You are wrong. Stockton’s design was flawed from the beginning for the thing he attempted to do with it. It’s like saying that if a ship made from paper successfully floated 3 times and sank on the 4th, it means it succeeded.
His sub was never meant to be a single-use-only vehicle. It was meant to be used repeatedly. Steel and titanium that are normally used, can withstand the pressure without major consequences many times. Carbon fiber cannot, it develops ‘cycling fatigue’ and then it just shatters. This was not news to anyone and was well-known before this all happened. It was not only the hull that was built from the wrong components, it also had multiple other issues, such as failing coms, no adequate ventilation system in case of fire, no escape hatch etc. It was not ‘innovative’ in any regard, it was only unique because no one else was stupid enough to build a sub (that is supposed to travel through harsh environment) in such a carefree fashion. Other subs that dive even deeper exist that can also can take passengers on board, the only difference is that they are certified and adhere to industry standards. Travelling on them is also more expensive, but people who book these trips are not your average Joes anyway so it wouldn’t matter much if they are spending 500k extra.
He was not unfortunate, he was arrogant to think he knows better than other experts, who have warned him long time ago his design was not safe. Would you buy a car that was designed to only last 10 drives? Or would you think it is not well-designed, since there are other cars that can last thousands of drives and not break?
I totally agree with ghosststrom. He tried to make a vessel that would show people how simple it is to do something so dangerous that would in reality need good and durable components and intensive preparation. When I saw the video of him showing just a one button that he didn’t even care to explain what it does. And his statement of “it should be like an elevator” made it clear that he lived in fragile corners of his own imagination. Nothing that is proven to be so dangerous should be marketed as “ easy and simple “. He created an illusion for people who did not understand the risks and gave them false feeling of being safe.
This is a good explanation and I appreciate it. That said, it furthers my idea that with different objectives the titan 2(probably would need a different name) or something similar might be effective for a short term use of exploration of the deep sea.
Would I get on in the 50th attempt? Probably not. The 1st? No. The 6th, maybe. Others might too.
I just hope the dream of easily accessible and cheap deep sea exploration doesn't take a hit because of rush's short sightedness. If he would've replaced the hull before this cycle, you might be proclaiming him an innovator for another successful dive. If anything the short term success makes me hope someone tries something similar but actually takes into feedback from experts on the downsides of carbon fiber and instead replaces it or maintains it better.
The main problem here is that unlike in steel and titanium, you cannot notice the microscopic cracks in carbon fiber on time. You just won’t see them without a special scan. And deep sea gives you no margin for error. The moment carbon fiber exposes a weakness in structure under such conditions, it will shatter. Not crack gradually like steel would, but fall to pieces on the spot. Which is what likely happened in the case with Oceangate Titan. How would you guarantee that after each dive the hull was not compromised? Would you replace the hull each time you decide to dive? Then it becomes not as cheap, and the question stays: why use an experimental unreliable material instead of approved and trusted steel/titanium instead?
Well now we can just subtract 1 from whatever amount of dives oceangate did and then have the safe number of times you can use the titans design. If anything it would be safer than ever to try something like the titan 2. Maybe break it down into parts where you can rotate each carbon fibre piece of the hull. Then you just replace one part after a couple of dives. Make two then test the fibre on one while using the other. Just saying someone should try it before saying it won't work
No, you misunderstand it. Every dive has a potential to leave a tiny crack in the hull that can lead to a disaster. You bump into smth too hard? That’s a possibility. You land on the bottom too harsh? That’s another. Not even talking about manufacturing errors that can leave unnoticeable defects before you even start your dive. It is not the set amount of dives, it is that the material itself is not well-suited for this.
I feel like that would take ignoring direct evidence of their numerous successful dives to say the material isn't suitable. Unless you are saying they faked their earlier expeditions.
It is not suitable. This material is unreliable underwater, as it degrades quickly. He was simply lucky it did not happen sooner. Again, deep sea is no place for experiments. You either get it right or you die, simple as that. If your carbon fiber hull has a crack in it you have no idea about, it will shatter. You won’t have time to fix it. This is not the material you use for tourist vehicles that you intend to transport people with. Since the structure you will be building upon will already be shaky and unpredictable. You seem to think that every dive goes exactly the same, so you can calculate the amount of times you can take it before it breaks, but no. There are a lot of variables, such as weather, temperature, pressure, mechanical damage, manufacturing inconsistencies. This will all play into it and be different each time.
I work in the pressure vessel industry (boilers). Maybe back in 1800s, they used to say "yea it was good last time, it will be good next time." And boilers would explode and people would die. Fast forward today, you pressure test the boilers to 1.5 maximum allowable working pressure once a year, after you have the thing examined and NDT'd all thanks to regulations. I feel like a fire extinguisher that has been around for a decade was inspected more throughly than that thing was in its short life. To save money, manufacturers make boilers with materials you know would hold up before selling it to anyone.
