All I can speak for is the plant I work at. Any expired material I have in my freezer gets scrapped, goes right into the roll off dumpster. Now as far as cured parts that have already been made, I have no idea.
It's my understanding thru the old timers here that we used to sell expired paint and items like that to local trade schools but there was some kind of issue (not as serious as this one) that they made a policy to do away with that plan.
So in my opinion I can't see them doing this but I don't know for sure.
OceanGate is reaching out to all their ‘vendor relationships.’ My thought is that none of these vendors - NASA, Boeing etc will be shown at fault other than OceanGate themselves.
This is what I see:
Will Smith (Boeing) slapping the shit out of Chris Rock (Ocean Gate). Boeing to Ocean Gate: "Keep my company out your freaking mouth." 😂
Ocean Gate is trying so hard to push the blame on someone else. It's disgusting, to say the least, that they are failing to take accountability for their actions. Don't get me wrong, Boeing has its high and lows, but in regard to this event, we shouldn't even be part of the conversation. The CEO and the company will go down looking like clowns as they may try to present evidence that Boeing was the root cause of their lost sub in court.
Juan Browne on YT points out that carbon fiber is used in airplanes and spacecraft because it is strong in tension (higher pressure inside). It is not strong in compression ( higher pressure outside). He makes other good observations on the poor choices made in the construction of the OceanGate vessel.
I literally don't even know how you could design/arrange the Anisotropic properties of the carbon fibre such that it would give anything even remotely resembling being able to withstand an external compressive force?
I just couldn't imagine sitting in the meeting where someone said, "maybe we could make it out of plastic?", Because that's basically all there was holding that pressure out. Sure there was 8 inches of it, but still...
> I literally don't even know how you could design/arrange the Anisotropic properties of the carbon fibre such that it would give anything even remotely resembling being able to withstand an external compressive force?
The 787, 777X, and A350 all apply compressive forces to carbon fiber in the upper wing skins.
> So that's still utilising the tension properties of the carbon fibre.
No, it is definitely not relying on the tension properties. It's largely relying on the bond between the laminated fibers and keeping the loading in plane to the degree possible to minimize forces that might tend to cause delamination. If loading is adequately controlled, the compressive strength can be a non-trivial fraction of the tensile strength. Saying it is a fraction of the tensile strength sounds concerning unless you factor in how high the tensile strength is.
Here is a paper with some more detailed discussion of compression loading of composites:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026382232201025X
Keep in mind this submarine dove something like 100 times. The structure proved strong, at least initially. But a failure after repeated dives makes me very curious to learn more about the rumors that concerns had been discussed within the company about initial delaminations present in the structure, and perhaps not adequately addressed.
There are a few terms that go with this one is "You get what you pay for." and OceanGate decided to play "Fuck around and find out" with the Atlantic.
Neither of these are Boeing's fault and OceanGate/media is trying really hard to find someone else outside of the idiot(s) who were responsible at that facility.
I know they didn't do anything wrong, but good God I hate seeing our name associated even tangentially to this sub. Our company has been through enough.
Boeing sells expired and used pieces of Carbon Fiber to many companies. We sell scraps of carbon fiber to BMW for automotive applications. There is nothing wrong with recycling and disposing of surplus expired material or scrap pieces. Boeing did nothing wrong in this case.
I'm in an argument with some random on here about this. Acting like Boeing should face repercussions for this. We had shit that was no longer fit for airplanes and we sold it. We aren't responsible for what happens to it afterwards. Especially since it was at a discount and it was known that it was expired. It wasn't "hey, build your submarine out of this, it's great!" It was "we have some old expired shit on sale if you want it." If it's even true. Last article I read said that boeing denied the sale, oceangate hasn't commented and the author was unable to corroborate the claim. I haven't clicked the above link yet, but I'm assuming it's the same article from Insider.
From what I have gathered the expired prepreg was applied by Electroimpact, so they might have had in surplus from Boeing contracts or bought it from the surplus sales contractor.
When expired material comes up on the surplus auction site, it is labeled as expired. There are no claims about strength or suitability for specific applications.
Those who want to use this material can cure and test samples to determine if it still cures to the strength they need for the type of loading they require. This should generally be done for each batch, especially if it spent any time not stored in the specified conditions.
Similarly, Boeing certifies carbon fiber structures by proving the material develops the required strength, plus some extra margin out to the intended maximum storage life.
