While I would actually agree with you in some respects - certainly not all of them - if you were to discuss this objectively and politely… we really need to take a different approach here:
May I remind you of the most important forum rule?
Be agreeable, even when you disagree.
Unofficially also known as: Agree to disagree
From personal experience, I know what it’s like to have heated discussions. They aren’t always a bad thing if something positive comes out of them. However, in your case, I’d really say:
Slow down a bit. When things become too personal and emotional and the original topic is no longer the focus, it’s a good idea to take a break. Believe me, I know what I’m talking about.
Just take a deep breath - tomorrow, this topic will be forgotten. But if you keep getting worked up about it, people will remember it, and it won’t be forgotten tomorrow. The difference is between having a heated discussion, which everyone has from time to time, and leaving a negative impression.
I don’t take anything personally. Always had fun reading the posts by the two mentioned above.
I couldn’t care less either way. But when I merely state something and some members POUNCE then I will defend my thoughts.
Again, I simply posted how plastics may not be best in certain cases. I was met by the age-old, “I hold a degree in ____ so therefore no one else can be smart in this field except me!”.
Either, or I hold no grudges and have learned a long time ago that these forums ALWAYS have incidents like this one. And there’s ALWAYS people on forums that claim to know everything and that others know nothing. It is what it is,
I can assure you I’m not here to fight over the internet…with people I’ve never met. Chances are if most of us actually sat down at a meet up we’d all have a totally different perspective of one another.
Once again, you’re taking everything I said WAAAAAY out of perspective! And you KNOW THIS!
Show me where I said everything plastic is bad. YOU CAN’T, because I never claimed as much.
My point was that plastic is good for some things but not others. If you think plastic is so state of the art then post me a video of your vehicle that is made 100% out of plastic, from the wheels to the T-tops. If you can’t then it’s pretty obvious plastic isn’t plausible for everything.
Despite everything, as an external observer, one must acknowledge that it was your controversial statement that initially derailed the discussion:
There are good reasons why the process was changed to plastic, and of course you can argue against them:
Weight reduction (fuel consumption & CO₂)
Cost advantages in production
Improved formability - resulting in optimized oil distribution
Corrosion resistance
Noise and vibration damping
Crash behaviour – plastic can deform in a controlled manner upon impact
To be fair, there are also downsides
Mechanical stress - off-road vehicles
Aging: Plastic can become brittle over the course of decades
Now you can address each point individually and bring objectivity back into the discussion instead of letting emotions take over.
Of course, this also includes the context of plastic injection molding and elastomer technology. This simply has to be mentioned here. Let’s also take a moment to remind ourselves just how complex these parts have become:
I’ll repeat your statement here, which is what caused the discussion to shift in this particular direction:
So I’m asking you to please post this video.
Let’s look at it from a neutral perspective: maybe you’re right, or maybe you’re not, but it should be easy enough to show us the video and, in doing so, prove any critics wrong. It only takes a few seconds to post the link. Thanks.
I don’t have a problem with the use of a gaming controller.
Is the problem that they used a cheap 3rd party knock off controller?
First party controllers are well used in industrial and military systems, as I am sure you know or could quickly check with your favorite search engine. They are easy to get, economical, reliable, well documented, and new hires or recruits already know how to use them.
I consider locked down software in cars combined with OTA updates to be an almost textbook case of “planned obsolesence”.
If someone has a phone, and the phone can no longer get updates because the company stops supporting it, and thus the user must change their phone to not get hacked, I think most people would agree that is an example of planned obsolesence, even if the company legimately feels it’s too expensive to keep updating the old software.
How is this different from the systems built into a car? Sure they say they will update it once any idiot with a $10 wifi box can summon your car, but … will they still do this in 10 years time?
With physical items, the brakes could wear out and the factory could stop producing the spare part, but someone will measure the part and make 3rd party versions to support old cars. How to do this with locked down, DRM-protected, computers?
I’m assuming that you are not familiar with this topic, which is why you responded the way you did. I’m not blaming you, but let me explain:
That was a submarine. They only had one wireless controller with which to steer it. There was no backup. It was already causing problems during the test runs: sometimes connection was lost, causing the submarine to become uncontrollable. Ultimately, the submarine had so many defects that it collapsed, killing the founder and others.
If you ask me what the problem was, I’d say it was that they all died. You completely missed the point. Just search for ‘OceanGate’ on YouTube. Whether it’s an original controller or one from a third-party manufacturer doesn’t matter; it was the submarine’s only life insurance and a terrible choice.
As a military drone pilot, you can quickly get a replacement controller. However, if you’re in a tiny submarine and your only means of control is a wireless gamepad and something goes wrong with, you can’t just pop to the supermarket while you’re underwater. The founder was crazy enough not to have any backup plan, and it was a terrible choice.
That’s why this controller in context of OcenGate has become a meme to this day. Not because it was a controller, but because it was its only life insurance - and there wasn’t a second one with a cable in the submarine. As mentioned, however, please refer to the relevant documents for specific details.