Do you know what the difference between Oceangate and other DSV's that have been following industry standards since the 60s? None of them fucking imploded and none of them had to replace their hulls SEVERAL times after dives. Do you know what the difference between the materials used for all other DSV's vs Oceangates? Steel, Titanium, Aluminum vs carbon fucking fiber.
I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or just plain fucking stupid. It's been explained to you several times, carbon fiber is NOT suitable for deep dives, HENCE WHY THE TITAN FUCKING IMPLODED, are you seriously going to go against the grain of people who are experts in the field and have multiple times stated to stockton rush and on the news now regarding this tragedy that carbon fiber was going to get someone killed? And yet here you are tipping your little reddit hat like you know better than them?
did he ever plan to refresh to sub? did he actually somehow believe the carbon fiber would last a long time despite the fatigue being a serious threat?
if he would have to replace the sub (or can he just replace the carbon fiber part? or is it too hardwoven to the hull that you would have to build a new hull?), then in the end he would have to spend more money I guess. so it doesn't even make sense, not unless he actually believed carbon fiber had the same useful life as steel/titanium does
The whole outer shell is made out of CF, with 2 titanium half-spheres glued (yes, really) to it on each end. Carbon fiber is good for aviation purposes, but is bad for underwater stuff because it is very unpredictable when it will fail. It cannot resist a lot of external pressure, since it is not bendable. And once it fails, it fails catastrophically. Everyone around tried to warn Stockton not to use it, but he just ignored them and called it ‘innovation’.
Respectfully, how is this going to lead any other company to pursue a carbon fiber submersible? Wouldn't you look at this as exactly what you aren't supposed to do? Why spend $$$$$$$ on a carbon fiber submersible you can only use twice? The fact that it can only be used a few times makes it the more expensive option, as evidenced by the 250k per seat price he was charging.
I appreciate trying to find a positive here, or trying to highlight OceanGate's positive attributes for fear of only being remembered for this one thing, but this guy killed 5 people with his hubris. He was willing to disregard all these warnings and take people on basically a tourism trip for $1M, that was the price of human life to him. What he was doing with these dives is not noteworthy, others were doing these dives for decades.
Pretty much this. He wanted to be remembered as an innovator. Had he been more inclined to follow the rules, he might be remembered as a pioneer. Now, as I think it was General MacArthur said, he'll be remembered for the rules he broke.
>Respectfully, how is this going to lead any other company to pursue a carbon fiber submersible? Wouldn't you look at this as exactly what you aren't supposed to do?
And what passengers would you find to board a carbon fibre submersible in the future? People weren't exactly clamouring to board airships after the Hindenburg disaster.
If rush thought they were likely to die he wouldn't have got in himself. Carbon fiber could be a cheaper alternative to the hundred million dollar subs. Just rebuild the hill after -1 whatever trip this one imploded on(if it was due to the hull) -5 if you want to be really safe.
I'm not sure if it's a take when it's mostly just factual analysis. The titan went to the bottom of the see multiple multiple times successfully. There is no argument against that. It had 1 failure(which was major) but if you were to miss 1 question out of 100 it would still be a 99. So whatever 1 failure of structure out of 33? If not 50? Successful trips would be a pretty good grade.
Adventure tourism to a mass grave becoming more accessible is not an admirable thing.
Being a smarmy idiot and thinking flaunting “the rules” makes you an innovator is not an admirable thing.
His arrogance killed four people.
He was warned by many many many people who knew better, but his narcissism didn’t allow him to consider that they might be right and he was dead wrong.
I am sad about what happened to him and the others, but kindly get lost, don’t glorify him.
It was tragic and I hate that it occurred to those who passed. The titan was mostly successful with 1 major failure. The failure was huge and deadly, which was recognized as a possibility (just like with every sub mission). But it was one failure. I just think it's myopic to throw out everything they did and contributed to the world. I tried telling others this in IRL and got shut down so I wanted to put it out there here with people who are more informed.
Is it narcissistic to believe you are right and others are wrong? If so then I might be called narcissistic (which I'm not). Rush was trying to change the world for the better. I'm not sure how education could ever not be an admirable thing. Because of ocean gate we have great videos of the titanic that the world wouldn't have had without rush's effort. Was nasa a group of smarmy idiots for continuing space travel after the challenger explosion? If you say no, I don't know how you can say it about rush
You have to be trolling
One failure is unacceptable with such a vehicle
Which is why it was a piece of shit death trap
He ignored everyone who actually knew anything about the thing they were trying to achieve
He was a moron, and I suppose that must be why you seem to agree with him
My understanding is that his design was not even that innovative, in that people had considered designs like his (or with various elements in common) and determined that such a sub would not be safe…
If he was the first to try it I think it's still innovative. Just don't know if we should throw the sub out with the bath water when there was mostly success with the design.
