Questions and theories swirl about the release — and non-release — of audio information captured when the Titan submersible, OceanGate Expeditions’ private research and deep-sea underwater adventure vessel, went down, killing everyone aboard. But did the White House or U.S. military withhold information from the public for nefarious political purposes?
Probably not, says a local sonar expert.
“When the general public hears that the Navy had sound or a recording of the collapse of the vessel, they think it means the Navy could 100 percent guarantee that the event they heard on passive sonar devices was conclusive evidence that the hull did, in fact, collapse,” says Ray Alexander, retired Navy logistics commander and former sonar technician second class, who served as a sonar operator on the Los Angeles-class fast attack nuclear submarine USS Portsmouth and in logistics on the submarine USS Newport News. “If the general public thinks that information is so reliable, they lack an appreciation for the arc that is acoustic data and the number of variables involved.”
He gives a quick primer on sonar: While radar is used above the water, it is virtually useless beneath the waves. Radar functions on the electromagnetic spectrum, along with radio frequencies, light and microwaves, which do not travel well through water. Sonar is simply sound compressions and decompressions traveling through a medium — water, in this case — and is the primary sensory data submarine crews use to “see” the three-dimensional world around them, keep from hitting bottom and avoid running into other vessels. Sounds travel “quite well” in water because it’s a dense, fluid media, says Alexander.
“We typically use passive sonar, which means listening to things in the ocean,” says the Camarillo resident. The idea of submarines and ships traveling around “pinging” all the time (called active sonar) is a creation of motion pictures. Active sonar can betray the position of a vessel.
Four main sources of sound can be heard in the ocean: noise from living creatures, wave noise, seismic activity and man-made noise. A major task of a sonar technician is to distinguish between man-made noise (usually machines and activity) and biological noise, such as the near-surface shrimp and zooplankton, which use cavitation to shock their prey. That particular process, for example, creates a constant fizzing sound through the headphones.
When the Titan imploded, the rapid collapse of the cavity — called “cavitation” — allowed water quickly to overcome the resistance gasses provided — and created noise.
“If the Titan imploded, which we believe it did, it would have made a pretty massive cavitation from the rapid collapse of the gasses inside of that bubble,” says Alexander. “It’s like a minor explosion, but I use that word cautiously because it’s not like a fireball. It’s such a rapid and violent event that it generates pressurized and depressurized waves in the ocean, which is sound.”
Sounds traveling through water can be heard hundreds or even thousands of miles away if conditions are right. Water layers have different pressures, temperatures and salinities, which affect the signal.
“If the sound is loud enough and the sound velocity profile of the ocean is arranged in such a way, it’s possible for a cavitation event like this to be heard at great distances,” says Alexander.
However, “A cavitation event is not necessarily identifiable purely by the sound of it,” he says. “There are different types of noise. [Sonar operators] may have heard it but not tied it to the Titan.”
Indeed, he believes, most operators might not even have known there was a submersible vessel operating in the area of the Titanic. Had he been manning the hydrophone, Alexander says he probably would have thought the sound was caused by a seismic event.
“This was 400 miles off the coast of Newfoundland near the mid-Atlantic ridge, which does have seismic activity,” he says. “That would have been my first guess until I’d been made aware of the Titan going missing. If I was curious, I might rewind the tapes and see if we caught a cavitation event, find out where we were in the ocean and report it to the Navy or Coast Guard.”
But it would have been nearly impossible to conclude the event was caused by a specific vessel at a specific spot in the ocean and that a hull collapse caused it. So as controversy arose over why authorities informed the public of one piece of acoustic data collected — a possible banging sound from live passengers — but withheld a second piece of acoustic information — the apparent hull collapse — Alexander says the decision was more nuanced and complex than headlines can convey.
“A lot of people on Twitter, including members of Congress, are casting aspersions on the Biden administration, saying they intentionally withheld information that would have indicted a catastrophic cavitation of the hull — that for some nefarious reason, they held this information close to the vest,” Alexander says. “I’ve heard people say it’s the tail wagging the dog or them trying to control the narrative because information is coming out about the Biden family, and they used this as a distraction.”
Some also claim that maritime authorities wanted to use the unfortunate situation as a search and rescue exercise and take their teams through the transition to salvage and recovery in a real-life scenario.
“I’m no fan of the current administration, but there’s a plausible alternative to why they withheld certain information,” Alexander says.
On the scientific side, both sets of data were inconclusive. One indicated the possibility of life; the other indicated that all lives were lost. But maritime culture has a centuries-long tradition of rescuing people at sea and never giving up until loss is conclusively established.
“No matter who you are or who you find that needs your help, you are obligated by tradition and international maritime law to rescue people who need your help at sea,” Alexander says. “That is the culture you need to appreciate when thinking about this rescue operation. If they had inconclusive data that all might be lost and inconclusive data that there might be hope, it makes sense to me that the incident commander might release the information that gives you hope. There is a nautical tradition of doing that, and even just having faith in humans obligates you to continue to search until all is lost.”
When final visual evidence of catastrophic loss was identified, then the commander released all information. As theories abounded, Alexander began sharing his perspective on Twitter Spaces and ended up on national shows, including former Trump lawyer Jenna Ellis’s podcast.
Would he have gotten on board the Titan in the first place? Not a chance, he says.
But if forced to consider it, his first act would have been to check the track record of the vessel: How many times had it submerged? How far down had it gone before? How often had it been pulled out of the water and given a full inspection?
“The primary consideration to me would have been the operational history of the vessel, which would show a track record of safe operations,” he says.
The other major factor would have been design and engineering: How new was the design? How well-tested were the engineering principles that went into the vessel’s design, or were they trying out new materials, manufacturing techniques or engineering designs?
“I would not feel comfortable as a tourist on board a deep submergence vehicle if its design was in any way unique compared to well-tested designs,” he says. “In this case, they appear to be testing many engineering and design solutions. One clear example is the hull which was made out of carbon fiber.”
Deep submergence rescue vehicles operate only to a depth of 2,000 feet, meaning that if a U.S. nuclear submarine goes down in water deeper than that, there is essentially no hope of rescue. The Titan was going down nearly 13,000 feet.
“If you offered me a free ticket to go down and look at the Titanic through a window, before I even launched into an investigation of operational history and history of the company, and looked at the design of the vessel, just looking at how deep it is I would say, ‘No thank you,’” Alexander says.
While there are many things to consider and learn from — including the regulatory environment that allowed a craft like this to attempt such a deep dive — Alexander says decisions made about releasing some information and not others at least have a plausible explanation in sonar science and maritime tradition.
Very good article. I spent a total of about nine months submerged in the Mariana’s Trench during my time as. Navy submariner. I was also a sonar technician. Sonar is as much an art as a science.