Talk:Titan submersible implosion

Needs Photo Of Titan

Can you add a photo of the Titan submersible in the infobox below "Titan submersible implosion" so we know what exactly imploded. 86.17.54.133 (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Per [1], the image of the Titan submarine cannot be used in this article. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 12:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Why cant you use a picture of the submarine? surely there is a non-copyrighted one. Dappy373 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

See § Image of Titan and see WP:NFCC which is cited in that discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of previous discussion about this, see the talk page archive. It would need to be a free to use photo, not a copyrighted one or a pretend CGI version.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Energy and Kinetics

There needs to be a discussion of the energy and kinetics of the implosion. I could easily provide one, but it might constitute Original Research. We don't know the exact depth of the implosion, but: Depth at bottom - 12,500 ft. Pressure at bottom - approx. 375 atmospheres, 5,500 psi. Volume inside pressure hull - approx. 284 cu. ft. Energy liberated - approx. 225,000,000 ft lbs, or the potential energy represented by a Boeing 727 at 1,000 ft. elevation. Water at that depth is compressed about 1 1/2%, so the implosion would have been almost instantaneous.

Does anyone know a published source for this? Martino3 (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Biased point of view - social media

Describing social media chatter as merely negative seeks to blame the public for the follies of a rich man who created an international disaster that was entirely foreseeable and preventable. Noting the tax dollars used to fish these men out of the ocean so that laws can be enacted to prevent further people from engaging in the same behavior, the public had no where to go with it but to notice that only a fool would launch themselves to the bottom of the ocean in an experimental craft of such ill repute. No on is to blame for the disaster but the company and the men involved. The public has the right to comment on what happened and furthermore to notice that the company was still claiming these men were alive when Naval experts, engineers and anyone with common sense correctly deduced these men died upon an obvious implosion, because you know, physics. The public has the right to question why their military is falsely claiming this is a rescue mission when it was clearly a salvage operation and to what extent the US Military has the legal obligation to tell the public about civilian maritime disasters in real time. 2604:2D80:A48F:300:A184:9338:EB1B:E701 (talk) 15:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Tend to agree with your sentiments. But WP is tied to using "reliable sources" and cannot use "the public" in the form of social media. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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)