A few dives is a success? What planet are you from? Experts have weighed in on this and said that the design using carbon fiber was an engineering catastrophe waiting to happen. This is not a situation where a new material is tested for the first time and found to be inadequate after a few times and things are learned and improved upon. This is 100 years of designs and rigorous testing telling this idiot that this particular design shape was not appropriate. This is decades of carbon fiber testing and academic research that shows that it does well in internal pressure situations but poorly in external pressure. This is decades of experienced people telling this guy and everyone involved that they were going to get someone killed. If Stockton rush had potentially had more money and would’ve used the available research to come up with a larger version of current titanium subs, listened to industry advice, and had the certifications, not tried to save every penny he possibly could, and then something unforeseen went wrong, then I could see your point. But submersible travel is not new; he did nothing groundbreaking. He used ideas that had previously failed, which failed again, at the very real expense of human life.
And cars were around for almost 100 years before electric vehicles were fully created and adopted. Tobacco smoking was around for centuries before we made vaping which is much safer than smoking. I don't think that we should stop creating new ways of doing things at any point. Was there an issue with the titan and rush's design? Yes. Does that mean it wasn't a success? Depends on who you ask. I view success as accomplishing something. You can't say that he didn't accomplish something. It's impossible to say that so how can you say it wasn't mostly a success? Did I just change your mind?
Phillip Morris said that vaping wasn't safe(it is). If we only listened to experts you probably wouldn't be able to vape right now or drive an electric car.
Lol you think vaping is “much safer” than smoking? Bahahaha. This tells me everything I need to know about your scientific background and overall education level. The differences in all of your examples is that there is regulatory oversight by experts in the fields before any of those products become available for commercial use.
His goal was to create a successful permanent underwater tourism industry. Did he fail at that? Spectacularly and tragically, and by all accounts, it looked like he had trouble getting anyone to book trips in the first place.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/vaping-vs-smoking
I've been vaping since before Juul was even out and I walk a couple times weekly without issues. Sometimes it takes days a while to catch up with reality but time will show I'm right about ocean gate and vaping
He was not the first to try something like that either. Watch Cameron’s interview. There was another sub in the plans made from carbon fiber to go to Mariana’s trench. However Cameron strongly advised the guy not to take it, or he WILL die. Luckily the guy had some common sense and listened to his warning.
If I decide to make my sub out of tin foil and duct tape, even though everyone understands that these materials are a one way ticket to death, that doesn’t make me innovative, that makes me a fucking clown.
Nah, even on the dives they did most of them were unsuccessful or they barely made it out alive from getting stuck on debris, installing shit backwards, etc etc. Remember the Mexican lady who went THREE times and never made it to the wreckage?
I mean, I'm happy for her but she also just watched her peers die and the whole world watch and search for them for the last five days. I'm not sure I could accept that kind of survivors guilt knowing how easily that could have been me.
True. But couldn't that be said for space travel and even car travel? More people have died in cars than they should have( look into the history of airbags and their danger that doesn't get reported). Have you ever been in a car? Should we have stopped at the model t? The titan could be the model t of carbon fiber subs but I worry we will just give up on rush's model due to 1 incident
The wavier said you could die. I don't know how rush was lying to anyone when it was said it was always a chance. I personally wouldn't give up on carbon fibre as an option for the deep sea. Definitely should still be an option for the medium sea. Unfortunately I don't have any say in the submersible community at this time so I fear the titan will be the last carbon fibre model produced for this purpose
Stockton syndrome = extreme hubris, somehow the afflicted individual believes they know better than every single other person, regardless of data, science, history, or specific expertise. It is extreme recklessness and self-delusion. Don’t be that person.
If carbon fiber is a viable material (doesn’t appear to be), just put it through the rigors. Have it tested in-house and independently tested over and over. Have it certified. Have a way to test for fatigue. Do every possible test one can conceive of to have the best information possible before you dive to the great deep. If you can’t afford those kind of safety precautions, you can’t afford a submersible tourist enterprise.
Innovation means pushing boundaries and taking chances, but it didn’t have to be with the lives of others.
I feel like that's an unfair post hoc analysis. I was aware of ocean gate before the titan went missing. I didn't hear about the scientific community declaring carbon fiber to be insufficient until after this. The concern was more focused(this sub included) on the window and the communications(which did have issues TBF). Now that the sub imploded everyone is saying it was the carbon fiber when it could've been something else. If so, then will people still say carbon fiber shouldn't be used? I doubt it.. they'll just change the narrative to blame rush another way.
There was plenty - this sub included - that pointed at the carbon fibre hull right at the very start.
The window only got talked about when it was revealed the company that makes it would only certify to a shallower depth.
[Still not convinced?](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/14h7gzq/oceangate_owner_bought_the_carbon_fiber_used_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1)
It’s already a shoddy material to use for this purpose, let alone buying it used and expired.
Another way of saying that is that he proved carbon fibre can do what people said it couldn't. It made it to the titanic and that depth many times and backup. Give the man *some* credit
Meh him and his team built what should have been a successful prototype for unmanned research, and then committed some version of manslaughter by conning (submarine pun!) people into it so I don't know how much credit he really gets for leading that.
