Yes, from a defective hull supposedly designed to withstand the cause.

Here's a question ... did they ever build a 1:1 hull and performed a destructive test on it? ... I'm sure it would've been an expensive test, but even airplanes are subject to destructive tests on the strength of their wings ... and airplanes are less dangerous crafts than submersibles, IMHO

 

The public as also heard this about the hull.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-heard-cracking-noise-hull-breaking-down.html


I'm not saying what was the cause, only that the bulk of media has been pointing to the hull since day one of this misadventure.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1672417882100097027

Yes, most (including me) have suspected the hull. I continue to suspect the hull. Yet, I predict that this picture of the missing window will lead a significant portion of people to change their vote to "window." I wait with anticipation of the experts' analyses.

 

Yes, most (including me) have suspected the hull. I continue to suspect the hull. Yet, I predict that this picture of the missing window will lead a significant portion of people to change their vote to "window." I wait with anticipation of the experts' analyses.

The window might have been expelled because of the sudden raise in temperature due to the adiabatic compression of the air caused by the inrushing water. This rise in temperature migth have caused a small explosion.

Diesel fuel combusts spontaneously at about 400 psi ... we're talking about 5,500 psi here...

 

The window might have been expelled because of the sudden raise in temperature due to the adiabatic compression of the air caused by the inrushing water. This rise in temperature migth have caused a small explosion.

Diesel fuel combusts spontaneously at about 400 psi ... we're talking about 5,500 psi here...

That is (was) along the lines of my gut feeling too but I just saw this posted elsewhere and, well Occam's razor and all that...

the window could also have been removed to attach the lifting strap. Photos of the sub show a retaining ring with screws around the window, which I presume would still be there (at least in parts) if the window failed.

 

That is (was) along the lines of my gut feeling too but I just saw this posted elsewhere and, well Occam's razor and all that...

+1 That's likely what happened. The retainer ring and view-port was removed for the crane lift.

 

+1 That's likely what happened. The retainer ring and view-port was removed for the crane lift.
View attachment 297310

It would have had to be done by a ROV. It takes skill to do something like that using a clumsy robot that's getting blown around in the current. It is absolutely possible, that's along the lines of what these guys do every day, but I can't picture myself ever being able to do it. Can you imagine dropping your 10mm socket in the mud when it's a 4km trip up to the surface at $20k/hr to get another one?

 

It would have had to be done by a ROV. It takes skill to do something like that using a clumsy robot that's getting blown around in the current. It is absolutely possible, that's along the lines of what these guys do every day, but I can't picture myself ever being able to do it. Can you imagine dropping your 10mm socket in the mud when it's a 4km trip up to the surface at $20k/hr to get another one?

I doubt they would have removed it on the ocean floor unless they absolutely had to. More likely, they brought it up intact and, under accident investigator supervision, disassembled it. The question in my mind is whether the investigation team would be willing to do that on the ship as opposed to transporting all of the debris to whatever facility they will be using. But accident investigations routinely have to move large, heavy objects from crash sites to such facilities, so this is something they've had to confront repeatedly and I'm sure they've developed best practices for what should and should not be done at the accident site and/or to facilitate movement of crash debris.

 

Experts....pffffft.

I'm pretty sure it was the water pressure that caused the implosion.

The notion of "cause" in an accident investigation has to do with what led to something behaving in a way other than it was supposed to.

 

It would have had to be done by a ROV. It takes skill to do something like that using a clumsy robot that's getting blown around in the current. It is absolutely possible, that's along the lines of what these guys do every day, but I can't picture myself ever being able to do it. Can you imagine dropping your 10mm socket in the mud when it's a 4km trip up to the surface at $20k/hr to get another one?

I would expect there to be a lift attachments on the end pieces for floor assembly a ROV could use to attach a lifting cable.

It's not a problem to remove bolts on the bottom if the bolt surface is is clear.
https://f-e-t.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/3G-Torque-Tool-Datasheet.pdf
https://f-e-t.com/subsea/hardware-tooling-and-components/tooling/

These guys have some cool toys.
https://www.f-e-t.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Subsea-Tooling-Catalog-1-23-opt.pdf

 

I doubt they would have removed it on the ocean floor unless they absolutely had to. More likely, they brought it up intact and, under accident investigator supervision, disassembled it. The question in my mind is whether the investigation team would be willing to do that on the ship as opposed to transporting all of the debris to whatever facility they will be using. But accident investigations routinely have to move large, heavy objects from crash sites to such facilities, so this is something they've had to confront repeatedly and I'm sure they've developed best practices for what should and should not be done at the accident site and/or to facilitate movement of crash debris.

If it is given that the window was removed by the recovery crew then I think it is more likely that the ROV pilot removed the window and the piece was brought to the surface by a vessel-mounted crane in the same configuration seen in the picture. That piece appears to be far too heavy for a ROV to lift from the seabed and there doesn't appear to be any designated lift points on it or any alternative way to attach it to a crane hook than the way we see in the picture. I've never been on a ROV crew but I've spent many an hour inside an ROV shack looking over the pilot's shoulder so I'm not a stranger to the capabilities they have and the ways they operate. Taking that window out and shoving a strap through it is just what I would expect a ROV pilot to do.

