@danderson Personally I'd retire the drive under the assumption that particulate generated from the impact will likely contaminate it and make future damage more likely.

I aggressively replace drives at the first sign of trouble. Any increase in failed sector count is enough for me to no longer trust it.

@azonenberg @danderson I'm sure it's fine. What's the worst that can happen?

Actually, I think you would both like the MBI report on the Titan submersible implosion: https://media.defense.gov/2025/Aug/05/2003773004/-1/-1/0/SUBMERSIBLE%20TITAN%20MBI%20REPORT%20(04AUG2025).PDF

@willglynn @danderson already read it cover to cover.

No surprises having already read the preliminary and the NTSB material analysis report (which is itself a very good read).

The part I find most interesting is that the RTM system *worked*. It detected a catastrophic delamination of the hull well in advance of the actual implosion. They just ignored the data.

Does it work reliably enough to make (well constructed and properly engineered) carbon fiber pressure hulls safe for limited cycle applications? Open question and after this incident it's not likely anyone will put the work into finding out.

But in this particular case, it did in fact give significant advance warning. The warnings being ignored is a company culture problem not a technological problem.

@azonenberg @danderson 💯

The simplest explanation I have is that OceanGate couldn't afford to design, build, and operate a safe carbon fiber submersible, but they could (just barely) afford to design, build and operate *a* carbon fiber submersible.

Combine that with OceanGate being a corporate veneer for Rush's personal endeavor, and you end up with Rush being willing to gamble himself and his passengers on the safety of the sub. If it works, great, he carries on. If it fails… well, he doesn't see a path forward after that anyway.

@willglynn @danderson Yeah but "company cut corners to save money and people died as a result" is not surprising at all.

The thing working at least a little, surviving to its full target depth a couple of times, *and* RTM detecting the impending failure with enough lead time the hull could have been safely retired after the dive with nobody dying?

That's surprising.

@azonenberg @danderson Agreed! That anything worked as much as it did is the twist in this story.

I also think it's surprising that, despite making no provisions for inspections, they found a giant crack in the first hull — and that despite the company culture and the decision to repair it, they ultimately did retire it before it got everyone killed.