News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by bambax on Thursday June 22, 2023 @05:07PM (#36439025)
Good video. Some excerpts:

"If you're not breaking things, you're not innovating. If you're operating in a known environment as most submersible manufacturers do, they don't break things." (8:49)

"Our rule is we risk capital, we don't risk people." (9:56)

"We used the same prepreg that's used on the 787." (11:15)

And my favorite: "When you're outside the box, it's really hard to tell how far outside the box you really are." (8:30) He does seem to be far outside the box now.

But the most significant quote IMHO is the one about "the same prepreg that's used on the 787". Like they often tell you that phone holders for bikes are made of "aircraft-grade aluminium" (which usually means it's 6061, the most common alloy). It's a strong indication of bullshit -- name dropping that doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter.

In the rest of the presentation he seems nice enough, and truly passionate about deep sea exploration. So maybe he was a cool guy, I don't know. But in the end it's his hubris that killed him and his clients.

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by oasisbob on Thursday June 22, 2023 @05:35PM (#36439382)
> name dropping that doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter

This is a good point.

However, it's probably worth pointing out that in the past few decades -- at least here in the PNW -- carbon fiber availability to the hobbiest and small producer has been spotty.

I'd refer to Boeing and being the same 787 carbon fiber for my personal projects, but that's just because they're made from Boeing offcuts donated to a local University. At the time (ca 2006), even bare weave was hard to obtain from private suppliers.

Its feasible that Rush may have had help from Boeing sourcing his material, which puts comments like that in a different light.

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by gamblor956 on Thursday June 22, 2023 @05:39PM (#36439426)
Aircraft grade aluminum is 2024 or 7075, not 6061, because those alloys are more resistant to fatigue from repeated pressurization cycles.

6061 is more commonly used in automotives than in aircraft.

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by cowmoo728 on Thursday June 22, 2023 @05:54PM (#36439606)
the comment above you is correct that consumer goods will often brag about "aircraft grade" when referring to 6061. like flashlights, tools, combs, pens, cufflinks, money clips, etc.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by Kailhus on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:53PM (#36440312)
This made me realise how little I know about alumiunium and made me summarise this from a quick wiki search:

- “2024 aluminium alloy is an aluminium alloy, with copper as the primary alloying element. It is used in applications requiring high strength to weight ratio, as well as good fatigue resistance. It is weldable only through friction welding, and has average machinability.

- “7075 aluminium alloy is an aluminium alloy with zinc as the primary alloying element. It has excellent mechanical properties and exhibits good ductility, high strength, toughness, and good resistance to fatigue. It is more susceptible to embrittlement than many other aluminium alloys because of microsegregation, but has significantly better corrosion resistance than the alloys from the 2000 series.”

- “6061 is a precipitation-hardened aluminium alloy, containing magnesium and silicon as its major alloying elements. It has good mechanical properties, exhibits good weldability, and is very commonly extruded. It is one of the most common alloys of aluminium for general-purpose us.”

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by jacquesm on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:42PM (#36440783)
There are 8 basic alloys of aluminum based on the alloying element(s) (or none for 1000, which is pure) with the 8000 serving as a sort of catch-all for various combinations that don't warrant a category all their own. The total number of formulations is quite large and the properties, machinability, weldability, various strengths, density, resistance to fatigue (and post processing options, such as hardening) vary considerably.

Materials science is a fascinating field.

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by carabiner on Thursday June 22, 2023 @05:48PM (#36439545)
> It's a strong indication of bullshit -- name dropping that doesn't have anything to do with the subject matter

It means you're using a material that's been vetted over decades in life-critical applications in harsh conditions by expert engineers all over the world. Aerospace aluminums today are derived from Japanese alloys invented in WW2 and were a major innovation in metal aircraft. It's much more expensive than steel, but we use it because of favorable characteristics. Here's an overview of different aluminums and where they're used: https://www.aircraftaluminium.com/blog

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by rsynnott on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:36PM (#36440123)
In this context, he was talking about carbon fibre, not aluminium (though, aluminium would also be a less than ideal material to make a deep-water submersible out of).
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by gregors on Thursday June 22, 2023 @05:55PM (#36439619)
this wasn't an aircraft
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by buffington on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:03PM (#36439737)
The reference to "aircraft" wasn't about airplanes or submersibles, it was about how the term "aircraft-grade" is a meaningless marketing buzzword. It's obvious to me, and I imagine a lot of readers, that a submarine isn't an aircraft. I think the reference to the use of the bullshit marketing term is also obvious.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by rightbyte on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:04PM (#36440423)
"Military grade" is another one of those marketing phrases that pisses me off. What does it even mean? That it is green and is more expensive than it should be?
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by dragonwriter on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:35PM (#36440732)
Occasionally, they will identify a particular MIL-STD (or MIL-SPEC) that the product supposedly complies with; whether or not there is any substance to this claim and whether or not, if you looked up the standard, it would have any bearing on suitability for the purpose the product is marketed for is a mixed bag.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by buffington on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:23PM (#36440634)
I think I read a comment on HN that described what "military grade" meant: stuff made as cheaply as possible by the lowest bidding contractor that sometimes is fit for purpose.

That said, I think there are times when it does mean something. I believe military grade/milspec chips/ICs are often engineered to be more resilient to environmental factors like heat and vibration, interference, etc. If I'm wrong about that, I suspect it won't be long before we learn if I'm right.

