6 ms·

> From all available sources, it is apparent that the viewport was designed and certified down to a depth of 1300 meters, not 4000 meters. Wow. What kind of h

> From all available sources, it is apparent that the viewport was designed and certified down to a depth of 1300 meters, not 4000 meters. Wow. What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? Apparently the kind that thinks it is interesting that it deforms by several inches and not scary

jamincan 3y ago
It's pretty much 1/3 the depth which is suspiciously close to a 3x safety factor which is what I've always heard engineers use. They certainly seemed cavalier with safety, so it wouldn't surprise me if they reasoned about it in that way.
- hef19898 3y ago
  And there is a reason it is called safety factor. Whether it is 10, 5, 3 or 1.1 doesn't matter, it is not be used.
- SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
  A rocket might have a factor of safety of around 1.1. This is because at 1.3, they’ll never leave the ground. This is why they are so carefully monitored and tested, and still fail. It’s all relative. Good engineering doesn’t mean higher number. No one knows what the FOS for this sub was. Given the information from the CEO, things like that were just slowing down innovation! EDIT: Not all rockets, just using an example.
  - plegresl 3y ago
    Falcon 9 uses a factory of safety of 1.4: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/164283main_2nd_exp_conf_24_Commercial%20Opportunities_SpaceX_MrEMusk.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/164283main_2nd_exp_conf_24_Commerci...
  - 2-718-281-828 3y ago
    very interesting point!
ChuckNorris89 3y ago
>Wow. What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? The "bad-boy" disruptive innovator kind that doesn't play by the rules and that's worshiped in SV because he makes his wealth playing fast and loose around old stuffy bureaucratic regulations made by "evil old men" to gatekeep innovators like him from entering the naval market held by centuries year old corporations who actually know what they're doing. The problem for him was that, unlike consumer tech, the laws of physics can't be disrupted. He'd tell you that himself if he'd still be alive. Shame that four other people had to perish to prove him wrong.
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  > that's worshiped in SV No need to generalize. (In fact as I understood it he haunted the Pacific Northwest.)
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Well, as the first video in the submitted article points out, this move fast and braek things attitude, safety and professional standards be damned, is infecting the real world now. Besides my utter disdain for hype, that is the main problem I have with Musk, for me he is the main culprit in normalizing those otherwise unacceptable practices. I hope it changes, bacause as we have seen it kills people, litterally. Titan was actually worse than Titanic, because the engineering of Titanic was actually sound for the time, saftey procedures and seamanship were not. The latter changed significantly after the Titanic, lets hope that this SV stained engineering culture will, too, after Titan.
- cassepipe 3y ago
  Let's make a one lane tunnel underground to fix traffic. I am so smart. underground traffic jam
  - kabdib 3y ago
    ... underground traffic jam and battery fire Count me out, I'm telecommuting.
JKCalhoun 3y ago
Sounds like a simple experiment to build a titanium sphere and fix the same spec'ed viewport on it and send it down to 4000 meters. Perhaps a lawyer for a plaintiff with deep pockets will call for such a demonstration to be performed.
- burnished 3y ago
  What would that be intended to prove?
- harambae 3y ago
  How many times are you going to send it down? The Titan made it a few times.
intelVISA 3y ago
CEO sized hubris. The kind that would scrap ASICs for a Walmart PC using 100% Python because "those damned quant geeks don't know REAL innovation".
gnfargbl 3y ago
> What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? I don't think it was outright hubris. I think it was commercial necessity, driven by the business model that OceanGate used: Rush needed rich tourists to fund the business, and he got rich tourists by offering them a close-up view of a famous shipwreck. To give his passengers a view that they were willing to pay for, he needed an oversized viewport. He had already proven this business model with his earlier submarines, so it is understandable that he wanted to carry it on as he built vehicles intended to go deeper. Less understandable is that he set aside the reality that a large-enough viewport could not actually be safely procured. That's not really hubris though, just plain old profit-driven idiocy. The whole thing feels like it has less in common with the Titanic and more in common with the Ford Pinto.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 3y ago
> What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? The same kind that is proud of saving money by buying carbon fiber for the craft at a significant discount from Boeing because it is surplus that is too old to be considered safe for aviation use, says “safety is pure waste”, etc.

