Talk:Titan submersible implosion

Edit request: Verify Statement Source

Under the section "18 June, Dive and disappearance" it states "James Cameron indicated that it was likely that the sub's early warning system had alerted the passengers to an impending delamination of the hull. He added "we understand from inside the community that they had dropped their ascent weights and were coming up, trying to manage an emergency." with the source attributed to [74]. I cannot find anywhere in the source where this is stated. Can anyone else verify that this is correct? Rookiek13 (talk) 00:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

It's in the video embedded in the article, but not the text. Article refs updated. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Denial of Boeing / UW Involvement

https://www.washington.edu/news/2013/10/08/uw-local-company-building-innovative-deep-sea-manned-submarine/

I'm confused why the media and this article continuously deny involvement with Titan despite still-available info from the University of Washington site that confirms both played roles.

They literally have video of themselves collaborating with Stockton right there m on their site.

This is weird bc of all the articles denying it. I simply typed "before:2023" and there's abundant documentation of both. Boeing & UW contributing to it.

Same with NASA: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/oceangate-nasa-teaming-build-better-carbon-fiber-pressure-vessels/

Jelly Garcia (talk) 08:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This article doesn't deny involvement. To quote, After the disappearance of Titan in 2023, these earlier associates distanced themselves from the Titan project. UW claimed the APL had no involvement in the "design, engineering, or testing of the Titan submersible". A Boeing spokesperson also claimed Boeing "was not a partner on Titan and did not design or build it". A NASA spokesperson said that NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center had a Space Act Agreement with OceanGate, but "did not conduct testing and manufacturing via its workforce or facilities". If you think we need to be more specific about the claims and denials, then feel free to suggest the wording that you would recommend. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2024

In the first section we see this sentence: OceanGate executives, including Rush, had not sought certification for Titan, arguing that excessive safety protocols and regulations hindered innovation. There is a source which points to a New York Times article, but nowhere does the article mention the claim that Rush argued against protocol; all it says that industry insiders were concerned that they didn't seek certification. So, more research needs to be done to validate this claim. 198.133.178.20 (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: From the NYT source:

Mr. Kohnen said that Mr. Rush called him after reading the letter and told him that industry standards were stifling innovation.

In an unsigned 2019 blog post titled “Why Isn’t Titan Classed?,” the company made similar arguments. OceanGate said in the post that because its Titan craft was so innovative, it could take years to get it certified by the usual assessment agencies. “Bringing an outside entity up to speed on every innovation before it is put into real-world testing is anathema to rapid innovation,” the company wrote.

Jamedeus (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"no time for warning"

After the James Cameron quote about potential warning for hull delamination, and that the crew may have been trying to ascend to manage an emergency, there is a statement that seems to suggest that the passengers were not aware of anything going wrong.

"However, simulations suggested the implosion of the vessel took less than one second, likely only tens of milliseconds, faster than the brain can process information: there would not have been time for the victims to experience anything extraordinary, and they would have died immediately, with no warning or pain, as their bodies were crushed."

Nobody is denying that when the actual implosion occured it was painless and instantaneous, but there is also the possibility that they knew something was about to go wrong from the acoustic signatures in the hull leading up to the implosion, since the sub was equipped with these type of sensors and previous dives reported cracking sounds. The statement seems to try to dispute this by discussing the actual implosions duration. I feel like this should be changed slightly to not sound as though its trying to dispute the previous statement by James Cameron. SelRav (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's role to challenge content from reliable sources. If you have another reliable source that posits an alternate point of view, it may be appropriate to include that. Otherwise what you are proposing is WP:SYNTH. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not challenging that the implosion took a fraction of a second, and neither would anyone else, but I'm simply proposing altering the wording slightly to not be contradictory to the statement by James Cameron, because the two are not mutually exclusive. SelRav (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's speculation because we don't know what happened. There have been suggestions that the crew attempted an emergency ascent, but there is not enough evidence to say this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually the simulations do say that prior to the actual collapse there would have been loud creeaks:

"Visual indication of the hull collapse would have been preceded by loud creaks and pops. An acoustic analysis was not part of this simulation. The Titan had been equipped with a patented hull monitoring system and its sensors, most of which were located on the hull, would have been hooked up to alarms, so the alarms would have gone off."

