[HN Gopher] Why isn't Titan classed? (2019) ___________________________________________________________________ Why isn't Titan classed? (2019) Author : ZeljkoS Score : 179 points Date : 2023-06-23 20:41 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (web.archive.org) (TXT) w3m dump (web.archive.org) | nakedneuron wrote: | Everybody seems to be concerned with technical failure. Can we | rule out the human factor? What if somebody fired a bullet from | the inside? Would it withstand? | Mizoguchi wrote: | If their $30 joystick wasn't a red flag their RTM system should | had been. | yreg wrote: | What's bad about a $30 Logitech controller? It should be more | reliable than what they can build on their own. | AHOHA wrote: | Absolutely nothing wrong! We use similar joysticks in more | missions critical jobs, but people are ignorant sometimes, | joystick is bad but a fuse or transistor or other component | costing $0.3 is completely fine. | gnfargbl wrote: | _> While classing agencies are willing to pursue the | certification of new and innovative designs and ideas, they often | have a multi-year approval cycle due to a lack of pre-existing | standards_ | | "...and although that approach is perfectly reasonable from an | engineering standpoint, our commercial model can't accommodate | it." | jonathankoren wrote: | "[F]or example, in the case of many of OceanGate's innovations, | such as carbon fiber pressure vessels" | | This ain't the innovative win they thought it was. In fact, it's | a self-own. | | I recently saw a material scientist that specializes in carbon | say there wasn't enough money in the world to get her to ride | inside a carbon fiber submarine. Why? Carbon fiber has a very | high tensile (i.e. stretching) strength. However, it's quite weak | when under compression. | | Guess which strength is important when operating in a high | pressure environment? | | Submarines, including deep submersibles, are kind of a solved | problem. That doesn't mean there aren't risks involved, but when | was the last time a submarine imploded above it's intended | operating depth? The 1950s? | emeraldd wrote: | This has to be one of my favorite sentences in the whole page: | | > However, this does not mean that OceanGate does meet standards | where they apply, but it does mean that innovation often falls | outside of the existing industry paradigm. | | in particular: | | > ... this does not mean that OceanGate does meet standards where | they apply ... | nprateem wrote: | Anyone else wondering what was causing the banging every 30m the | media seems to have forgotten about? There were reports saying | nothing in nature could cause that... | micromacrofoot wrote: | it's the ocean, could have been anything really... someone just | desperately read too much into this one | fredgrott wrote: | One should note that carbon composites are not for external | pressure situations since they delaminate...in shorts words they | were playing a dice rolling game and lost on damn stupidity. | | The whole reason they were not classed is that carbon composites | would not pass any class certifications due to the limits | indicated above. | rossjudson wrote: | I'm still trying to understand why they _wanted_ to use carbon | composites. Cost to manufacture? Low mass? I read somewhere | that the carbon pressure vessel was about five inches thick. I | 'm not sure how thick a comparable titanium vessel would be, or | how much that would cost. | meghan_rain wrote: | lmao of course it was due to costs. greed killed those | people. | ikiris wrote: | For the same reason we are the only nation that builds water- | cooled, graphite-moderated reactors with a positive void | coefficient. (beat) It's ''cheaper''. -- Valery Legasov | dghlsakjg wrote: | > They [inspections] do not ensure that operators adhere to | proper operating procedures and decision-making processes - two | areas that are much more important for mitigating risks at sea. | | As a former tall ship captain: | | No Shit. Ships stopped sinking when we started requiring | inspections and design rules around stability and watertight | compartments. | | We largely eliminated a common failure mode, designer error, | through inspections and classing, so now we are left with the | harder failure modes: operator error. | | I'm curious if the flag state will get involved here. It's one | thing to push the limits with experimental design (happens all | the time in boats, airplanes and cars). It's a while other thing | to use experimental designs in commercial applications. There's a | good reason that the FAA doesn't allow commercial operators to | use experimental registered aircraft... | Gwypaas wrote: | As another tall ship, and for that matter in-shore commercial | captain I found this quite telling. | | > While classing agencies are willing to pursue the | certification of new and innovative designs and ideas, they | often have a multi-year approval cycle due to a lack of pre- | existing standards, especially, for example, in the case of | many of OceanGate's innovations, such as carbon fiber pressure | vessels and a real-time (RTM) hull health monitoring system. | Bringing an outside entity up to speed on every innovation | before it is put into real-world testing is anathema to rapid | innovation. For example, Space X, Blue Origin and Virgin | Galactic all rely on experienced inside experts to oversee the | daily operations, testing, and validation versus bringing in | outsiders who need to first be educated before being qualified | to 'validate' any innovations. | | Gamble with money all you want. Don't gamble with people. | Things get fixed, people don't. That is quite a hard lesson for | inexperienced people to learn. | lozenge wrote: | Titan didn't have a flag, it only operated in international | waters. But the surface support vessel has a Canadian flag, and | Canada's launching an investigation. | notreallyauser wrote: | The Guardian is reporting the submersible as registered in | the Bahamas | JimtheCoder wrote: | A place known for tight regulations | smitty1e wrote: | Albeit perhaps not water-tight. | JimtheCoder wrote: | Depends one how much pressure is applied... | TeMPOraL wrote: | As the proverb goes, even a broken vise grips tightly | when there are enough journalists in the workshop. | hadlock wrote: | Flag of convenience. Where the country of record allows | ships to register under their name as a way of generating | revenue from foreigners. Bahamas will not do more than | issue a statement, if that. You step foot on a flag of | convenience boat with no prior reputation and you are | effectively waiving any expectation safety. | DeRock wrote: | Their reasoning is fundamentally flawed. | | > The vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents are a | result of operator error, not mechanical failure. As a result, | simply focusing on classing the vessel does not address the | operational risks. | | Aka "classing doesn't mitigate all problems, so we're not going | to do it at all" | themagician wrote: | Survivorship bias at play. | | Technically correct, too. The vast majority of marine and | aviation accidents _are_ the result of operator error... | _because_ engineering standards are so good and mechanical | failures are so rare. | arp242 wrote: | Also: the reason most accidents are due to operator error and | not mechanical failure is because the requirements exist in | the first place. | | "Why do we have laws against slavery? It's not like anyone | actually owns slaves. Seems pretty superfluous, so let's just | get rid of it!" | schoen wrote: | Compare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox | xupybd wrote: | I've heard the same argument against unit testing and strong | typing. | brookst wrote: | And app sandboxing, and masks during covid, and seatbelts, | and gun control, and ... | | The relative merits differ, and any given thing is | debatable, but "it doesn't solve everything so it's no | better than nothing" is a nakedly dishonest argument. | phkahler wrote: | If I recall correctly, even NASA found unit testing to be | of limited value, finding a small fraction of software | bugs. That's not to say "don't do it" but my stance is that | the developer should do some ad-hoc testing for everything | they write, just don't formalize and document it or you'll | land on the wrong end of cost/benefit. | | I can point to some subtle logic bugs that no sane unit | test would have caught. | sitkack wrote: | Because their development process before a unit test | would ever run is so rigorous! | pessimizer wrote: | I've heard the same argument against not using heroin. | | It's a generic pretend argument: _You say doing(or not | doing) this thing will be risky. So that means you 're | saying that people who don't do(or do) the thing have | perfect lives with no risks and free ice cream?_ | | _You 're strangling innovation/A coward!_ | p0pcult wrote: | [dead] | cjensen wrote: | Yep. This is like saying "who needs building codes because it's | more important the owner maintains the roof and paint?" | | To have something properly function you need both a solid build | and maintenance. Doing one well doesn't absolve you of doing | the other. | sacnoradhq wrote: | Emperor's new clothes syndrome of the naive and/or arrogant. | TeMPOraL wrote: | As much as I love the show, I'd call it Star Trek's | approach to OSHA. I mean, Starfleet officers are so well- | trained and perfect that they don't need safeguards such as | guardrails on elevators moving engineers up and down a | three story high room that ends up shaking at least twice | per episode. And let's not even talk about seatbelts. | [deleted] | jtriangle wrote: | Well, idk, every time the ship gets hit some console on | the bridge shorts out and the arcflash blows some noname | ensign across the room. So, star trek probably isn't the | example I'd pull from. | jsjohnst wrote: | GP was using Star Trek as a bad example, similar to you. | sacnoradhq wrote: | Arrogance and overconfidence lead inexorably to hubris and they | won a Darwin Award for thinking they "knew better". It's | obvious they skimped on testing and were too cavalier with | unproven "innovation". | arcticbull wrote: | > They do not ensure that operators adhere to proper operating | procedures and decision-making processes - two areas that are | much more important for mitigating risks at sea. | | plane_with_red_dots.jpeg | | This sounds an awful lot like survivorship bias. | derbOac wrote: | It also sounded to me like dodging the question. | arcticbull wrote: | Giving them the benefit of the doubt, they're saying the | biggest problem with submersibles is operator error. Of | course it is, when the classing system effectively eliminates | the majority of mechanical failures. That doesn't mean the | classing system is failing, on the contrary, it means its | working. | mkonecny wrote: | And yet they allowed passengers to control the sub. Theres | a video out there where one of the passengers hit the | ground with a loud thud while at the controls | lamontcg wrote: | Reminds me of some code that I've written which got passed | off to other teams who ripped it out because all they saw | was the complexity and they didn't recognize what issues it | was preventing (Chesterton's Fence). | quickthrower2 wrote: | Code like that needs a 10 ft comment. I have been save by | seeing those on otherwise "why the fuck is this needed" | code. | | If they if ignore the comment, well that is hubris. | lamontcg wrote: | I'm pretty good about doing that. I've gotten compliments | before for a massive 10 line code comment above a-single- | line-that-shall-not-be-deleted. | dragonwriter wrote: | It is exactly survivorship bias: its taking the population | produced by a selection filter (to wit, classing/certification) | and assuming that the traits of that population are | representive of what would exist without the filter. | jackmott42 wrote: | Yeah, mechanical failure was not a major problem with | subs...until someone started gluing dissimilar materials | together to make one! | tverbeure wrote: | "We don't need to vaccinate against measles because hardly | anyone gets measles." | mr_00ff00 wrote: | I have a friend who is a professor of history. He jokes that | human history is basically us creating systems to solve | problems, then time passes and we remove those systems causes | "those types of problems never happen." | | Rinse repeat | caseyohara wrote: | This seems related to Chesterton's Fence | | > Chesterton's Fence is a principle that says change should | not be made until the reasoning behind the current state of | affairs is understood. It says the rash move, upon coming | across a fence, would be to tear it down without | understanding why it was put up. | dpedu wrote: | Patent for their hull monitoring system: | | https://patents.google.com/patent/US11119071B1/en | post-it wrote: | Highly innovative! Instead of their sudden death being a | complete surprise, they may have had a few awful moments of | warning. | DebtDeflation wrote: | The engineer who worked on it said it would provide only | milliseconds of warning before the hull collapsed. He was | promptly fired. | ikiris wrote: | Better than being crushed like their CEO. | krasin wrote: | Source? (the story does sound plausible, but having a | source would be helpful) | lamontcg wrote: | https://www.cbsnews.com/news/missing-titanic-submarine- | ocean... | Grazester wrote: | Read that also, can't remember where. | kayodelycaon wrote: | https://fortune.com/2023/06/21/titan-titanic-missing-sub- | dav... | komadori wrote: | > Lochridge had alleged major safety issues: there had | been almost no unmanned testing of the craft; the alarm | system would only sound off "milliseconds" before an | implosion | | https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/06/21 | /oc... | DebtDeflation wrote: | https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/us/oceangate-submersible- | tita... | | >Lochridge also questioned OceanGate's plans to install a | monitoring system on the vessel to detect the start of | hull breakdown. His court filing argued "this type of | acoustic analysis would only show when a component is | about to fail--often milliseconds before an implosion-- | and would not detect any existing flaws prior to putting | pressure onto the hull." | mytailorisrich wrote: | Found this article [1] about the employee where this | "millisecond warning" is mentioned. | | It's been in most media on the past few days. | | And yes, one has to wonder about a warning