Like I have said several times; from what I heard on the first report (local radio hosts that get a lot of good information) indicated that the submersible imploded on Sunday, when they first went out (about 8000 feet down). The search should have started at the location where they went into the water, they may have found the debris field fairly quickly and then they would have been satisfied that it imploded. Instead I am not sure what they were doing, did they start at the site where the Navy heard the sound of the implosion, or did they start a grid search, from where ever they might have thought the submersible was or could have been. I don't even know where they would have looked had they not started at the site they went into the water. If they had, the Biden administration may not have strung us along with the oxygen running out on Thursday, when, guess what, they had already imploded. That is my reasoning. I'm not sure what yours is, but I will say human life, to me, is worth saving if it can be saved, but the Biden administration used this horrible event to make us think they (the occupants) were going to suffer a death of suffocation from lack of oxygen when this was not the case. And they, I am certain, knew the submersible had imploded early on.
Suspicion---even dread suspicion---is not knowledge. The mainstream media are mostly working on incomplete information. If they didn't know about the acoustic evidence (which would have taken time to release, for analysis and declassification), they would naturally gravitate to the least terrible outcome. (I don't recall that the Biden administration said anything definite except platitudes, but they are mentally deficient anyway.)
As for searching, I leave that to the experts.
What causes me to shake my head is that this was a pathetic accident, and few people knew for certain what happened up to the discovery of the debris on Thursday. No need to invent scurrilous plots.
It wasn't a plot, it was-from what I heard-a fact that it was known to have imploded on Sunday. I have an article you might be interested in, unless you have already viewed it. The video is 8 m 24 s and is pretty interesting.
Good interview. Dead on (so to speak). One innovates slowly, or not at all. The Navy is famously conservative regarding innovation, which accounts for the seeming "low technology" on hand in modern submarines. It turns out this is the stuff that will keep on working when a ton of TNT in a depth charge decides to go off next to you. Even the transition to higher yield strength (HY series) steel was proofed out by the construction of trial submarines and plenty of testing. Just like the first nuclear submarine power plants were constructed and operated on land before being adopted for shipboard use.
The crackling composite hull was a warning siren that the strength was ebbing away. They should have beached the submersible permanently when the crackling was first heard. Being willing to throw one's life on the roulette wheel is not a sign of scientific or moral behavior.
I've read that Rush purchased composite material (presumably pre-impregnated tape) from Boeing, which had exceeded its shelf life. Boeing denies any such sale. But I had some experience in analyzing the chain of custody of that stuff, and it turns out it has to be kept in deep refrigeration all the time up to being laid and autoclaved. Any lapse in temperature control leads to loss of chemical and structural integrity. And it is simply not used beyond its shelf life. At that point, all bets are off.
And what? You would have terminated the search program? That's the question.
Like I have said several times; from what I heard on the first report (local radio hosts that get a lot of good information) indicated that the submersible imploded on Sunday, when they first went out (about 8000 feet down). The search should have started at the location where they went into the water, they may have found the debris field fairly quickly and then they would have been satisfied that it imploded. Instead I am not sure what they were doing, did they start at the site where the Navy heard the sound of the implosion, or did they start a grid search, from where ever they might have thought the submersible was or could have been. I don't even know where they would have looked had they not started at the site they went into the water. If they had, the Biden administration may not have strung us along with the oxygen running out on Thursday, when, guess what, they had already imploded. That is my reasoning. I'm not sure what yours is, but I will say human life, to me, is worth saving if it can be saved, but the Biden administration used this horrible event to make us think they (the occupants) were going to suffer a death of suffocation from lack of oxygen when this was not the case. And they, I am certain, knew the submersible had imploded early on.
Suspicion---even dread suspicion---is not knowledge. The mainstream media are mostly working on incomplete information. If they didn't know about the acoustic evidence (which would have taken time to release, for analysis and declassification), they would naturally gravitate to the least terrible outcome. (I don't recall that the Biden administration said anything definite except platitudes, but they are mentally deficient anyway.)
As for searching, I leave that to the experts.
What causes me to shake my head is that this was a pathetic accident, and few people knew for certain what happened up to the discovery of the debris on Thursday. No need to invent scurrilous plots.
It wasn't a plot, it was-from what I heard-a fact that it was known to have imploded on Sunday. I have an article you might be interested in, unless you have already viewed it. The video is 8 m 24 s and is pretty interesting.
https://rumble.com/v2w908z-man-who-trained-oceangates-owner-stockton-rush-explains-why-submarine-was-d.html
Good interview. Dead on (so to speak). One innovates slowly, or not at all. The Navy is famously conservative regarding innovation, which accounts for the seeming "low technology" on hand in modern submarines. It turns out this is the stuff that will keep on working when a ton of TNT in a depth charge decides to go off next to you. Even the transition to higher yield strength (HY series) steel was proofed out by the construction of trial submarines and plenty of testing. Just like the first nuclear submarine power plants were constructed and operated on land before being adopted for shipboard use.
The crackling composite hull was a warning siren that the strength was ebbing away. They should have beached the submersible permanently when the crackling was first heard. Being willing to throw one's life on the roulette wheel is not a sign of scientific or moral behavior.
I've read that Rush purchased composite material (presumably pre-impregnated tape) from Boeing, which had exceeded its shelf life. Boeing denies any such sale. But I had some experience in analyzing the chain of custody of that stuff, and it turns out it has to be kept in deep refrigeration all the time up to being laid and autoclaved. Any lapse in temperature control leads to loss of chemical and structural integrity. And it is simply not used beyond its shelf life. At that point, all bets are off.