45 ms·

I'm not sure how many people know about their 'sound detection system'. Carbon fiber is a fickle beast and is prone to such failures so that alone worried me,

I'm not sure how many people know about their 'sound detection system'. Carbon fiber is a fickle beast and is prone to such failures so that alone worried me, but it was incredible for me to learn that they expected some sort of early warning from cracking.

ladams 2y ago
Do you have a link? Google just gives results about the US Navy detection of the implosion…
- azornathogron 2y ago
  https://www.businessinsider.com/oceangate-2020-boasted-incredible-accuracy-detecting-titanic-sub-hull-flaws-2023-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/oceangate-2020-boasted-incre...
- lucianbr 2y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LcGrLnzYuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LcGrLnzYuU As I remember he talks about the sound detection thing.
- NortySpock 2y ago
  https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-inside-story-oceangate-files/ https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-insid... Recent one-year-lookback story by Wired.
raverbashing 2y ago
Well there were probably some early warning signs The problem is that warning sign comes at around 10ms or less before the actual disaster
- rvnx 2y ago
  If it would be a Tesla, just enough time for the auto-pilot to disengage and claim it was the fault of the user.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    Tesla autopilot is not supposed to be unmonitored, so any accidents under its control are entirely the fault of the driver. If a driver disengaged 0.1s before impact, they were derelict in their driving.
    - abduhl 2y ago
      OSHA has a nice pamphlet regarding hazard identification and hazard controls. The least effective method of protecting workers is to put the risk on the worker to protect themselves. Your view has a similar vibe to "well they weren't wearing their hard hat and so it's their fault," a view that has been rejected across the board for safety in favor of the view that even letting the situation get to that point is a failure. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdf https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Contro...
      - ETH_start 2y ago
        Driver control IS making the driver responsible, by definition. Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. This is a driver assist program. There is no way such a program, that is subordinate to the driver and depends on the driver being in control, can protect the driver from not doing their part, and driving.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        Shame about the "Full Self Driving" branding They can put whatever disclaimers in the manual but their branding is giving a different message. It's a message Tesla wants the customer to hear: "sit back and relax, the car drives for you." The branding does not communicate that the driver needs to be just as aware and engaged as they would be if they were driving on their own, and be ready to take control of the vehicle at any moment. Compare this to GM's "Super Cruise" branding. The message I get from that is "cruise control, but better." Cruise control is a long established feature, drivers have plenty of experience with it, and they know that it is definitely not going to drive the car itself. They know they're still going to have to pay attention because the car is going to do some of the driving tasks but not all of them. The car is making no implicit or explicit claim that it will drive for you. "Full Self Driving" and related features like "Summon" make implicit claims in how they're named and presented. The driver absolutely has responsibility but Tesla is trying to play both sides of the coin with their branding vs their actual liability.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  I don't know how many 'test to failure' tests would have been required before I would have any confidence in the models but probably so many tests that the titanium alternative would have been far cheaper. The other problem is that it cracks all the time and they get louder as they get deeper, so it's not just if it cracks it is if it cracks enough or more than expected. Which straw will break the camels back. It is just such an insanely awful metric. On the hypothetical assumption that I had some faith in the models at what point will I have the life or death fight over whether or not that last loud crack was statistically significant.
- wongarsu 2y ago
  There were plenty of early warning signs. In a previous dive back in 2019 they had professional submersible designer Karl Stanley on board, who later wrote an email to OceanGate about the worrying cracking sounds he heard. > "What we heard, in my opinion ... sounded like a flaw/defect in one area being acted on by the tremendous pressures and being crushed/damaged," Stanley wrote in the email, a copy of which has been obtained by CNN. > "From the intensity of the sounds, the fact that they never totally stopped at depth, and the fact that there were sounds at about 300 feet that indicated a relaxing of stored energy /would indicate that there is an area of the hull that is breaking down/ getting spongy," It's more impressive that the sub continued to work while giving warning signs for 4 years. https://abc7.com/titan-submersible-2023-incident-titanic-oceangate-the/13421666/ https://abc7.com/titan-submersible-2023-incident-titanic-oce...
  - sjm-lbm 2y ago
    They seem to have totally recreated the hull using a different manufacturing method in late 2020/early 2021: https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-inside-story-oceangate-files/ https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-insid... They seem to have run fewer tests on the new hull, though. From the outside, it looks like one of the lessons they learned from earlier tests was that tests can create bad news, so if you're optimizing for the best reports back to investors you should stop running tests.

