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

71–80 of 129 posts

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

#71

Post by rob74 »

725686 wrote: post #32
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…

What are you talking about? They tested a prototype. It failed. Anyway, they built a full size thing based on the prototype that failed. They charged a lot of money to unsuspecting rich guys. Then, eventually it failed, just as the test suggested it would.

Even worse: the first full size thing had a large-scale delamination that made it obvious that it would be unsafe to use it again, then they ordered a second carbon fibre hull from a different manufacturer, used a different manufacturing process (several curing phases instead of only one), and reused the end domes and connecting rings from the first thing that had been pretty inseparably glued to the failed cylinder, then tested that insufficiently, and eventually it failed.

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

#72

Post by dogleash »

rvnx wrote: post #34
725686 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are you talking about? They tested a prototype. It failed. Anyway, they built a full size thing based on the prototype that failed. They charged a lot of money to unsuspecting rich guys. Then, eventually it failed, just as the test suggested it would.

This is where it's actually interesting, it's not prototype -> live and boom. It's the fifth mission or something, and worked for two years. They actually went to the Titanic with that sub and previously succeeded to reach the Titanic, then it's later on, that the vehicle started to become fragile due to multiple reuses.

> This is where it's actually interesting, it's not prototype -> live and boom.

> It's the fifth mission or something, and worked for two years.

Interesting how? I'm reminded of a quote from a famous failure analysis:

> We have also found that certification criteria used in [Mission] Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness. The argument that the same risk was [deployed] before without failure is often accepted as an argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because of this, obvious weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes without a sufficiently serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a [mission] because of their continued presence.

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

#73

Post by throwup238 »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #61

The Wired article clearly paints Rush as someone who was irresponsible and cavalier about even the basics of good engineering before testing a complex thing with real human lives that trusted him too much. In the essence of that argument at least, they're right. His using a prototype he knew to be a failure to then explore the ocean with customers aboard, under the same conditions as those that caused its test failur…

> In the world of exploring extremely harsh environments, some heavy risk is inevitable even if you do everything you know of right. In such contexts, something could go catastrophically wrong just as easily as it could all end successfully and a narrative will be constructed for why either was the case even if either outcome was interchangeably plausible..

That implies that what they were doing was somehow pioneering. It wasn’t. Deepsea explorers and the oil and gas industry have used submersibles at those depths for decades and their safety profile is very well understood. There are facilities to test them and procedures to make sure they’re safe before anyone risks their life. All Rush did was make a poorly designed, poorly tested submersible with the wrong materials where he cut corners left and right. TFA is just a laundry list of criminal negligence.

The Titan passengers make up the bulk of the fatalities from civilian submersibles this century. Save for military submarines and the occasional industrial accident, they’ve been extremely safe.

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

#74

Post by itishappy »

Symmetry wrote: post #67
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

Wouldn't the e/acc analysis here be that if people, or our entire species, has to die in the name of progress then that's a cost we should be willing to bear?

I'm not super familiar with the space, but I don't think technology that nobody can use captures the "effective" part.

End the human race by transferring all our consciousnesses to the immortal AI mainframe? A-OK!

End the human race for a fancy new sub design? Not effective. :(

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

#75

Post by CyberDildonics »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #39

Tale as old as time: lack of safety culture due to reality denying executives causes people to die.

I don't think the executive going down in their own creation and using a video game controller before imploding is a tale as old time.

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

#76

Post by voisin »

mrweasel wrote: post #48

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…

> amazing view of the Titanic

This is the sort of experience where I doubt the view was anywhere as good as what an unmanned vehicle that prioritized lighting and filming could capture. I suspect this was far more about being able to say “I spent $[huge amount of money] and got to see it with my own eyes” even though the view was probably pretty shit with everyone crowded around a small dome.

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

#77

Post by [deleted] »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #61

The Wired article clearly paints Rush as someone who was irresponsible and cavalier about even the basics of good engineering before testing a complex thing with real human lives that trusted him too much. In the essence of that argument at least, they're right. His using a prototype he knew to be a failure to then explore the ocean with customers aboard, under the same conditions as those that caused its test failur…

[deleted]

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

#78

Post by axus »

kelsey98765431 wrote: post #65
azalemeth wrote: post #49

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. (A…

The word "found" implies judicial discovery of truth through due process. This was a settlement. Nobody was found to be at fault, the information was highly dangerous and therefore valuable, if you want to eliminate the market of buying silence reform due process protections so they cannot be subverted by so called plea "deals" and so called settlement "agreements".

If I read that right, Lochridge was not compensated for silence at all, he paid them $10,000 ?

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

#79

Post by ImHereToVote »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #39

Tale as old as time: lack of safety culture due to reality denying executives causes people to die.

It's a good thing that the development of general goal to action mappers is in the hands of more prudent and wise executives.

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

#80

Post by ubermonkey »

dudisubekti wrote: post #43
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.

Well, fair.
Post reply on HN