You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments
171 points

Since the story came out people fixated on “lol he used a shitty gaming controller” but really that is one of the least sketchy design choices in the entire rig. Why reinvent the wheel and make a custom set of controls that are realistically another huge expense and potential failure point, when off the shelf solutions exist for that component?

The corners that were cut are the ones involving the viewport/nose adhesion to the ships frame, and the structural integrity of the carbon fiber hull itself. They had test data suggesting it was a bad idea to engage in repeated dives with their design, and an even worse idea to operate at the depths they chose. They decided to ignore that.

permalink
report
reply
67 points

That doesn’t explain why they used the wireless version of that Logitech instead of wired to control the thing they were literally inside.

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

To be fair, they’re under water and sharks have been known to chew through electrical cables

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

I suspect the wired cabling would be to control components inside the sub, not outside. And I say that only because it’s unlikely that wireless signals would penetrate the sub walls.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Electrical cables inside submarines?

That’s hardcore.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

they were building for billionaire pleasure trips, they’d HAVE to go with the no-wires aesthetic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
40 points

From what I can tell the lawsuit (which is against Ocean Gate, not Logitech) is really just calling out the controller as another example of willfully negligent behaviour.

You’re certainly correct that the actual cause of the failure was the carbon fibre hull. Just a terrible idea on so many levels. Carbon fibre, by its nature, is good under tension, not compression. It was never going to function well as a pressure vessel underwater.

There were a litany of terrible decisions made by Ocean Gate, such as not tethering the sub, because it was cheaper to launch it from a towed raft, but none of those bad decisions ultimately mattered once that pressure vessel failed. Those people were dead so fast that, to quote Scott Manley, “You go from being biology to being physics.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

You can always bring a second controller for redundancy. I would bet money the game controller had zero impact on the failure and I hate all the shade being thrown on this innocent controller.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

That game controller has terrible range, zero compatibility with any other device, and randomly adds inputs when the controller is more than 2 feet away from the receiver. It is reasonable to consider if uncontrolled movement contributed to the implosion, or a loss of control at a critical moment preventing return to the surface.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

In the context of the lawsuit it’s definitely a valid thing to bring up, mostly because it helps you tell the story to the jury. But yeah, in practice it probably didn’t represent much of a hazard on its own (though it almost certainly wasn’t fire rated)

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Having tried to use those, my main issue was the 710 is an unreliable 2.4ghz wireless, when bluetooth controllers all worked much better for me. I couldn’t get the 710 to have reliable button presses from more than like 4 feet from my pc, so I ended up just using the 310 wired. Maybe there isn’t enough interference on the sub for that to be an issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

There’s going to be no external interference when you’re under water. Sea water makes an excellent em shield

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

True, but that’s hardly an endorsement for their safety. Wireless should never be used for critical life support equipment. It is mind bogglingly stupid they did this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Wasnt the carbon fiber body rated for like, 1/3rd the depth that they dove to?

It was very NASA O-Ring vibes. “We did it once, so we can do it every time” at least until they cant anymore, and that cant is usually accompanied by regret and poor innocent people being salsafied.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Carbon fiber wasn’t rated for any depth. It’s shit for compression and you don’t need light materials for a submersible.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

No, you’re right… I think it was the winshield bubble that was rated for 1/3rd the depth? I know something was rated for a far shallower depth than what the dumbass CEO made the sub repeatedly go to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

Using commercial off the shelf technology without proper testing and certification is absolutely cutting corners. See: Kaprun disaster.

What kind of fire rating did those COTS parts throughout the interior of the vessel have? What kind of redundancy existed? Would you use a Logitech controller for a spacecraft? The requirements of deep sea submersibles and spacecraft are quite similar. Would any of the submersible certification agencies approved this? I think not.

I see the Logitech controller, the carbon fiber hull, and so many other decisions he made as symptoms of the same corner cutting, “move fast and break things” mentality he had.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points
*

Using commercial off the shelf technology without proper testing and certification is absolutely cutting corners. See: Kaprun disaster.