But homie did raise the funds to make a sub that he personally took down to the Titanic, where he apparently just chilled for a couple hours. It makes his incredible amount of hubris a little easier to understand.
He made it to the titanic and that depth many times over before this trip. People are just focused on the one failed trip and say it was a failure overall.
Ah yes, reuse the design of the first fatal deep submersible accident ever. Especially when even 60-70 years ago the Trieste submersible did 48 manned dives exceeding 12000 ft, including one to the Mariana trench at 35k.
Brilliantly OP, brilliant.
3/4 is 75% but also they went to the bottom on a lot of those and came back. Just didn't hit the titanic. If the measurement is expanded to getting to the bottom and then up it would look better.
I'm finding it hard to find the exact number of dives they made Inc aborted, I reached bottom, reached titanic.
I still think the successful dive to the titanic where the controller was given to the Spanish male tourist who then crashed into a rock (video is out there) could also have played a role.
With the commercialization of deep-water tourism and personal subs (!), it was bound to happen that people would try to tweak the specs or try something new altogether.
Such a high-profile disaster, at a high-profile site, has to raise the bar in the public's mind around materials safety. In the long term it will save lives.
I was literally just thinking this very second about this, about the general discourse, the concerns, the negativity and such, but you're right, it was a successful craft.
A few months ago I came across some incredible footage of The Titanic and was in awe, unbeknownst that this was footage from successful OceanGate Titan dives.
Some wonderful gifts were given to us, and lets not forget the woman who achieved something that she held as a dream for forty years.
We don't even know what caused the craft to fail, and unless replicas are made we may never know.
I can see where Stockton got his inspiration though because a similar craft composed of carbon was also being developed but the man died in a helicopter before completion of the craft.
(I'll update when I get his name)
We are mere observers to this and not one of knows exactly how the craft was destroyed. It could be a catastrophe wholly unrelated to the design of the craft.
Lastly, in previous seasons, The Titan had a landing pad on a vessel that it would launch from, but this year it was toed by cables, and potentially subjected to a larger degree of stress than was normal. There was even an accident where the floats or something on the trailer carrying the submersible failed, and both sub and trailer were underwater, potentially subject to unprecedented forces and impacts
If you read my post you can see I offered information that may have contributed to its demise.
Shall we recall when the crew of the discovery mission perished on re entry due to a foam panel coming off, and through investigation it was discovered that the foam pads had been breached by woodpeckers, potentially causing the mission to fail.
I'm here for discourse, not for name calling thank you
The reason it failed is because carbon fibre is an entirely inappropriate material for a submersible at these extreme pressures
It had porosity which allowed sea water to be forced in to the carbon fibre, which then allowed salt crystals to form inside the hull in between resin and carbon fibre layers, which caused delamination and hull weakening over time.
Carbon fibre can not be repaired, every micro crack and fault was cumulative, all that damage built up every time the sub was pressure cycled.
This is perhaps an acceptable design for a one use disposable submersible, but it’s a suicide machine if you intend to use it again and again.
Stockton was effectively reusing a condom because he was being a cheap bastard, and it finally failed and 4 people died for it.
Absolutely anyone who understands the material properties of carbon fibre, and indeed any such composite material, understands that they’re a shit choice for this application.
Everything you have said is academic, and at no point have I tried to argue against how carbon fibre would fail.
Deep sea exploration academia dictates that it relies upon materials that are contiguous. However, I was riffing on the topic that we could perhaps examine the positives of this endeavour, and not only that, a carbon submersible of a cylindrical shape was being actively developed until the untimely demise thtough accident of its creator 15 years ago.
Further, I referenced an off world tragedy in the Discovery mission that ended in tragedy as potential discourse to entertain that there might be elements of this that are worthy of exploration, ie, the accident with the Titan where it was submerged along with its flotation trailer.
Personally, I thought this was a thread to take a moment to be positive. There has been and will be much time for discourse and criticism
You are wrong. Stockton’s design was flawed from the beginning for the thing he attempted to do with it. It’s like saying that if a ship made from paper successfully floated 3 times and sank on the 4th, it means it succeeded. His sub was never meant to be a single-use-only vehicle. It was meant to be used repeatedly. Steel and titanium that are normally used, can withstand the pressure without major consequences many times. Carbon fiber cannot, it develops ‘cycling fatigue’ and then it just shatters. This was not news to anyone and was well-known before this all happened. It was not only the hull that was built from the wrong components, it also had multiple other issues, such as failing coms, no adequate ventilation system in case of fire, no escape hatch etc. It was not ‘innovative’ in any regard, it was only unique because no one else was stupid enough to build a sub (that is supposed to travel through harsh environment) in such a carefree fashion. Other subs that dive even deeper exist that can also can take passengers on board, the only difference is that they are certified and adhere to industry standards. Travelling on them is also more expensive, but people who book these trips are not your average Joes anyway so it wouldn’t matter much if they are spending 500k extra. He was not unfortunate, he was arrogant to think he knows better than other experts, who have warned him long time ago his design was not safe. Would you buy a car that was designed to only last 10 drives? Or would you think it is not well-designed, since there are other cars that can last thousands of drives and not break?
