91–100 of 302 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I'm aware, and please correct me if I'm wrong, they had never dove to this depth before. So, sure, it was launched before and recovered, but it never experienced the same conditions which caused the failure.
They did: http://web.archive.org/web/20200814020351/https://www.oceang... (At least twice, and probably more times).
> However, this does not mean that OceanGate does meet standards where they apply, but it does mean that innovation often falls outside of the existing industry paradigm.
in particular:
> ... this does not mean that OceanGate does meet standards where they apply ...
> 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 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.
There's no way in hell I'm getting on one of virgin galactic's death traps, that looks 10 times worse than the space shuttle.
The whole reason they were not classed is that carbon composites would not pass any class certifications due to the limits indicated above.
> 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.
In parallel do it with another hull at the same time. Or maybe more than one. Compare.
Testing to failure is a nice option because it finds certain types of unwelcome surprises.
But it's not really complete, either -- there are probably a lot of ways that a submersible can be compromised, and there's no way to be sure what caused this particular failure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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
> Chesterton’s Fence is a principle that says change should not be made until the reasoning behind the current state of affairs is understood. It says the rash move, upon coming across a fence, would be to tear it down without understanding why it was put up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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
So if you neverthess sign up, you are very aware that things might go insanely wrong (and there is actually a very realistic probability of dying). So you really know what you are up to.
I wonder what that low-pressure o-ring is sealing. I assume the vacuum would only simulate a one atmosphere differential, so that o-ring must not be sealing something exposed to the external pressures at the depths they go down to.