Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Titan Submersible

48 replies

NewName24 · 16/09/2024 23:32

Why have BBC News built a 'life sized model' of the submarine in the studio ? Confused

Surely we can follow what they are saying without so much time and money being wasted?

OP posts:
5475878237NC · 18/09/2024 07:17

Does anyone know the answer here? Last year all the discussion of finding the wreckage kept referring to an implosion meaning that there would be no wreckage to find so to speak. As in, the external pressure on the structure would have instantly crushed it/turned it into tiny fragments. That's clearly not the case as there is a large section of it recovered. So what does this mean for the theories of what happened? In reality, did one side just blow off?

ReadWithScepticism · 18/09/2024 07:21

Def CGI. In fact it looks like they got Kate Middleton to do the photoshopping.

Takoneko · 18/09/2024 07:25

That’s a digital model. Look at the floor… no shadows. 😂😂

LovingCritic · 18/09/2024 07:38

NewName24 · 17/09/2024 11:12

No, they have explicitly said on the program (more than once) they have a life sized model in the studio.

Which is why I thought it so odd - it came across like they are really proud of it.

No, it's a CGI model, I work in theatre and film lighting, what do you notice? there is no shadows from the model.

The BBC news studio is a very impressive set up, its mostly CGI (ie the backdrops) no actual cameramen, all remote robotic cameras which run on the tracks in the floor.

So life-size model in this case relates to a CGI model, not an actual plywood model - in some respects that's sad because a whole army of skilled craftsmen and women in set production are no longer needed, and that great, fun career is fading out.

FrapGlart · 18/09/2024 07:47

Lol are you talking about this OP? If it's not CGI how is it magically floating in the air and how did it rotate silently in front of her without any obvious source of power or movement! 🤣

Titan Submersible
LovingCritic · 18/09/2024 07:49

5475878237NC · 18/09/2024 07:17

Does anyone know the answer here? Last year all the discussion of finding the wreckage kept referring to an implosion meaning that there would be no wreckage to find so to speak. As in, the external pressure on the structure would have instantly crushed it/turned it into tiny fragments. That's clearly not the case as there is a large section of it recovered. So what does this mean for the theories of what happened? In reality, did one side just blow off?

If you think about the structure of the thing there is two titanium end caps, then a carbon fibre tube between.

Think of it like a Pringles can, if you stamp on it the cap pops off, and isn't damaged, because the material its made out of, and its shape is far stronger than the tube, and the air pressure pops it off.

What would have happened is that water got into the layers of carbon fibre, trashing its integrity, rather quickly that tube would collapse, popping off the end caps, which were recovered in tact.

The white fibreglass tail, which the underwater pictures show sat up in the silt is external to the pressure vessel, therefore would not form part of the implosion, already being in equilibrium with the water surrounding it.

The flaw in the design was the carbon fibre, and its that bit that would be in bits, maybe only a few though, once the void was filled with the inrush of water, and the pressure inside and outside equalised, then the event would cease.

isthereaway · 18/09/2024 07:59

@LovingCritic thank you for the explanation (I'd thought it was a 'smithereens' scenario) I still hope that death was instantaneous for those poor passengers though.

DreamW3aver · 18/09/2024 08:05

FrapGlart · 18/09/2024 07:47

Lol are you talking about this OP? If it's not CGI how is it magically floating in the air and how did it rotate silently in front of her without any obvious source of power or movement! 🤣

That photo looks much less real that the one originally linked at the start of the thread. I think they should explicitly say when it's a CGI model otherwise imo it's misleading

rosesareredvioletsareblueaimverytiredandsoareyou · 18/09/2024 08:07

thebluemask · 17/09/2024 07:14

Whatever it is, it's bigger than I thought.

Despite being claustrophobic, the size of that thing was the least of my worries!

FrapGlart · 18/09/2024 08:10

First line of text in the link above!

Titan Submersible
LovingCritic · 18/09/2024 08:11

isthereaway · 18/09/2024 07:59

@LovingCritic thank you for the explanation (I'd thought it was a 'smithereens' scenario) I still hope that death was instantaneous for those poor passengers though.

The death, ie the implosion, would have been pretty quick, fractions of a second, but due to the nature of carbon fibre I think it is likely there were many seconds or even minutes of cracking sounds as the thing started to de-laminate, and they , or at least the captain, who designed it would have known he, and they were buggered.

He was an interesting character, an aerospace engineer trying to apply aerospace technologies to submarines, a man with huge self belief and no regard for safety - interestingly its people like him who down the centuries have made great strides in technology, and occasionally, like him, paid the ultimate price for the gung ho approach.

Where he went very badly wrong was taking paying guests, with no grasp of exactly how experimental, unconventional and risky his idea was with him.

The technology he developed in titan, is actually fine for low pressure, shallow dives, and could have, as he hoped, opened up an interesting market for underwater tourism, but was never going to be safe to go once, let alone many times to the titanic.

FrapGlart · 18/09/2024 08:11

FrapGlart · 18/09/2024 08:10

First line of text in the link above!

Although to be fair that could be a physical model couldn't it! Doh. Still CGI

rosesareredvioletsareblueaimverytiredandsoareyou · 18/09/2024 08:11

isthereaway · 18/09/2024 07:59

@LovingCritic thank you for the explanation (I'd thought it was a 'smithereens' scenario) I still hope that death was instantaneous for those poor passengers though.

