OceanGate submarine disappears at bottom of ocean

There is also what could be called model hubris (a map is not the territory). Traditional manufacture is based upon experiments and experience. Most graduates today rely on computer models to build everything. These models are useful as a first step even with tolerancing, because some parameters (and assumptions) are approximate and need refinement through experiments if the thing being built is delicate. For instance, there are approximate models for material fatigue, but in the end, competent industries do the experiments: they take the material through cycles of stress (exceeding the expected ranges of operation) and see how different batches evolve through time. One of my favorite books in a certain area of engineering, made by a veteran in the field, contains a chapter of bloopers on how millions of dollars were lost because some small details were ignored or neglected. Fortunately none of these examples cost lives. Practical know-how (techne knowledge) cannot be taught in theory at a university or through a textbook, which is why people who have gone through learning from practical mistakes are invaluable. In an era of de-industrialization (and 3d-printers), such a know-how becomes rare, and maybe someday some of it will just disappear, until new errors are made again.
That brings to me the memory of Elizabeth Anne Holmes blood test scam.

From wikipedia:
Elizabeth Anne Holmes (born February 3, 1984) is an American former biotechnology entrepreneur who, in 2022, was convicted of fraud in connection to her blood-testing company, Theranos.[2] The company's valuation soared after it claimed to have revolutionized blood testing by developing methods that needed only very small volumes of blood, such as from a fingerprick.[

Some said at the time that among the people who invested in this where smart and wealthy people from the tech world or something.

This kind of people, however smart might they be, to put it simply, spend to much time in front of there computer and lack the common sense that they could acquire "IRL".
 
This kind of people, however smart might they be, to put it simply, spend to much time in front of there computer and lack the common sense that they could acquire "IRL".
it can be universal pun to many people online but i don't think it suits the titan passengers. but maybe, who knows. it was used to differ virtual reality and real life. like we would differ internet and real life. now it's mixed cause everyone is in the internet. so people in real life and the internet people are pretty much the same. maybe they would think more of likes they gain and popularity it creates, and the nice photos than real life challenges. like it was somewhat a dead end, nomen omen. or, there's a psychopath in the ocean gate. or, there's aliens manipulating the events of people who actually make some progress. or they were simply dumb cause having millions dollars doesn't exactly make you a smartass
 
Q: (L) What did cause the Titanic submersible to go kaflooey?

(Joe) Dodgy workmanship.

A: Leak.

Q: (L) And what was that leak due to?

A: What Joe just said!

Interestingly, Hollywood presented such a scenario.


Scene from the 1980 box office flop Raise the Titanic. In this scene, a U.S navy submersible named Starfish starts to flood while searching for the Titanic at a depth of 1200 feet, causing it to exceed its maximum depth and implode, killing the three men inside.
 

Titanic sub update: Details about design of submarine may reveal how it imploded as human remains found.​


The innovative design of the Titansubmersible may have led to its downfall, experts have said.

The elongated design of the sub combined with the repeated stress the hull faced over the years could have contributed to the implosion that occurred on Sunday, 18 June.


Each time OceanGate Expeditions’ sub went for a dive, the five-inch thick hull could have developed tiny cracks.

“This might be small and undetectable to start but would soon become critical and produce rapid and uncontrollable growth,” Jasper Graham-Jones, an associate professor at the University of Plymouth told Associated Press.


Confirmed...
 
I haven't seen this comment from Cameron on other videos. Probably because it would make people think about some things, and PTB don't want to allow that. Anyway, like we already concluded in this topic, Cameron said that there was nothing unusual about this incident, but there were a lot of unusual things in the reporting about this incident.

 
Tragedy, but also valuable lesson that ignorance endangers.

Did OceanGate even tested their submarine before by putting it as deep as they planned to go, but without crew?
With nowadays technology it shouldn't be impossible right?
Also crew members trusted this company too much, not enough knowledge by not doing enough research before signing up?
 
Did OceanGate even tested their submarine before by putting it as deep as they planned to go, but without crew?
Yes, they even went with the crew a few times. But you can only do it a few times before the carbon fibre cracks.

With nowadays technology it shouldn't be impossible right?
It is possible, but nobody wanted to give them a licence for their design because everybody knew that it will crack eventually. So they just continued without licence.

Also crew members trusted this company too much, not enough knowledge by not doing enough research before signing up?
Obviously.
 
That brings to me the memory of Elizabeth Anne Holmes blood test scam.

From wikipedia:


Some said at the time that among the people who invested in this where smart and wealthy people from the tech world or something.

This kind of people, however smart might they be, to put it simply, spend to much time in front of there computer and lack the common sense that they could acquire "IRL".

Also to expand your point. A lot of billionaires or those with 9 figures have other people research and bring ideas, or investments to them. It’s more so their team or advisors choose for or suggest they invest or support such and such idea but because the billionaires team or people suggested investment the wealthy individual may not have as much direct involvement as one may assume
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom