this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
417 points (97.5% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3168 users here now

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


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 178 points 3 months ago (10 children)

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.

[–] rob_t_firefly@lemmy.world 69 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 29 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] Tricky@lemmy.world 24 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Greg@lemmy.ca 66 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes but with this sub the water was on the inside too

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Electrical cables inside submarines?

That's hardcore.

[–] gedhrel@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Have you seen pictures of the sub? What makes you think the wiring was all hidden?

[–] kurcatovium@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It looked worse than cheapest capsule hotel ever built...

I'm mildly claustrophobic and I would have troubles going in that tube even on mainland.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

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

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 40 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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."

[–] buttfarts@lemy.lol 10 points 3 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

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)

[–] chatokun@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] piecat@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 16 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also, these materials compress at different rates.

An off the shelf controller wasn't a terrible idea, but of course it was blue tooth and had pairing issues on previous trips

[–] trougnouf@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

F710 does not support bluetooth

[–] a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No, but it supports wireless using 2.4ghz with an usb receiver. it does not support a wired connection at all.

https://www.logitechg.com/en-eu/products/gamepads/f710-wireless-gamepad.940-000145.html

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It may be 2.4ghz but it isn't compatible with anything else anywhere and the range is terrible. Like as in if you are more than 2 feet from the receiver it will random spaz.

even bluetooth has pairing issues to this day lol

but i agree, bluetooth range and reliability has improved tremendously in the last years.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

It's connection is proprietary and terrible with near zero range. It's objectively worse than bluetooth

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

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.

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Scrollone@feddit.it 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Wow. That's creepy in a fascinating way. Cutting corners costs lives, and this is a perfect example.

[–] llii@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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/

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

it was build into the train by the train manufacturer.

What makes you think the train manufacturer did it? Is that on record someplace? Because the installation and materials don't look at all like the surrounding work. Looks more like a handyman hack job. Now that I've seen the photos, I'm curious about what actually happened there.

[–] a_wild_mimic_appears@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

It was not the train manufacturer, but a body shop (Swoboda Karosserie- und Stahlbau GesmbH, now Carvatech), which was recruited by the Gletscherbahn Kaprun (GBK) for renovations. It might have not had so large repercussions if anyone of the actors during those renovations had done his job correctly tho:

  • the model chosen was for household use and chosen because the recommended fan heater was unavailable
  • other departments of Swoboda (and because of that, everyone else) were not informed about this change, even leading to sending out the documentation of the recommended fan heater to GBK
  • the fan heater was mounted in a way that allowed liquids to leak inside of it
  • it was mounted directly in front of the hydraulics, which contained flammable liquids
  • those hydraulics were redone during the renovations by Mannesmann-Rexroth AG (now Bosch Rexroth AG), and were done using plastic pipes and were not appropriately encased.
  • They started melting because of the malfunctioning heater, spraying flammable oil at 190 bar into the fire
  • the dropping oil pressure caused the train to automatically break
  • but the hydraulics were also needed to open the goddamn doors.

On top of all that, because the cable cars were made of aluminium, they were deemed inflammable. This did not take into account that any installed equipment or passengers and their luggage might NOT be fireproof.

This lead to: no fire exits, no emergency signage, no training for employees how to react in case of fire. (which might have saved a lot of people: the 12 survivors were the people who went downwards, passing the fire, because they listened to a fireman onboard the cable car.)

it was a single malfunctioning heater, but the Kaprun disaster had many fathers.

I found a nice paper regarding the different actors written by a student of the University of Virginia here, well sourced.

[–] mox@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 3 months ago

Very informative. Thank you!

[–] llii@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I need to cite the German Wikipedia article, which I’ve read. It’s a good read and very long.

Abschließend wurde festgehalten: „Als Ergebnis der Ermittlungen der Staatsanwaltschaft Heilbronn lässt sich feststellen, dass sich das Unglück am 11. November 2000 hätte vermeiden lassen können, wenn seitens der Fa. Swoboda fahrzeuggeeignete Heizlüfter eingebaut worden wären, die es auf dem Markt gab.“

[–] pixely@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

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

[–] BastingChemina@slrpnk.net 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] Angry_Autist@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

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.

[–] auzy@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Weren't they using it wirelessly too?

At the very least, maybe use a Xbox elite controller

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago

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

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] buttfarts@lemy.lol 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

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.