วีดีโอ

Hello, I don't know, I am not an engineer, so I could only add to the video what Mr. Kemper presented at the hearing based on his computer analysis. He is an engineer with great viewport experience.

The arch becomes an arch for the entire circumference of the 360-degree hole in the titanium. It is a dome over a round hole; so think of it like having a 1-degree wide arch, but then done 360 times. The strength of each arch segment of the dome is replicated. Thanks for commenting although I DON'T appreciate the DEROGATORY remark and the PROFANITY. I will give you the rest of the day to edit your comment and be respectful, or I will just remove it and block you from my channel. Your choice.

Thanks for commenting. Ha, ha, you are correct! I did not concentrate on the paragraph in the price quote. Amazing, everything was done without worrying about specifications, wasn't it?

Thanks for your supportive comment. I am glad you liked the video.

They were not separate sections, the video shows them as separate to outline the differences in design, but the Titan viewport was a solid piece.

karlfriedrich's reply is correct. The dome was a solid piece. In the video, I have sections were that show the dome cross-section as divided only to demonstrate the false presumption that dome section still works as a "dome" regarding strength when the concavity is filled in solid with acrylic. It does not. Filling it in ruins the mechanics of a dome.

Yep, you are basically correct. I don't understand Stockton's risk tolerance. Maybe it's due to the fact that he flew his own experimental composite plane for many, many years without an issue. So, to him, an experimental aircraft and an experimental sub are the same. But obviously, for many reasons, the risks are very different, and the chances for survival with an equipment malfunction are very different.

The depth of the channel and how thin the inner ring of that channel was, was shocking to me. I saw it before the accident, when they were installing it on the carbon fiber. It couldn't have been 4 inches deep. To me at that time I thought they were crazy. I thought to myself, who the F is the engineer on this project. All that pressure, not in that channel but on that very thin edge of the channel. I'm not an engineer but I know, you would never have something that thin supporting weight.

Thanks for commenting. I agree with your completely. I have a video on my channel specifically about the glued joints. Search TH-cam for this title - Ocean Gate Titan Was Glued! Coast Guard Reviews

Yes, as strange as it seems, it happened.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. This tragedy is the product of the morphing of independent things that lead to a bad outcome. In this case, it was the fate of Stockton finding Tony (at least early on, for hull one) to do the engineering. Because both of their personalities lead to the continued development of the sub. We already know that Stockton wanted to think outside of the box. Tony testified this, when asked why he thought he was a good fit for OceanGate: "so you definitely have to be able to think outside the box - I am not a sustaining engineer." Then they both agreed to fire the outside engineers from APL (therefore, no outside oversight or opinions). To Tony's credit, he "pulled the plug" on the first hull when it was failing, and got fired for it. Then Stockton forged ahead with new engineers. It is a tragic but still fascinating story, which is why it has caught my interest.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I agree with everything you said. The entire dome controversy did not need to happen. They just should have used a standard design spherical sector dome that Hydrospace could have built and certified to 4,000 meters. Now I feel sure that the dome was not the failure point for the implosion dive, but the entire controversy regarding hiding the depth data, and not wanting to pay to do the proper testing did not have to be an issue.

Thanks for commenting. Yep, fixing the toilet was on the list of things to do, after the dome fell off! Not that the toilet has anything to do with safely diving down to 4,000 meters, bit I am glad it got checked off.

@@madcavemantd2 Thanks for your comment. Good thoughts. You are correct; that viewport made it down to the Titanic 13 times, plus a few other very deep dives. At the implosion, which was somewhere in the hull, I believe the forces on the viewport were outward. You can see from the wreckage images that the viewport retaining ring is gone. So, it either got shattered into small pieces when blown out, or blown outward intact, ended up relatively far away from the main wreck, and then could not be found laying on the sand on the ocean floor. We will never know. The viewport worked amazingly well, but Kemper Engineering modeled some high-stress points that may have led to a failure at some point, just couldn't predict when.

@@stellviahohenheim Hi, thanks for the nice comment. Happy you enjoyed the video.

@@aalhard Thanks for commenting and watching, although I am sorry you didn't end up appreciating the content. I have been getting great positive feedback from other viewers. Oh well.

