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

141–150 of 302 posts

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

#141

Post by erik_seaberg »

throw0101a wrote: post #102
foota wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the stresses of the hull going through changing pressures is relevant.

> I believe the stresses of the hull going through changing pressures is relevant. It certainly does for aircraft, and I doubt the material science would be much different for subs (with the added challenge(s) that (salt) water often brings): * https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/what-deter... * https://simpleflying.com/pressurization-cycles-aircraft-life...

Worse, going from 1 atm down to 400 atm of pressure is a much larger difference than going up to 0.2 atm.

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

#144

Post by themagician »

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"

Survivorship bias at play.

Technically correct, too. The vast majority of marine and aviation accidents are the result of operator error… because engineering standards are so good and mechanical failures are so rare.

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

#145

Post by [deleted] »

RajT88 wrote: post #47
ARandomerDude wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

[deleted]

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

#146

Post by brookst »

xupybd wrote: post #79
DeRock wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And app sandboxing, and masks during covid, and seatbelts, and gun control, and …

The relative merits differ, and any given thing is debatable, but “it doesn’t solve everything so it’s no better than nothing” is a nakedly dishonest argument.

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

#147

Post by aleph_minus_one »

advael wrote: post #110
aleph_minus_one wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather: for every customer who slightly informs himself, it should be insanely obvious that signing up might be quite dangerous (with a risk that is likely very hard to actually measure - this is a huge red flag for any risk-averse person). 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…

The linked article is very clearly an attempt to persuade its reader that the lack of classing (IE verification of safety by an external auditor) is less of an issue than they might otherwise think. Your advice to a reader of this article is rational here, but I think it's worth also pointing out that the article is meant to persuade said reader to not think that way

Perhaps this might be a cultural issue (I am not a US-American citizen), but to me your quote

> "We're so innovative we don't have time for safety regulations"

reads like "to offer an innovative service which would otherwise not possible, we exchanged known risks (what safety regulations are for to capture and mitigate) for much more unknown risks".

As I wrote: "risks that are likely very hard to actually measure are a huge red flag for any risk-averse person" (and most people are risk-averse), so every customer should be perfectly aware for what he signs up.

This is like a financial adviser who offers a highly innovative finance product with a risk profile that is hard to measure because of its novelty, which the advisor clearly tells. There do exist customers for which such a product is a good choice (say risk-affine, novelty-seeking ones), but such customers are perfectly aware what they are up to.

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

#148

Post by distrill »

cbzoiav wrote: post #26
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #22

> 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.

i think we found out when it imploded
Post reply on HN