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..