shipwreck of the RMS Titanic lies at a depth of approximately 3,800 meters and is approximately 380 nautical miles south-southwest off the coast of Newfoundland.

I have been informed about the nature of the Expedition and the risks it presents, including that:

  1. The Expedition includes activities involving subsurface vessels, surface vessels, and/or Remotely Operated Vehicles that are on, near or under the water. For purposes of this Agreement, the Expedition shall also be deemed to include transit to and from the point of embarkation that may be arranged or coordinated directly or indirectly by the Released Parties, training or other physical preparation in conjunction with the activities contemplated herein, and any post-voyage events I may participate in related to the activities contemplated herein.
  2. A portion of the Expedition will be conducted inside an experimental submersible vessel that will dive 3,800 meters to the shipwreck of the Titanic. The experimental submersible vessel has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body and is constructed of materials that have not been widely used for manned submersibles. As of the date of this Release, the experimental submersible vessel has conducted fewer than 90 dives, and 13 of those dives reached the depth of the Titanic. Prior to my participation in the Expedition there have been as few as 13 dives to Titanic depths in the submersible.
  3. When diving below the ocean surface this vessel will be subject to extreme pressure, and any failure of the vessel while I am aboard could cause me severe injury, disability, disability, emotional trauma, other harm, and/or death. I understand that I may decline to participate in any dive below the ocean surface or any activity of the Expedition at any time.
  4. The Expedition support ship (upon which I will be living for the duration of the Expedition) is an industrial vessel not specifically designed for passenger operations and has many hazards, including, without limitation, large/heavy objects, heavy swinging doors and low overhangs. Many of these could become even more hazardous in heavy seas. I understand that the Expedition will occur in an uncontrollable natural setting and that oceanic, atmospheric, and/or biological conditions present are unpredictable and beyond the control of the Released Parties. In addition, during the Expedition I may board small vessels and other equipment that could expose me to property damage, injury, disability, or death.
  5. If I choose to assist in the servicing or operation of the submersible vessel, I will be exposed to risks associated with high-pressure gases, pure oxygen servicing, high-voltage electrical systems, and other dangers that could lead to property damage, injury, disability, emotional harm, or death of myself or others.
  6. The Expedition will take place largely in international waters, at great distance from the nearest hospital or rescue personnel. If I am injured during the Expedition, I may not receive immediate medical attention. First aid available on the ship may not be equivalent to what is available on land.
  7. I acknowledge that all travel in or around the water on vessels of any type, including submersibles, entails known and unanticipated risks that could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma, death, harm to myself or third parties, or damage to my property or the property of others. Although OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd., will take reasonable steps to provide me with adequate training, equipment, and skilled Expedition personnel, I understand that all risks cannot be eliminated from any Expedition. The risks that remain despite training and the presence of skilled Expedition personnel include, without limitation: loss of footing, slips and falls on deck, particularly in inclement weather; harm from falling objects on non-passenger vessels; drowning; and malfunction or failure of the submersible (leading to death or serious injury or other physical or mental harm). Additional dangers may include the hazards of accident or illness in remote places without access to emergency medical facilities and acts of God, such as severe weather.
  8. I acknowledge that representatives of OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd., have been available to answer my questions and more fully explain to me the physical demands of the Expedition as well as the risks, hazards, and dangers associated with the Expedition. I understand that the foregoing description of these risks is not complete, and that other unanticipated, inherent risks may occur. I am voluntarily participating in the Expedition with full knowledge of the facts set forth above, including the described risks and unknown risks. I understand the inherent risks in the activities that will be undertaken during the Expedition.
  9. In consideration of my desire to participate in the Expedition and as lawful consideration for being given the right to participate in same:
 
I on behalf of myself, my heirs, distributes, assigns, guardians, personal representative, estate, executors, administrators, assigns, and for all members of my family, including minor children, (hereinafter collectively "Releasor") hereby release, waive, and forever discharge OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd., and its owner (OceanGate, Inc.), their officers, directors, shareholders, principals, agents, representatives, members, employees, clients, partners, subcontractors, OceanGate Foundation, Virtuoso Ltd., Virtuoso Ltd. network member agencies and authorized agents, Virtuoso Ltd. agents, affiliates or contractors and each of their officers, directors, shareholders, principals, agents, representatives, members, employees, owners, contractors and affiliates, , or other party involved in the sale or organization of the Expedition and all of my co-volunteers (each a "Released Party" and collectively the "Released Parties") from all liabilities, actions, claims, demands, costs, losses, or expenses which I or my heirs, distributees, guardians, legal representatives, next of kin, members of my family (including minor children), or assignees may have against the Released Parties, on account of injury to myself or my property, or resulting in my death, arising out of or in any way connected with my participation in the Expedition, including travel, to and from the Expedition site.

I hereby assume full responsibility for the risk of my bodily injury, disability, death, and property damage due to the negligence of any Released Party while involved in the Expedition. I hereby assume full responsibility for any and all risks of property damage, injury, disability, or death. I AM VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATING IN THE AFOREMENTIONED ACTIVITY AND I AM PARTICIPATING IN THE ACTIVITY ENTIRELY AT MY OWN RISK. I AM AWARE OF THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH PARTICIPATING IN THIS ACTIVITY, WHICH MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL IN JURY, PAIN, SUFFERING, ILLNESS, DISFIGUREMENT, TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DISABILITY (INCLUDING PARALYSIS), ECONOMIC OR EMOTIONAL LOSS, AND DEATH. I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE INJURIES OR OUTCOMES MAY ARISE FROM MY OWN OR OTHERS' NEGLIGENCE, CONDITIONS RELATED TO TRAVEL TO OR FROM THE EXPEDITION, OR FROM CONDITIONS AT THE EXPEDITION LOCATIONS. NONETHELESS, I ASSUME ALL RELATED RISKS, BOTH KNOWN AND UNKNOWN TO ME, OF MY PARTICIPATION IN THE EXPEDITION.

