9 ms·
The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
- dudeinjapan 3y agoI think this is pretty well established by now.
- lambdasquirrel 3y ago[flagged]
- Maxion 3y agoThis is the New Yorker, you don’t read it for the headlines. There was a fair bit of new stuff in the article.
- kelsolaar 3y agoYes, the fact that Rush seemed to have designed the company to avoid liability with US alone is worth the read.
- elromulous 3y agoExactly. I think it really shows how reckless and deceitful he was.
- trilbyglens 3y agoIn a rare case, the cavalier founder faces natural consequences for their attitudes.
- elromulous 3y agoPhysics cannot be bribed or intimidated with lawsuits.
- dudeinjapan 3y agoPerhaps he forgot the ultimate liability is himself aboard.
- blitzar 3y agoHis spouse and 2 children will either get to keep all the money houses cars etc or have nothing, depending on how effective the liability shielding is.
- Maxion 3y agoI think he is one of these typical narcissistic and possibly sociopathic CEOs who who don't think they can do any wrong and that they are always correct.
- dudeinjapan 3y ago> This is the New Yorker, you don’t read it for the headlines Nor do I read it for the body text!
- justrealist 3y agoI mean, I get it, it was a clown show. And yes, give it 15 minutes of fame, because it's the Titanic and all. But I feel like some people care about this far more than I can understand, and the news cycle on this is quite protracted. People die in stupid ways every day and this doesn't seem more egregious than most.
- voidfunc 3y agoMost people that die in stupid ways aren't rich. That's the difference
- Animats 3y ago"Critics say that submersible should have been tested with poorer passengers first."[1] [1] https://www.theonion.com/critics-say-submersible-should-ve-been-tested-with-poor-1850566314 https://www.theonion.com/critics-say-submersible-should-ve-b...
- WalterBright 3y agoThat's because most people aren't rich. Your post has a statistical problem :-/
- tim333 3y agoI think it was more an interesting way to go. I mean rich people die in everyday car crash doesn't get headlines but people die in deep sub to the Titanic or on space mission to the moon etc do.
- blitzar 3y agoMost normal people dont die in stupid ways. The rich are special in that they disproportionaly die in rich people toys like planes, helicopters etc.
- abnry 3y agoIf you mean that the event isn't significant in a societal sense, I totally agree. I don't really think there is any big moral conclusion to take from it. However, the story just has so many fascinating elements to it. The whole titanic story is fascinating, and it is incredible people found the wreck and can observe it. The technology is incredible. Then there is the thrill of exploration and the natural danger to it, but there is also the hubris of the OceanGate CEO, significant enough that he was blind to his own danger, which resulted in the deaths of more people than him. And what was the moment like? An implosion in an instant of a second... as opposed to being trapped and slowly suffocating. Those are two images hard to get out of one's head.
- the6thwonder 3y ago[flagged]
- jherico 3y agoThis wasn't some new gig economy venture, or some software idea. This was a submarine carrying tourists to one of the most dangerous places on earth. There are companies dedicated to certifying maritime vehicles and standards against which they need to be built and tested, and Stockton Rush explicitly rejected them because he felt that they were stifling to innovation. Additionally, the people who told him that he was needlessly endangering people's lives were experts in their fields. And again, it wasn't just "someone", it was virtually everyone with experience in super-deep submersible operation. The idea that just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listened to and taking passengers on a submersible down to the Titanic is absolutely one of them. This guy played fast and loose with safety and if it had just been him down there, that would be fine, but he managed to bamboozle a bunch of innocent people into it as well.
- the6thwonder 3y ago> the people who told him that he was needlessly endangering people's lives were experts in their fields Turns out engineers and other experts disagree with each other all the time. I assume you are an expert in your field. Do you always get listened to? > just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listened to I didn't say that. People expressing concern, is not enough evidence to say the management was wrong. All good managers consider criticism. It's then up to them to use judgement to decide what to do. > This guy played fast and loose with safety I guarantee if he spent 10x more on safety and still had the same outcome, the articles would be the same. Risk is just not easy for the public to reason about. Maybe you're right, but once again the gossip the journalists dug up doesn't tell us that.
- jherico 3y ago
- dvt 3y agoOff topic, but interesting to me: not sure if I've ever seen an editing mistake in The New Yorker before, and I've been reading it since I was a teenager. In a quote, "Ocean Gate" should be "OceanGate" or at the very least should include a "[sic]".
- Chaosvex 3y agoIt's not a mistake if it's verbatim. The [sic] is usually to show that the mistake isn't by the publisher but adding an additional space in a company name probably isn't egregious enough to warrant it.
