I don't think anyone has any real data on the failure point, which is the needed info to know how long it would take to die. There has been lots of speculation that the carbon fiber used (rejected by Boeing as being out-of-spec) or the use of dissimilar materials each with different thermal expansion and contraction coefficients, to the "bubble window" being way under spec because the CEO didn't want to pay for a proper spec one.

Without those we don't know exactly how fast. We don't know if they passengers had any indication of a problem (sounds?) or if it started leaking before it imploded or if it was an instant catastrophic failure.

[–] aussiematt@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I really don't get this. The CEO knows that the window is so seriously under-speced, yet he still doesn't hesitate to jump into the sub himself.

[–] CapgrasDelusion@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Specs aren't a universal constant. They're defined by humans. Expert humans, but humans. He must have thought he knew better than the experts. He was wrong, but I don't think the lesson had time to sink in.

[–] urabusa@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

He may have thought along these lines... So the window is rated for 1500m interesting usually engineers use a 3x safety factor when they rate something that'd be....(sound of slowly grinding gears) 4500m! But I'm only going about 4000m meters down?

Jackpot! I'm not going to waste my time certifying the window to some silly extra strong standard! Take that you nerds!

[–] platysalty@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think the lesson had time to sink in

Oh, you.

[–] CapgrasDelusion@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

It was arguably in poor taste, but I'm glad someone noticed regardless.

load more comments (7 replies)