Most experts think actual death was instantaneous however there's also a strong suggestion that they would have heard the carbon fibres starting to crack. Other than the younger man, who was apparently persuaded to go, I have little sympathy, as the other adults clearly knew there was risk involved.

ReadWithScepticism · 18/09/2024 08:12

Somehow the words "BBC" and "model" occurring together do make me think of something created out of an empty fairy liquid bottle in the Blue Peter studioGrin -- which in fairness the Blue Peter team could have made an absolutely cracking job of.

But actually I think it is probably getting quite normal to use the term "model" for a CGI representation. Especially since the news studios use these sorts of representation all the time.

ItWasOnAStarryNight · 18/09/2024 08:15

Bloody hell OP 🤣🤣🤣🤣

LovingCritic · 18/09/2024 08:24

rosesareredvioletsareblueaimverytiredandsoareyou · 18/09/2024 08:11

Most experts think actual death was instantaneous however there's also a strong suggestion that they would have heard the carbon fibres starting to crack. Other than the younger man, who was apparently persuaded to go, I have little sympathy, as the other adults clearly knew there was risk involved.

I'm not sure really, Stockton Rush the builder and Pierre Nargeolet, a seasoned deep sea diver knew the inherent risks inside and out.

The others though, I'm not sure, Ocean Gate had all the glossy brochures etc - yes there is the bit in the contract about death, but did the other two adults really understand that? I mean there is a risk of death if you go up in a plane or hop in a car, but so remote you basically discount it.

Did they fully understand that the risk was so great? and that the design hadn't been inspected by any marine testing organisations for safety.

No one has died visiting titanic before, so it's safe to assume, they would assume it's as safe as it could be.

For me Nargeolet was the most culpable, Rush was so carried away with his self belief and hubris that I don't think he could critique effectively his own product, but Nargeolet was a man with decades of deep sea and mini sub experience who surely should have seen the problems and advised against, especially against the passengers until full testing and certification had been carried out, which it would have failed straight away on the port hole rating if nothing else.

HappiestSleeping · 18/09/2024 08:31

LovingCritic · 18/09/2024 08:11

The death, ie the implosion, would have been pretty quick, fractions of a second, but due to the nature of carbon fibre I think it is likely there were many seconds or even minutes of cracking sounds as the thing started to de-laminate, and they , or at least the captain, who designed it would have known he, and they were buggered.

He was an interesting character, an aerospace engineer trying to apply aerospace technologies to submarines, a man with huge self belief and no regard for safety - interestingly its people like him who down the centuries have made great strides in technology, and occasionally, like him, paid the ultimate price for the gung ho approach.

Where he went very badly wrong was taking paying guests, with no grasp of exactly how experimental, unconventional and risky his idea was with him.

The technology he developed in titan, is actually fine for low pressure, shallow dives, and could have, as he hoped, opened up an interesting market for underwater tourism, but was never going to be safe to go once, let alone many times to the titanic.

Especially when you see how he made it. No vacuum / dust control for the lamination of the carbon fibre, all sorts of impurities and bubbles contained. No quality control over the link between the carbon fibre and the titanium end caps, etc etc

rosesareredvioletsareblueaimverytiredandsoareyou · 18/09/2024 08:33

My reply stands.
Sorry, that was to @LovingCritic, for some reason the quote disappeared.

BigWiggg · 18/09/2024 08:34

5475878237NC · 18/09/2024 07:17

Does anyone know the answer here? Last year all the discussion of finding the wreckage kept referring to an implosion meaning that there would be no wreckage to find so to speak. As in, the external pressure on the structure would have instantly crushed it/turned it into tiny fragments. That's clearly not the case as there is a large section of it recovered. So what does this mean for the theories of what happened? In reality, did one side just blow off?

That’s what I was wondering. I assumed there would be nothing to recover but that seems to be wrong…

thebluemask · 18/09/2024 08:57

FrapGlart · 18/09/2024 08:10

First line of text in the link above!

Ha! I linked that clip. I took "3D model" and "Life-sized model" to mean it was a built, three-dimensional thing.

In any case, it is useful to see it positioned there.

HappiestSleeping · 18/09/2024 09:34

BigWiggg · 18/09/2024 08:34

That’s what I was wondering. I assumed there would be nothing to recover but that seems to be wrong…

As someone above said, the pressure hull collapsed, but all the external bits weren't affected (the white fin part and framework), and the end caps. Even then, there will be bits of pressure hull remaining too. It just won't be cylindrical any more.

HoppingPavlova · 18/09/2024 09:41

No, they have explicitly said on the program (more than once) they have a life sized model in the studio

Yea, they have a life sized CGI model in the studio. And?

5475878237NC · 18/09/2024 19:23

Thank you to those who have contributed to/offered an explanation of why there is a wreckage with visible fragments. Really helped me to understand it all. I especially get the Pringles example.

Did they fully understand that the risk was so great? and that the design hadn't been inspected by any marine testing organisations for safety.

^ just on this note, I also think there is some level of trust and the "high vis/white lab coat" effect at play that means we inherently believe that people in power and authority on a subject do all they can to keep us safe.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page