- dvt 3y ago> It's not a mistake if it's verbatim. Yes it is (and [sic] is specifically used for verbatim quotes[1]). Companies often take their style guides pretty seriously, so an extra space can be a big deal. But in any case, The New Yorker has extremely high AP standards, so that's why I'm surprised to see even such a slight mistake. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sic-meaning-usage-editorial-citation https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sic-meaning-us...
- Chaosvex 3y agoI looked it up and the AP style guide now recommends against using [sic].
- swader999 3y agoI'm sure most of us have been on projects where similar bad engineering decisions were made. It's depressing how common these attitudes are. At least death isn't a possibility with the projects I've left in disgust.
- Grimburger 3y agoTitan is fairly akin to modern software engineering, there's a lot of behaviours in the company that certainly resonates. Mechanical and structural engineers don't behave like this 99% of the time.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mbritton72 3y agoI heard pressure testing of the carbon fiber wasn't done. They relied on sensors to detect delamination instead. In software engineering, a component is both created and unit tested with tests on relevant functionality. Delamination sensors are poor compensation for a missing test. They probably didn't test the delamination sensors, either.
- ummonk 3y agoAs the article mentions though, one of the issues with using carbon fiber for this is that unlike titanium, it weakens with each pressure test.
- trilbyglens 3y agoAlso that you can't very effectively model a composite materiál the way you can a solid single material.
- davidw 3y agoTo be fair, most modern software engineering doesn't directly lead to someone dying, so in a lot of cases, it makes economic sense to try and push out that additional feature quickly rather than combing every line for potential bugs. Most customers are going to go with the product with more features even if there are a few more bugs, compared with one with zero bugs and much less functionality.
- timcavel 3y ago[dead]
- anonu 3y agoI am curious to see if a Coast Guard report gets published on all of this. I am particularly interested in the decision making that lead up to the event.
- Animats 3y agoPhotos of the recovered debris show an intact titanium end bell being lifted by a strap through where the acrylic porthole was. No sign of porthole or carbon fiber tube. Not yet clear what failed first, the tube or the porthole.
- userbinator 3y agoThe porthole was made to withstand outside pressure, not inside, so if the tube failed --- which seems most likely given the extensive analysis about the carbon fiber --- the momentary burst of internal pressure would probably have been enough to blow the porthole out.
- Bluecobra 3y agoThe article mentions that at one point the viewport only had a depth rating only 1,300 meters, but it’s not clear if it was upgraded later on. The more I think about it, would it have been able to withstand even the first dive to Titanic depths without it being upgraded?
- hennell 3y agoThe articles comments on acrilic conversion factors are (obliquely) about that. Essentially for any construction material you have a failure rating and a factor of safety - the allowable load is failure divided by FOS, so your materials working load is usually significantly under its failure load. Equipment rated for depths of 1,300 will be capable of several times that, possibly only reaching immediate material failure at 8,000 meters. But there's a reason you have a FOS; you want to be well within your material limits, not pushing it close to breaking point. After multiple trips that material could be weaker, or an unexpected stress could cause early failure.
- Animats 3y agoSee "When acrylic aquariums fail", in Plastics World.[1] That article lists the major acrylic aquarium failures up to 2018. Since then, the AquaDom, listed in the article, failed.[2] Not the same problem, but does involve thick acrylic sections under water pressure. Acrylic does not come without drawbacks. The engineer needs to have full knowledge and understanding of these drawbacks to successfully design, manufacture and assemble an aquarium that will stand and support aquatic life for years. To ensure longevity, the typical large aquarium is designed with a factor of safety of 11 to 12. This may seem high, but when one considers the implications if one of these large aquariums were to fail, and the sudden, catastrophic event that occurs when they do fail, it becomes more understandable and acceptable. Unfortunately, aquariums have failed for various reasons, leading to tremendous damage, huge monetary losses and, at times, complete loss of the aquatic life. There have been high-profile public aquarium failures, which typically involve huge aquariums, as well as private aquarium failures that range from several hundred to thousands of gallons of water loss. Some common reasons why acrylic aquariums can fail include: - Poor bonding of acrylic panels creating a weak seam - improper installation - poor manufacturing of the acrylic panels, resulting in inferior strength and stiffness - residual stress molded or formed into the panel during manufacturing - introduction of large gouges or notches that can significantly increase stress in the panel Unfortunately, these issues commonly do not reveal themselves during inspection, assembly or the initial setup stages. Further, when the actual failure event does occur, which is typically months to years after installation, it is quick and catastrophic. The seam or crack opens nearly instantaneously without warning. The phenomenon behind this is called creep rupture—the disentanglement of the molecules of plastic over time, at a stress level significantly below the yield strength—yes, below the yield strength—of the plastic. [1] https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/when-acrylic-aquariums-fail https://www.plasticstoday.com/materials/when-acrylic-aquariu... [2] https://www.newsweek.com/aquarium-explosion-hotel-aquadom-fish-berlin-video-1767580 https://www.newsweek.com/aquarium-explosion-hotel-aquadom-fi...
