Talk:Titan submersible implosion/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Edit request

This text "In presentation by Rush, he claimed his teams even shook the building and cause damage, during pressure test of its acoustic system of hull" is grammatically extremely poor.

Even with the grammar/syntax fixed, what on earth does it mean? Who or what shook the building? What building is being referred to?

It is implied that the acoustic system was being put through a pressure test, when surely it means that the hull was being pressure tested and the responses of the acoustic system evaluated.

Some work is needed here. (Or just delete it) 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6C3C:5F5:C493:76FB (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it. Folly Mox (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

U. S. Navy acoustic information

The article says: "A U.S. Navy acoustic detection system designed to locate military submarines detected an acoustic signature consistent with an implosion hours after Titan submerged. This was discovered after the submersible was reported missing, which caused the Navy to review its acoustic data from that time period. The Navy passed the information to the Coast Guard."

Some questions, answers to which would improve the article:

1. How many "hours after" was that? Does that mean the sub was definitely on the sea floor by then?
2. Was this data security classified and so was delayed in being passed on to the Coast Guard? How long did it take to pass the data on - hours or days?

Thanks. 86.187.229.73 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This is related to #U.S. Government knew of certain death but tried to hide it, failed to do so anyhow. As I mentioned there, in the lead our article does claim the sonar detection was declassified implying it was classified at one stage. But last I checked, the sources we use didn't specifically mention it was classified and so there was no mention of when it was declassified. Note that assuming it was classified, the declassification may have happened after it was passed to the Coast Guard, perhaps even not long before it was publicly revealed but the sources we use seem somewhat unclear on these aspects. Some other sources I've seen do mention or imply that this sort of stuff is shrouded in secrecy because it's mostly used for detection of foreign submarines so the US does not want to give away too many details of their capabilities but it would be OR to say this means the detection was classified. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

“was declassified implying it was classified at one stage”. Military raw data is classified by default. Live data is not subject to continuous classification decisions.

The process and decision maker for declassification is classified.

“Classified” is a generic term going down to the lowest level. It’s close to meaningless. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

We still need a source that says it was classified or declassified or it's WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

And on that note, I've removed the declassified bit. If anyone is willing to provide a source rather than simply insist it's true, they're welcome to add it back. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Good. I guess my point of relevance to the article is that the classification level of the data is uninteresting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, we have no sources to support it. In any case perhaps the U.S. Navy typically shares "sensitive" data with the U.S. Coast Guard any way. So there might have been no delays added on by having to "officially declassify" it once it had been identified. The biggest delay was obviously the delay in the announcement of the disappearance? 86.187.235.53 (talk) 08:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that any source has said anything about where the sub was, ie on/near the bottom, or still descending; indeed it is not clear whether the raw data can indicate direction from the point(s) of collection either horizontally or vertically - nor from how far away was the detection. I expect that, over time, some better understanding of this will emerge, but given the purpose of the USN system, not all questions will get answered publicly (nor should they). Davidships (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

All useful info thanks. But the questions were really about timing. So, trying again:

1. How many "hours after" was that? Does that mean the sub was definitely on the sea floor by then?
2. How long did it take to pass the data on - hours or days?

Of course, as this was the U.S. Navy none of this info may (ever) be in the public domain. Thanks. 86.187.166.157 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The vessel was not even reported missing by the operating company until it was overdue to resurface, by which point it would have had time to sink to the seafloor from the surface more than twice. Folly Mox (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, yes, thanks, that's useful information I'm sure. But the question is about the U. S. Navy acoustic information. Is it possible to tell, from the timing of the acoustic information (and coincidental loss of comms from the sub) where the sub was when the implosion occurred. I am unsure how to make this question any clearer. Thanks. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The real question is: has a reliable source produced such an analysis based on the data. And the answer is: so far, no one has produced one. We'll have to wait (possibly until the TSB/NTSB/CG investigations release their findings). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, that's the Wikipedia question. The above questions are just as real. Thanks. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a Wikipedia talk page. WP:NOTFORUM applies. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you think this thread should be hatted or deleted? 86.187.164.61 (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It'll get archived after 3 days of inactivity, though someone with that fancy one-click script may come along and manually archive it sooner. Don't delete it, that's yet another thing which is Not Allowed (there are so many!). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see what exactly is in that WSJ source as it's behind a paywall (and should be marked as such in the article). 86.187.164.61 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

It is marked as such. That's what the little red padlock means. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I just checked <ref name=":18"> and there is no "url-access=subscription" parameter? Perhaps you could tell us what the source says exactly. 86.187.164.61 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I thought you meant ref 1 - you're right, the other one (ref 8) isn't marked as paywalled. I can access ref 18 (Sky News article) just fine; what do you want to know? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The ref is number 8 in the text. It's this one: Can you access it? The claim is "hours after Titan submerged" - what does the source actually say? Thanks.86.187.164.61 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, I have no access. Maybe someone else does. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Somebody should add the little red padlock... 86.187.164.61 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

86, given that the US Navy acoustic survey network (whatever it's called) is supposed to track the movements of foreign submarines, it is almost definitely capable of triangulating the position of the implosion event, including depth in the water column. I don't have any experience in telemetry, but I feel like the intersection of three spheres is two points. I hope this is getting closer to answering your question. Folly Mox (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Well maybe. But that's a bit of a different world. Maybe they could triangulate it, without any need to know at what time the sub started to dive. The article says elsewhere that it normally took the sub 2 hours to descend? 86.187.164.61 (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah there are a couple sources that give that number as the estimated dive time. I think what I'm trying to get at is that if they detect an underwater noise with three sensors, the triangulation gives them two points, one of which may well be above the water surface. If they hear it with two sensors, they get a circle. In other words, either they have the precise location in 3d, or they just have an arc of possible locations in 3d space, with the latitude and longitude varying along with the depth in a tradeoff kinda fashion. I'm sure whoever wrote the software in COBOL in the 1970s put a lot of thought into it so they could use a minimal number of sensors for accurate results. Folly Mox (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well Submarine detection system is suitably vague. The Pentagon must be suitably reassured that no-one at Wikipedia will ever know. 86.187.161.157 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

This source names it the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System, and says "Though the system itself is not classified, according to a Navy official, its operation and collection capabilities are secret." Folly Mox (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Good source. Yes, it mentions triangulation. So maybe also depth, not just a raw acoustic signature (which is what the article currently suggests?) 86.187.161.157 (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for adding url=subs parameter. 86.187.161.157 (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. I wanted to return to this thread briefly because I realised if the error bars in detection are greater than the ocean depth, then there would be no depth dimension to infer. Given that the ocean is way wider than it is deep, it doesn't seem out of the question that the margin of error could include the entire water column. Folly Mox (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

References

"Lloyd’s Register declined a request from Ocean Gate to provide classification"

Right now, the lead section ends with the sentence OceanGate executives... had not sought certification for Titan, arguing that excessive safety protocols hindered innovation. However, this source quotes a representative of Lloyd's Register stating Lloyd's had declined a request from OceanGate to classify the submersible. The timeline appears to be that OceanGate said they would not seek classification, then tried for it anyway and got turned down. I'm not sure how best to express this in the lead. Folly Mox (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps OceanGate executives, including its CEO Stockton Rush (one of the fatalities in the implosion), had not at first sought certification for Titan, arguing that excessive safety protocols hindered innovation;<ref #1> a subsequent certification request to Lloyd's Register was declined.<ref #2>? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

And a follow-up should then be inserted at 2023 Titan submersible incident#Safety, of course (unless a better spot presents itself). 199.208.172.35 (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for “see also”

“The Wreck of the Titan” seems irrelevant aside from the Titan name and any proximity to the Titanic herself; does that belong in the “see also”? Fibbage (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done, agreed that it has no relevance to this article. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"nose cone"

Paul Hankins during the live press conference referred to Titan's "nose cone". Other discussions have referred to its "tail cone". All images and drawings show Titan having a tail assembly attached to the outside of the pressure hull, and no nose cone.

I have not found anyone making a citeable correction to Hankin's statement, and lots of articles quoting him saying "nose cone". Because of this, it looks like it would be OR to make any correction to this.

Does this sum up the current situation? NapoliRoma (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't take much imagination to understand that both the bow and stern segments were referred to. Tvx1 00:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The Titan did not have a nose "cone" - it had forward and aft bells and a tail "cone". Timtjtim (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We have footage of the Coast Guard's Rear Admiral John Mauger discussing the situation. In Mauger's words, This morning an ROV [...] discovered the tail cone of the Titan submersible [...] Hankin's words were as follows: The first thing we found was the nose cone which was outside of the pressure hull This should be enough to connect that the same object has been described as a "tail cone" and as a "nose cone" by Mauger and Hankins. This gives us the option to attach a note to the text saying something along the lines of U.S. Navy director(?) Paul Hankins said in a press briefing on June 22, 2023, that the first discovered object was a nose cone, while U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral John Mauger said that the object was a tail cone and leave it up to the sources to clarify. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Currently the Debris section only cites two sources (both BBC news articles) and lists a tail cone plus the forward and aft end bells (no nose cone). This makes perfect sense so far. I'm not sure if adding a conflicting statement about an apparently non-existent nose cone would be helpful. (Did someone along the line conflate end bells with cones? Or nose with tail? Or just misspeak/type? Who knows.) 199.208.172.35 (talk) 15:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like Hankins either misspoke or that the term is different depending on the organization. More likely the former, though. In any case, currently the article has been fixed and the issue as originally post has been resolved, so my suggestion is not needed. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

During the press briefing they recounted finding the "nose cone" and "aft end bell" as two separate events, so they may have actually found both. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The issue here is that there doesn't seem to be a nose cone. There are two end bells and something being described as a tail cone. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, slip of the tongue. If there was a nose cone there would be no view out of the window. Davidships (talk) 23:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't edit war over WP:ENGVAR

Please discuss this on the talk page rather than edit warring about it, please. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Original ENGVAR was Canadian English. This is perfectly justified on several grounds:

• The mother ship MV Polar Prince was Canadian;
• The expedition set out from a Canadian port (St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador);
• The nearest shore (Shingle Head, 600 km) was Canadian;
  • (The next nearest territory, by the way, was French — Saint Pierre and Miquelon);
• The investigations will largely focus on the Polar Prince, as it is Canadian-flagged and currently berthed at its home port, St. John's;
• Any investigation done at the Titanic site will, of course, be nearer Canada than any other country.