I hereby agree to defend, indemnify, save, and hold harmless OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd., OceanGate Inc, OceanGate Foundation, and the other Released Parties from any loss, liability, damage, or costs they may incur, including attorney's fees and any related costs, due to any claim brought in violation of this Release or with respect to my participation in the Expedition.

I further agree that my participation in this Expedition does not give rise to an employer/employee relationship, and does not bind OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd., to provide any form of workers' compensation insurance, health insurance, or benefits.

During the Expedition I consent to the administration of first aid and medical treatment, which may seem reasonably advisable, in case of my injury or illness. If I am unable to consent due to unconsciousness, disorientation, or other mental incapacity, I hereby appoint the captain of the support vessel as my attorney-in-fact to consent to any treatment he or she deems advisable. I further certify that I voluntarily assume the risk of any medical or physical condition I may have. I further agree to assume all costs involved in my medical care or emergency medical transportation. I am aware and understand that I should carry my own health insurance.

I understand that OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd., may contract with independent contractors to provide services on the Expedition, including transportation. I understand that OceanGate Expeditions Ltd., has no control over, and accepts no responsibility for, the actions of any independent contractor involved in providing services on the Expedition.

I have had sufficient opportunity to read this entire document. In signing this document, I acknowledge that if I die, am hurt, or incur property damage during my participation in the Expedition, I may be found by a court of law to have waived my right to maintain a lawsuit against OceanGate Expeditions, Ltd., OceanGate Inc, OceanGate Foundation, and the other Released Parties as a result of signing this Release. I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE CAREFULLY READ THIS "WAIVER AND RELEASE" AND FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS A RELEASE OF LIABILITY, I AGREE TO VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP OR WAIVE ANY RIGHT THAT I OTHERWISE HAVE TO BRING A LEGAL ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE OR ANY OTHER LOSS WHICH I OR MY HEIRS, GUARDIANS, EXECUTORS, ADMINISTRATORS, ASSIGNS, FAMILY MEMBERS, OR PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES MAY HAVE. If any part of this Release is deemed unenforceable, all the parts shall be given full effect to the extent possible. This Waiver and Release Agreement supersedes any and all previous oral or written promises or other agreements relating to the Expedition.

Any disputes related to or arising from either the Expedition or this Release shall be governed by the laws of The Bahamas. Any dispute arising from either the Expedition or this Release shall be resolved in the courts of The Bahamas.
​
https://www.insider.com/read-oceangate-waiver-titan-sub-passengers-lists-numerous-death-risks-2023-7
 
If my count is correct, “death” and/or “die” nine times.
 
There are now YouTube videos purporting to show leaked (no pun intended) message transcripts indicating that the sub was descending faster than planned and the crew had alarms and were desperately trying to surface... but with no other corroboration I would take them with a rather large grain of salt.
 
Dana said:
There are now YouTube videos purporting to show leaked (no pun intended) message transcripts indicating that the sub was descending faster than planned and the crew had alarms and were desperately trying to surface... but with no other corroboration I would take them with a rather large grain of salt.
Click to expand...
Would the speed of descent make any difference to the structure? I would not think that would matter, but I have no idea. Not that it even matters if it matters. It’s not like it changes anything.
 
Salty said:
Would the speed of descent make any difference to the structure? I would not think that would matter, but I have no idea. Not that it even matters if it matters. It’s not like it changes anything.
Click to expand...
I would think that once you reach the crush depth, it's all over. It's just a matter of how long it takes to get there. If they were in an uncontrolled descent they had time to think about it before the lights went out.
 
Matthew said:
I would think that once you reach the crush depth, it's all over. It's just a matter of how long it takes to get there. If they were in an uncontrolled descent they had time to think about it before the lights went out.
Click to expand...
Weren’t they planning on going to the bottom? which was presumably above crush depth.
 
Salty said:
Would the speed of descent make any difference to the structure? I would not think that would matter, but I have no idea. Not that it even matters if it matters. It’s not like it changes anything.
Click to expand...
No, but if the sub was descending faster than anticipated, that could indicate had lost buoyancy, indicating it was taking on water.
 
Dana said:
No, but if the sub was descending faster than anticipated, that could indicate had lost buoyancy, indicating it was taking on water.
Click to expand...
I didn’t think that fact was in doubt.
 
Salty said:
I didn’t think that fact was in doubt.
Click to expand...
There is a huge difference between an implosion and a flood. This sub imploded, so it's entirely possible that it wasn't taking on water until the structure catastrophically failed.
 
They had underwater texting? So it wasn’t completely untethered? Tethered Internet cable to WiFi box outside and then WiFi to inside the shell?
 
Randomskylane said:
They had underwater texting? So it wasn’t completely untethered? Tethered Internet cable to WiFi box outside and then WiFi to inside the shell?
Click to expand...
It was completely untethered. The text messages were via an acoustic link. Which was a problem when they used the thrusters to descend because the thruster wake prevented communication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top