Submarine Missing Near Titanic Used a $30 Logitech Gamepad for Steering (arstechnica.com) 192
Earlier this week, news broke about an OceanGate Expeditions tourist submarine headed for the wreck of the Titanic that went missing with five people aboard. Soon after, details emerged about the sub's non-standard design that did not meet regulations, including steering apparently handled by a $30 Logitech F710 wireless PC game controller from 2010. From a report: Reuters reports that the five-person crew of the missing vessel, known as Titan, includes Hamish Harding, a British billionaire and adventure enthusiast, and OceanGate's founder and CEO, Stockton Rush. It disappeared on Sunday while on an expedition to explore the Titanic shipwreck site after losing contact with the Polar Prince research ship, roughly 1 hour and 45 minutes after their dive began. The submarine was last reported in the North Atlantic, approximately 900 miles east of Cape Cod, in a water body known to have a depth of about 13,000 feet. Search and rescue operations began shortly thereafter and are still underway. According to the BBC, the entire sub is bolted shut from the outside, so even if the vessel surfaces, the occupants cannot escape without outside assistance and could suffocate within the capsule.
so fucking cool (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The coolness factor is significantly lower when you reveal that your Dad didn't so much die ON the Titanic than slightly above it...
Re: (Score:2)
The coolness factor is significantly lower when you reveal that your Dad didn't so much die ON the Titanic than slightly above it...
If they're really lucky, they could've died in the Titanic
wireless? so if the battery dies they are fucked? (Score:3)
wireless? so if the battery dies they are fucked?
Re:wireless? so if the battery dies they are fucke (Score:4, Insightful)
What does the controller actually control - is it anything related to going up or down, or is it for panning an external camera or what? Doesn't say.
It does say, "Rush gives Pogue a tour of the sub, noting the presence of "only one button" in the entire vessel and saying that a sub "should be like an elevator" which implies the controller is for something ancillary.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:wireless? so if the battery dies they are fucke (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I think at some point they also brag that there are no controls (other than that one button) and everything else is on the touch screen. No idea if they can also pilot it from that, though seems unlikely tbh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wireless? so if the battery dies they are fucke (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
condensation? at that depth the cabin is likely a meat locker.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that water couldn't condense in there- that it's going to condense on a screen though seems unlikely, since the electronics in the screen are going to keep it warm.
If the screen were attached directly to something that sinked its heat, sure, then maybe. If water is going to condense anywhere, it's going to be the hull.
And just touching a touchscreen with wet hands isn't going to render it destroyed. The one in my car seems to function fine. If my hands are wet, I w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Water isn't going to condense on the screen unless it's cold enough in there to kill them.
I get in my car wet all the time (Seattle problems), and the touchscreen has yet to be rendered unusable.
Re: (Score:2)
Water making things wet isn't so much a problem at that depth, the 3 tons per square inch pressure that would cause the human body to immediate implode is more of a problem.
voided (Score:2)
And I bet the FCC probably has a few thoughts on submarines.
Re: (Score:2)
I know, right? I mean, the truck-sized cabin only holds five people. There's no conceivable place to store extra AA batteries.
Re:wireless? so if the battery dies they are fucke (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the CEO and a VIP investor were onboard it seems highly likely this is related as well. They almost certainly would have asked to go beyond the normal tour of duty with the person controlling warning and the clueless CEO 'signing off' on every special request.
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, internet connection was lost during the dive, Windows update paused until internet connection resumes.
Branding (Score:5, Funny)
They wouldn't have this problem if they'd bought an Apple controller. I mean they still might lose the sub with all lives on board but nobody could say it only cost $30.
and apple gets 30% of each paid ticket! (Score:3, Funny)
and apple gets 30% of each paid ticket!
Re: (Score:2)
They should've attached the $699 wheels so the sub could just skate to safety if hit the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
> bought an Apple controller
No wireless. Less space than a Nomad.
Recovery, not rescue (Score:2)
This is usually the point Bones tells me they're dead.
A very expensive form of suicide.
Re:Recovery, not rescue (Score:4, Insightful)
A very expensive form of suicide.
Even more expensive when all of us are probably paying millions in taxes to search for a bunch of billionaires who took unnecessary risks.
Re: (Score:2)
Would the flash heat from the implosion even leave DNA intact?