Given this, I cannot see any justification for peremptorily changing the ENGVAR to American English.Kelisi (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, this discussion is related to 'Date structure?' in Archive 1 and 'Date format' above. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of location of dive site

Propose to change:

"The ship arrived at the dive site on 17 June, and the dive operation began the following day on Sunday.."

to:

"The ship arrived at the dive site on 17 June, approximately 370 nmi (690 km; 430 mi) south-southeast of Newfoundland, and the dive operation began the following day on Sunday..".

This matches the position given in Wreck of the Titanic. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

We don’t whether it dove precisely above the wreck, so no this shouldn’t be added. Tvx1 10:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

OK, so maybe we must have a source, even if we use the word "approximately". But what are the "highly accurate" co-ordinates and the map position meant to be telling us... just where the wreck is? where the submersible is now? (if only) where the incident began? The map caption says: "Location of the wreck of the Titanic, where the Titan was diving." We don't even know if it got to the wreck. I'm just saying that the map point could also be described in nautical miles from somewhere. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree change proposed. The position suggested is qualified "approximately", as well as the Titanic position being apparently rounded to the nearest 10nmi etc. It is perfectly valid to point readers to the relevant area of the ocean. Davidships (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Why can't this be done? The lead section says "approximately 400 nautical miles (740 km) off the coast of Newfoundland" but this does not appear anywhere else in the article. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Where has that "approximately 400 nautical miles" come from? Not the NPR source at the end of that sentence, which gives no positions at all. Presumably someone just calculated it from the co-ordinates? 86.187.171.168 (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the distance from St. John's to the Titanic wreck. I've added a citation to confirm: CNN. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. So I just calculated it, at this site, using the co-ords for this article and St. Johns, Newfoundland. The answer is: 366 nmi (678 km; 421 mi). I'm not sure "approximately 400 nautical miles" is close enough. Maybe it is. Or perhaps a better source could be found? 86.187.171.168 (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's a better source in The Guardian] which says "370 nautical miles (685km) south-east." That source should be used in the Preparations – 16–17 June section, and the same distance should be used in the lead section, which then would not need a separate source. Rounding 366 nm to 370 nm is more reasonable. 86.187.228.193 (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead section has now been updated to "about 370 nautical miles (690 km) off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada". But the distance does not appear anywhere, and is not sourced, in the main body of the article. The distance is from St. John's. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the debris was found "approximately 488 metres (1,601 ft) from the bow of the Titanic," strongly suggesting the dive site was very close to the wreck site. Unlike with an explosion, an implosion will not have immediately thrown debris across a wide field. The vessel parts may have drifted as they sank down. But not by many metres, I suspect. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The lead now says: "...about 320 nautical miles (590 km) off the coast of Newfoundland, Canada". Where has that come from? And why? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks User:bradv for changing that back to 370. Could I suggest that a source is added? And that it also appears in the main body text. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The notion that Suleman didn't want to go on the trip isn't true. (?)

"Suleman Dawood (aged 19), the son of Shahzada Dawood, who was a student at the University of Strathclyde. According to his aunt Azmeh Dawood, Suleman was terrified of going on the trip, but did so to please his father.

This seems to be contradicted by the BBC's latest interview with his mother

"

Teenager Suleman Dawood, who died in the Titan submersible, took his Rubik's Cube with him because he wanted to break a world record, his mother told the BBC.

The 19-year-old applied to Guinness World Records and his father, Shahzada, who also died, had brought a camera to capture the moment. [...] In her first interview, Mrs Dawood said she had planned to go with her husband to view the wreck of the Titanic, but the trip was cancelled because of the Covid pandemic.

"Then I stepped back and gave them space to set [Suleman] up, because he really wanted to go," she said." [...] Mrs Dawood said they hugged and made jokes in the moments before her husband and son boarded the Titan submersible.

"I was really happy for them because both of them, they really wanted to do that for a very long time," she said.

" (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66015851)

So was he terrified and did it to please his father, or did he go out of his own volition? This seems contradictory to me. Monological (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I've just watched BBC News on BBC One and she was interviewed on that. She said she was supposed to go on the trip, but gave up her place because Sulieman wanted to go. This is Paul (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe he got excited? Maybe he told his mom and aunt different stuff? Is any material about why people decided to board the incident vessel present in the live article? That doesn't seem encyclopaedic. Folly Mox (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

The previous content quoting the teenager's aunt was removed this morning; there are non-controversial passing mentions regarding some of the adults. Davidships (talk) 11:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Sadly he'll never be able to answer this conundrum for himself. The only certainty is to say that retrospectively, he wouldn't have wanted to go on this trip. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:B129:C1C5:EA8C:6D47 (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Structure

It is both pointless and meaningless to put all of the timeline under an "Incident" heading; especially "Further mission". I'm also unclear why the heading "Aftermath" has been removed from above the latter sub-section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible solution - move the 23 and 24 June information to the Investigation section, retitle the Incident section (Final expedition and disappearance? Too long?). The day-by-day breakdown of events may no longer be necessary. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Implosion

I noticed that article has describe the event as an implosion since the remains of the vessel have been found. However, the parties involved in the search have not specified this as an implosion, but rather as a catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber. I might also have been the result of a catastrophic structural failure, for instance. So we should reflect the sources more accurately.Tvx1 00:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like many sources are referring to it as an "implosion"? Which sources are you thinking of that aren't using that word recently? See “This is an incredibly unforgiving environment down there on the sea floor and the debris is consistent with a catastrophic implosion of the vessel,” US Coast Guard Rear Adm. John Mauger, the First Coast Guard District commander, told reporters. from https://www.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23 and it looks like three of the sources currently in our article have implosion in the title or URL. And The US Navy detected “an acoustic anomaly consistent with an implosion” shortly after the Titan lost contact with the surface, an official has told CBS News, the BBC's US partner. from https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-us-canada-65967464 so it seems like the current trend is toward describing it as an implosion. Skynxnex (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

None of the sources you mention here are direct transcription of statements of or publications from the investigative party. They are third party reports which clearly make their own synthesis. The investigators clearly avoid the word implosion. Just look at the publications and news conferences given directly by them cited in the article. The infobox uses the word twice, twice backed by the same source that doesn’t use the word at all. Tvx1 07:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless you're saying the coast guard aren't the investigators, in which case I'm not sure who you're referring to, they definitely did use the word "implosion": https://edition.cnn.com/americas/live-news/titanic-missing-sub-oceangate-06-22-23/h_c50808578ba1d353961d6c2f9979ff22 Timtjtim (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Would a catastrophic structural failure of a pressure chamber at 12,500 ft depth not also be an "implosion"? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There could be catastrophic leak and than break-up. Tvx1 06:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tvx1 makes an excellent point that definitely needs proper consideration. The media/press/public have all been somewhat fixated on the notion of an implosion ever since Titan was reported missing. From the reports of the debris that was found it certainly sounds like the Titan failed catastrophically.

As @Mr rnddude says, the pressure inside the sub was 1atm and the pressure outside was around 400atm. If that pressure differential ceased to exist then the crew would be killed. But the crux of the issue is how rapidly (or slowly) the pressure inside and outside equalized.

Therefore, had a small leak developed the sub could in theory have simply filled slowly with water but remained essentially intact. The outcome for the crew would still have been fatal.

The other scenario (which appears to have happened) is that the carbon-fibre pressure hull suddenly collapsed. Carbon-fibre is extremely strong, but it is inflexible and when it breaks, it breaks.

Consider decompression of an airliner for comparison - it's the opposite scenario but the physics are similar. There have been cases where aircraft have slowly decompressed at altitude due to a minor air-leak. The pressure inside & outside slowly equalizes, the passengers put on their oxygen masks, people with sinus trouble feel like their head is exploding, the plane descends and ultimately lands safely. There have also been cases where aircraft have rapidly (explosively) decompressed - e.g. Pan AM 103.

To recap, the reports on the debris field support the view that the sub imploded (which, as an interesting thought experiment, one might also view as 'the sea around the sub exploded'). But a slow leak and non-catastrophic equalization of pressures was always an option that the media never caught on to. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that’s one of the alternate explanations is was inferring. Tvx1 11:52, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the Coast Guard spokesperson did state that "the debris is consistent with a catastrophic implosion of the vessel" (see the 22 June press briefing, around 6:10). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The PSI differential in an airplane is up to 10 (0.7 atm) depending on model + altitude. The PSI delta in the submersible is 6000 (400 atm). The two scenarios are totally incomparable. There's no such thing as a "minor leak" at those depths. Timtjtim (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Timtjtim Of course there is such a thing as a minor leak, regardless of the pressure differential. The pressure vessel can be anything from perfectly sealed to thoroughly unsealed. It's a spectrum. There might be a poor joint-interface that allows a few millilitres of water to penetrate per hour. Or maybe a few litres per hour. Or thousands of litres in a few milliseconds. You get the picture, yes? 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

moments after you have a small amount of water coming it, it will rapidly turn into a vast amount of water. Timtjtim (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Timtjtim Please just stop saying incorrect stuff. What you said is a possibility, but only a possibility. Go and drill a small hole (let's say 1mm diameter) in your mains water pipe. Come back and let me know how long it takes for the hole to become significantly larger. It depends entirely on the physical nature of the leak and the structural integrity of the material surrounding the hole.