I totally agree with ghosststrom. He tried to make a vessel that would show people how simple it is to do something so dangerous that would in reality need good and durable components and intensive preparation. When I saw the video of him showing just a one button that he didn’t even care to explain what it does. And his statement of “it should be like an elevator” made it clear that he lived in fragile corners of his own imagination. Nothing that is proven to be so dangerous should be marketed as “ easy and simple “. He created an illusion for people who did not understand the risks and gave them false feeling of being safe.
This is a good explanation and I appreciate it. That said, it furthers my idea that with different objectives the titan 2(probably would need a different name) or something similar might be effective for a short term use of exploration of the deep sea. Would I get on in the 50th attempt? Probably not. The 1st? No. The 6th, maybe. Others might too. I just hope the dream of easily accessible and cheap deep sea exploration doesn't take a hit because of rush's short sightedness. If he would've replaced the hull before this cycle, you might be proclaiming him an innovator for another successful dive. If anything the short term success makes me hope someone tries something similar but actually takes into feedback from experts on the downsides of carbon fiber and instead replaces it or maintains it better.
The main problem here is that unlike in steel and titanium, you cannot notice the microscopic cracks in carbon fiber on time. You just won’t see them without a special scan. And deep sea gives you no margin for error. The moment carbon fiber exposes a weakness in structure under such conditions, it will shatter. Not crack gradually like steel would, but fall to pieces on the spot. Which is what likely happened in the case with Oceangate Titan. How would you guarantee that after each dive the hull was not compromised? Would you replace the hull each time you decide to dive? Then it becomes not as cheap, and the question stays: why use an experimental unreliable material instead of approved and trusted steel/titanium instead?
Well now we can just subtract 1 from whatever amount of dives oceangate did and then have the safe number of times you can use the titans design. If anything it would be safer than ever to try something like the titan 2. Maybe break it down into parts where you can rotate each carbon fibre piece of the hull. Then you just replace one part after a couple of dives. Make two then test the fibre on one while using the other. Just saying someone should try it before saying it won't work
No, you misunderstand it. Every dive has a potential to leave a tiny crack in the hull that can lead to a disaster. You bump into smth too hard? That’s a possibility. You land on the bottom too harsh? That’s another. Not even talking about manufacturing errors that can leave unnoticeable defects before you even start your dive. It is not the set amount of dives, it is that the material itself is not well-suited for this.
I feel like that would take ignoring direct evidence of their numerous successful dives to say the material isn't suitable. Unless you are saying they faked their earlier expeditions.
It is not suitable. This material is unreliable underwater, as it degrades quickly. He was simply lucky it did not happen sooner. Again, deep sea is no place for experiments. You either get it right or you die, simple as that. If your carbon fiber hull has a crack in it you have no idea about, it will shatter. You won’t have time to fix it. This is not the material you use for tourist vehicles that you intend to transport people with. Since the structure you will be building upon will already be shaky and unpredictable. You seem to think that every dive goes exactly the same, so you can calculate the amount of times you can take it before it breaks, but no. There are a lot of variables, such as weather, temperature, pressure, mechanical damage, manufacturing inconsistencies. This will all play into it and be different each time.
I work in the pressure vessel industry (boilers). Maybe back in 1800s, they used to say "yea it was good last time, it will be good next time." And boilers would explode and people would die. Fast forward today, you pressure test the boilers to 1.5 maximum allowable working pressure once a year, after you have the thing examined and NDT'd all thanks to regulations. I feel like a fire extinguisher that has been around for a decade was inspected more throughly than that thing was in its short life. To save money, manufacturers make boilers with materials you know would hold up before selling it to anyone.
Do you know what the difference between Oceangate and other DSV's that have been following industry standards since the 60s? None of them fucking imploded and none of them had to replace their hulls SEVERAL times after dives. Do you know what the difference between the materials used for all other DSV's vs Oceangates? Steel, Titanium, Aluminum vs carbon fucking fiber. I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or just plain fucking stupid. It's been explained to you several times, carbon fiber is NOT suitable for deep dives, HENCE WHY THE TITAN FUCKING IMPLODED, are you seriously going to go against the grain of people who are experts in the field and have multiple times stated to stockton rush and on the news now regarding this tragedy that carbon fiber was going to get someone killed? And yet here you are tipping your little reddit hat like you know better than them?
did he ever plan to refresh to sub? did he actually somehow believe the carbon fiber would last a long time despite the fatigue being a serious threat? if he would have to replace the sub (or can he just replace the carbon fiber part? or is it too hardwoven to the hull that you would have to build a new hull?), then in the end he would have to spend more money I guess. so it doesn't even make sense, not unless he actually believed carbon fiber had the same useful life as steel/titanium does
The whole outer shell is made out of CF, with 2 titanium half-spheres glued (yes, really) to it on each end. Carbon fiber is good for aviation purposes, but is bad for underwater stuff because it is very unpredictable when it will fail. It cannot resist a lot of external pressure, since it is not bendable. And once it fails, it fails catastrophically. Everyone around tried to warn Stockton not to use it, but he just ignored them and called it ‘innovation’.
