|
Carbon fibre hull. loving hell. People have already made the point of between 0 and 1 atmospheres of pressure (  ). Cyclical stress from each dive will make defects more and more likely, and given general standards I doubt they've got any inspection regime. I'm now far more convinced that the submarine imploded.... Not that it's going to be much better if they're on the surface; submarines are not designed for surface stability, so it's going to be hellish for those inside even in the most calm seas. Given the stress they're under, I doubt that 40 hours is accurate. No transponder, no automatic ballast detachment, no internal release mechanism, no wired controls. This is great fodder for engineering safety lectures.
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2023 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 10:03 |
|
|
I'd love to see the technical drawings (if they ever existed). The CEO is the personification of Feynman's quote about NASA management during the Challenger disaster: "The fact that this danger did not lead to a catastrophe before is no guarantee that it will not the next time, unless it is completely understood. When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next."
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2023 21:55
|
|
|
I'm struggling to come up with an analogy for how stupid it would be to use carbon fibre for a pressure hull. Chocolate teapot, perhaps? The primary benefits of CFRP is high strength (in tension) to weight ratio, which is pointless in a submarine because weight is never a big issue*. The one thing you never do with CFRP is put it in compression. *Unless you're the Spanish and you build submarines that will immediately sink: https://qz.com/86988/spain-just-spent-680-million-on-a-submarine-that-cant-swim
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2023 22:37
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:Allegedly there was an 18th bolt but .... :
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2023 09:11
|
|