[HN Gopher] Submarine missing near Titanic used a $30 Logitech g...
___________________________________________________________________
Submarine missing near Titanic used a $30 Logitech gamepad for
steering
Author : isaacfrond
Score : 126 points
Date : 2023-06-20 17:50 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (arstechnica.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (arstechnica.com)
| rwmj wrote:
| There's a BBC documentary from last year which I just watched:
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0fpz9zw
|
| and honestly a lot of it seems quite amateur hour. One of the
| steering motors was fitted backwards. When they discovered this,
| at the bottom of the ocean and a few hundred feet from Titanic,
| the solution they used was to hold the gamepad at right angles to
| compensate. That time they proceeded with the tour and made it
| back, but I can see how things could have gone a lot more wrong.
| CryptoBanker wrote:
| The founder/CEO has said that he hasn't been on a single trip
| where everything went to plan...
| jmount wrote:
| Wow, everything working should be the goal- not a mere nice
| to have.
| TX81Z wrote:
| Stop being such a nerd! There's an old boat in the water
| that sank because of hubris, let's go see what we can
| learn!
|
| (Lesson learned the hard way)
| medellin wrote:
| This is what happens when you take the move fast and break
| things culture to anything where people die when things
| break. Really just sad and so stupid.
| proggy wrote:
| It is simply unbelievable that the company was even able to get
| to the point of diving to such depths with humans aboard. If
| they had encountered a program-destroying but non-catastrophic
| failure earlier on, it is possible we wouldn't be looking at
| one of the many horrific outcomes that this incident will
| likely resolve to.
|
| Looking at the accounts reported to date, the OceanGate
| engineering culture was basically non-existent. Their test
| program was extremely lightweight to say the least, and the
| results that came back from what little hull testing they did
| do were ignored, resulting in the dismissal of an internal
| whistleblower [1]. We also learned that there were flammable
| materials within the pressure vessel, no practical contingency
| plan to speak of, no emergency beacon fitted, the list goes on.
| The whole thing was just cobbled together, not fully thought
| out or vetted, and yet the intent was to journey to one of the
| most unforgiving environments imaginable.
|
| But getting back to the account of the reversed motor above --
| it is one of the purest examples I can now think of where life
| imitates art. Piloting a stolen (but seaworthy) deep-sea
| submersible to the wreckage of the Titanic -- that was only
| able to make right-hand turns due to a "sub club" anti-theft
| device -- was a major plot point in the pilot episode of the TV
| series "Pinky and the Brain". Narf.
|
| [1] https://newrepublic.com/post/173802/missing-titanic-sub-
| face...
| gsanderson wrote:
| Ah, I remember watching that travel show episode. It takes on a
| whole new perspective now.
| anigbrowl wrote:
| How do you not test this at the bottom of a harbor rather than
| in prod.
| TX81Z wrote:
| To quote bill oreilly, "Fuck it! We'll do it live!"
| sho_hn wrote:
| The German publication Der Spiegel has an interview up with a
| tourist who visited the _Titanic_ on the same vessel.
| sabujp wrote:
| My kids play with these controllers a few times a week, the
| latency is horrible and it's easy to accidentally hit the mode
| button which causes directional control to shift from the left
| joystick to the directional pad. The user can also switching
| between d and x mode and that would also cause the controller to
| stop working.
| J_cst wrote:
| My 11yo son asked me why they did not connect a buoy to the
| submarine with a string. Lol
| parshimers wrote:
| don't they do this with crab pots? i'm not sure how far those
| go down though.
| BrentOzar wrote:
| > don't they do this with crab pots? i'm not sure how far
| those go down though.
|
| Looks like at most, about half a mile: https://en.wikipedia.o
| rg/wiki/Alaskan_king_crab_fishing#Equi...
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| I guess perhaps there'd be a risk of the string getting tangled
| in the wreckage of the Titanic.
|
| But then surely you could just cut the rope and free the
| vessel.
|
| I think your son is onto something!
| orangepurple wrote:
| Do the math exercise with him for how much volume 2 miles of
| string takes up
| [deleted]
| madaxe_again wrote:
| You're aware of ROVs? They usually communicate with an
| umbilical, which is considerably fatter than a piece of
| string. It's deployed from the surface vessel, not from the
| ROV. The same could just as easily apply.
| rhyst wrote:
| Using 9mm diameter semi static climbing rope as an example.
|
| For volume: Volume of 4km of rope is 0.009^2 _3.14_ 4000 =
| 1.02m^2 which seems like an amount that would fit on a large
| spool on a ship.
|
| For weight: rope itself weighs about 60g per meter so
| 0.06*4000=230kg of rope. It has a breaking strength of 22kN,
| which is roughly 2000kg static load. Given everything is
| probably roughly neutrally buoyant seems like enough.
|
| Not saying its practical but it seems like the actual
| volume/weight of rope would not be a problem.
| gcanyon wrote:
| I haven't checked your math, but your volume should have a
| ^3 on it, not a ^2
| thehappypm wrote:
| Seems doable to be honest--huge spools of undersea cables are
| deployed on ships all the time.
|
| A spool 20 feet wide has a circumference of ~60 feet, and 3
| miles of cable is ~15,000 feet, so 250 loops around the
| spool. Seems doable.
| Flammy wrote:
| Do the math for the weight of a string 2 miles long.
|
| Then take a look at how much weight a string can hold up.
|
| Then you're ready to be taking on space elevators
| someweirdperson wrote:
| > Do the math for the weight of a string 2 miles long.
|
| There are materials that are a bit more dense and others a
| bit less dense than water. It should be possible to craft a
| string with a "weight" of zero, when submerged.
| [deleted]
| flangola7 wrote:
| Weight and mass are not the same.
| jcrash wrote:
| Good question!
| [deleted]
| srmarm wrote:
| The US Navy uses an Xbox 360 controller in active service [0]
|
| Mass market has a lot of R&D to leverage so it makes sense.
| Nothing to say this is the cause of the fault and probably going
| to be more reliable than something hand rolled.
|
| [0] https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/19/16333376/us-navy-
| military...