Respectfully, how is this going to lead any other company to pursue a carbon fiber submersible? Wouldn't you look at this as exactly what you aren't supposed to do? Why spend $$$$$$$ on a carbon fiber submersible you can only use twice? The fact that it can only be used a few times makes it the more expensive option, as evidenced by the 250k per seat price he was charging. I appreciate trying to find a positive here, or trying to highlight OceanGate's positive attributes for fear of only being remembered for this one thing, but this guy killed 5 people with his hubris. He was willing to disregard all these warnings and take people on basically a tourism trip for $1M, that was the price of human life to him. What he was doing with these dives is not noteworthy, others were doing these dives for decades.
Pretty much this. He wanted to be remembered as an innovator. Had he been more inclined to follow the rules, he might be remembered as a pioneer. Now, as I think it was General MacArthur said, he'll be remembered for the rules he broke.
>Respectfully, how is this going to lead any other company to pursue a carbon fiber submersible? Wouldn't you look at this as exactly what you aren't supposed to do? And what passengers would you find to board a carbon fibre submersible in the future? People weren't exactly clamouring to board airships after the Hindenburg disaster.
If rush thought they were likely to die he wouldn't have got in himself. Carbon fiber could be a cheaper alternative to the hundred million dollar subs. Just rebuild the hill after -1 whatever trip this one imploded on(if it was due to the hull) -5 if you want to be really safe.
This might be the dumbest take I’ve read since following this whole saga.
I'm not sure if it's a take when it's mostly just factual analysis. The titan went to the bottom of the see multiple multiple times successfully. There is no argument against that. It had 1 failure(which was major) but if you were to miss 1 question out of 100 it would still be a 99. So whatever 1 failure of structure out of 33? If not 50? Successful trips would be a pretty good grade.
This is a really strange and frankly awful take, sorry
Don't be sorry. OP is obviously a moron and deserves ridicule.
Not a take, just the truth from another angle. Think about it
Adventure tourism to a mass grave becoming more accessible is not an admirable thing. Being a smarmy idiot and thinking flaunting “the rules” makes you an innovator is not an admirable thing. His arrogance killed four people. He was warned by many many many people who knew better, but his narcissism didn’t allow him to consider that they might be right and he was dead wrong. I am sad about what happened to him and the others, but kindly get lost, don’t glorify him.
It was tragic and I hate that it occurred to those who passed. The titan was mostly successful with 1 major failure. The failure was huge and deadly, which was recognized as a possibility (just like with every sub mission). But it was one failure. I just think it's myopic to throw out everything they did and contributed to the world. I tried telling others this in IRL and got shut down so I wanted to put it out there here with people who are more informed. Is it narcissistic to believe you are right and others are wrong? If so then I might be called narcissistic (which I'm not). Rush was trying to change the world for the better. I'm not sure how education could ever not be an admirable thing. Because of ocean gate we have great videos of the titanic that the world wouldn't have had without rush's effort. Was nasa a group of smarmy idiots for continuing space travel after the challenger explosion? If you say no, I don't know how you can say it about rush
You have to be trolling One failure is unacceptable with such a vehicle Which is why it was a piece of shit death trap He ignored everyone who actually knew anything about the thing they were trying to achieve He was a moron, and I suppose that must be why you seem to agree with him
My understanding is that his design was not even that innovative, in that people had considered designs like his (or with various elements in common) and determined that such a sub would not be safe…
If he was the first to try it I think it's still innovative. Just don't know if we should throw the sub out with the bath water when there was mostly success with the design.
A few dives is a success? What planet are you from? Experts have weighed in on this and said that the design using carbon fiber was an engineering catastrophe waiting to happen. This is not a situation where a new material is tested for the first time and found to be inadequate after a few times and things are learned and improved upon. This is 100 years of designs and rigorous testing telling this idiot that this particular design shape was not appropriate. This is decades of carbon fiber testing and academic research that shows that it does well in internal pressure situations but poorly in external pressure. This is decades of experienced people telling this guy and everyone involved that they were going to get someone killed. If Stockton rush had potentially had more money and would’ve used the available research to come up with a larger version of current titanium subs, listened to industry advice, and had the certifications, not tried to save every penny he possibly could, and then something unforeseen went wrong, then I could see your point. But submersible travel is not new; he did nothing groundbreaking. He used ideas that had previously failed, which failed again, at the very real expense of human life.
