Penis Potholes Somehow Hold up Repairs and Endanger Road Workers?

According to this report, the Highway manager at Shire Hall, Martyn Midgley said the drawings could hamper efforts to fix damage to the road and cost the taxpayer more money.

Basically someone is drawing a cock and balls around potholes to highlight them to road users and I assume to bring them to the attention of Highways managers like Mr Midgley.

I'm sure Mr Midgley would rather the "artist" not do this, because then he can get back to ignoring the potholes. Instead the outbreak of cock (and ball) holes has hit the newspapers and highlighted Mr Midgley's department's lack of ability to fix said cockholes.

I'm not sure how spray painting a cock and balls round a hole in the road can affect the ability to repair said holes, but maybe I'm missing a point somewhere. But I doubt it.

It really does sound like sour grapes as the pothole Banksy shows up the local highways department.

Of course I could be wrong and it could be the case that the road workers, upon seeing this grotesque graffiti become instantly offended and have to withdraw from the hole clutching their pearls and requiring smelling salts they are carried back the safe space of  their (I assume electric-powered and lavender air freshener-equipped) Transit tipper.

Yeah, I don't think so either...

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.