Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why isn't Titan classed? (2019)

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 302 posts

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

#71

Post by cjensen »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #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…

Yep. This is like saying "who needs building codes because it's more important the owner maintains the roof and paint?"

To have something properly function you need both a solid build and maintenance. Doing one well doesn't absolve you of doing the other.

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

#72

Post by cactusplant7374 »

ajross wrote: post #37
cbzoiav wrote: 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.

It had already been down quite a few times. Do you mean 100's of drops? Although, couldn't they just leave it at the bottom for a month and see if it implodes?

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

#73

Post by stickfigure »

cbzoiav wrote: 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…

The first space shuttle launch was crewed. It ended up with a ~2% failure rate. The Titan made about 50 dives. So, from a reliability perspective, on par with the shuttle.

I posit that half the people on HN would volunteer for a hypothetical next shuttle flight without thinking twice.

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

#74

Post by notreallyauser »

lozenge wrote: post #54
dghlsakjg wrote: post #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…

Titan didn't have a flag, it only operated in international waters. But the surface support vessel has a Canadian flag, and Canada's launching an investigation.

The Guardian is reporting the submersible as registered in the Bahamas

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

#75

Post by post-it »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #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…

They did previously visit the Titanic in the sub, so they may very well have had a guy

> 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

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

#76

Post by RajT88 »

JohnMakin wrote: post #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.

> You see it in political discussion a lot.

In political discussions, it's because that's what people do when they don't want to plainly state their real reasons for opposition.

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

#77

Post by deelowe »

cactusplant7374 wrote: post #72
ajross wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It had already been down quite a few times. Do you mean 100's of drops? Although, couldn't they just leave it at the bottom for a month and see if it implodes?

I thought the deepest it had gone was 3000 meters and there's no evidence of it even having been tested to 4k.

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

#78

Post by advael »

What a profoundly stupid take by a profoundly irresponsible company. This is a great example of why you should consider anything a company says about itself to be marketing, and treat it with commensurate skepticism.

"We're so innovative we don't have time for safety regulations" - An idiot, destined to harm someone unless pure dumb luck causes their company to fail first

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

#79

Post by xupybd »

DeRock wrote: post #56
dghlsakjg wrote: post #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…

Their reasoning is fundamentally flawed. > The vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents are a result of operator error, not mechanical failure. As a result, simply focusing on classing the vessel does not address the operational risks. Aka "classing doesn't mitigate all problems, so we're not going to do it at all"

I've heard the same argument against unit testing and strong typing.
Post reply on HN