​@@solareclipsetimerhey at least it's engagement

​@@stellviahohenheimSure thing. That is why I thanked him for commenting. It's cool, I realize not everyone is going to like everything. I liked the way my video came out. That's all I can do, is try my best.

Thanks for commenting. I believe that when the hull imploded the forces on the viewport were outward. If you look at wreckage pictures the viewport retaining ring is gone. So, the forces either shattered it or it is still intact somewhere on the ocean floor. The clear acrylic, either in large pieces, or intact may have been difficult for the ROV to find.

@@treavorwhitlock5606 Thanks for your comment. Yep, then one test dive, decide the dome is fine, and trust it to go down to 4,000 meters. They got away with it

@@seanhart8742 Hello, thank you so much for the supportive comment.

Thanks for your comment. I noticed that term when he said it. I had never heard it before. I thought it was unusual, but it makes the point.

@@TungstenCarbideProjectile Thanks for your comment. I have a great interest in engineering failures and the Titan has so many interesting back stories to tell I wanted to do some analysis of it in videos. But my channel was started in 2017 as a solar eclipse education channel and I will soon get back into that. I have a lot to upload about the recent 2024 eclipse and preparation work to do for the 2026 eclipse. It's not really an option to change a channel's name because I am changing subjects. Thanks again.

Thanks for commenting. His risk tolerance was way too high and not in line with the enormous challenges and risks of taking an experimental vehicle to 4,000 meters. You don't do that dive in what was basically a garage built submersible. He was quoted so many times saying the hull was "safe and locked down" but he had zero real test data to back that up. Every successful dive was basically lucky. The entire story is both a mess and unfortunate because he took other people's lives.

@solareclipsetimer I'm surprised the one guy who had so much experience going to the titanic believed it was safe. And that billionaire who took his son with him .. if I had a billion dollars and wanted to see the titanic I'd have contracted someone who could build me a submarine to go like consult james Cameron and go from there.

Sure thing and thank you. I only ask you to do what you feel comfortable with. I love to analyze engineering problems and I hope this video helped you understand the viewport controversy better.

You have four times as many videos as you have subscribers. I thought I had seen it all on youtube, but your efforts are remarkable. No wonder you are bitter about subscribing😂😂😂😂

​@@lazagliderHi, thanks for your nice comment. I like to make good content and I don't worry much about subscribers, although that has to be a goal, even if it is low priority. I am all about education. Especially with my main specialty which is how to enjoy and photograph total solar eclipses. That is a very niche subject, so it's tough to get a lot of subscribers. Thanks again.

Thank you for your supportive comment and I am happy you enjoyed the content.

As far as I know, that is correct, if it is not properly licensed. But NASA can't police everything. I alluded to it in the video, you are on the honor system when you work with NASA. It's a fine line; it's ok to say you work with NASA, but you have word things so it does not sound like NASA is endorsing a commercial product. It is also helpful to have a direct disclaimer saying NASA does not endorse the product or service. That is what I do with my solar eclipse work. Thanks for commenting.

@@jarigustafsson7620 Thank you for commenting. When I present the information I try to remain neutral about the people and let the viewers make up their minds. I personally can't pick a single word to describe Tony and Stockton. I mean, they are not stupid people. They both have degrees in engineering. I think, regarding risk assessment, the two of them were dangerous together. I think marine engineering was not a strength of either of them. It's a complex story and turn of events.

6 times, 7 if you count the failure.

.Thanks for your comment. They made 13 successful dives. It was 6 in 2021 and 7 and in 2022.. If you skip ahead in my video to 21:00 I have a modified Coast Guard chart that shows it.

Yes sir. You are correct. It is probably not a good use of the material. It might work though, if done better and thoroughly tested

@@emptiester Yes sir, as I said in my video it is a rare occurrence for NASA to allow the use of the meatball logo. It has to be a project with direct NASA involvement and it can't be for profit.

@solareclipsetimer all of their data. All of it is public and free, except the logo.