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| > Mass market has a lot of R&D to leverage so it makes sense.
| Nothing to say this is the cause of the fault and probably
| going to be more reliable than something hand rolled.
|
| Consumer grade products aren't built to last, they are built to
| be cheap so they can sell them to actual consumers
|
| We all know how the military ends up using these consumer grade
| products; lobbying, aka deep state corruption "if that happens
| in a foreign country"
|
| Hololens didn't find commercial success, yet ended up with the
| military, soldiers weren't happy when it was time to use the
| actual consumer grade product ;)
|
| > 'The devices would have gotten us killed.'
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/13/23402195/microsoft-us-ar...
| dragontamer wrote:
| > Consumer grade products aren't built to last, they are
| built to be cheap so they can sell them to actual consumers
|
| Video game gamepads are probably some of the most well
| designed pieces of equipment I know of, with each part having
| a guaranteed lifetime of clicks and/or swipes, and other such
| details.
|
| Video gamers are really obsessive over these details. It
| wouldn't be surprising to me if the latest hall-effect sensor
| joypads are the best durability in the world for thumbpads.
|
| That being said: a cheap Logitech controller would be an old
| potentiometer-based controller with far less durability. I'm
| sure if I asked around, someone out there knows the
| specifications and would know when to regularly replace that
| gamepad after X-hours of use (and I'd expect X-hours to be in
| excess of 1000 hours, maybe even 10,000+ hours, even for a
| gamepad like that)
|
| ----------
|
| I think where video gamers are getting wow'd is that... they
| weren't using like a brand-name controller here. $30 Logitech
| is low-end. Video gamers know which controllers to rely upon.
|
| Bottom of the barrel $30 Logitech is barely something I feel
| good about giving to a friend during a gaming session, let
| alone a life-or-death equipment choice for steering a
| submarine. You get far more reliable, higher-quality gamepads
| at the $50 or even $80 levels.
|
| I don't think video gamers would be hating on these guys if
| they used... I dunno... an 8bitdo + GuliKit Hall Effect
| controller. We'd all be like "Oh yeah, that's quality stuff"
| (the Bluetooth is unreliable but I assume some kind of wired
| version is available somewhere...)
|
| The top end joysticks used in video game tournaments for
| maximum reliability are easily $200+.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| > Consumer grade products aren't built to last, they are
| built to be cheap so they can sell them to actual consumers
|
| They are so cheap you can carry a lot of spares. Controllers
| get pretty well abused by gamers, so they aren't exactly
| fragile.
| iepathos wrote:
| xbox 360 controllers last only 6 months to a couple years with
| various failures that don't matter when you're playing a video
| game with them but can actually get you killed if they fail
| when you're in deep ocean. These are not ok for controls in
| vehicles where failure can mean everyone onboard dies. The navy
| does not use these for critical system controls. They were
| never built or tested for that.
| holoduke wrote:
| They do for drones. But plenty of spares available.
| cpleppert wrote:
| The Xbox controllers are used to control the periscope which is
| not a safety critical device. Regardless, the navy uses wired
| controllers and did extensive testing and verification. This
| outfit didn't do anything like that; in one video with a
| journalist the bluetooth controller was a 'feature' because
| they could pass it around the sub.
| EddieJLSH wrote:
| US UAV/Drones use xbox controllers too
| mey wrote:
| There was video floating around of a machine gun turret
| being remote controlled using the Valve Steamdeck in
| Ukraine.
|
| https://www.tomshardware.com/news/steam-deck-controls-a-
| real...
|
| Edit: consumer joysticks normally use potentiometers, which
| aren't great for deadzones/drift. For things like dust
| incursion reasons along it would make sense for any
| industrial/military device to be using hall effect based
| joysticks.
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| Unmanned, if anything a controller failing will save some
| lives.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Unmanned, and they have logic to autopilot in most cases.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| Worth noting they use the controller to steer the periscope,
| not the sub. A component failure there has a significantly
| smaller risk to human life.
| srmarm wrote:
| Oh absolutely and probably with a manual backup too.
| Frost1x wrote:
| Or you know, another $30 controller or two. I know space is
| limited but it shouldn't be too much to have a little
| redundancy on controller systems.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > The US Navy uses an Xbox 360 controller in active service
|
| To control periscopes ("photonics masts"), and some other
| equipment, not for primary control of manned vehicles, that I
| can find any indication of.
| dataviz1000 wrote:
| The YouTube channel SmarterEveryDay was invited to film on an
| Ohio class nuclear submarine training in the Arctic. [0] You
| can see how many of the system are mechanical and not
| electronic in the demonstration especially the ballast
| controls. Most if not all boats and ships can control the
| throttle mechanically so if the boat loses its electronics
| such as a wave smashing the windshield in, it is still
| possible to control the rudder and throttles. I was very
| surprised at the lack if mechanical controls on the
| recreational submarine.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFJnWp1tAdU
| [deleted]
| tredre3 wrote:
| I personally believe using mass market makes sense. I don't
| understand the criticism I've seen on this website for using
| off the shelf controllers or camping lights (what do you
| expect, an LED strip magically engineered by a large
| aeronautics firm specifically for the sub? and what would that
| change?).
|
| That being said, the difference between a Microsoft controller
| and a third party is that Microsoft very certainly did a tons
| of reliability and durability testing on their controllers (and
| it shows). You don't get that with a cheap third party. So I
| can understand to a degree why people are questioning the
| decision to not pay the extra 20 bucks and get microsoft gear.
| Strom wrote:
| Logitech has orders of magnitude more experience in
| manufacturing peripherals than Microsoft. That said, Logitech
| does make products in a wide price range and the low end
| isn't competitive with their own high end.
| DanHulton wrote:
| "Low end" and "high end" in the gaming market doesn't
| necessarily equate to "reliability," however. "Style" and
| "customizability" are very high on the differentiators
| between low/high for gaming peripherals, neither of which
| are necessary on a sub.
