Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.” • Hacker News Board

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#201

Post by ansible » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 3:18 PM UTC

HPsquared wrote: post #197

ansible wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Carbon fiber is a great material, if used where it shines. For this application I don't think it is a good choice, even if it worked a few times. What I didn't understand is the focus on the electronics and the control system, those are irrelevant if the hull isn't going to work out. That's all true, but the use of the Logitech game controller and and other consumer-grade electronics rightfully drew scorn of its ow…

It really depends on the environmental conditions. In the case of a deep sea submersible you might expect that the controller will always be in controlled indoor conditions, depending on when/where they open the hatch. In normal operation it's going to be dry, and if there's a leak the controller probably isn't going to be of much use anyway. (same goes with the rest of the electronics). A car is of course much diffe…

Salty sea air and sea spray are all around you on a ocean-going ship. I'm sure they weren't intentionally dunking the Logitech controller into sea water, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't possibly be effected by the environment.

https://pomametals.com/salt-air-inland-distance-for-metal/

The Logitech controller isn't sealed for moisture. A single drop of sea water on it can slide inside and start the corrosion process. It looks fine on the outside, because the plastic isn't as affected.

Most of the buttons on a commercial grade PC input device use conductive carbon pads pressing against bare metal contacts on a PCB. Yes, the contacts may be gold plated, but there is still exposed copper on the sides.

Heck, even ordinary contamination from skin oil has caused one my keyboard's keys to stop working. I was able to take the keyboard apart and clean it, fixing the problem. The keyboard was never exposed to anything beyond a normal office environment, and never had liquid spilled on it.

Marine grade switches are waterproof and dustproof:

https://newwiremarine.com/marine-grade-switches/

If you take care and seal the soldered wires to the switch electrical contacts, it should be good for years and years of use, even at sea.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#202

Post by jacquesm » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 3:25 PM UTC

ansible wrote: post #200

guax wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're under estimating the controller and over estimating your understanding of the conditions it would live on the vessel. Why it's non redundant? There were likely spares around, if it misbehaves you can get a new one in seconds.

> Why it's non redundant? There were likely spares around, if it misbehaves you can get a new one in seconds. So you are saying they were carrying around a spare controller, and a spare everything else inside the sub? At all times?

They in fact did say somewhere that they carry 'a couple of spares'.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#203

Post by cmpbl » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 3:30 PM UTC

Oceangate's 2019 blog post Why Isn't Titan Classed (now only available in internet caches), is a stunning display of either deeply flawed logical thinking or a willful attempt to confuse people.

The post basically says, (1) the "vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents are the result of operator error, not mechanical failure", and (2) the vehicle classification guidelines are too stringent and stymie innovation.

A rationale person might interpret that as: (1) mechanical-related incidents are very infrequent as a percentage of total incidents, because (2) vehicle guidelines successfully minimize rates of mechanical failure, such that remaining incidents are generally operational in nature.

Oceangate ignores this implication and bluffs its way from pointing out that most incidents are operational in nature (for a sample set of largely mechanically certified crafts) to implying that a focus on operational safety is a reasonable way to minimize total risk (for an uncertified craft).

ref: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Y_6Rrx...

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#204

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 6:12 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #64

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like if the bells were found, but not the tube, we have the answer. If the window failed, I would expect to have none or one bell separated from the tube, but not both. I imagine the glass being shot inside the tube and the water jet would vaporize the people inside and maybe blow one bell off. If the tube failed, would expect both bells to be sitting on the ocean floor. I’m not a professional mechanical engin…

Pretty good guess though.

Turns out it was. Only 20 years of composites work and I can make an OK guess!

Report I saw was de-lam or otherwise failed tube.

I wonder if it made a noise first? Like I assume that depth you get all sorts of noises anyhow but a 5” carbon tube, I wonder if it crackled first?

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#205

Post by SV_BubbleTime » Fri, Jun 23, 2023, 6:13 PM UTC

guax wrote: post #187

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bells are titanium iirc, I wouldn’t think they would shatter. I thought the report is they were 100+ feet apart, it’s a crazy amount of force.

They could just glide apart from whatever depth the implosion happened. The force is unfathomable but the distance is not related to it I think.

That’s fair. In my head they were at the bottom when this happened, but there is no reason to think that other than I imagined it.

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#206

Post by polynomial » Wed, Jun 28, 2023, 5:26 AM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #56

jonah wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the press-conference they said both end bells were found separately - no mention of whether the window was still intact. It'll be interesting to see the failure analysis. [Edit] Link to video with a description of the major debris found: https://youtu.be/A0xJ220Fod4?t=263 "the front end-bell of the pressure hull - that was the first indication that there was a catastrophic event" "the aft end-bell which basically.…

Sounds like if the bells were found, but not the tube, we have the answer. If the window failed, I would expect to have none or one bell separated from the tube, but not both. I imagine the glass being shot inside the tube and the water jet would vaporize the people inside and maybe blow one bell off. If the tube failed, would expect both bells to be sitting on the ocean floor. I’m not a professional mechanical engin…

Wow, that's incredible. At what depth does the water pressure reach the level that will vaporize human bodies?

Re: Oceangate Statement, “We now believe that [all crew] have sadly been lost.”

#207

Post by polynomial » Wed, Jun 28, 2023, 5:27 AM UTC

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #204

jacquesm wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty good guess though.

Turns out it was. Only 20 years of composites work and I can make an OK guess! Report I saw was de-lam or otherwise failed tube. I wonder if it made a noise first? Like I assume that depth you get all sorts of noises anyhow but a 5” carbon tube, I wonder if it crackled first?

This is a really great question.