Report: Titanic Sub’s Electrical System Designed by College Students

[Threadcutter308]

Not as deep as Rushs scars lulz. But in all seriousness I doubt the electrical system had anything to do with the implosion, my money is on that crap viewport. Rated at 4300 feet lets take it to 12000 cause I break rules durrrrrrrrrr.....

Most likely. Or the CF hull imploded. But, if the viewport did implode, I suppose the CF hull would suffer a combination of implosion and explosion, rendering it unto toothpick status.

Although, now that I think about it, the viewport was conical, as was the mating mounting surface in the titanium endbell. It seems to me that it would be a hell of a lot harder for it (the viewport) to travel inward (implode) than it would be to travel outward (explode). That would lead (me anyway) to a conclusion that the CF hull imploded. That is, unless the viewport just entirely shattered.

My impression has been that the viewport was not deficient.........as long as you didn't take it any deeper that it's rated depth. And, I think I saw somewhere that the viewport manufacturer refused to rate that particular viewport to anything greater than 4,300 feet. And, that they told Rush that they could build one that was rated for 4,000 meters, but he refused. He didn't want to pay the money for them to design/manufacture the 4,000 meter rated viewport.

 

[slowworm]

It would not surprise me in the least if the failure point is identified as the junction between the CF hull and the titanium hemisphere with the window in it.

I doubt that CF and titanium have a similar modulus, so they want to shrink under pressure at different rates. I suspect that caused a huge stress issue on the CF hull at the join, resulting in failure.

There is a reason pressure hulls (either under internal pressure or resisting pressure) are made of a contiguous material.

The design of the Saturn V S-II common bulkhead propellant/oxidizer tank ended up addressing some similar issues, but mainly due to the thermal gradient across the common bulkhead.

 

[Threadcutter308]

It would not surprise me in the least if the failure point is identified as the junction between the CF hull and the titanium hemisphere with the window in it.

I doubt that CF and titanium have a similar modulus, so they want to shrink under pressure at different rates. I suspect that caused a huge stress issue on the CF hull at the join, resulting in failure.

There is a reason pressure hulls (either under internal pressure or resisting pressure) are made of a contiguous material.

The design of the Saturn V S-II common bulkhead propellant/oxidizer tank ended up addressing some similar issues, but mainly due to the thermal gradient across the common bulkhead.

I have no pre-conceived notions of exactly what happened. I think your hypothesis is sound though.

As I recall, the batteries were under the floorboards, internal to the sub. The power and control lines would have had to pass through either the Titanium bulkheads, or the CF tube. I suppose it wouldn't surprise me to find out that someone had taken hole saws, cut hole(s) in the CF tube and tried their best to seal them up.

There indeed were controls (either manual or electrical/automatic) that actuated from the interior of the sub and controlled devices on the exterior. Which means they had to get wiring out to the devices somehow. Hell, there may even be a bunch of 5" thick CF plugs (from a hole saw) sitting around the shop. We'll likely never know.

I have virtually no experience with trying to seal holes in subs, or make sure that water (under extreme presure) does not gain access to the interior of the cable, through it's insulation. So, all I can do is guess.

I think that as the investigation proceeds, either the exact cause of failure will be determined, or the investigators will at least have enough information to make a pretty good educated guess. It may even be that investigators/experts pretty much already know, but they are going to do their diligence/dot their I's, cross their T's before releasing any findings.

 

[DocRDS]

A little current I'm detecting so I thought I share this wisdom:
If you are gaining to win the Nobel prize for theoretical work, you'll probably do it before age 30.

If you win for experimental work, you'll do it after age 50.

New ideas are great, but need to be tested by experience. You need both young and seasoned people to be successful.

Regarding Nasa and 29 years old: that's the young new idea crowd. College interns are 19-22. 28 y/o with a PHD is prime category 1. Astronauts were in the 30-40 range and provided the test pilot/experiment experience. As they were very vocal about pointing out--they were not "spam in a can"