system that | does not warm in advance and which operates in situations | where no-one can do anything about it, anyway... | | [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/0 | 6/21/oc... | | Edit: oh dear flood of replies! | Johnny555 wrote: | I'd be more interested in a source that shows that such a | warning system could give a usable warning timeframe at | great depths under the sea. | bradgessler wrote: | Just enough time to hear the "Bu" from "Buzz" | quickthrower2 wrote: | I had to check if sound travels fast enough. Just about, | yes. Half a millisec to go 1.5m. | eterm wrote: | Wouldn't they have communicated that back if they had? | | There wasn't even an "Uh-oh", as far as we know. | tverbeure wrote: | It takes longer than a few milliseconds to say "Uh-oh", | probably. | sharikous wrote: | I remember seeing in the news that it is possible they | released the ballast before the implosion, according to the | findings, and they may have done that because of a warning | georgemcbay wrote: | James Cameron has been giving various interviews where he | speculates they probably audibly heard the delamination | occurring with enough time to cause them to drop the | weights and try to abort based on what he's hearing from | people in the know within the circle of deep sea explorers | involved in the search and rescue. | | None of this validates using the audio sensor as a warning | system because whether you have milliseconds or as much as | a couple of minutes warning prior to rapid decompression | makes no difference at the depth it occurred, but it does | suggest the passengers knew they were doomed prior to the | actual decompression. | sangnoir wrote: | > [...]minutes warning prior to rapid _decompression_ | | Do you mean rapid _compression_ (i e. implosion)? The | internal pressure in such subs is kept at roughly 1 | atmosphere at all depths. The massive pressure difference | at depth is why hull integrity is of the utmost | importance, if it 's compromised, things go south | rapidly. | [deleted] | bmurray7jhu wrote: | The acoustic signature predictive of a material compromise or | potential failure may include a large magnitude, high | frequency acoustic burst followed by a sustained | interval of acoustic signals of slightly lower magnitude and | high frequency, but still well above a predetermined | healthy structure condition. | | The patent concedes that a structural failure may be presaged | by a. "large magnitude ... burst", but does contemplate if such | a burst is survivable. | mrguyorama wrote: | That makes no sense. Carbon fiber is not known to fail under | max load gracefully. | mechhacker wrote: | Saw this today. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mSq6ibKKXQ | mustacheemperor wrote: | Interesting, he says the theory he currently finds most | plausible and has heard from other experts is that water was | able to penetrate the flange connecting the titanium caps to | the pressure hull. | | So the hull itself may not have been the first to go. But of | course that failure is intrinsically connected to the carbon | fiber nature of the sub. | ARandomerDude wrote: | That's pretty wild. The operator was able to tell when they | were going deeper based on the sound of the carbon fibers | cracking in the hull. | Alupis wrote: | These sort of sounds occur even in metal (steel/titanium) | submersibles. | UniverseHacker wrote: | I would say that is different. A steel part will make | sounds as it rapidly flexes under pressure or temperature | cycling, but those sudden movements can be within the | "endurance limit" of the material, and not lead to | fatigue or failure. | | The hull sounds they were hearing in Titan were likely | snapping of carbon fibers (based on the linked video | above), which means a permanent reduction in strength | each time it happens. | | "But the company that built DeepFlight Challenger has | told The Telegraph it refused to back the project, | insisting the submarine was suitable for only one dive | and could not be reused because of the pressure on its | structure at such depths." | | "The problem is the strength of the vessel does decrease | after each dive. It is strongest on the first dive." | https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science- | news/112919... | TheCondor wrote: | True. Those metals have flex and recovery to them though, | not nearly as rigid as carbon fiber | | FWIW, archers tap or attempt to flex arrows and listen to | them to tell if the carbon has cracked. An intact arrow | will flex a little, silently where damaged ones will | crackle and sometimes splinter or shatter. | mrguyorama wrote: | Navy subs literally deform while diving. If you tie a | string tight from one bulkhead to another (from left to | right, not front to back), as you dive, the string will | go slack and you can tug on it. Destin (smarter every | day) demonstrates this in one of his submarine videos. | RajT88 wrote: | Holy Shitballs. Cracking noises! Things which you never | want to hear on a submersible! | | (insert "this is fine" meme) | [deleted] | lb1lf wrote: | You hear those in conventional subs, too, as you go | deeper the hull makes all sorts of worrying creaks. | (During a sea trial, I had to be aboard a sub from $NAVY | diving to 900 feet and change - the crew assured me the | sounds were normal...) | swayvil wrote: | With the right waveform analysis algorithm you could monitor | stress, cracks and the progress thereof. Get more warning. | jonathankoren wrote: | Perhaps in with other materials, but the pressure vessel was | made out of carbon fiber, and carbon fiber _splinters_ with | almost no warning. | | https://youtu.be/DM6J-yw8yjA?t=65 | michaelt wrote: | It's true - for example, waveform analysis that detected the | CEO saying "bringing an outside entity up to speed on every | innovation before it is put into real-world testing is | anathema to rapid innovation" could have raised warnings as | much as four years before the fatal accident. | deeviant wrote: | It seems likely the Real-Time Hull Monitoring didn't turn out to | be very useful. | AHOHA wrote: | Do we know yet exactly what was the problem? | aaronscott wrote: | > Another simple risk mitigation step we take, that we believe to | be unique to OceanGate is that we draw a small vacuum on the | inside of the sub at the start of each dive. This step verifies | the integrity of the low-pressure O-ring seal and eliminates the | risk of leaks | | I wonder what that low-pressure o-ring is sealing. I assume the | vacuum would only simulate a one atmosphere differential, so that | o-ring must not be sealing something exposed to the external | pressures at the depths they go down to. | noduerme wrote: | One thing I'm curious about, as someone who knows nothing about | the engineering of these things... why wouldn't anyone building | something like this choose to over-pressure the sub once people | were inside it and it began descending? Wouldn't 2 atmospheres | inside represent a 50% reduction in the pressure differential | on the hull at depth? | quickthrower2 wrote: | Not an expert so guessing but that would give you 299 | atmospheres differential instead of 300. Also might be | uncomfortable for the passengers? | icegreentea2 wrote: | Separate from the comments