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

The Titan Submersible Disaster. The Inside Story Is More Disturbing

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 129 posts

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

#41

Post by [deleted] »

EgregiousCube wrote: post #24
mellosouls wrote: post #3

Deep-sea experts criticized OceanGate’s choices, from Titan’s carbon-fiber construction to Rush’s [CEO] public disdain for industry regulations, which he believed stifled innovation Seems a remarkably similar sentiment to the e/acc types currently loudly influencing tech and business discourse on various media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_accelerationism

One shouldn’t conclude that regulations lead to positive outcomes from this. In addition to having a disdain for regulation, OceanGate was doing bad engineering. Projects that follow regulation strictly can fail due to bad engineering too.

[deleted]

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

#42

Post by jvanderbot »

EgregiousCube wrote: post #24
mellosouls wrote: post #3

Deep-sea experts criticized OceanGate’s choices, from Titan’s carbon-fiber construction to Rush’s [CEO] public disdain for industry regulations, which he believed stifled innovation Seems a remarkably similar sentiment to the e/acc types currently loudly influencing tech and business discourse on various media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_accelerationism

One shouldn’t conclude that regulations lead to positive outcomes from this. In addition to having a disdain for regulation, OceanGate was doing bad engineering. Projects that follow regulation strictly can fail due to bad engineering too.

Rules and regulations are not designed to ensure good products. They are there to prevent disastrous ones.

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

#43

Post by dudisubekti »

ubermonkey wrote: post #26

Is it "more disturbing," though, really? I mean, privileged rich dude who thinks he knows better than experts wins Darwin award, and some people dumb enough to trust him got to go along for the (one way) ride. I'm not any more disturbed by it now than I was a year ago, and a year ago it barely moved the needle. And then it was only about the 19 year old son of one of the passengers -- even at that age, a child ought…

Stockton Rush is not eligible for Darwin award because he had two children.

The 19-year old son is eligible, though he won’t win the award because he was peer-pressured by his dad.

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

#44

Post by psychoslave »

nathan_compton wrote: post #13

[flagged]

I didn’t know the term schadenfreude, but looking for the definition, it immediately remembered me De rerum natura[1], there is a passage about how good it feels that you are not aboard the boat that you see sink in the horizon or something like that.

[1] Of the Nature of Things, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Of_the_Nature_of_Things_(Leon...

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

#46

Post by [deleted] »

mellosouls wrote: post #3

Deep-sea experts criticized OceanGate’s choices, from Titan’s carbon-fiber construction to Rush’s [CEO] public disdain for industry regulations, which he believed stifled innovation Seems a remarkably similar sentiment to the e/acc types currently loudly influencing tech and business discourse on various media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_accelerationism

[deleted]

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

#47

Post by [deleted] »

rvnx wrote: post #4

He already got punished by life, no need to blame him posthumous. He is like one of the inventors of the parachute (Franz Karl Reichelt), still wanted to try because he believed in it. Unfortunately believing is not enough when it comes to reliability. Effort was good though, as apparently it worked at some point. > This submersible design, later renamed Titan, eventually made it down to the Titanic in 2021. It even…

[deleted]

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

#48

Post by mrweasel »

The whole idea was/is weird. I can understand undertaking a certain level of risk to get an amazing view of the Titanic, or some other wreck or reef, but that wasn't even what was offered. Regardless of who offered this dive and how it was managed, there would always have been some risk. That risk had to be stupid low for what was offered, a tiny window, offering a really poor viewing experience. It not even like the was a massive glass dome and you could pan around the wreck for hours just looking at it from a multitude of angels. Notice how all the videos and photos are always taken from the outside of the submersible.

The cost and risk, as compared to what was on offer never matched up.

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

#49

Post by azalemeth »

David Lochridge, who oversaw marine operations at the company and who needed to sign off on the transfer, became convinced that Titan was unsafe. In January 2018, Lochridge sent Rush a quality-control inspection report detailing 27 issues with the vehicle, from questionable O-ring seals on the domes and missing bolts to flammable materials and more concerns about its carbon-fiber hull. Rush fired him the next day. (Although Lochridge later made a whistleblower report to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration about Titan, Rush sued him for breach of contract. The settlement of that lawsuit resulted in Lochridge dropping his complaint, paying OceanGate nearly $10,000, and signing an NDA. Lochridge did not respond to WIRED.)

How is that legal in the US? It is insane that someone who clearly was acting in the interest of the public (albeit the rich, fee-paying public...) should be found at fault for doing something that is clearly morally correct.

I don't normally read Wired, bu this article is both morbidly fascinating and a great tale of human hubris.

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

#50

Post by jessriedel »

Pxtl wrote: 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…

“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”.

Post reply on HN