Stick a pin in a balloon - certainly, the pinhole very rapidly grows and the balloon bursts catastrophically.

Now, reinforce a part of the balloon with some Scotch Tape and stick a pin in that. What happens? Basically very little. There is minimal leakage and no catastrophic failure.

I turned my kitchen tap on earlier today, but only very slightly so that just a trickle of water came out. The flow of water remained constant. It didn't suddenly become a deluge. The tap's valve did not fail.

You really need to learn to accept when you are wrong. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Your kitchen tap is not at a 6000 PSI differential Timtjtim (talk) 09:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Even at 6000 psi, there are scenarios of small leaks that do not lead to escalating failure. A small leak is a pretty bad sign though. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Timtjtim That's one of the few correct things you've contributed recently. I understand that WP has issues with your attitude, competence and behaviour already. For that reason I regret I cannot interact with you any further. It's much too difficult for people like me to deal with people like you. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry - could you clarify that comment? Nobody has informed me of any issues with my attitude, competence or behaviour. If I've done something violating WP policies I'd really appreciate you let me know - feel free to start a discussion on my talk page. Timtjtim (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@Timtjtim Here we go. More passive-aggressive belligerence...I'd like you to leave me alone now mister. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to continue this on the discussion on your talk page if there's an issue. Timtjtim (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber" and "catastrophic structural failure" are not separate possible causes - the latter is a possible explanation for what caused the former. And the former, at that depth, means an implosion. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 01:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, It could also be a break-up.Tvx1 06:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Any sort of structural failure would immediately lead to catastrophic explosion at such depth 74.213.224.18 (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

...I meant to write implosion. 74.213.224.18 (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

No, it wouldn’t. Please actually educate yourself on what an implosion is. Also, something could actually have caused an explosion inside the pressure chamber.Tvx1 07:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Structural failure of a cabin pressurized to 1 atm whilst in an environment of ~400 atm would not lead to an implosion? The linked article says an implosion is a process in which objects are destroyed by collapsing (or being squeezed in) on themselves and even provides a submarine being crushed from the outside by the hydrostatic pressure of the surrounding water as a prime example of an implosion. I already knew all that so my understanding of implosion isn't being revolutionized here. What other scenario is on the table? Torpedo, bomb-on-board, Cthulhu? Curt dismissals - as an aside, you've been unpleasant repeatedly on this talk page - aren't convincing responses. I have, however, removed both cites from the infobox as they don't mention 'failure of the pressure hull' or an implosion. It only mentions the debris field and press conference. I can personally entertain the explosion hypothesis, but it's a 'citation needed' affair. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude I'm afraid you're incorrect. Although it would appear that Titan catastrophically imploded, a structural failure could mean anything from a very slow leak to a sudden fracture/collapse of the pressure hull.

To reiterate, I'm not disputing that Titan catastrophically imploded. However, you've stated that an implosion is an inevitable consequence of a structural failure. That's incorrect.

Consider the scenario where a slow leak develops (e.g. a valve fails, a bolt fails, a seal fails). The pressure hull would slowly begin to fill with seawater, the air in the cabin would increase in pressure and be compressed, the crew would die, but the pressure hull would remain intact. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

You all make the incorrect assumption that the break-up happened with certainty while the pressure inside the vessel was lower than the surroundings. It can just as well have equalised first, through a leak of variable size, with the vessel breaking-up later. That’s not an implosion. And there also could have been an explosion inside the vessel, which could have cause structural failure. That it was specifically an implosion that caused the loss has NOT been confirmed.Tvx1 11:58, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

A break-up such as you describe wouldn't register on sonar the same way, and explosions do not leave the same kind of debris as implosions (I think explosions also sound different from implosions, but don't quote me on that). Obviously we can't take my word for it, or anyone else's in this discussion. We've got reliable sources (the WSJ, the Coast Guard) that say "implosion". Other sources that say "catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber" are not necessarily contradictory. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, the article is in the process of being moved to "Titan submersible implosion". --Super Goku V (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

All sources now call it an implosion (a catastrophic collapse), but I'm not sure thats a good title. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:24CF:D1E2:EA02:3CB5 (talk) 00:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

For now it should work with WP:COMMONNAME, though down the road it might get reviewed over WP:CRITERIA. Likely it will depend if it is somehow confirmed to not be an implosion. For now though, implosion should be fine. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

What are the front and aft end bells?

Are they the 142 cm (56 in) internal diameter titanium hemispherical end caps: red parts of the right image? If so, more explanation is needed using this image.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they are - but obviously you can't cite me. Does this fall under WP:BLUESKY? I'm not sure. The image description calls them "end caps"; I can't find anything in the OceanGate document cited which mentions them specifically. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

If it helps, the "Sealab End Bell" section at the bottom of this page describes an end bell as a dome-shaped end cap (and has a picture). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't imagine these components have any accepted industry-standard name, especially in this instance where the submersible is essentially sui generis. Terms like 'bell end' or 'end bell' are satisfactory and should not cause confusion. However, 'hemispherical titanium end cap' is a precise descriptor, or possibly 'convex titanium end cap' to cater for anyone who might debate whether or not the end caps are geometrically hemispherical.

I'm not impressed with this image. The naked people standing next to it look odd. I don't mind the pretty naked lady so much. But the naked man waving gives me the willies [no pun intended].

When we have dimensional drawings, I don't think we need naked people included to give a sense of scale. If this became a 'thing', Wikipedia would end up being littered with images of naked people waving at readers.

Where drawings do not include dimensions, more acceptable ways of conveying scale (in above-surface instances) are to include double decker buses, elephants or soccer pitches. In underwater instances, accepted scale markers are blue whales, scuba divers or giant squid. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

The accepted industry term is end caps. It's worth pointing out that, in submarine design, there's a difference between hemispherical and torispherical end caps. See differences here: Head_(vessel) ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, the human figures are from the Pioneer plaque. If the nudity bothers you I'd refer you to WP:NOTCENSORED. ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

@ElectronicsForDogs I'm okay with the pretty naked lady. There's just something overly familiar about the way the naked man is waving at me. If you like naked men waving at you then I guess that's okay. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:7D8B:34CE:C9C3:F4CC (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia isn't censored but in this case the nudity doesn't add anything to the image. Would be better to depict them wearing clothes. RteeeeKed💬📖 00:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:OM says it's better to avoid objectionable material if it has no encyclopedic value. RteeeeKed💬📖 05:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@RteeeeKed Agreed. They could be wearing wetsuits. That would protect their modesty and be entirely in context. I'd also prefer that the man wasn't waving. Who is he? Why is he waving? Maybe we'll never know the answers to these questions. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The wetsuit part I agree with, but the waving is fine. It's some random illustration that's going onto some random page somewhere, it's not that deep. RteeeeKed💬📖 19:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@RteeeeKed Apparently it's the Pioneer Plaque. They're attached to a couple of space probes launched in the 1970s, and currently hurtling at break-neck speed into the abyss of Space. The idea is that if an alien race discover them, their curiosity will be piqued by a couple of people in the scud waving at them. If said aliens are sex-fiends they'll be sorely disappointed to arrive on Earth only to find us all/mostly fully clothed and (certainly in the case of London) rather unfriendly.

I guess I can live with the waving as long as they're covered up. I think the naked lady will look good in a slinky wetsuit. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh my gosh can we please stop sexualising the Pioneer Plaque? People have bodies. You're welcome to copypaste a different public domain human figure to scale in your own barebones geometric blueprint and upload it to Commons if this one is so objectionable. Folly Mox (talk) 21:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Folly Mox I'll stop feigning offence just as soon as you provide me with evidence [citation needed] that alien lifeforms in a neighbouring galaxy won't find a random naked dude waving at them offensive. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

My issue is that they're naked. I'm not sexualizing it, but someone might take issue with them being naked, and there's already a version where they're not. RteeeeKed💬📖 17:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I made an alternative version with just the man, converted to silhouette. (I tried a similar conversion for the woman, which became unrecognizable.) It looks like the silhouette alternative has been picked up for other languages, feel free to substitute.

Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mliu92 Excellent job. The lady is now reminiscent of the opening titles to one of the James Bond films, and I suppose the chap looks a bit like James Bond. I like it. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9144:358:E282:BAC0 (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That's better than the naked version. This can go on the article, thank you. RteeeeKed💬📖 17:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Game-Controller, no IP code rating, no functional safety

The References that using a "consumer grade controller" was appropriate all go to articles related to Oceangate. No one in the right mind would use “Consumer-Grade” switches, risk a multi-million-dollar machine and put life at risk, for a few hundred Dollars of equipment. IP Rated, reliable remote Controls, wired and wireless, from e.g. Siemens are very widely available, some even equipped with an emergency-off switch.

I would propose to remove that using a "Game Controller" is common in the marine-industry and add the following:

Using „Consumer-Grade“ switches without an appropriate IP-Rating IP_code is uncommon in the marine industry, as the corrosive nature of saltwater destroys contact surfaces. Furthermore electronics used in marine-applications may have coatings, are potted or at least have a IP-Code rated enclosure with a membrane, the latter one to allow for pressure-equalization without intrusion of moisture.

