ArchieG wrote:Wealden wrote:Are we saying it imploded during normal and planned navigation, rather than as a result of being on the ocean floor for 2 days? If so, it is an utter disgrace. Many questions need answers,
The US Navy, it turns out, heard the implosion near to the time comms were lost, but as it wasn’t ‘conclusive’, let the search go ahead in case they were wrong. And yes, it appears to have happened during the descent. I’m not sure your questions will ever be answered, is recovering the debris worth doing? As I said, carbon doesn’t exhibit fatigue cracking, and it’s been there, to the Titanic, before. Any comment on reasons for failure is going to be speculative. The question left to answer is ‘why were they able to carry paying passengers’. Some update to international maritime law might be looked at.
I think they’ll want to recover as much as they can because they can always learn from this tragedy whilst trying to ascertain what actually happened.
We all know what happened, structurally it failed under the enormous pressure at depth, but was it the hull or the window section at the front? Any knowledge gathered from wreckage will be helpful to enforce stricter maritime laws internationally and universal certification to stop this kind of thing happening again.
They can’t allow crackpot builders to get away with flaunting future international certification to endanger themselves and others. No garden shed built subs should ever be launched.
This goes for the fool who tried to sail the Atlantic in a wheelie bin too, he didn’t make it out of the harbour and should never have been allowed the attempt in the first place.
Atomised body remains will be difficult to recover, so a second reason for wreckage recovery would be to give the families something tangible to hold onto.