The analysis is very nonlinear and unfortunately not as widely understood as internally pressurized vessels. It requires a lot more analysis, troubleshooting, and expertise that is short in supply.
Add the additional catastrophic failure modes for composites and there's a reason that industry experts warned against this.
Just watch. It's going to be a routine design flaw, like they added a joint or a wiring hole in a bad place and didn't re-run the model.
(Edit because this was misunderstood: I'm not saying what the failure is. I'm saying that we DON'T KNOW what the failure is, and that given the choice between makes-me-feel-smart pontification about materials and a routine design flaw in a prototype device, I'm going to bet on the routine failure every single time.)
I like how you complain about people making glib drive-by analyses (that are at least based on actual submersible experts saying they shouldn't have used carbon fiber) by making a glib drive-by analysis that's based on pure conjecture.
Which is all to say: basing your opinions on this stuff on easily-consumed, tempting pseudoanalysis clickbait is a terrible way to figure out what went wrong. And in particular putting your ducks in this carbon fiber nonsense instead of "they probably just put a hole in the wrong place" seems poorly grounded to me.
That’s exactly what I have seen reported.
>But Lochridge, according to the suit, raised concerns about the design of the submersible's hull, particularly that it was made of carbon fiber instead of a metallic composition.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/lawsuit-alleged-flaws-titanic-subm...