Because a collision between the submersible and an object, e.g. the Titanic, could lead to high forces and potentially severe damages, it makes the controls a safety-critical component. An appropriate Safety integrity level rating, e.g. by applying IEC 61508, should have made it obvious, that the controller used, was inappropriate. Other factors, like corrosion of the controllers electronics from salt water-mist, should have been known by anyone with a basic engineering-degree, making it obvious that no process for Functional safety was ever established at OceanGate. MCP9843 (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@MCP9843, that is sourced to Forbes, VICE and Kotaku. What are your sources? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Forbes, Vice and Kotaku are no magazines that cover aspects of marine-design, electronics-design or functional safety.

1) Forbes did not state that using a "consumer grade" from a game console was ever used in any other submersible or representative of the industry. But they stated:

If you’ve ever used a video game controller, on or off-brand versions, you know that over time, they tend to degrade or can become unreliable. Looking at some reviews of this controller specifically, we can see that like all controllers this also can happen to this one: ”I bought this back in February and I'd like to say I game a decent amount on the daily on my pc. If, that's also you then I highly recommend you shop around first. The buttons are already dying on me. It's been a struggle.”

2) VICE did not mention "consumer grade" from a game console would be in control of any safety-related component in any submarine.

3) Kotaku even stated: "...there’s no confirmation if it was still in use during the current expedition." MCP9843 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

If you want to argue that the current sentence should be reworded or removed, that's fine. But you need sources of your own to add any new information. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

This is all very true. There is an argument that the inside of Titan should have been entirely protected from the marine environment, but clearly that protection broke down in a catastrophic way at some point. Even if the sub hadn't imploded, the game-controller was as you say still at risk from being used in a marine application. I agree with you that it is indicative of a disturbingly odd approach to safety. At the most basic level, OceanGate/Rush might have made it known that a spare controller was kept in a sealed bag aboard Titan in the event that the controller in use failed, for the reasons you've detailed.

In the David Pogue interview video, Stockton Rush proudly points out Titan's one-and-only switch before stating that the game controller is the only control the sub has. I don't know the answer to this, but does this mean the sub's buoyancy control (hence its controlled ascent and descent) was achieved via the game controller? Rush's own words (on camera) would appear to indicate that this was indeed the case. If that is correct, it makes the issues you've raised infinitely more poignant.

To place yourself and others:

- 3,800m underwater

- without a tether

- knowing that (extremely low bandwidth) communication with the surface cannot be depended upon; and

- relying solely on a cheap video game controller to control ascent/descent

is abject madness.

I desperately hope that the investigation reveals he'd packed a couple of spare AA batteries. That would be some comfort. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The claim "the inside of Titan should have been entirely protected from the marine environment" is not helping, they have a hatch that opens,... Salt-water-mist is present everywhere, even miles from the coast this is an issue.

One failure-mode may be that the controller, software(device driver), etc. engages thrusters and the submersible collides with another object at great depth. This could lead to damages, but the submersible could also be entangled or stuck. There are mor components involved than the controller alone and the batteries, also the USB-to-wireless adapter, etc. . As the walls may get humid, there will be significant damping of the 2.4Ghz Signal, a microwave oven uses that frequency because the water is resonant at that frequency.

I did not like to mention "Titan's one-and-only switch", fall-back modes, etc. may not exist or may be very difficult to engage. But that is speculation and I'd like to stay with what is known: A "toy" with no water-proofing was the control for a safety-device in a wet and corrosive environment. MCP9843 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. While I said that Titan should have been protected from the marine environment I did acknowledge that it is still a marine application - and the moment you're near, on or underwater, contamination by salt/saline is inevitable (and extremely deleterious to electrics/electronics).

The humidity you mention is something I'd thought about previously. The exhaled moisture of five occupants in a sealed capsule where the external temperature is near zero celsius is a major design/engineering consideration. As you say, it's better not to get into speculation about what was/was not taken into consideration with Titan's design.

However, I cannot help myself from pointing out that Stockton Rush made a big play of showing off (to CBS) the game-console-controller, that "single button" and the chemical toilet. If that had been me (and I, like you I think) have experience of designing and manufacturing safety critical components) I would have been showing off the safety-critical aspects of the submersible (e.g. maintaining a breathable atmosphere, managing humidity, back up control/electrical systems, ascent/descent control systems, navigation control, positional awareness, buoyancy control, emergency systems...). This all seems like such an obvious thing to showcase to the world's media that it leads me to wonder if any of this existed... 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6DEC:D014:ED5B:3E36 (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Reading the sources given I don't see any evidence that commercial off-the-shelf video game controllers are commonly used for navigating crewed vehicles, only that they're often used for remotely controlling unmanned vehicles and for controlling individual components such as periscopes. I've also seen a couple of people who work in offshore industries such as saturation diving mention on social media that the use of a commercial off-the-shelf component for such a safety-critical role seems highly unusual, although obviously WP:SPS applies there. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

How much background do we need about the Titan submersible in this article?

This page contains a lot of information about the Titan submersible itself that was added before Titan had its own article, specifically I'm referring to the sections now called "Dives to the Titanic", "Safety", "Prior concerns", and "Previous incidents"

We could either-
1. Leave it as it is
2. Move some of the information about the Titan to the Titan submersible article
3. Reduce the information about the Titan submersible on this page and build up the Titan submersible article separately

Would love to hear thoughts. Anybar (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Neither article is excessively long, and this article needs to fill out background information about the various factors which may have lead to the implosion occurring. If this article doubles in length then moving some of that information to the "Titan (submersible)" article may become necessary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Human, let's leave it for now. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Use of Ultra-short baseline acoustic positioning system for ranging and text messaging

It has been mentioned by some of the 2022 „mission specialists“, that text message communication and location of the submersible were not available at all times. While this most certainly did not play a role in the 2023 incident, the equipment and technology used for this might be of some interest. Shots on the sea-level control room and some onboard footage show Sonardyne software running on computers for location and messaging (CBS‘s video titled „A visit to RMS Titanic“ at 7:52, BBC The Travel Show „Take me to the Titanic“). Some outside shots of the submersible seem to show a Sonardyne WMS 6+ transponder mounted on top of the aft compartment. Sonardynes „shallow water unit“ Mini-Ranger 2 USBL has a standard range of only 995 meters but can be extended to 4,000 meters. The off-shore grade standard Ranger 2 has up to 11,000 meters range, but the transponder look is not consistent with the photos.217.24.230.116 (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

217, that sounds like original research. If a reliable source talks about the specifications of the communication system, it seems appropriate to add somewhere in the articles we have on this topic, but if you are personally recognising software and hardware from news clips using your own knowledge and experience, we can't add that kind of information. Folly Mox (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

So get the sources! It’s absurd — this critical piece of information isn’t covered in the article. Readers (such as myself) have every responsibility to complain about such an oversight w/o being told to “do it yourself“. I’ve read dozens of times that communication between the sub and the surface ship was done by brief text messages (including a link to ‘text messages’, as if that was going to be helpful). It’s like saying Titanic communicated with rescuers via SOS messages, instead of mentioning there was a radio on board. (In a similar cockeyed vein, the article on the Russian MIR submersibles mentions that they use VHF for communication. That’s absurd, but hasn’t been corrected for 12 years.) Roricka (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I found a reference to USBL in Oceangates web-archived FAQ. The manufacturer/model of equipment is not mentioned. When the Transportation Board of Canada publishes its final report, we will know exactly. 217.24.230.116 (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Roricka, this is a do-it-yourself project. 99% of us are volunteers. No one is obligated to do anything for anyone else, and complaining to other volunteers about perceived oversights is not going to convince us to do the research for you. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Roricka: Other users are under absolutely no obligation whatsoever to take the time to hunt down sources to add this statement, and it's rather paradoxical to suggest that they are. If you or OP want this material added to the article, then the onus is on you to make it happen. You have no responsibility to "complain" just as we have no responsibility to address these "complaints." Cpotisch (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding why the communications and instrumentation worked so badly would add to the article. It appears many things on the sub were chintzy. 2603:7000:4EF0:9B0:3122:71D6:75F3:1F82 (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we do not know, how badly it worked and what the specific reasons may have been, I would not add any reasoning on that unless we have a proper investigation. However, the fact that deep sea communication is in fact more challenging than deep space comms, adds to the overall picture of this incident. I would just add a reference to USBL and let the reader follow these links in case he‘s interested. Narkittos (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Narkittos I want to expand on what Narkittos has said. I know she or he will know this already, however it is useful & important that other editors involved in this article know a bit about this. Reasons why this is important information to include here on Talk are:

• Wikipedia (to its discredit) widely cites news outlets as authoritative sources. The BBC seeming to be a particular favourite.
• The BBC is not infallible - in fact it's extremely fallible.
• In the early days of the Titan story they wrote that GPS is not reliable at the depths where Titan operated. In fact GPS signals are blocked by a few centimetres of seawater.
• BBC also propagated the ridiculous idea that Titan was communicating using mobile telephone network SMS messaging (aka 'text messages').
• Again, mobile phone signals are blocked by a few centimetres of seawater. The 'text messages' in question were sent using sound/acoustic impulses - not electromagnetic waves and are nothing to do with SMS.
• For some time, WP misleadingly linked mentions of Titan's 'text message' system to the article on mobile telephone SMS, now corrected I believe.