Re: (Score:2)
If that is what happened, the US Navy would probably already know and have an approximate location. Something imploding in the North Atlantic would not have been a quiet event, and the Navy has had huge sonar systems for surveillance of that region for something like 75 years.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but this thing is *tiny*, about the size of a small delivery van. In ship terms it displaces something like 10 tons. Even an Iranian midget sub displaces somethign like 120 tons.
It's also got a weird pressure vessel design -- basically it's a carbon fiber cylinder with titanium end caps. So not only would the implosion event be less than 1/10 the size of even a small military submarine impoding, it might not sound anything like a conventional implosion. For all we know all the pieces are intact and
Re: (Score:2)
it might not sound anything like a conventional implosion. For all we know all the pieces are intact and just got ripped part.
I was going to suggest that even something this small would make significant noise imploding, but your point above is a good one. It's a reasonable position that the submersible may not have imploded but failed in other less spectacular (but no less fatal) ways, and/or that carbon fiber being torn a new asshole might not sound like a traditional pressure vessel imploding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Recovery, not rescue (Score:5, Interesting)
Those sensors are absurdly sensitive--they need to be, because they are listening for objects that are designed to defeat those same sensors by being as quiet as possible. I would also hazard a guess that the people manning those sensors are on a higher than normal state of watchfulness given the current unpleasantness in eastern Europe and the possible global consequences thereof.
However, a comment above does point out that the nontraditional design of this submersible may result in failure modes that do not sound anything like what you would expect an imploding pressure vessel to sound like (i.e. even if the sensors heard it, it may not have been recognized as a possible sound of interest, may not even have made it past the filters, etc), which I think is a fair point.
Re: (Score:3)
Those sensors are absurdly sensitive--they need to be, because they are listening for objects that are designed to defeat those same sensors by being as quiet as possible. I would also hazard a guess that the people manning those sensors are on a higher than normal state of watchfulness given the current unpleasantness in eastern Europe and the possible global consequences thereof.
However, a comment above does point out that the nontraditional design of this submersible may result in failure modes that do not sound anything like what you would expect an imploding pressure vessel to sound like (i.e. even if the sensors heard it, it may not have been recognized as a possible sound of interest, may not even have made it past the filters, etc), which I think is a fair point.
The sensors, however, are designed to detect transiting vessels at much shallow depths than where the Titanic lies, so they may not be as effective at that depth. Same with sonobouys.
Re: Recovery, not rescue (Score:2)
So what? If it does the job well (Score:4, Informative)
For information, US attack submarines use Xbox controllers [digitaltrends.com] to maneuver at periscope depth. They don't seem to have a problem reusing good hardware from the consumer electronics industry if it's good enough.
northrop grumman store has them for $3000 an pop! (Score:2)
but they need to buy from the northrop grumman store has them for $3000 an pop!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For information, US attack submarines use Xbox controllers [digitaltrends.com] to maneuver at periscope depth. They don't seem to have a problem reusing good hardware from the consumer electronics industry if it's good enough.
It must be a recruiting angle for the US Navy.
If you can operate an Xbox then you too can drive this multi-billion dollar Top Secret submarine !!
Navy called me once... (Score:2)
Re:So what? If it does the job well (Score:5, Informative)
...and to add further, James Cameron's submersibles use the same controllers for navigation, I have a feeling it's more a common practice than most would think.
I'd say that using a completely new construction method without an extensive series of un-manned test dives to determine the effects of repetitive stress on the carbon-fiber hull would be a greater indication of incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"So what? If it does the job well" - he declares confidently on a story about multiple dead people where something has clearly gone very wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Obviously something went wrong, but what makes you think it was a problem with the xbox controller? Pressure vessel failure is far more likely. Even if they lost maneuvering control, they can still release their weights and return to the surface. The fact they lost voice and telemetry contact suggests most something catastrophic happened.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact the CEO and a VIP investor were onboard that is what. They almost certainly went beyond outside the normal specs for a tour with the CEO ignoring all the warnings and signing on exceptions. Running out of juice even with the precautions of fresh batteries with a full charge is entirely possible here.
Re: (Score:3)
For information, US attack submarines use Xbox controllers [digitaltrends.com] to maneuver at periscope depth.
The controller doesn't maneuver the sub itself, it just controls the periscope:
"The periscopes in the submarine are not like the ones you see in the movies. Periscopes on Virginia-class subs have two photonic masts that can swivel through 360 degrees on telescoping arms. High-resolution cameras display their images on several monitors in the state-of-the-art control room; the helicopter-style joysticks the Navy is currently using just weren’t cutting it. ...
