The Titan Submarine Found in Pieces. Lessons Need to be Learned including in Space.

 Well, it looks like the Titan submarine experienced a catastrophic hull failure. 

The US coastguard yesterday announced that the two titanium domes had been spotted by a remotely operated vehicle. 

The salient part missing from their statements was about the status of the bit in between: the carbon fibre tube holding the occupants of the sub.

Other commentators have stated the sub jettisoned ballast before the failure, so they may have known that there were issues before the final failure happened. But these are unconfirmed at this moment. It could be the sub failed and as that failure occurred the sub dropped ballast as it was designed to in an emergency.

I hope there is now a full investigation and proper experts start to examine the viability of the construction of this sub. Too many armchair experts online will muddy the waters, we need definitive information. Facts that can be used to inform others that may be tempted to use composites for sub hull construction in the future.

A lot of chatter on the internet is about how pressure vessels that withstand pressure from inside can be built out of carbon fibre, but not vessels that resist pressure from outside, citing that CF is stronger in tension than it is in compression. But I don't have the experience to comment on that.

All I can say is the sub was experimental. It was an experiment that cost lives. Hopefully any such innovations will be properly tested in future before humans are committed to be passengers.

Which brings me to space.

Currently NASA has the Starliner project, built by Boeing to take astronauts to the International Space Station.

On it's first attempt Starliner failed to make it because of software errors. The second attempt made it to the ISS, but there were several systems failures. The first prevented it lifting off on time and then when it did eventually lift off, there were issues with temperature control inside the craft and issues with thrusters, in one case a third redundant thruster had to fire when the first two failed.

To me that's getting there by the skin of your teeth. Hardly the ultra-safe system that is required for safe human flight in space.

I just wonder what sort of waiver NASA will make the first Starliner crew sign?

The Titan Submarine: How On Earth?

Well, the more I hear about the lost Titan Submarine, the more question the sanity of those operating it and those signing away their life to travel in it.

There are several issues concerning the sub. I'm sure the operators and builders had the best intentions, but just looking at videos of the hull being built gives me pause for thought.

Let's just look at that hull construction. 

The main part of the hull is a carbon fibre cylinder, with a five inch hull thickness.

This cylinder is then capped off by titanium domes, one with a perspex viewing port. The domes are fixed to metal collars glued to the ends of the carbon fibre cylinder.

Knowing high pressure vessels like I do as a layman, I do wonder if that glue can withstand the pressure of 6000psi. How did they verify the consistency of the seal? 

I do know the owner of the sub has taken it down to 3000m to test it, but I don't think it has been as deep as this dive before.

According to this article by the hull's builder, the designed service pressure is 6,600 PSI or around 4000m.with a safety margin of 2.25. Also the design parameters called for a hull thickness of less than 5 inches, but they rounded up to give it a better safety margin.

So the hull and the titanium end caps can withstand the pressure, but can that glue joint? I'm no high pressure composites expert, but hopefully there was something done to provide a better mechanical seal at extreme pressures and the glue itself wasn't the only thing holding back those 6000psi.

The other risky fact is that there is no releasable hatch. The occupants of the sub are sealed in from the outside. so if for example, the sub didn't implode or get stuck at the bottom and surfaced without mating with its carrying sled, there was no way for the occupants to exit the sub. For instance popping a hatch located above the waterline and making a call on VHF, or in an extreme emergency where they surfaced several miles from the mothership: popping an EPIRB emergency beacon.

Nope, those people are sealed in and doomed to float until the air ran out. 

So many modes of failure, it's no wonder the owners made occupants sign a very clear disclaimer before being taken on trips. 

As a sailor, I know about and rely on  secondary and even tertiary systems when at sea. For instance if there is no wind for the sails, not just relying on one engine, but having a backup, albeit smaller engine to get you home just in case the main engine fails. It may be slower, but you will get home. Even having bloody oars on the boat can prove useful in an emergency.

The same for communications: the main VHF is backed up by a small walkie-talkie and if necessary an emergency antenna you can hoist up the mast to get better range. 

Buoyancy: most deep water boats have positive buoyancy built in, such that the boat will float normally, if it is holed then it will still float and then if the hull is further compromised like it starts to break up, you have the option then to transfer to a liferaft. 

Always three options: Primary, Secondary and Tertiary. 

I get the impression from all that I have heard about this sub is those principles have been compromised. Not something I'd be happy about when travelling to somewhere there is very little chance of being rescued 

Basically the "experimental" tag excuses the need to adhere to basic tenets of safety. I understand the use of that tag in US aviation. It allows owners to avoid the strictures of certified aviation and basically do their own maintenance and be liable personally if anything goes wrong. 

Most people would prefer the certified route to ensure any work done on the aircraft was up to a certain standard. Some that can't afford certification and go down the experimental route to save money, but still follow common sense safety and maintenance schedules. 

Then there are people that don't do maintenance and cut corners and see safety as a hindrance or don't see the need at all. They are the people that deliberately crash aircraft for money, fame, or internet clicks, or skimp on maintenance, seize the engine and crash the plane, the ones that take off and land in the most serious of weather conditions, or just ignore any safety margins until there is no margin. Those people gladly put others at risk with a jaunty smile and are the people you really, really need to identify before you get into any vehicle they own.

.UPDATE.

It seems I was wrong saying that the sub hadn't been on deep dives before. It had been on a number of dives previously. But of course there are no methods available to easily check the consistency of the carbon fibre tube. Most are destructive: test the vessel to pressure and then take core samples to see what the damage is to the carbon fibres in the matrix.

As far as I'm aware there is no non-destructive test available.

Also it's now apparent that the sub imploded with the loss of all the people on board. My condolences to their families.

