Missing Submersible

[Talldarkandransome]

5 minutes ago, Genie said:

It does seem pretty ridiculous it’s bolted from the outside with no mechanism to open it from the inside in an emergency.

What if they’re bobbing around on the surface somewhere but die of lack of oxygen? 

If it was bobbing somewhere they would have spotted it by now. They wouldn't be allowed to have an option to open up from inside just incase someone did and they all drowned instead. Plus the pressures down there would make it impossible anyway.

[Panto_Villan]

7 minutes ago, Genie said:

It does seem pretty ridiculous it’s bolted from the outside with no mechanism to open it from the inside in an emergency.

What if they’re bobbing around on the surface somewhere but die of lack of oxygen? 

I don’t think there’s any other way to do it at the depths they’re diving to. It’s way deeper than the average submarine travels.

I think explosive bolts exist that can blast that type of door free in emergencies, but I doubt those would be a good idea on such a small submersible.

[Genie]

Just now, Talldarkandransome said:

If it was bobbing somewhere they would have spotted it by now. They wouldn't be allowed to have an option to open up from inside just incase someone did and they all drowned instead. Plus the pressures down there would make it impossible anyway.

Obviously opening it from 3.8km deep is a bad idea (impossible), but as a risk assessment they should have a way to do it from inside, even if it was an electric lock which was coded for example. It’s a massive own goal.

The fact planes are flying back and forth suggest there’s at least some slim chance it’s popped up somewhere. 

[Stevo985]

3 minutes ago, Talldarkandransome said:

They wouldn't be allowed to have an option to open up from inside just incase someone did and they all drowned instead. Plus the pressures down there would make it impossible anyway.

Why do they have doors on planes then?

It wouldn't be a door you could accidentally open by bumping into it. But to not have a door that at least the pilot could open in an emergency seems odd

[Talldarkandransome]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Obviously opening it from 3.8km deep is a bad idea (impossible), but as a risk assessment they should have a way to do it from inside, even if it was an electric lock which was coded for example. It’s a massive own goal.

The fact planes are flying back and forth suggest there’s at least some slim chance it’s popped up somewhere. 

 

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Why do they have doors on planes then?

It wouldn't be a door you could accidentally open by bumping into it. But to not have a door that at least the pilot could open in an emergency seems odd

I think generally on these subs they have a way of opening from the inside, but because they are carrying regular folk they might not be allowed to. I've only been in a sub once and that scared the shit out of me.

I don't know if it's possible to open a plane door at 30000 feet, I've wanted to before but I've never tried 

[Chindie]

I'd imagine making a sub with a way of opening from the inside that is also capable of going to 3000m down is very, very, very expensive. And this is clearly a bit of a 'make every penny count' operation, hence running the thing with a really crap Logitech controller and having hand written labels on random pipes, the last thing they're spending money on is a hatch that opens from the inside when that is only useful in a very narrow situation that isn't used in any normal scenario that the sub is going to find itself in. Even now it wouldn't be that useful, unless they're very close to the surface at worst. The money is going to go on the other stuff, like ensuring the thing doesn't crumple like a tin can at any great depth (hence it being partially made out of really bloody thick carbon fibre).

[Genie]

For example the mother ship sinks or gets into distress, submersible arrives back at the end of its mission and they all die because the bloke with the ratchet isn’t there.

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Talldarkandransome said:

 

I think generally on these subs they have a way of opening from the inside, but because they are carrying regular folk they might not be allowed to. I've only been in a sub once and that scared the shit out of me.

I don't know if it's possible to open a plane door at 30000 feet, I've wanted to before but I've never tried 

Yes, but you could open the door if the plane was on the ground, say on fire. You don’t need to wait for someone and his tool kit to let you out. 

[Genie]

6 minutes ago, Chindie said:

I'd imagine making a sub with a way of opening from the inside that is also capable of going to 3000m down is very, very, very expensive. And this is clearly a bit of a 'make every penny count' operation, hence running the thing with a really crap Logitech controller and having hand written labels on random pipes, the last thing they're spending money on is a hatch that opens from the inside when that is only useful in a very narrow situation that isn't used in any normal scenario that the sub is going to find itself in. Even now it wouldn't be that useful, unless they're very close to the surface at worst. The money is going to go on the other stuff, like ensuring the thing doesn't crumple like a tin can at any great depth (hence it being partially made out of really bloody thick carbon fibre).

I saw a video that showed a bloke literally bolting the lid shut from the outside with a ratchet type spanner. The lid could have an inner hatch with bolts inside, and an outer hatch with bolts pointing outwards. No major technology consuming all the profits.

Edit: Or they could have a second hatch that was bolted from the inside. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Genie

[chrisp65]

21 minutes ago, Genie said:

It does seem pretty ridiculous it’s bolted from the outside with no mechanism to open it from the inside in an emergency.

What if they’re bobbing around on the surface somewhere but die of lack of oxygen? 

It’s not been thought through has it, they’ve gamed the scenario where opening it at 3 kilometres down would kill you, they’ve not gamed bobbing around the Atlantic cos they didn’t install a distress beacon.

I’m not entirely sure they’ve had full value for money here.

[Panto_Villan]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Yes, but you could open the door if the plane was on the ground, say on fire. You don’t need to wait for someone and his tool kit to let you out. 