It turns out that many of the sailors, intui
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, using a controller of a quality level that realistically can break or begin to behave randomly at any time is simply not done for real-time mission critical functions. If they cannot take pretty pictures for a minute while somebody fetches a spare, that is not an issue.
Little different though (Score:4)
The guys here were using the controller to pilot the sub. That seems like a hack and a bad idea, and I doubt it got the rigorous testing and approvals that the US military subs did
Re: (Score:2)
It's all fine to use a $30 controller, as long as you test it thoroughly in conditions that closely approximate real-life operating conditions, and as long as you have a backup plan should the device (or connection, or batters) fail.
Re: (Score:2)
as long as you have a backup plan should the device (or connection, or batters) fail.
Do note the fact how that is not a chain but an entire tree of critical failures - all made possible by the choice of a wireless controller.
No they don't. (Score:5, Informative)
They don't use an Xbox controller to maneuver the sub.
At least no more than one could be said to maneuver a car or an airplane or a spoon - using one's eyes.
It's literally there in the title.
sub uses an Xbox controller to operate its periscope
I.e. They use it move what is essentially a camera on a stick. A very expensive [wikipedia.org] and complex [wikipedia.org] camera - but still just a camera on a stick. Not the entire submarine.
It doesn't "maneuver". It turns left-right.
They maneuver the submarine the traditional way. [wikipedia.org]
Might as well talk about keyboards and mice used by interns in the White House as "used to run the country".
This is not unusal (Score:5, Insightful)
US nuclear submarines use Xbox controllers for various system. They're cheap, robust, easy to replace, and intuitive for most people to use.
What most likely happened is a hull breach killed everybody instantly. The sub has emergency ballast dump even if all controls and power went dead.
" easy to replace " (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wireless though? Adding additional points of failure is the opposite of robust. It points towards an attitude problem. This was done for reasons of "providing an experience". Let's have a whiz-bang wireless gizmo to hand the rich dude in the back, so he doesn't have to crawl to the front seat. The focus was giving the clientele that laid-back, living room, feed-me-grapes experience even if it meant less reliability. I'm sure now that Apple doesn't make a video game controller, because if they did, they woul
Re:This is not unusal (Score:4, Interesting)
The contoller failing probably wouldn't render the vehicle completely inoperable unless the designers were being intentionally obtuse. Even if the computer completely failed, the crew could jettison the ballast and return to the surface as normal. In fact on Trieste the ballast was held by electromagnets and so would fail safe in a power loss situation. Since anyone designing a DSV today would at least study Trieste I'd expect that fail-safe ballast would be a standard feature.
The submersible should be designed so that as long as it is intact and the crew is conscious it can self-rescue.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
US nuclear submarines use Xbox controllers for various system.
Yes, the periscope. Not propulsion. Or control rods.
Re:This is not unusal (Score:5, Informative)
A normal military submarine would presumably have at /least/ one backup system that wasn't dependent on off-the-shelf consumer electronics.
I've read a few stories about this submarine and got the impression it had a very startup approach - it's not hard for me to believe they had one system with no redundancy although I'd stress I have zero evidence other than comments from the Internet peanut galley.
The "hack together an MVP" approach works for consumer software when lives aren't at stake. For everything else, there's engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
US submarines carry engineers and spares.
Re: (Score:2)
US nuclear submarines use Xbox controllers for various system. They're cheap, robust, easy to replace, and intuitive for most people to use.
What most likely happened is a hull breach killed everybody instantly. The sub has emergency ballast dump even if all controls and power went dead.
Agreed.
A standard, higher quality mass-market controller is going to have so much real-world use (and warranty claims) behind it that it's liable to be more robust and easier to standardize on than any special sub controller.
And if it does fail you can have a box with a dozen backups.
As for the sub occupants, I fear you're probably correct. I'm sure there are scenarios you could devise where the electrical and the emergency ballast both got damaged, but this is more likely a recovery mission than rescue.
non-standard design? (Score:2)
details emerged about the sub's non-standard design that did not meet regulations,
I get that there can be (are) regulations for this type of thing, but is there really a "standard design" for (personal) submarines and their components? Also, a wireless device for steering sounds like a bad/weird idea, but it would allow control from anywhere within the vehicle, which might be useful if visibility is impaired and/or windows are limited. Obviously, though, there should be a, preferably hardwired, backup -- and extra batteries onboard. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably not. But there are generally accepted practices for mission-critical, fail-operative, human-rated systems. Multiple redundancy is usually a given in such circumstances. One could look to aviation, for instance.
Well what should it use (Score:2)
I have seen a few versions of this head line now. OMG its a $30 controller. Yeah well those things are pretty rugged actually. They are designed for children frustrated with games slamming them down on the desk etc.
its probably a pretty good solution and pretty fit for use actually. Should there be backup controller or two - oh probably. Are there? I have no idea.
But how much should the control mechanism cost? What does it cost to manufacture the steering wheel in your car?
Keep in mind the pressure and en
Re: (Score:2)
They are designed for children frustrated with games slamming them down on the desk etc.
A pretty close match for a group of very rich investors.
Re: (Score:2)
I have seen a few versions of this head line now. OMG its a $30 controller. Yeah well those things are pretty rugged actually. They are designed for children frustrated with games slamming them down on the desk etc.
Yeah and sometimes they glitch out, lose pairing, the batteries die, the pots wear out and start jittering, etc etc.
The 510 was better (Score:2)
The 310 didn't have the rumble.
The 710 does, but the wireless dongle was always flakey for me.
But the 510 was the best. Features of the 710, but wired like the 310.
Logitech seems to have scrubbed it from its records tho.
They had stupid money... (Score:2)
And it looks like they put stupid to work...
Sounds like a good plan. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the connection fails, a spare won't help.
Re: (Score:2)
Those millions of users who "tested" the Logitech controller, have low expectations. If it fails, they return it to the store for a replacement, or buy a new one. When you're deep-sea diving, you can't just pick up a new one at Walmart when the batteries explode or the device loses its connection.
Re: (Score:2)
None of which happens with a one-off device made by a small company.
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct, there is a cost vs. benefit tradeoff. Because the cost is small, the manufacturer can afford to replace a percentage of devices, rather than build it using a more robust architecture.
And you are correct that a one-off device made by a small company has it's own set of risks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm thinking there isn't a wire conduit through the hull. The purpose of this wireless scheme might be to transmit signals through the carbon fiber hull to the propulsion system outside the cabin. I'm really questioning the use of carbon fiber for this submersible. Sure, it makes it much lighter to crane out of the water than titanium, but maybe that shouldn't be the feature driving hull material selection.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed! Hardware that is made cheaply, comes with 5% DOA and an AFR of 10% or so and a design lifetime of no more than 5 years is the _perfect_ choice for mission-critical equipment!
It had steering???? (Score:2)
lost (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Redundant control mechanisms would probably have been a good idea too.
It all seems to me like someone didn't give the dangers associated with diving down 2.5 miles the appropriate respect.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the unthinkable already happened once, why would lightning strike twice! Just keep diving.
Re: (Score:2)
In The World According to Garp, a small plane crashes into a house that Garp and his wife are considering buying. He immediately says "We'll take it!", explaining (when his wife objects) that the house is now pre-disastered - they'll be perfectly safe there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The boat I was on had an emergency pinger in both the bow compartment and the engine room. So yes, they should have a battery powered (independent of the rest of the power system) pinger. Of course if the hull imploded then there is no one to pull the pin and start it. Or the implosion separated the battery from the transducer.
Re: (Score:2)
Naa, that would imply learning from past mistakes. This is obviously a half-assed operation to separate gullible rich people from their money. And obviously not done by the sharpest tools in the shed. They were unlucky in that they got it somewhat working at all.
why necessarily suffocate? (Score:2)
"the occupants cannot escape without outside assistance and could suffocate within the capsule"
These are two different things: there may be a good reason for having the latch bolted from the outside. However, the sub may have a separate mechanism for letting air in while on the surface...
If it works, what the big deal about $30? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You obviously do not understand the difference between a submarine and a submersible at all. Nor do you appear to understand the difference between a camera control, meant to entertain the guests, and a safety-critical system.
So, I'm going to posit that it is you who should say no more about this situation.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF are you talking about? It matters not one bit for my comment whether this is a submarine or submersible and I made no claims either way. Also, the story here and the Ars article claims the controller is for steering. Do you have different information?
Alternative theory (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At which point they rename the submarine as Red October
Sounds like a complete fuckup (Score:2)
And look, they have rich idiots as customers. Fits. Essentially just a tiny bit of evolution at work. I find it impossible to find any compassion for people like that, and yes, that includes the ones willing to pay for such a ride, obviously without looking into the safety of things before at all.
Re:Sounds like a complete fuckup (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet, taxpayers money is used to go save these morons. After they paid 250000$ for the ride. People need to buy their own insurance for those kinds of things, or pay the rescue (or corpse recovery) costs with they own money.
