Live data from Hacker News

Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

web.archive.org

41–50 of 302 posts

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#41

> They do not ensure that operators adhere to proper operating procedures and decision-making processes – two areas that are much more important for mitigating risks at sea. plane_with_red_dots.jpeg This sounds an awful lot like survivorship bias.

"We don't need to vaccinate against measles because hardly anyone gets measles."

I have a friend who is a professor of history. He jokes that human history is basically us creating systems to solve problems, then time passes and we remove those systems causes “those types of problems never happen.”

Rinse repeat

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#42
post #26

> OceanGate’s submersibles are the only known vessels to use real-time (RTM) hull health monitoring. With this RTM system, we can determine if the hull is compromised well before situations become life-threatening, and safely return to the surface. This innovative safety system is not currently covered by any classing agency. > No other submersible currently utilizes real-time monitoring to monitor hull health during…

The craft survived several launches - that proved it can do it. Whether it can do it reliably / survive fatigue accross repeated cycles is a different question. Imagine we'll find out as the investigation progresses.

James Cameron gave an interview where he claimed the carbon fiber hull concept was tested by a team competing to get down to Challenger Deep at the same time his team was - and the concept failed in testing. He also claimed many within the deep submersible community wrote letters to OceanGate warning them their plan was flawed and would result in catastrophic loss.

Specifically, the failure mode was delamination.

I can't vouch for how credible this all is - but, given how much disregard the OceanGate team had for safety, it doesn't seem too far fetched.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9YB31ElEFQ

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#43
> They [inspections] do not ensure that operators adhere to proper operating procedures and decision-making processes – two areas that are much more important for mitigating risks at sea.

As a former tall ship captain:

No Shit. Ships stopped sinking when we started requiring inspections and design rules around stability and watertight compartments.

We largely eliminated a common failure mode, designer error, through inspections and classing, so now we are left with the harder failure modes: operator error.

I’m curious if the flag state will get involved here. It’s one thing to push the limits with experimental design (happens all the time in boats, airplanes and cars). It’s a while other thing to use experimental designs in commercial applications. There’s a good reason that the FAA doesn’t allow commercial operators to use experimental registered aircraft…

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saw this today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mSq6ibKKXQ

That’s pretty wild. The operator was able to tell when they were going deeper based on the sound of the carbon fibers cracking in the hull.

These sort of sounds occur even in metal (steel/titanium) submersibles.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#45
post #32
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The craft survived several launches - that proved it can do it. Whether it can do it reliably / survive fatigue accross repeated cycles is a different question. Imagine we'll find out as the investigation progresses.

We already found out, I think.

Maybe some orcas played with it.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#46
post #37
post #16

> The vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents are a result of operator error, not mechanical failure. Could that be because the vast majority of mechanical designs go through processes designed to validate them and catch flaws? They also use SpaceX as an example. SpaceX ran a large number of unmanned launches to prove out the design before putting people on board. Several of those ended in loss of the vehicl…

That's exactly it. If OceanGate had build and dropped a few dozen of these hulls empty, as many times as needed to reach failure, whatever design flaw caused the implosion almost certainly would have been noticed. It's the hubris of diving in what amounts to a prototype that's at issue here, not any fundamental technical mistake.

Not even a prototype! More like a structural test article.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saw this today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mSq6ibKKXQ

That’s pretty wild. The operator was able to tell when they were going deeper based on the sound of the carbon fibers cracking in the hull.

Holy Shitballs. Cracking noises! Things which you never want to hear on a submersible!

(insert "this is fine" meme)

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#48
The truly scandalous thing here is this:

> Depth Validating

> As an interim step in the path to classification, we are working with a premier classing agency to validate Titan’s dive test plan. A licensed marine surveyor will witness a successful dive to 4000 meters, inspect the vessel before and after the dive, and provide a Statement of Fact attesting to the completion of the dive test plan.

They clearly did not do this. Simply lowering the thing to the ocean bottom uncrewed would have found this problem. It would not have prevented them from experimenting with crazy designs. It would not have significantly impacted their ability to iterate and move fast. It wouldn't have cost that much to do in the grand scheme of things. I would argue that doing de-risked testing at depth would have expanded their ability to be more radical in their design and overall could have sped up their design iteration. Look at how SpaceX does this, they move fast and break things but make sure that the risk is levered to the reward. The first Falcon rockets did not have commercial payloads at all, nor did the first falcon heavy, Falcon did not fly humans until it was a well-proven rocket. Starship is "failing" constantly but they are doing it in a way which means the impact is minimal and they are learning lots each time.

The really sad part of this is that this probably sets back any innovation in submarine exploration decades. Nobody is going to experiment with carbon composite subs, nobody is going to set out to build a sub with the goal of reducing the per-trip cost by 90% or 99%.

Things, overall, could easily have been so different. Very sad.

Re: Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

#49
This is such a clear fallacy right from the get go. "This thing doesn't completely solve the problem, therefore, we will not do it."

So many people fall for this or talk in such terms like it's perfectly reasonable and it always baffles me. You see it in political discussion a lot.

Post reply on HN