2 ms·

There does seem to be a lot of poor choices made along the way here, but it’s also worth noting that you can find an expert who gave (or was willing to give) an

There does seem to be a lot of poor choices made along the way here, but it’s also worth noting that you can find an expert who gave (or was willing to give) any innovator the advice to not create their product. If every innovator listened to expert advice to stop, we’d have a lot less new things in the world.

api 3y ago
True, but there is a way to prove the detractors wrong without killing people: lots of testing. They just put people on this thing way too soon. Take space launch for example. Every significant part of a rocket is tested to destruction multiple times unless it’s already flight proven, then the whole rocket is flown many times before we consider putting people on it. Still dangerous, but this makes it not totally insane.
mjhay 3y ago
They didn't innovate anything. Submersibles have been around for a long time. The technology is mature. Their innovation was using completely inappropriate materials and cheaping out on safety.
rtkwe 3y ago
Except generally those innovators were making a new app or company not a machine responsible for protecting people in an environment arguably less hospitable to exploration than outer space.
_fat_santa 3y ago
There's a big difference between: "that app won't ever succeed" and "this submarine is dangerous and can kill people".
hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago
What's the innovation? Carbon fiber specifically is known to be bad for subs.
drc500free 3y ago
I think there are two different kinds of innovation: doing new things, and finding cheaper ways to do existing things. The latter case tends to be about either interesting insights about the actual value that let you find a better point on the cost curve, or entirely new manufacturing technologies that let you bend the cost curve entirely. Trading away safety for cost isn't usually an innovative trade-off by itself, and making that trade-off without any interest in quantifying it is a red flag.
mempko 3y ago
That's the problem with innovators. Innovators are not good inventors. Inventors make new things, Innovators take inventions and squeeze money out of them.
PepperdineG 3y ago
>If every innovator listened to expert advice to stop, we’d have a lot less new things in the world. However, for something to be useful you have to prove it. Rush could have contributed if he used his VC money to rigorously establish how many deep sea dives a carbon fiber submersible could make and concomitant with that whether carbon fiber was cheaper than titanium. Rush seemed to object to serious scientific validation but instead did minimal testing. Despite taking paying customers we don't really know anything more about carbon fiber submersibles that we didn't already know before OceanGate came along selling their undersea tours. Maybe scientifically you'd have to replace the carbon fiber hull after 10 deep sea dives to maintain a safe operating environment and maybe that would be more economical than titanium hulls, but seems like OceanGate wasn't even looking for such data. It's not like the hull rating groups were unwilling to work with him on carbon fiber, but he instead refused to work with them.

api 3y ago

True, but there is a way to prove the detractors wrong without killing people: lots of testing. They just put people on this thing way too soon. Take space launch for example. Every significant part of a rocket is tested to destruction multiple times unless it’s already flight proven, then the whole rocket is flown many times before we consider putting people on it. Still dangerous, but this makes it not totally insane.

mjhay 3y ago

They didn't innovate anything. Submersibles have been around for a long time. The technology is mature. Their innovation was using completely inappropriate materials and cheaping out on safety.

rtkwe 3y ago

Except generally those innovators were making a new app or company not a machine responsible for protecting people in an environment arguably less hospitable to exploration than outer space.

_fat_santa 3y ago

There's a big difference between: "that app won't ever succeed" and "this submarine is dangerous and can kill people".

hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago

What's the innovation? Carbon fiber specifically is known to be bad for subs.

drc500free 3y ago

I think there are two different kinds of innovation: doing new things, and finding cheaper ways to do existing things. The latter case tends to be about either interesting insights about the actual value that let you find a better point on the cost curve, or entirely new manufacturing technologies that let you bend the cost curve entirely. Trading away safety for cost isn't usually an innovative trade-off by itself, and making that trade-off without any interest in quantifying it is a red flag.

mempko 3y ago

That's the problem with innovators. Innovators are not good inventors. Inventors make new things, Innovators take inventions and squeeze money out of them.

PepperdineG 3y ago

>If every innovator listened to expert advice to stop, we’d have a lot less new things in the world. However, for something to be useful you have to prove it. Rush could have contributed if he used his VC money to rigorously establish how many deep sea dives a carbon fiber submersible could make and concomitant with that whether carbon fiber was cheaper than titanium. Rush seemed to object to serious scientific validation but instead did minimal testing. Despite taking paying customers we don't really know anything more about carbon fiber submersibles that we didn't already know before OceanGate came along selling their undersea tours. Maybe scientifically you'd have to replace the carbon fiber hull after 10 deep sea dives to maintain a safe operating environment and maybe that would be more economical than titanium hulls, but seems like OceanGate wasn't even looking for such data. It's not like the hull rating groups were unwilling to work with him on carbon fiber, but he instead refused to work with them.