4 ms·

The design flaw was that they used a construction material strong in tension, but weak in compression. For a task that is almost entirely compression. On a vehi

The design flaw was that they used a construction material strong in tension, but weak in compression. For a task that is almost entirely compression. On a vehicle that has no need for weight savings. Also in a couple photos looks like they have drilled and screwed a monitor mount directly into the pressure vessel, creating future failure points, rather than gluing a piece of plywood to the hull and screwing into that, which is standard procedure.

mustacheemperor 3y ago
>On a vehicle that has no need for weight savings Most deep sea submersibles only seat a couple people, which wouldn't work for the 'titanic tourism carnival ride' business model. I would guess the weight savings were intended to enable a sub with more capacity that could still be winched on and off the support ship without more complex/expensive heavy lifting equipment.
- wcfields 3y ago
  > the 'titanic tourism carnival ride' business model. That was more marketing; the main biz model was to create enough buzz with the oil/gas industry to get bootstrapped and produce a product fleet of cheap subs for independent contractors to use for oil rigs. https://www.fastcompany.com/40406673/the-man-who-wants-to-send-us-to-the-bottom-of-the-ocean https://www.fastcompany.com/40406673/the-man-who-wants-to-se... https://t.co/0ee7AImRRh https://t.co/0ee7AImRRh
  - nocoiner 3y ago
    I guess he didn’t know how safety conscious and risk averse the oil and gas industry actually is. You can be at a meeting in a conference room in downtown Houston, and they’ll start the meeting — like, every single one — with a safety minute and directions to the nearest stairwell. The operators with the kind of risk tolerance to support this kind of, uh, venture can’t afford to do deepwater exploration - that’s solely the domain of the industry mega-giants, which are the most safety conscious and risk averse of all. The odds of getting a contract with, say, Exxon for anything resembling that piece of shit submarine are just vanishingly small. I actually don’t think the accident makes that prospect any less likely - it was already about as close to 0 as you can get.
- sacnoradhq 3y ago
  It's clear they optimized for the wrong things and took too many liberties. A modern DSV for Challenger Deep (2x the pressure) used Isofloat to save weight and improve buoyancy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger
thsksbd 3y ago
I thought subs have strict weight requirements. Which makes sense since their buoyancy is, to a first order approx, like a blimp's (ie a hot air balloon's with lift surfaces)

mustacheemperor 3y ago

>On a vehicle that has no need for weight savings Most deep sea submersibles only seat a couple people, which wouldn't work for the 'titanic tourism carnival ride' business model. I would guess the weight savings were intended to enable a sub with more capacity that could still be winched on and off the support ship without more complex/expensive heavy lifting equipment.

wcfields 3y ago
> the 'titanic tourism carnival ride' business model. That was more marketing; the main biz model was to create enough buzz with the oil/gas industry to get bootstrapped and produce a product fleet of cheap subs for independent contractors to use for oil rigs. https://www.fastcompany.com/40406673/the-man-who-wants-to-send-us-to-the-bottom-of-the-ocean https://www.fastcompany.com/40406673/the-man-who-wants-to-se... https://t.co/0ee7AImRRh https://t.co/0ee7AImRRh
- nocoiner 3y ago
  I guess he didn’t know how safety conscious and risk averse the oil and gas industry actually is. You can be at a meeting in a conference room in downtown Houston, and they’ll start the meeting — like, every single one — with a safety minute and directions to the nearest stairwell. The operators with the kind of risk tolerance to support this kind of, uh, venture can’t afford to do deepwater exploration - that’s solely the domain of the industry mega-giants, which are the most safety conscious and risk averse of all. The odds of getting a contract with, say, Exxon for anything resembling that piece of shit submarine are just vanishingly small. I actually don’t think the accident makes that prospect any less likely - it was already about as close to 0 as you can get.
sacnoradhq 3y ago
It's clear they optimized for the wrong things and took too many liberties. A modern DSV for Challenger Deep (2x the pressure) used Isofloat to save weight and improve buoyancy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepsea_Challenger

thsksbd 3y ago

I thought subs have strict weight requirements. Which makes sense since their buoyancy is, to a first order approx, like a blimp's (ie a hot air balloon's with lift surfaces)