site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   3515 thread views

Small-Scale Question Sunday for June 18, 2023

Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?

This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.

Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

not even a tin can, they were using carbon fibre or something?

Titanium end-caps, carbon-fibre cylinder. Carbon fibre can be much stronger than steel, much less tin, and they'd successfully made several dives that deep already ... but composites are harder to engineer with than metals, and the short history of composites for these ultra-deep dives is worrying. Compare:

"The design of the Cyclops 2 hull, says Spencer, is based in large part on the strategy applied to Fossett’s DeepFlight Challenger" (Spencer Composites was OceanGate's original choice for the hull manufacture, though they say it wasn't their hull in this dive, I can't seem to find what later manufacturer was chosen)

to:

"Based on testing at high pressure, the DeepFlight Challenger was determined to be suitable only for a single dive, not the repeated uses that had been planned ..."

And in 2020 the Titan "had to be completely rebuilt after tests showed signs of ‘cyclic fatigue’" ... just from testing? They've had successful trips since, but not nearly enough that I'd be confident they've figured out fatigue.

I've probably watched too many episodes of "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" where getting to crush depth is something you don't want to happen, and that high-tech super-sub was not made out of carbon fibre composites.

God rest the dead, but this all does seem like an avoidable tragedy.

"Crush depth" is pretty much defined as "the depth where it's something you don't want to happen". "Design depth", still well below "operating depth", is where you planned for crush depth to be, and most of the time it's not quite as deep, because surely you built your design with tolerances all on the safe side rather than the quick+cheap side ... but based on everything reported up to and including the debris discovery, that doesn't seem to have been the case this time. RIP. At least they went instantly.

Yeah, my jaw dropped when I went to the website and it was cheerily "our prototype predecessor model went to 500m. This time we're heading for 4,000m."

I mean that is some scaling-up without intermediate steps in between! But God rest them all, they paid the price. Including the CEO, so it's whoever is left behind in the firm is going to be carrying the can for this one.

As I recall James Cameron's (steel) sub was designed to shrink a few inches when it got to the bottom of the Mariana Trench -- granted this is something like three times deeper than the Titanic wreckage, but it sounds like a really bad environment for carbon fibre fatigue.

The only thing inaccurate about the scene in Down Periscope where the guy stretches a string across the engine room, and it sags as they dive? He states that you wouldn't see it on a nuclear sub, which is wrong. I'm pretty sure every submarine is designed to compress under water pressure, and combat subs don't dive nearly as deep as exploratory subs.

Yeah -- CF is bad in compression generally and (in my non-materials engineer opinion) probably especially bad when it's evenly compressed around the whole surface. (and then decompressed whenever it surfaces, of course)

I could imagine ways to overcome this (laying up the fibre under pressure?) but it seems very process dependent -- "Trust in Steel" OTOH is time-honoured.

Is there even any downside to using a giant steel ball for a submarine pressure hull? You're not paying to shoot it into space, you literally just want it to sink. I know the Soviets used titanium, but they did a lot of crazy stuff.

I mean you do kind of want it to be able to float at times rather than just staying on the bottom forever. But yeah, I think steel is pretty good. Corrosion would be a thing to watch out for I guess, but there are pretty well known ways of doing that.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats