Looks like The Titanic killed a few more people

[Indus]

A small update..

The sound of the implosion and Stockton Rush's wife wonders what the Bang was.. but they didn't have the heart to tell her and just look at each other.

It's all in the first 20 seconds of the vid.. no commercials, nothing.

 

[igor_kavinski]

What were they looking at their screens for after the bang? The data should've stopped coming. They should've gotten up in panic and gone out to get some fresh air.

 

[K1052]

What were they looking at their screens for after the bang? The data should've stopped coming. They should've gotten up in panic and gone out to get some fresh air.

A text only message arrived stating they dropped weights making them think everything was going normally. Implosion sound reached the ship faster than the message.

 

[Indus]

Yep it happened like this:

10:47:27 Stockton Rush types: Dropped 2 wts

10:47:33 <implosion> Sound travels in water about 1500m/s so took about 2.5 seconds for the ship to hear at 10:47:35

10:47:36 Then they read on the computer screen: Dropped 2 wts (But it takes 9 seconds for the text to travel via keyboard to computer to modem to transmit and then for the ship's receiver and modem to put it on text on the screen)

In effect that gave them a false sense of relief but there was no future communication.. it was all over!

 

[fskimospy]

Yep it happened like this:

10:47:27 Stockton Rush types: Dropped 2 wts

10:47:33 <implosion> Sound travels in water about 1500m/s so took about 2.5 seconds for the ship to hear at 10:47:35

10:47:36 Then they read on the computer screen: Dropped 2 wts (But it takes 9 seconds for the text to travel via keyboard to computer to modem to transmit and then for the ship's receiver and modem to put it on text on the screen)

In effect that gave them a false sense of relief but there was no future communication.. it was all over!

That seems to imply that they noticed something was wrong just before they imploded. I guess probably the hull was making weird noises or something but who knows.

 

[pcgeek11]

That seems to imply that they noticed something was wrong just before they imploded. I guess probably the hull was making weird noises or something but who knows.

I had the same thought, else why would they request them to drop weights....

 

[Pens1566]

That seems to imply that they noticed something was wrong just before they imploded. I guess probably the hull was making weird noises or something but who knows.

I thought that had been known for a while now. At least the "problem" part that made them think they needed to drop ballast.

 

[fskimospy]

I thought that had been known for a while now. At least the "problem" part that made them think they needed to drop ballast.

It could have been, I haven't followed it much since the initial news.

 

[K1052]

I had the same thought, else why would they request them to drop weights....

They dropped weights to slow their descent.

 

[nOOky]

At least they never registered what happened. Reminds me of that plane crash where the copilot committed suicide and flew it into a mountainside. The people in the back of the plane has less than a half second to register that they were being turned into particulate matter.

 

[Indus]

At least they never registered what happened. Reminds me of that plane crash where the copilot committed suicide and flew it into a mountainside. The people in the back of the plane has less than a half second to register that they were being turned into particulate matter.

Sadly it's not an isolated phenomenon.

If you've ever rewatched the 911 videos... and heard the anchors they can't even describe what's truly happening for minutes afterwards.. they can't accept that that is really happening.

It's basically the same thing MAGA is running and using to their advantage.. do something so unbelievably bad.. most people can't comprehend or just look away!

 

[hal2kilo]

At least they never registered what happened. Reminds me of that plane crash where the copilot committed suicide and flew it into a mountainside. The people in the back of the plane has less than a half second to register that they were being turned into particulate matter.

Yea, as a past rider on subs, learned what actually happens with a significant hull breach, instant crispy critter, due to instantaneous pressure spike. Probably, still wondering if you are dead, no time for pain.

 

[Indus]

Yea, as a past rider on subs, learned what actually happens with a significant hull breach, instant crispy critter, due to instantaneous pressure spike. Probably, still wondering if you are dead, no time for pain.

I have a few documentaries about Thresher and Scorpion and both were implosions.

The one thing I did wonder was about Thresher.. did she lose vertical control and fell till she imploded or she imploded due to some hull breach at 135m which is where they were doing the test.. and I couldn't find any definite answers.

I guess both would be equally bad and as fast.

RIP the good crews of those 2 vessels.

 

[pcgeek11]

The one thing I did wonder was about Thresher.. did she lose vertical control and fell till she imploded or she imploded due to some hull breach at 135m which is where they were doing the test.. and I couldn't find any definite answers.

