181–190 of 302 posts
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I don't understand this acoustic monitoring concept... I'm curious what the logic behind it was. It just doesn't seem like there would be enough time to take action once the monitor starts to detect failure.
It seems they felt this was one of the novel innovations that enabled this design - that the monitoring system was so good, they'd never be at risk in the pressure hull at depth. James Cameron said it looks like they had dropped their emergency ascent ballast before the implosion, so they may have gotten enough warning to take action. But I would guess that system was never tested to failure in real life. It will be…
If their $30 joystick wasn't a red flag their RTM system should had been.
What's bad about a $30 Logitech controller? It should be more reliable than what they can build on their own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The shuttle did something nobody had done before and was viewed as a genuine step forward in human capability. It was also over 50 years ago and had to rely on technology of the time - uncrewed tests were much harder to perform. This wasn't a particularly ground breaking vehicle in terms of capability and was taking paying tourists...
It also wasn't built with parts from camper world and cheap Xbox controller knockoffs. NASA actually had a strong focus on safety. They just went about it the wrong way, calculating safety ratings backwards. Considering the pressure vessel of this sub was only meant to handle 1300m as per another article, the way it survived 50 dives at 4000m is pretty amazing though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of some code that I've written which got passed off to other teams who ripped it out because all they saw was the complexity and they didn't recognize what issues it was preventing (Chesterton's Fence).
Code like that needs a 10 ft comment. I have been save by seeing those on otherwise “why the fuck is this needed” code. If they if ignore the comment, well that is hubris.
> 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.
> 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…
> While classing agencies are willing to pursue the certification of new and innovative designs and ideas, they often have a multi-year approval cycle due to a lack of pre-existing standards, especially, for example, in the case of many of OceanGate’s innovations, such as carbon fiber pressure vessels and a real-time (RTM) hull health monitoring system. Bringing an outside entity up to speed on every innovation before it is put into real-world testing is anathema to rapid innovation. For example, Space X, Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic all rely on experienced inside experts to oversee the daily operations, testing, and validation versus bringing in outsiders who need to first be educated before being qualified to ‘validate’ any innovations.
Gamble with money all you want. Don't gamble with people. Things get fixed, people don't. That is quite a hard lesson for inexperienced people to learn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
probably too soon for that one
Serious question though. Doesn't look very good if they intentionally took the website offline.