To illustrate Narkittos' point about deep-space communication being less challenging than underwater communication, consider that here on Earth astronomers can detect radio-waves that have been travelling across Space (largely unimpeded and unattenuated) for over 14 billion years (having travelled distances of over 14 billion light-years). A few centimetres of seawater however completely absorbs those (and any) radio-waves (except those of ultra low frequency). Deep-space communication is one of the least challenging areas for radio-frequency engineering. In contrast, underwater communication one of the most challenging by far. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:D979:36C8:6785:A1C8 (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that information would be more at home in the main Titan (submersible) article, considering they didn't really play a role in the implosion itself. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not advocating for anything I wrote to be added to the article, but it is pertinent information to include here on talk. Not least because it covers things that shouldn't be said in the article, some of which were written and have since been removed/corrected. There's always a risk with WP that errors get fixed, only to be re-introduced in the future. That's happened over on the Titan article where I've (successfully) advocated the same correction on two separate occasions (it's been corrected once, then reverted, then corrected for a second time).

I've also mentioned that the BBC has published (and corrected subsequent to me emailing them) four errors/fallacies around the Titan incident. The purpose of my last contribution, which I feel was clear, was to advise editors of certain fallacies to guard against them being introduced/reintroduced in future iterations of this ever-changing WP article.

A final important point: we don't know whether or not sub-to-surface communication played any role in the disaster. I think you're making an assumption here, yes?

Also, you've used the word really as a qualifier. By asserting that communications "didn't really play a role in the implosion itself" [citation needed please] you imply that they did play some role [citation also needed].

Anyway, keep up the great work! It's a great article, especially considering how few people are curating it, and it certainly gives some sense of what may or may not have happened to Titan! 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:D979:36C8:6785:A1C8 (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Safety Regulations

Putting an above Talk comment into context, have any media outlets/reliable sources covered the point that many of the people questioning reactions to this event could be due to - not only public distaste for the commercialisation of a mass grave site - but the way the safety rules are seen by some in the business as a block to profit-making? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.69.169.88 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a great question! I would encourage you to look for yourself (if you haven't already), and if you find something, be WP:BOLD and add it to the article. Xan747 (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe Wreck of the Titanic#Ownership might be somewhat relevant. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Engineering

There is a recent scientific paper that deals in a general way with the design of composite pressure vessels, including direct reference to Titan. I must warn readers that the paper was written by a relatively inexperienced engineer, and is not a comprehensive source for composite pressure vessel design. It may however be found good reading for those with a general background in mechanical engineering:

[1] 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, a diploma thesis, rather that a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. But unless this has been explicitly mentioned in RS sources about the Titan, adding any of it would probably amount to WP:OR. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not intend that anyone add any of it... I was hoping people would read it before approaching the subject from a position of abject ignorance. 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I see. That seems perfectly fair. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this seems perfectly fair, both times the OP gave his rationale for sharing the thesis. I found your original reply "Yes, a diploma thesis, rather that a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal." condescending and dismissive in view of the OP's stated rationale for contributing the link. While you are correct in pointing out that the link is to an undergraduate thesis and not a scientific paper, the way you phrased your reply is telling. One might have thanked the OP for the contribution and noted that the link is to a thesis and not a peer-reviewed paper. In my opinion your reply was sneering.

Throughout Wikipedia, the stance taken by WP:Editors on references, citations and sources is problematic

The thesis that is linked to has around 80 sources in its references section: but not a single one to a Wikipedia article. My Doctoral thesis had 617 references: all to peer-reviewed literature, none to Wikipedia articles. Academia deplores Wikipedia - that's a fact. The first rule undergraduates are taught is not to plagiarize, the second is never to cite Wikipedia.

Wikipedia on the other hand (and this is abundantly evident in this article) considers media outlets to be authoritative sources; despite the fact they're sometimes wrong, sometimes opinionated or editorialized, and almost always second or third hand 'echoes' of the original information.

An example: one of Suleman Dawood's aunties apparently told the BBC he never wanted to go on the Titan expedition. Wikipedia publishes that, citing the ever-reliable BBC as its source. Then Suleman's mum contradicts this in an interview with the BBC: Wikipedia dismisses the aunty's take (as quoted by BBC) in favour of the mother's take (as quoted by the BBC).

People have come along and made WP:Talk contributions and it is apparent that they know what they're talking about. However, they get dismissed because it's WP:OR 'original research'. Okay, I can concede that this is understandable because nothing can be assumed about their credentials or the accuracy of their contribution. But if the BBC or another news outlet publishes something/anything, that is unquestionably accurate...

Since the Titan incident unfolded I've emailed BBC four times and had four fallacies/inaccuracies corrected.

• they misquoted Stockton Rush claiming each Titan expedition used $1 million dollars of fuel (Rush threw that out as a vague comment with no timescale qualifier)
• they said that GPS doesn't work well at the depth Titan goes to (it doesn't work at more than about 3 centimetres underwater)
• they claimed that Titan was "one of the world's only privately owned manned submersibles" (no, there are thousands - operational depth was the key information missing)
• they claimed Titan disappeared "approximately 900 miles (1450km) east and 400 miles (643km) south of St. Johns, Newfoundland.” That's halfway to Ireland.
• they quoted an "expert" who said the Titan crew would have to bang on the carbon fibre hull to attract attention, "not on a steel hull" which would be like "banging a log, instead of banging a bell". The expert missed the very obvious fact that the crew would bang on their titanium bell-ends. This is still up on BBC news online - they fixed all the above except this, perhaps the daftest of them all.

And the BBC is considered a reliable, authoritative source for Wikipedia. While an undergraduate thesis (supervised by a world renowned naval architect) gets sneered at.

I've little doubt that Titan imploded. However, only once in the press briefing (and nowhere in press releases) did the US Coastguard refer to an implosion. On one occasion in the press briefing the spokesperson said the sounds picked up after Titan lost communication were "consistent with an implosion". The entire world's media, as one would expect, picked up on that and now the assumption that Titan imploded has become fact - and WP cites many of the news outlets who say it definitively imploded as proof that it imploded. If a dozen news outlets are saying Titan definitely imploded, then it must have imploded, right? No, wrong. It doesn't matter if a dozen news outlets publish it or a thousand news outlets publish it: their information is based on one single comment made by the Coastguard, who are after all the only people who know anything about the Titan incident with any degree of certainty.

It's an assumption. Wikipedia editors deplore assumptions - rightly so - except when they're making them or citing assumptions published by news outlets.

I'm going to sit and read Ms Zervou's thesis this evening. I expect it to be one of the most authoritative things I've read in the last two weeks. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:D979:36C8:6785:A1C8 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Quote from https://dspace.lib.ntua.gr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/57640/ZERVOU_THESIS.pdf?sequence=1#page=10 last paragraph of page 10:

"OceanGate designed and applied on the “Titan” a Real Time Hull Health Monitoring (RTM) system. Utilizing co-located acoustic sensors and strain gauges throughout the pressure boundary, the RTM system makes it possible to analyze the effects of changing pressure on the vessel as the submersible dives deeper, and accurately assess the integrity of the structure. This onboard health analysis monitoring system provides early warning detection for the pilot with enough time to arrest the descent and safely return to surface."

It seems a text written by Ms Zervou. However, the last two sentences of this paragraph are identical to promo text on oceangate.com/our-subs/titan-submersible.html. The text does not mention a source. The list of references does not mention the oceangate website. This looks like copy-paste of an advertisement. Uwappa (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from including advertising WP:SPAM 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9FD:E604:D362:DC3A (talk) 09:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, so there was an "early warning" system for a predictive sub is about to implode event. Guess we have no details on how that system was implemented for the pilot. Or what might happen if the pilot was incapacitated. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Edit request 30 June

Change: "In 2022, the British actor and television presenter Ross Kemp, who had previously taken part in deep sea dives for the television channel Sky History, had planned to mark the 110th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic by recording a documentary in which he would undertake a dive to the wreckage using Titan. The project was shelved after production company Atlantic Productions deemed the submersible to be unsafe and not "fit for purpose""

To:

According to his agent Jonathan Shalit, in 2022 the British actor and television presenter Ross Kemp, who had previously taken part in deep sea dives for the television channel Sky History, had planned to mark the 110th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic by recording a documentary in which he would undertake a dive to the wreckage using Titan. Shalit told PA Media that the project was shelved after production company Atlantic Productions deemed the submersible to be "unsafe on every level". [remove BBC citation and insert PA Media citation]. BBC published an article based on the PA Media release and stated that they had approached Atlantic Productions for comment.[cite BBC article]

Rationale: comments made by Shalit are being wrongly attributed to Atlantic Productions. A Guardian article (quoted above by another user) attributes their material as based on comments made to PA Media by Shalit.

The BBC does not state that they spoke to Shalit. The BBC article contains only information included in the PA Media release, with the exception of the phrase "[not] fit for purpose". That phrase does not appear in the PA Media release. It is reasonable to the conclude that both articles are based on the original PA Media report.

Citing several sources that are based on a single original report (PA Media's report) is unprofessional and misleading. Simply cite the PA Media report and publish what it includes along with attribution to the person who provided the information (i.e. Shalit).

Note that PA Media, who spoke to Shalit, do not use the term "[not] fit for purpose". Because of this fact, and because BBC have put it into quotation marks, it is questionable whether BBC mean that Shalit actually said these words, or they are paraphrasing the remark that he is known with certainty to have made to PA Media (unsafe on every level).

Given the unreliability of BBC journalism (in particular around the Titan story - see above Talk entry 'Engineering', section using bullet points) and the ambiguity of their "quotations", it is safest to exclude the phrase "[not] fit for purpose" (unless couched in language such as "The BBC appear to imply that Shalit said that Atlantic Productions thought that Titan was not fit for purpose".

I shouldn't need to explain how a news agency like PA Media or Reuters works. They create an original work and licence it to other news outlets. Citing secondary publishers of the original article is absurd, unless they add original new information to it.