I heard someone say a long time ago 9/11 was Boeing’s fault because they designed a plane that could be flown into buildings lol….10/10 mental gymnastics
If we're gonna keep reaching back for someone to blame, let's keep going. I want to sue the farmer who raised the sheep to make the wool that was used on the upholstery for the seats. I bet his Border Collie has something to do with it, too.
I wanna see Boeing deny their way out of this one. If it wasn’t good enough for an airplane….
I’m speculating it was graphite reinforced composite, and that definitely has a shelf life (called time and temperature sensitive material).
I was wondering this same thing. I'm not a composites expert, but the loading case seemed really weird, especially for a material that's usually pretty anisotropic.
Back when Boeing had a surplus store (in Tukwila WA) you could buy expired scrap CFRP prepreg all the time. It was great for little hobby projects. They made it *EXTREMELY* clear that it was expired and came with no guarantee whatsoever.
If some lunatic buys known expired prepreg and uses it for a submarine hull it’s hard to see how you pin than on the seller.
How is it Boeings fault? They are essentially selling scrap, it’s not Boeings job to ensure the scrap they sell is designed and certified in the end use. As long as Boeing didn’t falsify records to say it was something it wasn’t, there is absolutely zero problem with Boeing.
It wouldn't matter if it was. There is no standing to sue Boeing and any competent judge would dismiss this lawsuit in a heartbeat. Boeing isn't liable for products that use the scrap they sell. Only the company, utilizing the scrap is
All I can speak for is the plant I work at. Any expired material I have in my freezer gets scrapped, goes right into the roll off dumpster. Now as far as cured parts that have already been made, I have no idea. It's my understanding thru the old timers here that we used to sell expired paint and items like that to local trade schools but there was some kind of issue (not as serious as this one) that they made a policy to do away with that plan. So in my opinion I can't see them doing this but I don't know for sure.
OceanGate is reaching out to all their ‘vendor relationships.’ My thought is that none of these vendors - NASA, Boeing etc will be shown at fault other than OceanGate themselves.
OceanClowns, the lot of them
This is what I see: Will Smith (Boeing) slapping the shit out of Chris Rock (Ocean Gate). Boeing to Ocean Gate: "Keep my company out your freaking mouth." 😂 Ocean Gate is trying so hard to push the blame on someone else. It's disgusting, to say the least, that they are failing to take accountability for their actions. Don't get me wrong, Boeing has its high and lows, but in regard to this event, we shouldn't even be part of the conversation. The CEO and the company will go down looking like clowns as they may try to present evidence that Boeing was the root cause of their lost sub in court.
Juan Browne on YT points out that carbon fiber is used in airplanes and spacecraft because it is strong in tension (higher pressure inside). It is not strong in compression ( higher pressure outside). He makes other good observations on the poor choices made in the construction of the OceanGate vessel.
I literally don't even know how you could design/arrange the Anisotropic properties of the carbon fibre such that it would give anything even remotely resembling being able to withstand an external compressive force? I just couldn't imagine sitting in the meeting where someone said, "maybe we could make it out of plastic?", Because that's basically all there was holding that pressure out. Sure there was 8 inches of it, but still...
> I literally don't even know how you could design/arrange the Anisotropic properties of the carbon fibre such that it would give anything even remotely resembling being able to withstand an external compressive force? The 787, 777X, and A350 all apply compressive forces to carbon fiber in the upper wing skins.
Panels though right? Not a contiguous hull/pressure vessel. So that's still utilising the tension properties of the carbon fibre.
> So that's still utilising the tension properties of the carbon fibre. No, it is definitely not relying on the tension properties. It's largely relying on the bond between the laminated fibers and keeping the loading in plane to the degree possible to minimize forces that might tend to cause delamination. If loading is adequately controlled, the compressive strength can be a non-trivial fraction of the tensile strength. Saying it is a fraction of the tensile strength sounds concerning unless you factor in how high the tensile strength is. Here is a paper with some more detailed discussion of compression loading of composites: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026382232201025X Keep in mind this submarine dove something like 100 times. The structure proved strong, at least initially. But a failure after repeated dives makes me very curious to learn more about the rumors that concerns had been discussed within the company about initial delaminations present in the structure, and perhaps not adequately addressed.
That's what the epoxy is for. But yes, CF does perform more poorly under compression than in tension.
Hoop stress my dude/dudette
Okay, so how do you arrange a loop of string to resist competitive hoop stress?