|
| The reviews for the controller (mentioned by name in the
| article, so easy to look up) are generally great (4.2/5
| with thousands of reviews), and the 1/2-star reviews are as
| frequently about ergonomic issues as they are about
| reliability. Every batch of controllers is going to have
| some unreliable ones, so the fact that that doesn't stand
| out as the common complaint dragging the reviews down says
| something.
|
| A lot of the rest of the choices for the sub sound sus, but
| not bothering to splurge on a game controller that cycles
| RGB is not worthy of a headline, IMO.
| Retric wrote:
| It's not about having a RGB controller, it's the fact you
| can get a COTS controller built for boats which is vastly
| less likely to crap out unexpectedly due to say
| condensation in an enclosed environment where people are
| exhaling water vapor.
|
| You might generally be fine, but many crash investigation
| involved some cheap component failing as part of a longer
| sequence. Ie something fails and humidity increases then
| XYZ fails until eventually your margin of safety is gone
| and everyone dies.
| scns wrote:
| Logitech has a lot of experience, i give you that. My MX518
| lasted over 10 years, many other owners reported the same.
| More recent products by them die often before five years of
| use. Perverse incentives, news at 11. Sorry for the snark.
| mh- wrote:
| FWIW, I'd estimate that Microsoft has sold something like
| 200 million Xbox controllers.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| To be fair, Microsoft also sold a _lot_ of Xboxes that
| were misdesigned from a thermal perspective, and thus red
| ringed themselves.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| The thermals weren't misdesigned exactly, but the solder
| was below expected performance in several key attributes.
| It is not the only product that got screwed by new
| leadfree solder being not the best at the time.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| > _Logitech has orders of magnitude more experience in
| manufacturing peripherals than Microsoft._
|
| You know that saying that anybody can build a bridge, but
| it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands?
| From what I've seen and heard, Logitech has used their
| experience to make peripherals that barely last longer than
| the warranty/return period.
|
| FWIW my 22 year old optical intellimouse from Microsoft is
| still going strong.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| The article mentions that this gamepad was released in
| 2010, but also it's just a slight iteration on Logitech's
| Wireless RumblePad 2, a wireless version of the RumblePad 2
| released around 2004.
|
| The newer models just add X-input, change the button faces
| from 1234 to ABXY, and made the wireless receiver smaller.
| leni536 wrote:
| I still have my rumblepad 2, it is a fine controller. Why
| they would use wireless here is beyond me however.
| ThatPlayer wrote:
| Yeah, the wireless is not good. My initial thought on the
| headline was Logitech's F310 controller which is wired
| and missing rumble, but besides that basically identical.
| laurent123456 wrote:
| Even high end Logitech peripherals aren't exactly great. I
| bought a Logitech wireless keyboard with backlighting a few
| years ago. It was nice but there was some hardware bug and
| when not in use the lights would be flashing all day and
| night until the batteries run out [0]. I certainly hope
| their gamepads are more energy efficient than that!
|
| [0] https://old.reddit.com/r/LogitechG/comments/pt0fkp/logi
| tech_...
| twbarr wrote:
| There's a middle ground between "hardware store crap" and
| "custom." The aviation industry has plenty of standard
| interior lighting and environmental control system that's
| known not to light people on fire or short out or otherwise
| fail and kill somebody.
|
| https://www.collinsaerospace.com/what-we-
| do/industries/busin...
|
| These are still COTS products.
| [deleted]
| BEEdwards wrote:
| >Microsoft very certainly did a tons of reliability and
| durability testing on their controllers (and it shows).
|
| my xbox elite controller didn't even last a year (usb port
| died)... now tbf the x button on the replacement razer
| controller i got also died in the same time frame.
|
| to be more fair though the wired xbox 360 controller i got
| with my original xbox back in ~2007 has never let me down.
| jki275 wrote:
| Logitech is a "cheap third party"?
|
| I like MS hardware, but my goodness, calling Logitech that is
| clearly missing something in the accuracy department.
| Logitech is way more experienced at making and selling input
| devices than MS.
| SllX wrote:
| I agree with you in principle on your defense of Logitech,
| but if there's a company that can give Logitech a run for
| their money in terms of designing and selling input
| peripherals, it probably is Microsoft. There are very few
| extant input peripheral manufacturers that have been doing
| it as long or longer than Microsoft has, so it would be an
| overstatement to say they're _way more_ experienced".
| Logitech has released to market more peripherals overall
| though since that's pretty much their entire business.
| rjsw wrote:
| I thought both companies started making mice at about the
| same time.
| addaon wrote:
| > and what would that change?
|
| Suitability for purpose. Some obvious ones:
|
| Defined and validated environmentals (temperature, voltage,
| and in this case pressure).
|
| Qualified components -- capacitors chosen for lifetime rather
| than shaving a cent, perhaps avoidance of MEMS oscillators
| with helium sensitivity.
|
| Failure analysis. Low and understood probability of fail-
| unsafe conditions (short circuit), mitigation for those
| risks, fume-proof and fire-proof PCB materials to protect the
| sealed environment in case of failure.
|
| Redundancy to handle failures anyway. Multiple independent
| strings so that single-point failure lead to partial loss of
| lighting, not all of it.
|
| Load ahedding, eg dropping all but one string at a known
| voltage above minimum voltage, to save power for other more
| critical loads during system failure scenarios.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Yes, if one had the budget to do all those things, from
| scratch, _better_ than an existing component manufacturer.
|
| Not many companies have NASA levels of "throw money at it
| until it works, and every part has been signed off on five
| times."
|
| _Absent_ that, I 'm having trouble seeing how custom >
| COTS.
|
| In all probability, anything in-house would have been
| _worse_ and added new failure modes.
|
| Better to buy, analyze, and adapt as needed.