I just read the wikipedia article; thanks for mentioning it.

I’m not sure it’s a good example of your point, though. Notably:

the cause was the failure, overheating and ignition of a fan heater in the conductor’s compartments which was not designed for use in a moving vehicle.

The onboard electric power, hydraulic braking systems, and fan heaters intended for domestic use increased the likelihood of fire.

The fan heater is the only off-the-shelf technology listed here, and there’s no suggestion that it was part of the train’s design. It seems likely that a train conductor brought it on board to keep the compartment warm through the workday. Still a bad idea in a train, especially on a 30° slope, but not an example of the designers cutting corners.

Edit:

Thanks to others for linking photos and a report (in German) that show how the heater was installed. It was clearly not a case of a conductor just setting the heater on the floor, but the installation still looks very much out of place. Perhaps corner-cutting was involved, but this doesn’t look like something done by the train designers. Even an expensive industrial heater seems like it would be an extraordinarily bad idea in that location, right up against high-pressure hydraulic oil lines. Does someone have the details behind it? It looks more likely a (very foolish) modification made by someone else, like maybe the train operators.

For anyone else following this, those hydraulic oil lines that the heater was nearly touching were apparently pressurized at 190 bar, which I think is about 2700 pounds per square inch.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

It’s an example of uncertified consumer grade equipment used in a commercial environment to disastrous results, outside of its original designed purpose. It’s one of the most well known examples of why you don’t use consumer grade hardware in a commercial/industrial setting.

It was not brought on board by the conductor or someone else, it was permanently installed in the train in place of commercial grade heaters they couldn’t source. It was installed in the wall during assembly.

I’d argue it is an example of cutting corners, they didn’t want to find / pay more for commercial grade heaters. It was not compliant with the original design nor fire safety standards.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It was not a train conductor that brought it with him, it was build into the train by the train manufacturer. See this page: https://155.at/der-heizluefter/

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

The requirements of deep sea submersibles and spacecraft are quite similar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Exactly this. When you procure custom hardware, you’re paying (a lot) for the vendor to ensure that each unit meets the specifications you provide. If you validate off the shelf hardware like this, there is no guarantee that another batch of the same sku will also meet your requirements. Imagine training on these controllers then a certain batch of them has wildly different sensitivity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Using off the shelve components is not an issue, even NASA does it but they have very precise procedures on how to select them.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/cots.pdf

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This particular model of controller is notoriously terrible, unreliable, and prone to contact failure. Anyone reading the amazon reviews would know it wasn’t even a good choice as a player2 little brother controller.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Dude, the F710 is legitimately a terrible controller with a tiny range and a manufacture flawed nano receiver. I mean it’s not the steepest corner they cut but you can get a rock solid drone remote with ridiculous range for barely twice the price of an f710.

It was a stupid choice that they actively ignored the results. Like i said, ANYONE who uses this controller for more than an hour will directly experience how terrible it is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Add to that that the carbon fiber and metal nose shrink at different rates under pressure. That adhesive litteraly was being torn apart at depth

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Weren’t they using it wirelessly too?

At the very least, maybe use a Xbox elite controller

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

using a wireless controller to manage life critical functions is the acme of stupidity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

The game controller is not managing life critical functions, that’s called a computer. The game controller plugs into the computer. The great thing about that is that you can bring a second (or even a third) game controller for redundancy.

It’s just that the engineering choices that caused the failure are difficult to understand or communicate in sentence so the game controller is something any idiot can harp on about and sound smart.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

he game controller is not managing life critical functions

oh, it doesn’t control ascent and descent, angle of attack, etc? it’s not used to turn or operate the craft, that’s all ‘done by computer’?

pfft.

bluetooth and other wireless interface protocols aren’t meant for life critical applications. give me a hardwired input - even a game controller - any day when it comes to life or death shit.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 543K

    Comments