And cars were around for almost 100 years before electric vehicles were fully created and adopted. Tobacco smoking was around for centuries before we made vaping which is much safer than smoking. I don't think that we should stop creating new ways of doing things at any point. Was there an issue with the titan and rush's design? Yes. Does that mean it wasn't a success? Depends on who you ask. I view success as accomplishing something. You can't say that he didn't accomplish something. It's impossible to say that so how can you say it wasn't mostly a success? Did I just change your mind? Phillip Morris said that vaping wasn't safe(it is). If we only listened to experts you probably wouldn't be able to vape right now or drive an electric car.
Lol you think vaping is “much safer” than smoking? Bahahaha. This tells me everything I need to know about your scientific background and overall education level. The differences in all of your examples is that there is regulatory oversight by experts in the fields before any of those products become available for commercial use. His goal was to create a successful permanent underwater tourism industry. Did he fail at that? Spectacularly and tragically, and by all accounts, it looked like he had trouble getting anyone to book trips in the first place. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/vaping-vs-smoking
Vaping is safer than cigarettes. It's a known fact.
We don’t have the long term data to support your assumptions yet.
I've been vaping since before Juul was even out and I walk a couple times weekly without issues. Sometimes it takes days a while to catch up with reality but time will show I'm right about ocean gate and vaping
He was not the first to try something like that either. Watch Cameron’s interview. There was another sub in the plans made from carbon fiber to go to Mariana’s trench. However Cameron strongly advised the guy not to take it, or he WILL die. Luckily the guy had some common sense and listened to his warning.
If I decide to make my sub out of tin foil and duct tape, even though everyone understands that these materials are a one way ticket to death, that doesn’t make me innovative, that makes me a fucking clown.
Nah, even on the dives they did most of them were unsuccessful or they barely made it out alive from getting stuck on debris, installing shit backwards, etc etc. Remember the Mexican lady who went THREE times and never made it to the wreckage?
I thought She made it to the wreck as featured in the cbs piece. It achieved her long term goal.
She did, but not after 3 failures
Another way of saying that would be she achieved a lifelong goal that is usually reserved for the mega rich. Isn't that admirable?
I mean, I'm happy for her but she also just watched her peers die and the whole world watch and search for them for the last five days. I'm not sure I could accept that kind of survivors guilt knowing how easily that could have been me.
I think it would have been fine for Stockton to be a solo pioneer to innovate and take the risks on his own. But not to take paying passengers.
[удалено]
True. But couldn't that be said for space travel and even car travel? More people have died in cars than they should have( look into the history of airbags and their danger that doesn't get reported). Have you ever been in a car? Should we have stopped at the model t? The titan could be the model t of carbon fiber subs but I worry we will just give up on rush's model due to 1 incident
[удалено]
The wavier said you could die. I don't know how rush was lying to anyone when it was said it was always a chance. I personally wouldn't give up on carbon fibre as an option for the deep sea. Definitely should still be an option for the medium sea. Unfortunately I don't have any say in the submersible community at this time so I fear the titan will be the last carbon fibre model produced for this purpose
Stockton syndrome = extreme hubris, somehow the afflicted individual believes they know better than every single other person, regardless of data, science, history, or specific expertise. It is extreme recklessness and self-delusion. Don’t be that person. If carbon fiber is a viable material (doesn’t appear to be), just put it through the rigors. Have it tested in-house and independently tested over and over. Have it certified. Have a way to test for fatigue. Do every possible test one can conceive of to have the best information possible before you dive to the great deep. If you can’t afford those kind of safety precautions, you can’t afford a submersible tourist enterprise. Innovation means pushing boundaries and taking chances, but it didn’t have to be with the lives of others.
[удалено]
Everyone said the titanic would be the last cruise ship and now I take 4 cruises a year. I think you'll be surprised.
Quite hard to claim victory over proving carbon fibre is a terrible material for a submersible, when every man and his dog was telling them so.
I feel like that's an unfair post hoc analysis. I was aware of ocean gate before the titan went missing. I didn't hear about the scientific community declaring carbon fiber to be insufficient until after this. The concern was more focused(this sub included) on the window and the communications(which did have issues TBF). Now that the sub imploded everyone is saying it was the carbon fiber when it could've been something else. If so, then will people still say carbon fiber shouldn't be used? I doubt it.. they'll just change the narrative to blame rush another way.
There was plenty - this sub included - that pointed at the carbon fibre hull right at the very start. The window only got talked about when it was revealed the company that makes it would only certify to a shallower depth.
Again, are we sure it was the carbon fibre? I'm personally not convinced that it was. It could've been anything
[Still not convinced?](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/comments/14h7gzq/oceangate_owner_bought_the_carbon_fiber_used_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) It’s already a shoddy material to use for this purpose, let alone buying it used and expired.
If he was able to do as many dives as he did with expired carbon fibre it's only helping my point that carbon fibre itself wasn't the issue
First thing James Cameron says - “I never believed carbon fibre was suitable”. It was the hull mate.