- ergocoder 3y agoEverything is an accident waiting to happen, just with different probability. Waiting long enough and it will happen.
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- nirui 3y agoMaybe somewhat off-topic, but if you don't know, there is a video on YouTube published 11 months ago by "CBC NL - Newfoundland and Labrador" titled "This submersible takes passengers to The Titanic wreck. Climb in!" (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClkytJa0ghc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClkytJa0ghc) If I put myself 11 months in the past watching that video, I would probably think this company OceanGate is so professional with zero possibility of merging and mixing their passengers with whatever content in that tiny toilet box. In my mind, all 5 lost souls are explorers. But 11 months... that's long enough time for someone to generate doubts on the thing to either fix it or speak out.
- Xen9 3y agoThis isn't off-topic. I find your recommendation very therapeutic to watch.
- nelox 3y agoNone of them were explorers. The wreck of the Titanic is not a new discovery. They were paying passengers in an underwater ocean tourism venture.
- anonu 3y ago> passengers Except they all signed waivers, per the article, that they were mission specialists. The nuance was important and the jury is out on whether the implication was fully communicated to the people who paid to join. The article seems to indicate that it was...
- elromulous 3y agoIANAL, but I very strongly suspect that a court would rule in favor of OceanGate. I think a court would say "a mission specialist who pays you, and not the other way around, is a passenger" Calling them anything other than passenger (per the article) was specifically designed to subvert regulations that would have required them to certify the sub. And courts don't like that very much.
- jaimex2 3y agoEverything is an accident waiting to happen. That's what an accident is. Driving to work, that's an accident waiting to happen. Consider all the poorly signed roads, drivers of various states of sobriety and rage. The sub was in use for years, they did well to engineer within their budget. There's always someone pointing out something wrong, nothing would get done if you actioned every single 'concern'
- andreskytt 3y agoRead Nancy Levesons work on system safety and you’ll see things are not necessarily so
- mvdtnz 3y agoHey man just letting you know in case you missed it, but this submarine catastrophically failed, killing 5 people. For this reason, I think it's a good idea to consider the reasons people called out concerns about its safety instead of brushing them off. That's just my opinion, though.
- curtis3389 3y agoThe ghost of Stockton Rush is posting in HN!
- ornornor 3y agoNegligence and contempt plays a big part in the odds though.
- mcpackieh 3y ago> There's always someone pointing out something wrong, nothing would get done if you actioned every single 'concern' > someone [...] single concern "That spring, more than three dozen industry experts sent a letter to OceanGate, expressing their “unanimous concern” about its upcoming Titanic expedition—for which it had already sold places." More than three dozen someones. More than three dozen concerns.
- croes 3y agoYou do know that phrases like that are used when the chance of an accident is considered pretty high? Language also has a subtext that expresses more than just what the words mean.
- majikaja 3y agoAll these people knew about it but didn't make any public warnings? The pilot is somewhat aware but says nothing to the customers?
- pixl97 3y agoThey didn't want the risk of being sued for defamation in court before it was a proven danger. The US generally is not kind to whistle blowers.
- Maxion 3y agoOne guy did, he got sued by OceanGate and withdrew his complaint as he didn't wanna spend his life being litigated against.
- cmurf 3y agoRush bought (his definition of) justice as a product. Justice isn’t a right in the U.S. it’s a product you buy, via an attorney willing to use the legal system to bully truthsayers into submission. Any feudal lord will tell you this is their right. This playground, that he alone created, is his fief. Lochridge was fucking with it. I’m not super bothered by one lord getting other lords killed. Lawyers and insurance will settle this to the relative dissatisfaction of the other parties (lawyers and insurance companies never lose). What is a travesty is how often this happens in aggregate, lords consistently winning their idea of justice against serfs and peasants. And there’s an entire industry now damaged by this one person’s hubris.
- baybal2 3y ago[dead]
- xeonmc 3y ago> Soon afterward, Rush asked OceanGate’s director of finance and administration whether she’d like to take over as chief submersible pilot. “It freaked me out that he would want me to be head pilot, since my background is in accounting,” she told me. She added that several of the engineers were in their late teens and early twenties, and were at one point being paid fifteen dollars an hour. Without Lochridge around, “I could not work for Stockton,” she said. “I did not trust him.” As soon as she was able to line up a new job, she quit.