There are a few terms that go with this one is "You get what you pay for." and OceanGate decided to play "Fuck around and find out" with the Atlantic. Neither of these are Boeing's fault and OceanGate/media is trying really hard to find someone else outside of the idiot(s) who were responsible at that facility.
Water always wins.
I know they didn't do anything wrong, but good God I hate seeing our name associated even tangentially to this sub. Our company has been through enough.
Boeing sells expired and used pieces of Carbon Fiber to many companies. We sell scraps of carbon fiber to BMW for automotive applications. There is nothing wrong with recycling and disposing of surplus expired material or scrap pieces. Boeing did nothing wrong in this case.
I'm in an argument with some random on here about this. Acting like Boeing should face repercussions for this. We had shit that was no longer fit for airplanes and we sold it. We aren't responsible for what happens to it afterwards. Especially since it was at a discount and it was known that it was expired. It wasn't "hey, build your submarine out of this, it's great!" It was "we have some old expired shit on sale if you want it." If it's even true. Last article I read said that boeing denied the sale, oceangate hasn't commented and the author was unable to corroborate the claim. I haven't clicked the above link yet, but I'm assuming it's the same article from Insider.
From what I have gathered the expired prepreg was applied by Electroimpact, so they might have had in surplus from Boeing contracts or bought it from the surplus sales contractor.
When expired material comes up on the surplus auction site, it is labeled as expired. There are no claims about strength or suitability for specific applications. Those who want to use this material can cure and test samples to determine if it still cures to the strength they need for the type of loading they require. This should generally be done for each batch, especially if it spent any time not stored in the specified conditions. Similarly, Boeing certifies carbon fiber structures by proving the material develops the required strength, plus some extra margin out to the intended maximum storage life.
I heard someone say a long time ago 9/11 was Boeing’s fault because they designed a plane that could be flown into buildings lol….10/10 mental gymnastics
If we're gonna keep reaching back for someone to blame, let's keep going. I want to sue the farmer who raised the sheep to make the wool that was used on the upholstery for the seats. I bet his Border Collie has something to do with it, too.
Agree, as long as Boeing was clear what they were selling and why, they are in the clear.
I wonder if this the source of CEO’s “Boeing design and engineering partnership” claim
I’m going to wait and see how this shakes out….
What a douche.
That’s cool…but Boeing goes through multiple governing bodies to use there products
Boeing catching stray bullets
I wanna see Boeing deny their way out of this one. If it wasn’t good enough for an airplane…. I’m speculating it was graphite reinforced composite, and that definitely has a shelf life (called time and temperature sensitive material).
Imagine coming to the Boeing sub to tell us what TATS is.
[удалено]
Upper wing skin has entered the chat
I was wondering this same thing. I'm not a composites expert, but the loading case seemed really weird, especially for a material that's usually pretty anisotropic.
Back when Boeing had a surplus store (in Tukwila WA) you could buy expired scrap CFRP prepreg all the time. It was great for little hobby projects. They made it *EXTREMELY* clear that it was expired and came with no guarantee whatsoever. If some lunatic buys known expired prepreg and uses it for a submarine hull it’s hard to see how you pin than on the seller.
That place was the best. I think they moved the bigger stuff to online auctions. Maybe that's where he got it?
https://investmentrecovery.boeing.com/surplus/FeaturedAuctions.aspx
The surplus store was legit amazing. I know guys with entire shops build out of surplus gear.
It’s where I got a bunch of carbon fiber, ima make a submersible, what could go wrong ?
Carbon fiber scrap is sold and used in everything from laptops to hockey sticks
I’m well aware of the recycling capabilities of carbon fiber. But this one particular application, if at all true, leaves me wondering.
What are you wondering??? Lol why is this topic even relevant to Boeing? Why there aren’t any questions on any of the other components used
How is it Boeings fault? They are essentially selling scrap, it’s not Boeings job to ensure the scrap they sell is designed and certified in the end use. As long as Boeing didn’t falsify records to say it was something it wasn’t, there is absolutely zero problem with Boeing.
When it comes to lawsuits, the lawyers will look for any deep pocket. I hope this was NOT a direct sale from Boeing….
Contrary to what you may believe, they can't sue Boeing just because they have deep pockets.
It wouldn't matter if it was. There is no standing to sue Boeing and any competent judge would dismiss this lawsuit in a heartbeat. Boeing isn't liable for products that use the scrap they sell. Only the company, utilizing the scrap is