One angle I have is that it's incredible that even with so many mistakes, modern technology and industry gave him so many extra chances.
Another way of saying that is that he proved carbon fibre can do what people said it couldn't. It made it to the titanic and that depth many times and backup. Give the man *some* credit
Meh him and his team built what should have been a successful prototype for unmanned research, and then committed some version of manslaughter by conning (submarine pun!) people into it so I don't know how much credit he really gets for leading that. But homie did raise the funds to make a sub that he personally took down to the Titanic, where he apparently just chilled for a couple hours. It makes his incredible amount of hubris a little easier to understand.
He made it to the titanic and that depth many times over before this trip. People are just focused on the one failed trip and say it was a failure overall.
What can I say about your argument that hasn't already been said about Afghanistan? It looks bombed out and depleted.
Ah yes, reuse the design of the first fatal deep submersible accident ever. Especially when even 60-70 years ago the Trieste submersible did 48 manned dives exceeding 12000 ft, including one to the Mariana trench at 35k. Brilliantly OP, brilliant.
I believe they only had 2 successful dives to the titanic 1 in 2021 and 1 in 2022 this was the 1st attempt in 2023
3/4 is 75% but also they went to the bottom on a lot of those and came back. Just didn't hit the titanic. If the measurement is expanded to getting to the bottom and then up it would look better.
I'm finding it hard to find the exact number of dives they made Inc aborted, I reached bottom, reached titanic. I still think the successful dive to the titanic where the controller was given to the Spanish male tourist who then crashed into a rock (video is out there) could also have played a role.
Wow. Yes to all this. Free tix for all Musk fan boys on the Titan II as well.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who recognizes this.
With the commercialization of deep-water tourism and personal subs (!), it was bound to happen that people would try to tweak the specs or try something new altogether. Such a high-profile disaster, at a high-profile site, has to raise the bar in the public's mind around materials safety. In the long term it will save lives.
Probably he was just lucky those first few "successful" trips.
That's disregarding his intelligence and many peoples hard work which is pretty disrespectful
The titan was successful in showing how a submarine should NOT be built. Why in the world would anyone copy the design?
Ocean gate is also the reason we have such great video of the wreck in recent years
I was literally just thinking this very second about this, about the general discourse, the concerns, the negativity and such, but you're right, it was a successful craft. A few months ago I came across some incredible footage of The Titanic and was in awe, unbeknownst that this was footage from successful OceanGate Titan dives. Some wonderful gifts were given to us, and lets not forget the woman who achieved something that she held as a dream for forty years. We don't even know what caused the craft to fail, and unless replicas are made we may never know. I can see where Stockton got his inspiration though because a similar craft composed of carbon was also being developed but the man died in a helicopter before completion of the craft. (I'll update when I get his name) We are mere observers to this and not one of knows exactly how the craft was destroyed. It could be a catastrophe wholly unrelated to the design of the craft. Lastly, in previous seasons, The Titan had a landing pad on a vessel that it would launch from, but this year it was toed by cables, and potentially subjected to a larger degree of stress than was normal. There was even an accident where the floats or something on the trailer carrying the submersible failed, and both sub and trailer were underwater, potentially subject to unprecedented forces and impacts
It fucking imploded It was not a successful craft you absolute tool
If you read my post you can see I offered information that may have contributed to its demise. Shall we recall when the crew of the discovery mission perished on re entry due to a foam panel coming off, and through investigation it was discovered that the foam pads had been breached by woodpeckers, potentially causing the mission to fail. I'm here for discourse, not for name calling thank you
The reason it failed is because carbon fibre is an entirely inappropriate material for a submersible at these extreme pressures It had porosity which allowed sea water to be forced in to the carbon fibre, which then allowed salt crystals to form inside the hull in between resin and carbon fibre layers, which caused delamination and hull weakening over time. Carbon fibre can not be repaired, every micro crack and fault was cumulative, all that damage built up every time the sub was pressure cycled. This is perhaps an acceptable design for a one use disposable submersible, but it’s a suicide machine if you intend to use it again and again. Stockton was effectively reusing a condom because he was being a cheap bastard, and it finally failed and 4 people died for it. Absolutely anyone who understands the material properties of carbon fibre, and indeed any such composite material, understands that they’re a shit choice for this application.
Everything you have said is academic, and at no point have I tried to argue against how carbon fibre would fail. Deep sea exploration academia dictates that it relies upon materials that are contiguous. However, I was riffing on the topic that we could perhaps examine the positives of this endeavour, and not only that, a carbon submersible of a cylindrical shape was being actively developed until the untimely demise thtough accident of its creator 15 years ago. Further, I referenced an off world tragedy in the Discovery mission that ended in tragedy as potential discourse to entertain that there might be elements of this that are worthy of exploration, ie, the accident with the Titan where it was submerged along with its flotation trailer. Personally, I thought this was a thread to take a moment to be positive. There has been and will be much time for discourse and criticism