Yeah, but the difference in pressure between 30,000 feet and 3.8km under the sea is insane.

It’s about a quarter of normal air pressure at 30,000 feet. It’s 400 times normal pressure at those depths. The strength of the seal required is totally different.

[sidcow]

43 minutes ago, GarethRDR said:

Speak for yourself.

 

 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, Panto_Villan said:

Yeah, but the difference in pressure between 30,000 feet and 3.8km under the sea is insane.

It’s about a quarter of normal air pressure at 30,000 feet. It’s 400 times normal pressure at those depths. The strength of the seal required is totally different.

Sorry I think you’re missing the point I am making, I accept that opening it at 3.8km isn’t going to help anyone, but that is only 1 of the possible failure modes to consider when they were designing it.

What if they have strayed off on a current and are at or just below the surface, they could have let themselves out. What if there was an issue with the mother ship and they returned and it was gone?

What if Geoff the maintenance guy dropped the only 10mm socket in the sea?

It’s the same with a plane, opening the door at 30,000 feet is probably going to kill everyone on board but there’s other scenarios where it’s a good option to have. 

[delboy54]

32 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

It’ll defo be that one bloody allen key size you haven’t got. Always.

Hang on, hang on! I’m gonna stick my door key in at a jaunty angle and see if I can just, nope, nope, I’ve broken my door key.

I’m actually looking for a spoon or a knife now. Hang on…

Or they drop the only sized spanner into 4km deep water

[Panto_Villan]

8 minutes ago, Genie said:

Sorry I think you’re missing the point I am making, I accept that opening it at 3.8km isn’t going to help anyone, but that is only 1 of the possible failure modes to consider when they were designing it.

What if they have strayed off on a current and are at or just below the surface, they could have let themselves out. What if there was an issue with the mother ship and they returned and it was gone?

What if Geoff the maintenance guy dropped the only 10mm socket in the sea?

It’s the same with a plane, opening the door at 30,000 feet is probably going to kill everyone on board but there’s other scenarios where it’s a good option to have. 

Nah, I get what you’re saying. The point I’m making is that it just might not be physically possible to have a conventional seal / hatch that can be opened from inside that withstands that pressure. Because it’s 100x greater than what a plane needs to withstand.

So it might not be lack of planning, it might be that you need to choose either a hatch that opens from the inside or one that can withstand 400 atmospheres.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Panto_Villan

[delboy54]

The air pressure inside a plane at 30000 feet is higher than the air pressure outside. The doors of a plane are made so they seal better as the pressure inside forces the door shut.

In the deep sea the opposite is true, water pressure outside is huge compared with the air pressure inside and any "door" should be designed so that the water pressure forces the door seal closed. However bolting the door shut from the outside seems to be a poor design.

[Genie]

Ideally you’d have the option to open it from either outside or inside to cover off a variety of scenarios. Bit late for these guys now though unfortunately.

[tinker]

My guess is its trapped, probably  by the titanic. I have read an account of another Sub that visited the wreck and  was pushed into the prop by a current, they freed themselves by manoeuvring out of it.

The reported auto ballast drop after X amount of hours could have further compounded the issue and trapped them underneath a structure with no way out. 

The whole idea of going that deep for what amounts to a leisure activity is absurd. Risk versus reward ratio is hugely one sided. 

I do wonder who governs this type of vessel, is it covered by a regulatory body that inspects its engineering and its operational standards. I doubt the engineering has failed, its going to be human error ( getting to close) or maybe a failure after damage to the structure,.most likely an unreported event that has happened on the surface, an impact to the carbon fibre , a faulty torque wrench.....

The father and son aspect of it is tradgic,  I hope a miracle  occurs and they are all found safe and well . 

[sidcow]

Just now, tinker said:

My guess is its trapped, probably  by the titanic. I have read an account of another Sub that visited the wreck and  was pushed into the prop by a current, they freed themselves by manoeuvring out of it.

The reported auto ballast drop after X amount of hours could have further compounded the issue and trapped them underneath a structure with no way out. 

The whole idea of going that deep for what amounts to a leisure activity is absurd. Risk versus reward ratio is hugely one sided. 

I do wonder who governs this type of vessel, is it covered by a regulatory body that inspects its engineering and its operational standards. I doubt the engineering has failed, its going to be human error ( getting to close) or maybe a failure after damage to the structure,.most likely an unreported event that has happened on the surface, an impact to the carbon fibre , a faulty torque wrench.....

The father and son aspect of it is tradgic,  I hope a miracle  occurs and they are all found safe and well . 

No one regulates it or inspects or approves it.

The owners say that's a block on innovation so they just build it and go with no oversight.

At the end of the day I doubt you can force someone to subject themselves to scrutiny in international waters. 

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, tinker said:

I do wonder who governs this type of vessel, is it covered by a regulatory body that inspects its engineering and its operational standards. I doubt the engineering has failed, its going to be human error ( getting to close) or maybe a failure after damage to the structure,.most likely an unreported event that has happened on the surface, an impact to the carbon fibre , a faulty torque wrench.....

There's an article on the BBC now asking that exact question. They're basically asking if the innovation of this kind of exploration has happened faster than the regulation required has.

So they're effectively ahead of any regulations they'd have to meet