Wikipedia won't become better unless editors try to be better. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6D5E:EC4F:B6BE:A247 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You are doing making a lot of assumptions and personal conclusions that aren't at all verifiable. Anyways BBC is a reliable source and they reported the "not fit for purpose" quote, not PA Media. BBC links The Sun article[2] that says the full quote: "“Their team checked out this OceanGate submersible and pulled out of using it, as it was simply not considered safe or fit for purpose.". Seeing as BBC attributed and linked this source in their own article, this is probably where they got the line. WikiVirusC^(talk) 16:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Could you expand please on the assumptions and personal conclusions I've made? I'm aware I may have done so, however your dismissive opening "You re doing a lot of assumptions..." is WP:WeaselWords. Wikipedia deplores Weasel Words as do I. Please quantify or specify the assumptions you're referring to, and give a rationale for retaining the current, incorrect text? Note also that "not at all verifiable" has a different meaning to "unverified".

We're talking a lot about citations and sources: there is a reason why academia has a sacred rule about never citing Wikipedia. It contains inaccuracies and lacks precision. It's not a site where everyone and anyone's voice is listened to. Content is curated by a small, closed-cabal of editors who consider it acceptable to blithely dismiss a lengthy contribution with a single, dismissive paragraph. By all means challenge me. You've merely made a clumsy en-passant move.

I'll leave you to curate your resource now, quietly and in private. I'm done. Consider this a victory for you and your chums! Oh, and you don't 'do' an assumption or conclusion, you make them - you probably were just in a hurry to add your remarks. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6D5E:EC4F:B6BE:A247 (talk) 18:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

IP 2A00, are you here to edit collaboratively? You might have some valid points here, but we all need to avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sorry, but you come across here as incredibly condescending. 86.187.227.40 (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Your post and reasoning for your change seems to be based on your belief that BBC based their report on PA Media, and things are being wrongly attributed. That is your assumption. Even after pointing out the "not fit for purpose" not being used by PA Media, you state "It is reasonable to the conclude that both articles are based on the original PA Media report". That is your conclusion. I explained that this isn't the case as The Sun article that BBC links to has the full quote that they probably got that line from. You wrote multiple paragraphs of what we should do based on your conclusions being fact. I didn't elaborate what your assumptions and conclusions were as I didn't feel it matter as much as bring up the correct information from the BBC article. As for not using your versions, the line " BBC published an article based on the PA Media release" is complete WP:OR. Attributing to any news agency isn't really needed outside of citations, and his agent saying it is a minor detail thats not needed. Expanding the details of this paragraph doesn't really improve the article. I never dismissed your contribution, I read the entirety of it and gave my response. If all I did was say your making/doing a lot of assumption, then that would be dismissing it. I simply opened up with that and provided the information I found that made it seem your assumptions/conclusion weren't accurate. WikiVirusC^(talk) 18:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

First public images of Titan debris

It's interesting/noteworthy that in one of the images released today of the Titan's wreckage, the front titanium bell-end is missing the acrylic window. This is apparent because the lifting strap is passing through the hole where the window was.

It is reasonable to assume (so yes, an assumption, but a reasoned one) that investigators would not have removed it to facilitate lifting it, since that would be interfering with the evidence and be at odds with how forensic investigators operate.

Therefore, its absence would indicate that during the window was dislocated at some stage during the Titan's failure/implosion. It will be interesting to know, when the investigators publish, whether the window's dislocation was the primary cause of the failure or a secondary consequence. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9144:358:E282:BAC0 (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this detail could be mentioned. Although how will they ever possibly know what failed first? It's not as if they've got anything to compare it with, or any historical data for similar accidents. 86.187.237.169 (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that it is notable, as the forces at that depth during an implosion would destroy most things in the pressure hull. It would've been more notable if it had survived from where I'm seeing it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@AquilaFasciata That's rather dismissive. I've simply stated some facts (and one very reasonable assumption) that have emerged today based on the photos released to the public. Your contribution on the other hand is your opinion and pure speculation. As a matter of pure semantics, if you believe that the survival of the window would have been notable, it follows that its absence/failure is also notable. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9144:358:E282:BAC0 (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

What precisely are you suggesting should be included? It was my understanding that you were talking about including information to the body of the article, or simply adding the photo if there's one available? In case of the former, I suppose that the tone of my response wasn't how I intended it, and for that I apologize. It's definitely a theory that makes sense and could be what happened, but it is something that would need to be properly sourced. If the investigative report concludes that it is a primary reason, it would obviously be grounds for inclusion, but until that point I would say it's a natural consequence of the implosion. It's akin to suggesting a photo of a broken mine support beam is notable in a mine collapse.

If you are referring to the latter, I don't think anyone would dispute that photos of the wreckage should be included with a caption describing the bell with the missing window. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I imagine in due course, images of the debris will be included, and at this stage it would only be appropriate to point out in the caption/text that the acrylic window is missing.

As to the investigators knowing what failed first - I'm certain that could be ascertained but it would depend on the resources available to the investigation. Air crash investigations have in the past gone to remarkable lengths to understand causes of accidents (e.g. painstakingly piecing together every bit of debris (e.g. Pan AM 103). An investigation of that sort would have almost limitless resources because of the passenger-safety, political and criminal implications of that event.

But who will fund the Titan investigation, for what reason, and to what extent? Only time will tell. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9144:358:E282:BAC0 (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from interpreting a photo yourself. That would be OR. Also stay away from making assumptions, no matter how reasonable they are.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66045554 stays on the safe side, quotes:

• One of the titanium end caps appeared to be among the debris brought ashore
• One part appeared to be of the tail section of the OceanGate Titan sub that would normally be covered by the fuselage
• Wires from a metal part of the Titan could be seen
• Pieces that resembled the submersible's landing legs were also brought ashore
• One of the sub's titanium end caps was hoisted into the air by a crane

Is there any photo of the carbon fibre hull, pieces, fragments, anything? Uwappa (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Not as far as I could tell, but in any case I recommend avoiding any speculation. Let's just quote the BBC on what was retrieved and leave it at that. --Licks-rocks (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Quote BBC for now, update when investigation results are known. Uwappa (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Uwappa Agreed. It might be best simply to say the various bits you described resemble pieces of the Titan, until it is confirmed they actually are pieces of Titan. At this stage we don't even know if it imploded, that's just an assumption. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:C124:1C14:EFDC:8213 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say we don't know why it imploded. Saying we don't know it imploded isn't very accurate when we have multiple sources that say otherwise including the USCG and the US Navy. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 19:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@AquilaFasciata It's good that there are so many sources, although all the media outlets being cited are secondary sources and the information they provide is just different flavours of the same primary source - the USCG.

I've just re-read all of the USCG's press releases concerning Titan from when debris was discovered until now, and re-watched the televised press briefing. The US Navy haven't issued any press releases on the subject.

We can definitely assume without a shadow of doubt that Titan imploded - that's just obvious! But it is remarkable that the only primary source of information (USCG) haven't actually stated that Titan imploded or is assumed to have imploded. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:C124:1C14:EFDC:8213 (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

This file, around 6:10. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thank you - I missed that bit. Calling it an implosion is definitely consistent with the USCG's assumption. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:C124:1C14:EFDC:8213 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries at all, we live in an age of information overload! It's true the Navy hasn't held a press briefing, but Navy officials have told a few different outlets that they had sonar activity consistent with implosions during the time the sub had lost contact into the dive. I would also like to see more primary sources for the implosion as well, though. What I really want to see is the ROV images of the debris field. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 21:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I too would love to see the ROV images of the debris. Better still, take a ride in a submersible to see it first hand! But I doubt I could afford that luxury :( 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:C124:1C14:EFDC:8213 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Uwappa Uwappa, I have to seek clarification from you on this specific point. Earlier you wrote: "Please refrain from interpreting a photo yourself. That would be OR."

What I wrote, having looked at a photograph with my eyes was "the front titanium bell-end is missing the acrylic window. This is apparent because the lifting strap is passing through the hole where the window was."

Will you agree that you were wrong to tell me to refrain from interpreting a photo myself, when I simply described what was explicitly contained in an image?

I went on to make a reasoned assumption, but clearly stated this as such. And you covered that separately in your reply to me. So that need not be mentioned again.

So the only issue is why would you tell another person to refrain from describing (in neutral language) something that is self-evident from a photograph. Why did you do that please? 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:C124:1C14:EFDC:8213 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Why? Good question. First, you seem very enthusiastic with a great eye for detail, and that is all good. Welcome to Wikipedia!

Sorry to be the messenger of bad news:

Wikipedia does not allow original research. So too bad, but even for a relatively simple analysis of a photo you need to quote a reliable source. Please check the BBC article and see that the mentioned quotes above are subtitles of the photos.

I do understand that this "no OR" can be very frustrating.

Isn't it apparent that the window is missing? Just look!

• Well, is it really missing? Or... was it recovered separately, just not on that photo?
• Is it still intact, blown out like a cork from a champagne bottle when the hull imploded? Was it fragmented at the spot when the hull imploded?
• Was the window the weak spot, the location of implosion? Did fragments impact the inside of the hull?
• Have any window fragments been recovered?
• Is the lifting-strap passing through the hole in the titanium bell-end a magical-lifting-strap that can pass through solid, five inch thick acrylic?

Questions, questions, questions... The investigations have just started so time will tell what happened.

