188
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2023
188 points (94.3% liked)
News
36086 readers
3064 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not a new unproven technology, there's no "data to help future submersible". They CAN make it safe, they're ADVISED to make it safe, they're PROTESTED to make it safe.
But they CHOOSE not to because it's cheaper.
Everyone in-the-know knew it was bad and unsafe and will probably ended in tragedy. They speak up, they protest, and they got punished by the one in charge.
Really
You really want me to think that engineers won't find it useful at all
In some cases that's exactly what happens. This was a known scenario and the failure was predictable.
It would have been different if they followed all industry standards and the sub still failed - that would produce valuable data that could contribute to making our understanding of the science, as well as prevailing industry standards, better.
In cases like this you can gather all the remains and data you want, and analyse it, but only if you want to confirm what we already know - reproducing observations and confirming hypothesis is an important part of science, but everything costs money, and at some point you need to triage the studies you want to put money into.
They can still learn something from the materials by looking at how it failed (mostly because the frequency of tests of larger objects at these pressures is limited), but there's not likely going to be anything surprising, just another data point to help calibrate some material science formulas
Everyone knows exactly how it failed.
They used GLUE to stick carbon fiber to titanium.
All three of those components behave very different under pressure.
Every engineer warned them against the use of carbon fiber and the bonehead CEO insisted because he liked it.
It's literally an ego trip that got 5 people killed.
Obviously it would fail, yes, but where the failure started and how it propagated can still be interesting. There's a reason new car models get crash tested, you still want to double check the simulation results. Submarines don't usually get crush tested because they're built with huge safety margins instead, bigger margins than you can put in cars
What are you even talking about?
There is no technically beneficial reason to using carbon fiber in a submarine hull. It won't happen again, and it shouldn't have happened in the first place.
It's like making a car out of Swiss cheese, it's just pointless.
The data is not important.
Do you think the only place it would be useful is for other submarines? It's still materials science. Any place those same materials are used could in theory benefit (again, probably not anything notable, but data on how it behaves in extreme circumstances can be useful anyway)
Not the guy you replied to, but... Yeah? There's not a lot of valuable data in that wreckage to be gained. At least not any data that wasn't already anticipated, known about, or already tested prior. Like the previous guy said, a multitude of experts said it was a bad idea. People who worked for the company and spoke up about the issues where fired.
The entire internet mocked the situation because the man had the hubris to think he knew better than decades of scientific and engineering testing and safety of the materials being used. Many engineers even sent letters to the guy telling him to not use certain materials because they are and have been known and proven to fail at the types of pressures, temperatures, and environment he wanted to take them too.
The only valuable data that I can even image being in that wreckage is figuring out what exactly failed first, the window that wasn't rated for that pressure. Or the carbon nanotube hull that engineers already knew would fail since carbon nanotubes are not good at repeated exposure to stress and microfractures and breakages.
There really isn't that much data to be gathered here that hasn't already been tested and proven multitudes of times before. Except maybe seeing how well the game controller held up if they can even find it
I mean kind of... it's like trying to make a kamikazi plane safer. Literally everyone with a shred of knowlege knew it was going to fail and told him, he just did't listen.
It sounded to me like it was more of arrogance ('I know better than everybody else') than cost cutting. Although the part about not getting the design certified was probably for cost cutting and time saving reasons.