Comments by "Fred Mercury" (@fredmercury1314) on "Solar Eclipse Timer" channel.

  1. The fact is, the design worked. It worked. They just used it more times than they should've. Even if it had been replaced with a new hull it would've been significantly cheaper that a titanium hull, which was the whole point of the exercise. It's truly a shame that the legacy of this project is "CF hull is bad, bro" when the reality is that it works, and it's cheap. You just have to stop using it after the hull has failed, not keep using it like these guys did, even though it had already gone crunch.
    11
  2.  @zachmiller9175  You have to ship it and lift it on and off the ship, for one thing. Steel is up to 2x heavier than titanium.
    5
  3. Weight is not the issue. The issue is cost. A steel hull would not have taken the pressure that this hull could take, they'd need a titanium hull, which would cost insane numbers to build. CF and epoxy is cheap.
    5
  4. But the dome didn't fail.
    4
  5.  @TorianTammas  And yet it survived all that, plus 87 dives, 13(?) of which were successfully down to the Titanic, plus one or two where it got close to that depth. One would argue that the number of cycles it was safe for was the 81 dives it made before it failed (a bit, because it did several dives after that too). Had they retired the hull at that point, the point of the initial failure, this guy would be an industry hero for proving it can be done safely with a CF hull, on the cheap (compared to the conventional materials). Everything is a disaster waiting to happen. You think the ISS is safe? You think rockets and shuttles are safe? None of them blew up, right?
    3
  6. The design and manufacture wasn't the problem. The problem was the hull is essentially disposable and they didn't dispose of it; they kept using it after it got damaged. They ignored the fact that it had already failed before this dive. Had they used a new hull for this dive it would've been fine.
    3
  7. It failed at 81. I guess the guy in charge genuinely believe it was ok or he wouldn't have risked his own life using it.
    2
  8. I'm not an engineer either but when the hull makes a cracking noise, you don't ignore it and go for another dive, even deeper, with guests. You get a new hull.
    2
  9.  @ThePinkPanth3r  Six fewer. That's when the hull initially failed, according to the sensors on board that said "Hey. Something just broke, or something. Probably want to take a look at that."
    1
  10. Dunno. Who cares about some poor people that risks their lives and got what they paid for? Probably you.
    1
  11. Where they had removed bulges by sanding them, the hull was thicker overall than the previous hull. The ground areas were not weaker, the hull was stronger.
    1