The U.S. Coast Guard said the sub experienced a "catastrophic loss of the pressure chamber," and confirmed that a debris field found on the sea floor was pieces of the missing sub.
The sub went missing while carrying five people to the wreckage of the Titanic.
These are GOOD pieces of engineering, and they’re tested by millions of users under pretty strenuous conditions. However, the controller the Oceangate was using was some shitty-ass third-party controller that you can get for peanuts off Amazon.
THAT, IMO, is the issue that this piece of equipment illustrates. A solid Xbox Series S controller is $60 on Amazon, and you’re telling me you had to go for cheaper?
I don’t think the fact that the controller was wireless gets highlighted enough. Bluetooth devices have a hard time working above sea level and you’re expecting it to work 3800m below the surface. Delusional.
BT devices got problems only when water is in between anetna1 and antena2. It does not matter at what altitude the devices are, just what is inbetween them.
I mean, the sub had reached Titanic several times, right?
So even without the design documents, we know it was previously capable of operating at depth.
Which we means we know the hull wasn’t made of cotton candy, we know it wasn’t propelled under water by an internal combustion engine, and we know it wasn’t controlled by a device that stops working in water.
Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that’s problematic.
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the “no shit sherlock” zone for an easy win?
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the “no shit sherlock” zone for an easy win?
Don’t put on me your burden of proof.
Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that’s problematic.
Well, turns out they did. So now that we have established that they don’t follow protocol, are you going to show us their design or are you going to reddit your way out of this conversation?
Source that they did? I’ve seen nothing to support that to date.
That’s exactly my point, no one here has any source about the design. Why don’t YOU ask the people above about THEIR source?
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the “no shit sherlock” zone for an easy win?
Don’t act surprised when I answer you the same way you answer me. Now either you bring some source to support the question that was made by someone above you or I’m done. I’m not your source magic machine.
The person who started this chain of conversation is gone btw. I don’t know the point you are trying to make.
The guy above is correct, altitude has no effect on the BT transmission. You can assume they used the tech in a way it can’t (or nearly can’t) be used if you want, I guess. I’m not going to go and prove that they didn’t because that was your assertion, not mine. The vessel had many successful dives before this happened, so logic would dictate that the wireless implementation was working.
You were the one who called the decision to use Bluetooth “Delusional”. I’m the one who said we have no idea whether it was a good idea or not - so I think we can leave it here.
The game controller thing gets meme’d to death, but I don’t think people focus on the right thing.
Xbox controllers are also used by the US Navy, among other branches of the military.
These are GOOD pieces of engineering, and they’re tested by millions of users under pretty strenuous conditions. However, the controller the Oceangate was using was some shitty-ass third-party controller that you can get for peanuts off Amazon.
THAT, IMO, is the issue that this piece of equipment illustrates. A solid Xbox Series S controller is $60 on Amazon, and you’re telling me you had to go for cheaper?
I have the wired version of the controller they used. It’s Mad Catz level garbage.
I don’t think the fact that the controller was wireless gets highlighted enough. Bluetooth devices have a hard time working above sea level and you’re expecting it to work 3800m below the surface. Delusional.
BT devices got problems only when water is in between anetna1 and antena2. It does not matter at what altitude the devices are, just what is inbetween them.
What if they command something in the water? Have you seen the design?
If you want to command something in the water, you run a wire from that something to a receiver in the cabin.
Right, exactly. Or for a “sub” that only holds 5 people… maybe just spend the 10 cents and wire it lol.
I mean, the sub had reached Titanic several times, right?
So even without the design documents, we know it was previously capable of operating at depth.
Which we means we know the hull wasn’t made of cotton candy, we know it wasn’t propelled under water by an internal combustion engine, and we know it wasn’t controlled by a device that stops working in water.
Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that’s problematic.
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the “no shit sherlock” zone for an easy win?
Don’t put on me your burden of proof.
Well, turns out they did. So now that we have established that they don’t follow protocol, are you going to show us their design or are you going to reddit your way out of this conversation?
Source that they did? I’ve seen nothing to support that to date.
That’s exactly my point, no one here has any source about the design. Why don’t YOU ask the people above about THEIR source?
Don’t act surprised when I answer you the same way you answer me. Now either you bring some source to support the question that was made by someone above you or I’m done. I’m not your source magic machine.
The person who started this chain of conversation is gone btw. I don’t know the point you are trying to make.
The guy above is correct, altitude has no effect on the BT transmission. You can assume they used the tech in a way it can’t (or nearly can’t) be used if you want, I guess. I’m not going to go and prove that they didn’t because that was your assertion, not mine. The vessel had many successful dives before this happened, so logic would dictate that the wireless implementation was working.
OK. Explain why they would have more trouble working at that depth.
https://www.microwavejournal.com/articles/34816-underwater-wireless-communication-using-em-waves
Now it’s your turn, tell us what make you think that it would work as usual.
Well - how about out if the receiver is on the the hull - and the bluetooth signals don’t have to travel through any water?
Maybe. And? Don’t overthink it, I’m answering to someone who boldly claimed:
“OK. Explain why they would have more trouble working at that depth”
and who is long gone btw.
You were replying to me. I’m still here.
Well, I gave you a reason why it would cause problem, if the device piloted was out, in the water.
Do you have a schematic of the sub? I don’t.
You were the one who called the decision to use Bluetooth “Delusional”. I’m the one who said we have no idea whether it was a good idea or not - so I think we can leave it here.
The military uses them for autonomous vehicles. There is no risk of loss of life involved if they fail. They also aren’t the only control mechanism.