 

I would expect there to be a lift attachments on the end pieces for floor assembly a ROV could use to attach a lifting cable.

So would I. But I guess neither of us is justified in having any expectations whatsoever in light of... well, almost everything.

These guys have some cool toys.
https://www.f-e-t.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Subsea-Tooling-Catalog-1-23-opt.pdf

They definitely do. There's not much about them that isn't cool. If I was a single guy I'd be offshore playing with ROVs.

 

It isn't so much a question of whether removing it at depth would be possible or the easier route, it's whether the accident investigation team would allow it. Anytime the debris is changed, information is lost. So crash investigators take a lot of data at the scene before moving anything, let alone modifying it. When I worked search and rescue for missing aircraft, when we came upon the crash site our first priority was our own safety, then safety and care of survivors, then stabilization of the site from further damage (putting out a fire or disconnecting a battery cable might fall under this category). If these meant moving or damaging things, so be it. Otherwise, we were expressly forbidden from touching anything until the NTSB arrived, plus we were expected to document any and all interaction we had with the crash site to the best of our ability.

From an accident investigation standpoint, the window should not be removed until it can be fully examined and any desired tests made that can only be made with it in place. Removing it is going to change things, even if it's just knowing what the bolts were torqued to or whether there was any damage indicated by scratch marks. If you remove it, you don't know if the scratch marks were there at the time of the incident, or whether they were put there as part of the removal, unless you can carefully document everything about the removal.

I would expect the accident investigators to allow the removal at depth only if certain conditions existed. If it were the ONLY feasible means of recovering the part, that would be one of them. If they could see enough information in situ via the ROVs to satisfy themselves that the window absolutely could not have played any role, that would be another. Between these two becomes a judgement call of balancing what is ideal versus what is doable.

 

The pic in #25 is a bit blurry. Is the window retainer ring possibly still in place there? Its removal for the lift would be unnecessary if the window itself were absent.

 

The notion of "cause" in an accident investigation has to do with what led to something behaving in a way other than it was supposed to.

Well thank you Captain Obvious.

My point was a bit of sarcasm involving the imprecise use of language.

The experts are looking for the cause of the "failure" we already know what caused the implosion.

 

Well thank you Captain Obvious.

My point was a bit of sarcasm involving the imprecise use of language.

The experts are looking for the cause of the "failure" we already know what caused the implosion.

It depends on how you read it.
I think the article was more about experts looking for the cause of the design flaw (CF mating to the end-cap mounting ring, etc...) on the hull, not the cause of the implosion.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...e-over-who-deserves-to-be-rescued/ar-AA1dkaZ1
The Never-Ending Debate Over Who Deserves to Be Rescued

The submersible’s disappearance off the coast of Newfoundland prompted a frantic and expensive search. Under international maritime conventions, nations are required to assist “vessels in distress.” And the episode had everything to garner worldwide attention: a company that avoided regulation by operating in international waters; ill-fated, wealthy adventurers; a connection to the Titanic; and the nightmarish possibility that the passengers were still alive, conscious of their depleting oxygen, waiting to be rescued. (The internet abounded with schadenfreude about the Titan’s peril, as if billionaires don’t have loved ones too.)

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/t...e-over-who-deserves-to-be-rescued/ar-AA1dkaZ1
The Never-Ending Debate Over Who Deserves to Be Rescued

You made me look up the word "schadenfreude" ... anyway, the amount of snark I've seen online (and even from a few personal friends) makes me sad ... people are still motivated by envy and jealousy, as if having more money than thou were a sin.

But I'd have to agree. If you have enough money to have the luxury of going down there, the least you could do is buy insurance that would cover your rescue, if there's a company willing to accommodate you.

 

I don't see why money should be part of the equation. If you knowingly and recreationally engage in risky ventures you ought to be on your own. That goes (should go, IMO) equally for a homeless person shooting heroin and a billionaire going on fringe extreme tourism expeditions. To suggest otherwise I think is just another manifestation of the growing (often justified and often not) generalized animosity against the rich.

 

I don't see why money should be part of the equation. If you knowingly and recreationally engage in risky ventures you ought to be on your own. That goes (should go, IMO) equally for a homeless person shooting heroin and a billionaire going on fringe extreme tourism expeditions. To suggest otherwise I think is just another manifestation of the growing (often justified and often not) generalized animosity against the rich.

I'm not a libertarian, I don't want to see dead people that used drugs left to rot on the sidewalk or rich people left on the bottom if there is a reasonable possibility of rescue/recovery. We had a helicopter crash off of Guam that went straight to the bottom in water that's miles deep (we couldn't echo locate the bottom with the ships fathometer). We all knew here was no hope but we sent out the aircraft and boats anyway, not for them, it was for us.

IMO that's the point, we do this for US, not for THEM, as a ritual goodbye.

 

But what qualifies as knowingly and recreationally engaging in a risky venture? Who decides this? When do they decide it? Are people going to be held accountable for rescue efforts that they neither requested nor authorized?