The controller isn't under that pressure though.
Titanic submersible confirmed destroyed with loss of all five souls onboard.
- Thread starter danlightbulb
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 May 2006
- Posts
- 7,252
if it turns out the sub is technically fine but human error got it caught up on some debris do you think that would still be the case?
Man of Honour
No shortage of rich people wanting to do stuff like this, even with the risks.
Well obviously the controller isn't under that pressure or they'd be dead. No what I mean is that it's usage as a control interface concisely enforces the idea that the company doesn't give a **** about their passengers which to be fair is a vastly easier assessment to make with all the additional garbage behaviour they've pursued.
Last edited:
Soldato
Yes I do, there is growing evidence being reported in the press of corner cutting and safety advice being ignored. I have a feeling prosecutions may even be brought.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,278
Given you have to be pretty much on top of the thing to see it, which is a very tiny target to hit, I severely doubt it unless they actually had power all the way down.
Soldato
What should they use then? Given a wireless controller was being used because they don't want anything, even wires, going through the hull as it would compromise its integrity. The only option then is a custom wireless controls which, without serious $ spent on R&D, would be worse than an off the shelf game controller.
All the other issues like the window not being rated, the seemingly lack of back up safety etc. are all serious issues. Using an off shelf "consumer grade" (which typically means simpler rather than cheap) is a non-issue.
Edit: missed a word.
Last edited:
Im very much sure theirs a mammoth amount of high industry standrd controllers he could have used. The panel behind the screen is FULL of wires...what hull integreity I wonder does he think he would be talking about?
Im sure that huill was check over sonically EVERY TIME it was at serioious depth with constant epanding cratcing stresses being placed on it.....right?
I guess I'm being unreasonable but when the matter is life or death I'd rather they went the extra mile and understood every inch of their interface through building it themselves, but I'd never opt to risk going down in an 'experimental' craft so it's entirely academic anyway.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 3,561
Bit of an issue if your batteries run out, mind?
Last edited:
I'm just amazed, that there's nothing in the way of an emergency beacon or communications buoy that can pop up and float to the surface, if something goes wrong...
Basically, from what I'm reading/hearing, if anything goes wrong - they're completely lost, there's no way other than basically total pot luck - of them being found.
Also, why the hell is the controller wireless? Could they not have made a proper industrialised controller on a proper lead, I mean - wireless stuff isn't that great, especially bluetooth...
Basically, from what I'm reading/hearing, if anything goes wrong - they're completely lost, there's no way other than basically total pot luck - of them being found.
Also, why the hell is the controller wireless? Could they not have made a proper industrialised controller on a proper lead, I mean - wireless stuff isn't that great, especially bluetooth...
Last edited:
Soldato
The fact a top secret industry that spends $800billion a year didn't design their own controller tells you all you need to know about a) how good modern game controllers actually are and b) the cost to achieve a similar result. Sure there's no lives directly on the line for US drone pilots but equally the US air force aren't going to want drones in enemy hands and especially not because of something as stupid as a controller problem.
As I said, there's lots of serious safety issues to lambast the company for but using a controller isn't one of them.
Yes not sure why everyone is so hung up on the controller. It's probably the most tried and tested component on the entire sub.
Soldato
I don't know why, but I think people/the media are really jumping the gun a bit and it's a fervered witch hunt..
I also think the Owner comes across as an arrogant dreamer, but as I develop life supporting devices for a living and everything I do is extremely regulated with an exemplary best in class safety record (touch wood, zero fatalities attributed to the devices themselves), I just think people are focussed on all the wrong technical aspects at this time, we need actual evidence and less conjecture.
1. I've spoken with some aviation validation engineers about the (presumably) NDT Acoustic Emission Real Time Monitoring of the hull, and whilst I had the same opinion as that guy they fired, that it would only detect a failure milliseconds before it imploded, apparantly that is not true, and Acoustic variants of NDT are increasing becoming more useful, however you need a lot more information about the specific system and methods he has implemented to see how good it is.. so that's not a given it's super short sighted. Actual NDT is done under very strict conditions, the use of similar sensors for RTM is fairly new, but it has some merit..
2. The joystick is almost a meme at this point.. unless we can show that he had no other method of invoking directional control (from the touchscreen itself or any other method), then its a total red herring.. I've outlined why, it if goes wrong, pull the batteries, turn it off and just use the other interface. He states in one of those videos he has spares and the sub is controlled from by the Joystick and the Touchscreen..
3. It's OK to use components not certified for something if you take on the validation, and there have been test dives at depth, I'm sure I heard in the documents they filed to get approval for the trip it had also been in a pressure chamber, and they do say the design intent is 2.25x safety margin (odd since 2.5x is more industry standard IME) which is not too bad.
4. The guy they fired seems to have had many issues, but I can see the premise of the vehicle is using non standard tech, some borrowed from aviation etc, and so someone that is an SME in traditional sub design is going to struggle.. We had a similar issue when innovating a new product that had to do things differently since every product of that type on the market had a serious and dangerous flaw, so we got an industry SME in to help review the design and concept and he threw his toys out the pram simply as he had no idea about the technologies we proposed and effectively wanted us to design the same flawed design as everyone else.. He left under a cloud, and yet we have the product approved for all regions with the best safety record in class (zero infections or fatalities). It took 3 times as long to get approved, the entire concept (simple enough, just rather different) just ran in to the same misunderstandings with every regulatory authority etc, it was painful, but ultimately it's all done now and everyone is trying to copy it.