|
| And if it turns out you don't need to adapt, because
| failure modes aren't safety-critical or components are
| viable in the environment, then spend your time on
| something more useful.
| mcmcmc wrote:
| They were charging a quarter million per head. Budget
| should not have been a concern.
| randac wrote:
| Also using close to $1m in fuel per trip (according to
| the CEO), not that it changes your point
| flir wrote:
| Not doubting you, but how is that possible? (A quick,
| unverified Google throws back "A standard Panamax
| containership has operational costs of about $9 million
| per year")
| addaon wrote:
| Absent engineering, an engineered solution is no better
| than COTS, agreed.
|
| Absent engineering, people die unnecessarily.
|
| Trade offs.
| Retric wrote:
| Not all COTS are equal. There are plenty of off the shelf
| controllers built for boats that are designed to handle
| wet environments such as might be found in an enclosed
| space where people are exhaling water vapor etc. They
| don't however cost 30$ nor do they cost anything close to
| the R&D required to make an equivalent product.
|
| Of note they might not have condensation in normal
| conditions, but condensation is exactly the kind of thing
| that results in cascading failures when just one
| seemingly minor thing fails.
| dmonitor wrote:
| If you can't afford to qualify the components on your
| 4000m diving vehicle, you can't afford to make a 4000m
| diving vehicle.
|
| See: the fact that they lost their diving vehicle.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| Pressure hull >> ballast control >> thrusters >>
| everything else
|
| I'm not sure why everyone is taking potshots at a company
| for trying something crazy _with willing passengers_.
|
| Everyone involved knew what they were getting into.
|
| Kudos to them for trying, even if they're dead.
|
| > _See: the fact that they lost their diving vehicle._
|
| That's an awful lot of keyboard engineering, given nobody
| knows what happened yet.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Everyone involved knew what they were getting into."
|
| Did they? I might have missed that part.
| srmarm wrote:
| Hey at least it's not a madcatz controller!
| Drblessing wrote:
| Throwback! They were great for cheap controllers.
| modeless wrote:
| I trust an Xbox 360 controller a whole lot more than I trust a
| Logitech controller. First party game console controllers are
| generally very robust and the 360 one is a classic. Third party
| are hit or miss but usually miss.
| cm2187 wrote:
| The controller itself is probably reliable enough, like any
| cheap keyboard on amazon. I wouldn't want my life to rely on
| bluetooth though.
| rwmj wrote:
| I don't even want my music listening to depend on bluetooth.
| donkey_oaty wrote:
| Absolutely. The fella in the article is going wired though by
| the look of it.
| lolinder wrote:
| They have a couple of pretty good shots of the controller,
| and I don't see a wire. Also, the marketing image they
| include for the controller is clearly labeled as wireless.
| rewmie wrote:
| > Nothing to say this is the cause of the fault and probably
| going to be more reliable than something hand rolled.
|
| Also, COTS gear that's designed with a standard interface is by
| design trivial to replace even through hot swapping, which
| automatically means resilience against errors.
| soared wrote:
| The issue most people on Reddit were discussing is that it's a
| cheap off brand controller, rather than a higher quality name
| brand controller (from Sony or Microsoft)
| leipert wrote:
| How is Logitech "off brand". They are well known for input
| devices.
| danudey wrote:
| I've been using Logitech input devices since before Sony or
| Microsoft ever made one.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| You had a P4 mouse in 1982?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Mouse
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Logitech_products
| [deleted]
| yenda wrote:
| It's Reddit
| dharmab wrote:
| Their game controllers are low quality. For example, home
| and professional desktop flight simulators prefer to use
| VKB or Virpil joysticks instead of Logitech or
| Thrustmaster.
| dmonitor wrote:
| Their controllers are well known for being garbage. People
| that take video games seriously can tell you all of the
| different reasons why they "feel worse" or are just less
| reliable than OEM. It's a $30 controller where the
| "standard" option is around $60. The "premium" market where
| they are custom made for important use cases (ie,
| competitive Melee tournament) can easily reach into
| multiple hundreds of dollars, using components like hall
| effect sensors instead of resistive potentiometers that
| will lose accuracy over time.
|
| Most people would refuse to play a video game with this
| controller, let alone use it as a critical component in a
| vehicle. Joystick drift in a videogame is frustrating.
| Joystick drift in a fucking submarine is a disaster waiting
| to happen.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| I have the wired version of the controller in the article
| and actually like it quite a bit, but it definitely isn't
| as rugged as an official Xbox controller would be. The
| main features I like on it are a way to switch between
| DirectInput and XInput modes and the ability to swap the
| left thumbstick and dpad.
|
| Definitely wouldn't trust it for a submarine though.
| devnullbrain wrote:
| >It's a $30 controller
|
| Although, _for some reason_ , it's currently sold-out
| everywhere.
| TX81Z wrote:
| Fun fact: DOD likes game pads because soldiers all play videos
| game since birth and it requires the least training.
| jsight wrote:
| Yeah, I'm not convinced this is in any way related to the
| issues. I'm far more concerned with the system that such a
| controller was plugged into than the controller itself.
|
| Commercial off the shelf pc? What kind of redundancy? How was
| power and power backup managed?
| aa_is_op wrote:
| And?
| aezart wrote:
| The fact that it's wireless is the scariest part to me. What if
| it runs out of battery? What if it desyncs?
| tvb12 wrote:
| Stick drift would be really bad.
| someweirdperson wrote:
| It's not a Nintendo controller.
| thesausageking wrote:
| They have multiple of them on board and can swap in a new one
| if there's an issue. The focus on the controller is misplaced
| to me. Game controllers are well made and better suited for the
| job than custom hardware. It's just the association with
| videogames that makes it seem odd.
|
| If they used $30 logitech keyboard as well, would anyone
| question that?