For now, please shift your efforts from analysis to research. Keep your eyes open for reliable sources that provide answers. Make sure your contributions are verifiable. Uwappa (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct! As a rule if you can't cite it to a source, you can't publish it on wikipedia. Even if you can see it from your window. (If you think that's nonsense, believe me, there's cases where that's the only thing standing between us and the "truth about UFO's" being posted here) --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

A new BBC article from Jonathan Amos & the Visual Journalism Team, with a few words about the window:

What Titan sub wreckage can tell us about the tragedy Uwappa (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I said that the acrylic window is missing from its place in the titanium bell-end. Your bullet-points detail four scenarios that I didn't mention. I stated the fact that it is self-evident from the photograph that the acrylic window is not in place. Your refutation of this is bizarre and utterly ludicrous. You could have also included the possibility that the lifting-strap passing through the hole in the titanium bell-end is a magical-lifting-strap that can pass through solid, five inch thick acrylic. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:D979:36C8:6785:A1C8 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Added a fifth bullet. Thank you for your suggestion. Uwappa (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Business Insider published an interview today with an expert who said that failure of the carbon-fibre hull was the most likely cause, but discussed the possibility that the window failed first due to the obvious fact that a lifting strap went through the empty porthole. I summarized the article in this diff. Xan747 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much. Uwappa (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Contradictions

This article and our article on Titan seem to contradict one another. Here we say, OceanGate intended to conduct multiple expeditions to the Titanic in 2023, but because of poor weather in Newfoundland, the June expedition in which Titan was destroyed was the only one the company had launched that year. (link to section) while Titan (submersible) says, Five Titanic excursions, called "missions" by OceanGate, took place during the summer of 2021. Another five occurred in the summer of 2022, and an additional five in the summer of 2023. Titan imploded during "Mission V", the fifth excursion of 2023. (link to section). Anyone willing to try and sort this out? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm currently looking into it, thanks for brining this up! - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed: The article that was being used to back up the clause on the Titan (submersible) didn't include any information about the dives and when they occurred. It did include the total number of dives that occurred, but it wasn't enough to line up. I removed the selection after reading the linked source to verify. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone is able to find when those dives occurred though. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @AquilaFasciata! I'm limited on checking sources from my normal IP. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Will this help? (Amended: No) Regarding 2021, "By the end of 2021, the team had accomplished 10 successful dives to the Titanic: four at depth along the debris field and six surveys of the wreck. Titan’s large viewport allowed three people to simultaneously view and document the Titanic as the pilot and copilot attended to the controls." Regarding 2022, "Rush, who served as the submersible’s pilot, said that OceanGate and its partners at Horizon Maritime got in eight dives over the course of a research season that ran from mid-June to late July. Teams shuttled back and forth between St. John’s, Newfoundland, and the Titanic wreck site, about 370 miles away." --Super Goku V (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2023 (UTC) (Amended: 03:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC))

Hmmm - again that doesn't quite match what's currently over at Titan. Maybe I'll take a closer look at things later today. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I just removed some of the dive totals from each article because the article used was just reporting on how many dives Rush said the company made in a talk he gave, per WP:SELFSOURCE

I don't think there are enough reliable sources at the moment to include how many dives OceanGate/Titan made to Titanic in an encyclopedia article about Titan, OceanGate, or the implosion.

We might be able to find more sources about the number of "Missions" they made aka multi-day trips to the wreck site aboard the support ship. But the number of actual dives they made in the submersible and how many reached Titanic, no. Anybar (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

OK I also found off-Wiki evidence that that author Kim Frank is married to David Concannon who works for OceanGate, he's quoted in sources as an "OceanGate adviser" so I don't think anything she's written is a good source. Anybar (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, shoot. Thank you for catching that. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for all the detective work, folks. It's definitely hard to separate the PR from the reality here. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of Byford Dolphin Accident as a See Also Article

Recommend removal of the "Byford Dolphin Accident" from the See Also: section. This case is entirely unrelated except for the root cause of the incident being a pressure differential. To relate these is sensationalist and only cheapens the nature of both accidents. 162.229.178.237 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Xan747 (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Commercialisation of Titanic wreck?

Have any reliable sources covered the fact that many of the less sympathetic reactions to this event may simply arise from public distaste for the perceived commercialisation of a mass grave site? I know the media like to sensationalise everything but this seems like a major and fairly obvious factor that the article currently overlooks. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a few recent comments about the ongoing commercialization controversy, but they've been brief and haven't made that specific connection. Have you seen anything? Xan747 (talk) 21:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I found this interesting article, which contrasts the Titanic's wreck site being open to visits with that of the Edmund Fitzgerald, which is de facto closed to visits: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/titanic-edmund-fitzgerald-1.6882861 TH1980 (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

category: Disaster

The article is categorised and listed in the infobox as a "disaster". But is it really a "serious problem occurring over a period of time that causes widespread human, material, economic or environmental loss which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources"? Not all bad things that happen are disasters. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:45, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd say no - probably better classed as an incident, accident or shipwreck. Is "disaster" a common usage in the sources? 97.113.8.72 (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It isn't a disaster from the perspective of society in general. It's a personal disaster for the people and families they're from, but it's not a disaster as typically conceived. The three other disasters categorized into Category:Disasters in the Atlantic Ocean all had deaths measured beyond 100. This is five. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

There are metres of opinions on that question in the finally-terminated article-titling proposals - see Talk archives. I would also conclude "no". Davidships (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've removed the "disaster" categories. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

People who were "almost" on the sub

Do Jay Bloom's claims belong in this article, especially given that there are others, most notably "Mr. Beast," who claim the same thing but are not mentioned? 199.66.14.55 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Until there is an exhaustive list (with sources) of everyone who was almost on the sub, I think it's mandatory to list everyone who was known to not be on the sub. It will probably be best to put this list in a separate article to preserve readability of the current article. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:BC94:2BB6:6B9B:E2F3 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Similiar discussion at the subs page. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

No it doesn't make sense to include everyone who was ever asked to go on a dive in Titan, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE I don't think the Mr. Beast information belongs in this article at all; he has probably been invited to lots of places before and not gone.

I think the paragraph about Bloom doesn't belong in the Incident section of this article.

Jay Bloom's experience and messages with Rush may be relevant in the safety section of this article, and/or in the OceanGate or Titan articles, and could be relevant information about Rush's sales techniques and how he explained the risk to potential passengers. Anybar (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats a good idea Titansub (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a source to support Jay Bloom's interactions with Rush being relevant to Rush's sales techniques or risk management? That would be interesting reading if there was a source to say it was. You should refrain from guessing that Mr Beast has turned down other invitations unless you have credible sources to back that up. It's WP:OR.

2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:BC94:2BB6:6B9B:E2F3 (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:OR does not apply to talk page discussion about what to include in an article: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That is interesting. You might wish to hit CTRL+F and type in WP:OR, then mention this in the other 8 places it has been invoked. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:E8CE:D8A3:5177:DDA3 (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages is because we need to be able to evaluate the credibility of a claim, and that can include some educated guesses about how relevant something is. (and thus whether it satisfies our policy on how much attention to give certain claims.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

We often get discussions at the Talk pages for fatal airline accidents about mentioning people "who were nearly on the flight but just missed it". That even applies to the original Passengers of the Titanic, of course. The rule of thumb is to mention them if they are notable. With this vessel, prospective passengers are more likely to be very rich, and/or famous, and so more likely to be notable? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

It's notable to mention Ross Kemp, because his production company clearly stated that his proposed trip on Titan never went ahead after safety concerns were raised. There doesn't need to be an exhaustive list, and the news stories don't say why MrBeast declined an invitation, only that he did.[3]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianmacm (talk • contribs) 09:57, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm interested in the Ross Kemp mention. Incidentally, it wasn't just that he was going on Titan for a trip, the plan was to film and make a documentary programme about Titan/OceanGate/Rush. With this in mind it's likely the production company wanted at least a cameraman on board with Kemp, and sound/video equipment sufficient to give material of an appropriate broadcast quality. Although I know there are extremely small, portable cameras that Kemp could have handled just by himself (and that kind of footage (shot by that kind of device) is commonly included in the kinds of films that Kemp and others produce).

But anyway, what I read on BBC was that the production team decided against producing the documentary because some aspects of the situation were "not fit for purpose". BBC writes that the production company "deemed the Titan not "fit for purpose"".

Importantly, note that BBC only attributes the words "fit for purpose" to the production company, the rest of their statement is a BBC journalist's own words.

As one would expect, other media outlets and Wikipedia picked up what the BBC wrote and ran with it.

EDIT REQUEST: the article states "The project was shelved after production company Atlantic Productions deemed the submersible to be unsafe and not "fit for purpose"." and attributes this to the BBC. This is an error. BBC quotes Atlantic Productions for the "fit for purpose" part, and quotes Kemp's agent as saying that the production company deemed the sub to be unsafe. For accuracy the article needs to be amended to acknowledge that Kemp's agent claims that Atlantic Productions "deemed it unsafe". It's hearsay.

Going back to how the BBC built the quotation "fit for purpose" into their report. BBC just cherry-picked those words out of whatever comments Atlantic said or wrote. We don't know the actual comments Atlantic made or the context of "[not] fit for purpose".

This is a crucial point. BBC implies and everyone is assuming that the word "purpose" in "[not] fit for purpose", the word "purpose" means something along the lines of "being a properly designed/built, functionally safe vehicle able to descend to 3,800m without catastrophically failing."

However, it could of course mean "[not] fit for purpose" of filming a documentary - i.e. too cramped, too damp/humid, too poorly lit, even simply that it carried too high a risk of their highly-value presenter bumping his head on something. In the same vein if Kemp mooted the idea of making a documentary about being up a ladder, Atlantic might have concluded that a ladder was not fit for the purpose of making a documentary film.