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by hef19898 on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:28PM (#36440678)
There are some compabies that actually do test theor products according to military standards. Now, ideally they would tell you which ones. Whether or not those standards are better than theor civilain counterparts is a different story.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by jpmoral on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:55PM (#36440899)
In my (very short, many years ago) stint as an EE it meant that parts (transistors, ICs, etc.) were guaranteed to work within certain specs within certain operating conditions (temp, etc.).

It did not guarantee anything outside of that. Soundness of design and ensuring inputs and environmental factors conformed to the spec was up to the engineers.

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by somat on Thursday June 22, 2023 @09:01PM (#36441393)
Military grade does not mean it is any better built than anything else. it does however mean it is often better specified. So it does not mean anything in regards to suitability to purpose it does mean there is a document that describes the product and the product meats the requirements of the document. Which can be nice if your requirements are also matched by the document.

The problem, it is a military specification so the public may not be able get access to it.

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by Enginerrrd on Tuesday June 27, 2023 @09:16AM (#36492256)
No, but the point is that in such a scenario, the material deficiencies and failure modes are mostly pretty well understood.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by vkou on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:46PM (#36440821)
> It means you're using a material that's been vetted over decades in life-critical applications in harsh conditions by expert engineers all over the world.

If I start using a screwdriver to hammer in nails, it doesn't matter how many expert engineers use screwdrivers. I'm using it for a purpose it is unfit for.

Just because it's aircraft grade doesn't mean that it is (or isn't) suitable for building a submarine.

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by gregors on Thursday June 22, 2023 @05:55PM (#36439610)
Now might be a good time to revisit the "calling yourself an engineer" means something specifically debate.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by bombcar on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:15PM (#36440541)
I’ve seen it said you’re not an engineer unless your job and/or life is on the line, under which standard he’d qualify.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by mc32 on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:24PM (#36439993)
The question are:

Why use novel vessels when tried and true work. Why did they have to try a carbon-fiber wrapped vessel? The bathysphere went all the way down to the Marianas trench --many decades ago. Why try something new in unforgiving environments?

Why fire an engineer after he started raising questions about safety?

It seems like there was a bit of a cavalier attitude that cost five people their lives.

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by perihelions on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:20PM (#36440597)
I don't believe that one was particularly safe in its design either? Just quoting the most colorful parts of Wikipedia's history:

- "Oxygen was supplied from high-pressure cylinders carried inside the sphere, while pans of soda lime [hn: sodium hydroxide?] and calcium chloride were mounted inside the sphere's walls to absorb exhaled CO2 and moisture.[6] Air was to be circulated past these trays by the Bathysphere's occupants using palm-leaf fans.[2]"

- "Suddenly, without the slightest warning, the bolt was torn from our hands, and the mass of heavy metal shot across the deck like the shell from a gun. The trajectory was almost straight, and the brass bolt hurtled into the steel winch thirty feet [9.1 m] away across the deck and sheared a half-inch [13 mm] notch gouged out by the harder metal. This was followed by a solid cylinder of water, which slackened after a while into a cataract, pouring out the hole in the door, some air mingled with the water, looking like hot steam, instead of compressed air shooting through ice-cold water.[6]"

- "The ocean during this dive was rougher than it had been during any of their previous dives, and as the Freedom rocked on the surface, its motion was transmitted down the steel cable, causing the Bathysphere to swing from side to side like a pendulum. As the Bathysphere descended, Barton succumbed to seasickness and vomited inside it. However, the first half of the radio transmission had already been broadcast, and neither Beebe nor Barton wished to cancel its second half, so they continued their descent.[5] ... the Bathysphere was still rocking wildly and Beebe and Barton were both bruised and bleeding from being knocked about inside it."

- "During their first test dive, they demanded to be pulled up after descending only four feet (1.2 m) because the sphere had begun to leak; they soon discovered this was because Tee-Van had neglected to fasten all of the bolts that hold the hatch shut.[2] Another problem occurred on their second test dive, during which they discovered that the lower end of the rubber hose holding the power cable and phone line had begun to deteriorate, and they spent the rest of the day reversing the hose's direction so that the end which was deteriorating would be the end above the water.[5]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathysphere

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by mc32 on Thursday June 22, 2023 @08:28PM (#36441143)
I grant you that; but that was decades ago and it went down to the Marianne’s trench. People have developed safe vessels. Why did this guy think he needed to reinvent it with experimental of unproven materials. Dunk it dozens of times into 2x depths see if it remains intact. No, the Navy or someone deemed a vessel a 3,000 meter rating. And they were like ooops, I guess it’s not good enough. Damned right you don’t just meet the minimum rating. You should have a healthy margin of safety.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by frakkingcylons on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:32PM (#36440086)
> He does seem to be far outside the box now.

Very poor taste to say this now.

Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by bombcar on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:14PM (#36440531)
Especially given that he’s almost certainly still in the box, just it’s much smaller now.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by mjhay on Thursday June 22, 2023 @07:57PM (#36440920)
I doubt there's actually much of a box left.
Re:Debris field found in search for missing submersible by hef19898 on Thursday June 22, 2023 @06:36PM (#36440116)
The 787 preprec is actually pretty good. At holding a pressure delta <1 bar on the inside...