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| Pros of having a wireless controller: freedom of movement (in
| this case in a very cramped environment) and not having as
| much of a tangled cord situation.
|
| Cons: desynchronization issues, transmitter goes bad,
| receiver goes bad, interference, batteries run up, someone
| forgets to pack batteries, someone forgets to check if the
| backup batteries are still good.
|
| WHAT were they thinking??
| kiicia wrote:
| this are literal life or death situations we are talking
| about, not some office drama when someone spilled coffee on
| keyboard and went home
| SeasonalEnnui wrote:
| The controller indicates poor engineering & safety culture.
| It simply isn't fit for life critical purpose.
| mongol wrote:
| I agree. Imagine if they die because they forgot to change
| batteries.
| eye-robot wrote:
| WestWorld: "Where nothing can possibly go worng"....
| aktuel wrote:
| Logitech is the last thing I would use if reliability counts
| anything, unless you want it reliably to fail after twelve moths.
| aaron695 wrote:
| [dead]
| curiousgal wrote:
| Why is a submarine going missing such a big deal? I am either
| growing old and grumpy faster than I thought or the media is in
| shambles.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Do you remember the submarine murder in Denmark? It was on the
| HN front quite a lot. I guess subs are very techy.
| notatoad wrote:
| This sounds bad when phrased like that, but if you change it to
| say "submarine uses standard USB-HID profile for steering
| control" then it seems like a reasonable design decision.
| ZiiS wrote:
| The are a lot of people who have spent considerably more on
| thier chosen USB-HID for flying a virtual spaceship (myself
| included).
| silisili wrote:
| Stupid question, perhaps: was/it possible for this sub to have
| any kind of beaconing or communication system that works at
| depth? It seems like one of this first things I'd investigate
| before deciding to build a sub.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Yes, you'd think emergency procedures would be at the top of
| the list right after you made a viable pressure vessel.
|
| They obviously didn't do this. They previously lost the sub for
| five hours. Why this doesn't have an emergency buoy, or an
| locator beacon that works when the ship surfaces, I don't know.
| nradov wrote:
| The sub had a limited acoustic telemetry system for
| transmitting to the host ship. That signal was lost, so
| presumably the sub has suffered some type of serious failure.
| silisili wrote:
| Thanks! I've read a few articles in passing, and none
| mentioned anything like that. Doesn't sound promising now...
| vlod wrote:
| I was wondering how naval submarines work when they get in
| trouble.
|
| I would expect to see some sort of emergency button
| (internally) that you could press, that would release some sort
| of buoy, that would float to the surface and start transmitting
| with gps etc. I think that would help narrow down the search.
|
| The buoy would be in an external container (to prevent pressure
| problems), with explosive bolts or something to release.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| From what I understand, naval submarines typically have a
| signaling device called an EPIRB mounted in such a way that
| it's released automatically if the sub dives significantly
| below crush depth and/or if a switch isn't activated on some
| set interval. Then it pops up on the surface and says "Hi,
| wreck here."
|
| I don't think the former system would have worked here
| anyway, since the sub is supposed to get very close to the
| bottom.
| bombcar wrote:
| They had this but there were problems with it, if I recall
| correctly. So it would be disabled in "times of war" or
| whatever because if it accidentally popped off it was not a
| good time for you.
| shadowgovt wrote:
| "Hi, depth charge here."
| shadowgovt wrote:
| > I was wondering how naval submarines work when they get in
| trouble.
|
| Naval subs in trouble?
|
| They go "forever on patrol." A naval sub is an espionage
| watercraft; signaling an emergency isn't exactly in the
| playbook for most of their mission cycle. ;)
| vlod wrote:
| The alternative is death of 134 odd people. Not ideal. :/
|
| I would expect some e2e encryption satellite communication,
| however that might be still traceable to the enemy
| listening posts.
|
| Man, I now need to watch "Hunt for Red October" again [0].
| lol
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C2tE7vjdHk
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| "1 ping only" -Russian sub captain with Scottish accent
| for some reason. It's still one of my favorite movies
| though.
| vel0city wrote:
| Its practically impossible to do satellite to undersea
| communications. Being underwater does all kinds of hell
| to RF signals. Even just reliably doing undersea to
| surface communications is pretty tricky.
|
| Is your phone waterproof? Stick it a sink full of water.
| Watch it lose all network connectivity.
| vlod wrote:
| See my previous comment [0]: "that would release some
| sort of buoy, that would float to the surface and start
| transmitting with gps etc."
|
| That should work if it's floating I would think?
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36409802
| vel0city wrote:
| I wonder what the drift would be like if you released a
| buoy 2 miles below the surface. You could theoretically
| have the last estimated location of the sub, but even
| then that's largely an estimate as its not like the sub
| actually has a GPS fix its all dead reckoning.
|
| They already know _about_ where the sub should be,
| somewhere around the Titanic wreck. If an untethered buoy
| pops up a few miles away, does it really do much to help
| clue you into where they are? And if its not much to put
| a tether on the buoy, why not just have the craft be
| tethered from the start?
| mikestew wrote:
| Summary: water attenuates radio signals, and a 4Km cable is
| going to be way heavy and subject to currents.
| tguvot wrote:
| what about fiber ? <4kg per km. throw at end powered buoy.
| maybe inflatable to hold more of it. currents still will be
| mess, but with lower than copper weight you could have a few
| km slack
| teraflop wrote:
| I think your assumptions are unrealistic. A fiber optic
| cable weighing 4kg per km with no other reinforcement or
| protection would be extremely fragile.
|
| According to my back-of-the-envelope math, using the
| density and tensile strength of typical glass, it would
| have a breaking load capacity of around 10 newtons (roughly
| 2 pounds of force). Even a steel cable with the same weight
| would only be about 20 times stronger.
| tguvot wrote:
| 4kg/km it's not for clean glass fiber. it's fiber drop
| cable, in whatever plastic sleeving + a couple of steel
| strands for some added rigidity/structure. there are also
| versions with kevlar braiding to protect core and improve
| resilience.
| ZanyProgrammer wrote:
| Well they paid the price for that bit of efficient thinking,
| didn't they?
