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

Engineering assessment of the OceanGate Titan failure

captainsjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 100 posts

Re: Engineering assessment of the OceanGate Titan failure

#21

Post by cassepipe »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #12
MobileVet wrote: post #3

> From all available sources, it is apparent that the viewport was designed and certified down to a depth of 1300 meters, not 4000 meters. Wow. What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? Apparently the kind that thinks it is interesting that it deforms by several inches and not scary

>Wow. What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? The "bad-boy" disruptive innovator kind that doesn't play by the rules and that's worshiped in SV because he makes his wealth playing fast and loose around old stuffy bureaucratic regulations made by "evil old men" to gatekeep innovators like him from entering the naval market held by centuries year old corporations who actually know what they're doing. Th…

Let's make a one lane tunnel underground to fix traffic. I am so smart.

underground traffic jam

Re: Engineering assessment of the OceanGate Titan failure

#22

Post by kodah »

> It was previously stated by the CEO that each time he descended to that depth, the viewport deformed several inches inward.

It takes an incredible level of density to ignore this once, but multiple times?

Can someone tell me what happens to a human body when suddenly exposed to ~5000 psi?

Edit: I looked it up. The human body almost instantly incinerates. It takes a matter of milliseconds.

Re: Engineering assessment of the OceanGate Titan failure

#24

Post by intelVISA »

MobileVet wrote: post #3

> From all available sources, it is apparent that the viewport was designed and certified down to a depth of 1300 meters, not 4000 meters. Wow. What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? Apparently the kind that thinks it is interesting that it deforms by several inches and not scary

CEO sized hubris.

The kind that would scrap ASICs for a Walmart PC using 100% Python because "those damned quant geeks don't know REAL innovation".

Re: Engineering assessment of the OceanGate Titan failure

#26

Post by intelVISA »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #12
MobileVet wrote: post #3

> From all available sources, it is apparent that the viewport was designed and certified down to a depth of 1300 meters, not 4000 meters. Wow. What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? Apparently the kind that thinks it is interesting that it deforms by several inches and not scary

>Wow. What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? The "bad-boy" disruptive innovator kind that doesn't play by the rules and that's worshiped in SV because he makes his wealth playing fast and loose around old stuffy bureaucratic regulations made by "evil old men" to gatekeep innovators like him from entering the naval market held by centuries year old corporations who actually know what they're doing. Th…

Wasted opportunity - could've been a top tier SaaS hustler with that perfect playbook.

Re: Engineering assessment of the OceanGate Titan failure

#27

Post by hef19898 »

bboygravity wrote: post #17
hef19898 wrote: post #8

After an initial reluctance to follow this story, mostly due to the hysterical media coverage of a pointless rescue operation, my engineering half of my brain got interested. I am by no means a materials engineer nor a naval architect, but I was involved in some Design FMEAs and wrote thesis about the manufacturing of structural, pressurized aerospace carbon fiber parts. Some things I came across, which are in line w…

> Despite claiming otherwise on their homepage (archive.org still has it) they did attach equipmwnt directly to the carbon hull on the inside by screwing (!) to the hull. Result, all the fibers cut by the screws don't take any load whatsoever anymore, increased risk of delaminations (the hull is compressed, the screw on the inside isn't) This one is actually the most mind-blowing to me if true. That and the fact that…

The first thing I saw of Titan, while lookong for some footage of the infamous controller, was two screenholders, and that lightbar fr AliExpress or something, directly screwed into the inside of the hull... I honestely do not know what to say about all of this, which is actually pretty rare.

I pitty the other four passengers, Rush got what asked for, and rightly so.

Re: Engineering assessment of the OceanGate Titan failure

#29

Post by moritonal »

kodah wrote: post #22

> It was previously stated by the CEO that each time he descended to that depth, the viewport deformed several inches inward. It takes an incredible level of density to ignore this once, but multiple times? Can someone tell me what happens to a human body when suddenly exposed to ~5000 psi? Edit: I looked it up. The human body almost instantly incinerates. It takes a matter of milliseconds.

You know how you're generally accustomed to being somewhat solid? Imagine you were now liquid.

Re: Engineering assessment of the OceanGate Titan failure

#30

Post by longitudinal93 »

kodah wrote: post #22

> It was previously stated by the CEO that each time he descended to that depth, the viewport deformed several inches inward. It takes an incredible level of density to ignore this once, but multiple times? Can someone tell me what happens to a human body when suddenly exposed to ~5000 psi? Edit: I looked it up. The human body almost instantly incinerates. It takes a matter of milliseconds.

From what I've read here your body is suddenly exposed to the equivalent pressure of 100 fully loaded semi trucks sitting on you, while simultaneously the sudden compression of the air would cause a brief flash with a temperature equivalent to the surface of the sun.

Mercifully you'd be turned to goo within a split second.

Post reply on HN