Is too early to know for sure, but it looks like there were issues with the sub before it imploded. Evidence shows the sub descending more quickly than the planned rate and an attempt to abort the descent and surface failed. No idea why yet, but possibly flooding of a module in the rear machinery space of the sub causing it to not be as buoyant as planned. Hopefully any investigation will shed some light on the cause of this disaster. 

Why I'll NEVER Vote for Labour.

It simply boil down to : what has the Labour party ever done for me, a working class person?

Let me begin by saying I will not at the next election be voting Conservative either, because I think I've repaid whatever debt I owed them with subsequent votes.

What do I mean?

Well, the only Government that actually did anything FOR me was the Thatcher government. They helped introduce a government-funded training scheme that took in anyone that could pass the entrance exams and trained them to become computer operator or programmers. The ultimate in upward mobility. Kids with no qualifications catapulted into higher earning.

The BCC Threshold scheme aimed to correct the shortage of operators and programmers by taking anyone that proved an aptitude, irrespective of formal qualifications on a scheme that compressed the 2-year BTEC computing course into a mere 6 months intensive learning, combined with 2 6-week modules working in industry gaining experience.

Initially several hundreds applicants were whittled down to a mere couple dozen candidates on the course. Those on the course were then further split over time into those that could program and those that could not. Those that could not were eventually employed as operators and those that had an aptitude for programming stayed on the course for a few weeks more learning how to code in commercial computer languages. At the time the chosen language was COBOL.

Whilst on the course you were paid more than the normal rate for being unemployed, an incentive to stay on the course and learn. If you didn't you were dropped and lost your government-funded allowance. Harsh, but fair.

The one takeaway was that the government back then wanted to invest in the resources it had within the country. The answer to a skills shortage was to invest inwardly rather than todays answer which is to buy cheap labour in from abroad.

It's something I was eternally grateful for. The government directly giving me that opportunity which gave me a good standard of living which allowed me to bring up my kids at least to their teens well-fed and in a warm home.

Then Labour got in and ruined everything. All my life Labour have not contributed one single benefit upon me. Instead we got the politics of envy and a grasping nature, brining in fixed penalty notices and absolute offences there was no defence for. They made it harder for me to continue keeping myself out of the poverty I'd know as a single-parent child.

As a couple, myself and my wife didn't even benefit from in-work benefits, because the rules were too complicated. We lost more than we benefitted.

They brought in the IR35 HMRC rules that put paid to my computer contracting career. 

At the end of the tenure of the Labour party, I had gone from earning above average salary, to almost minimum wage. The opportunities that were available before Labour came into power were long gone by the time they had been replaced. 

I imagine my story wasn't unique. Just imagine how much effect that would have on the economy as higher wage earners stop earning those wages and stop paying those taxes and stop paying money into the economy.

Then we had the New Conservatives in power. And despite several attempts by the voters to give them the power to reverse some of the more devastating policies implemented by Blair and Brown, they instead doubled-down on the ruinous slide into globalism and the trip to the bottom and competition for the lowest global wage.

Despite that, I gave them one last chance with Boris at the helm. Along with others I gave him an 80-seat majority. Surely now he had the ability to stand up to EU malfeasance and stick it to the weaselly negotiators that tried to stich the UK up at every turn. 

But nope. Instantly the globalists turned on Boris hamstringing him. No doubt he did himself no favours, being led more by his penis than his brain. The pre-Carrie Boris that made London a safer and more vibrant place to be and against the odds replaced the burning Bendy-Busses with the New Routemaster was gone. Instead we had a bumbling buffoon that failed entirely to capitalise on his political majority. 

We got the globalist quick fixes of mass migration instead of inward investment, of ever lower wages, of control by supra-national organisations that did not have the interests of the UK at their core. 

The country went to shit under Cameron. It got worse under Theresa May's rudderless and ultimately pointless tenure and then we got Boris who just looked like a Rabbit caught in the headlamps of a large truck for most of his tenure. 

I find that Prince Harry and Boris have a lot in common: natural Conservatives that have been captured by the crotches of female extreme-left activists. 

But I digress. 

Basically the New post-Blair Conservatives have just continued the ruination of the country. Their interests are the interests of their Billionaire chums. There is not one thought for the poor of this country, not one idea that would provide a path to raise them from poverty, no policy that would give improved opportunities.

The death-knell was net-zero. Not the mass-migration that many point to. Net-Zero showed the country that the Conservatives had no idea about security, most importantly energy security. The security that keeps the lights on and our homes warm in winter.

Instead the Conservatives pushed ahead with policies that made energy more expensive and personal transport less likely. They didn't even attempt to solve the housing crisis. Even given a huge majority in Parliament. They didn't have a clue what to do.

And now we are supposed to lend our vote to Kier "I'm alright Jack" Starmer. A person that is so visibly far removed from the hardships that "traditional" Labour voters are facing that I'm sure a large percentage of previous Labour supporters are totally opposed to him.

Which brings me back to why I'll never vote for Labour: they have done nothing for me in their entire tenure in power. In fact they made my life patently worse. So fuck 'em, no vote from me.

Sadly I think that the New Conservatives have used up any loyalty I have to them. They have failed in 13 years to pull back from Blair and Brown's mess and it's affect on my lifestyle and the lifestyle of my kids.

They have failed to make the most of a massive majority in Parliament. They have squandered their time in power. It's hard to imagine a Conservative government making my life worse, but here we are. I'm worse off than I was under Blair and Brown. I'm paying more for things I should not be paying more for because of an ideology that has gripped all of the major parties.

I was just going to say that I'm not going to vote Labour because I know for a fact they will make my life worse. But I won't vote Tory either, because they've shown no signs of making it better.

So no, I will not be voting Labour. But I won't be voting Tory either. My vote is up for grabs, just who will provide the policies that I can vote for?