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| Sound carries very efficiently in water.
|
| https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/sound01/backgrou.
| ..
|
| https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2005/02/secrets-whales-
| long...
|
| The sub should have had an acoustic transponder that
| broadcast telemetry which could also be used to locate it.
| silisili wrote:
| Seems you're right, I just was searching how the military
| does it and...it's not great. Came across
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_submarines .
|
| So perhaps the best you could do here are something like
| emergency buoys that either one can record data on or perhaps
| automated recording some stats/location/whatever that can be
| released in an emergency and send a broadcast once topside?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I've had two of those exact gamepads die
| bombcar wrote:
| The listing I saw said "Platforms: WINDOWS ME, WINDOWS 98,
| WINDOWS 2000" but it didn't say "Platform: Underwater Vehicle".
| crawsome wrote:
| Dude doesn't game... Imagine trusting your life to a wireless
| controller.
| cmiles74 wrote:
| David Pogue just referred to these kinds of submersibles as
| "janky" on NPR. He also wasn't impressed with the controller.
|
| "All of these submersibles have been kind of janky," Pogue said.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2023/06/19/1183057832/a-search-is-underw...
| HL33tibCe7 wrote:
| The engineering culture at this company seems insane to me. From
| what I read they actively took pride in using as little
| technology and safety mechanisms as possible. If this isn't gross
| negligence, what is?
| sschueller wrote:
| From what I read it is also the first carbon fiber deep water
| vessel. I find that scary as carbon fiber does not start to bend
| before falure, it fails catastrophically.
| vicktour wrote:
| I would honestly choose that over sitting on the bottom for 96
| hours. Something about sitting there for 4 days with no hope is
| more terrifying to me.
| rurp wrote:
| That would be awful, but early failure signs give folks a
| chance to abort the dive and get out before it turns
| catastrophic.
| throw9away6 wrote:
| Not quite you get first ply failure before catastrophic
| kiicia wrote:
| they literally drilled holes on the inside to mount computer
| display
| taylorbuley wrote:
| If the device into which you are plugging that steering device is
| a regular old PC, as it seems to be here, then something like a
| Logitech seems like exactly what one might recommend as the USB
| peripheral. Redundancy plans become easier, not harder, with
| consumer-grade hardware that can be swapped out during failure.
| abraae wrote:
| > Redundancy plans become easier, not harder, with consumer-
| grade hardware that can be swapped out during failure.
|
| True enough on the surface. Not in a mini sub. They couldn't
| carry spares of everything.
| randyrand wrote:
| I'd easily take the bet that this controller was not the problem.
| [deleted]
| deadballcretin wrote:
| On one hand, 'if it ain't broke' etc.
|
| On the other, 'wait, what?'.
|
| The entire operation manages to somehow feel both incredibly
| sophisticated (it's not easy to get a sub to that depth) and
| simultaneously incredibly stupid.
| Our_Benefactors wrote:
| The part most surprising to me was that there is no way to see
| out of the craft besides the camera system. Why not watch the
| video on land after the fact? It seems so senseless to endanger
| yourself as a participant.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| There's a porthole in the front of the sub, where the toilet
| is.
|
| Funny enough, I've also seen "it doesn't even have a toilet"
| repeated around HN in the last couple days.
|
| IIRC an earlier design or planned design used cameras only.
|
| Edit: Wow, they were actually sued by a whistleblower over
| the pressure rating for the window on an earlier design!
| https://newrepublic.com/post/173802/missing-titanic-sub-
| face...
| Vecr wrote:
| Yeah, I think I made a mistake when researching if it had a
| window. It clearly had one when the reporter went down last
| year.
| ak_111 wrote:
| Serious? what about the "window" in the front?
| kiicia wrote:
| window was in front of tourist toilet they had there,
| question is I'd they had enough flood lamps so that it was
| possible to see anything further than a meter away
| oh_sigh wrote:
| Another domain, but I feel that way when I watch some
| universally panned TV show/movie. One where a random person can
| think of simple changes to the script or plot that would make
| it far more interesting. I find myself wondering...how did
| these people recruit hundreds of people, and spend millions of
| dollars to make this, but no one took a second glance at the
| script to fix some glaring issue.
| rewmie wrote:
| What's wrong with using COTS components?
| deadballcretin wrote:
| Nothing, the issue is who is buying and implementing it.
| rewmie wrote:
| Exactly what's the issues, then?
| kiicia wrote:
| buying wrong COTS components, ones that are not fit for
| intended purpose
| rewmie wrote:
| > buying wrong COTS components, ones that are not fit for
| intended purpose
|
| What could possibly lead you to presume that? Do you feel
| in a better position to make that call than all the
| engineers who actually work on that task at a
| professional level?
| Solvency wrote:
| There has to be a name for this kind of phenomenon.
|
| I am smart enough to know that I'm too dumb and ill-equipped to
| make a safe tourism business out of a homebrewed submarine.
|
| These people are smarter than me, but too stupid to know that
| they aren't smart enough to make a safe tourism business out of
| a homebrewed submarine.
| prova_modena wrote:
| Dunning-Kruger effect.
| realjhol wrote:
| Did you know the Dunning-Kruger effect isn't real?
|
| https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-do-you-
| know/2020...
| limaoscarjuliet wrote:
| Conditional Risk https://xkcd.com/795/
| golergka wrote:
| Elon Musk effect.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Correction: these people were smarter than you, and they may
| have at some point recently come to understand that they
| couldn't make a safe tourism business out of this sub.
| whyage wrote:
| Looks like Stockton Rush is about to win a Darwin award
| nabla9 wrote:
| And where the spare batteries for the controllers are?
| pengaru wrote:
| Do we know anything about how many times this submersible has
| survived descending to such depths?
|
| Surely its been sent down to dwell at these depths autonomously
| dozens if not hundreds of times, right?
| timbit42 wrote:
| CBS News correspondent David Pogue said 20 to 25 drives in an
| interview with CBC earlier today.