I assume you mean 135 Meters?

135 meters is only 442.913 feet.

The Thresher flooded and sank to well below Test Depth which was 1,300 feet. Been to 1,300 feet many times back in the cold war.

Just to note the bottom of the Ballast tanks are open to sea. When the up angle gets too large as would be caused by flooding in the engine room. The air being blown into the ballast tanks would leak out through the bottom open grates. This makes it impossible to emergency blow to the surface. With no propulsion they can't drive up either..

Here is an accurate (as it can be) sequence from the US Naval Institute.

What Killed the Thresher?

It was history’s first loss of a nuclear-powered submarine. Sixty years later, we are still asking, “What happened?”

www.usni.org

Excerpt:

The U.S. Navy constructs submarines to withstand one and one-half times the pressure of their designed test depth. That is a safety factor. The collapse depth is based on both mathematical calculations and model tests. It thus seemed reasonable to assume that the collapse depth of the Thresher was approximately 1,950 feet.


The sequence of casualties suffered by the Thresher apparently caused a fateful depth increase of some 600 feet—from test depth to collapse depth—in five agonizing minutes. As she neared collapse depth, the fittings and pipes would have begun to give way, admitting powerful jets of water that pushed aside men as they struggled to plug them and shorted out electrical systems, making corrective action impossible. The additional weight of water thus admitted would have driven the Thresher still deeper at an ever-increasing speed. The submarine’s hull would groan under the increasing pressure trying to crush her air-filled interior.


There probably were no serious personnel casualties to that point. But all in the submarine would now have sensed that they were rushing toward disaster and groped frantically for some means of escape or survival. The insulating cork that lined the submarine’s interior would begin to crack and possibly flake off. Pipes would pull apart as the water pressure began to “pull” the submarine’s hardened steel—like taffy. The hull would then implode. Complete destruction would occur in 1/20th of a second, too fast to be cognitively recognized by the men within the submarine.

 

[dainthomas]

At least they never registered what happened. Reminds me of that plane crash where the copilot committed suicide and flew it into a mountainside. The people in the back of the plane has less than a half second to register that they were being turned into particulate matter.

The opposite issue occurred with the Challenger explosion. We all thought they were gone instantly but it turns out there were alive, and probably conscious, until their capsule hit the ocean. That's a long time.

The documentary on that was so frustrating. You didn't even need hindsight to see all the ways they were screwing up.

 

[Indus]

The opposite issue occurred with the Challenger explosion. We all thought they were gone instantly but it turns out there were alive, and probably conscious, until their capsule hit the ocean. That's a long time.

The documentary on that was so frustrating. You didn't even need hindsight to see all the ways they were screwing up.

Oh yes.. that was bad.. really bad..

A capsule above the rocket would have been safer as it has parachutes, yet NASA insisted on flying the Space Shuttle till Columbia happened.

 

[Paratus]

Oh yes.. that was bad.. really bad..

A capsule above the rocket would have been safer as it has parachutes, yet NASA insisted on flying the Space Shuttle till Columbia happened.

My wife and I were flight controllers at that time. In fact she worked Columbia’s last mission…..

It’s not parachutes that makes capsules on top of rockets fundamentally safer it’s

1. Out of the way of any debris the rocket sheds so no damage to the delicate thermal protection system (Columbia)
2. It’s possible to have an escape system that can pull/push the capsule off the rocket before it explodes. (Challenger)

 

[K1052]

The opposite issue occurred with the Challenger explosion. We all thought they were gone instantly but it turns out there were alive, and probably conscious, until their capsule hit the ocean. That's a long time.

The documentary on that was so frustrating. You didn't even need hindsight to see all the ways they were screwing up.

If the show you are talking about is "Challenger: The Final Flight" I have to admit it was emotionally effective because I wanted to reach through the TV screen and beat William Lucas to death.

 

[pmv]

Curious about the Space Shuttle (in retrospect). Seems as if it really wasn't a very successful project in total. Is the verdict in hindsight that the whole concept (of a manned reusable 'space plane') was inherently flawed?

 

[K1052]

Curious about the Space Shuttle (in retrospect). Seems as if it really wasn't a very successful project in total. Is the verdict in hindsight that the whole concept (of a manned reusable 'space plane') was inherently flawed?

It did a lot of stuff that would have been difficult, and sometimes impossible, to accomplish with more conventional systems. It certainly had flaws and was more expensive than hoped.