5. We are ignorant of the architecture, risk analysis and overall safety design and condemning it, but if the sonobuoys signal is indeed them, then all the integrity concerns are not the issue in this case.
6. I'm staggered this thing worked 3 times.. I see a report that last year one of the propulsion motors was fitted the wrong way around and they had to hold the joystick sideways to make the control make sense, but whilst stupid, it did not pose a serious safety concern..
7. Looking at other DSV's like Alvin, that also uses steel ballast which is mechanically dropped to float to the surface.. Using construction pipe for your steel does not seem odd at all to me, steel is steel..
What I do understand though is that the aim of this to provide cost effective (read: cheap) trips to the Titanic and this means it's unorthodox.. If they are still alive and the banging is correct, then I'm actually impressed in some ways, but would still support the notion the approach is flawed and it will be a systematic oversight that in hindsight is rather obvious.. and would not defend that, but a lot of what is going on without actual facts at the moment seems dog piling based on a hearsay and half truths.
I think a lot of what people are saying are hypothesis that are plausible, but do need to be tested/verified..
I also think the Owner comes across as an arrogant dreamer, but as I develop life supporting devices for a living and everything I do is extremely regulated with an exemplary best in class safety record (touch wood, zero fatalities attributed to the devices themselves), I just think people are focussed on all the wrong technical aspects at this time, we need actual evidence and less conjecture.
1. I've spoken with some aviation validation engineers about the (presumably) NDT Acoustic Emission Real Time Monitoring of the hull, and whilst I had the same opinion as that guy they fired, that it would only detect a failure milliseconds before it imploded, apparantly that is not true, and Acoustic variants of NDT are increasing becoming more useful, however you need a lot more information about the specific system and methods he has implemented to see how good it is.. so that's not a given it's super short sighted. Actual NDT is done under very strict conditions, the use of similar sensors for RTM is fairly new, but it has some merit..
2. The joystick is almost a meme at this point.. unless we can show that he had no other method of invoking directional control (from the touchscreen itself or any other method), then its a total red herring.. I've outlined why, it if goes wrong, pull the batteries, turn it off and just use the other interface. He states in one of those videos he has spares and the sub is controlled from by the Joystick and the Touchscreen..
3. It's OK to use components not certified for something if you take on the validation, and there have been test dives at depth, I'm sure I heard in the documents they filed to get approval for the trip it had also been in a pressure chamber, and they do say the design intent is 2.25x safety margin (odd since 2.5x is more industry standard IME) which is not too bad.
4. The guy they fired seems to have had many issues, but I can see the premise of the vehicle is using non standard tech, some borrowed from aviation etc, and so someone that is an SME in traditional sub design is going to struggle.. We had a similar issue when innovating a new product that had to do things differently since every product of that type on the market had a serious and dangerous flaw, so we got an industry SME in to help review the design and concept and he threw his toys out the pram simply as he had no idea about the technologies we proposed and effectively wanted us to design the same flawed design as everyone else.. He left under a cloud, and yet we have the product approved for all regions with the best safety record in class (zero infections or fatalities). It took 3 times as long to get approved, the entire concept (simple enough, just rather different) just ran in to the same misunderstandings with every regulatory authority etc, it was painful, but ultimately it's all done now and everyone is trying to copy it.
5. We are ignorant of the architecture, risk analysis and overall safety design and condemning it, but if the sonobuoys signal is indeed them, then all the integrity concerns are not the issue in this case.
6. I'm staggered this thing worked 3 times.. I see a report that last year one of the propulsion motors was fitted the wrong way around and they had to hold the joystick sideways to make the control make sense, but whilst stupid, it did not pose a serious safety concern..
7. Looking at other DSV's like Alvin, that also uses steel ballast which is mechanically dropped to float to the surface.. Using construction pipe for your steel does not seem odd at all to me, steel is steel..
What I do understand though is that the aim of this to provide cost effective (read: cheap) trips to the Titanic and this means it's unorthodox.. If they are still alive and the banging is correct, then I'm actually impressed in some ways, but would still support the notion the approach is flawed and it will be a systematic oversight that in hindsight is rather obvious.. and would not defend that, but a lot of what is going on without actual facts at the moment seems dog piling based on a hearsay and half truths.
I think a lot of what people are saying are hypothesis that are plausible, but do need to be tested/verified..
Soldato
So we are saying its Blizzards fault as he was up playing D4 all night before the dive and the pad wasn't fully recharged?
Last edited:
I think you're talking about the desert hawk III drone, which is a small UAV - which I think does use something like a game controller, but it's only a very small thing.
However, the "proper" drones, which costs $Millions such as the MQ-9, use a virtual cockpit with a very expensive HOTAS setup, to mimic flying a plane, I think it uses a small controller - but overall, it's a very expensive system,
Associate
no idea if it's been mentioned but all i can think about is film story line...
only one found alive rest murdered to save o2... that survivor was running out of food so had to eat the others.
I do worry about myself at times
only one found alive rest murdered to save o2... that survivor was running out of food so had to eat the others.
I do worry about myself at times