That Titanic submersible

ShootersHillGuru said:

Callumcafc said:

Todds_right_hook said:

kentaddick said:

Todds_right_hook said:

What I don't understand is that I have a Bluetooth card in my wallet and can use my phone to find it but yet a craft travelling 2.5m below sea level hasn't got a tracker

throw your wallet 2.5 miles down to the bottom of the ocean and see how easy it is to track

The point I was trying to make is there must be technology available to track craft at that depth. Why isn't it mandatory that craft be fitted with this

i might be wrong here but my understanding is that the craft wasn't fitted with any tracking devices

Why can’t they just get a really big magnet and drop it in on a rope and hoist it out that way?

Well firstly they need to locate it. Secondly if it’s on the bottom the rope (cable) would need to be something like 4 miles long. 

Plus strong enough to pull it up, something that big and heavy but 4 miles long would weigh too much to get anywhere quickly and easily.

ShootersHillGuru said:

thenewbie said:

Todds_right_hook said:

kentaddick said:

Todds_right_hook said:

What I don't understand is that I have a Bluetooth card in my wallet and can use my phone to find it but yet a craft travelling 2.5m below sea level hasn't got a tracker

throw your wallet 2.5 miles down to the bottom of the ocean and see how easy it is to track

The point I was trying to make is there must be technology available to track craft at that depth. Why isn't it mandatory that craft be fitted with this

i might be wrong here but my understanding is that the craft wasn't fitted with any tracking devices

Because there's no one to mandate it. Planes have to have tracking devices, so do ships (at least above a certain size) because there are regulatory bodies in charge of those.

This is just one private individual deciding to build a submersible more or less because he can. There's not any authorities in charge of that business.

Although as a result of this it’s possible that a new law or regulation will be enforced so that it is mandatory in future.

At the risk of labouring the point.there is no tracking underwater. Tracking in the term we use it is done by satellite. No satellite GPS can penetrate under the water. Radio waves don’t travel very far in water either. 

The black box technology works under water as I am sure I remember reports stating they have located the BB when a plane has crashed in the sea 

Anyone else surprised that a rescue attempt from the bottom of the ocean is such a difficult/practically impossible task?

Certainly not to undermine the harshness of the environment involved, but in 2023 it seems as though humans are capable of practically anything. 

eaststandmike said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

thenewbie said:

Todds_right_hook said:

kentaddick said:

Todds_right_hook said:

What I don't understand is that I have a Bluetooth card in my wallet and can use my phone to find it but yet a craft travelling 2.5m below sea level hasn't got a tracker

throw your wallet 2.5 miles down to the bottom of the ocean and see how easy it is to track

The point I was trying to make is there must be technology available to track craft at that depth. Why isn't it mandatory that craft be fitted with this

i might be wrong here but my understanding is that the craft wasn't fitted with any tracking devices

Because there's no one to mandate it. Planes have to have tracking devices, so do ships (at least above a certain size) because there are regulatory bodies in charge of those.

This is just one private individual deciding to build a submersible more or less because he can. There's not any authorities in charge of that business.

Although as a result of this it’s possible that a new law or regulation will be enforced so that it is mandatory in future.

At the risk of labouring the point.there is no tracking underwater. Tracking in the term we use it is done by satellite. No satellite GPS can penetrate under the water. Radio waves don’t travel very far in water either. 

The black box technology works under water as I am sure I remember reports stating they have located the BB when a plane has crashed in the sea 

Now that’s something I do know about.
black boxes in aircraft generally work whereby a sensor will detect if it comes into contact with water and start pinging sounds designed to be easily detected by sonar ) every few seconds ( think of 2 submarines pinging each other, that’s how the surface ship and the black box find each other ). Much like the sonar buoys.this would work but as stated the CEO surrounded himself by yes men and many normally used within the industry  failsafes ( electromagnetically attached ballasts for example) were not incorporated into the design.

cafctom said:

Anyone else surprised that a rescue attempt from the bottom of the ocean is such a difficult/practically impossible task?

Certainly not to undermine the harshness of the environment involved, but in 2023 it seems as though humans are capable of practically anything. 

It still bends my mind sometimes that we can have airplanes that move 30,000 feet in the air whilst someone serves you drinks, and you can log onto Wi-Fi, all without feeling a thing. Not to mention the fact we can send enormous structures up into space for years at a time.

Call me naive, but I’m surprised to hear that this sort of task is seemingly beyond us as a species considering all the other outrageous technological achievements we’ve made.

All of those things are in the air where where radio waves for example are capable of travelling almost infinite distances. We are land based creatures looking up and consequently the technology has developed to cope with that air based environment, including search and rescue missions. As a species we never have looked at the deep as the environment is just so harsh.  

Todds_right_hook said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

Todds_right_hook said:

kentaddick said:

Todds_right_hook said:

What I don't understand is that I have a Bluetooth card in my wallet and can use my phone to find it but yet a craft travelling 2.5m below sea level hasn't got a tracker

throw your wallet 2.5 miles down to the bottom of the ocean and see how easy it is to track

The point I was trying to make is there must be technology available to track craft at that depth. Why isn't it mandatory that craft be fitted with this

i might be wrong here but my understanding is that the craft wasn't fitted with any tracking devices

It’s too deep for any tracking device to work. Even nuclear subs use transmitter buoys that they release to the surface to make contact. Radio waves do not function under water. Sound waves. Sonar is effective but has massive limitations. Not useful for communication. 