 

[dainthomas]

Curious about the Space Shuttle (in retrospect). Seems as if it really wasn't a very successful project in total. Is the verdict in hindsight that the whole concept (of a manned reusable 'space plane') was inherently flawed?

The principle was good, saving money by reusing the craft. But there were just soooo many critical parts very susceptible to failure (o-rings obviously, heat tiles etc), failures were inevitable. And honestly 2 out of 135 (with one of those completely avoidable) isn't too bad.

SpaceX's approach has been more successful in terms of cost of putting things in orbit, but the technology to do what they do just wasn't there 45 years ago.

 

[Brovane]

The principle was good, saving money by reusing the craft. But there were just soooo many critical parts very susceptible to failure (o-rings obviously, heat tiles etc), failures were inevitable. And honestly 2 out of 135 (with one of those completely avoidable) isn't too bad.

SpaceX's approach has been more successful in terms of cost of putting things in orbit, but the technology to do what they do just wasn't there 45 years ago.

What SpaceX was doing with full propulsive landing was possible back in the 90's. McDonnell Douglas had most of the ingredients with the DC-X program but they didn't want to push the concept further unless the government was paying and NASA wasn't interested because they already where working with Lockheed Martin on the X-33 VentureStar project. McDonnell Douglas never got the point of working through engineering challenges like atmospheric heating and supersonic retro propulsion (Igniting a rocket engine at supersonic speeds during re-entry). However all these problems could have been solved in the 90's. Blue Origin hired a lot of people from McDonnell Douglas who worked on the DC-X program.

As far as the Shuttle, NASA/Nixon Administration introduced multiple items that resulted in a flawed vehicle.

• The use of Solids instead of liquid boosters.
• Not using Titanium for the Space Shuttle structure. (Much higher melting point than Aluminum).
• Putting the booster into a side mount configuration makes the booster susceptible to damage (EX Columbia)

The concept of the Shuttle wasn't bad, it was just poorly executed because of some design choices made to save money.

 

[hal2kilo]

The principle was good, saving money by reusing the craft. But there were just soooo many critical parts very susceptible to failure (o-rings obviously, heat tiles etc), failures were inevitable. And honestly 2 out of 135 (with one of those completely avoidable) isn't too bad.

SpaceX's approach has been more successful in terms of cost of putting things in orbit, but the technology to do what they do just wasn't there 45 years ago.

The DC-X was in development but it fell over after landing ONCE, and they cancelled the project. Guess why, because something else was sucking up all of NASA's budget.

 

[Paratus]

The USAF was trying to use the shuttle for heavy lift DOD payloads and the shuttle was supposed to be reusable enough to have a quick turn around before launching again.

One design requirement for the shuttle was a US Air Force requirement to have a cross range capability to take off from Vandenberg, deploy a USAF satellite in a polar orbit, and then land an orbit later.

Since the Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator that means for the Shuttle to land near Vandenberg it needed enough glide capability to cover the 1000+ miles the Earth had rotated in the single orbit it was up there.

That meant it needed large wings which required a more complicated thermal protections system and more surface area susceptible to foam shedding off the external tank.

The Shuttle never used this capability as it was never able to meet the launch cadence they wanted. After Challenger the Airforce eventually moved back to using expendable launchers for all payloads.

The push for high flight cadence and large cross range capability led directly to design and programmatic decisions that led to Challenger and Columbia.

 

[K1052]

The USAF was trying to use the shuttle for heavy lift DOD payloads and the shuttle was supposed to be reusable enough to have a quick turn around before launching again.

One design requirement for the shuttle was a US Air Force requirement to have a cross range capability to take off from Vandenberg, deploy a USAF satellite in a polar orbit, and then land an orbit later.

Since the Earth is rotating at about 1000 mph at the equator that means for the Shuttle to land near Vandenberg it needed enough glide capability to cover the 1000+ miles the Earth had rotated in the single orbit it was up there.

That meant it needed large wings which required a more complicated thermal protections system and more surface area susceptible to foam shedding off the external tank.

The Shuttle never used this capability as it was never able to meet the launch cadence they wanted. After Challenger the Airforce eventually moved back to using expendable launchers for all payloads.

The push for high flight cadence and large cross range capability led directly to design and programmatic decisions that led to Challenger and Columbia.

Probably for the best they never tried to launch it from Slick Six.