6 ms·
Yes, if one had the budget to do all those things, from scratch, better than an existing component manufacturer. Not many companies have NASA levels of "throw
by ethbr0 3y ago
Yes, if one had the budget to do all those things, from scratch, better than an existing component manufacturer.
Not many companies have NASA levels of "throw money at it until it works, and every part has been signed off on five times."
Absent that, I'm having trouble seeing how custom > COTS.
In all probability, anything in-house would have been worse and added new failure modes.
Better to buy, analyze, and adapt as needed.
And if it turns out you don't need to adapt, because failure modes aren't safety-critical or components are viable in the environment, then spend your time on something more useful.
- mcmcmc 3y agoThey were charging a quarter million per head. Budget should not have been a concern.
- randac 3y agoAlso using close to $1m in fuel per trip (according to the CEO), not that it changes your point
- flir 3y agoNot doubting you, but how is that possible? (A quick, unverified Google throws back "A standard Panamax containership has operational costs of about $9 million per year")
- coffeebeqn 3y agoAlso a large private jet uses about 540 gallons of fuel per hour. That’s very roughly $5400/h in air
- Filligree 3y agoThose use cheap diesel. What sort of fuel do you use underwater?
- detaro 3y agoelectricity. which you probably got from cheap diesel in a generator on your carrier ship.
- pests 3y agoI really don't see how that is possible.
- coffeebeqn 3y agoMaybe they fill it up with solid gold to sink and then drop it all into the ocean as they ascend
- autoexecdotbat 3y ago[flagged]
- cwmoore 3y agoHODL
- mp2 3y agodon't do this
- skrblr 3y agoI saw (probably) the same video and thought he was saying the company's lifetime fuel costs were $1M.
- addaon 3y agoAbsent engineering, an engineered solution is no better than COTS, agreed. Absent engineering, people die unnecessarily. Trade offs.
- dmonitor 3y agoIf you can't afford to qualify the components on your 4000m diving vehicle, you can't afford to make a 4000m diving vehicle. See: the fact that they lost their diving vehicle.
- ethbr0 3y agoPressure hull >> ballast control >> thrusters >> everything else I'm not sure why everyone is taking potshots at a company for trying something crazy with willing passengers. Everyone involved knew what they were getting into. Kudos to them for trying, even if they're dead. > See: the fact that they lost their diving vehicle. That's an awful lot of keyboard engineering, given nobody knows what happened yet.
- giantg2 3y ago"Everyone involved knew what they were getting into." Did they? I might have missed that part.
- ethbr0 3y ago>> OceanGate says it is an experimental vessel, and when CBS travelled onboard the correspondent had to sign a waiver accepting that it "has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body, and could result in physical injury, disability, emotional trauma or death". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65960217 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65960217 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=29co_Hksk6o https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=29co_Hksk6o
- metabagel 3y agoWhen you get right down to it, the people who boarded this submersible on Sunday probably didn’t want to die. No matter what waiver they signed.
- chii 3y agonobody wants to die ('cept for people looking to suicide). The waiver is an acknowledgement that what they're doing is dangerous, and could cause them to die. As an adult, you have the right to accept this risk, if the reward for doing so is worth it in your eyes. Unless, of course, if those signing the waivers were mislead.
- Retric 3y agoNot all COTS are equal. There are plenty of off the shelf controllers built for boats that are designed to handle wet environments such as might be found in an enclosed space where people are exhaling water vapor etc. They don’t however cost 30$ nor do they cost anything close to the R&D required to make an equivalent product. Of note they might not have condensation in normal conditions, but condensation is exactly the kind of thing that results in cascading failures when just one seemingly minor thing fails.
- omginternets 3y agoYou’re conducting a technical analysis that overlooks the legal analysis around fitness for a particular purpose.
- hinkley 3y agoIt many companies are going places NASA fears to tread. 12000 feet is pretty fucking deep. That’s why the wreck took so long to find in the first place.
- thrashh 3y agoI get using COTS but the decisions for this submarine would indicate that they have no grasp of the concept of failure modes. Decisions like using a 3rd party controller (known to be terrible), a wireless controller (introducing a lot of extra risk from batteries to connection problems), and a door that cannot be opened from the inside (what if they get lost but manage to surface?) are all very sus.
- hef19898 3y agoNASA isn't producing in-house, they still source from third parties. So, if you want, or need, something from scratch, you pay for the development and industrialisation and then for the parts. And those suppliers are quote often the same ones as they are for the COTS stuff.
- zombielinux 3y agoNASA gets all that done on $28Bn/year. There's a huge list of companies that have that much revenue. In some cases, it doesn't matter, but we shouldn't use cash as an excuse to cut corners with safety and reliability.