Re: (Score:2)
The same could be said for every hiker that takes a spill off of a trail and breaks a leg, or for every rock climber who needs emergency evac. Or anybody who takes part in any activity with an element of risk.
I'm curious though - where do I go to buy insurance for search and rescue operations for a trip in a sub to 4000m? I can't find that in my insurer's picklists.
Feedback loop (Score:3)
The next set of billionaires pay to go see the Titan wreckage, and eventually wreck, creating another wreckage, leading to more and more expeditions to see wreckages, and so on. At some point the reduction in billionaires to see wreckages levels out or stops, unless technology makes it cheaper, then a much larger pool of customers exists, and the expansion continues
Re: (Score:2)
But this particular protocol of drowning billionaires is inefficient. We need something with higher repeatability.
tension vs compression (Score:5, Interesting)
Something puzzling is that I keep reading that the sub was made from a carbon fiber tube with titanium end caps.
"Carbon fiber" means a plastic resin with carbon fiber embedded. For weight that material is extremely strong under tension, such as when pressurizing the inside of an airplane hull or under the lift force on a helicopter rotor blade. But compression? Why would a carbon fiber composite be any stronger under compression than is the plastic resin in which the carbon fiber is embedded?
Imagine trying to deform a cable by pulling on it; That would take tremendous strength. Now imagine trying to deform a cable by pushing on it; that would require minuscule force. Are carbon fibers in the submersible hull pushed together by compression of the hull, not pulled by tension?
Well, both, it depends on the direction of force and the orientation of the fiber. A radial compressive point load on a cylinder, under which the circumferential fibers are under compression, is also an axial load, under which the longitudinal fibers are under tension. However, depending on the combinations of fiber orientations, a carbon fiber cylinder could demonstrate compressive deformations along axes in which no fibers are under tension. For example, with only those two combinations of fiber orientations, a carbon fiber cylinder would buckle under force applied inward, perpendicular to a line from its base to top. Now, a carbon fiber cylinder should also have cross-oriented fibers to resist that particular force under tension. But was load analysis performed with the understanding that ONLY the cross-oriented fibers would resist longitudinal buckling under compression?
Maybe what happened is that the sub designer thought to himself, "Carbon fiber is very strong, I'll use that" and it was rated for some load that exceed pressure at depth. But there was no mechanical analysis or testing of compressive deformation that would have caught the difference between evaluating compression and tension.
On the other hand, the failure could be anything, the entire effort sounds like ad-hoc, off-the-shelf, lets-try-it-and-see-if-it-works methodology. Which is all fine and awesome because it's cheap and fast and effective. Build early, test often. You just do not put people in it.
Future submersible excursions (Score:2)
I see (Score:5, Insightful)
"According to the BBC, the entire sub is bolted shut from the outside, so even if the vessel surfaces, the occupants cannot escape without outside assistance and could suffocate within the capsule."
Let's hope the responsible engineer is inside as well.
My money is on power failure... (Score:3)
I'm very skeptical about a hull breach or a failure of containment. Power is way jankier than hull integrity. And I'm very certain that the joystick isn't involved.
I'd put my money on them being currently alive, but in the dark and very, very cold.
Even billionaires . . . (Score:2)
. . . can win Darwin awards.
probable cause ... (Score:3)
Considering that this company exists since 2009 it's unlikely the steering gamepad was the culprit, such subs have to have redundancy, and the surface function is a separate option from steering - it might be some sub malfunction though, but it might also be some unreasonable request from the passengers onboard (people of this kind of affluency usually do not take no for an answer), might also be a result of a panic, which caused malfunction.
Going down to circa 3000m is not picnic, I remember story (I think this one even involved either Bezos or Cameron - the latter more likely) doing dives with submersibles, when their sub started feeling up with water - they decided to keep descent hoping that the increasing pressure would seal the hatch - it turned out right, but the water caused problems with the electrical power and they had a close encounter with eternity, fortunately survived.
Re: (Score:2)
Just an observation, but you don't need a strong latch or heavy-duty bolts to hold against the pressure, you make a tapered hatch so it gets tighter as it goes down. Even at 10 feet deep, you would need something like a hydraulic jack to get it open,
Re: (Score:2)
Non-sequitur aside, the pilot had something like 30 successful such trips under his belt. That's a pretty poor excuse for a deep sea coffin. "We tried, but it just kept bobbing back up, sir!"