Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Titanic tourist sub missing

Last edited:
Here's some moments that stood out to me from Dr. Kramer's testimony (the NTSB materials scientist).

  • 18% to 27% voids in the adhesive joints between layers, including some places that formed large longitudinal voids!
  • Expected porosity in properly cured material is between 0.4% and 0.5% within layers, but the sub's porosity measurements were ~2.5% and that indicator of poor fabrication was known to OceanGate as the thickness of the hull was more than expected. So much so that they had to grind down the ends so that it could fit in the titanium rings (up to 10% of the layer was ground down).
  • 3 of the 8 sensors in the acoustic integrity monitoring system didn't even measure data.
  • After Dive 80 (when they heard the loud bang) the strain gauges showed a structural-related change to the longitudinal and hoop stress responses at depths.
  • Much of the hull delaminated between layers
  • SEM images of fractures observed in the recovered sub show rubbing damage. Dr. Kramer wouldn't provide analysis (because the NTSB report isn't complete) but the panel seemed to correctly interpret that rubbing damage in the cracks mean that there was progressive fatigue damage prior to catastrophic failure.
"Too much checking, not enough doing", clearly!!
 
Back
Top Bottom