about pressure differential - even | 2 atmospheres is probably enough to risk decompression | sickness if they just popped the hatch at the end of the | dive. So you'd need some way to reduce the pressure | gradually. That either needs a way to vent gas out (which | means adding a hole in the hull, which you'd really rather | avoid having to deal with), or having a compressor inside the | hull, or do the entire hatch popping in another pressure | vessel. All of those options seem to odds with the 'go cheap | and fast' approach. | zippothrowaway wrote: | Outside pressure is 300 x atmosphere so a difference of 299 | atmospheres. Increasing to 2 internally makes a difference | of...298 atmospheres. | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | The truly scandalous thing here is this: | | > Depth Validating | | > As an interim step in the path to classification, we are | working with a premier classing agency to validate Titan's dive | test plan. A licensed marine surveyor will witness a successful | dive to 4000 meters, inspect the vessel before and after the | dive, and provide a Statement of Fact attesting to the completion | of the dive test plan. | | They clearly did not do this. Simply lowering the thing to the | ocean bottom uncrewed would have found this problem. It would not | have prevented them from experimenting with crazy designs. It | would not have significantly impacted their ability to iterate | and move fast. It wouldn't have cost that much to do in the grand | scheme of things. I would argue that doing de-risked testing at | depth would have expanded their ability to be more radical in | their design and overall could have sped up their design | iteration. Look at how SpaceX does this, they move fast and break | things but make sure that the risk is levered to the reward. The | first Falcon rockets did not have commercial payloads at all, nor | did the first falcon heavy, Falcon did not fly humans until it | was a well-proven rocket. Starship is "failing" constantly but | they are doing it in a way which means the impact is minimal and | they are learning lots each time. | | The really sad part of this is that this probably sets back any | innovation in submarine exploration decades. Nobody is going to | experiment with carbon composite subs, nobody is going to set out | to build a sub with the goal of reducing the per-trip cost by 90% | or 99%. | | Things, overall, could easily have been so different. Very sad. | mjb wrote: | They did: | http://web.archive.org/web/20200814020351/https://www.oceang... | kristjansson wrote: | > Simply lowering the thing to the ocean bottom uncrewed would | have found this problem | | It had made several trips to Titanic depth already. A more | serious testing and classification probably would have | prevented disaster but let's not pretend this is trivial | stefan_ wrote: | Found what problem? You realize they literally took this thing | to the Titanic and back multiple times? | mrguyorama wrote: | I had the same false information. It either came from the Sub | Brief guy himself, or whoever he used as a source. He | explicitly stated that the sub had only been tested down to | between 3000 and 4000 meters, not the full 4000 meters. As | other links show, this seems to have been incorrect. | postalrat wrote: | How would droppingb it to the bottom found the issue? The | theory is that each dive reduced the integrity of the ship and | eventually it would fail. Could be 10 or it could be 10,000 | drops. And that number would be different if you built a second | ship. How many tests do you do? | aleph_minus_one wrote: | > The theory is that each dive reduced the integrity of the | ship and eventually it would fail. Could be 10 or it could be | 10,000 drops. | | It is already of high value to know whether the number is | more like 10 or 10,000. | | > And that number would be different if you built a second | ship. | | That is why you build the second ship either as similar as | possible to the first one or in a way for which there exists | evidence that it will have an improved integrity over the | first. | post-it wrote: | They did previously visit the Titanic in the sub, so they may | very well have had a guy | | > witness a successful dive to 4000 meters, inspect the vessel | before and after the dive, and provide a Statement of Fact | attesting to the completion of the dive test plan | JohnMakin wrote: | This is such a clear fallacy right from the get go. "This thing | doesn't completely solve the problem, therefore, we will not do | it." | | So many people fall for this or talk in such terms like it's | perfectly reasonable and it always baffles me. You see it in | political discussion a lot. | LeftHandPath wrote: | See the nirvana fallacy: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy | | It happens a lot. I think it's one of the big reasons that | hyped-up video games and movies always disappoint. | anyfoo wrote: | It's even worse. The "thing that doesn't completely solve the | problem" might have actually solved the biggest problem for | classed vessels, that's why they don't see it as a problem in | the first place. | RajT88 wrote: | > You see it in political discussion a lot. | | In political discussions, it's because that's what people do | when they don't want to plainly state their real reasons for | opposition. | [deleted] | post-it wrote: | > However, this does not mean that OceanGate does meet standards | where they apply, | | A typo laden with prophecy. | warkdarrior wrote: | I do not think it was a typo. | cobaltoxide wrote: | Did they take their website offline? Or did it, uh... collapse | under load? | rossjudson wrote: | probably too soon for that one | cobaltoxide wrote: | Serious question though. Doesn't look very good if they | intentionally took the website offline. | AHOHA wrote: | It probably had a lot promises and news agencies will be | "highlighting" those for the next decade, so better just | take it down in the meantime. | ineedasername wrote: | Strange that they use SpaceX as an example. Titan used manned | missions as they "tested" their designs commercially. Had SpaceX | done the same they would have killed a lot of people. | [deleted] | qwertox wrote: | OceanGate vs Lochridge [0] is an interesting lawsuit which may | interest some of the readers here. | | It doesn't matter into which page you scroll, all things you get | to read are related to concerns of the security of the sub. Ok, | it basically starts at page 9, all before it is legalese | bootstrapping. | | > Defendant David Lochridge has extensive background as a | submarine pilot and training of the same [...] Underwater | Inspector, and trained to recognize flaw and points out failure | in subsea equipment | | > May 2015 [...] began working with OceanGate as an independent | contractor | | > As a part of his job duties, Lochridge was the Director of | Marine Operations and was tasked with "ensuring the safety of all | crew and clients during submesible and surface operations." | | > Issues of quality control with the new submersible Titan were | raised, as there were evident flaws throughout the build process | [...] | | > Lochridge worked on his report and requested paperword [...] | was met with hostility and denial of access to the necessary | documentation. | | > Lochridge first expressed verbal concerns over the safety and | quality control issues regarding the Titan to OceanGate executive | management. These verbal communications were ignored. | | And so on. | | [0] | https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23854184-oceangate-v... | [deleted] | quickthrower2 wrote: | Wow you could almost paste that verbatim into a wikipedia bias | article. | adamredwoods wrote: | I'm sure Ocean Gate is scrambling to NDA all employees, but at | some point someone will speak up, and we'll get a better picture | if the Titan was indeed routinely inspected for safety. | TazeTSchnitzel wrote: | It's not classed because nobody would have signed off on it with | the level of testing they had done. Carbon fibre reinforced | polymers don't have a defined fatigue limit, so stress cycle | failure can't be ruled out, and it's difficult to estimate how | much a design based around that material can endure. To get | certified, OceanGate would have had to do destructive endurance | testing on a replica hull, but they only proved it could survive | a single dive! Their more serious competitors wouldn't dare take | that risk. | quickthrower2 wrote: | Having read enough plain crash stories, first thing I though of | was material fatigue. Like in the early days fan blades | snapping off jet engines causing catastrophic failure after so | many takeoffs. Now they have to inspect these closely in | manufacturing and during maintenance cycles. Wouldn't surprise | me if they use ML now as it seemed a difficult human | observation task. | | The stress/unstress cycle of a vessel going that deep must be | immense. | paulddraper wrote: | I recall first learning of "material fatigue" though the | fictional movie No Highway in the Sky (1951) [1] | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Highway_in_the_Sky | cbzoiav wrote: | > The vast majority of marine (and aviation) accidents are a | result of operator error, not mechanical failure. | | Could that be because the vast majority of mechanical designs go | through processes designed to validate them and catch flaws? | | They also use SpaceX as an example. SpaceX ran a large number of | unmanned launches to prove out the design before putting people | on board. Several of those ended in loss of the vehicle and the | data from that was used to refine. | gilney wrote: | https://xkcd.com/1827/ | justrealist wrote: | I think the point is that while SpaceX had a lot of | explosions, they fundamentally approached rocket development | very responsibly as regards to human risk. It's not about | observation bias. | ajross wrote: | That's exactly it. If OceanGate had build and dropped a few | dozen of these hulls empty, as many times as needed to reach | failure, whatever design flaw caused the implosion almost | certainly would have been noticed. It's the hubris of diving in | what amounts to a prototype that's at issue here, not any | fundamental technical mistake. | rossjudson wrote: | I think a smaller N number of _more dives_ would yield better | results. Down, up, down up...repeat _until failure_. | | In parallel do it with another hull at the same time. Or | maybe more than one. Compare. | | Testing to failure is a nice option because it finds certain | types of unwelcome surprises. | | But it's not really complete, either -- there are probably a | lot of ways that a submersible can be compromised, and | there's no way to be sure _what_ caused this particular | failure. | cbzoiav wrote: | The debris may yield significant clues. Those may then be | able to be validated with independent testing rather than | requiring a full vehicle. | throwanem wrote: | Not even a prototype! More like a structural test article. | hadlock wrote: | The design flaw was that they used a construction material | strong in tension, but weak in compression. For a task that | is almost entirely compression. On a vehicle that has no need | for weight savings. Also in a couple photos looks like they | have drilled and screwed a monitor mount directly into the | pressure vessel, creating future failure points, rather than | gluing a piece of plywood to the hull and screwing into that, | which is standard procedure. | mustacheemperor wrote: | >On a vehicle that has no need for weight savings | | Most deep sea submersibles only seat a couple people, which | wouldn't work for the 'titanic tourism carnival ride' | business model. I would guess the weight savings were | intended to enable a sub with more capacity that could | still be winched on and off the support ship without more | complex/expensive heavy lifting equipment. | cactusplant7374 wrote: | It had already been down quite a few times. Do you mean 100's | of drops? Although, couldn't they just leave it at the bottom | for a month and see if it implodes? | pengaru wrote: | > Although, couldn't they just leave it at the bottom for a | month and see if it implodes? | | No, cyclic stresses are a different animal altogether. | | But considering it's just a matter of attaching ballast to | sink it, dropping ballast to raise it, there's nothing | preventing cyclic testing vs. static @ max depth over the | same duration. | | It seems obvious to me that you'd want to burn through a | few test hulls characterizing the fatigue limits and | verifying they are at least consistent hull-to-hull with a | deterministic failure point you can plan for retiring | before approaching. | | You just need resources to burn on destroying enough hulls | for the data. | | And there's a rub there; as you inform the process via | destructive iteration, odds are you'll first find the | manufacturing process isn't even controlled/consistent | enough to make progress on answering the "so how many | cycles before go boom boom?" question until you've gone | through a good chunk of runway figuring out how to even | make it properly multiple times. | cactusplant7374 wrote: | Each time they go down they have to jettison some waste | to return to the surface? | pengaru wrote: | I'm no sub nerd but it seems obvious that unless you can | otherwise alter your buoyancy somehow, your only option | is to drop weights. | | I think submarines use ballast tanks they flood with sea | water and empty with pumps to vary their buoyancy. Titan | had none of that complexity AIUI, and multiple articles I | read mentioned dropping "ascent weights". | Gwypaas wrote: | You can use compressed air. The COPV Spacex uses for tank | pressurization are rated higher than the Titanic depth. | And as depth increases the differential decreases. | | So you really only care about their structural integrity | at the surface. | UniverseHacker wrote: | This is a really good point... from what I've seen they | estimated the strength with Finite Element Analysis in | Solidworks, and went for a ~2x margin of safety. There | seems to have been no attempt to experimentally determine | the expected number of load cycles to failure, they only | considered the theoretical case of a perfectly flawless | composite with no wear and tear. | ShroudedNight wrote: | Is 2x abstractly reasonable in this context? My [probably | flawed] understanding in contexts such as hoisting is | that safety margins of 5x are considered a bare minimum. | Even crappy "Don't use this