|
| https://youtu.be/q-6jjy3estY?t=338
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| Going to get me one of these logitech gamepads now to re-play
| Subnautica for true submarine immersion.
| thekevan wrote:
| Every time I have seen people calling this amateur hour, I wonder
| if they are right or if it is similar to NASA using the same chip
| that was used in the Sony Playstation in the early 90s as in the
| New Horizons probe which reach Pluto in 2015.
|
| https://www.itpro.com/hardware/368293/why-cutting-edge-space...
| kiicia wrote:
| there is no problem in using off the shelf devices, problem is
| when you choose one that is not fit for intended purpose
| Karupan wrote:
| According to the NYTimes, OceanGate refused to undergo any sort
| of external audit/certification process [0]. I would imagine
| using an off the shelf, cheap controller would have been one of
| the first things to be flagged. Makes you wonder how many other
| critical components did they skimp on
|
| [0] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2023/06/20/us/titanic-
| missing-s...
| analog31 wrote:
| This is what actually amazes me. The reliability of something
| like an airplane, bus, or train, is held to extremely high
| engineering standards. There are even safety rules for
| bicycles. But you're allowed to take people for rides in a
| submarines with barely any oversight.
| mcbutterbunz wrote:
| Likely due to two things:
|
| 1) Many more people fly or bike than ride in submarines.
|
| 2) Regulations are written in blood. Too many of these types
| of accidents and then safety rules will be established and
| enforced (hopefully).
| adamckay wrote:
| As the saying goes, "safety regulation is written in blood"
| and I expect this to be somewhat modified.
|
| It's complicated somewhat if the submarine is launched and
| operated in international waters, however.
| Razengan wrote:
| How else would Cthulhu be kept pacified?
| Exuma wrote:
| I wondered why they can't install a GPS anyway on the sub so that
| when it eventually does get to the surface, at least they can be
| found then.
| foobar1962 wrote:
| You'd just use your phone for GPS. Doing something useful with
| that information may be a challenge. All that is moot if they
| are locked on the wrong side of the airtight hatchway.
| outworlder wrote:
| Why would it eventually get to the surface? The issue with
| submarines is that they don't normally float (and if you need
| them to have positive buoyancy, they have to be functional).
| isawczuk wrote:
| This is not unusual design. There a lot of military tech that
| work with commercial-grade electrics. It's easier to buy in bulk
| cheaper and replace when it brakes.
| JDW1023 wrote:
| > According to the BBC, the entire sub is bolted shut from the
| outside, so even if the vessel surfaces, the occupants cannot
| escape without outside assistance and could suffocate within the
| capsule.
|
| Why is the submarine bolted shut from the outside?
| lisasays wrote:
| Assuming, quite reasonably, that there has to some kind of
| rationale for this -- I would guess it's because there's some
| significant structural complexity (and hence risk) involved in
| having it be open-able both ways.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| There is no point in allowing the door to be opened underwater
| since it doesn't have an airlock.
| gs17 wrote:
| No one is proposing a literal "suicide door". But it makes
| sense to have it openable after surfacing, at least for
| emergencies.
| stickfigure wrote:
| "Surfacing" unassisted would mean floating with the top of
| the submarine at water level. You still won't be able to
| open the door.
| gs17 wrote:
| That's possible. Then at least some form of ventilation
| usable after surfacing should have been included if
| you're locking people in.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Every thruhull is a potential source of death at 5000+
| psi.
|
| The bigger problem seems like underinvestment in "getting
| found" technology.
| sschueller wrote:
| It makes no sense as the pressure would prevent you from
| opening it from the inside anyway until you are back on the
| surface.
| croes wrote:
| It makes sense if you want a simple construction. Bolting it
| from the outside is easier than an internal mechanism.
| bambax wrote:
| It would make a lot of sense if you're floating at the
| surface of the ocean and need air.
| croes wrote:
| Easiest way to shut it?
| tedunangst wrote:
| Is there enough room inside the sub to turn a long enough
| wrench to apply the appropriate torque?
| Strom wrote:
| I guess for the immense pressure you get at that depth. However
| an emergency release would still make sense.
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| But, as with airplane doors (but in the opposite direction),
| if the door was designed to open outwards then you couldn't
| open it under pressure no matter how hard you pushed
| Strom wrote:
| At those pressures I don't think you would want to open the
| door even if you could. I was more thinking about being at
| the surface and having nobody else to unbolt it from the
| outside.
| andrewmunsell wrote:
| Oh yes, I am (though I am absolutely not a real engineer
| nor do I have any experience with subs) just questioning
| why they would need to bolt it from the outside anyways.
| If it was to keep occupants in, I would imagine that a
| door that opens outwards would solve that issue if
| submerged, and would still be openable on the surface
| rightbyte wrote:
| It is a simpler design to screw the nuts from the
| outside. Otherwise the hull would need through hull
| screws attached to the door or some sort of clamp around
| the hull edge by the door opening.
| rsaxvc wrote:
| Guess: weight and cost savings
| shadowgovt wrote:
| An emergency release implies explosive bolts that could fail
| catastrophically at depth.
|
| ... which would be a risk that I might recommend for another
| application and manufacturer, but not for this firm,
| apparently. For this firm, I think I'd recommend "Don't do
| what you're doing, but if you must, keep it as simple as
| possible."
| starkparker wrote:
| Naval submarine hatches _rely_ on the pressure to keep the
| hatch shut. The water pressure outside is greater than the
| air pressure inside. The hatch locks around a sealing o-ring.
| Escape trunks are sealed off from the rest of the ship and
| work like an airlock. Deepsea Challenger 's outward-opening
| hatch/egress trunk worked the same way; indeed, its view
| window was on the hatch.
| tzs wrote:
| > Naval submarine hatches _rely_ on the pressure to keep
| the hatch shut
|
| I don't remember which company it was, but there was an
| aircraft company that made the mistake of relying on screws
| instead of pressure to keep the cockpit windows in place.