ladams 2y ago

Do you have a link? Google just gives results about the US Navy detection of the implosion…

azornathogron 2y ago
https://www.businessinsider.com/oceangate-2020-boasted-incredible-accuracy-detecting-titanic-sub-hull-flaws-2023-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/oceangate-2020-boasted-incre...
lucianbr 2y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LcGrLnzYuU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LcGrLnzYuU As I remember he talks about the sound detection thing.
NortySpock 2y ago
https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-inside-story-oceangate-files/ https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-insid... Recent one-year-lookback story by Wired.

raverbashing 2y ago

Well there were probably some early warning signs The problem is that warning sign comes at around 10ms or less before the actual disaster

rvnx 2y ago
If it would be a Tesla, just enough time for the auto-pilot to disengage and claim it was the fault of the user.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  Tesla autopilot is not supposed to be unmonitored, so any accidents under its control are entirely the fault of the driver. If a driver disengaged 0.1s before impact, they were derelict in their driving.
  - abduhl 2y ago
    OSHA has a nice pamphlet regarding hazard identification and hazard controls. The least effective method of protecting workers is to put the risk on the worker to protect themselves. Your view has a similar vibe to "well they weren't wearing their hard hat and so it's their fault," a view that has been rejected across the board for safety in favor of the view that even letting the situation get to that point is a failure. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Controls_02.01.23_form_508_2.pdf https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/Hierarchy_of_Contro...
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      Driver control IS making the driver responsible, by definition. Tesla is legally required to put the driver in control. This is a driver assist program. There is no way such a program, that is subordinate to the driver and depends on the driver being in control, can protect the driver from not doing their part, and driving.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
        Shame about the "Full Self Driving" branding They can put whatever disclaimers in the manual but their branding is giving a different message. It's a message Tesla wants the customer to hear: "sit back and relax, the car drives for you." The branding does not communicate that the driver needs to be just as aware and engaged as they would be if they were driving on their own, and be ready to take control of the vehicle at any moment. Compare this to GM's "Super Cruise" branding. The message I get from that is "cruise control, but better." Cruise control is a long established feature, drivers have plenty of experience with it, and they know that it is definitely not going to drive the car itself. They know they're still going to have to pay attention because the car is going to do some of the driving tasks but not all of them. The car is making no implicit or explicit claim that it will drive for you. "Full Self Driving" and related features like "Summon" make implicit claims in how they're named and presented. The driver absolutely has responsibility but Tesla is trying to play both sides of the coin with their branding vs their actual liability.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
I don't know how many 'test to failure' tests would have been required before I would have any confidence in the models but probably so many tests that the titanium alternative would have been far cheaper. The other problem is that it cracks all the time and they get louder as they get deeper, so it's not just if it cracks it is if it cracks enough or more than expected. Which straw will break the camels back. It is just such an insanely awful metric. On the hypothetical assumption that I had some faith in the models at what point will I have the life or death fight over whether or not that last loud crack was statistically significant.
wongarsu 2y ago
There were plenty of early warning signs. In a previous dive back in 2019 they had professional submersible designer Karl Stanley on board, who later wrote an email to OceanGate about the worrying cracking sounds he heard. > "What we heard, in my opinion ... sounded like a flaw/defect in one area being acted on by the tremendous pressures and being crushed/damaged," Stanley wrote in the email, a copy of which has been obtained by CNN. > "From the intensity of the sounds, the fact that they never totally stopped at depth, and the fact that there were sounds at about 300 feet that indicated a relaxing of stored energy /would indicate that there is an area of the hull that is breaking down/ getting spongy," It's more impressive that the sub continued to work while giving warning signs for 4 years. https://abc7.com/titan-submersible-2023-incident-titanic-oceangate-the/13421666/ https://abc7.com/titan-submersible-2023-incident-titanic-oce...
- sjm-lbm 2y ago
  They seem to have totally recreated the hull using a different manufacturing method in late 2020/early 2021: https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-inside-story-oceangate-files/ https://www.wired.com/story/titan-submersible-disaster-insid... They seem to have run fewer tests on the new hull, though. From the outside, it looks like one of the lessons they learned from earlier tests was that tests can create bad news, so if you're optimizing for the best reports back to investors you should stop running tests.