With that in mind, the simulations do say the collapse happened in around 30ms, but that doesn't mean there was no indication prior. I think a slight rewording would be fitting. SelRav (talk) 15:19, 13 March 20https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.176.145.11224 (UTC)

Sorry, the cited source says this but was not included in the simulation. SelRav (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think its speculation to say that there was no warning, or to use the simulations to claim that there was no indication prior to collapse. That isn't what the simulations indicate, the simulations only tell us how fast the implosion itself occured. I mainly have issue with the word "however" because it makes it seem like the simulations suggest there wasnt any acoustic warning prior to collapse, which they dont do, the same article mentions there would have been noises beforehand. SelRav (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It's speculation to say that there was any warning. But then we don't know what that "warning" might have been. And how does James Cameron know that was "likely"? An alarm might be expected to have included an auditory component, but we don't know how that might have been presented or at what intensity. It's very easy to get this unknown auditory alarm mixed up with the "loud creaks and pops" that might have come from the hull itself. Cameron's understanding that the sub "had dropped their ascent weights and were coming up, trying to manage an emergency" does not seem to have been officially confirmed? 86.176.145.112 (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTH again. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources says, it doesn't critique them. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The interview video at ABC News may be a reliable source for Cameron's comments. But why is Cameron regarded as a reliable source for details such as the likelihood of (some unknown kind of) warning being triggered and the claim that the sub was ascending? 86.176.145.112 (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Im not critiquing the source, im critiquing the interpretation of the source in the wikipedia entry. The same reliable source for the simulation says that prior to the collapse there would have been audible creaks and pops. So to then interpret the source as meaning "they would not experience warning prior" is innacurate, none of the citations say or allude to this, in fact they say the opposite. SelRav (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said there was any warning, and the article entry doesn't say this either. My point is that the simulations and citations dont disprove there was warning, in fact the article source mentions "Visual indication of the hull collapse would have been preceded by loud creaks and pops." So why should the sources be used to disprove Cameron's statement? They shouldn't, thats not an accurate summary of the source. SelRav (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you make a valid point. The passengers may have heard creaking or popping from the hull. They may have also seen and/or heard the warnings from the hull sensors or sensor system (if there were such thing). But when the hull finally broke, they would have been unware of the actual event. You could possibly propose new text to make this distinction clearer. But all of it, especially the suggestion that the passengers heard sounds preceding the event, seems to be based on pure conjecture. 86.176.145.112 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing further for me to say here other than to point you at WP:SYNTH again. We're not going to add our own commentary to discuss the validity of the sources we are using. Furthermore, it's hard to follow your comments when you keep logging in and out. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't logged out, everything I've posted was under my account SelRav. You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying as well because I'm not critiquing the source or questioning the validity of the sources. WP:SYNTH doesn't apply at all. SelRav (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm talking about these edits. We don't need to fiddle with the wording because you disagree with our sources. I'm not commenting further. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That isn't my account, not my IP. I also am not disagreeing with the sources one bit. SelRav (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The simulations are just that, simulations. There have been various computer simulations of what might have happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, but we still don't know what actually happened. The question of what happened prior to the implosion of the Titan submersible is conjecture, although James Cameron appears to have been told by an off the record source that the crew suspected that something was wrong and attempted to surface. However, there is no direct evidence for this either.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not adding in more support for what Cameron said. I suggested that the wording should be altered for the section on the simulations to not sound as though they disproved what Cameron said.. As I've mentioned before the same article source for the simulation says "Visual indication of the hull collapse would have been preceded by loud creaks and pops." There's no reason the wording should sound contradictory to what was said before, as they are not in disagreement. What I'm suggesting is simply a more accurate summary of the source that doesn't say "However" in the beginning, and says they would not have had time to experience the hull collapse itself. All of these things are more accurate to the source. SelRav (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

“BBC Channel 5”

the final section references an ITN documentary that aired on "BBC Channel 5"

either ITN made a doc for their archrival on a secret new channel founded without any fanfare, or whoever wrote this somehow hallucinated the BBC into owning paramount's Channel 5 2A02:C7C:C1D5:FA00:D05D:3CA3:3C:DF (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This was broadcast on Channel 5 (British TV channel) which isn't part of the BBC. Thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)