|
| The windows were installed from the outside with outside
| screws to hold them in place. During maintenance one of the
| windows got replaced and the worker accidentally used the
| wrong screws which were much weaker than the correct
| screws.
|
| Next flight when the plane got high enough the difference
| between outside pressure and the higher pressure in the
| pressurize cabin blew the window out and one of the pilots
| got sucked out. Someone else in the cockpit was able to
| grab his legs on the way out and hold on keeping him from
| falling, although he spent the rest of the flight dangling
| out the window getting buffeted around pretty severely. The
| people left in the cockpit were sure the guy dangling out
| the window was dead, and they were having a hard time
| holding on, but they didn't want to lose his body and
| managed to keep him.
|
| They also were having a hard time communicating with each
| other or with air traffic control because of the noise from
| the missing window.
|
| They did get down safely, and the everyone's surprise found
| that the guy dangling in the window was alive, quite
| bruised, and had frostbite all over his face, but nothing
| permanent. He made a full recovery.
|
| They redesigned the windows so on newer planes they
| installed from the inside with inside screws, whose job was
| now to keep the window from falling into the plane instead
| of keep it from falling out.
|
| A "wrong screw" accident then might mean losing a window
| when taxiing or during takeoff or landing or at low
| altitude, before there is much pressure different between
| inside and outside. No one would be sucked out then and the
| noise would be a lot lower. At higher altitudes the
| pressure difference would be keeping the windows in place.
|
| As I said I don't remember what company's plane had this
| accident. It was on one of those "air disaster" documentary
| shows.
| gcanyon wrote:
| I think this is the story you're talking about. The
| replacement windscreen bolts were too narrow:
| https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-near-crash-of-
| britis...
| komadori wrote:
| It was BA flight 5390. Admiral Cloudberg has a good
| write-up: https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-near-
| crash-of-britis...
| vicktour wrote:
| The location of the door really doesn't allow it to be opened
| while its in the water. I would guess, as I have no evidence
| other than an untrained eye, that the window would either be
| fully underwater or at least partially underwater. It would
| sink if it was opened. Not to mention that they would need to
| equalize the pressure inside the sub to even push it open.
| ploika wrote:
| Bit of a tangent maybe, but according to some expert I heard on
| the radio this morning, it's a submersible and not a submarine
| precisely because the vehicle is so totally dependant on the
| support ship. That includes everything from communication to
| getting in and out.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It's dependant on a support ship but it's not tethered to it?
| Maybe depth prohibits that?
| [deleted]
| the_gipsy wrote:
| There have been tethered submersions deeper than the
| titanic wreck.
| gcanyon wrote:
| The more I read about this, the more it (sadly) reminds me of a
| bungie jumping accident years ago: the bungie cable contained
| many separate strands, all ending in loops. The habit of the
| operators was to hold all the loops together and pass a large
| carabiner through the bundle, catching a number of the loops.
|
| Until one time they caught few enough (none? I remember "none,"
| but that seems absurd) that the whole thing failed, and the
| jumper fell straight to their death.
|
| Going down in the ocean to a depth _far_ deeper than any military
| submarine goes -- I don 't see any info online, but I wonder if
| fewer people have been as deep as the Titanic than have reached
| Earth orbit -- in something that apparently was put together and
| vetted by effectively hobbyists seems the pinnacle of lunacy.
| Apologies to the missing for saying it.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| They could have brought a better one but logitech ain't bad, but
| not sure about going wireless instead of cable
| barbs wrote:
| Right? Imagine being dead in the water because the batteries
| ran out
| giantg2 wrote:
| "wireless PC game controller"
|
| I wonder if they forgot spare batteries.
| komadori wrote:
| I read "No Time on Our Side" by Roger Chapman a few months ago on
| the recommendation of HN commentor /u/z991 [1]. It recounts the
| 1973 rescue of a damaged submersible on the ocean floor from the
| perspective of the crew trapped inside [2]. Mainly their struggle
| with limited oxygen and rising CO2 levels. A fairly brief but
| gripping read which I also recommend.
|
| Of note, I recall even though the sub in question had a working
| acoustic phone and beacon, the rescue vessels really struggled to
| pinpoint its precise location and maintain communications. The
| ocean is a big place!
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34360329 [2]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescue_of_Roger_Mallinson_an...
| nycdotnet wrote:
| With all the talk about failure modes of carbon fiber, the
| scariest part of this article is the photo of the display and
| light held up by screws drilled into the side of the pressure
| vessel.
| kamranjon wrote:
| I heard an anecdote at one point that when a submarine
| depressurizes that deep, everything inside gets pushed through
| whatever hole caused the depressurization, like squeezing the
| contents out of a tube of toothpaste.
|
| Might have been from the Byford Dolphin accident:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byford_Dolphin
|
| "Hellevik, being exposed to the highest pressure gradient and
| in the process of moving to secure the inner door, was forced
| through the crescent-shaped opening measuring 60 centimetres
| (24 in) long created by the jammed interior trunk door. With
| the escaping air and pressure, it included bisection of his
| thoracoabdominal cavity, which resulted in fragmentation of his
| body, followed by expulsion of all of the internal organs of
| his chest and abdomen, except the trachea and a section of
| small intestine, and of the thoracic spine. These were
| projected some distance, one section being found 10 metres (30
| ft) vertically above the exterior pressure door."
|
| I wonder if anyone knows if this universally true? Would the
| inhabitants of this submarine have experienced a similar fate
| if one of those bolts failed or a hole in the hull developed?
| buildbot wrote:
| Yeah, I had exactly the same thought! If it's a single hull and
| not a double hull or something, and that's the actual inside of
| the hull we are seeing, how the fuck is that safe? Someone uses
| too long of a screw and bow you have what, 400 atmospheres of
| pressure pushing against the presumably sharp point of the
| screw?
|
| Strain monitoring built into the hull only helps you if you can
| surface in time once you notice a problem, and not at all if it
| is a catastrophic failure.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-20 23:00 UTC)