@@emptiester So, NASA is a public entity and our tax dollars pay for what they do. If they publish a picture, say from a Mars rover, you can use that image for your own work as long as you give NASA the due credit for the image. The same would be true if they published some esoteric data about a neutron star and you needed to use that NASA data: you can do it as long as it is properly referenced. Again, you paid for it with your tax dollars, their work is in the public domain. So, using it is "free," I guess if you want to look at it that way. And giving due credit is obvious. My NASA solar science friend uses my eclipse work and images in her talks and she always asks for my permission first and then gives me credit on the slide in her talk. However, NASA treats the "meatball' logo and the NASA "worm" graphic differently. They protect these as NASA branding and want their use to be limited to projects, events, work, etc. that are DIRECTLY affiliated with something that NASA is involved with and therefore approves of. I know this from working with NASA. You are on the honor system when you work with NASA on something. You are allowed to say you worked with NASA on something, but the wording, the context, and the need for a possible disclaimer are key. NASA NEVER wants those two things to be used to endorse a commercial product or service. So, you really have to be careful and honest. NASA doesn't have the time to police these guidelines everywhere. I hope that answers your question. Thanks for commenting.

Thanks for commenting. When I make my OceanGate videos I specifically try not to be judgemental. I try to present the facts and let the viewers make up their minds. But some issues and decisions are glaringly bad.

@ I get it. But I can only call it like it is. He took four people with him. But I’m sure didn’t expect to not come back. Especially the 19-year-old.

Thanks for commenting. Yes, you are correct. NASA and Boeing were involved but the degree of help was embellished by OceanGate. OceanGate had a habit of getting a quote for a "scope of project," starting it and then ending the relationship early and saving money.

Thanks for commenting. Your idea has been brought up in a number of comments. I imagine it could be engineered. There are some challenges. I don't know why OceanGate didn't try it

Agree with you. It's very complex. Good to know that the computer modeling is getting better

Why would you be surprised? He didn't likely sketch it on a cocktail napkin but he told the manufacturer to make it flat on the inside. And yes the manufacturer knew it was a bad idea. Both were addressed by the testimony of the manufacturer. He was the man with the German accent.

Thank you for your comment. At the end of the video I state that I don't think failure of the viewport was the reason for the implosion, I think it was the hull. This video is about the history and the controversy about the conflicting depth ratings told by the people involved and other experts. Thanks.

Agree.

Yep

Epoxy is, after all, super-strong under pressure. But it's not as good when it comes to shearing force. So if the Titan were exposed to counteracting forces - say due to the compression coefficient of the titaniam caps vs. that of the epoxy itself - that could have been what destroyed the joint between the two, which certainly looks like where it failed.

I agree with you. But especially in the second hull when 5 one-inch layers were glued together! And they ground down bulges in between layers, disrupting the integrity of some fiber loops. If that glue in between the layers is not making the layers solidly behave as one unit throughout, then they are behaving independently with significant decrease in shape.

Thanks for your comment, but please explain it more.

Don't be a semantic Jagoff. Sure, they should have said developed or created, but discovered works fine, especially if you contextualize that Acrylic wasn't much of a development until they discovered the uses.

I used the word "discovered" when discussing acrylic. Will Kohnen in his testimony used the word "invented" (in Germany) 2:19. So, give me a break, please.

What ? You think it grows on trees ?

@@nerdjournal Thank you for your supportive comment defending my video. I deleted the rude comment you were replying so that is why your reply now seems a bit out of context.

Hi, Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I am happy you liked the content. With all of my OceanGate videos I try to present the facts and let people deicide on what they think.

@@solareclipsetimer With the number of people putting out ill-informed, badly researched, sensationalist crap on this subject, it was a breath of fresh air. Carry on!

Ha, ha! That is a crazy picture, isn't it.

Most submersibles are designed in a way that the front doesn't fall off at all. 🤔

i hope it has been towed outside the environment 😆

Compare to all the other ones, where the front didn't fall off.

@@Trauerdurst_TD3Dlucky it didn't happen in an environment. There was nothing out there but sea, a sunken ship, and fish. And the part of the submersible the front fell off.

Thanks for commenting. I hope you enjoyed the content.

what was the other time?

Thanks for commenting.

Bingo! It’s one thing to risk yourself. It’s another to gamble with other people’s lives and money.

Thank you for your supportive comment. I am glad you enjoyed the video. I have 4 other OceanGate videos on my main TH-cam channel if you are interested in more.