Live data from Hacker News

The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

wired.com

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former submariner (but not an astronaut, tbf), I think they’re on-par. They both actively want to kill you at all times.

In total failure mode, yes. But with one of the two though there are other humans not far away to send help, and land/open sea to rise up if you see a problem emerging. In space it can be nightmare to get any help or get back if something goes wrong.

You can’t always get human contact underwater. If you can’t come up to periscope depth, comms are extremely limited. Even when you can, the response is likely to be “fix it yourself.”

It was a strange and isolating feeling the first time something broke underway, and I realized there wasn’t someone to ask how to fix it. It’s also a great builder of grit and determination, or of hopelessness. People tend to go one way or the other.

Being awakened with a flooding alarm when drills were not scheduled, for example – I realized afterwards (as did everyone else, I assume) that if faced with an actual emergency, I could keep my cool and work the problem. [0] It’s a good feeling, especially when you know you can trust the other 100+ people around you to do the same. Incidentally, it was not technically flooding (unplanned water ingestion at a rate greater than the capacity of dewatering systems), but sure as hell looked scary when they demonstrated the flow rate seen later.

[0]: I personally think this is why Navy Nukes (especially submariners) make great SREs. The fact that a Nuke helped build Google’s SRE program probably helps.

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#122
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Seriousness of outcomes” is a bad way to approximate the appropriate degree of regulation. We have many examples of very serious industries (e.g. pharmaceuticals, autonomous vehicles) where overly cautious regulation results in many more deaths on net. Better rules of thumb are “whether externalities are internalized”, “asymmetry in upside vs downside”, “ability to measure outcomes”.

> overly cautious regulation results in many more deaths on net How do you know this?

There's no comprehensive answer that's going to fit in this textbox but: For self-driving cars, it arises from (a) there are 30k American deaths per year from normal cars, (b) the number of deaths from self-driving cars is negligible (a few per year if you include Teslas, and zero per year if you focus on the best technology from Waymo and Cruise), and (c) everything we know about R&D points to significant acceleration possible by testing and iterating more at larger scale. For pharmaceuticals, it's a longer answer but it still starts by comparing the deaths caused by the marginal approved drug (relatively few) to the long-term benefits of trying out more drugs (high). The root cause, ultimately, is that the regulatory agency gets blamed for every death caused by something they allow but do not get blamed for deaths from the absence of things that were not allowed.

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, did you read the article?

No, it's under a paywall. But I have read several articles on the story and show a dozen or more videos, so.

I was replying to the guy suggesting they were honest about the risks, not you. I think you and I agree.

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In total failure mode, yes. But with one of the two though there are other humans not far away to send help, and land/open sea to rise up if you see a problem emerging. In space it can be nightmare to get any help or get back if something goes wrong.

You can’t always get human contact underwater. If you can’t come up to periscope depth, comms are extremely limited. Even when you can, the response is likely to be “fix it yourself.” It was a strange and isolating feeling the first time something broke underway, and I realized there wasn’t someone to ask how to fix it. It’s also a great builder of grit and determination, or of hopelessness. People tend to go one way…

>You can’t always get human contact underwater.

No, but it's 99% more likely than to get someone to help in space...

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#125
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i guess the difference was that ocean gate needed to recoup the expense and make a profit as fast as possible whereas the deepsea challenger didn't. so they could take their time and do it right without pressure.

If you get the chance to watch Deepsea Challenge[1], it's worth the time. They were under a lot of pressure, which James Cameron was very proud of and the source of. They had more problems then you think, but was able to make it work. [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2332883/

> They were under a lot of pressure

At that depth, I imagine they would be.

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#126
post #99
post #23

Reminds me of Vonnegut's line from Jailbird (without the stuttering of the character who uttered it), on the principal cause of a massacre: "American amateurism in matters of life and death" I'm a Canadian. As a Millenial of the "just watch a Youtube video and figure it out" generation, and somebody who has watched some things (like housing) get strangled by regulation, I can see the appeal of American libertarianism…

A news story is making the rounds of a badminton racket that killed a poor, unfortunate child. Matters of life and death are extremely broad, and even negligible probabilities mean that terrible things happen.

Wait wait wait, how does a racket kill someone? I get that it snapped, but how did the handle get to somehow pierce a child's skull? Why was her head in the path of the swing? This story makes zero sense.

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#127
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> overly cautious regulation results in many more deaths on net How do you know this?

There's no comprehensive answer that's going to fit in this textbox but: For self-driving cars, it arises from (a) there are 30k American deaths per year from normal cars, (b) the number of deaths from self-driving cars is negligible (a few per year if you include Teslas, and zero per year if you focus on the best technology from Waymo and Cruise), and (c) everything we know about R&D points to significant accelerati…

How many thousands of regular cars are there for every self-driving car?

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no comprehensive answer that's going to fit in this textbox but: For self-driving cars, it arises from (a) there are 30k American deaths per year from normal cars, (b) the number of deaths from self-driving cars is negligible (a few per year if you include Teslas, and zero per year if you focus on the best technology from Waymo and Cruise), and (c) everything we know about R&D points to significant accelerati…

How many thousands of regular cars are there for every self-driving car?

It's a few hundred thousand regular cars per self-driving car. If you think my argument rests on the current self-driving cars being safer than the current regular cars, you didn't understand it.

Re: The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many thousands of regular cars are there for every self-driving car?

It's a few hundred thousand regular cars per self-driving car. If you think my argument rests on the current self-driving cars being safer than the current regular cars, you didn't understand it.

You're right, I read it again and I missed the ending the first time.
Post reply on HN