to lift things" chain is sold | with 3x margins. | UniverseHacker wrote: | Yes, I don't know what the norm is in submarines, but I | don't really trust simple engineering models, and think | at least 5x is what I'd want in almost any context. | | I did see that DeepFlight Challenger, Steve Fossett's | unused/untested carbon fiber sub which used the same | basic design as Titan, was only built to a 1.5x margin of | safety. Experimental tests suggested it was only safe for | a one time use, and shouldn't be used for multiple dives. | cbzoiav wrote: | > You just need resources to burn on destroying enough | hulls for the data. | | Unmanned submersibles have plenty of market value. You | may still be losing money, but you can strap sensors and | cameras to the thing / undercut on price for research | missions and substantially reduce the cash burn while | building investor confidence. | cactusplant7374 wrote: | So Stockton Rush had a lot of options to make money | during extensive testing? He made it sound like the | company would go under. | deelowe wrote: | I thought the deepest it had gone was 3000 meters and | there's no evidence of it even having been tested to 4k. | erik_seaberg wrote: | They had two successful trips to Titanic, and other tests | in the Bahamas. | deelowe wrote: | On the Titan? I thought this particular sub had never | been down that far. | jonathankoren wrote: | So just enough times to weaken the hull through stress | fractures. | | It wasn't rated for the depth. In fact, I think it was | rated for 1000 meters _less_ than the target depth. | foota wrote: | I believe the stresses of the hull going through changing | pressures is relevant. | throw0101a wrote: | > _I believe the stresses of the hull going through | changing pressures is relevant._ | | It certainly does for aircraft, and I doubt the material | science would be much different for subs (with the added | challenge(s) that (salt) water often brings): | | * https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/what- | deter... | | * https://simpleflying.com/pressurization-cycles- | aircraft-life... | erik_seaberg wrote: | Worse, going from 1 atm down to 400 atm of pressure is a | much larger difference than going up to 0.2 atm. | lamontcg wrote: | Definitely does for compressed gas cylinders. | [deleted] | [deleted] | Sporktacular wrote: | That's spot on - it's like survivorship bias. If the majority | of fighter planes returned with bullet holes on their tops, | Oceangate would have armoured the tops. | stickfigure wrote: | The first space shuttle launch was crewed. It ended up with a | ~2% failure rate. The Titan made about 50 dives. So, from a | reliability perspective, on par with the shuttle. | | I posit that half the people on HN would volunteer for a | hypothetical next shuttle flight without thinking twice. | sebzim4500 wrote: | I don't think I'd go on a shuttle, but I would definitely on | a crew dragon and I'd probably go on new shephard (I might | buy a ticket if the price comes down a bit). | | There's no way in hell I'm getting on one of virgin | galactic's death traps, that looks 10 times worse than the | space shuttle. | sacnoradhq wrote: | The Shuttle was driven by USAF "military" needs that didn't | matter. Gliding and maneuvering served zero mission | purpose. It should've reduced horizontal delta v to zero | like a Falcon engine and had an ablation shield. Like many | military-involved projects, it was also far too expensive, | complex, and fragile. These fundamentals made the Shuttle | unnecessarily risky that proved out in its lifecycle. | shadowgovt wrote: | Not me. That thing has a 2% failure rate and I want to live. | cbzoiav wrote: | The shuttle did something nobody had done before and was | viewed as a genuine step forward in human capability. It was | also over 50 years ago and had to rely on technology of the | time - uncrewed tests were much harder to perform. | | This wasn't a particularly ground breaking vehicle in terms | of capability and was taking paying tourists... | wkat4242 wrote: | It also wasn't built with parts from camper world and cheap | Xbox controller knockoffs. | | NASA actually had a strong focus on safety. They just went | about it the wrong way, calculating safety ratings | backwards. | | Considering the pressure vessel of this sub was only meant | to handle 1300m as per another article, the way it survived | 50 dives at 4000m is pretty amazing though. | pdxandi wrote: | Do you have a link to that other article by chance? | stickfigure wrote: | > this sub was only meant to handle 1300m | | There seems to be a lot of confusion around this, let me | try to clear it up. | | The 1300m limit of the glass number comes from an | interview with the "whistleblower" in 2018. That would | mean it refers to the Cyclops 1 vehicle they had then. A | couple years later they built the Cyclops 2, which has | the 5" thick hull, titanium bells, and first dove in | 2021. That's the ill-fated Titan. | | If you pay close attention to the videos floating around | you'll notice two visibly distinct subs - one with a | large transparent dome in front (v1) and one with the | titanium bell and tiny porthole (v2). | spencerflem wrote: | Its a big hackernews meme that NASA spends way too much on | safety/beurocracy instead of innovation. Plenty of other | submarines companies do the same (and get classed). | | I don't think this is a very insightful comparison. | rossjudson wrote: | I have rarely seen large groups of humans be accused of | excessive consistency over time when it comes to matters of | fact and science. | brookst wrote: | Consistency isn't possible at a sufficient level of | context. | | I mean, I light campfires and I put them out. At a level | of reductionism very common in online conversations, I am | totally hypocritical about whether I want a fire or not. | sebzim4500 wrote: | I don't think anyone objects to NASA spending money on | safety for crew. The fact that an uncrewed SLS launch costs | $4B is insane by any standard. | programd wrote: | Space Shuttle - "a ~2% failure rate" | | Which incidentally was exactly what the engineering studies | predicted while it was being designed. Which really says | something about the quality of engineering analysis which | went into creating the Shuttle. | | For reference you can nerd out on the following awsome books: | | "Space Shuttle Decision, 1965-1972 (History of the Space | Shuttle, Volume 1)" | | "Development of the Space Shuttle, 1972-1981 (History of the | Space Shuttle, Volume 2)" | proggy wrote: | One of the shuttle missions that resulted in loss of crew was | caused by operating the vehicle outside of the rated | temperature envelope (for the SSB O-rings). If that | requirement was honored, the failure rate could have been | halved. | | The other loss of crew was caused by a genuine oversight in | the design of the system, in that the orbiter was always | susceptible to strikes from insulating foam falling from the | external tank. | | Unlike Titan, neither one of these failures were due to the | inevitable cyclic wear of the primary pressure vessel. They | were both devils hiding in the details, neither one the | result of reckless hubris. | | OceanGate full on admitted that its carbon fiber hull, a | major red flag component at the center of its design, was | highly experimental and did not know exactly when it would | fail. They foolishly thought that strain gauges would detect | issues well in advance of failure, while completely ignoring | how immediately and catastrophically composite structures are | known to fail. They recklessly sold tickets to fund their | experimental craft, inviting people aboard who were | definitely not made fully aware of just how flawed the design | was up front. These were _not_ all members of the Explorers | Club -- a former head writer for the Simpsons went on a dive, | for goodness' sake. | | So to return back to your point, I'd rather take a shuttle | after a few dozen flights than get inside a Titan II after a | few dozen dives. | [deleted] | foota wrote: | Why go on the shuttle when you can go on the dragon? | sacnoradhq wrote: | Cargo culting mixed with arrogance. Darwin Award achieved. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | > OceanGate's submersibles are the only known vessels to use | real-time (RTM) hull health monitoring. With this RTM system, we | can determine if the hull is compromised well before situations | become life-threatening, and safely return to the surface. This | innovative safety system is not currently covered by any classing | agency. | | > No other submersible currently utilizes real-time monitoring to | monitor hull health during a dive. We want to know why. Classed | subs are only required to undergo depth validation every three | years, whereas our RTM system validates the integrity of the hull | on each and every dive. | | Completely, completely bizarro in my opinion. I'll take the hull | that is proven to actually withstand the pressures it was | designed for over some system that gives me a heads up before I | get crushed to death. | | Related question for those more knowledgeable. I always thought | the primary benefit of carbon fiber was tensile strength. I don't | even understand how it could sufficiently resist the compressive | pressures at the bottom of the ocean - it is a fiber after all. | Edit: After seeing the comments below about James Cameron, | apparently I'm not alone. From James Cameron's Wikipedia page: | "He was also critical of the use of carbon-fiber composite in the | company's Titan submersible, stating that the material has "no | strength in external compression" when withstanding the pressure | in deep sea environments." | hotpotamus wrote: | Honestly, the "real time health monitoring" felt like almost | every tech "innovation" over the last decade or so - a half- | baked excuse not to do things correctly. And when you can't | switch your lights on because the cloud is down, it's | inconvenient, but clearly the results of applying this thinking | to critical safety are self-evident. | ummonk wrote: | The epoxy in carbon fiber makes it stiff. Stiffness helps | reduce buckling loads. | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | Truly bizarre. Failures like this happen in milliseconds, it | doesn't matter how realtime your realtime monitoring is. | | I'm not arguing in favor of the classification system, but, I | think if you went to them and framed things as simply as they | are here "you require validation every 3 years, we're doing it | on every single dive" they would say "that's more than once per | 3 years, APPROVED!" so the situation is clearly far more | complicated than they are indicating. | UniverseHacker wrote: | Yes, I don't understand this acoustic monitoring concept... | I'm curious what the logic behind it was. It just doesn't | seem like there would be enough time to take action once the | monitor starts to detect failure. | jnwatson wrote: | It depends on the material. It might work for certain tours | of steel, since the failure state is gradual. | | Carbon fiber, however, is not known to gradually fail. | mustacheemperor wrote: | It seems they felt this was one of the novel innovations | that enabled this design - that the monitoring system was | so good, they'd never be at risk in the pressure hull at | depth. | | James Cameron said it looks like they had dropped their | emergency ascent ballast before the implosion, so they may | have gotten enough warning to take action. But I would | guess that system was never tested to failure in real life. | | It will be interesting to see which of the novel | innovations supposedly enabling this unconventional design | failed, if it can be determined. Rush also lampshaded the | fact that his company had "successfully" bonded the | titanium endcaps to carbon fiber despite that being | contradictory to conventional materials science wisdom, | reading the patent for the monitoring system it looks like | it may have been intended to provide warning about those | bonds failing too. | UniverseHacker wrote: | It seems like it would be trivial to test how much early | warning such a system gives by bringing smaller/cheaper | test hulls to failure, either in the ocean, or in a | pressure testing chamber. I wonder if they did that? | learn_more wrote: | I too am perplexed. Perhaps the compressive strength is all | derived from the epoxy not from the carbon fiber. | UniverseHacker wrote: | Yes, this doesn't make sense to me either. I suppose it could | help prevent bucking and crack propagation, because as the | walls of the sub started to bend, one side would have to | suddenly be in tension? Still, I wonder if a pure | plastic/epoxy hull would have actually been stronger than | composite in this situation. | ReptileMan wrote: | const int well_before_in_milliseconds = 50; | cbzoiav wrote: | The craft survived several launches - that proved it can do it. | | Whether it can do it reliably / survive fatigue accross | repeated cycles is a different question. Imagine we'll find out | as the investigation progresses. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | > The craft survived several launches - that proved it can do | it. | | Exactly, that's my point. I didn't realize that (this present | catastrophe notwithstanding) that carbon fiber could even | begin to have such compressive strength. How is the fiber | formed in such a way to maintain that strength? | jackmott42 wrote: | align layers of fibers in different directions and you can | get strength in different directions. But it is tricky! The | glue holding the metal end caps to the carbon tube is also | a possible failure point. Imagine a metal ring slid over a | carbon tube held on with glue. If pressure deforms the | metal differently than the carbon, you get a gap at the | interface and BOOM | | or if sea water degrades the glue, or if the carbon fiber | degrades after each trip and eventually isn't strong enough | any more, etc. | Alupis wrote: | A point raised by James Cameron (and others) was the | titanium bands mated to the carbon fiber hull. Apparently | in the material science community, that's a huge no-no, | and a well known one to boot. Galvanic corrosion or | something like that... | Alupis wrote: | James Cameron gave an interview where he claimed the carbon | fiber hull concept was tested by a team competing to get down | to Challenger Deep at the same time his team was - and the | concept failed in testing. He also claimed many within the | deep submersible community wrote letters to OceanGate warning | them their plan was flawed and would result in catastrophic | loss. | | Specifically, the failure mode was delamination. | | I can't vouch for how credible this all is - but, given how | much disregard the OceanGate team had for safety, it doesn't | seem too far fetched. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9YB31ElEFQ | cbzoiav wrote: | Challenger Deep is exponentially more difficult than this - | 10km Vs 4km so over double the pressure. | | While it may still be an entirely unsuitable material for | 4km, not being suitable for 10km doesn't prove that. | hn_throwaway_99 wrote: | That was a great interview IMO, thanks for posting. I think | some people might find it hard to both convey sympathy and | compassion for the deceased and their families as well as | being adamant that the submersible design was nuts | (especially since the man primarily responsible died), but | I think Cameron in particular did that very well. | distrill wrote: | i think we found out when it imploded | [deleted] | AdamJacobMuller wrote: | As far as I'm aware, and please correct me if I'm wrong, they | had never dove to this depth before. | | So, sure, it was launched before and recovered, but it never | experienced the same conditions which caused the failure. | mjb wrote: | They did: http://web.archive.org/web/20200814020351/https:/ | /www.oceang... | | (At least twice, and probably more times). | larrywright wrote: | I saw someone on Twitter suggest that this was probably | WHY it failed this time. Each dive would weaken it. | sitic wrote: | Apparently it's at least 13 dives since 2021: | https://www.geekwire.com/2022/beyond-the-titanic- | oceangates-... | [deleted] | ineedasername wrote: | >Whether it can do it reliably / survive fatigue accross | repeated cycles is a different question. Imagine we'll find | out as the investigation progresses. | | Seems like we already found out the answer is "no". The | overall ship design failed. | jfk13 wrote: | We already found out, I think. | someweirdperson wrote: | Maybe some orcas played with it. | advael wrote: | What a profoundly stupid take by a profoundly irresponsible | company. This is a great example of why you should consider | anything a company says about itself to be marketing, and treat | it with commensurate skepticism. | | "We're so innovative we don't have time for safety regulations" - | An idiot, destined to harm someone unless pure dumb luck causes | their company to fail first | aleph_minus_one wrote: | Rather: for every customer who slightly informs himself, it | should be insanely obvious that signing up might be quite | dangerous (with a risk that is likely very hard to actually | measure - this is a huge red flag for any risk-averse person). | | So if you neverthess sign up, you are _very_ aware that things | might go insanely wrong (and there is actually a _very | realistic_ probability of dying). So you really know what you | are up to. | advael wrote: | The linked article is very clearly an attempt to persuade its | reader that the lack of classing (IE verification of safety | by an external auditor) is less of an issue than they might | otherwise think. Your advice to a reader of this article is | rational here, but I think it's worth also pointing out that | the article is meant to persuade said reader to not think | that way | aleph_minus_one wrote: | Perhaps this might be a cultural issue (I am not a US- | American citizen), but to me your quote | | > "We're so innovative we don't have time for safety | regulations" | | reads like "to offer an innovative service which would | otherwise not possible, we exchanged known risks (what | safety regulations are for to capture and mitigate) for | much more unknown risks". | | As I wrote: "risks that are likely very hard to actually | measure are a huge red flag for any risk-averse person" | (and most people are risk-averse), so every customer should | be perfectly aware for what he signs up. | | This is like a financial adviser who offers a highly | innovative finance product with a risk profile that is hard | to measure because of its novelty, which the advisor | clearly tells. There _do_ exist customers for which such a | product is a good choice (say risk-affine, novelty-seeking | ones), but such customers are perfectly aware what they are | up to. | AlbertCory wrote: | > We're so innovative | | what I'm wondering is: what's the incentive to be "innovative" | in the first place? Unless "innovation" is an end in itself. | | Is there some great unmet need to send people to extreme | depths, especially when unmanned probes can do most necessar | work nowadays? | qayxc wrote: | > Is there some great unmet need to send people to extreme | depths, especially when unmanned probes can do most necessar | work nowadays? | | Two reasons: 1) they had plenty of paying customers, so there | was a demand | | 2) the CEO wanted to be remembered as an innovator, views | this as being an explorer, and wanted to inspire people (he | said so in interviews) | c-hendricks wrote: | > "I'd like to be remembered as an innovator," Rush said in | the 2-year-old YouTube interview. "I think it was Gen. | MacArthur said, 'You're remembered for the rules you | break.' And, you know, I've broken some rules to make this. | I think I've broken them with logic and good engineering | behind me, the carbon fiber and titanium -- there's a rule | you don't do that. Well, I did." | | And see what happens? | advael wrote: | The only "unmet needs" such an endeavor need care about is | convincing a deep-pocketed investor | AlbertCory wrote: | Exactly. One could make the same claim about space tourism, | but that one has _some_ rational justification at least. I | don 't see a great benefit in having cheaper deep-water | subs. | tspike wrote: | What's the rational justification for space tourism? | blamazon wrote: | Related reading - "Vigor's Black Box Theory" [1] | | [1]: https://www.usps.org/durham/Bullhorns/vigor.htm | rossjudson wrote: | Interesting. I'd say that for systems, defense-in-depth usually | relies on various forms of maintenance, and consistent effort | to maintain functional parity in redundancies. In other words, | just _having_ a redundancy or secondary system is not enough. | There 's a lot of care and feeding when a secondary uses a | _different method_ of achieving the same ends as the primary. | That requires effort -- which is all too often skipped or falls | out of common knowledge. | [deleted] | lsy wrote: | What strikes me is that this all sounds like bluster and | prevarication around safety, rather than a situation where the | safety has actually been thought through. This blog post also | doesn't have any kind of links or references to any more in-depth | discussion and ultimately seems even on the surface as though it | would fall apart under scrutiny. For instance it's quite obvious | that the reason the majority of accidents are the result of | operator error is because mechanical failures are rare precisely | due to classing and other forms of regulation. It does very | little good to have "high-level operational safety" if the vessel | you are in catastrophically implodes due to mechanical failure. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-06-23 23:00 UTC)