7 ms·
> I don't think it's wrong to take yourself down in a crazy unproven sub, even if you die. I take your point and I dont quible that in hindsight the mission wa
by engineer_22 3y ago
> I don't think it's wrong to take yourself down in a crazy unproven sub, even if you die.
I take your point and I dont quible that in hindsight the mission was reckless.
But just to bring some more information to the debate, OceanGate had previously taken the Titan to this depth to visit the Titanic. So, it was "proven". The german entrepreneur who is in this [1] article claims to have visited Titanic twice in the same sub.
[1] https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/former-titanic-sub-passenger-dubs-dive-a-suicide-mission/ https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/former-titanic-sub-passenger-d...
- inoop 3y ago> OceanGate had previously taken the Titan to this depth to visit the Titanic. So, it was "proven" This reminds me of an old joke about an optimist who falls from a 40 story building. As he passes the 30th story he thinks to himself, 'so far so good!'
- stcredzero 3y agoHow is your current life different? 1) It's not in freefall. 2) It will last orders of magnitude longer. Otherwise, we are all in this boat.
- peteradio 3y agoThe analogy would be an optimist who successfully falls two times due to extreme luck, like falling on a passing pillow truck and then goes for a third try.
- mcpackieh 3y agoA man who jumps onto a pile of bubble wrap, but each time he does this a few more of the bubbles pop. (The submarine got weaker each time they used it.)
- peteradio 3y agoThis is good.
- ThatPlayer 3y agoThere was that guy who used to demonstrate glass windows as unbreakable by running into it. Until the window popped out of the frame.
- peteradio 3y agoIIIIIiiii wasssss stiillllll riiiiiiiiiighttttt........
- hsjqllzlfkf 3y ago> OceanGate had previously taken the Titan to this depth to visit the Titanic. So, it was "proven". The average HN knowledge of engineering.
- Y_Y 3y agoThere were no errors in the compile
- flybrand 3y agoMost material science VC deals are done off of data derived from the ‘lucky sample.’ “Scalability turned out to be harder than we thought!” Or it was statistical reversion to the mean.
- tomjakubowski 3y agop-hacking but for fundraising
- djhn 3y agoAny good material science VC reading to recommend by any chance? Blogs, books, success stories too look up? Individuals or firms you consider better than average?
- jacquesm 3y agoMost material science VC deals will hire a company to do tech DD who in turn will hire a materials science expert.
- engineer_22 3y agoyour qualification?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- datadeft 3y ago
- eCa 3y agoWith airplanes, a lot of maintenance routines depends on the number of cycles (takeoffs+landings). No one knows how many cycles this sub was safe to perform, but just because it had successfully performed N dives, does not imply that N+1 is safe (or even N for that matter).
- jacquesm 3y ago> No one knows how many cycles this sub was safe to perform One less than the number that it did.
- stcredzero 3y agoOnly if you want 0 dives as a safety margin.
- jcranmer 3y agoThat is on-brand for the CEO here.
- jacquesm 3y agoFor this design that may not have been a bad choice.
- stcredzero 3y ago"Sir, you should consider having a safety margin that's not a negative integer."
- 111111IIIIIII 3y agoThis is sarcasm, right?
- francisofascii 3y ago> OceanGate had previously taken the Titan to this depth to visit the Titanic. So, it was "proven" This situation is an interesting statistical anomaly. Given that the Titan had a carbon fiber hull which was known to degrade more and more after each dive, the probability of failure increases after each successful dive. So you might think your chances of success are better the more times it came back safe, but the chances are actually worse.
- shawabawa3 3y agoNot exactly I would say certainly the second trip was safer than the first, as the first trip ruled out lots of non carbon fibre related failures (e.g. the porthole)
- tlavoie 3y agoI'm not so sure about that, pics of the wreckage being offloaded onshore show that dome being moved with a sling through the hole where the porthole should be. I don't think they would have removed that just to move it, especially before analyzing the debris.
- dragonwriter 3y agoThe force of the implosion, as I understand it, would destroy the porthole in any case; it being not attached is not an indicator that it was the point of initial failure.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y agoIt wasn't proven. They replaced the carbon hull of Titan after it started creaking too much from water intrusion. They had no scientific way to evaluate the number of usable dives and how safe and reliable their bonding procedure would be. Rush was just another fake it 'til you make it tech bro who flew too close to the sun with his willful ignorance.
- squarefoot 3y agoIIRC, One of the concerns raised with that carbon fiber construction approach was that in case the hull was damaged during a previous mission, they had no equipment to detect that, so it could have been only a matter of time before accumulated fatigue could lead to a catastrophic failure.
- jacquesm 3y agoThat 'proven' bit is exactly where the rub is, and apparently there was prior damage from some of those dives that wasn't addressed. Taking this device to a certain depth and ascending again only proves it worked that time but brings the eventual failure that much closer.
- hermanradtke 3y ago> OceanGate had previously taken the Titan to this depth to visit the Titanic. So, it was "proven". Surely there was a large amount of tail risk.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoSounds a lot like the reasoning that lead to the Challenger disaster.
- wkat4242 3y agoIt was a bit different. With the Challenger they started with a target (astronomical) reliability rating, and then calculated back to how each part would have to perform. The problem was they didn't actually verify this under real world conditions. With this sub the number of safe operation cycles wasn't even part of the design considerations.
- nunuvit 3y agoSure, I can "prove" that my sheet of sandpaper works by using it all day. Does that mean it should work all day tomorrow? It's a useful bit of information ... about how it's approaching the end of its service life. If you don't evaluate how much sand is left before using it again, what is there to debate? Either you don't care if it works tomorrow, or you're about to learn an important lesson on how sand paper works.