Just putting these two together.
You’re wrong about the docs.
This got me wondering: What did they do with all that gasoline once Trieste and Trieste II were no longer in service? Could it have been used as fuel or was it contaminated with water? I’d hate to think they’d just release all that into the ocean.
60 Minutes Australia has a new interview with former Engineering Director Tony Nissen
➜ https://youtu.be/4YneW3MD3Eg ■
I’m watching it now.
It’s likely we just have different evidentiary standards. I’d prefer to see the underlying data, so I’m willing to wait for the official report and hope that the USCG demonstrates the same sort of rigor we see from the NTSB. (And from the Navy–when they aren’t trying to hide systemic problems.)
Sounds like it was reused:
But then we got back to port, and it was time to pump 80,000 gallons of aviation gasoline out of the 'scaph and back into the fuel farm.
However, some of it was released during dives:
During a dive the Trieste dribbled off iron shot or avgas as necessary, to maintain neutral buoyancy.
Hopefully not much, especially since it would have been leaded.
Thanks for going and finding out! It’s the sort of detail one wonders about but is seldom reported.
I wouldn’t so much think of it as hearing the collapse itself as I would experiencing the shockwave(s) from the collapse, being transmitted through the water (an incompressible liquid) and acting on the ship’s hull in such a way as to produce audible noise from the reverberations of the ship itself (although I suppose at this point we could debate at which point a mechanical shockwave is “sound” versus not).
Anyway, I’m reminded of Easter Sunday, 2011, when an IED was detonated perhaps a couple miles outside my FOB not long after one of our supply convoys departed. It was far enough away that I did not hear the explosion through the air. But I knew it went off because the containerized housing unit I was in and all the fixtures and furniture gave off a sharp rattle all at once. And that’s kind of what the reactions of the people in the video looked like (also what it sounded like, to the extent I can judge without the benefit of some immersive sound recording). This sudden, sharp noise coming from all around as the ship’s hull and deck and every rigid object in contact with it just shook and gave off a rattle.
While it could have been something else (maybe a very heavy weight coincidentally dropped on a deck above or below), I’m willing to credit the Coast Guard’s preliminary assertion that it may well have been from the effects of the implosion (although, as others have mentioned, it would be nice to know what might have caused a delay between the receipt of Titan’s last message and its being read out on the computer display, such that the last message appeared, paradoxically, to be received after the supposed shock of the implosion).
Something else I have experienced is the effect of even a small underwater explosion on a ship’s (albeit, in my case, wooden) hull. On the one hand, Titan was probably a bit farther away from its support ship’s hull, but then again (1) I’d wager it was at least within an order of magnitude (4000 meters vice 400) and (2) I wouldn’t be surprised if the force of the implosion was much greater than the explosive force of the relatively small charges we set off in training.
Thanks. That helps me to understand it better.
When I was stationed at Keflavik, Iceland our direction-finding facility was a few miles outside the NAS to get away from the electromagnetic noise an air station generates.* The air force decided to destroy some 500 pound bombs about a mile away, one at a time. I think they were in a pit for outside while you could hear a dull ‘krump’ nothing was kicked into the air. You definitely could feel the pulse in the air pressure.
Inside you couldn’t hear a thing but could still discern the pulse.
*It was near Grindavik, about two and a half miles from where that volcano was kicking up recently.
Yeah, technically a shockwave isn’t “sound” because it isn’t a cycle of compressions and rarefactions. It’s a wave of pressure with a vacuum behind it so it doesn’t really have a measurable SPL.
They attenuate in water within tens of feet though and do become “sound” at that point.
Yeah, I’d just like to see their report and I’d like to see the timelines and math. As mentioned, I work in sonar and I’ve read numerous reports on submarine accidents–even the Navy gets some of the details wrong from time to time and it can take years for the real story to emerge. (SCORPION comes to mind, where a lot of silly ideas and even wack conspiracy theories hung around for years.) I don’t know that submersible accidents are really in the Coast Guard’s wheelhouse so I’d like to see their work.
Yeah, we also discussed this upthread–and there could be technical explanations for this depending on how their digital ACOMMS systems works, hopefully this is clarified in the final report as well.
(Yeah, I just noticed I seem to start every paragraph with “yeah.” Weird.)
Unless you know something the rest of us don’t, the cause of Scorpion’s loss is officially “inconclusive”.
It’s pretty conclusive. Battery outgassing and explosion.
The Navy has done a great disservice by shuffling their feet here.
Now, it was par for the course at the time–Rickover was never going to allow anyone to admit their might be a problem, but interestingly there were changes to battery charge and RRE procedures after the loss.
Not acknowledging the overwhelming evidence just allows all the conspiracy theory peddlers to continue to write awful books. (Yeah, I’m looking at you, Offley and Sewell.)
Nor was it ended when Rickover retired, e.g. the Iowa turret explosion.
The first investigation into the explosion, conducted by the U.S. Navy, concluded that one of the gun turret crew members, Clayton Hartwig, who died in the explosion, had deliberately caused it. During the investigation, numerous leaks to the media, later attributed to U.S. Navy officers and investigators, implied that Hartwig and another sailor, Kendall Truitt, had engaged in a romantic relationship and that Hartwig had caused the explosion after their relationship had soured. However, in its report, the U.S. Navy concluded that the evidence did not show that Hartwig was homosexual but that he was suicidal and had caused the explosion with either an electronic or chemical detonator.
…
In response to the new findings, the U.S. Navy, with Sandia’s assistance, reopened the investigation. In August 1991, Sandia and the GAO completed their reports, concluding that it was likely that the explosion was caused by an accidental overram of powder bags into the breech of the 16-inch gun. The U.S. Navy, however, disagreed with Sandia’s opinion and concluded that the cause of the explosion could not be determined. The U.S. Navy expressed regret (but did not offer an apology) to Hartwig’s family and closed its investigation.
There was, of course, a book on the cover-up and personally, I find the book’s conclusion more credible than anything the NIS came up with.
The book begins by describing conditions aboard Iowa before the explosion. Thompson depicts Moosally, the ship’s captain, as an inept seaman who gained command of the battleship through political connections. Under Moosally’s leadership, or lack thereof, Iowa operated with severe training and safety deficiencies, especially with regard to operations with the ship’s 16-inch guns. The book details how the ship’s Master Chief Fire Controlman, Stephen Skelley, conducted illegal gunnery experiments with the 16-inch guns. Moosally apparently did not check to ensure that the experiments were authorized, or in some cases, appears not to have been aware that they were being carried out.[16]
…
Captain Joseph Miceli, assigned by the Navy to lead the technical investigation into the explosion, had supervised the preparation of powder and shells used in Iowa’s 16-inch guns. Thus, according to Thompson, Miceli had a conflict of interest in ensuring that the powder, ammunition, or guns were not at fault in the explosion. After being briefed on the NIS’s focus on Hartwig, Miceli directed his investigative team to determine how Hartwig had initiated the explosion using an electrical or chemical detonator.[19]
The propellant was manufactured during WWII and stored since then.
Oh yeah. I was still young and not yet in the Navy when that happened but I remember when IOWA was in the news. Only later (after the Navy) did I even read more about it.
Utterly disgraceful. Not the Navy’s finest moment.
The USCG investigation’s final report should be out ‘any day now’, as per several YouTube videos. But so far, nothing yet. Here is their page.
➜ https://www.news.uscg.mil/News-by-Region/Headquarters/Titan-Submersible ■
The 335-page report has been released.
A running summary here: Titan sub firm used 'intimidation tactics' and 'critically flawed' safety practices, US Coast Guard report finds - BBC News
Here is the report:
In the report, Section 2 on page 2 is Vessel Involved in the Incident, and they have a picture of Titan. To my eye that looks like version 1 of Titan and not version 2 which imploded. Am I right?
To my eye and IIRC, version 2 has the new lifting hooks (really, lifting rings) added to the titanium rings that were not on version 1. Those lifting rings are easy to spot because the white outer skin of Titan has semicircular cutouts to make room for those lifting rings. There are 4 lifting rings, 2 on each titanium ring, and so there are 4 easy-to-spot semicircular cutouts.
I don’t see those in the picture in the report. Am I missing something? But I don’t think I am.
Here it is. My red ovals for where the lifting rings should be.
Added — poor quality images. Apologies for that.
Here is Ars Technica’s summary:
Brian