Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Titanic sub: What could have caused the implosion of the vessel?" video.

I remember, when I used to work private security at a building with a lot of offices, how much of a pain these CEOs of smaller companies could be. They'd just assume that because they could largely do as they liked at their headquarters that the same would be the case elsewhere. It was always immensely satisfying to tell them no and to f-off as the building owner and management wasn't going to have any of it. It sounds like there was a lot fo that going on at this company, where the people who would say this was a horrible idea got fired and in at least one case sued.
2
Yes, although keep in mind that the Alvin submersible that was used to explore the Titanic after its initial discovery has made thousands of dives over the past nearly 60 years. Presumably, it had a better design to start with, combined with better maintenance and monitoring to verify that it wouldn't fail under pressure. From what I can tell, the actual place where the crew sits is in its own sphere made of metal with minimal openings. In other words, a ton of good engineering decisions that likely will allow it to keep operating for years go to come. (Admittedly at some point the entire craft will likely need to be decommissioned, but 60 years is a rather impressive record compared with the Titan sub failing after only a few dives)
2
@mattk8810 It was also not a flagged vessel, if it were a flagged vessel, then the laws of that country would apply in international waters. But, as it was in international waters and it lacked a flag, then it gets kind of murky as normally, you're supposed to have a flag and registration somewhere. But, since this submersible was not required to have that, then it gets complicated as to what laws would even apply. I'm guessing probably the US will be where any legal proceedings related to this happen as that's where the CEO and Company are domiciled, but it's probably going to be a massive issue to decide which of the nations involved in the search and rescue get to be in charge of the legal proceedings.
1
@kx8960 For ships, the regulations are the ones of whatever nation they fly the flag of. In this case, there appears to be a loophole that it wasn't flagged to any nation, which mean that there wasn't any regulation. I would expect that issue to be resolved relatively quickly, as they can probably just amend that particular treaty to account for vessels that are for undersea exploration not having the ability to have a flag for safety and practicality reasons.
1
It was never marketed as being unsinkable at the time, that's a myth that came about later. Nobody in their right mind would have said that it couldn't be sunk, if you ram into something hard enough, or get a long enough gash along the side, as happened, the thing will sink. It was just a ship that was vastly safer than other ocean liners of the time. The main reason that anybody still thinks about it is the divide on who was and wasn't rescued.
1
@az-rule84 That was a solid point of James Cameron that the same basic attitude that led to the Titanic sinking is the same one that led to this sub imploding. Pushing ahead too aggressively in spite of warnings about the upcoming risk. Had the Titanic been traveling slower when it collided with the iceberg, it's likely that they eitherr would have been able to avoid the iceberg completely or puncture fewer of the compartments that were intended to trap the water. Ironically enough, the ship may not have sunk had it just run into the iceberg directly.
1
@waynedavies3185 People who aren't engineers usually don't understand the way that stresses travel around surfaces. I'm not an engineer, but I remember listening to an expert talking about the difference between drilling a round hole in a slab of concrete versus a square hole and the implications that has for cracks forming. The same thing occurs with pretty much anything under some sort of stress. Just a little weak spot can grow to a large size in the blink of an eye if there isn't sufficient resilience built into the design. I remember the way my parent's house was completely without support on one corner due to dry rot and you wouldn't have known it without seeing the siding removed because of the redundancy that is in standard construction designs. (Not that it was a good situation, but that it didn't result in a critical failure of the structure)
1
@jpcaretta8847 That's a point that people really need to understand. Some materials are extremely strong when it comes to tension, others are strong in terms of compression. Some may be strong in both aspects. But, while you could use a rope to make something a bit stronger against internal pressure, such an approach would do nothing to prevent the same thing from being squashed. It's part of why you see barrels with those metal rings on the outside being used to store things, but not being used to protect the contents against being squashed.
1
@acousticmeow8403 Yes, and this is why there are usually regulations in place to help ensure that the cheapest service provided is reasonably safe for those buying it. It's the same reason why there is a public health department that has food safety standards and not just trusting the restaurant to engage in safe practices.
1