For those who are unaware: A couple billionaires, a pilot, and one of the billionaires’ son are currently stuck inside an extremely tiny sub a couple thousand meters under the sea (inside of the sub with the guys above).

They were supposed to dive down to the titanic, but lost connection about halfway down. They’ve been missing for the past 48 hours, and have 2 days until the oxygen in the sub runs out. Do you think they’ll make it?

  • stewsters@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I suspect they imploded.

    These super deep subs are traditionally not reused very long, because the stress of the water pressing and then releasing weakens them. The more compression-decompression cycles they take the faster they degrade.

    From all the reports, they got a lot of reports of issues that they ignored. I read that one of the reporters who saw it found it to be very jury rigged together. Apparently it was not certified in any way.

    Even if they did survive and the ballast worked correctly, they would surface quickly (decompression sickness?) and cannot open the hatch from the inside. The thing doesn’t float above the water, so its going to be a pain to find. Also they didn’t paint it bright orange with blinking lights, its white, gray, and blue.

    Overall, a lot of poor decisions and ignoring advice lead to disaster.

    • Overzeetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Of all the various ways to provide emergency rescue assistance, it appears that they’ve included almost nothing which would help them in the event of an underwater failure that prevented surfacing (i.e. emergency ballast release failing).

      Apparently it was not certified in any way

      My understanding of this is limited to the two paragraphs on CNN, but there is a process for “classing” vessels. The owners decided not to do so as the process only certified that the vessel itself is safe for use, and does not verify the procedures for operation or the training of the crew. Their logic for not classing was that most ocean failures are the result of poor procedures or poor crew decisions, ignoring entirely that the reason most failures fall into those to cases is because the vessels themselves are vetted (via the classing process) to eliminate the hardware as a failure mode. It’s almost poetic that the man in charge of that decision is on the craft.

      • Tsinc@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I think, if they would try to resurface by something like releasing ballast only, the ship should ascend faster and faster, i think they would jump out of the water and crush into the surface of the ocean.

        Also, the inner air pressure of a submarine needs to be regulated when ascending.

      • fubo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The owners decided not to do so as the process only certified that the vessel itself is safe for use, and does not verify the procedures for operation or the training of the crew. Their logic for not classing was that most ocean failures are the result of poor procedures or poor crew decisions, ignoring entirely that the reason most failures fall into those to cases is because the vessels themselves are vetted (via the classing process) to eliminate the hardware as a failure mode.

        Brilliant.

        All safety problems are root-caused to equipment or crew procedures. The equipment problems are eliminated through diligence and care, thus leaving only crew procedure problems.

        At this point, all remaining safety problems are crew procedure problems. This means equipment isn’t really much of a safety hazard and there’s no need for all that diligence and care about equipment, is there?

    • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if they did survive and the ballast worked correctly, they would surface quickly (decompression sickness?)

      Decompression sickness is a concern only if they suffered compression. But the main problem, as I see it, is that the sub was made from materials that are famously brittle and tend to degrade over many cycles of pressure and release (resin, carbon fiber, etc). So the likely failure mode is catastrophic failure of the sub under pressure.

      There’s a reason most deep sea stuff is made out of steel: it’s somewhat ductile and recovers from compression with minimal change in properties.

    • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not an expert, but I don’t think the air pressure inside the sub changes, so decompression sickness should be impossible. Don’t quote me on that, though

    • hydra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also these depths are usually only explored with unmanned drones, not makeshift tuna cans with store parts