jamincan 3y ago

It's pretty much 1/3 the depth which is suspiciously close to a 3x safety factor which is what I've always heard engineers use. They certainly seemed cavalier with safety, so it wouldn't surprise me if they reasoned about it in that way.

hef19898 3y ago
And there is a reason it is called safety factor. Whether it is 10, 5, 3 or 1.1 doesn't matter, it is not be used.
SV_BubbleTime 3y ago
A rocket might have a factor of safety of around 1.1. This is because at 1.3, they’ll never leave the ground. This is why they are so carefully monitored and tested, and still fail. It’s all relative. Good engineering doesn’t mean higher number. No one knows what the FOS for this sub was. Given the information from the CEO, things like that were just slowing down innovation! EDIT: Not all rockets, just using an example.
- plegresl 3y ago
  Falcon 9 uses a factory of safety of 1.4: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/164283main_2nd_exp_conf_24_Commercial%20Opportunities_SpaceX_MrEMusk.pdf https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/164283main_2nd_exp_conf_24_Commerci...
- 2-718-281-828 3y ago
  very interesting point!

ChuckNorris89 3y ago

>Wow. What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? The "bad-boy" disruptive innovator kind that doesn't play by the rules and that's worshiped in SV because he makes his wealth playing fast and loose around old stuffy bureaucratic regulations made by "evil old men" to gatekeep innovators like him from entering the naval market held by centuries year old corporations who actually know what they're doing. The problem for him was that, unlike consumer tech, the laws of physics can't be disrupted. He'd tell you that himself if he'd still be alive. Shame that four other people had to perish to prove him wrong.

JKCalhoun 3y ago
> that's worshiped in SV No need to generalize. (In fact as I understood it he haunted the Pacific Northwest.)
- hef19898 3y ago
  Well, as the first video in the submitted article points out, this move fast and braek things attitude, safety and professional standards be damned, is infecting the real world now. Besides my utter disdain for hype, that is the main problem I have with Musk, for me he is the main culprit in normalizing those otherwise unacceptable practices. I hope it changes, bacause as we have seen it kills people, litterally. Titan was actually worse than Titanic, because the engineering of Titanic was actually sound for the time, saftey procedures and seamanship were not. The latter changed significantly after the Titanic, lets hope that this SV stained engineering culture will, too, after Titan.
cassepipe 3y ago
Let's make a one lane tunnel underground to fix traffic. I am so smart. underground traffic jam
- kabdib 3y ago
  ... underground traffic jam and battery fire Count me out, I'm telecommuting.

JKCalhoun 3y ago

Sounds like a simple experiment to build a titanium sphere and fix the same spec'ed viewport on it and send it down to 4000 meters. Perhaps a lawyer for a plaintiff with deep pockets will call for such a demonstration to be performed.

burnished 3y ago
What would that be intended to prove?
harambae 3y ago
How many times are you going to send it down? The Titan made it a few times.

intelVISA 3y ago

CEO sized hubris. The kind that would scrap ASICs for a Walmart PC using 100% Python because "those damned quant geeks don't know REAL innovation".

gnfargbl 3y ago

> What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? I don't think it was outright hubris. I think it was commercial necessity, driven by the business model that OceanGate used: Rush needed rich tourists to fund the business, and he got rich tourists by offering them a close-up view of a famous shipwreck. To give his passengers a view that they were willing to pay for, he needed an oversized viewport. He had already proven this business model with his earlier submarines, so it is understandable that he wanted to carry it on as he built vehicles intended to go deeper. Less understandable is that he set aside the reality that a large-enough viewport could not actually be safely procured. That's not really hubris though, just plain old profit-driven idiocy. The whole thing feels like it has less in common with the Titanic and more in common with the Ford Pinto.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 3y ago

> What kind of hubris could look past that huge red flag? The same kind that is proud of saving money by buying carbon fiber for the craft at a significant discount from Boeing because it is surplus that is too old to be considered safe for aviation use, says “safety is pure waste”, etc.