I’m not a submarine engineer, but I would have expected that some of the more complex systems would have failed before the pressure vessel. Then again, it seems like they chose a seemingly cost effective design that was apparently susceptible to fatigue. Combine that with a profit motive to dive as many times as possible before retiring the hull and I suppose an implosion was practically inevitable. Oh well.

  • Rhaedas@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    There were definite corners cut, he even admitted as much. Some things you simply can’t fudge numbers and substitute off the shelf parts. It seems like it was a little bit ego, a little bit ignorance, and a lot of greed to shave more profit by not doing as you suggest, standard practices and materials.

    • kersploosh@sh.itjust.worksM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a 2019 Smithsonian article that describes the founder as a “daredevil inventor,” and quotes him saying that regulations “needlessly prioritized passenger safety over commercial innovation.” Maybe not the right attitude for someone leading a safety-critical endeavor, eh?

      • Rhaedas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Are those the same regulations that are said to be written in blood because people died before such rules were formed? We also have a saying at work - don’t create the need for a new rule with your name on it.