Safety on a submersible isn't my area of expertise but to have nothing to help them be found seems very negligent, as you've said twice, why wasn't a buoy used. 

They are now very likely to be out of air and rescuers have 0 clue where they are. They are in trouble even if they are on the surface. At least a buoy would have slightly improved their odds

eaststandmike said:

ShootersHillGuru said:

thenewbie said:

Todds_right_hook said:

kentaddick said:

Todds_right_hook said:

What I don't understand is that I have a Bluetooth card in my wallet and can use my phone to find it but yet a craft travelling 2.5m below sea level hasn't got a tracker

throw your wallet 2.5 miles down to the bottom of the ocean and see how easy it is to track

The point I was trying to make is there must be technology available to track craft at that depth. Why isn't it mandatory that craft be fitted with this

i might be wrong here but my understanding is that the craft wasn't fitted with any tracking devices

Because there's no one to mandate it. Planes have to have tracking devices, so do ships (at least above a certain size) because there are regulatory bodies in charge of those.

This is just one private individual deciding to build a submersible more or less because he can. There's not any authorities in charge of that business.

Although as a result of this it’s possible that a new law or regulation will be enforced so that it is mandatory in future.

At the risk of labouring the point.there is no tracking underwater. Tracking in the term we use it is done by satellite. No satellite GPS can penetrate under the water. Radio waves don’t travel very far in water either. 

The black box technology works under water as I am sure I remember reports stating they have located the BB when a plane has crashed in the sea 

Black boxes underwater use sonar pings that start when the box touches water. I mentioned earlier that I couldn’t understand why the sub was unable to ping a sonar beacon. 

thenewbie said:

Todds_right_hook said:

kentaddick said:

Todds_right_hook said:

What I don't understand is that I have a Bluetooth card in my wallet and can use my phone to find it but yet a craft travelling 2.5m below sea level hasn't got a tracker

throw your wallet 2.5 miles down to the bottom of the ocean and see how easy it is to track

The point I was trying to make is there must be technology available to track craft at that depth. Why isn't it mandatory that craft be fitted with this

i might be wrong here but my understanding is that the craft wasn't fitted with any tracking devices

Because there's no one to mandate it. Planes have to have tracking devices, so do ships (at least above a certain size) because there are regulatory bodies in charge of those.

This is just one private individual deciding to build a submersible more or less because he can. There's not any authorities in charge of that business.

Although as a result of this its possible that a new law or regulation will be enforced so that it is mandatory in future.

Proven to work really well, see the MH370 thread

In a hundred years, our great-grandchildren will be taking trips to visit the amazingly preserved wreck of the Titanic Submersible 

ShootersHillGuru said:

I think it’s quite possible that the submersible may never be located. Once it is beyond any doubt that the passengers are deceased I’m sure the search will continue for a while but the cost of the surface and submarine search and rescue will be enormous. Certainly too much to justify. 

unfortunately it’s might be similar to the 747 Maylasian plane that disappeared some years ago and still not found. No one knows what happened and I expect this will be a similar scenario. 

Fumbluff said:

thenewbie said:

Todds_right_hook said:

kentaddick said:

Todds_right_hook said:

What I don't understand is that I have a Bluetooth card in my wallet and can use my phone to find it but yet a craft travelling 2.5m below sea level hasn't got a tracker

throw your wallet 2.5 miles down to the bottom of the ocean and see how easy it is to track

The point I was trying to make is there must be technology available to track craft at that depth. Why isn't it mandatory that craft be fitted with this

i might be wrong here but my understanding is that the craft wasn't fitted with any tracking devices

Because there's no one to mandate it. Planes have to have tracking devices, so do ships (at least above a certain size) because there are regulatory bodies in charge of those.

This is just one private individual deciding to build a submersible more or less because he can. There's not any authorities in charge of that business.

Although as a result of this its possible that a new law or regulation will be enforced so that it is mandatory in future.

Proven to work really well, see the MH370 thread

Numerous planes have crashed into the oceans and been found, so perhaps citing the one that is infamous for disappearing - because the pilot turned nearly all of the tracking equipment off - isn't quite the best example for reviewing the effectiveness of tracking technology. I'd also add that technology that wasn't intended to be used for tracking STILL managed to track that plane. 

As for not knowing much about what's in the ocean, we do actually have a pretty good idea. While much of the ocean floor hasn't been touched by mankind other than plastic particles, and there are myriad species that we have yet to discover, we do have a pretty good idea of what's down there. It's basically the same as what we have looked at. Just lots more of it. We might not have set eyes on it but there's not much reason to assume - varying species of fish not included - that there's much to discover in the vast majority of it. 

If you are interested in a comparison in terms of depth of water vs saving a submarine / the people in it, have a read of this - terrible tragedy, and it’s only 83 metres down - this craft is probably 3,800 metres down ……

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Affray_(P421)

JohnBoyUK said:

Meanwhile... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-65982637

Search abandoned.  Very sad.

How could he have gone missing if he had a support vessel with him or am I missing something?