3 ms·
The truly scandalous thing here is this: > Depth Validating > As an interim step in the path to classification, we are working with a premier classing agency
by AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
The truly scandalous thing here is this:
> Depth Validating
> As an interim step in the path to classification, we are working with a premier classing agency to validate Titan’s dive test plan. A licensed marine surveyor will witness a successful dive to 4000 meters, inspect the vessel before and after the dive, and provide a Statement of Fact attesting to the completion of the dive test plan.
They clearly did not do this. Simply lowering the thing to the ocean bottom uncrewed would have found this problem. It would not have prevented them from experimenting with crazy designs. It would not have significantly impacted their ability to iterate and move fast. It wouldn't have cost that much to do in the grand scheme of things. I would argue that doing de-risked testing at depth would have expanded their ability to be more radical in their design and overall could have sped up their design iteration. Look at how SpaceX does this, they move fast and break things but make sure that the risk is levered to the reward. The first Falcon rockets did not have commercial payloads at all, nor did the first falcon heavy, Falcon did not fly humans until it was a well-proven rocket. Starship is "failing" constantly but they are doing it in a way which means the impact is minimal and they are learning lots each time.
The really sad part of this is that this probably sets back any innovation in submarine exploration decades. Nobody is going to experiment with carbon composite subs, nobody is going to set out to build a sub with the goal of reducing the per-trip cost by 90% or 99%.
Things, overall, could easily have been so different. Very sad.
- mjb 3y agoThey did: http://web.archive.org/web/20200814020351/https://www.oceangate.com/our-subs/titan/titan-4000m-validation-dive.html http://web.archive.org/web/20200814020351/https://www.oceang...
- kristjansson 3y ago> Simply lowering the thing to the ocean bottom uncrewed would have found this problem It had made several trips to Titanic depth already. A more serious testing and classification probably would have prevented disaster but let’s not pretend this is trivial
- stefan_ 3y agoFound what problem? You realize they literally took this thing to the Titanic and back multiple times?
- mrguyorama 3y agoI had the same false information. It either came from the Sub Brief guy himself, or whoever he used as a source. He explicitly stated that the sub had only been tested down to between 3000 and 4000 meters, not the full 4000 meters. As other links show, this seems to have been incorrect.
- postalrat 3y agoHow would droppingb it to the bottom found the issue? The theory is that each dive reduced the integrity of the ship and eventually it would fail. Could be 10 or it could be 10,000 drops. And that number would be different if you built a second ship. How many tests do you do?
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago> The theory is that each dive reduced the integrity of the ship and eventually it would fail. Could be 10 or it could be 10,000 drops. It is already of high value to know whether the number is more like 10 or 10,000. > And that number would be different if you built a second ship. That is why you build the second ship either as similar as possible to the first one or in a way for which there exists evidence that it will have an improved integrity over the first.
- post-it 3y agoThey did previously visit the Titanic in the sub, so they may very well have had a guy > witness a successful dive to 4000 meters, inspect the vessel before and after the dive, and provide a Statement of Fact attesting to the completion of the dive test plan