Blog: What Designers Can Learn from the OceanGate Titan Disaster
The OceanGate team followed the motto of “moving fast and breaking things”, which is popular among some startups and tech companies. However, this motto is not suitable for designing critical products that involve human lives or safety.
Please read my comment again - it’s not about the controller itself, but the fact that he only had one wireless controller with him on the submarine. He didn’t have a wired one as a backup. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but did you actually read my comment? People have died because of so many bad decisions - do you understand that? In hindsight, OcenGate was a complete disaster.
You’re defending a man responsible for several deaths. Had he not died, he would be in prison for the rest of his life. That’s the context.
Take another look at the subject of this thread: Deaths caused by very poor decisions made beforehand for safety-critical parts.
That’s an acceptable statement that I will agree with, but it’s not how your original comment read, which appeared to imply that a console controller was not a suitable control mechanism.
You’re just missing the whole context of the story, which isn’t a big deal, and to clear up this misunderstanding, I’ve explained it to you now.
By the way, the comment right below it explains it, from Mzip, too. This isn’t a criticism, just a suggestion: Next time, just take a quick look at the relevant information. As you read it => Ask for clarification; don’t just assume. This helps avoid misunderstandings.
To be fair, I thought the same thing. But if you read around it you kinda get the point that retrosharky is trying to make.
Even with the context, it is not clear.
The point is not using parts and devices that are good enough for an application.
ALTHOUGH, The Titan did not fail because of the controller, but because of the other complex reasons like the hull breaking down over time, bad management, design shortcuts, ignoring regulations, etc. It was not a good example, but the main point is there. It does not make sense to me to criticize the part that did not fail.
I have come to same conclusion - the submarine was not fit for purpose, and had many faults. (Although I have not seen that particular video as I am boycotting Youtube; I do link older videos sometimes however in moments of weakness). Also I remember that I did ask for clarification, enquiring exactly what you meant by “cheap controller” (cheap compared to a $30,000 industrial controller, or cheap clone of a regular game controller).
Take a look at the investigation documents. The controller malfunctioned several times, causing the submarine to become stranded underwater. Even though the controller wasn’t directly responsible for the deaths, it was the reason the submarine was unable to maneuver on several occasions, and yet it was never replaced.
Not responsible for the death, but for numerous incidents - or nearly deaths.
As I said, my main concern isn’t the controller itself, but the overall design - specifically, that no single component was implemented twice - nor is it suitable for the job. For example: Why wireless? The keyboard was wireless, too.
I don’t think anyone would board a passenger plane if the pilot had only ONE wireless controller, instead of the current setup: dual and mechanical - so it also works during a power outage failure.
I’ll spell this out again to avoid any misunderstandings. Just to be sure.
It is unsuitable because it was ONE battery-powered wireless controller with no backup. If the connection is lost or there is a power outage, which has happened in the past, the submarine cannot be controlled. Most submarines, as well as aeroplanes, can still be emergency controlled in the event of a power outage.
Incidentally, the same applies to the transceiver, which lost connection to the main boat several times. You’d think they’d at least include an optional hand crank to generate power in an emergency, but nope.
That submarine was a death trap. There was a news guy (IIRC) that was on the dive before the one where it collapsed and he said as they were descending there were very loud bangs as the hull was seeing more and more pressure. They terminated the dive for a different reason and all were fine.
But the frequency and intensity/loudness of the bangs had been increasing with each dive and it scared that one person. They had tried to warn the CEO but he was convinced his carbon fiber winding method was sound even though delamination and water pressure infiltration was weakening it.
I forget which documentary was showing the graphs of increasing banging as fibers were letting go, but it was clear as day that something was happening and it was getting worse.
The controller thing is more illustrative of the cavalier attitude. Not having or using a wired controller after having issues with a wireless controller probably fits with the CEO’s approach of how he always knew best. He was at odds with his engineers who tried to warn and who quit instead of being involved when it collapsed. Now he’s in little bits sprinkled around his obsession at the bottom of the ocean with the other people he killed.
I am familiar considering we have gotten a whole netflix documentary and numerous conspiracy youtube videos about it.
The controller is a bad example because it does not directly build onto the point that the material choice was wrong, but to how the entire submersible was flawed to begin with (Stockton was a POS) . BTW I am not sure where you are getting the idea that there was no redundancy? The reports and equipment list show that there were spare controllers for this exact reason.
And when there is an emergency, the goal is to go up. The Titan had multiple failsafes that would drop ballast.
To me the focus seems misplaced.
A better example (if keeping focus of the Titan) would to focus on the carbon composite hull as that was the root cause to why there was an implosion and that would more closely align to the focus on materials that this topic is really about.
That must have happened much later, because employees at his company complained about it and that’s been documented. But okay, let’s say that point is debatable: The real issue - that the submarine can no longer be controlled during a power outage - still stands.
I postet an argument right away - maybe you didn’t see it right away because of the edit:
“I don’t think anyone would board a passenger plane if the pilot had only ONE wireless controller, instead of the current setup: dual and mechanical - so it also works during a power outage failure.”
Would you agree or disagree with that? You’re welcome to adjust this to “two controllers” - the focus is on power outages and wireless connections.
