If it did implode in multiple pieces it means the experts were right; many said that carbon fiber was a poor choice because while it's light, it breaks like glass, contrary to steel which tends to "open" slowly.
If the hull itself failed, however, given the way carbon fiber fails, finding the hull in many pieces seems to be the expected result.
> the submersible was designed to reach depths of 4,000 metres, but Lochridge said the passenger viewpoint (window) was only certified for depths of up to 1,300 metres
The carbon fiber hull was a much bigger concern.
Here, it’s in compression, not tension. And its light weight doesn’t matter.
So it seems it's more a matter of cost and passenger space than just weight alone.
From their perspective it kinda made sense even though its not safe at all.
If they could they probably still wouldn't have done so. The founder who was onboard the Titan was known for calling safety regulations unnecessary and a barrier to "innovation", like a window only rated for a depth of 1300m used at 4000m.
It probably did, but unfortunately, I think the window of time was not enough the return to the surface (perhaps milliseconds, but who knows)
Carbon fibre is a ply. Plies are much harder to nondestructively inspect for flaws. That is an immediate, obvious risk in a use case involving cyclic pressure of hundreds of atmospheres. It is also brittle, so strain deformation does not occur nearly as much before fracture.
Welds are a vastly more well-understood feature that is possible to easily design around and - more critically - inspect afterwards. Metals also stretch before snapping, which is why you can go and measure the spacing of links on your bike chain and know when it’s time to replace it. All of this makes through-life maintenance and inspection much easier.
Carbon fibre was an incredibly poor design choice, selected to prioritise cost over safe operation.
“I wanted our team to be younger, to be inspirational and I’m not going to inspire a 16-year-old to go pursue marine technology, but a 25-year-old, uh, you know, who’s a sub pilot or a platform operator or one of our techs can be inspirational,” said Rush.
Fucking idiot CEO, took 4 innocent people with him. Aero, naval, automotive, all have a a history written in blood, and all those rules and regulations aren't to hinder innovation but to save lives based on what we've learned from all the people who lost their lives in the past.
Arguable...but which government? They were operating in international waters, and it's not like the UN runs an Ocean Engineering Safety Police Dept.
(And, so long as you keep your rape and murder within your ship - that is also a feature. If you are a crime victim on a cruise ship, and the cruise company feels that looking into what happened to you is not in their own business interest... OTOH, you or your survivors may be able to sue the cruise company for damages in a shore-based court. Google for the obvious if your want to see stories about that.)
You're thinking only of FSD. That is a legitimate observation. But objectively, Teslas tend to score highly for safety in independent tests.
Tesla is one of the safest car brands to drive, SpaceX has yet to kill or maim anyone.
Fucking idiot CEO, took 4 innocent people with him. Aero, naval, automotive, all have a a history written in blood, and all those rules and regulations aren't to hinder innovation but to save lives based on what we've learned from all the people who lost their lives in the past."
I agree, except maybe on the notion of "innocent billionaire". They too usually have a history of blood. Except maybe the 16yo tho. Maybe.
"50 year old white guys have a lot of experience but would cost a fuck ton of money. I prefer to exploit, er, um, employ, 25 year old white guys and gals because they are about 1/4 the cost."
When you take all the BS justifications out of it, that's really what the guy was saying. Elon Musk school of capitalism. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
EDIT: "Hide yo kids, hide yo wife; the karma snatching Tesla fanbois are rife"