Please, nobody say I am making assumptions or speculating. I am not. I am pointing out the article is making assumptions about what Atlantic Productions meant by the word "purpose". The BBC article attributes only three words to them "[not] fit for purpose" and chooses their own words to create context around this quotation. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6D5E:EC4F:B6BE:A247 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is another source in The Guardian here which says that Kemp's proposed 2022 trip was cancelled due to safety concerns.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention Sky News, The Independent, People and iNews. e.g. The Independent says: "Kemp's agent, InterTalent chairman Professor Jonathan Shalit, said they pulled out of using the OceanGate craft because it was deemed to be unsafe on every level". So that's pretty clear verbatim attribution and hardly "hearsay"? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Jonathan Shalit's words are being attributed to Atlantic in the WP article. That's an error.

And Shalit's words are what he claims Atlantic Productions said/thought/felt/uncovered. Both the Guardian and BBC say that Atlantic was approached for comment. BBC and Guardian articles are updated as and when necessary, even historical ones, and no comment attributable to Atlantic has subsequently been published.

The various sources you've mentioned are regurgitating the same information - so whether there's a single source or ten sources saying this, it's still a single point of data.

The article needs to attribute the things Shalit is quoted as saying, to Shalit, stating that he said these things "according to the BBC".

Currently the article says "The project was shelved after production company Atlantic Productions deemed the submersible to be unsafe and not "fit for purpose"".

BBC attributes the word "unsafe" to Shalit, and implies that the phrase "[not] fit for purpose" can be attributed to Atlantic. However, the BBC article states they have had no communication from Atlantic but have communicated with Shalit.

The Guardian attributes the word "unsafe" to Shalit. All the Guardian article's quotations are attributed to Shalt. That article doesn't contain the term "fit for purpose" at all.

Atlantic Productions is a separate legal entity to InterTalent (where Shalit works and is chairperson of). 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:6D5E:EC4F:B6BE:A247 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ianmacm - re MrBeast, a more accurate statement would be the news stories don't say why MrBeast declined an invitation, only that he said he did. Many people believe this to be a hoax, and are unconvinced by his lame explanation for how the carefully-cropped phone image appeared to show an outward message, not an incoming invitation. Davidships (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've read this in some news stories. It does lead to WP:BLP issues because it implies bad faith action by MrBeast and would require a lot of evidence to support it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

porthole burst?

Since they pull the loop through the former porthole during transport, it may also have burst (instead of the carbon tube breaking). This was only intended for 1300 m.

• CBS: Boston: Raw video: Wreckage from implosion of Titanic-bound sub arrives in Canada; 1:01 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=458KFQXJ_Zs&t=62s --Virtualiter (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The viewport wasn't "intended for 1300 m," nor may we engage in conjecture about the mode of failure. It was certified for 1300 meters. The source says that was because it was a novel design, not according to existing standards, and therefore experimental. It was not known to be a weak design. Rather, it hadn't been demonstrated to standards that it was strong enough for 4000 meters. It might have been much stronger than necessary, for all we know. They just never demonstrated it for certification. Also, keep in mind the source is only one person's statement, a person who was suing OceanGate. He wasn't exactly neutral, nor did he provide any substantiation for that statement. I don't think we can make anything out of that certification other than stating that it was alleged in the court documents, and the shallower depth was given because the design was not standard, not because it had demonstrated weakness. I think this is part of presenting a NPOV. Dcs002 (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

With the usual engineering safety factor of 3, this would result in a depth of 3*1300m=3900m. - I speculate.

However, it is a fact that the viewport is missing when unloading the front hemisphere. --Virtualiter (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

This is already discussed here, cited to a professor's analysis published in Insider. Have you found other sources you think should also be used? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Copy editing

A recent attempt at copy editing introduced a few errors. "Were" (not "was") was correct in the lead; a quote from the UW was altered in this section ("the", if added, should go outside the quotation marks); in this section, "Titan submerged" was correct, and the "was" should not be italicized in any case.

Not sure if it's worth a wholescale revert, their other changes were either correct or innocuous. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed - thanks Dan Harkless! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Image of Titan

Since we now know the vessel was destroyed, and there are no known free images, I think there is a strong rationale to add a copyrighted image to the article. (Like using copyrighted images after a person dies) The vessel is the subject of the article, but without any image to aid the reader, it can be challenging to understand some passages. I think there is a good enough NFUR here to add an image. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm - would WP:NFCC justify a picture here, rather than at OceanGate (or the proposed split article on Titan itself)? 199.208.172.35 (talk) 17:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, we don't know that there are no free images, unless people have actually done a proper check. Also, would fail WP:NFCC#8 as an image of it probably doesn't significantly enhance this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Such an image would very much enhance the article, not least by showing the size of the porthole. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed an image here definitely passes NFCC. Someone do a thorough check for free images first. ɱ (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

+1 - Without an image the article makes no general sense - This was a unique submersible not a run-of-the-mill submersible or submarine that everyone's seen before so a picture is definitely warranted here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a little flippant, so apologies. Can I suggest using one of OceanGate's own photos of Titan, without worrying about possible copyright infringements etc. OceanGate's lawyers are going to be rather busy with other matters for many, many years to come - I can't see them suing over a photo. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's rules remain Wikipedia's rules. No. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@97.113.8.72 Stockton Rush would have taken issue with such a stoical point of view. He repeatedly said that rules stifle progress and innovation. Couldn't WP just steal/borrow one of his photos? What harm could it possibly do to break the rules a little bit now and again? ;) 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Fellow IP, I think you should rein in your urge to make jokes on this page. 97.113.8.72 (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm being flippant, but it's really not a joke. Stockton Rush and his Heath-Robinson 'sub' was a joke. 2A00:23EE:2658:8721:F575:32E8:4980:3CDD (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's not turn Wikipedia into one. Timtjtim (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Wikipedia is more Heath Robinson or more Rube Goldberg. Probably something in between. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I searched for about 2 hours the day that the implosion was confirmed and couldn't find a non-free image; I don't know if there is much more a chance for a free one coming about because the subject is no longer available. If consensus is there I would propose putting a photo from one of the marketing photos used by OceanGate as it doesn't detract from the commercial opportunity of any of the potential stock photos that there are. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess I am not up to date. What is important about the porthole? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I think @Pigsonthewing is referring to the fact that Titan's porthole was much smaller than that of Cyclops 1 (and we're currently using a picture of the latter). 97.113.8.72 (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

A couple of points. First, a non-free image here is not more acceptable because we think we can get away with it without being sued. Second, some due diligence needs to be undertaken to ascertain if there really are no free license images available. Third, we don't automatically allow non-free images of people who are recently deceased for the very reason of due diligence needing to be done. Four, if due diligence were done, then I strongly agree that a non-free image would be permissible, and I think it would be appropriate to put it on this article, rather than the OceanGate article. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The day that the implosion was confirmed I searched for a couple of hours with no joy. I don't think anything would change from then because the subject is no longer available. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I generally concur with you, and have conducted my own search (though not as extensive). Still, I am sometimes amazed what people are able to find through their own searches. There's no deadline here. I'd give it a couple of months, and then if nothing turns up we can go with an image from their website. Their actual website is down, and probably permanently. But, archive.org has options, such as this one. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that File:OceanGate Titan schematic nevernude.svg exist means that any non-free image would fail WP:NFCC#1 in my opinion. Also, the Titan is not the subject of the article- this article is about the implosion, there is a separate article for the Titan itself. As such, any copyrighted image won't meet all the WP:NFCC and so should not be added. Doing so is a clear violation of Wikipedia's image policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, this is an article about the incident. So if an image existed of the implosion itself, that would likely meet all the NFCC criteria. But an image of the Titan does not meet these criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point, hopefully we can get some free use images of some of the wreckage to use instead. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 16:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@AquilaFasciata Unfortunately, because this is an article about the assumed implosion, images of the assumed implosion debris wouldn't meet the WP:NFCC and should not be added. You'd need to create an article about the Titan's debris and include any such images there :( 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:BC94:2BB6:6B9B:E2F3 (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:BC94:2BB6:6B9B:E2F3 Yes, I'm aware. The tail end of my previous comment said I hope we can get some free use photos of the wreckage. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 00:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps an underwater fish like a dolphin or whale, kitted out with a Go-Pro, captured the event. Marine biologists are always putting cameras on stuff. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:BC94:2BB6:6B9B:E2F3 (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hammersoft It's good that you've searched for stuff yourself, but please refrain from WP:OR. Unless someone else finds something on the internet and you can cite them, it's irrelevant. 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:BC94:2BB6:6B9B:E2F3 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what original research you think I've been conducting. Please re-read my statement. I said I conducted a search to find an image. That's not original research. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you do yourself a disservice. You've acted on your own initiative to try to find something. That's laudable, but you should try to refrain from acting on impulses like these.

No need to apologise at all! 2A00:23EE:2120:27FF:9FD:E604:D362:DC3A (talk) 08:53, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not apologizing for anything I did. I didn't conduct any original research in attempting to find an image. I said sorry for your misapprehension as to what I did. I will continue to act on such impulses. If you think there's some sort of problem in my doing so, you're welcome to report it. --Hammersoft (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

What a strange admonishment. Wikipedia editors should refrain from looking for usable freely-licensed images? Cerebral726 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

2A00, it is unclear what exactly you believe is wrong. If your problem is potentially using an image of the Titan, then you should already know about WP:NFCC, and why we can't use it, at this point given your earlier replies. If your problem is someone searching online for an image to use, that is not a problem per the Image use policy. If you have some other problem, then you are not being clear enough about it as searching the internet for a free-use image is not original research. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Reread the first sentence of WP:OR: "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Nothing to do with images. WP:IMAGEOR. It is possible I've misinterpreted, but I don't see how trying to find assets or information to come to a consensus is OR. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)